I hate money.

[waxwing]

I hate money.

I am really torn by the need for money versus my extreme distaste for all that it represents.

It's not only the materialism that bothers me. There are some things I really enjoy being able to buy/use/play with.

It's more the feeling of being bound up in something so utterly material. I realize that I can choose to rebel. I can choose to not pay my bills, overspend, give all my money away, hoard cash, or even turn my paper bills into little boats and airplanes. However, I recognize that I can't really do any of these things without very negative consequences.

I've left the mail on the shelf before, many times.
I've treated money and all its relatives as insignificant and irrelevant.
While I am happy while I ignore it, I detest getting the phone calls, the letters saying "You are late," and the looks of disgust from family members and disapproving friends.

Grrrrr.

Oh, to discover a planet stripped of cash and coins.
The barter system, perhaps.
"My Don Mattingly for your Ken Griffey."
Any ideas?

Okay, I think I'm finished being completely unrealistic.

Let me go to the mall now.

[Division56]

Maybe the INTP refuge will be a squatter's camp.

[heeroyuy]

*coughs something relating to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome and break a deal face the wheel*

Money is bad in concept, but it gives me the freedom I need to persue something much more worthy. Money gives me freedom from annoyances of people, bills, etc, hence I'm willing to work for it. At the same point, I don't care to be rich, I only want money for what I need, extra money has...little point?

I think of it like a ladder, and I have to use the ladder to get to the place I want. Most people are fools, they climb and climb, never stopping somewhere, because they don't see everything before them, they only look up at the top. Problem is, when you reach the top of the ladder, have all the money, what's the point? What's left? What do you get from it? After you have everything you want, everything you need, what is left to have? You'll find yourself without any comfort within. So I use the ladder to get to places I need to be, and find my peace within.

Inevitably some will find this foolish, or at least a bad analogy, but that's how I tend ot think of it :)

[Hawkon]

find yourself an unhabitated island and settle down.

or, maybe better, move to norway and the immigration control will give mone to you for free and you'll live *happily* ever after.

(nothing racial involved, just a different view on the immigration politics)

[mgb]

find yourself an unhabitated island and settle down.

or, maybe better, move to norway and the immigration control will give mone to you for free and you'll live *happily* ever after.

(nothing racial involved, just a different view on the immigration politics)

Except Norway is cold and Santa isn't from there.

Take the island.

I actually had a long chat with my counsellor about going to an island yesterday. She thought I was talking about an island in my head. Then I said, "No, more like the Solomon Islands" which led to a great a discussion about why we are really here. I really sucks to think that life is about getting a job so you can afford a car to get there, then getting a promotion so you can buy a house and have kids, then get old and die and hopefully live miserly enough to give your kids an inheretence. Seems so futile. I kind of want my life to mean something to me, which is a bit selfish but who cares.

[booyalab]

Symbols are subjective, so the materialistic meaning you associate with money has more to do with you than money itself.

[Hawkon]

I'm with you on the island idea. Just give me a couple of years to collect some mates (as in females to bring our genes to the future) and some books on how to make beer, wine and a hut. then we'll live happy ever after.

[floid]

It is doable.

You would have to live simply.

Give up conveniences, many of which you have probably come to regard as necessities.


Simple living is not very many people's cup of tea but it does have it's rewards, on of which is (almost) complete freedom from money.

If you'd like to give it a try read Possum Living (http://www.f4.ca/text/possumliving.htm) for starters.

[Hawkon]

we could bring a filmcrew and make "The Village 2".

I wouldn't mind living on an island by myself (with a few people, of course). I'd just have to gather some more knowledge before doing so.

[waxwing]

Symbols are subjective, so the materialistic meaning you associate with money has more to do with you than money itself.

Yes, I agree.

I have no question that money does not in itself equal materialism. One is tangible; the other is not. Money filtered through me and my little brain somehow spits out "material" (acutally immaterial) that suffocates me. I'm guessing that if I were better organized with money and actually saw it as a priority, I wouldn't feel quite this way.

[melancholeric]

Except Norway is cold and Santa isn't from there.

We already agreed on the true location of Santa, didn't we?

Waxwing: you would have loved to live in Weimar Republic.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Inflation-1923.jpg

[booyalab]

Yes, I agree.

I have no question that money does not in itself equal materialism. One is tangible; the other is not. Money filtered through me and my little brain somehow spits out "material" (acutally immaterial) that suffocates me. I'm guessing that if I were better organized with money and actually saw it as a priority, I wouldn't feel quite this way.

I used to hate money more than I do now. 2 things have helped me: 1-moving back in with my parents at the end of my apt. lease (aka limiting financial obligations), and 2- taking a more miserly approach to my spending habits(minus the obsessively stingy factor). For the past 3 months, I have only spent money on what I NEED, and the rest of the money goes into my checking account to save up for my goal of buying a car. I don't have a budget and I don't keep track of all my reciepts or any of that nonsense, I just keep a sense of perspective. Relaxed but unfrivolous is the way to be.

