|
GlyphGryph posted:Thanks for proving the one point I made, I guess? There are very few drugs that are really the only worthwhile treatment for a condition, that just doesn't tend to be how medicine works. Remember when that Shkreli douche jacked up the price of a drug for an old disease just because his company was the only one that made it? Well they only had exclusivity for production in the US, and even then only because it was such an old and long-available-for-generic drug that no other companies bothered to make it as well, considering it was only needed by a very small amount of people. And even still, there were other treatments that could be used instead, that one drug was just the best one. But I'm glad you admitted that you're just trying to be contrarian, and aren't interested in discussing actual monopolies.
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
Currently there is a big debate within organic, largely due to many people who support organic farmers and businesses finally realizing the term and certification has been co-opted by large businesses. There is anger at the Organic Trade Association for facilitating the demands of large agribusinesses and lobbying in Congress on their behalf. Organic food production is going to see large growth over the next few years and this is largely due to multi-national agribusinesses getting into the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
fishmech posted:But I'm glad you admitted that you're just trying to be contrarian, and aren't interested in discussing actual monopolies. I didnt and I'm not, I am but not with you, you are as wrong about this as you were about the last thing, hope that helps. Also nice job on moving the goal posts to "even if they do have one it doesnt matter" just in case, very elegant way to establish a fallback position where you were right all along, because you are nothing if not utterly predictable
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I didnt and I'm not, I am but not with you, you are as wrong about this as you were about the last thing, hope that helps. No goal posts were moved dude, except by you. You're not a monopoly just because you make the only exact version of some minor segment of a market. That's simply not how the law or the word works. You're just desperate to try to justify an offhand and stupid comment by a politician, and it's really quite sad. You can't even be bothered to come up with a supposed "monopoly" either company has, you just say "well they must have one!!".
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:But yeah sure whatever you said, you win lol no company is ever capable of a monopoly unless they own the entire industry whatever Fishmech is actually right here. That kinda is the definition of a monopoly at this level of discussion, where there is pretty much just the one business entity. Mono means One. Singular. Uno. Less than two or more. The term you are looking for is "Oligopoly", which is distinctly different from a monopoly. The top six companies control at least 75% of the market share. Monsanto was the third largest supplier of glyphosate. You cannot be a monopoly if you are the third largest provider.  (Well, past tense because Bayer just bought them out.)I think the cutoff for a single company to be considered a 'monopoly company' in a market is something like 80% of total market share or greater, if I remember my 101 textbooks properly.  Edit: In short, your statement is the business equivalent of going "lol I guess no vote is ever capable of being a plurality unless you have at least 51% of the votes whatever" or something. It's embarrassing for everyone involved. Focacciasaurus_Rex fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Sep 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Focacciasaurus_Rex posted:Fishmech is actually right here. That kinda is the definition of a monopoly at this level of discussion, where there is pretty much just the one business entity. Mono means One. Singular. Uno. Less than two or more. Thanks for explaining, I was about to effort post about orphan drug indications and how research into rare and neglected disease treatments is incentivized and now I won't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Thanks for explaining, I was about to effort post about orphan drug indications and how research into rare and neglected disease treatments is incentivized and now I won't. You should do that anyway, it's a very interesting topic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You should do that anyway, it's a very interesting topic. I should but instead I am about to happily take money from fools at cards/chess tonight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The normal one, and it doesnt. Then you might want to re-examine what it is you think you are arguing against.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
