RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
(10-27-2025 03:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:
(10-27-2025 02:24 PM)miko33 Wrote: I ended up seeing a video about Sysco and how this company - along with a couple other food distribution companies - have consolidated this industry to such a degree that most restaurants are becoming too similar to each other. Several examples are deserts at the mid-tier chain restaurants that are all alike along with other common appetizer staples like jalepeno poppers, mozzarella sticks, pot stickers, egg rolls, etc... No doubt that entrees like chicken strips, any flattened chicken breasts used in dishes like chicken parm, chicken Marsala, lemon chicken, etc are also extremely similar. The sauces for various dishes as well.
While the video was coming from an obvious place of bias, it reinforces that most of us (IMHO I personally believe) don't truly grasp that all of this consolidation across all of our industries are an indicator that these markets are maturing. Consolidation to one or a few large entities is an indicator that the industry is not competitive in the classic sense. You may be selecting a restaurant or a grocery store product thinking it's a unique product. Later you find out that the 2 or 3 products you thought were competitors were in reality all owned by one entity. I know the term "Late Stage Capitalism" has some form of finality to it that people bristle at. I don't interpret it this way; however, to not offend maybe consider it "Late(er) Stage Capitalism". Regardless of the label, the outcome is the same...monopolistic/oligopilistic power by a few MNCs is an anchor to true innovation and competition.
At one time, we cared about this as a country. Somewhere - I think JR is right in that around WW2 into the Cold War - the thinking changed. It needs to go back to a point where the government cares about anti-trust and to break monopolies and olibopolies.
This is one of the reasons the Pentagon is now realizing it has an issue with the defense industry churning out the massive amounts of ordinance required to fight a peer level adversary these days. We used to have lots of small and large defense contractors. Over the years, most of the smaller defense aircraft/missile companies have either gone broke or been gobbled up to create a handful of more profitable supersized defense companies. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon (now RTX), Boeing, Northrup-Grumman, General Dynamics---all great companies. The thing is---these acquring companies want to become more profitable through acquisitions---so when they gobble up a smaller contractor, they get rid of excess capacity and facilities/employees that are redundant---cutting costs and increasing profits.
Thats why we have the problem have. A lot of the US reserve excess defense production capacity for weapons has been shuttered or scraped as a part of the acquisition process---making these big super defense companies more profitable. Gone are the small aircraft builders that once represented the first and most accessible line of excess productive capability. We have lost most of other smaller companies that would compete with innovative ideas that might be cheaper and more effective than the highly profitable billion dollar platforms the big super defense contractors are pushing. Think about it. There is no Hughs Aircraft. There is no Brewster Aircraft. There is no Curtis-Wright---or Consolidated---or Republic. Thats one of the reasons ramping up production for things like Patriots or Tomahawks is not easy these days.
On the upside, there are a few companies entering the fray that might offer some alternatives to the gold plated big boy weapons---while still being capable of getting the job done---and more importantly----they are being offered at a priced where the US can afford to buy them in the kind of numbers needed for an extended peer level conflict. Anduril is an example of a relatively new company that is selling the idea of effective sophisticated weapons that can be made relatively cheaply and mass produced on a large scale quickly. These would be effective weapons that can be launched by existing platforms already in our inventory (no need to buy new launch systems).
Gentlemen I wish I could say that I was only worried about diversification and innovation in production of war materials, but I'm not only worried about supply, but to a lesser extent logistics due to eroding confidence in past allies and what they can support, and I'm especially concerned over the feminized, emotionally neutered, and physical unpreparedness of nearly 40 years' worth of everything education can throw at natural male aggressiveness. Weaponry is nice, a technological advantage to overcome raw numbers essential, but at some point, we have to have sailors and soldiers with a warrior's mentality! Ritalin and junk food coupled with the lack of actual physical education, a lack of competitive sports participation, video games, and mandated counseling for any show of righteous indignation has left me with far more doubt about our ability to successfully prosecute a war to victory. We need to re-establish the encouragement and confidence found in natural masculinity and why that is essential to being a man and instill it in all of our young boys and young men. The consistent issue with feminism in this country is that it operated in a vacuum exclusive of masculinity. Now we are paying the price for 4 decades of intended gender confusion. It's well past time to restore each gender's natural inclinations as the low birth rate, high depression rate and suicide rate among women indicates how poisonous feminism has been to them as well.
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
Lost in this late stage Capitalism “IDEA” is something you touched on. Forty years of dumbing down Americans through our educational system followed up by victimization by the wokesters to effectively neuter the male population. This is now why you see so many unhinged young females because this all they know and now it’s unacceptable to the majority of Americans. The LIE they believe isn’t real world anymore and bubble of make believe insanity has popped.
Throw away products instead of repair products although with the dumbing down of lazy Americans who wouldn’t put forth the effort or have any idea to repair a product anyway. This also makes us more dependent.
All of this along with Government manipulation has handcuffed Capitalism. Greed corruption and propaganda are the tools needed to bring down Capitalism.
It’s not an evolution to the late stage but more of a set of predetermined circumstances that get you into a painted corner.
Monopolistic capitalism would be the end product but only if the retailer controlled all aspects of the supply chain. This is when Capitalism is doomed. Nothing else.
I had a friend in Romania who was very intelligent. He had a Physics Engineering degree but worked as a plumber long hours just to make ends meet. He sneered at the idea of anti capitalism. He said banks won’t loan money and gun control keeps people in their place. He said if I ever let them take my guns I will become like him a castrated pig.
He is a perfect example of why capitalism will never die as long as people have ambition and see opportunities
Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door
As a older entrepreneur once told me
If you are good at what you do you can be a treehouse and customers will find you
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
(10-28-2025 11:13 AM)BlueDragon Wrote: Throw away products instead of repair products although with the dumbing down of lazy Americans who wouldn’t put forth the effort or have any idea to repair a product anyway. This also makes us more dependent.
It’s not an evolution to the late stage but more of a set of predetermined circumstances that get you into a painted corner.
Monopolistic capitalism would be the end product but only if the retailer controlled all aspects of the supply chain. This is when Capitalism is doomed. Nothing else.
I edited your post to 3 points that I believe can be unfair to the typical American and where hard work and ingenuity alone won't always work.
Point 1 - It's getting harder to avoid planned obsolescence. While it's true there are more people alive in the U.S. who don't know much about fixing things vs yesterday, there are people who are willing to learn but are stymied by the designs of today's products. In the 1970s, most everyone could work on their own cars despite not being professionally trained mechanics. It's way harder to do that today where much of the issues are due to either software/electronics that you can't get at the local auto parts store or the engines were "redesigned" to make much harder to fix an engine without taking it completely out of the vehicle. Home appliances may be even worse where you cannot buy parts. If a part breaks you're not replacing a part but an entire module. And if the technician can get access to the module that needs replacing, the cost is close to buying a new appliance.
Point 2 - Exclusively private competition can result into a natural movement towards consolidation. Not all industries, but a number that started out small were easy to scale up (through natural competition) to where ever higher barriers to entry restricted future competitors from jumping in. Mon and pop restaurants, Plumbing businesses, Law firms are "industries" where it's hard to corner the market. But even here, you're seeing more corporatization of these areas that were previously immune. Remember local hardware stores were "immune" to corporations at one point too.
Point 3 - I disagree. There are more than one way to create a monopoly besides vertical integration. Stores like Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, etc can create environments locally where smaller family owned hardware stores go belly up because the big box stores simply have purchasing power the smaller guys won't have.
Bottom line yes, ingenuity and determination can help little guys compete against the big corporations. But that's FAR from a guarantee and what more likely happens than not are the small guys are either run out of business due to the inability to compete on costs of inputs or are bought out by the bigger companies.
