[RonPaulalways]

Yes, cartelization has nothing to do with "concentration of economic power". Concentration of economic power refers to a small group owning a large share of the economy. Cartelization usually involves a special interest exerting some sort of political influence to get legal privileges and monopolies (e.g. the Federal Reserve System which cartelizes the banking industry by requiring all banks to be Federal Reserve member banks). You're misrepresenting a very loose association between these two concepts to rationalize your inaccurate comment.

[ingliz]

"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
(Abraham Lincoln)

Mr Lincoln was a socialist?

[grassroots1]

Cartelization usually involves a special interest exerting some sort of political influence to get legal privileges and monopolies (e.g. the Federal Reserve System which cartelizes the banking industry by requiring all banks to be Federal Reserve member banks).

That may be an example of a cartel, but they aren't necessarily political. A cartel is a coordination of firms with the intention of setting prices.

car·tel (kär-tl)
n.
1. A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members.
2. An official agreement between governments at war, especially one concerning the exchange of prisoners.
3. A group of parties, factions, or nations united in a common cause; a bloc.

I am referring to the first definition.

And it is a concentration of economic power because it is a coordination of the activities of those who already have it. If you don't buy that, if you can't accept that the coordination of members of a cartel isn't in itself a concentration of economic power, then we can at least agree that the ability of companies to cartelize is a negative impact of the concentration of economic power, meaning it is an indication of the destructive potential of economic power, which is what I claimed Adam Smith recognized in the first place. In referring to this thing, cartelization, negatively, Adam Smith has recognized a destructive potential of economic power.

[RonPaulalways]

A cartel is NOT 'concentration of economic power'. It's just a group whose members have aligned economic interests and who work together to minimize competition amongst each other through coordinated price setting, while keeping new competitors out of the market.

'Concentration of economic power' refers to a small group owning a large share of the economy. That's what it means, not what you're pretending it means now. Your claim that Adam Smith 'warned of the dangers of a concentration of economic power' is wrong and you're just resorting to stupid excuses to avoid admitting it.

In referring to this thing, cartelization, negatively, Adam Smith has recognized a destructive potential of economic power.

"Economic power" is the vaguest of all terms, and you're trying to use that to associate 'concentration of economic power' (a well defined term referring to a small group with a large share of the wealth of the nation) with cartelization (a completely different concept).

The only thing Adam Smith actually advocated be done through government policy is to avoid facilitating the congregation of people belonging to the same trade, by not doing such things as mandating periodic industry meetings. He even said that a law forbidding people from the same industry from meeting would violate freedom and justice. He was the opposite of a socialist. He did not want to control people through government, in contrast to the socialist policies you push.

[grassroots1]

A cartel is NOT 'concentration of economic power'. It's just a group whose members have aligned economic interests and who work together to minimize competition amongst each other through coordinated price setting, while keeping new competitors out of the market.

'Concentration of economic power' refers to a small group owning a large share of the economy. That's what it means, not what you're pretending it means now. Your claim that Adam Smith 'warned of the dangers of a concentration of economic power' is wrong and you're just resorting to stupid excuses to avoid admitting it.

First, my statemnet was not that he warned of the dangers of concentrated economic power, but that he recognized them, just trying to be accurate. Second, Smith, in the quote, views 'members who have aligned economic interests who work together to minimize competition amongst each other through coordinated price setting' as a negative effect of the market system. Read the quote:

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is im-possible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and jus-tice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."

He is dissuading the fear that this would happen, at the same time that he is suggesting what course government should take around it. Regardless of all that, he is recognizing this one aspect of the destructive potential of concentrated economic power.

He even said that a law forbidding people from the same industry from meeting would violate freedom and justice. He was the opposite of a socialist. He did not want to control people through government, in contrast to the socialist policies you push.

I don't think that it's something that should be forbidden, but if it becomes harmful there's no reason it should continue to exist.

[RonPaulalways]

He did not recognize them. No where in the quote did he refer to any thing that is the equivalent of "concentrated economic power". This is the basic fact you keep dishonestly denying.

You just ignored my post explaining why 'cartels' and 'concentration of economic power' are different concepts, and repeated your bullshit argument.

[grassroots1]

You just ignored my post explaining why 'cartels' and 'concentration of economic power' are different concepts, and repeated your bullshit argument.

I actually did not, if you'll read the above post. They are not the same concept, but they are certainly related, in that cartelization is a further concentration of economic power. I don't appreciate your hostility. RPA, I'll explain this to you one more time and then I give up. Adam Smith referred to cartelization in a negative way (assuring us that businesspeople 'seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices,") which shows that he recognized at least this one aspect of the destructive potential of economic power.

