Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here is a fun little subversive article about Banks and the Investment Firms that own them....

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2016/01/banks_charge_high_fees_because_there_is_no_real_competition.html

Here are the two money quotes:

Imagine, for example, that your neighborhood is served by six banks—JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bancorp, and PNC Bank. You might think that these banks—which happen to be six of the the largest U.S. banks—would compete vigorously for your deposits. However, it turns out that the biggest shareholders of these banks are, roughly, the same companies: BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity, Wellington, and Berkshire Hathaway. These institutional investors earn profits by owning shares in other companies and managing shares owned by their clients.

While six banks would—if owned by different groups of people—compete vigorously with one another so as not to lose market share, the story changes when the six banks are owned by the same groups of people. The institutional investors all gain if the banks don’t compete—that is, if the banks act as if they were a single monopolist and charge prices higher than the competitive price.

The Azar/Schmalz view is deeply subversive. It suggests instead that the growth of institutional investing has been driven, at least in party, by monopolization. This is actually not a new idea. In the 19th century, industrialists used trusts to control different companies in an industry. Oil companies would not compete against one another because they were all owned by a common entity—a trust—which directed them to overcharge customers. The appearance of competition was maintained while a shadowy trust pulled the strings. Our antitrust law has that name because monopolization originally took place through such trusts. (Europeans use the term “competition law.”) Mutual funds and institutional investors may be the modern-day version of the trust system.

For those who like to get int eh weeds, here are the two relevant papers the article is based on:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2710252
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2427345

Let's discuss!

You'll find similar among Electric Companies, the Healthcare Industry, the Food Industry, and Television networks. I'd argue the Oil industry has always been this way (at least in the West) and never really stopped.

I for one welcome our new Institutional Investor Conglomerate Overlords

Many hotels are like this as well. A lot of the casinos in Vegas are owned by a small handful of entities iirc.

The great irony of capitalism and "the free market". Without government oversight the Free Market quickly becomes less free.

So, can Anti-trust laws of today actually deal with this type of situation or is something new needed?

 Easy E wrote:
So, can Anti-trust laws of today actually deal with this type of situation or is something new needed?

You'd actually have to enforce them, but as you might have noticed most recently with the FCC, regulatory agencies tend to be staffed with people out of corporate offices, which means they see things through the corporate lens. The best example is the FDA, which downgrades it's own regulations year after year for the convenience of companies that find regulations a hassle. It's not really a 'legal' problem at the moment. It's a regulatory problem.

EDIT: There is a certain irony in this post OT right now, namely that the Commissions established by the Taylor Grazing Act that regulates the management of public lands for grazing was at one point in time staffed almost exclusively by ranchers. Then someone realizes that putting the people you're supposed to regulate in charge of the regulation commissions was a stupid idea in the late 70s so we stopped giving ranchers the seats. 30 years later, Cliven Bundy and friends are whining and moaning they have to follow the law and can't give themselves free passes

Anyway, lesson is, stop giving regulator jobs to the people we're supposed to be regulating Cause it's not working

I thought you were talking about this totally real and not forced by her parents letter:

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/wheresrey-star-wars-monopoly-snubs-main-character-article-1.2485392

Look at the recent cannabis legalization law in OH, or the MMJ law in NY. Both clear State sponsored attempts at a monopoly of a fething plant. Banks haven't been truly fair for years, if ever really, and the amount of money involved with them is so staggering it's truly not comprehensible by people.

Is anyone really surprised by things like this when interest rates on loans vs deposits is the highest its ever been? Best I can get on a 3 year CD is like 1.5%, but is that what banks charge for a loan? At least one candidate in the Presidential election has been talking about this for years. Hint its not HRC.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
A lot of the casinos in Vegas are owned by a small handful of entities iirc.

The great irony of capitalism and "the free market". Without government oversight the Free Market quickly becomes less free.

Yep, I think all of the "major" casinos in Vegas are owned by two different groups. Of course it didn't used to be that way... Well, unless you count "the Mob" as a singular entitiy

There was an article some time back, I think it was in Esquire, where they interviewed the "President" of Caesar's Palace. As of that article, Caesar's had been viewed as kind of an aging giant. It's best years behind it, while most of the other hotels like the Venetian, Luxor, etc. were all in their "Prime" and attracting better acts and people. One of the big things that stood out to me was how the president of CP was saying that they were working with "the board" of their corporate hotel system to renovate and do other big things to attract that glitz and glam of the past back to Caesar's. Basically, as the president of the hotel, he was basically a board member with the other hotels in his group, and only in charge of his one little "tiny" sector.



And yeah, I completely agree with you on the "free market".... It tends to gravitate toward inequality and ultimate collapse. But with proper management, which republicans and libertarians are dead set against, it is a system that can remain innovative, functional and supportive at basically all income levels.