[Utopmk]

If only there were no money... I would be soooooooo rich.

[waxwing]

I'm with you on the island idea. Just give me a couple of years to collect some mates (as in females to bring our genes to the future) and some books on how to make beer, wine and a hut. then we'll live happy ever after.

My friend makes beer. He might be into the island idea. I'm female, but not too interested in being mother to many children. Ha.


Melancholeric, I like the picture. Weimer Republic? Social Democrats? Hm. Interesting thought. I'm guessing you know a lot more than I do, though.


Santa....what a great idea. Somehow Santa would still be the mysterious giver of all gifts. He would give to those who abandoned money, family, friends, and attempted to ruin the very constructs in which he was allowed to prosper. Yay. Come on, ring those bells....


mgbradsh, that's exactly it. It's so rare that somebody actually understands what I mean.

[mgb]

mgbradsh, that's exactly it. It's so rare that somebody actually understands what I mean.

I am not sure there is a halfway. I think you either have to be in society and accept all the rules (that all seem to stem back to money) or leave.

It is kind of depressing that life is so futile.

[joft]

I think it's easy for people with iNtuition and Perception to be overwhelmed about the myriad of financial obligations in life. P's ability to see the whole abstract N's "big picture" at once can be overwhelming about any task or obligation. It's quite easy for me to wax bitterly resentful about having to work at a job which statistics tell me I won't be happy doing for the rest of my life until I'm too old to enjoy life as much as I would be able to when younger. Taxes, car insurance, a car, college, student loans, other bills, thinking about it makes me feel guilty about buying a book or renting a movie.

I think Solomon of the Bible was an NTP, his "all is vanity" rant in Ecclesiastes sounds exactly like what I think all the time.

[joft]

It really sucks to think that life is about getting a job so you can afford a car to get there, then getting a promotion so you can buy a house and have kids, then get old and die and hopefully live miserly enough to give your kids an inheretence. Seems so futile. That's the exact same sentiment I have. My parents are both telling me I need to get a job. Every time anyone that knows me enough to know I don't have a job is talking to me, no matter what they're talking about, I can't help but think they're just wanting to bust out and say "You need a job." I hate it whenever jobs come up in any conversation. It's like there's this frantic desperate need for me to get a job.

But you put it exactly how I feel. Why get a job? To pay for a car and car insurance. Why get a car? So you can drive to work. Why go to college? To get a high paying job. Why get a high paying job? Because you need it to afford paying off student loans.

I wish fight club was a true story (and all those credit card companies went under) :(

[tragula]

Money makes prostitutes of us all...

I like the ladder metaphor. It is all about knowing when to step off... Unfortunately it's like a magnetic ladder or something and it's hard to get off.

My metaphor is a forest and the trees one. NP are focused on the forest, and have a map in their heads for where they want to be. But to get there they have to worry about the trees, and are always bumping into them. SJ is focused on the trees and becomes obsessed with cutting a path, and don't have a clue about where they are actually going.

[Geoff]

Apologies for the touch of the pedantic, but money is no more tangible than a concept like materiality.

It is an intangible right even though it is contained on a tangible item (like a bill, or coin). But the underlying right (somewhat of a 'chose in action') is intangible.

All of which means that money is not the problem, it is how you cope with the concept behind it.

-Geoff

[joft]

All of which means that money is not the problem, it is how you cope with the concept behind it. Things don't have to be tangible for them to be a problem... Racism isn't a tangible thing, it's just a concept, an intangible idea, a preference some people have.

Money is a part of price-market exchange, a system of trade. All systems have certain problems. Unless you want to be anal about it and insist that for whatever reason(s) this particular form of trade is entirely perfect and anyone who has trouble because of it just needs to force themselves to change.

[Geoff]

Well i was referring back to Waxwing's comment :

"I have no question that money does not in itself equal materialism. One is tangible; the other is not"

I was just reinforcing that it is the concept behind money that causes problems. The capitalist system etc. I never said it was perfect etc! I agree entirely that it is merely a convenience and would say that it is a pretty useful one for a society too variegated for individuals to obtain everything they need without an organised trade system.

As Douglas Adams commented in HHGTG, words to the effect that it was strange how so many people were unhappy about the movement of small green pieces of paper when the pieces of paper themselves were perfectly happy. Or something like that!

-Geoff

[Dman]

I hate “not having enough” money.

Enough to be financially independent, where money equals freedom. Freedom to take the time to save the world or just sit on your arse and drink beer watching TV if you choose.

It’s the process that I despise. I live in the US, I’m educated, I have the “opportunity” to become rich beyond my wildest dreams. But you have to play the game, and you need some luck sprinkled in there too. It’s best if you can find your place in the system where you are satisfied enough to not need to pursue anything beyond your reach. The rest of us meanwhile are wage-slaves.