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
(10-27-2025 04:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:
(10-27-2025 03:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:
(10-27-2025 02:24 PM)miko33 Wrote: I ended up seeing a video about Sysco and how this company - along with a couple other food distribution companies - have consolidated this industry to such a degree that most restaurants are becoming too similar to each other. Several examples are deserts at the mid-tier chain restaurants that are all alike along with other common appetizer staples like jalepeno poppers, mozzarella sticks, pot stickers, egg rolls, etc... No doubt that entrees like chicken strips, any flattened chicken breasts used in dishes like chicken parm, chicken Marsala, lemon chicken, etc are also extremely similar. The sauces for various dishes as well.
While the video was coming from an obvious place of bias, it reinforces that most of us (IMHO I personally believe) don't truly grasp that all of this consolidation across all of our industries are an indicator that these markets are maturing. Consolidation to one or a few large entities is an indicator that the industry is not competitive in the classic sense. You may be selecting a restaurant or a grocery store product thinking it's a unique product. Later you find out that the 2 or 3 products you thought were competitors were in reality all owned by one entity. I know the term "Late Stage Capitalism" has some form of finality to it that people bristle at. I don't interpret it this way; however, to not offend maybe consider it "Late(er) Stage Capitalism". Regardless of the label, the outcome is the same...monopolistic/oligopilistic power by a few MNCs is an anchor to true innovation and competition.
At one time, we cared about this as a country. Somewhere - I think JR is right in that around WW2 into the Cold War - the thinking changed. It needs to go back to a point where the government cares about anti-trust and to break monopolies and olibopolies.
This is one of the reasons the Pentagon is now realizing it has an issue with the defense industry churning out the massive amounts of ordinance required to fight a peer level adversary these days. We used to have lots of small and large defense contractors. Over the years, most of the smaller defense aircraft/missile companies have either gone broke or been gobbled up to create a handful of more profitable supersized defense companies. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon (now RTX), Boeing, Northrup-Grumman, General Dynamics---all great companies. The thing is---these acquring companies want to become more profitable through acquisitions---so when they gobble up a smaller contractor, they get rid of excess capacity and facilities/employees that are redundant---cutting costs and increasing profits.
Thats why we have the problem have. A lot of the US reserve excess defense production capacity for weapons has been shuttered or scraped as a part of the acquisition process---making these big super defense companies more profitable. Gone are the small aircraft builders that once represented the first and most accessible line of excess productive capability. We have lost most of other smaller companies that would compete with innovative ideas that might be cheaper and more effective than the highly profitable billion dollar platforms the big super defense contractors are pushing. Think about it. There is no Hughs Aircraft. There is no Brewster Aircraft. There is no Curtis-Wright---or Consolidated---or Republic. Thats one of the reasons ramping up production for things like Patriots or Tomahawks is not easy these days.
On the upside, there are a few companies entering the fray that might offer some alternatives to the gold plated big boy weapons---while still being capable of getting the job done---and more importantly----they are being offered at a priced where the US can afford to buy them in the kind of numbers needed for an extended peer level conflict. Anduril is an example of a relatively new company that is selling the idea of effective sophisticated weapons that can be made relatively cheaply and mass produced on a large scale quickly. These would be effective weapons that can be launched by existing platforms already in our inventory (no need to buy new launch systems).
Gentlemen I wish I could say that I was only worried about diversification and innovation in production of war materials, but I'm not only worried about supply, but to a lesser extent logistics due to eroding confidence in past allies and what they can support, and I'm especially concerned over the feminized, emotionally neutered, and physical unpreparedness of nearly 40 years' worth of everything education can throw at natural male aggressiveness. Weaponry is nice, a technological advantage to overcome raw numbers essential, but at some point, we have to have sailors and soldiers with a warrior's mentality! Ritalin and junk food coupled with the lack of actual physical education, a lack of competitive sports participation, video games, and mandated counseling for any show of righteous indignation has left me with far more doubt about our ability to successfully prosecute a war to victory. We need to re-establish the encouragement and confidence found in natural masculinity and why that is essential to being a man and instill it in all of our young boys and young men. The consistent issue with feminism in this country is that it operated in a vacuum exclusive of masculinity. Now we are paying the price for 4 decades of intended gender confusion. It's well past time to restore each gender's natural inclinations as the low birth rate, high depression rate and suicide rate among women indicates how poisonous feminism has been to them as well.
No argument there---but the toughest guys in the world are still gunna get their arses kicked if they run out of stuff that makes their weapons go bang-bang in just a couple weeks. Furthermore---its looking like a lot of those video game skills could actually come in handy in a war thats dominated by FPV drones.
While I agree that a society toxic to mens normal development is absolutely a part of the problem thats afflicting our young men---we need to recognize there is clearly something else at work as well. The average teen has 50% less testosterone than their great grand dad. Thats a big part of why things are playing out the way they are in society. Something like 60% of adult men under 30 are single and half of those single men have no interest in casually dating or entering relationships with women. lol---My 20-something year old self back in the day would have no ability to comprehend that mind set.
(This post was last modified: 10-28-2025 03:29 PM by Attackcoog.)
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
(10-28-2025 03:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:
(10-27-2025 04:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:
(10-27-2025 03:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:
(10-27-2025 02:24 PM)miko33 Wrote: I ended up seeing a video about Sysco and how this company - along with a couple other food distribution companies - have consolidated this industry to such a degree that most restaurants are becoming too similar to each other. Several examples are deserts at the mid-tier chain restaurants that are all alike along with other common appetizer staples like jalepeno poppers, mozzarella sticks, pot stickers, egg rolls, etc... No doubt that entrees like chicken strips, any flattened chicken breasts used in dishes like chicken parm, chicken Marsala, lemon chicken, etc are also extremely similar. The sauces for various dishes as well.
While the video was coming from an obvious place of bias, it reinforces that most of us (IMHO I personally believe) don't truly grasp that all of this consolidation across all of our industries are an indicator that these markets are maturing. Consolidation to one or a few large entities is an indicator that the industry is not competitive in the classic sense. You may be selecting a restaurant or a grocery store product thinking it's a unique product. Later you find out that the 2 or 3 products you thought were competitors were in reality all owned by one entity. I know the term "Late Stage Capitalism" has some form of finality to it that people bristle at. I don't interpret it this way; however, to not offend maybe consider it "Late(er) Stage Capitalism". Regardless of the label, the outcome is the same...monopolistic/oligopilistic power by a few MNCs is an anchor to true innovation and competition.
At one time, we cared about this as a country. Somewhere - I think JR is right in that around WW2 into the Cold War - the thinking changed. It needs to go back to a point where the government cares about anti-trust and to break monopolies and olibopolies.
This is one of the reasons the Pentagon is now realizing it has an issue with the defense industry churning out the massive amounts of ordinance required to fight a peer level adversary these days. We used to have lots of small and large defense contractors. Over the years, most of the smaller defense aircraft/missile companies have either gone broke or been gobbled up to create a handful of more profitable supersized defense companies. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon (now RTX), Boeing, Northrup-Grumman, General Dynamics---all great companies. The thing is---these acquring companies want to become more profitable through acquisitions---so when they gobble up a smaller contractor, they get rid of excess capacity and facilities/employees that are redundant---cutting costs and increasing profits.