RPA, this is an incredibly simple concept. Are you trying to argue that economic power doesn't exist, that people aren't put into a position of leverage because they have control over a great amount of capital? That's absolutely silly. Adam Smith would have had to be an idiot not to recognize this simple fact, that one's economic standing can be used to their benefit and to the detriment of others. Cartelization is only one example of, and one catalyst for, the destructive potential of concentrated economic power.

[RonPaulalways]

They are not the same concept, but they are certainly related, in that cartelization is a further concentration of economic power.

No it is not. 'Concentration of economic power' has very specific connotations to a small group owning a large percentage of the economy. This is not the same as cartelization, which relates to coordination among industry parties, and says nothing about the share of the economy or that industry that the top percentile control.

You're being disingenuous in using an alternate definition for the term 'concentration of economic power'. I don't appreciate you constantly making excuses, changing terms, and denying plain fact, to push your socialist bullshit.

Adam Smith did not 'warn against the concentration of economic power', and the quotes you provided do not show that he did.

[grassroots1]

'Concentration of economic power' has very specific connotations to a small group owning a large percentage of the economy.

No it does not. Concentration of economic power refers to, not necessarily a tiny percentage of people owning the vast majority of things, but the phenomena of the amassing of wealth and power.

This is not the same as cartelization, which relates to coordination among industry parties, and says nothing about the share of the economy or that industry that the top percentile control.

If you have read what I've posted, notice again:
"it [cartelization] is a concentration of economic power because it is a coordination of the activities of those who already [possess capital and wield that economic power]. If you don't buy that, if you can't accept that the coordination of members of a cartel isn't in itself a concentration of economic power, then we can at least agree that the ability of companies to cartelize is a negative impact of the concentration of economic power, meaning it is an indication of the destructive potential of economic power, which is what I claimed Adam Smith recognized in the first place. In referring to this thing, cartelization, negatively, Adam Smith has recognized a destructive potential of economic power."

You're being disingenuous in using an alternate definition for the term 'concentration of economic power'. I don't appreciate you constantly making excuses, changing terms, and denying plain fact, to push your socialist bullshit.

Show me exactly where I changed a term and 'denied fact,' please, I'd love to see it.

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
'Concentration of economic power' has very specific connotations to a small group owning a large percentage of the economy.


No it does not. Concentration of economic power refers to, not necessarily a tiny percentage of people owning the vast majority of things, but the phenomena of the amassing of wealth and power.

that's the same overall concept, which has nothing to do with cartelization.

If you have read what I've posted, notice again:
"it [cartelization] is a concentration of economic power because it is a coordination of the activities of those who already [possess capital and wield that economic power].

You're being disingenuous. 'Concentration of economic power' means a small group controlling a relatively large share of overall wealth, not "coordination of the activities" in an industry, aka cartelization.

Adam Smith did not 'warn against concentration of economic power'. His warning against guilds and cartels has nothing to do with your socialist agenda of redistributing wealth from the rich.

[grassroots1]

You're being disingenuous. 'Concentration of economic power' means a small group controlling a relatively large share of overall wealth, not "coordination of the activities" in an industry, aka cartelization.

First of all, RPA, 'concentration of economic power' says nothing about the DEGREE to which wealth is concentrated. My definition is accurate, yours is not. My definition: concentration of economic power: "the phenomena of the amassing of wealth and power." It says nothing about large and small groups, and please don't tell me I'm splitting hairs because this is an important distinction.

And second, AGAIN, you've failed to comprehend my argument, look at the VERY NEXT line:
"If you don't buy that, if you can't accept that the coordination of members of a cartel isn't in itself a concentration of economic power, then we can at least agree that the ability of companies to cartelize is a negative impact of the concentration of economic power, meaning it is an indication of the destructive potential of economic power, which is what I claimed Adam Smith recognized in the first place. In referring to this thing, cartelization, negatively, Adam Smith has recognized a destructive potential of economic power."

I personally, and this is my belief, view cartelization as a further concentration of economic power even though the dollar amount in these few individual's banking accounts may not have (immediately) risen. I believe this for two reasons: one, it has many of the same effects as concentrated economic power (streamlined decision-making, ability to price-hike, and the potential for coordination of activities outside of price setting), and two, it creates an inefficient industry where consumers are shorted so that company owners can see a greater share of profit. HOWEVER, if you don't buy this argument, it is STILL an obvious conclusion to arrive at that if we don't see cartelization itself as a concentration of economic power, we can at least see it as a negative effect or an example of the destructive potential of concentrated economic power, and Smith certainly saw it this way, which is why he was trying to dissuade the reader from believing cartels would develop.