"Keep you doped with religion and sex and tv
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still f*cking peasants as far as i can see...
There's room at the top they are telling you still
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill"
- John Lennon

[mgb]

I hate “not having enough” money.

Enough to be financially independent, where money equals freedom. Freedom to take the time to save the world or just sit on your arse and drink beer watching TV if you choose.

It’s the process that I despise. I live in the US, I’m educated, I have the “opportunity” to become rich beyond my wildest dreams. But you have to play the game, and you need some luck sprinkled in there too. It’s best if you can find your place in the system where you are satisfied enough to not need to pursue anything beyond your reach. The rest of us meanwhile are wage-slaves.

"Keep you doped with religion and sex and tv
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still f*cking peasants as far as i can see...
There's room at the top they are telling you still
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill"
- John Lennon

Is there a point when you can have "enough" money. I have seen people with a lot of money, and they always want more. That is why you have to leave the system of money behind and break free of peasantry. Like land in the middle ages, money is just a form of control.

[Dman]

Is there a point when you can have "enough" money. I have seen people with a lot of money, and they always want more. That is why you have to leave the system of money behind and break free of peasantry. Like land in the middle ages, money is just a form of control.

Of course that will depend on the individual. In my case, enough so that my money earns enough money in interest to pay my comfortable living expenses, thus never having to tap the principle.

Good point though; someone who worked for wages for decades may consider a relatively small amount "comfortable" compared to someone who inherited millions from the get-go

[Boneca]

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thinks like this. For quite a few years, I've toyed with the idea of becoming as self-sufficient as possible (i.e. growing my own vegetables, keeping hens, making clothes, etc. etc.), only to get out of the "need job to pay rent, need apartment close to job" circus. But it's like society has glued itself to me - I see no feasible way out of it.

Still, it's a nice idea in theory. If you find a suitable island, can I join you? I know a bit about edible plants and herbal medicine, so I could be useful! ;)

[mgb]

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thinks like this. For quite a few years, I've toyed with the idea of becoming as self-sufficient as possible (i.e. growing my own vegetables, keeping hens, making clothes, etc. etc.), only to get out of the "need job to pay rent, need apartment close to job" circus. But it's like society has glued itself to me - I see no feasible way out of it.

Still, it's a nice idea in theory. If you find a suitable island, can I join you? I know a bit about edible plants and herbal medicine, so I could be useful! ;)

I don't think it is about usablitiy of people.

I think most tropical islands would do. It takes out the shelter and clothing equation that really bogs you down and costs a lot of money in northern environments.

As for food, fish, lots of fish. I don't know a lot about the flora and fauna of the South Pacific.

I also wonder if loneliness is a small price to pay for ending the frustrations of society. I also wonder how things would work as a "community" instead of on your own.

[Dman]

Still bound to society even on the island though...

Fallout from nuclear tests, Air pollution, Water pollution, huge commercial fishing boats taking all your food supply, damn tourists coming to develop your island and take your picture, your kids would hate you for isolating them, etc.

regardless, have to admit it's appealing. ahh, the simple simple life.

[Boneca]

Still bound to society even on the island though...

Fallout from nuclear tests, Air pollution, Water pollution, huge commercial fishing boats taking all your food supply, damn tourists coming to develop your island and take your picture, your kids would hate you for isolating them, etc.Tourists would be a good protein source. But most probably contain a lot of unhealthy fat...
If the kids were born on said island, they wouldn't know anything else (and probably think other kids are weird).


I also wonder if loneliness is a small price to pay for ending the frustrations of society. I also wonder how things would work as a "community" instead of on your own.
I think most tropical islands would do. It takes out the shelter and clothing equation that really bogs you down and costs a lot of money in northern environments.I've thought a lot about this, trust me. And I've come to the conclusion that you are unlikely to survive very long on your own. Any injury, sickness or whatever that prevents you from gathering food for a while will kill you.
And I'm divided on the tropical island thing. The climate is great, yes, but there are two problems. One is diseases, the other is that you wouldn't have an effing clue on what is poisonous or potentionally dangerous.
Even though winter is a huge problem to overcome up here, I think I still take the devil I know before the unknown.
Then again, with a lot of research, the island could again become an option.


By the way, that link about possum living is great, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about!

[Geoff]

The problem in the longterm with the island solution is the lack of biological diversity and the society controls of a large group.

Just look at the mess the descendants of the survivors of mutiny on the bounty got themselves into. A very sorry tale.

-Geoff

[mgb]

I've thought a lot about this, trust me. And I've come to the conclusion that you are unlikely to survive very long on your own. Any injury, sickness or whatever that prevents you from gathering food for a while will kill you.

Isn't that the beauty of it. Complete self reliance. If you get sick in a group and they help you out, you owe them something, same predicament you just left.

And as for diseases, if you make it past the first week you will be fine. It is pretty difficult to get new diseases since they are so often spread by humans.