Thats why we have the problem have. A lot of the US reserve excess defense production capacity for weapons has been shuttered or scraped as a part of the acquisition process---making these big super defense companies more profitable. Gone are the small aircraft builders that once represented the first and most accessible line of excess productive capability. We have lost most of other smaller companies that would compete with innovative ideas that might be cheaper and more effective than the highly profitable billion dollar platforms the big super defense contractors are pushing. Think about it. There is no Hughs Aircraft. There is no Brewster Aircraft. There is no Curtis-Wright---or Consolidated---or Republic. Thats one of the reasons ramping up production for things like Patriots or Tomahawks is not easy these days.
On the upside, there are a few companies entering the fray that might offer some alternatives to the gold plated big boy weapons---while still being capable of getting the job done---and more importantly----they are being offered at a priced where the US can afford to buy them in the kind of numbers needed for an extended peer level conflict. Anduril is an example of a relatively new company that is selling the idea of effective sophisticated weapons that can be made relatively cheaply and mass produced on a large scale quickly. These would be effective weapons that can be launched by existing platforms already in our inventory (no need to buy new launch systems).
Gentlemen I wish I could say that I was only worried about diversification and innovation in production of war materials, but I'm not only worried about supply, but to a lesser extent logistics due to eroding confidence in past allies and what they can support, and I'm especially concerned over the feminized, emotionally neutered, and physical unpreparedness of nearly 40 years' worth of everything education can throw at natural male aggressiveness. Weaponry is nice, a technological advantage to overcome raw numbers essential, but at some point, we have to have sailors and soldiers with a warrior's mentality! Ritalin and junk food coupled with the lack of actual physical education, a lack of competitive sports participation, video games, and mandated counseling for any show of righteous indignation has left me with far more doubt about our ability to successfully prosecute a war to victory. We need to re-establish the encouragement and confidence found in natural masculinity and why that is essential to being a man and instill it in all of our young boys and young men. The consistent issue with feminism in this country is that it operated in a vacuum exclusive of masculinity. Now we are paying the price for 4 decades of intended gender confusion. It's well past time to restore each gender's natural inclinations as the low birth rate, high depression rate and suicide rate among women indicates how poisonous feminism has been to them as well.
No argument there---but the toughest guys in the world are still gunna get their arses kicked if they run out of stuff that makes their weapons go bang-bang in just a couple weeks. Furthermore---its looking like a lot of those video game skills could actually come in handy in a war thats dominated by FPV drones.
While I agree that a society toxic to mens normal development is absolutely a part of the problem thats afflicting our young men---we need to recognize there is clearly something else at work as well. The average teen has 50% less testosterone than their great grand dad. Thats a big part of why things are playing out the way they are in society. Something like 60% of adult men under 30 are single and half of those single men have no interest in casually dating or entering relationships with women. lol---My 20-something year old self back in the day would have no ability to comprehend that mind set.
That something else is the impact of sublimated plastics upon gender determination in microscopic species of plankton and how that is transmitted then through the food chain. It's ecological, follows the norms of the food chain, and has the potential to severely impact the progression of our species.
That aside, I have more confidence in our ability to make things go bang, than I have in the desire of the young men to make them go bang appropriately, or bang anything for that matter! Perhaps Nugenix and Viagra are the byproduct the oil industry seeking to find uses for petroleum byproducts which use lesser grades.
The irony would be the use of petroleum leading to a mass extinction, which in a few million years would produce more petroleum.
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
Auto companies want to start restricting what you can listen to in your car. The continuation of eliminating your choices and forcing you to go through auto company owned media services. We've seen earlier most car companies want to remove AM radio completely. Now you're hearing companies like Tesla want to get rid of FM radio too. GM wants to get rid of AM, FM and even Apple Play and Android car play options.
As what happened to music and software, where you used to be able to buy it but now you're leasing it via subscriptions, I'm guessing car ownership will go along a similar path. MNCs have to make their money - so much so that they will strip away our freedoms and agency to do it.
Just exchange "Martians" with MNC's... And yes, we're fvcked up but mostly because most of us don't see nor care to... Bread and Circuses. Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll. Now it's College/Pro Sports, SNAP and TikToks...
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
(10-30-2025 02:31 PM)miko33 Wrote: Auto companies want to start restricting what you can listen to in your car. The continuation of eliminating your choices and forcing you to go through auto company owned media services. We've seen earlier most car companies want to remove AM radio completely. Now you're hearing companies like Tesla want to get rid of FM radio too. GM wants to get rid of AM, FM and even Apple Play and Android car play options.
As what happened to music and software, where you used to be able to buy it but now you're leasing it via subscriptions, I'm guessing car ownership will go along a similar path. MNCs have to make their money - so much so that they will strip away our freedoms and agency to do it.
Just exchange "Martians" with MNC's... And yes, we're fvcked up but mostly because most of us don't see nor care to... Bread and Circuses. Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll. Now it's College/Pro Sports, SNAP and TikToks...
More corporate subjugation of personal liberty in the guise of profit. It is the essence of fascism. This is what happens when the SCOTUS gives a non living entity the rights of a citizen, and though many of you will scoff it is precisely how the beast of Revelation is born. It has the form and rights of a person, but it has no soul, and exists only for profit. My comment is made to make people think, and not to start a theological debate. I'm waiting for the AI suggestion that the best possible way to cleanse the planet is to destroy humanity.
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
(10-30-2025 02:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:
(10-30-2025 02:31 PM)miko33 Wrote: Auto companies want to start restricting what you can listen to in your car. The continuation of eliminating your choices and forcing you to go through auto company owned media services. We've seen earlier most car companies want to remove AM radio completely. Now you're hearing companies like Tesla want to get rid of FM radio too. GM wants to get rid of AM, FM and even Apple Play and Android car play options.
As what happened to music and software, where you used to be able to buy it but now you're leasing it via subscriptions, I'm guessing car ownership will go along a similar path. MNCs have to make their money - so much so that they will strip away our freedoms and agency to do it.
Just exchange "Martians" with MNC's... And yes, we're fvcked up but mostly because most of us don't see nor care to... Bread and Circuses. Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll. Now it's College/Pro Sports, SNAP and TikToks...
More corporate subjugation of personal liberty in the guise of profit. It is the essence of fascism. This is what happens when the SCOTUS gives a non living entity the rights of a citizen, and though many of you will scoff it is precisely how the beast of Revelation is born. It has the form and rights of a person, but it has no soul, and exists only for profit. My comment is made to make people think, and not to start a theological debate. I'm waiting for the AI suggestion that the best possible way to cleanse the planet is to destroy humanity.
Yes.
They want fascism but people are too stupid to understand it.
(This post was last modified: 10-30-2025 03:24 PM by shere khan.)
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
(10-30-2025 02:31 PM)miko33 Wrote: Auto companies want to start restricting what you can listen to in your car. The continuation of eliminating your choices and forcing you to go through auto company owned media services. We've seen earlier most car companies want to remove AM radio completely. Now you're hearing companies like Tesla want to get rid of FM radio too. GM wants to get rid of AM, FM and even Apple Play and Android car play options.
As what happened to music and software, where you used to be able to buy it but now you're leasing it via subscriptions, I'm guessing car ownership will go along a similar path. MNCs have to make their money - so much so that they will strip away our freedoms and agency to do it.
Just exchange "Martians" with MNC's... And yes, we're fvcked up but mostly because most of us don't see nor care to... Bread and Circuses. Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll. Now it's College/Pro Sports, SNAP and TikToks...
you couldn't have picked a better tune ... it's one of their best, too...
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
And the drum beat continues...
Below is a study conducted by The Vehicle Suppliers Association. I didn't read thru that much of it, but we know the overarching theme - OEM's want to be the only ones to be able to touch your vehicles. They intend to squeeze consumers with planned obsolescence schemes and to foil the consumer's right to repair their own vehicles or engage a 3rd party to do so.
