Eastleigh

[Crawley]

Surely this is contradictory though? You may detest corporate greed, but the very essence of a free market is allowing businesses to do what they want with little interference from the state

And besides, my gripe is more aimed at un-realistic bonus payments made to individuals while the corporation they work for are making massive losses, and are tax payer funded/owned.
That's more the greed I detest.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Surely this is contradictory though? You may detest corporate greed, but the very essence of a free market is allowing businesses to do what they want with little interference from the state

Depends on whether you define freedom as positive or negative. Do you allow businesses to do what they want without restriction? Because then you'd end up with vast monopolies controlled by a few global corporations that would subsequently stymie innovation and hurt both the consumer and the government through their monopoly-maintaining actions. And subsequently you'd be a believer in a negative free market, where freedom is only the lack of restraint on a business/corporation's actions.

Or do you allow businesses to reach their full potential, by preventing essentially unfair monopolistic practises and ensuring that healthy regulation prevents the economy as a whole being affected by a few key players? If so, you believe in a positive free market, where structures, laws and institutions are essential in allowing the participants to be truly 'free'.

 

[Richie]

Well, no. Why is it beyond the realms of possibility for a Corporation to act fairly and respectfully to others?

Dream world, maybe. But compare it to our current crop of football stars. Many will simply move in an attempt to acquire more and more wealth (Ibrahimovich?)
But there are some out there who are capable of acting with a degree of loyalty and respect, despite the earnings on offer.

Well I think the debate isn't about whether corporations can act fairly and respectfully, but what you intend to do about it if they don't. If you feel the state should intervene when a business does something immoral (rather than illegal), then you don't believe in the free market, or at least you are more to the left than the right.

Funnily enough you should bring up football, because that always irritates me. People preach about how footballers should show more loyalty, but how about the clubs? Spurs dumped Peter Crouch as quick as they could once they saw the money Stoke were offering for him. Same goes for Jenas, even Dawson was being shopped in the last transfer window. All three are players who always showed 'loyalty' to the club, yet nobody condemns Spurs for the sales.

Loyalty is a two way street, and clubs show no loyalty to players who aren't deemed good enough for their aspirations, so why should a player show loyalty to a club when the club isn't good enough for them?

Sorry for the off topic rant.

 

[Richie]

And besides, my gripe is more aimed at un-realistic bonus payments made to individuals while the corporation they work for are making massive losses, and are tax payer funded/owned.
That's more the greed I detest.

That's a fair point. I would argue such corporations shouldn't be taxpayer funded in the first place. If a bank is collapsing let it collapse.

 

[Richie]

Depends on whether you define freedom as positive or negative. Do you allow businesses to do what they want without restriction? Because then you'd end up with vast monopolies controlled by a few global corporations that would subsequently stymie innovation and hurt both the consumer and the government through their monopoly-maintaining actions. And subsequently you'd be a believer in a negative free market, where freedom is only the lack of restraint on a business/corporation's actions.

Or do you allow businesses to reach their full potential, by preventing essentially unfair monopolistic practises and ensuring that healthy regulation prevents the economy as a whole being affected by a few key players? If so, you believe in a positive free market, where structures, laws and institutions are essential in allowing the participants to be truly 'free'.

I disagree with this completely, because I don't think it's true at all. A free market is the most anti-monopoly system you can possibly have. Monopolies are created and maintained by regulations which create high barriers to entry for new companies. I know it's probably getting a bit boring but here's (yet another) video of Milton Friedman debating this exact point.

[video=youtube;tdLBzfFGFQU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU[/video]

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

I agree completely with Crawley's comments above. I think the term that applies would be "responsible capitalism" where both sides of the transaction, the buyer and seller, benefit to a similar degree. This does not seem to currently be the case in many instances.

 

[Richie]

I should add that I don't believe in absolutely no restriction on business. I think businesses should be either regulated or very heavily penalised when it comes to misleading consumers. An example would be the horse meat problem in supermarkets, I'd like to see fines on these companies for misleading consumers, negligence is not an excuse IMO.