[Boneca]

Isn't that the beauty of it. Complete self reliance. If you get sick in a group and they help you out, you owe them something, same predicament you just left.Yeah, that depends on how you look at it. In your reasoning, it doesn't really matter if you die anyway - nobody will notice.

I think I'll prefer living in a (small!) group. Living alone would make everything, such as building shelters, hunting, etc. etc. so much harder, and I also think it would get very boring. Humans are pack animals, introverts or not.
But the question of group dynamics is interesting - you'll want to get along with people if you are depending on them. Perhaps that's why I find this whole idea so interesting - it means that I could choose which people I would depend on, instead of having to depend on a faceless society.

[floyd]

the good part of money is that some good things get produced because people have to make money to survive in the 'colonized/civilized' world. the bad thing - mostly, everything else especially the element that you have to 'keep making money' at least till you have enough to live minimally... that repetitive ongoing obligation is a nuisance.

[Geoff]

Certainly a nuisance.

Materialism also has the downside of undue patronage, rewarding of greed, monopoly practices and slave labour.

Other than that, it's a perfect system.

-Geoff

[floid]

Certainly a nuisance.

Materialism also has the downside of undue patronage, rewarding of greed, monopoly practices and slave labour.

Other than that, it's a perfect system.

-Geoff

Well said

[athman]

I liked the point made in Tom Wolfe's book The Bonfire of the Vanities (great book, awful movie). What does making a lot of money as a New York stockbroker buy you? 'Insulation'. You can create a whole lifestyle where you don't have to mix with undesirable people (the office, the limo, the assistants, the appartment complex etc.) . That's a different kind of an island. The book then goes on to illustrate what happens when this private world unravels!

I'm ok with the system. As for money itself, to me its an attitude thing and you can get off the treadmill. I'm at a point in my life (40+) where I'm profesionally established in my own business. I am finally getting better at balancing between putting more time in to make more money and backing off and doing different things with that time instead. I make enough to meet my family commitments and live ok, but i no longer want to do the things that making more money requires. I value my time more than that. Even if it is time goofing off, exploring new things, or doing damn well what I want every now and then. Of course getting to this emotional and financial state took some effort, but i'm really grateful i'm in this position now.

[relaxo]

Certainly a nuisance.

Materialism also has the downside of undue patronage, rewarding of greed, monopoly practices and slave labour.

Other than that, it's a perfect system.

-Geoff

Nothing wrong with monopolies that are not controlled by government.
Nothing wrong with greed. What is worse than greed, is people who demand things from others (now that is greed, wanting something you didn't earn from people who did earn it).
Slave labour? You are free to work or not as you wish. That is not slavery.
The problem seems to be reality, of which most of you want to deny. Reality will always win.

Money is good of course. Money is a representation of wealth. It does not matter whether that wealth is in the form of seeds, gold, numbers on paper or sheep. It is wealth, and it is used to trade. Trade is good. It allows individuals to specialize in an area they are good at and exchange their efforts with people who specialize in another area. Everyone benefits as a result because goods and services are produced more efficiently.

Materialism, the desire for material goods and services, is a good thing. If you do not like it, you do not need to desire goods and services. Leave the rest of us to be happy and go bang your head in a temple denouncing this material world.

Actually, what am I saying!
Materialism is bad. I will lead you away from it. You must give up your worldly possessions to me. I will help the needy with your posessions. Come to my temple and learn to disobey reality. You will lead a non-materialistic life of simple farming and preying. I am the enlightened one. Once a month you will have to cook a meal for me. This is not slave labour.

[Dman]

Nothing wrong with monopolies that are not controlled by government.

Unless of course you are referring to *ahem* something like, oh, I don't know, the diamond market...which does not represent a free market, thanks to a, uh, monopoly not controlled by the gov't...

[Geoff]

Monopolies are OK as long as they are not controlled by the Govt?

Please tell me you are joking.

There are so many examples of why they are a bad idea I don't know where to start!

-Geoff

[Dman]

Monopolies are OK as long as they are not controlled by the Govt?

Please tell me you are joking.

There are so many examples of why they are a bad idea I don't know where to start!

-Geoff

Evidently anarchists (in the sense of being pro-pure free market in the complete absence of gov't.) have an Ok theory that can be defended on most principles, except when it comes to the matter of monopolies. Some try to re-define what a monopoly is, and some claim a monopoly would not arise in said pure free market theory, but so far none have been able to back up those claims. I guess now the thought is that monopolies are Ok, as long as they aren't sponsored by a gov't. which is yeah, ridiculous, particularly because of the fact that a monopoly acts as an influence that destroys/redefines their entire concept of a free market anyways!

