6 ms·

If this was socialism then either the government or the public would own Bell/Rogers/Telus. This is also not free-market capitalism. I'm not sure what you woul

by jaysoo 16y ago

If this was socialism then either the government or the public would own Bell/Rogers/Telus. This is also not free-market capitalism. I'm not sure what you would call it.

ascuttlefish 16y ago
Regulatory capture?
yoyar 16y ago
Corporatism.
jmaygarden 16y ago
Tyranny? ;)
nirav 16y ago
This is called Oligopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly in half-assed capitalism. Note that this can be worse than monopoly because few competitors can essentially create informal cartels.
- yoyar 16y ago
  If there is an Oligopoly, then how has this occurred? What entity is there providing the conditions for the Oligopoly to exist and persist? If there were not government interference via the CRTC we would have open competition. But we don't because the CRTC is there. And they have the power to make sure that no real competition can take hold. Where does this lead us? Straight back to corporatism (the government and corporations are in bed together) - Let's not use the term capitalism anywhere in this context.
- shawnee_ 16y ago
  Yup. What frequently happens is that companies in an Oligopoly are able to collude to raise the barriers of entry, keeping out new competitors: sometimes with "help" of government regulations, sometimes because of lack of government regulation. As long as there are only a couple of them (< 4 controlling > 80 percent of the industry), they can keep prices artificially higher than they need to be. When there's no actual competition and little threat of new competitors entering the market, their incentive to innovate or become more efficient is diminished. Consumers end up paying too much for mediocre goods/services.
rafd 16y ago
"Regulation of natural monopolies." Wikipedia goes into it better than I can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly#Regulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly#Regulation

by jaysoo 16y ago

If this was socialism then either the government or the public would own Bell/Rogers/Telus. This is also not free-market capitalism. I'm not sure what you would call it.

ascuttlefish 16y ago

Regulatory capture?

yoyar 16y ago

Corporatism.

jmaygarden 16y ago

Tyranny? ;)

nirav 16y ago

This is called Oligopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly in half-assed capitalism. Note that this can be worse than monopoly because few competitors can essentially create informal cartels.

yoyar 16y ago
If there is an Oligopoly, then how has this occurred? What entity is there providing the conditions for the Oligopoly to exist and persist? If there were not government interference via the CRTC we would have open competition. But we don't because the CRTC is there. And they have the power to make sure that no real competition can take hold. Where does this lead us? Straight back to corporatism (the government and corporations are in bed together) - Let's not use the term capitalism anywhere in this context.
shawnee_ 16y ago
Yup. What frequently happens is that companies in an Oligopoly are able to collude to raise the barriers of entry, keeping out new competitors: sometimes with "help" of government regulations, sometimes because of lack of government regulation. As long as there are only a couple of them (< 4 controlling > 80 percent of the industry), they can keep prices artificially higher than they need to be. When there's no actual competition and little threat of new competitors entering the market, their incentive to innovate or become more efficient is diminished. Consumers end up paying too much for mediocre goods/services.

rafd 16y ago

"Regulation of natural monopolies." Wikipedia goes into it better than I can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly#Regulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly#Regulation