I believe in getting the consumer the most information possible, and allowing them to make an informed decision. For example I don't think we should be banning products, but we should allow consumers to make informed decisions. If they decide to do something which affects themselves negatively I'm fine with that, as long as they know the risks. Smoking is a perfect example, and is a reason why I support the legalisation of many drugs.

 

[Richie]

I agree completely with Crawley's comments above. I think the term that applies would be "responsible capitalism" where both sides of the transaction, the buyer and seller, benefit to a similar degree. This does not seem to currently be the case in many instances.

Is this not the case in all voluntary transactions though? If you don't think you benefit from a trade, don't do it. In a capitalist system, people only ever buy things because they would rather have the item they are buying than the money in their pocket. If this isn't the case, why would they bother?

I'd be interested to hear an example of a situation where you feel this isn't the case.

As to Crawleys point, I will ask you the same thing. If a company does not practice 'responsible capitalism' then do you think government should interfere? If you do, then I'd argue you don't really believe in a free market. IMO if you don't like how a company operates, then don't buy from them and vote with the pounds in your pocket.

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

Is this not the case in all voluntary transactions though? If you don't think you benefit from a trade, don't do it. In a capitalist system, people only ever buy things because they would rather have the item they are buying than the money in their pocket. If this isn't the case, why would they bother?

I'd be interested to hear an example of a situation where you feel this isn't the case.

As to Crawleys point, I will ask you the same thing. If a company does not practice 'responsible capitalism' then do you think government should interfere? If you do, then I'd argue you don't really believe in a free market. IMO if you don't like how a company operates, then don't buy from them and vote with the pounds in your pocket.

This is such a large argument that it is difficult to write a short response so I'll go straight to what I consider is the heart of the issue...money in politics. Some of these corporations have gotten so large that they are now able to literally write the laws which they are supposed to be governed by (and we, the consumers, protected by), at the expense of every social or environmental benefit apart from profit-making.

The banking fiasco is a prime example. If the banks had be left to fail, then the real victims would have been you, I and everyone else who would have lost their deposits. However, instead of stabilising them and protecting the consumer from the fallout, they have merely extended their powers because the lobbyists have prevented any fundamental structural change from being enacted to make sure we don't experience this situation again. The amount of money being spent on lobbying is minor compared to the level of profits being made in such sectors as big oil, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications etc but I don't believe I am benefitting from these profits. In fact, the number of choices available seems to be getting smaller while the quality of their products are relatively getting worse. The power of these companies to prevent competition and innovation is increasing while we, the consumer, seem to be getting the short end of the stick more and more. Their armies of lawyers and vast amounts of resources prevent "us" from having any real say in how the free market operates, which un-coincidentally is resulting in higher and higher corporate profits whilst the middle and working classes are being forced to bear the burden.

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

Following on, I believe that government's role in the free market should be as follows...

- to promote healthy and responsible business to society as a whole, not just for a few at the expense of the majority
- to protect the consumers from irresponsible, illegal and unfair corporate practices, including environmental impacts
- to encourage, through tax breaks and stimuluses, the expansion of innovative new products and practices which, again, benefit the majority of society
- to protect the market from monopolistic practices so as to encourage innovation and competition, for the benefit of the consumer.

Currently, I don't believe that our governments are giving us these protections and incentives because of the influence of the few at the expense of the many, and I don't see it getting better any time soon. For instance, has a single banker gone to jail for the ethically-fraudulent practices which created the global financial crisis which has affected billions of people?

 

[Crawley]

Is this not the case in all voluntary transactions though? If you don't think you benefit from a trade, don't do it. In a capitalist system, people only ever buy things because they would rather have the item they are buying than the money in their pocket. If this isn't the case, why would they bother?

I'd be interested to hear an example of a situation where you feel this isn't the case.

As to Crawleys point, I will ask you the same thing. If a company does not practice 'responsible capitalism' then do you think government should interfere? If you do, then I'd argue you don't really believe in a free market. IMO if you don't like how a company operates, then don't buy from them and vote with the pounds in your pocket.

Ha!

And this is where the crossover between left/right economics, and authoritarian/libertarian thinking comes in exactly :lol:
As reflected by the charts above.