[Geoff]

I can not see how a monopoly is a good thing when not sponsored by a government. Take the example that a General Motors led consortium early in the century formed a pretend bus company cartel and bought up virtually all of the US Tram/Cablecar networks (of which the country had many) and then closed them down so as to create a monopoly for the car industry in the US. Is that a good result?
How about Walmart and what they often do to local and varied shopping when they move in.
Or Micros$ft.
Or Western Companies moving into the developing world, buying and closing their local competitors and then pricing the locals out of the market.
Theory is all well and good, but monopolies lead to stagnant markets with eventually over priced lack of choice.
There is a good reason why Govt bodies (like the Monopolies and Mergers commission in the UK will block, for example, Asda the number 2 size grocery chain (owned by Walmart) from buying the number 5 chain (Safeway). What would happen when all of the major supply is from the one chain. And what then happens to pricing of the suppliers who have one big customer they can not afford to piss off. Etc.
-Geoff

[relaxo]

I can not see how a monopoly is a good thing when not sponsored by a government.

So monopolies are only good when sponsered by gov't? What's the difference? One difference is that government eliminates competition by not allowing competition by law.



Take the example that a General Motors led consortium early in the century formed a pretend bus company cartel and bought up virtually all of the US Tram/Cablecar networks (of which the country had many) and then closed them down so as to create a monopoly for the car industry in the US. Is that a good result?

Umm, was it a good result? Did TramCablecar prices go up? What happened exactly?



How about Walmart and what they often do to local and varied shopping when they move in.

You mean freeing people from high priced run down mom and pop shops? Nobody forces you to shop at walmart. People shop there because of low prices and convenience for example. They are amazing.



Or Micros$ft.

Yes how terrible. I create an operating system, allow other companies to build software for it. How dare I create my own programs for my own operating system taking advantage of my code. How terrible they are, creating a cheap operating system that allows a billion people to use a computer and creating a job market that employs tens of millions. bastards.



Or Western Companies moving into the developing world, buying and closing their local competitors and then pricing the locals out of the market.

Scale of economy, allowing cheap fuel for the people. Amazing.



Theory is all well and good, but monopolies lead to stagnant markets with eventually over priced lack of choice.

Incorrect. A monopoly that has no government backing can not overprice it's product because competition will emerge offering a cheaper product. If there is no choice competition will emerge offering choice. And if a company spends all of it's time buying out these competitors, it will run out of money and go under.

[relaxo]

Unless of course you are referring to *ahem* something like, oh, I don't know, the diamond market...which does not represent a free market, thanks to a, uh, monopoly not controlled by the gov't...

"DeBeers, via Anglo American, controlled nearly 80% of the world's diamond production and distribution."

oh, not 100%. sorry, no monopoly.

and there is no monopoly when by law you are allowed to compete. I would suspect that DeBeers though, influences governments with money (bribes) to effectively stop competition. Notice that can only happen when the government gets involved.


I wonder if it is just jewelry diamonds that have such artificial high prices (that people are willing to pay for. do you need diamond jewelry to survive? so who cares if the price is high? such materialism)
Are industrial quality diamonds also overpriced and monopolized?

but at least you found one almost example, of an industry close to 100% dominated by a single company ,that probably bribes governments for monopolist powers, that sells a product that is of value only because of it's marketing.
let me say that again. I think it's important.
Diamond jewelry is high priced because of marketing.

["...when that little lady in Tokyo looks at that $20 000 rock on her finger and realises it isn't worth a damn, we're in trouble."]

It's not the near control of the diamond jewelry market that causes the price to be high, it is the marketing.
They could put dung on a ring and market it up to a high price. People would buy it.
In fact rather than destroying a free market, De Beers created one. Good for them.


here's some interesting reading:
Twenty-years ago five of the seven leading buyers of rough stones in the diamond cutting and polishing centre of Antwerp were considered to be controlled by De Beers' Central Selling Organisation (CSO); the other two were said to be "beholden to the CSO".

Such monopolistic practices remain essential if the diamond business is to prosper. The simple truth is that diamonds are not the rarity they were a century ago.

Tales of buckets of high-carat stones held by De Beers in vaults are not entirely apocryphal. And highly skilled cutting and polishing of the stones, once a virtual Belgian monopoly, is now also carried out in Israel and India.

The artificial stifling of the supply of quality diamonds is the only thing keeping these gems at the prices they enjoy. There is no need for the Russians, Australians or apparent independents such as Israel's Lev Leviev to conspire with De Beers. Tension exists, but all are aware that it is in nobody's interests to start a free-for-all.

Argyle and Russia's Alrosa monopoly broke with De Beers because they thought they could do better deal than selling to one, very secretive marketer.

With more outlets, there is much more room for diamonds mined outside official channels to make their way to market.

[Geoff]

I think we are talking about cross purposes slightly. I am saying that Monopolies are intrinsically dangerous and that as they are rarely a good thing, should be controlled by Govts. They should not sponsor them and should only allow them in very rare situations (usually never I would suggest in a capitalist set up). Hope this helps clarify when I mean.