I admit I don't know enough about this issue, but it's clear that car companies have been trying to funnel everyone to go to them and intentionally withholding information needed to allow independents to repair their own vehicles without the OEM getting involved. From what I've seen of it - it's a form of late® stage capitalism in my book.
I originally saw this on Breitbart but went to the source directly to get the study.
Quote:Modern vehicles are more computerized than ever—but fixing them is getting harder. This report explores the high-stakes battle over the right to repair cars, and what it means for drivers, mechanics and the future of mobility.
Quote:Without legislation, repair restrictions seen today have the potential to grow,
resulting in additional costs of $34 bn per year for consumers by 2035
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
(11-05-2025 04:58 PM)miko33 Wrote: And the drum beat continues...
Below is a study conducted by The Vehicle Suppliers Association. I didn't read thru that much of it, but we know the overarching theme - OEM's want to be the only ones to be able to touch your vehicles. They intend to squeeze consumers with planned obsolescence schemes and to foil the consumer's right to repair their own vehicles or engage a 3rd party to do so.
I admit I don't know enough about this issue, but it's clear that car companies have been trying to funnel everyone to go to them and intentionally withholding information needed to allow independents to repair their own vehicles without the OEM getting involved. From what I've seen of it - it's a form of late® stage capitalism in my book.
I originally saw this on Breitbart but went to the source directly to get the study.
Quote:Modern vehicles are more computerized than ever—but fixing them is getting harder. This report explores the high-stakes battle over the right to repair cars, and what it means for drivers, mechanics and the future of mobility.
Quote:Without legislation, repair restrictions seen today have the potential to grow,
resulting in additional costs of $34 bn per year for consumers by 2035
Medieval guilds and 20th century unions worked the same way.
Sounds like early-stage capitalism to me.
Adam Smith gave very detailed, lengthy, and lucid descriptions of the tendency of service providers to attempt to increase their monopoly power. Today, monopolies are much more dominant in non-capitalist countries than in the USA.
Low barriers to entry and right-to-repair laws are important brakes on monopoly power. Importantly for this topic, right-to-repair laws are a 21st century invention in capitalist countries.
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
(11-05-2025 05:12 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:
(11-05-2025 04:58 PM)miko33 Wrote: And the drum beat continues...
Below is a study conducted by The Vehicle Suppliers Association. I didn't read thru that much of it, but we know the overarching theme - OEM's want to be the only ones to be able to touch your vehicles. They intend to squeeze consumers with planned obsolescence schemes and to foil the consumer's right to repair their own vehicles or engage a 3rd party to do so.
I admit I don't know enough about this issue, but it's clear that car companies have been trying to funnel everyone to go to them and intentionally withholding information needed to allow independents to repair their own vehicles without the OEM getting involved. From what I've seen of it - it's a form of late® stage capitalism in my book.
I originally saw this on Breitbart but went to the source directly to get the study.
Quote:Modern vehicles are more computerized than ever—but fixing them is getting harder. This report explores the high-stakes battle over the right to repair cars, and what it means for drivers, mechanics and the future of mobility.
Quote:Without legislation, repair restrictions seen today have the potential to grow,
resulting in additional costs of $34 bn per year for consumers by 2035
Medieval guilds and 20th century unions worked the same way.
Sounds like early-stage capitalism to me.
Adam Smith gave very detailed, lengthy, and lucid descriptions of the tendency of service providers to attempt to increase their monopoly power. Today, monopolies are much more dominant in non-capitalist countries than in the USA.
Low barriers to entry and right-to-repair laws are important brakes on monopoly power. Importantly for this topic, right-to-repair laws are a 21st century invention in capitalist countries.
Here is how I interpret the early - mid - late stage capitalism arguments. I know the history of commerce is more murkey, but you need a clearly defined starting point to illustrate how the system (IMHO) is degrading. IMHO, the starting point for U.S. concerns should be the early 1900s when the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts broke apart the earlier monopolies like Standard Oil for example. IMHO, this is a good starting point because around this time collective bargaining units were gaining their footing while the largest corporations that were abusing their market power were weakened. This scenario made it next to impossible for communism to sprout roots in the U.S. in the same way it was able to in Europe. Only WW1 really saved Europe from succumbing to the communist scourge, and yes I understand that Russia didn't go communist yet. Marx's critiques were gaining ground in the industrialized part of Europe before Russia tried to do it via revolution.
All of the actions from that point on are how I think capitalist and free markets should be evaluated for the U.S. There were points in time between Adam Smith's book and the early 1900s where capitalism was at risk (in Europe) or had to be rescued (in U.S.A.) with the latter doing it through anti-trust and collective bargaining. As we move forward in our time today, the corporations are gaining too much power against labor. Market caps for a number of companies are too high, and a lot of that is due to taking too much of the market through unfair competition.
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
(11-05-2025 05:12 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:
(11-05-2025 04:58 PM)miko33 Wrote: And the drum beat continues...
Below is a study conducted by The Vehicle Suppliers Association. I didn't read thru that much of it, but we know the overarching theme - OEM's want to be the only ones to be able to touch your vehicles. They intend to squeeze consumers with planned obsolescence schemes and to foil the consumer's right to repair their own vehicles or engage a 3rd party to do so.
I admit I don't know enough about this issue, but it's clear that car companies have been trying to funnel everyone to go to them and intentionally withholding information needed to allow independents to repair their own vehicles without the OEM getting involved. From what I've seen of it - it's a form of late® stage capitalism in my book.
I originally saw this on Breitbart but went to the source directly to get the study.
Quote:Modern vehicles are more computerized than ever—but fixing them is getting harder. This report explores the high-stakes battle over the right to repair cars, and what it means for drivers, mechanics and the future of mobility.
Quote:Without legislation, repair restrictions seen today have the potential to grow,
resulting in additional costs of $34 bn per year for consumers by 2035
Medieval guilds and 20th century unions worked the same way.
Sounds like early-stage capitalism to me.
Adam Smith gave very detailed, lengthy, and lucid descriptions of the tendency of service providers to attempt to increase their monopoly power. Today, monopolies are much more dominant in non-capitalist countries than in the USA.
Low barriers to entry and right-to-repair laws are important brakes on monopoly power. Importantly for this topic, right-to-repair laws are a 21st century invention in capitalist countries.
you're forgetting robust anti-trust regulatory agencies which are also a necessity. One that the current administration is dismantling.
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
(11-06-2025 07:19 AM)miko33 Wrote:
(11-05-2025 05:12 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:
(11-05-2025 04:58 PM)miko33 Wrote: And the drum beat continues...
Below is a study conducted by The Vehicle Suppliers Association. I didn't read thru that much of it, but we know the overarching theme - OEM's want to be the only ones to be able to touch your vehicles. They intend to squeeze consumers with planned obsolescence schemes and to foil the consumer's right to repair their own vehicles or engage a 3rd party to do so.
I admit I don't know enough about this issue, but it's clear that car companies have been trying to funnel everyone to go to them and intentionally withholding information needed to allow independents to repair their own vehicles without the OEM getting involved. From what I've seen of it - it's a form of late® stage capitalism in my book.
I originally saw this on Breitbart but went to the source directly to get the study.
Quote:Modern vehicles are more computerized than ever—but fixing them is getting harder. This report explores the high-stakes battle over the right to repair cars, and what it means for drivers, mechanics and the future of mobility.
Quote:Without legislation, repair restrictions seen today have the potential to grow,
resulting in additional costs of $34 bn per year for consumers by 2035
Medieval guilds and 20th century unions worked the same way.
Sounds like early-stage capitalism to me.
