If the political system over there ever became really functional, his empire would be broken apart and much of his wealth would contract.
Like Bill Gates and Microsoft, who were actually convicted as monopolists?
After working in aid in Africa, I have to say I agree more with the Mexican monopolist than the American one.
I think it's clear which philosophy has the better outcome for people in general.
What is this, fallacy friday?
I think when people debate things like Charity, they take leave of logic.
Slim is making an economic point. Part of the reason there is no end of poverty in this US is due to the "War on Poverty" which destroyed the charity system (via government takeover of welfare programs) and has inhibited job creation (via government regulation, taxation and inflation.)
We were well on our way to ending poverty in this country before the New Deal was done to us.
Using taxes for laying a foundation that provides greater opportunity for society in general is very similar to doing it with charity. Not doing it is very similar to saying, "leave it to the private sector"
I disagree with the depiction of taxation is a mugging, even libertarians want government when push comes to shove. Afghanistan is what it's like with no real government, and no one is for that. Even libertarians want the government to put a gun to your head to enforce contract law!
Taxation is literally a mugging. And you are in error to assume that governments cannot exist without mugging. Businesses provide services and charge for them. A government could do this as well.
don't speak for libertarians if you aren't one. If you are one, you've failed to apply the zero aggression principle.
You also seem to fail to distinguish between using violence defensively against an agressor, which is moral, and using violence offensively to steal from someone (eg: taxation) which is immoral.
In more extreme cases, look at John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Rockefeller used to be the wealthiest person in the world (according to some, if you inflation adjust his money, he may have been the wealthiest person in the last 200 years). His company was broken into parts in order to promote competition. Same goes for the Bell Telecom companies in America, they were also all broken up. We have checks in place to curb the anti-competitive forces of certain companies.
John D. Rockefeller actually ended up being a lot richer because the courts broke up Standard Oil[1]. He went from having a controlling stake in the most powerful company in oil, to having a controlling stake in most of the powerful companies in the whole oil industry (ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell). I just wanted to clarify that point because the order in which your statement was crafted kind of made it seem like the courts broke up his wealth when they actually expanded it.
1.Rockefeller, who had rarely sold shares, held over 25% of Standard’s stock at the time of the breakup. He, as well as all stockholders, received proportionate shares in each of the 34 companies...The companies’ combined net worth rose fivefold and Rockefeller’s personal wealth jumped to $900,000,000.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller
Standard Oil was never a monopoly, and never had monopoly pricing power. Standard oil was only ever able to get large because they quickly and constantly drove down the price of gasoline.
There is this tendency for americans to call businesses that are not monopolies under the definition to be monopolies to justify using violence against them (it is violence when a company is forcibly broken up or forced to not engage in "anti-competitive" (by which they really mean "competitive") activities.)
The reality is, none of these businesses were monopolies, and as much as I hate microsoft, they weren't a monopoly. Existing laws would have been sufficient for enforcement against microsoft for their crimes, which included fraud and misrepresentation. But the "anti-trust" laws are all about preserving government power and are used only against businesses that become big enough to wield influence and thus attract opponents in government... usually opponents in government in the pocket of competing businesses.
The US would be a better country and have a more robust economy, if Standard Oil had never been broken up. This and the "anti-trust" movement is a triumph of socialism over capitalism.
I can't comment on DeBeers because I do not know enough of the history of the situation. I will say, though, that diamonds are essentially worthless, and it is primarily by brilliant propaganda / advertising that people continue to buy them.
Standard Oil was able to use anti-competitive forces against competitors. They specifically were able to extract better rates for the transportation of oil with the railroad companies which helped give them a more competitive cost structure than peers. Because of the high cost of capital required at the time, many peers were driven out of business and were forced to sell to Rockefeller.
In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
It is kinda like hacker news where a useful comment like mine is voted down to zero, while someone calling me names and repeating ignorant comments that are consistent with the groupthink of the left, get modded up.
It is not that their name calling and ideological regurgitation are superior to my argument... it is that people vote based on ideology, often when they are profoundly ignorant of the reality.
I suggest that you not use Wikipedia as a source for definitions, as that one is particularly heinous. In common usage one could use the term "monopoly" to describe entities with strong pricing power, but common usage is not usage in economics, yet the wikipedia definition starts "in economics".
Any "Economist" who defines a monopoly as a company that does not have ownership of the entire market, is an ideologue pretending to be an economist.
In economics, they use this term correctly.
So, I would disagree with your definitions, and your assertion that "in economics, they use this term correctly".
I would also suggest that your assertions seem somewhat ideological. Many people agree that trusts are bad for capitalism in that they restrict competition, and are not evidence of socialism.
Of course, you've never opened an economic texbook in your life.
I also love how you claim that my references to history are ideological assertions, then you make a broad and profoundly ignorant ideological assertion as a counter argument, except that, of course, you don't make an actual argument, you just say "many people believe".
Many people believe there is a good, that's not proof that its true.
You are a fucking ignorant socialist, and it is consequently no wonder that you are so dishonest as well.
It is fucktards like you that make hacker news (and any "social" news site) not worth participating on,..... because there are just too many ignorant, low intelligence people downvoting those who bothered to learn something and who bother to think.
Just in case there's any question of our relative positions here.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=...
I'm sorry that you got downvoted. Take it easy.
If anyone is curious about John Rockefeller, I'd very strongly recommend "Titan" by Ron Chernow, which is a very detailed and fair biography of Rockefeller. It's one of the more important biographies I've read for my own development as a person.