On the diamond front, 80% is indeed not a total monopoly. So what. Complex monopolies still create problems. Take the example where 3 or 4 of the worlds top companies (say, in airlines) agree together than prices should be kept high because it benefits all of them. This is a complex monopoly and as such is bad news for the consumer. Quite often these end up in court with hefty fines. The music industry is another one with the major sales controlled pricing of CDs. Until recently books in the UK were like that, all major manufacturers agreed that noone was to sell below RRP. Until someone broke the pricing and took it through the courts, now book prices are much lower to the consumers benefit (and artificially inflated prices are now open to fair competition).

And on the remaining detail :-

Tram and Cable cars :

The cartel destroyed a valid and useful public transport system in order to allow the private automobile sales it was really interested in to flourish.

I wouldnt have said that was a good thing, but each to their own.

Walmart :

And what happens when the local shops have been destroyed and they control everything in an area... do the prices stay ridiculously low? Perhaps I can point you to the whole thread on Walmart.

Microsoft :

Yeah, Microsoft are a lovely monopolostic organisation, I couldnt endorse enough how wonderful they have been for free enterprise and the development of the world's computing. Surely you dont really believe that.

Local economies.

Yeah, right, western countries destroying local producers and the poorest in the world. A great result for everyone, surely! I know you are playing devil's advocate, but honestly...

Monopolies only existing with Govt backing.

So, if there are, say only 3 sources of a sales good, and a Company buys all of them 'because the Government does not control anti-competitive monopolistic practices will mean that competition is encouraged? It is a very naieve viewpoint to suggest that Companies can only create Monopolies when supported by a Government. It might be worth taking a look at what happens when a Government allows monopolies to flourish and does not interfere. For example, when the Government does not prevent the oil cartels (a complex monopoly) from buying out anything that might interfere with oil sales.

Oh, and a company buying out its competitors will run out of money? Laugh!

-Geoff

[relaxo]

Complex monopolies still create problems. Take the example where 3 or 4 of the worlds top companies (say, in airlines) agree together than prices should be kept high because it benefits all of them.

by reducing sales?



The music industry is another one with the major sales controlled pricing of CDs.

Which is why people are buying mp3s like crazy. Yet another 'monopoly' that couldn't destroy the market.



Until recently books in the UK were like that, all major manufacturers agreed that noone was to sell below RRP.

but other manufacturers could sell below the RRP? So it's not a monopoly.



Tram and Cable cars :
The cartel destroyed a valid and useful public transport system in order to allow the private automobile sales it was really interested in to flourish.

Cars are better.
As long as I am free to start up my own tram and Cable business, it's not a monopoly.




Walmart :

And what happens when the local shops have been destroyed and they control everything in an area... do the prices stay ridiculously low? Perhaps I can point you to the whole thread on Walmart.

If they dont' stay low, competition comes back with low prices.



Microsoft :
Yeah, Microsoft are a lovely monopolostic organisation, I couldnt endorse enough how wonderful they have been for free enterprise and the development of the world's computing. Surely you dont really believe that.

Consideing the number of spin off businesses, the number of people who choose to use their products, Microsoft are amazing. Microsoft has created indirectly tens of millions of jobs worldwide.
They have competition too. LINUX is free. Buy an Apple. Buy an Amiga, oh, they they went out because they were overpriced.



Local economies.
Yeah, right, western countries destroying local producers and the poorest in the world. A great result for everyone, surely! I know you are playing devil's advocate, but honestly...

Destroying local prodcuers? You mean they launch missiles at them and blow them up! I'm certainly against that. (don't start with iraq...)
Buying out a local producer, who has accepted the buyout, is probably in the local producer's best financial interest. Certainly the people working for them are out of work.



So, if there are, say only 3 sources of a sales good, and a Company buys all of them 'because the Government does not control anti-competitive monopolistic practices will mean that competition is encouraged?

What is so great about competition if it causes higher prices? You want a good or service at the lowest possible price. That either happens when there are many businesses competing, thus driving down prices, or when a producer(s) lowers their price so low as to keep out competition. In either case, the lowest price is the law.



Oh, and a company buying out its competitors will run out of money? Laugh!
-Geoff
hi I'm a competitior, buy me out. Here's my friend, he's a competitor , by him out. Hey I'm gonna try and compete again next week, better buy me out. Hey everyone is trying to be a competitor, better buy them all out. It's an endless cycle, eventually the company must lower it's prices to keep competition away, or it will run out of money trying to stop every single challenge to it's business.


I have no love or emotional attachment to monopolies. I've always figured they were bad. Then I started wondering why and questioning common authority on the issue. I don't see a problem with them now. Nothing anyone has said so far has convinced me they are bad. I also see no examples of them. Except Canada's government monopoly on health care and electricity, which is now falling apart, but those are for other rants and raves.

[coffeezombie]

"As long as I am free to start up my own tram and Cable business, it's not a monopoly."

I think someone needs to take introductory economics again. Freedom to start a business does not necessarily mean that a monopoly can be broken. Monopolies have to do with market share, not the number of businesses involved in an industry.

[Geoff]

Yes, that was the conclusion I was coming to. I can't offer an opinion on the finer points until basic economics has sunk in!