 

[Richie]

This is such a large argument that it is difficult to write a short response so I'll go straight to what I consider is the heart of the issue...money in politics. Some of these corporations have gotten so large that they are now able to literally write the laws which they are supposed to be governed by (and we, the consumers, protected by), at the expense of every social or environmental benefit apart from profit-making.

I completely agree with you about lobbyists, however I don't think you agree with yourself. You want to regulate more, to stop companies having a say in regulations? How exactly does that work? The answer is less government not more. You want more regulation, but you've already admitted that big business is in bed with government and the regulations will be written to suit them, and you're right! So how can the answer be more regulation?

The answer is less regulation. If government doesn't legislate, big business can't get any benefit from governmental lobbying and so will have to actually compete against each other to make profit.

The banking fiasco is a prime example. If the banks had be left to fail, then the real victims would have been you, I and everyone else who would have lost their deposits. However, instead of stabilising them and protecting the consumer from the fallout, they have merely extended their powers because the lobbyists have prevented any fundamental structural change from being enacted to make sure we don't experience this situation again. The amount of money being spent on lobbying is minor compared to the level of profits being made in such sectors as big oil, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications etc but I don't believe I am benefitting from these profits. In fact, the number of choices available seems to be getting smaller while the quality of their products are relatively getting worse. The power of these companies to prevent competition and innovation is increasing while we, the consumer, seem to be getting the short end of the stick more and more. Their armies of lawyers and vast amounts of resources prevent "us" from having any real say in how the free market operates, which un-coincidentally is resulting in higher and higher corporate profits whilst the middle and working classes are being forced to bear the burden.

Sorry but this is very long paragraph so I will try to respond but I'm getting a bit lost in it. First of all the idea of banks folding. I'm very against the bail outs of the banks, and yes I am totally against government guaranteed deposits. I think if people's money was actually at stake they would care much more about what your bank is doing with your money. It would also open the door for banks to compete on how safe they are to deposit in. As it stands, the banks are pretty much all the same.

Next, you don't see any benefit being made from pharmaceutical and telecommunications profits? Look at a phone from 10 years ago and a phone today and you don't see how innovation has been rapid in the telecoms industry? Your mobile internet connection is likely twice as fast as the wired connection on your PC 10 years ago. Your home PC connection could be 100x faster AND less expensive than 10 years ago. I can't comment about pharmaceutical industry as I don't really know anything about the industry, but I'm sure there is constant innovation in new drugs.

Oil is somewhat different as it is a commodity with huge sovereign influence around the world. However, it should be no surprise that the price goes up as demand has risen from China and India. Big oil is too complicated to explore here, it could have it's own thread.

 

[Richie]

- to encourage, through tax breaks and stimuluses, the expansion of innovative new products and practices which, again, benefit the majority of society.

While I think I have responded to your other points, I feel I haven't mentioned this and it is probably the worst one of the lot. This is quite simply a terrible, terrible idea.

Why is it that you believe government has the ability to innovate? Can you name a single innovation that has come out of the government as opposed to private industry? Government didn't invent the light bulb, the automobile, mass production methods, the mobile phone, the iPad etc... The list goes on and on.

By providing subsidies, the government gets in to the business of picking winners and losers and this is fundamentally against the free market. The whole point of a free market is voting with the money in your pocket. If someone creates a product that nobody wants, the business goes bust. When the government starts subsidising business, tax payers are paying for things they have no desire for.

Here's an interesting video about government subsidies which illustrates my point.

[video=youtube;B_FncAQsAJg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_FncAQsAJg[/video]

 

[Richie]

Following on from the video above, here is one of the businesses mentioned. Solyndra, a solar panel company, got a $535m loan from the American government. When it went bankrupt, the US lost $385m of it's investment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra#Government_support_and_politics

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

I completely agree with you about lobbyists, however I don't think you agree with yourself. You want to regulate more, to stop companies having a say in regulations? How exactly does that work? The answer is less government not more. You want more regulation, but you've already admitted that big business is in bed with government and the regulations will be written to suit them, and you're right! So how can the answer be more regulation?