Adam Smith gave very detailed, lengthy, and lucid descriptions of the tendency of service providers to attempt to increase their monopoly power. Today, monopolies are much more dominant in non-capitalist countries than in the USA.
Low barriers to entry and right-to-repair laws are important brakes on monopoly power. Importantly for this topic, right-to-repair laws are a 21st century invention in capitalist countries.
Here is how I interpret the early - mid - late stage capitalism arguments. I know the history of commerce is more murkey, but you need a clearly defined starting point to illustrate how the system (IMHO) is degrading. IMHO, the starting point for U.S. concerns should be the early 1900s when the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts broke apart the earlier monopolies like Standard Oil for example. IMHO, this is a good starting point because around this time collective bargaining units were gaining their footing while the largest corporations that were abusing their market power were weakened. This scenario made it next to impossible for communism to sprout roots in the U.S. in the same way it was able to in Europe. Only WW1 really saved Europe from succumbing to the communist scourge, and yes I understand that Russia didn't go communist yet. Marx's critiques were gaining ground in the industrialized part of Europe before Russia tried to do it via revolution.
All of the actions from that point on are how I think capitalist and free markets should be evaluated for the U.S. There were points in time between Adam Smith's book and the early 1900s where capitalism was at risk (in Europe) or had to be rescued (in U.S.A.) with the latter doing it through anti-trust and collective bargaining. As we move forward in our time today, the corporations are gaining too much power against labor. Market caps for a number of companies are too high, and a lot of that is due to taking too much of the market through unfair competition.
Corporations gaining power against labor has nothing to do with monopolies in services. No US corporation is large enough to be able to be able to dictate terms to employees, other than in a few highly specialized fields like the NFL.
In fact, the very monopolies you decry (the firms with ridiculous market caps like Apple, Tesla, Facebook, Amazon, etc) tend to be among the very top firms in employee pay. That goes for the NFL, too (which is oddly able to simultaneously claim that it is both 32 competing companies and 1 company with 32 divisions, depending on the legal claim it is advancing).
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
(11-06-2025 07:44 AM)ballantyneapp Wrote:
(11-05-2025 05:12 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:
(11-05-2025 04:58 PM)miko33 Wrote: And the drum beat continues...
Below is a study conducted by The Vehicle Suppliers Association. I didn't read thru that much of it, but we know the overarching theme - OEM's want to be the only ones to be able to touch your vehicles. They intend to squeeze consumers with planned obsolescence schemes and to foil the consumer's right to repair their own vehicles or engage a 3rd party to do so.
I admit I don't know enough about this issue, but it's clear that car companies have been trying to funnel everyone to go to them and intentionally withholding information needed to allow independents to repair their own vehicles without the OEM getting involved. From what I've seen of it - it's a form of late® stage capitalism in my book.
I originally saw this on Breitbart but went to the source directly to get the study.
Quote:Modern vehicles are more computerized than ever—but fixing them is getting harder. This report explores the high-stakes battle over the right to repair cars, and what it means for drivers, mechanics and the future of mobility.
Quote:Without legislation, repair restrictions seen today have the potential to grow,
resulting in additional costs of $34 bn per year for consumers by 2035
Medieval guilds and 20th century unions worked the same way.
Sounds like early-stage capitalism to me.
Adam Smith gave very detailed, lengthy, and lucid descriptions of the tendency of service providers to attempt to increase their monopoly power. Today, monopolies are much more dominant in non-capitalist countries than in the USA.
Low barriers to entry and right-to-repair laws are important brakes on monopoly power. Importantly for this topic, right-to-repair laws are a 21st century invention in capitalist countries.
you're forgetting robust anti-trust regulatory agencies which are also a necessity. One that the current administration is dismantling.
Actually that's not at all what Trump's doing.
Biden's FTC chair Lina Khan vastly increased antitrust enforcement to be greater than at any point since the FDR administration, to the point where it was being used for things that had nothing to do with avoiding monopolies.
Yet during the campaign, Trump actually referred to Khan as the only Biden administration official he approved of (which is doubly surprising because she's apparently an unlikeable individual and an extremely ineffective leader/manager). And Trump followed that up by appointing strongly anti-trust FTC commissioners:
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
(11-06-2025 12:58 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:
(11-06-2025 07:19 AM)miko33 Wrote:
(11-05-2025 05:12 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:
(11-05-2025 04:58 PM)miko33 Wrote: And the drum beat continues...
Below is a study conducted by The Vehicle Suppliers Association. I didn't read thru that much of it, but we know the overarching theme - OEM's want to be the only ones to be able to touch your vehicles. They intend to squeeze consumers with planned obsolescence schemes and to foil the consumer's right to repair their own vehicles or engage a 3rd party to do so.
I admit I don't know enough about this issue, but it's clear that car companies have been trying to funnel everyone to go to them and intentionally withholding information needed to allow independents to repair their own vehicles without the OEM getting involved. From what I've seen of it - it's a form of late® stage capitalism in my book.
I originally saw this on Breitbart but went to the source directly to get the study.
Quote:Modern vehicles are more computerized than ever—but fixing them is getting harder. This report explores the high-stakes battle over the right to repair cars, and what it means for drivers, mechanics and the future of mobility.
Quote:Without legislation, repair restrictions seen today have the potential to grow,
resulting in additional costs of $34 bn per year for consumers by 2035
Medieval guilds and 20th century unions worked the same way.
Sounds like early-stage capitalism to me.
Adam Smith gave very detailed, lengthy, and lucid descriptions of the tendency of service providers to attempt to increase their monopoly power. Today, monopolies are much more dominant in non-capitalist countries than in the USA.
Low barriers to entry and right-to-repair laws are important brakes on monopoly power. Importantly for this topic, right-to-repair laws are a 21st century invention in capitalist countries.
Here is how I interpret the early - mid - late stage capitalism arguments. I know the history of commerce is more murkey, but you need a clearly defined starting point to illustrate how the system (IMHO) is degrading. IMHO, the starting point for U.S. concerns should be the early 1900s when the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts broke apart the earlier monopolies like Standard Oil for example. IMHO, this is a good starting point because around this time collective bargaining units were gaining their footing while the largest corporations that were abusing their market power were weakened. This scenario made it next to impossible for communism to sprout roots in the U.S. in the same way it was able to in Europe. Only WW1 really saved Europe from succumbing to the communist scourge, and yes I understand that Russia didn't go communist yet. Marx's critiques were gaining ground in the industrialized part of Europe before Russia tried to do it via revolution.
All of the actions from that point on are how I think capitalist and free markets should be evaluated for the U.S. There were points in time between Adam Smith's book and the early 1900s where capitalism was at risk (in Europe) or had to be rescued (in U.S.A.) with the latter doing it through anti-trust and collective bargaining. As we move forward in our time today, the corporations are gaining too much power against labor. Market caps for a number of companies are too high, and a lot of that is due to taking too much of the market through unfair competition.
Corporations gaining power against labor has nothing to do with monopolies in services. No US corporation is large enough to be able to be able to dictate terms to employees, other than in a few highly specialized fields like the NFL.
In fact, the very monopolies you decry (the firms with ridiculous market caps like Apple, Tesla, Facebook, Amazon, etc) tend to be among the very top firms in employee pay. That goes for the NFL, too (which is oddly able to simultaneously claim that it is both 32 competing companies and 1 company with 32 divisions, depending on the legal claim it is advancing).
Recall I wrote about corporations, labor AND enforcement of anti-trust laws. Labor vs corporations alone has no bearing on monopolies. However, labor getting the shaft from corporations DOES DIRECTLY AFFECT the consumers. The mega cap MNCs may pay a lot to their employees. However, consider that one huge corporation will employee less people to generate X revenue vs 5 smaller corporations generating the same revenue. Also consider that you don't have to be a huge MNC to offshore your operations to China, Mexico or other 3rd world countries. There's been a number of smaller and mid-cap firms who have offshored too. It all adds up.