-Geoff

[ohnoaninfp]

Money is a necessary evil. If we do not have money, we would be unable to buy the things we need such as clothing, food etc. I just hate the fact, that money is what some people only care for.

[Dman]

"DeBeers, via Anglo American, controlled nearly 80% of the world's diamond production and distribution."

oh, not 100%. sorry, no monopoly.

and there is no monopoly when by law you are allowed to compete. I would suspect that DeBeers though, influences governments with money (bribes) to effectively stop competition. Notice that can only happen when the government gets involved.

Yes, which is why I said there is no example of a government free monopoly, because there is no example of a government free economy. I played along to discuss the effects a monopoly had on a free market, not the role gov't played. We can discuss public utilities (roads, electricity, sewers, etc) if you want to go down that path.


I wonder if it is just jewelry diamonds that have such artificial high prices (that people are willing to pay for. do you need diamond jewelry to survive? so who cares if the price is high? such materialism)
Are industrial quality diamonds also overpriced and monopolized?

but at least you found one almost example, of an industry close to 100% dominated by a single company ,that probably bribes governments for monopolist powers, that sells a product that is of value only because of it's marketing.
let me say that again. I think it's important.
Diamond jewelry is high priced because of marketing.

["...when that little lady in Tokyo looks at that $20 000 rock on her finger and realises it isn't worth a damn, we're in trouble."]

It's not the near control of the diamond jewelry market that causes the price to be high, it is the marketing.
They could put dung on a ring and market it up to a high price. People would buy it.
In fact rather than destroying a free market, De Beers created one. Good for them.

Debeers has been losing it’s grip (it is also entertaining the prospect of going “legit”) for various reasons. This is why they are now focusing their efforts on marketing, because they are trying to build a brand with their name so that when/if they do go “legit”, prices will not completely drop to a mere fraction of current (which is where they belong). This is where we are today, but this was not always the case. In fact, if more people actually understood that Debeers had a pseudo-monopoly on diamonds and that they are not rare at all, they wouldn’t be where they are today. This is beginning to happen, hence the marketing. When people thought they were very rare, there wasn’t much need for marketing. It was a status symbol. The “marketing” back then was implied - “these are very rare”. But what kind of status is it if anyone can get one? Yes, they were more rare then than now, but not nearly as rare as Debeers forced them to be.

I have no idea how you relate that to creating a “free” market. They created an artificially inflated market. – a free market requires (among other things) “competitive bidding, open to all, without constraint” as well as “supply determined by individual consumers”. This market was not open to all, without constraint, nor was the supply determined by consumers. The market was only open to those who belonged to Debeers consortium and the supply was determined by Debeers. Translation – not a free market. Unless you are redefining free market to fit within the parameters of your argument.


here's some interesting reading:
Twenty-years ago five of the seven leading buyers of rough stones in the diamond cutting and polishing centre of Antwerp were considered to be controlled by De Beers' Central Selling Organisation (CSO); the other two were said to be "beholden to the CSO".

Such monopolistic practices remain essential if the diamond business is to prosper. The simple truth is that diamonds are not the rarity they were a century ago.

Tales of buckets of high-carat stones held by De Beers in vaults are not entirely apocryphal. And highly skilled cutting and polishing of the stones, once a virtual Belgian monopoly, is now also carried out in Israel and India.

The artificial stifling of the supply of quality diamonds is the only thing keeping these gems at the prices they enjoy. There is no need for the Russians, Australians or apparent independents such as Israel's Lev Leviev to conspire with De Beers. Tension exists, but all are aware that it is in nobody's interests to start a free-for-all.

Argyle and Russia's Alrosa monopoly broke with De Beers because they thought they could do better deal than selling to one, very secretive marketer.

With more outlets, there is much more room for diamonds mined outside official channels to make their way to market.

Yes, what I was saying. Especially “The artificial stifling of the supply of quality diamonds…“

These points above are exactly the reasons why Debeers is heavy into marketing these days.

The whole point was that monopolies destroy a free market (see your own quote source that I mentioned above about the supply) so the implication is that they will occur even in the absence of government and do the same thing – thus making the concept of a free-market without government impossible.

Good research on Debeers though. But you need to research “free market” more. Even the fathers of capitalism (Adam Smith for example) recognized that the greatest threat to a free market void of government was monopolies.

[Dman]

I have no love or emotional attachment to monopolies. I've always figured they were bad. Then I started wondering why and questioning common authority on the issue. I don't see a problem with them now. Nothing anyone has said so far has convinced me they are bad. I also see no examples of them. Except Canada's government monopoly on health care and electricity, which is now falling apart, but those are for other rants and raves.

(Sorry for the double post)

Wait a minute - you seem to be arguing that monopolies can’t exist without government, not that they are good or bad. If you want a reason why they are bad, that should be evident by now.

You yourself have argued points as to why one would be bad!