This is the scariest part of the current situation we find ourselves in. I honestly don't know the answer. I want more regulation that is consumer-oriented, not designed merely to increase the suppliers profits. Oil companies are allowed to pollute and the fines levied against them aren't sufficient to prevent from putting safe practices in place to prevent them happening again. Banks are caught money-laundering and are fined less than the profits they made from these practices (and not one criminal conviction). We have to get the influence out of our govts so they can act ethically when they are needed to step in and regulate on our behalf.

The answer is less regulation. If government doesn't legislate, big business can't get any benefit from governmental lobbying and so will have to actually compete against each other to make profit.

As above, it's a Catch-22 situation. However, based on recent situations, I don't trust un-regulated corporations to act for the betterment of society as a whole, rather than for it's major shareholders. What I do want is for government to step in to maintain the balance between profitability and the general welfare of society. Presently, I don't believe this balance to exist.

Sorry but this is very long paragraph so I will try to respond but I'm getting a bit lost in it. First of all the idea of banks folding. I'm very against the bail outs of the banks, and yes I am totally against government guaranteed deposits. I think if people's money was actually at stake they would care much more about what your bank is doing with your money. It would also open the door for banks to compete on how safe they are to deposit in. As it stands, the banks are pretty much all the same.

Agree that the banks are pretty much the same, which is because they have been allowed to swallow up the competition and prevent any new players from entering the market. Thus we no longer have a "free-market" in this sense. I do not agree with your view of government bailouts and deposit guarantee. I expect my bank to act responsibly and ethically with regards to my deposits. Being a banker used to be a respectable occupation. I don't have the time or education (even though I have a BA(Hons) in this field!) to understand the ultra-complex transactions which have been allowed to become common place. Again, a situation has been allowed to occur which encourages the few to act predatorally against the many because the benefits of doing so are out of whack with the consequences. This is where government should be acting to restore a balance.

Next, you don't see any benefit being made from pharmaceutical and telecommunications profits? Look at a phone from 10 years ago and a phone today and you don't see how innovation has been rapid in the telecoms industry? Your mobile internet connection is likely twice as fast as the wired connection on your PC 10 years ago. Your home PC connection could be 100x faster AND less expensive than 10 years ago. I can't comment about pharmaceutical industry as I don't really know anything about the industry, but I'm sure there is constant innovation in new drugs.

Naturally I agree that there has been innovation in these fields, but I don't think it has kept pace with the increase in corporate profits that have occurred over the same time frame. This is why I wrote "respectively". If we live in such a free-market, why is it that I only have a small amount of phone providers to choose from who all basically offer the same services? How many medical suppliers can I choose from? It's because they have written the rules to prevent new companies entering the market and competing on either a lower-price or better-product basis. I would support regulation which encourages these companies to spend more on research and giving back to the market rather than taking the money out of the marketplace via increased dividends which mostly only go to the few. I posted a link a few pages back to an article in Time magazine which shows the medical industry to be charging upwards of 1000% profit margins as every day business practices, yet the public argument is only about who should be paying for these charges, not why they are so exhorbitantly high in the first place. This is one example of where your idea of a "free-market" and mine differ.

Oil is somewhat different as it is a commodity with huge sovereign influence around the world. However, it should be no surprise that the price goes up as demand has risen from China and India. Big oil is too complicated to explore here, it could have it's own thread.

We all know the issues with regards to Big Oil, and how it is polluting the planet and that prices will only continue to increase because it is a finite resource, sovereign influence etc. so then why are we still financing this industry via subsidies and tax breaks when we could be funneling this money into research for sustainable alternatives? Because Big Oil has been allowed to exploit it's customers for the benefit of the few whilst maintaining it's monopolistic powers.

In short, I believe we need to have a significant change in our awareness and consciousness as a society as a whole. Business does not have to merely be about maximising profits. Unfortunately that is all we seem to be experiencing right now.

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

^^

Apologies for the lack of editing skills but I'm sure you can figure out which paragraphs are my repsonses to your post.

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

While I think I have responded to your other points, I feel I haven't mentioned this and it is probably the worst one of the lot. This is quite simply a terrible, terrible idea.