After reading it, I'm thoroughly convinced that the oil industry would've been much smaller and much more expensive without Rockefeller's work, and he was a genius about chemistry, engineering, distribution, and all sorts of things. Rockefeller is probably in the 10 Americans of wealth created of all time - oil prices fell a huge amount due to Rockefeller's leadership, ability to find talent. He paid people well and treated them well. Did a lot of philanthropy, and raised his kids really modestly too. They lived in a three bedroom home with his wife and six kids for a long time, treated people really well. His kids didn't know they were one of the wealthiest families in America until they were teenagers.
Really an amazing guy. I'd recommend that biography to anyone. I think most people, even people who strongly believe in social causes and regulation, will admire the guy a lot after reading his biography. He did a massively lot of good for the world.
The short story is this: All those robber barrons did far more good for society than the government that broke them up. The propaganda about how they were doing so much harm and needed to be broken up for the good of society is the basic propaganda of socialism. But of course, since it is taught as history, people believe it.
As for aid in Africa, that's a specific charity you worked with in Africa. There are people who do good work there. Dismissing aid because people are bad at it is like dismissing software development because people are bad at it. One way or another it's necessary.
There is also the logical fallacy known as "Appeal to Authority" in @maxawaytoolong's comment.
But we should not be logic nazis I suppose.
My own opinion is that both Slim and Gates can be right at the same time. Lots of businesses provide for lots of people...but not all.
Well, not really. She said we needed to mind our own business and let Africa take care of itself.
Then a Bono video from his opulent mansion came on with some sort of campaign to end world poverty or something.
She has a point that truly letting Africa "take care of itself" may be more effective than any aid. But that statement is not primarily about aid, and withdrawing aid doesn't help with the subjacent problems.
Slim's story includes several investments on different industries, including specialty shops (Sanborn's) which he has managed to completely turn around from near-bankrupcy to huge commercial success.
I am not making a claim that his wealth from Telmex didn't contribute to his success, but implying he just managed to get where he is because Mexico's regulatory bodies are useless is a huge understatement to his ability in an industry where several key players (Like AT&T, Nextel, Telefonica Movistar, and others have failed).
Telmex charges exorbitant fees for any call that needs to connect to one of their customers. Given that they own 90% of the market, it's impossible to run a telephone company without letting your customers call Telmex customers. If you have to pay Telmex's fees, there's no way your prices to customers will be competitive.
Ignoring for a moment the anti-competitive claims against Microsoft, consider that that fortune already hinges on the special privilege of intellectual property law, which is backed in full force by the US justice system. Not all countries have this protection. Microsoft does not do anywhere near as well in countries without it. Does this protection ultimately help US citizens.....that point is up for debate, but it exists, and businesses exist to capitalize on it. Is it something that should be expected? For now, yes, but two hundred years from now, my guess is that intellectual property rights will have eroded, and we will view Gates's fortune as a fortune built using special privilege, just like oil fortunes were built before regulations against monopolies, and just like many shipping fortunes were built before that with special privilege from princes.
Special fortunes typically need something special in the first place. Carlos Slim is not that much different from Bill Gates. Bill Gates spent a little bit of time as a heroic startup guy, but he spent the majority of his career doing much the same stuff that Carlos Slim does. If copyright law changed, as many MP3 sharers wish it would, his fortune would deflate as much as Slim's.
"The only way to fight poverty is with employment"
"Trillions of dollars have been given to charity in the last 50 years, and they don’t solve anything"
"There is a saying that we should leave a better country to our children. But it’s more important to leave better children to our country"
That's what he said. It may be really wrong, stupid, or right. What matters is "is he right?".
Take Russia or Bolivia as examples of what can go wrong. In each case, they quickly freed up their economy and tried to privatize everything. The problem was, they had no real legal system in place to properly check that activity. Key national industries went into the hands of just a few wealthy people (see Russia's Oligarch's). In Bolivia, after shock treatment, there was a rise in unemployment, a fall in industrial output, and a fall in per capita GDP.
At my university (50k students) I started the first micro-credit organization and we've made over 100 loans to entrepreneurs in developing nations -- so I am not against capitalism or anything like that.
But I've studied economic development enough to know that you have to take a multi-pronged approach to promoting development. It's not just about going full-free market or full donations/state involvement. It's requires a mix.
Most people assume that just because he became so rich in a developing country he must have done it thru corruption. Carlos Slim is an engineer, he teached algebra and linear programming at the national university. Before buying telmex he was already very successfull in many areas( real state, industrial, financial, comercial and mining). Many people say that he was so rich because president Salinas helped him, but Salinas left 16 years ago and his businesses have flourshed in many areas and in many countries. Why can`t Mexico have somebody as talented as Warren Buffet?
They don't believe they are prejudiced, they don't know they are prejudiced, but they believe what they are taught to believe. And they believe that mexican is full of corrupt people with little motivation. this isn't racism... it is the image of mexico we are sold by politicians ("all drugs come from mexico" "mexican immigrants just want to use our welfare programs") and the media.
I'm not sure if they view all spanish speaking countries as corrupt and full of people who need to be "Saved" by american imperialist "enlightened socialism" or if mexico is a special case.
They talk fondly of Venezuela, because Venezuela has a strong leader who is a clear leftist and has done photo ops with Oliver Stone and other prominant leftists. (nevermind that he appears to be the most corrupt leader in the western hemisphere.)
Americans' world perceptions are shaped by media. And media doesn't allow for the possibility that people everywhere are essentially the same, with cultural differences. So, americans think that the Nazis had to come to power in Germany because germans are genetically fascist people, for instance.
I say this, not as an outsider criticizing americans. But as an american who has studied how the nazis came to power, and how ideology is used to shape americans perceptions of other people, as an academic subject.