Now, if you want to discuss whether or not a monopoly would exist in the absence of gov’t, that is one thing, but arguing if a monopoly is “bad” is contradictory of your earlier posts.

[Geoff]

Yes, I cant work out whether the argument is meant to be that they are bad with Governments, bad without Governments or both/either ;)! So I gave up.

-Geoff

[relaxo]

Yes, I cant work out whether the argument is meant to be that they are bad with Governments, bad without Governments or both/either ;)! So I gave up.

-Geoff
ya confusing :)

to summarize:

1. if government does not permit competition with a company, you have a monopoly. Only government can pass laws.

2. if there is only one producer but you can legally have competition, you do not have a monopoly because competition is allowed, whether it is practicle at the present time or not

3. a single producer must obey the 'free market' or they will face competition and no longer be the single producer


I think my understanding of a monopoly, meaning a company that legally can not face competition, is the source of confusion.

Most people apply the term to single producers, and most people assume that situation is bad. I do not because I have yet to see an example where it is bad to have a single producer.

[Dman]

ya confusing :)

to summarize:

1. if government does not permit competition with a company, you have a monopoly. Only government can pass laws.

Ok, lets forget the "definition" of a monopoly for a moment. What we are referring to is the exclusive, or effectively exclusive, control of one business in a free market setting that stifles the very mechanisms that construct a free market. Regardless of any strict interpretations, we all know what the concept is here. The point is whether such an entity can exist without government, and whether it is good or bad for the free market concept.


2. if there is only one producer but you can legally have competition, you do not have a monopoly because competition is allowed, whether it is practicle at the present time or not

See above. It's the concept we're arguing, not the definition. So you say a "true" monopoly cannot exist - fine. Does that change the argument any? No. If one company effectively holds exclusive control over a market, it acts contrary to the principles of a free market. Regardless of whether the company can "put people in jail". None of the elements of a free market exist where this occurs. Yes, it is conceivable that eventually something could happen to restore the market to be free again, i.e. the "invisible hand" at work, but that could easily take centuries - and that is not a reasonable conclusion for a successful economic model. Unless you are willing to risk being repressed by large corporations for your entire life, hopeful that your children or grandchildren will eventually see the day the "invisible hand of the market" finally works itself through. Most people do not, which is why the government sticks its nose in.


3. a single producer must obey the 'free market' or they will face competition and no longer be the single producer

Like said above, perhaps after ruling for many decades or a couple centuries.


I think my understanding of a monopoly, meaning a company that legally can not face competition, is the source of confusion.

Most people apply the term to single producers, and most people assume that situation is bad. I do not because I have yet to see an example where it is bad to have a single producer.

It depends on what your definition of "bad" is. So let's discuss the principles rather than the definitions.

[sbw]

Money is wonderful. It is representative of accomplishment. And it equals freedom.

Scott

[jimkopelli]

Money is a necessary evil.
I'd rather not pay for things in chickens, myself. Getting change would be messy.

[songbird36]

Money is wonderful. It is representative of accomplishment. And it equals freedom.

Scott

My sentiments exactly. Money isn't a good in itself - it's a mean to an end. That end being freedom and choice.

[Geoff]

That's rich from a lawyer! Sorry, couldnt resist... I work in a similar world ;).

-Geoff

[Dman]

Money is wonderful. It is representative of accomplishment. And it equals freedom.

Scott

Way to get back on topic! Probably won’t last long though.

Money = Freedom, exactly my earlier point. But mgbradsh had a good point -how much is enough?

Is it enough so that you can simply cover your basic living expenses only, without needing to work, or do you need more. What are the limits to an acceptable level of “freedom”, from a money standpoint?

[Geoff]

My personal take, any money above what you need for basic living expenses then comes with either social responsiblity or a very good tendency to stick your head in the sand.
Most conspicuous consumers in the Western world choose to ignore the consequences of their increasingly expensive tastes. Me too, mostly.
Freedom is a difficult thing to define here. Freedom to consume? Freedom of personal activity?
Freedom of social and cultural mobility?
I think excess money just = freedom to consume. Which on a global scale is currently unacceptable but is largely ignored (in the same way that we sanitise our sensibilities so as to pretend meat in a grocery store did not really come from killing animals)
-Geoff

[sbw]

Way to get back on topic! Probably won’t last long though.

Money = Freedom, exactly my earlier point. But mgbradsh had a good point -how much is enough?

Is it enough so that you can simply cover your basic living expenses only, without needing to work, or do you need more. What are the limits to an acceptable level of “freedom”, from a money standpoint?

Thanks, Dman. I consciously am NOT a conspicuous consumer (single, don't trend towards nice cars/clothes/electronics, don't drink at bars nearly as much as I used to, etc.). My definition of freedom at the moment is being able to decide whether or not to work. And since I'm lazy, I want to stack up enough cash that I can live off the "interest" (or equity, or whatever) and thus not have to work a standard job EVER AGAIN. And I want to make this happen before I'm 30. So, like I said, money = freedom.

Scott