Why is it that you believe government has the ability to innovate? Can you name a single innovation that has come out of the government as opposed to private industry? Government didn't invent the light bulb, the automobile, mass production methods, the mobile phone, the iPad etc... The list goes on and on.

By providing subsidies, the government gets in to the business of picking winners and losers and this is fundamentally against the free market. The whole point of a free market is voting with the money in your pocket. If someone creates a product that nobody wants, the business goes bust. When the government starts subsidising business, tax payers are paying for things they have no desire for.

I never wrote that I believed it should be up to the govt to actually innovate itself, but instead it should create the environment which encourages this, via subsidies and benefits. As for choosing winners and losers, isn't that what is supposed to happen when we vote for our elected officials, rather than having them work for big business because they know they can't get elected without "sucking on the corporate tit" for essential donation money?

As for your Solyndra post, sure this was a project that failed at the taxpayers expense. However, over the same period of time, i would wager that the govt has gifted just as much money to big oil without me seeing any benefit at all. Plus, there have been many-times more successful instances of government assistance in the sustainable energy field which haven't received nearly as much attention because of a media which is owned by a few to push their agenda. At the expense of the many.

Having trouble keeping up with your posts!

 

[DubaiSpur]

I disagree with this completely, because I don't think it's true at all. A free market is the most anti-monopoly system you can possibly have. Monopolies are created and maintained by regulations which create high barriers to entry for new companies. I know it's probably getting a bit boring but here's (yet another) video of Milton Friedman debating this exact point.

[video=youtube;tdLBzfFGFQU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU[/video]

It isn't getting boring at all. The whole point of politics is debate and disagreement, and the present system of two parties with almost the exact same views on every issue parading as the 'right' and the 'left' is an anti-thesis of everything representative democracy and the right to choice stand for. A point, incidentally, I suspect you would be in agreement with. But nonetheless, Friedman points out two examples (the New York Stock Exchange and the De Beers diamond companies) that do exercise monopolistic dominance over the markets, but goes on to assert that they are the exceptions to the rule of free markets breaking down monopolies. But today, what do you see but giant monopolies across entire industrial sectors where government regulation is slim to non-existent? Take the electronic gaming industry, for example, an industry I follow closely due to my dabbles with its products. Since it became a fully-fledged 'industry' in the aftermath of the web bubble, as opposed to just a niche market, one company (Electronic Arts) has aggressively expanded and bought out other publishers, established games licenses and dozens of development studios, creating a near-total monopoly on brand names, publishing opportunities and development talent within the PC sector. Fifa, Mass Effect, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, Need for Speed, Simcity....all very popular gaming franchises, all now owned by EA. The best studios (Bioware, Dice, et al) have also been absorbed. And having established its monopoly, EA are now attempting to extract ever greater revenues from it, charging players for micro-transacations (dollar ninety-nine for virtual purple helmets, for example) within the games themselves because they know that the marketing revenue they put into the game means that 99 percent of people will buy and play it without bothering to note its quality, affordability or replayability, thus obviating the need for anything other than extremely quick game turnover times, a lack of attention to detail and hastily-made 'social' gameplay. Their monopoly is near-absolute (save for Valve (Half-life), Activision(Call of Duty) and a few other upstarts), and is driving smaller publishers to emulate their business practises or die, and is driving indie game developers to crowd-funding on Kickstarter to find the money to make games. There is next to no government regulation on the PC gaming industry, yet the existence of a proto-monopoly like EA seems to disprove Friedman to some extent.

Another example would be Google. Internet laws are still in their infancy (most law-makers are likely still firm pager adherents), and abuses of the system (As evidenced by the spate of recent Google privacy-related lawsuits) are common, thus making the internet a relatively free market. In this free market, we see Google, a truly titanic behemoth, the world's largest search engine, which also owns the world's most visited video website (Youtube), and a swathe of subsidiaries in fields ranging from online maps to books reviews to stores to news websites to e-books. At the same time, we see privacy intrusions, data collection for advertising purposes, and search-pattern tracking, all illegal under traditional law, becoming rife across Google's sites and its web-browser, Chrome. Yet people still keep using Google because there is no alternative. What do we use to search for things? Google. To the point where 'let's google it' is now a universally-accepted phrase. Yahoo will give us one tenth of the answers google does, MSN even less. The one competitor who could give Google a run for its money in holding the world's interest was Youtube, which....was bought by Google.