fishmech posted:And Sanders is also saying something wrong just as you are. It's a bad and incorrect sentiment. There is absolutely no issue in the fact that random products can only be sold by a given company in their exact configuration. The DOJ isn't going to be able to build a case that they have a "true economic monopoly" when they only thing they have monopolies over are legally-granted things, like patents, which are a normal business practice. None of what you're talking about has bearing when a suit is brought under the Sherman Act, which is what the DOJ was doing. You don't need a business monopoly to be prosecuted under Sherman. Why do you keep insisting that words mean something they don't? There are lots of good examples for this, but you can start with Monsanto v. Spray-Rite, a successful 1985 prosecution of Monsanto under Sherman. At the time of issue, Monsanto only held about 15% of the corn herbicide market. You've used the word monopoly in its economic sense, not in the sense that Sanders and the DOJ use the term, and when called out on it, you insist that they're wrong and you're right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:None of what you're talking about has bearing when a suit is brought under the Sherman Act, which is what the DOJ was doing. You don't need a business monopoly to be prosecuted under Sherman. Why do you keep insisting that words mean something they don't? The Sherman act covers more than just monopolies dude. It covers a lot of other business practices which aren't components of being a monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The Sherman act covers more than just monopolies dude. It covers a lot of other business practices which aren't components of being a monopoly. That's what I'm saying?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:That's what I'm saying? You're citing to a case that is explicitly about the parts of Sherman that apply even to non-monopolistic (and even non-oligistic) entities. Specifically, the "conspiracy in restraint of trade" section, which doesn't require proof of market power by the participants (though it is a significant factor.) You also cited to a case that's no longer good law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:That's what I'm saying? No, because you're trying to claim it counts as "monopoly" when neither that law nor that current case nor the old one does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No, because you're trying to claim it counts as "monopoly" when neither that law nor that current case nor the old one does. Prosecuting a company under Sherman - which is again, what the DOJ was building a case around, and Sanders suggested that it restart - doesn't require the company to be an economic monopoly. What is it about the second, non-economic definition of monopoly that you aren't grokking? Kalman posted:You're citing to a case that is explicitly about the parts of Sherman that apply even to non-monopolistic (and even non-oligistic) entities. Specifically, the "conspiracy in restraint of trade" section, which doesn't require proof of market power by the participants (though it is a significant factor.) Ok, thanks. Like I said earlier, I'm not a lawyer. Monsanto's market power has increased since the late 60's and it's possible that the DOJ was looking at different offenses this time, related to their market power, but I can't find much online on the investigation. Mofabio fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Sep 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:What is it about the second, non-economic definition of monopoly that you aren't grokking? There isn't one, except for people defending their improper use of the word when they actually meant "  gently caress $ArbitraryBigBusiness ", and a somewhat popular board game?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 10:14
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Wait what non economic denotations? Reading back more carefully now.  Edit: okay! Looking at the act, it mentions both monopoly and anti-competitive actions. Do you mean that? Like the exercising of monopolistic control or certain actions like price fixing that can exist even without a monopoly in place? If that's not right, could you please help out an underslept researcher and point me to the spot in the act that you are talking about? WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Sep 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Prosecuting a company under Sherman - which is again, what the DOJ was building a case around, and Sanders suggested that it restart - doesn't require the company to be an economic monopoly. What is it about the second, non-economic definition of monopoly that you aren't grokking? There is no "non-economic" definition of monopoly in the Sherman Act, since the entire concept of a monopoly there is an economic one. The Sherman Act covers multiple different things, and monopoly is only one thing in it. What you're doing is equivalent to, if burglary and jaywalking had been made illegal under the same law, seeing a guy being prosecuted under that act for jaywalking and claiming that means he's a burglar. And Monsanto still ain't a monopoly, and they're not being investigated as a monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Prosecuting a company under Sherman - which is again, what the DOJ was building a case around, and Sanders suggested that it restart - doesn't require the company to be an economic monopoly. What is it about the second, non-economic definition of monopoly that you aren't grokking? No, prosecuting a company under Sherman for anti-competitive behavior doesn't require the company to be ANY kind of monopoly. That's what you appear to be missing - Sherman Act section 1 prosecution isn't about monopolies