Below is a list of things that have made a lot of people become skeptical of good old fashioned capitalism. Can all of these be addressed? I think so. However, there are a lot of challenges.
China received MFN trade status in the late 80s/early 90s
NAFTA launched early 90s
Off-shoring of manufacturing to China plus moving production to Mexico took off
Cost of university degrees start to explode - mid 90s and after
Starting around the 2010s, college degrees stopped being guarantees of great jobs...jokes about the highly educated baristas start popping up in pop culture
Persistent illegal immigration has caused wage depression in low skilled jobs American's started to get "priced out" of.
Large corporations started crowding out small local businesses: Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, Chain restaurants, etc.
Refusal to address our power gen and grid issues for the sake of environmentalism: EV's, AI, Data centers are all becoming gigantic energy hogs
Uncertainty in how AI affects the labor force in the present and into the future
Regardless of your personal views and on whether people are ignorant in economics - these types of issues plus a number of others I'm sure that I missed from the list above are making people question big business. We have been at the points before - a few times in recent history - where communism threatened to make huge inroads due to a majority of a people feeling screwed over by the markets and how commerce operates. My fear is that we're marching towards this again. Like in Europe in the early 1900s, you may see similar protests if more and more people feel like the system is no longer working for them despite doing "all of the right things".
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
(11-05-2025 04:58 PM)miko33 Wrote: And the drum beat continues...
Below is a study conducted by The Vehicle Suppliers Association. I didn't read thru that much of it, but we know the overarching theme - OEM's want to be the only ones to be able to touch your vehicles. They intend to squeeze consumers with planned obsolescence schemes and to foil the consumer's right to repair their own vehicles or engage a 3rd party to do so.
I admit I don't know enough about this issue, but it's clear that car companies have been trying to funnel everyone to go to them and intentionally withholding information needed to allow independents to repair their own vehicles without the OEM getting involved. From what I've seen of it - it's a form of late® stage capitalism in my book.
I originally saw this on Breitbart but went to the source directly to get the study.
Quote:Modern vehicles are more computerized than ever—but fixing them is getting harder. This report explores the high-stakes battle over the right to repair cars, and what it means for drivers, mechanics and the future of mobility.
Quote:Without legislation, repair restrictions seen today have the potential to grow,
resulting in additional costs of $34 bn per year for consumers by 2035
Its actually worse than that. Its not that they want to be the only one to fix it---they actually would prefer you DIDNT fix it. Todays vehicles are largely tech heavy junk. Filled with plastic in the engine bay and assembled from components designed to be just good enough to last for the entire warranty period (to maximize profit)---today's vehicles are proving to be far less durable than cars made over 2 decades ago. Between the 1990's until around 2010---we had a golden age of cars. They were reasonably powerful, fairly efficient, and were quite reliable and durable---with most of the better power trains capable of easily lasting 200K-to-500K relatively trouble free miles if properly maintained. Even more importantly, these older cars were repairable at a reasonable price.
Cars like that form the basis for the the three tiered transportation model our society is built upon. Most cities, especially sunbelt cities, pretty much require a citizen to have a car in order to function in those towns. For decades, there have been 3 tiers of car owners. The first tier buys new cars and gets rid of them just before (or relatively soon after) the warranty expires. The second tier owner buys these high quality, relatively new, low miles used cars and drives them generally until they get to around 100-150K miles---and moves on to another newer used car. The third tier buyer is the low income buyer looking for basic cheap transportation for a few thousand dollars that they hope to keep running for a few years---perhaps even doing much of any needed repairs themselves.
Whats happening is todays cars are so full of expensive tech and plastic in the engine bay---much of which is fairly unreliable with limited longevity---that even second tier buyers will find themselves having to pay for big repairs well before the 150K mark. Many of todays vehicles will become economically worthless fairly soon after they exit the warranty period because the repairs needed to keep them running will be too expensive for most second tier owners to pay for. Third tier buyers are completely out of luck---as what will be left after the second tier buyer extracts what value they can from todays vehicles---is more likely to be a massive money pit than reliable transportation. The repairs these newer vehicles will require well before reaching 200K miles will be too expensive and will likely be impossible for the "do-it-yourself" guy to handle on his own without expensive diagnostic tools and access to expensive dealer data bases for programming parts (yes, simply swapping a bad sensor with a new OEM sensor in many cars wont work unless you have the tools to configure the module/sensor to work with your car).
I think what we may see is the Cubanization of much of the third tier of the American driving fleet. Those older cars remaining from the 1990-2010 period (especially in the south where rust is not an issue) may become more valuable and will be a very desirable part of the fleet that the current "third tier" buyer will be using as basic transportation for decades into the future because they are more durable, more reliable, and more economically repairable by your average guy than most vehicles made during the last 15 years. The second issue I see happening is todays cars are so expensive, they require 7---even 8 year---car loans. Some of the junk being made today will barely make 4 years without needing expensive repairs---much less 8. I suspect thats part of whats behind the current rising wave of car loan delinquencies. The old adage in the car industry is most folks can make a car payment or pay for car repairs---but not many can do both.
One more gripe on new autos---many manufacturers are trying to add the subscription model to boost profits on their already over priced junk. For instance, some require a paid subscription for your remote door locks to work---or you seat heaters. You bought a car with remoter locks and seat heaters---but they wont work without a subscription to "power locks and seat heaters". You own all the components---the door locks, the radio control key fob, the seat heaters---none of that equipment actually needs outside help to operate. Its just the manufactuerer adds a way to KEEP IT from operating. That ought to be outlawed. If the car has seat heaters and power locks---then you own them and they should not be up to the whim of a manufacturer to allow you to use the devices you purchased. Its not like a navigation system or auto theft tracking device where the manufacturer needs to maintain a link to your car. Something like a power lock "subscription" is just an unnecessary money grab.
(This post was last modified: 11-06-2025 05:16 PM by Attackcoog.)
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
(11-06-2025 02:46 PM)miko33 Wrote:
(11-06-2025 12:58 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:
(11-06-2025 07:19 AM)miko33 Wrote:
(11-05-2025 05:12 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:
(11-05-2025 04:58 PM)miko33 Wrote: And the drum beat continues...
Below is a study conducted by The Vehicle Suppliers Association. I didn't read thru that much of it, but we know the overarching theme - OEM's want to be the only ones to be able to touch your vehicles. They intend to squeeze consumers with planned obsolescence schemes and to foil the consumer's right to repair their own vehicles or engage a 3rd party to do so.
I admit I don't know enough about this issue, but it's clear that car companies have been trying to funnel everyone to go to them and intentionally withholding information needed to allow independents to repair their own vehicles without the OEM getting involved. From what I've seen of it - it's a form of late® stage capitalism in my book.
I originally saw this on Breitbart but went to the source directly to get the study.
Medieval guilds and 20th century unions worked the same way.
Sounds like early-stage capitalism to me.
Adam Smith gave very detailed, lengthy, and lucid descriptions of the tendency of service providers to attempt to increase their monopoly power. Today, monopolies are much more dominant in non-capitalist countries than in the USA.
Low barriers to entry and right-to-repair laws are important brakes on monopoly power. Importantly for this topic, right-to-repair laws are a 21st century invention in capitalist countries.