Friedman (and your average free-market proponent) argues that if a monopolistic company slacks off, another one will rise to take its place at no cost to the consumer. But what he does not consider is that companies have now grown so large off supposedly 'temporary' monopolies that they have the ability to simply buy out aspiring or innovative competitors, and have the means to obliterate them via mass media and smear campaigns if they don't consent to being bought out. Ea bought out most of its competitors. Google bought out one of its biggest rivals. The list of monopolistic companies running smear and misinformation campaigns against their smaller rivals is long and disheartening.

The age where companies could be trusted to act in the spirit of the free-market is long, long gone. Profit now outweighs everything else: the quality of the product, the importance of happy labor, the benefits of anchoring within a local community, etcetera. And advertising and marketing are now the standard ways to get us gullible consumers to perpetuate monopolies even after we grow tired of the products they produce. And it is here that monopolies in the free market derive their persistence from; marketing.

An informed consumer alone cannot stand against billion-dollar marketing campaigns that target everyone around him/her and persuade them to buy crap. The free-market myth of consumer choice is just that; a ridiculous myth.

 

[Richie]

Naturally I agree that there has been innovation in these fields, but I don't think it has kept pace with the increase in corporate profits that have occurred over the same time frame. This is why I wrote "respectively". If we live in such a free-market, why is it that I only have a small amount of phone providers to choose from who all basically offer the same services? How many medical suppliers can I choose from? It's because they have written the rules to prevent new companies entering the market and competing on either a lower-price or better-product basis. I would support regulation which encourages these companies to spend more on research and giving back to the market rather than taking the money out of the marketplace via increased dividends which mostly only go to the few. I posted a link a few pages back to an article in Time magazine which shows the medical industry to be charging upwards of 1000% profit margins as every day business practices, yet the public argument is only about who should be paying for these charges, not why they are so exhorbitantly high in the first place. This is one example of where your idea of a "free-market" and mine differ.

re: not enough providers, there are two important points. First of all, we don't live in a truly free market, and that's a problem. In reality there will never be a market truly independent of regulation, but we can definitely do better than we have at the moment.

The second point you are spot on, there are higher barriers to entry which benefit big corporations. The problem here is that it is regulations that create these artificially high barriers. If we regulated less, the smaller start ups would be more able to compete. I would actually argue there are a significant number of telecomms providers for you to choose from, I think you underestimate the market choice. In terms of mobile phone contracts, I think there is great competition between providers, I can count 7 off the top of my head. There will however only be as many providers as the market is able to accommodate as there are only so many people to provide for.

As to your point about dividends, I think there is some misconception about shareholders. These are publicly traded companies, there's nothing stopping you from buying some shares and getting your own slice of the dividend. Furthermore, if you have a pension you almost certainly benefit from these profits. When you pay in to your pension, someone is investing that money (and everyone elses) in to stocks and shares and to help make sure you a return when you retire.

Re: medical services, this is a big and complex issue. However put simply (and this is especially true in the case of the US), when something is guaranteed through the treasury there is less competition. This is because you know you're going to get paid whatever price you charge, so why do people need to compete on price? Since the end user (me and you) don't care about price because it's a 'free' service, there is no incentive to look for the best deal. People are always more careful when spending their own money than when spending other peoples money. Always.

 

[Richie]