but about anticompetitive conduct. (Section 2 is where we get to monopolies, but it isn't what you were talking about and even there, the existence of a monopoly actually doesn't trigger liability, there still has to be some abuse of that position.) And DoJ was examining Monsanto's conduct for similar issues as before (quasi-tying provisions in seed contracts) as well as new issues like vertical integration. Not sure hey you say it's hard to find info on it: http://www.salon.com/2013/03/15/how_did_monsanto_outfox_the_obama_administration/ comes up pretty easily, even if it's click-baity as hell. Some of their conduct might have been illegal in 1970, but these days? They dropped it because it was a losing case, because antitrust law has been significantly weakened even in the two decades since MS (if the Microsoft case had been brought in 2016, DoJ would have lost.) DoJ Antitrust doesn't like to bring losing cases, especially after a few setbacks over the past few years. (Disclaimer: I'm friends with multiple people in DOJ Antitrust, though they haven't detailed anything about the Monsanto case to me, so my views on DOJ's views are heavily influenced by theirs.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, prosecuting a company under Sherman for anti-competitive behavior doesn't require the company to be ANY kind of monopoly. That's what you appear to be missing - Sherman Act section 1 prosecution isn't about monopolies but about anticompetitive conduct. (Section 2 is where we get to monopolies, but it isn't what you were talking about and even there, the existence of a monopoly actually doesn't trigger liability, there still has to be some abuse of that position.) Good knowledge. I recognize that antitrust covers anti-competitive business behavior by non-monopolies - I pointed that out when I posted Monsanto v. Spray-Rite, when Monsanto didn't have the market power that it has now. My mistake in that post was to say they were behaving like a monopoly, when the prosecution was under a different part of Sherman. However, from your link (and thanks, I was wondering why it was gray- I think I opened it, saw it was Salon.com, then closed it :/), the things that Monsanto's up to now wouldn't be possible if not for their huge success in the corn and soybean seed markets, right? Things like stipulating they use only Monsanto-brand Roundup on their seed market dominating Monsanto seeds, buying up lots of small rivals as tasty snacks, and stipulating very restrictive contracts. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but these practices aren't possible unless your business has a huge amount of market power. So- legally speaking, if not economically speaking, a monopoly. Thread background: 1. Sanders said the DOJ should re-open its Monsanto investigation in light of the Mobay seed industry consolidation, and called Monsanto a monopoly. 2. Thread mass-scoffed at this negative press about Monsanto, particularly Sanders calling Monsanto a monopoly 3. fishmech mocked some guy with "do you even know what monopoly means?" 4. I pointed out that monopoly has both an economic definition, and a legal meaning under the Sherman Act, and Sanders was probably talking about that, given the context 5. More scoffing, including one guy who quoted a post I made probably back in 2015? Side note: if one of your hobbies is light internet stalking paired with all-caps posting, smash your router 6. fishmech continues to deny that monopoly can have different meanings in different contexts 7. I point out Monsanto was actually prosecuted previously under the Sherman Act, in '84, back when they had much less market power. 8. Kalman drops some good knowledge about the Sherman Act, how it also covers non-monopolistic practices, and links to a pretty good summary of the DOJ investigation 9. Thread will probably continue to scoff, in spite of evidence Mofabio fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Sep 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:
Your made up idea of monopoly still remains not a real thing, and you really need to get over it. You want it to mean "company I don't like", which isn't what it means at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Your made up idea of monopoly still remains not a real thing, and you really need to get over it. You want it to mean "company I don't like", which isn't what it means at all. Look dude, you're just wrong. The definition of monopoly in antitrust: "the offense of monopolization requires "the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market."(5) As discussed in chapter 2, monopoly power means substantial market power that is durable rather than fleeting--market power being the ability to raise prices profitability above those that would be charged in a competitive market.(6)" It's based on market power, and using that market power to raise prices. The definition of monopoly in economics: "A monopolist is a firm that is the only producer of a good that has no close substitutes. An industry controlled by a monopolist is known as a monopoly." It's based on being the only producer in a market. Not all economic monopolies are legal monopolies, and not all legal monopolies are economic monopolies. I know this won't convince you, or this echo-chamber thread, but there you have it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Look dude, you're just wrong. And in neither of those cases does Monsanto count as a monopoly now. What don't you get? It simply does not happen, and this has been repeatedly explained to you! Reality isn't an echo chamber either. Your mad insistence that Monsanto is a monopoly is an echo chamber composed of you alone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