Here is how I interpret the early - mid - late stage capitalism arguments. I know the history of commerce is more murkey, but you need a clearly defined starting point to illustrate how the system (IMHO) is degrading. IMHO, the starting point for U.S. concerns should be the early 1900s when the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts broke apart the earlier monopolies like Standard Oil for example. IMHO, this is a good starting point because around this time collective bargaining units were gaining their footing while the largest corporations that were abusing their market power were weakened. This scenario made it next to impossible for communism to sprout roots in the U.S. in the same way it was able to in Europe. Only WW1 really saved Europe from succumbing to the communist scourge, and yes I understand that Russia didn't go communist yet. Marx's critiques were gaining ground in the industrialized part of Europe before Russia tried to do it via revolution.
All of the actions from that point on are how I think capitalist and free markets should be evaluated for the U.S. There were points in time between Adam Smith's book and the early 1900s where capitalism was at risk (in Europe) or had to be rescued (in U.S.A.) with the latter doing it through anti-trust and collective bargaining. As we move forward in our time today, the corporations are gaining too much power against labor. Market caps for a number of companies are too high, and a lot of that is due to taking too much of the market through unfair competition.
Corporations gaining power against labor has nothing to do with monopolies in services. No US corporation is large enough to be able to be able to dictate terms to employees, other than in a few highly specialized fields like the NFL.
In fact, the very monopolies you decry (the firms with ridiculous market caps like Apple, Tesla, Facebook, Amazon, etc) tend to be among the very top firms in employee pay. That goes for the NFL, too (which is oddly able to simultaneously claim that it is both 32 competing companies and 1 company with 32 divisions, depending on the legal claim it is advancing).
Recall I wrote about corporations, labor AND enforcement of anti-trust laws. Labor vs corporations alone has no bearing on monopolies. However, labor getting the shaft from corporations DOES DIRECTLY AFFECT the consumers. The mega cap MNCs may pay a lot to their employees. However, consider that one huge corporation will employee less people to generate X revenue vs 5 smaller corporations generating the same revenue. Also consider that you don't have to be a huge MNC to offshore your operations to China, Mexico or other 3rd world countries. There's been a number of smaller and mid-cap firms who have offshored too. It all adds up.
Below is a list of things that have made a lot of people become skeptical of good old fashioned capitalism. Can all of these be addressed? I think so. However, there are a lot of challenges.
China received MFN trade status in the late 80s/early 90s
NAFTA launched early 90s
Off-shoring of manufacturing to China plus moving production to Mexico took off
Cost of university degrees start to explode - mid 90s and after
Starting around the 2010s, college degrees stopped being guarantees of great jobs...jokes about the highly educated baristas start popping up in pop culture
Persistent illegal immigration has caused wage depression in low skilled jobs American's started to get "priced out" of.
Large corporations started crowding out small local businesses: Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, Chain restaurants, etc.
Refusal to address our power gen and grid issues for the sake of environmentalism: EV's, AI, Data centers are all becoming gigantic energy hogs
Uncertainty in how AI affects the labor force in the present and into the future
Regardless of your personal views and on whether people are ignorant in economics - these types of issues plus a number of others I'm sure that I missed from the list above are making people question big business. We have been at the points before - a few times in recent history - where communism threatened to make huge inroads due to a majority of a people feeling screwed over by the markets and how commerce operates. My fear is that we're marching towards this again. Like in Europe in the early 1900s, you may see similar protests if more and more people feel like the system is no longer working for them despite doing "all of the right things".
I agree that many of those things are problems.
I'm just trying to see what the common thread is among those problems.
The common thread appears to be (correct me if I'm wrong) an outcome (that middle class Americans are getting shafted).
But there is no common thread among the causes of those problems. For some the problem is sellers and for others the problem is customers; for some the problem is too much government and for others it's not enough government; for some the problem is entrenched monopolies and for others the problem is too much innovation; for some it's the elites and for others it's the lower class.
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
(11-06-2025 04:39 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:
(11-06-2025 02:46 PM)miko33 Wrote:
(11-06-2025 12:58 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:
(11-06-2025 07:19 AM)miko33 Wrote:
(11-05-2025 05:12 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: Medieval guilds and 20th century unions worked the same way.
Sounds like early-stage capitalism to me.
Adam Smith gave very detailed, lengthy, and lucid descriptions of the tendency of service providers to attempt to increase their monopoly power. Today, monopolies are much more dominant in non-capitalist countries than in the USA.
Low barriers to entry and right-to-repair laws are important brakes on monopoly power. Importantly for this topic, right-to-repair laws are a 21st century invention in capitalist countries.
Here is how I interpret the early - mid - late stage capitalism arguments. I know the history of commerce is more murkey, but you need a clearly defined starting point to illustrate how the system (IMHO) is degrading. IMHO, the starting point for U.S. concerns should be the early 1900s when the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts broke apart the earlier monopolies like Standard Oil for example. IMHO, this is a good starting point because around this time collective bargaining units were gaining their footing while the largest corporations that were abusing their market power were weakened. This scenario made it next to impossible for communism to sprout roots in the U.S. in the same way it was able to in Europe. Only WW1 really saved Europe from succumbing to the communist scourge, and yes I understand that Russia didn't go communist yet. Marx's critiques were gaining ground in the industrialized part of Europe before Russia tried to do it via revolution.
All of the actions from that point on are how I think capitalist and free markets should be evaluated for the U.S. There were points in time between Adam Smith's book and the early 1900s where capitalism was at risk (in Europe) or had to be rescued (in U.S.A.) with the latter doing it through anti-trust and collective bargaining. As we move forward in our time today, the corporations are gaining too much power against labor. Market caps for a number of companies are too high, and a lot of that is due to taking too much of the market through unfair competition.
Corporations gaining power against labor has nothing to do with monopolies in services. No US corporation is large enough to be able to be able to dictate terms to employees, other than in a few highly specialized fields like the NFL.
In fact, the very monopolies you decry (the firms with ridiculous market caps like Apple, Tesla, Facebook, Amazon, etc) tend to be among the very top firms in employee pay. That goes for the NFL, too (which is oddly able to simultaneously claim that it is both 32 competing companies and 1 company with 32 divisions, depending on the legal claim it is advancing).
Recall I wrote about corporations, labor AND enforcement of anti-trust laws. Labor vs corporations alone has no bearing on monopolies. However, labor getting the shaft from corporations DOES DIRECTLY AFFECT the consumers. The mega cap MNCs may pay a lot to their employees. However, consider that one huge corporation will employee less people to generate X revenue vs 5 smaller corporations generating the same revenue. Also consider that you don't have to be a huge MNC to offshore your operations to China, Mexico or other 3rd world countries. There's been a number of smaller and mid-cap firms who have offshored too. It all adds up.
Below is a list of things that have made a lot of people become skeptical of good old fashioned capitalism. Can all of these be addressed? I think so. However, there are a lot of challenges.
China received MFN trade status in the late 80s/early 90s
NAFTA launched early 90s
Off-shoring of manufacturing to China plus moving production to Mexico took off
Cost of university degrees start to explode - mid 90s and after
Starting around the 2010s, college degrees stopped being guarantees of great jobs...jokes about the highly educated baristas start popping up in pop culture
Persistent illegal immigration has caused wage depression in low skilled jobs American's started to get "priced out" of.
Large corporations started crowding out small local businesses: Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, Chain restaurants, etc.
Refusal to address our power gen and grid issues for the sake of environmentalism: EV's, AI, Data centers are all becoming gigantic energy hogs
Uncertainty in how AI affects the labor force in the present and into the future
Regardless of your personal views and on whether people are ignorant in economics - these types of issues plus a number of others I'm sure that I missed from the list above are making people question big business. We have been at the points before - a few times in recent history - where communism threatened to make huge inroads due to a majority of a people feeling screwed over by the markets and how commerce operates. My fear is that we're marching towards this again. Like in Europe in the early 1900s, you may see similar protests if more and more people feel like the system is no longer working for them despite doing "all of the right things".