Let me reiterate: Smith did not try to argue that cartelization was a positive development in the market, in fact, he attempted to persuade the reader that cartels rarely form:

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

This shows that Smith saw the destructive potential of cartels, which are, at least, a negative result of the further concentration of economic power, if you don't buy my argument. Come on man, when there are few firms in an industry, there is further potential for cartelization, only an idiot would deny the existence of economic power.

[Stormsmith]

Huntster:

On waiting

Anyone with a critical issue, ie, cancer etc recieves immediate care. There is no wait. This would apply, too, to being shot in the head. Its not like they send you home with a pressure bandage and a promise to into it when the Doctor is back from his spring vacation. Notice how some news networks or shows rattles on about waits? Notice how they don't discuss "State's waits"? Nor do they define the length of the wait. Is it 10 months or 10 minutes? Is it the norm or an anomoly? They're giving you false information, and they're skewwing the results. If you don't want the truth, fine, no bother to me, but it matters that the people who require better coverage than they have are given the full and correct picture.

I'm genuinely pleased for you that you have such good coverage. If everyone in the states who is paying for their own insurance had such good coverage, this conversation wouldn't be going on, and the Health Insurance Companies wouldn't have just set a record for most amount of money (that they recieved from their clients) spent on lobbying Washington for a single issue.

[RonPaulalways]

First of all, RPA, 'concentration of economic power' says nothing about the DEGREE to which wealth is concentrated. My definition is accurate, yours is not. My definition: concentration of economic power: "the phenomena of the amassing of wealth and power." It says nothing about large and small groups, and please don't tell me I'm splitting hairs because this is an important distinction.

You're going off tangent and refusing to acknowledge the crux of this debate.

Once again, cartelization has nothing to do with concentration of wealth. Your comment about Adam Smith is wrong, and you're straight up bullshitting to deny this.

[grassroots1]

Straight up, yo. My sole intention of being here is to trick you into going along with my malicious plans for world domination, RPA, PoFoites thank God you clued into it soon enough.

If you have no further argument, seeing as how you've been pretty much doomed since my first post (only an idiot fails to notice and recognize the destructive potential of the concentration of economic power, and Adam Smith was certainly no idiot), I'd appreciate it if you stopped using underhanded debate tactics and actually presented a real argument. You say I'm bullshitting, but it's abundantly clear to me that you're just projecting.

[Stormsmith]

bullshitting, tangents, what next? arguing in bad faith or that ol' stand-by, ad hominems?

[RonPaulalways]

(only an idiot fails to notice and recognize the destructive potential of the concentration of economic power, and Adam Smith was certainly no idiot)

Only an idiot thinks using coercive government power to steal wealth from the wealthy is less dangerous than people/corporations becoming extremely wealthy, and Adam Smith was no socialist, err, idiot.

[ingliz]

...government power to steal wealth from the wealthy is less dangerous than people/corporations becoming extremely wealthy...

Adam Smith on corporations:

The directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own .... Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less in the management of the affairs of such a company

Isn't that argument, the one Smith uses against corporations, the same argument you use against government? So, how do you figure one is less dangerous than the other if "Negligence and profusion... must always prevail" with both.

[RonPaulalways]

Adam Smith criticized corporations on efficiency grounds. He didn't believe they were an effective organizational structure for business. If government hadn't gotten so big, and if limited liability wasn't introduced, he might have been right.

[KPres]

Isn't that argument, the one Smith uses against corporations, the same argument you use against government? So, how do you figure one is less dangerous than the other if "Negligence and profusion... must always prevail" with both.

Corporations have competition, the government doesn't. The whole reason you have a democratic government is the attempt to create a managed monopoly, so that an unmanaged monopoly (monarchy) won't arise, and competitive market forces can govern all other entities. It's a fanciful ideal at best, which is why the people have to be vigilant in limiting the power of government. The fact that it's still a monopoly is why it's more dangerous than any corporation. There's other problems with the current corporate structure, though, in that the owners are given liability protection, so that they can't be held accountable. If you removed this type of government intervention, and exposed the stockholder to real financial liability, I have no doubt people would find corporate behavior a lot friendlier and a lot less speculative.

"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
(Abraham Lincoln)
Mr Lincoln was a socialist?

So corporations will work on the prejudices of the people to increase their power, but politicians won't? Of course, a corrupt corporation is easy to deal with: You don't buy their product, and if they're practices are collusive or monopolistic, it's the governments job to break them up. What do you do when government's the one that's corrupt and collusive? Vote 'em out? What if they don't want to leave? They have all the tanks and the bombs.