The Devil Monsanto, or Arguing over the Definition of a Monopoly
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Look dude, you're just wrong. Right, but Sanders was wrong under either definition - the legal definition you pointed to is only relevant to Sherman section 2, not to section 1 (which is what Monsanto was sued under in the 1980s, and which the DoJ investigation almost certainly related to this time around, as Monsanto doesn't come close to meeting the modern standard of a monopoly. For that matter, they don't under section 2 either.) Your problem is that you don't understand antitrust law and that you win or lose based on how the market gets defined. You're trying to define a very narrow market (GMO glyphosate resistant seeds) in a world where antitrust law would never consider that an appropriate market definition. Like I said: remember that the Monsanto case you keep pointing to is no longer considered valid law, and that antitrust law has gotten looser over time. Microsoft would win their case today. Monsanto certainly would have won SprayRite. And the modern Monsanto case was a non-starter. Kalman fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Sep 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
fishmech posted:And in neither of those cases does Monsanto count as a monopoly now. What don't you get? It simply does not happen, and this has been repeatedly explained to you! But, like, coca-cola is a monopoly because like, nobody else can sell coke man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Right, but Sanders was wrong under either definition - the legal definition you pointed to is only relevant to Sherman section 2, not to section 1 (which is what Monsanto was sued under in the 1980s, and which the DoJ investigation almost certainly related to this time around, as Monsanto doesn't come close to meeting the modern standard of a monopoly. For that matter, they don't under section 2 either.) It's obviously a non-starter; the DOJ cancelled the investigation. To fishmech's comment that people make up the definition of monopoly to "company I don't like", and Kalman's point that a major anti-trust case would never happen in today's legal climate, yes, that's basically the legal definition of monopoly. Sherman was originally passed to bust trusts. Then contradictorally, it was used to go after labor unions. Then back to busting Standard under TR. Then the era faded, and it was used again to promote business. Then in the long post-war period, to break up big companies in order to promote competition, with Ma Bell under Reagan its high water mark. As Kalman said, it's been significantly weakened since then by scope of market and other defenses, esp. after MS successfully fended the DOJ off. Probably one of the reasons for today's M&A free-for-all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:It's obviously a non-starter; the DOJ cancelled the investigation. Once again though, nothing in what you're ranting about makes Monsanto a monopoly. It simply doesn't work that way. As an aside, the baby bells did absolutely nothing to increase competition., it took the popularity of cell phones independent of that whole system to create real phone competition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Once again though, nothing in what you're ranting about makes Monsanto a monopoly. It simply doesn't work that way. Yes, and my understanding is that the new technology of cell phones also came with different economies of scope, where natural monopolies formed in the case of telephone line infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Once again though, nothing in what you're ranting about makes Monsanto a monopoly. It simply doesn't work that way. If you say "nuh uh!!" enough, it eventually becomes true. If it simply doesn't work a way, it's sometimes because the reality is more complicated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:If you say "nuh uh!!" enough, it eventually becomes true. But the reality is that Monsanto ain't a monopoly, in any of the definitions you've tried except "company I don't like". Seriously it's been gone over multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:If you say "nuh uh!!" enough, it eventually becomes true. Care to sum up your point in arguing about monopolies? Your understanding of the timeline of events seems a bit flawed, someone called Bayer and Monsanto monopolies, people disagreed and you keep trying to make the case that they are? Though now your argument seems to be circling some other drain unrelated to your original claim. Are you saying Bayer and Monsanto are monopolies? If so, why are you saying that? You haven't made the case that they are in any way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:If you say "nuh uh!!" enough, it eventually becomes true. It doesn't work that way because, as has been said multiple times, Monsanto does not fit the common use or legal definition of a monopoly. Nobody but you is going "nuh uh!!".