It isn't getting boring at all. The whole point of politics is debate and disagreement, and the present system of two parties with almost the exact same views on every issue parading as the 'right' and the 'left' is an anti-thesis of everything representative democracy and the right to choice stand for. A point, incidentally, I suspect you would be in agreement with. But nonetheless, Friedman points out two examples (the New York Stock Exchange and the De Beers diamond companies) that do exercise monopolistic dominance over the markets, but goes on to assert that they are the exceptions to the rule of free markets breaking down monopolies. But today, what do you see but giant monopolies across entire industrial sectors where government regulation is slim to non-existent? Take the electronic gaming industry, for example, an industry I follow closely due to my dabbles with its products. Since it became a fully-fledged 'industry' in the aftermath of the web bubble, as opposed to just a niche market, one company (Electronic Arts) has aggressively expanded and bought out other publishers, established games licenses and dozens of development studios, creating a near-total monopoly on brand names, publishing opportunities and development talent within the PC sector. Fifa, Mass Effect, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, Need for Speed, Simcity....all very popular gaming franchises, all now owned by EA. The best studios (Bioware, Dice, et al) have also been absorbed. And having established its monopoly, EA are now attempting to extract ever greater revenues from it, charging players for micro-transacations (dollar ninety-nine for virtual purple helmets, for example) within the games themselves because they know that the marketing revenue they put into the game means that 99 percent of people will buy and play it without bothering to note its quality, affordability or replayability, thus obviating the need for anything other than extremely quick game turnover times, a lack of attention to detail and hastily-made 'social' gameplay. Their monopoly is near-absolute (save for Valve (Half-life), Activision(Call of Duty) and a few other upstarts), and is driving smaller publishers to emulate their business practises or die, and is driving indie game developers to crowd-funding on Kickstarter to find the money to make games. There is next to no government regulation on the PC gaming industry, yet the existence of a proto-monopoly like EA seems to disprove Friedman to some extent.

Im sorry, but this is nonsense. You are completely misunderstanding what a monopoly is. If EA had a monopoly, there would be no other 'non-EA' games to buy. In fact, EA don't even have a monopoly in any of their genres. Dont like FIFA? Buy Pro Evo. Don't like NBA Live 12? Buy NBA 2k12. Don't like Medal of Honour? Buy Call of Duty. Hell, CoD is the best selling franchise of the last 5 years is it not?

Just because a company has a large market share doesn't mean they have a monopoly. There is a huge amount of competition in all genres of games. If people are choosing to play EA games over others then that just means they are putting out a better product. There is plenty of competition though. I prefer FIFA but I used to be a Pro Evo guy. I feel FIFA is a better game so I play it.

Another example would be Google. Internet laws are still in their infancy (most law-makers are likely still firm pager adherents), and abuses of the system (As evidenced by the spate of recent Google privacy-related lawsuits) are common, thus making the internet a relatively free market. In this free market, we see Google, a truly titanic behemoth, the world's largest search engine, which also owns the world's most visited video website (Youtube), and a swathe of subsidiaries in fields ranging from online maps to books reviews to stores to news websites to e-books. At the same time, we see privacy intrusions, data collection for advertising purposes, and search-pattern tracking, all illegal under traditional law, becoming rife across Google's sites and its web-browser, Chrome. Yet people still keep using Google because there is no alternative. What do we use to search for things? Google. To the point where 'let's google it' is now a universally-accepted phrase. Yahoo will give us one tenth of the answers google does, MSN even less. The one competitor who could give Google a run for its money in holding the world's interest was Youtube, which....was bought by Google.

Friedman (and your average free-market proponent) argues that if a monopolistic company slacks off, another one will rise to take its place at no cost to the consumer. But what he does not consider is that companies have now grown so large off supposedly 'temporary' monopolies that they have the ability to simply buy out aspiring or innovative competitors, and have the means to obliterate them via mass media and smear campaigns if they don't consent to being bought out. Ea bought out most of its competitors. Google bought out one of its biggest rivals. The list of monopolistic companies running smear and misinformation campaigns against their smaller rivals is long and disheartening.

Again, this is not true. There is absolutely not monopoly whatsoever for Google. People are choosing to use Google instead of other alternatives, and that is their choice. Don't like it? Go to Yahoo, Bing, Ask or one of dozen of others. There is plenty of other options for people, but if Google are putting out the best product then there's no reason they shouldn't have a large market share.

As for web browsers, again they don't have anything close to a monopoly. I'm posting this from Firefox, I could just as easily be using Opera, IE or Chrome. If I was on a Mac I could use Safari. On my phone I use one called Dolphin.

Large market share does not equal a monopoly. In all the situations listed there are alternatives for consumers, if they are overwhelmingly choosing Google or Google products then that is up to each individual.