I agree that many of those things are problems.
I'm just trying to see what the common thread is among those problems.
The common thread appears to be (correct me if I'm wrong) an outcome (that middle class Americans are getting shafted).
But there is no common thread among the causes of those problems. For some the problem is sellers and for others the problem is customers; for some the problem is too much government and for others it's not enough government; for some the problem is entrenched monopolies and for others the problem is too much innovation; for some it's the elites and for others it's the lower class.
There is no common thread among those issues except for one thing: the perception that America is being/has been betrayed by a cabal of politicians and corporations whose primary goal is to "harvest" American treasure - similar to the analogy of the CCP harvesting the Chinese people like leeks. The question in people's minds is - how true is this claim that I made above? Is it a true cabal or more of a senior/junior partnership where the MNCs pay the band while the politicians dance? Or is much (all?) of it coincidental and that our MNCs and our politicians want to see the people of the U.S.A. prosper? Maybe our politicians were trying to thread the needle, i.e. make decisions to benefit us AND try to make money off their decisions at the same time.
Here is the general issue with it all - it doesn't matter who is right or wrong wrt to the interpretation of the current state of affairs. All that matters is how well our current system is working for the citizens of our country. IF a majority of us review the list above and add their own observations and come to the conclusion that the current situation isn't working...then it will all fall apart.
(This post was last modified: 11-06-2025 10:27 PM by miko33.)
RE: Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
(11-06-2025 10:24 PM)miko33 Wrote:
(11-06-2025 04:39 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:
(11-06-2025 02:46 PM)miko33 Wrote:
(11-06-2025 12:58 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:
(11-06-2025 07:19 AM)miko33 Wrote: Here is how I interpret the early - mid - late stage capitalism arguments. I know the history of commerce is more murkey, but you need a clearly defined starting point to illustrate how the system (IMHO) is degrading. IMHO, the starting point for U.S. concerns should be the early 1900s when the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts broke apart the earlier monopolies like Standard Oil for example. IMHO, this is a good starting point because around this time collective bargaining units were gaining their footing while the largest corporations that were abusing their market power were weakened. This scenario made it next to impossible for communism to sprout roots in the U.S. in the same way it was able to in Europe. Only WW1 really saved Europe from succumbing to the communist scourge, and yes I understand that Russia didn't go communist yet. Marx's critiques were gaining ground in the industrialized part of Europe before Russia tried to do it via revolution.
All of the actions from that point on are how I think capitalist and free markets should be evaluated for the U.S. There were points in time between Adam Smith's book and the early 1900s where capitalism was at risk (in Europe) or had to be rescued (in U.S.A.) with the latter doing it through anti-trust and collective bargaining. As we move forward in our time today, the corporations are gaining too much power against labor. Market caps for a number of companies are too high, and a lot of that is due to taking too much of the market through unfair competition.
Corporations gaining power against labor has nothing to do with monopolies in services. No US corporation is large enough to be able to be able to dictate terms to employees, other than in a few highly specialized fields like the NFL.
In fact, the very monopolies you decry (the firms with ridiculous market caps like Apple, Tesla, Facebook, Amazon, etc) tend to be among the very top firms in employee pay. That goes for the NFL, too (which is oddly able to simultaneously claim that it is both 32 competing companies and 1 company with 32 divisions, depending on the legal claim it is advancing).
Recall I wrote about corporations, labor AND enforcement of anti-trust laws. Labor vs corporations alone has no bearing on monopolies. However, labor getting the shaft from corporations DOES DIRECTLY AFFECT the consumers. The mega cap MNCs may pay a lot to their employees. However, consider that one huge corporation will employee less people to generate X revenue vs 5 smaller corporations generating the same revenue. Also consider that you don't have to be a huge MNC to offshore your operations to China, Mexico or other 3rd world countries. There's been a number of smaller and mid-cap firms who have offshored too. It all adds up.
Below is a list of things that have made a lot of people become skeptical of good old fashioned capitalism. Can all of these be addressed? I think so. However, there are a lot of challenges.
China received MFN trade status in the late 80s/early 90s
NAFTA launched early 90s
Off-shoring of manufacturing to China plus moving production to Mexico took off
Cost of university degrees start to explode - mid 90s and after
Starting around the 2010s, college degrees stopped being guarantees of great jobs...jokes about the highly educated baristas start popping up in pop culture
Persistent illegal immigration has caused wage depression in low skilled jobs American's started to get "priced out" of.
Large corporations started crowding out small local businesses: Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, Chain restaurants, etc.
Refusal to address our power gen and grid issues for the sake of environmentalism: EV's, AI, Data centers are all becoming gigantic energy hogs
Uncertainty in how AI affects the labor force in the present and into the future
Regardless of your personal views and on whether people are ignorant in economics - these types of issues plus a number of others I'm sure that I missed from the list above are making people question big business. We have been at the points before - a few times in recent history - where communism threatened to make huge inroads due to a majority of a people feeling screwed over by the markets and how commerce operates. My fear is that we're marching towards this again. Like in Europe in the early 1900s, you may see similar protests if more and more people feel like the system is no longer working for them despite doing "all of the right things".
I agree that many of those things are problems.
I'm just trying to see what the common thread is among those problems.
The common thread appears to be (correct me if I'm wrong) an outcome (that middle class Americans are getting shafted).
But there is no common thread among the causes of those problems. For some the problem is sellers and for others the problem is customers; for some the problem is too much government and for others it's not enough government; for some the problem is entrenched monopolies and for others the problem is too much innovation; for some it's the elites and for others it's the lower class.
There is no common thread among those issues except for one thing: the perception that America is being/has been betrayed by a cabal of politicians and corporations whose primary goal is to "harvest" American treasure - similar to the analogy of the CCP harvesting the Chinese people like leeks. The question in people's minds is - how true is this claim that I made above? Is it a true cabal or more of a senior/junior partnership where the MNCs pay the band while the politicians dance? Or is much (all?) of it coincidental and that our MNCs and our politicians want to see the people of the U.S.A. prosper? Maybe our politicians were trying to thread the needle, i.e. make decisions to benefit us AND try to make money off their decisions at the same time.
Here is the general issue with it all - it doesn't matter who is right or wrong wrt to the interpretation of the current state of affairs. All that matters is how well our current system is working for the citizens of our country. IF a majority of us review the list above and add their own observations and come to the conclusion that the current situation isn't working...then it will all fall apart.
If there is a common thread---it may be closer to what JR talks about a lot. While the government is theoretically under democratic control of the people via the vote, there does often seem to be at least some level of corporate totalitarianism---and a far too cozy relationship between the government and corporations----a relationship that seems to often have both entities cooperating to do things that are NOT in the best interests of the people---but are in the best interests of the corporations and the politicians. I think the best way to end that would be with term limits for the House and Senate. Three term limit for the House, and a one term limit for the Senate. Congress needs to go back to being a place where you serve for a short time with the expectation of spending the vast majority of their lives living under the EXACT same laws they pass (just like an everyday citizen). No more special retirement funds for Congressmen. No more insider investing for Congressmen. They should be limited to investing in a blind trust that places their money in a reasonable limited mix of bond and 3 basic ETF funds of SPY, QQQ, and DIA during their terms. If its good enough for the typical limited options found in the typical 401K plan, then its good enough for a Congressman.
(This post was last modified: 11-07-2025 01:07 PM by Attackcoog.)
/
Late Stage Capitalism - Heard of this before and thoughts?