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
fishmech posted:But the reality is that Monsanto ain't a monopoly, in any of the definitions you've tried except "company I don't like". Seriously it's been gone over multiple times. I actually never said Monsanto was a present-day monopoly, despite you dishonestly insisting that I have, multiple times now. At most, I speculated that in the late 60s they were behaving monopolistically, but Kalman says Spray-Rite wasn't under Section 2 of Sherman, and speculated that the DOJ could build a case that they're a monopoly, based on what's been released. Do you typically read posts before you respond to them, or do you keep some variation of "nuh uh not a monopoly" on lock in your clipboard? Mofabio fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I actually never said Monsanto was a present-day monopoly, despite you dishonestly insisting that I have, multiple times now. At most, I speculated that in the late 60s they were behaving monopolistically, but Kalman says Spray-Rite wasn't under Section 2 of Sherman, and speculated that the DOJ could build a case that they're a monopoly, based on what's been released. Here are three examples of you claiming it's a monopoly, by attempting to defend other people who said it was a monopoly and trying to claim that a product they make being popular in general means there's a monopoly: Mofabio posted:In terms of the agricultural chemicals, glyphosate usage has risen 15-fold in the last 20 years, and absolutely dominates the market: "Genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops now account for about 56 % of global glyphosate use. In the U.S., no pesticide has come remotely close to such intensive and widespread use. This is likely the case globally, but published global pesticide use data are sparse. Glyphosate will likely remain the most widely applied pesticide worldwide for years to come, and interest will grow in quantifying ecological and human health impacts." Mofabio posted:Prosecuting a company under Sherman - which is again, what the DOJ was building a case around, and Sanders suggested that it restart - doesn't require the company to be an economic monopoly. What is it about the second, non-economic definition of monopoly that you aren't grokking? Mofabio posted:You've used the word monopoly in its economic sense, not in the sense that Sanders and the DOJ use the term, and when called out on it, you insist that they're wrong and you're right. Do you really pay so little attention to what you write? Do you even have any idea what you're trying to argue besides that you hate Monsanto? Take note that in the second one in particular you try to claim they're a monopoly in the form of a "non-economic definition" - that's you claiming they're a monopoly broheim.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Here are three examples of you claiming it's a monopoly, by attempting to defend other people who said it was a monopoly and trying to claim that a product they make being popular in general means there's a monopoly: I'm not Sanders or the DOJ. It's obviously different for a lawmaker or the DOJ to talk about legal monopolies, since they decide what constitutes one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I'm not Sanders or the DOJ. It's obviously different for a lawmaker or the DOJ to talk about legal monopolies, since they decide what constitutes one. Great, so you haven't shown that either lawmakers or the DOJ defines Monsanto a monopoly, so again, what is your point now? What are you arguing if not that Monsanto is a monopoly?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I actually never said Monsanto was a present-day monopoly, despite you dishonestly insisting that I have, multiple times now. At most, I speculated that in the late 60s they were behaving monopolistically, but Kalman says Spray-Rite wasn't under Section 2 of Sherman, and speculated that the DOJ could build a case that they're a monopoly, based on what's been released. So despite admitting you're not a lawyer and don't understand antitrust law, you insist that they might be a monopoly legally (despite basically everyone saying they aren't and DOJ antitrust declining prosecution, which whatever Slate might think has a lot more to do with the case quality than politics - DOJA has no problem prosecuting politically connected antitrust cases if they think they can win them.) Also a key difference is that in SprayRite it wasn't just Monsanto who was alleged to be acting anticompetitively - it was Monsanto and a significant chunk of their distributors. If it had just been Monsanto, Spray Rite would have held the action to be legal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I'm not Sanders or the DOJ. It's obviously different for a lawmaker or the DOJ to talk about legal monopolies, since they decide what constitutes one. You were defending Sanders' incorrect usage, and a usage by the DOJ that didn't actually exist. That is you trying to claim Monsanto is a monopoly, otherwise you wouldn't have spent multiple posts defending the idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
Kalman posted:(whatever Slate might think has a lot more to do with the case quality than politics) Kalman posted:Some of their conduct might have been illegal in 1970, but these days? They dropped it because it was a losing case, because antitrust law has been significantly weakened even in the two decades since MS (if the Microsoft case had been brought in 2016, DoJ would have lost.) DoJ Antitrust doesn't like to bring losing cases, especially after a few setbacks over the past few years. I mean, I agree with you that the courts' interpretation of antitrust has changed dramatically since 1970. That's probably why the case quality needed to be so high before indictment. Do you agree with you, though?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 03:43
|
|