Institute for Local Self-Reliance

Your comment is spot on. You're correct that traditional economics has focused on growth and consumption, and that this puts economic prosperity in direct conflict with sustainability and the health of the economy. I tend to think that the answer isn't so much about specific laws (though the laws do need to change) as it is about holistic system change that stops focusing on working as much as possible and starts focusing on ways to optimize for human well being. This was supposed to be the goal of optimizing for growth, but we're seeing the limits to that thinking. In response, new branches of economics have started that attempt to capture the frustrations many people have with the old ways, and find more holistic, sustainable solutions to economic issues. One movement I have been following lately is just called "New Economics", and that search term will lead to a load of resources covering the issues being discussed by the New Economics Movement. I've been tuned in to videos by the New Economics Coalition[1] now, who recently hosted a conference called commonbound. A central theme of New Economics is the idea that we should hold more value in commons, at a local level. Doing so leads to business decisions that are more likely to consider the people they impact. This doesn't work for everything (massive industry like aircraft production, etc), but it can improve life in a lot of areas. It is also stressed that people who work more use more resources (fast food vs…

https://ilsr.org/ https://www.fulu.org/ https://www.usworker.coop/directory/ https://atproto.com/

It’s not a real number. > At least 49.7 million Americans only have access to broadband from one of the seven largest cable and telephone companies. In total, at least 83.3 million Americans can only access broadband through a single provider. > Over the past two years, federal stats suggest that Charter and Comcast have an absolute monopoly over fewer households, but we think this is mostly a mirage resulting from how the FCC reports data. A significant number of the census blocks showing new competition are likely only partially served. https://ilsr.org/report-most-americans-have-no-real-choice-in-internet… That’s more accurate but much of the “good data” comes from the providers themselves. Don’t know why you’ve got such a pro-Comcast / Charter bent, but I assure you they aren’t worth defending.

First, who said anything about profit? That isn't even part of the definition of monopoly. The killer feature none of those you've listed has been able to achieve is the shipping logistics. This enables their vast selection to be more than just window dressing; contrast this with say Best Buy if the part or item isn't at a local store. Meanwhile, there have been quite a few previously thriving retailers whom are now either on life support or gone. Anecdotally, I watched several major chains die at the hands of the one upon a time up- and-coming Amazon.com. The number of book stores alone that were killed off is tragic. https://www.moneytalksnews.com/9-major-companies-face-threat-from-amaz… https://ilsr.org/fact-sheet-how-breaking-up-amazon-can-empower-small-b…

I think you meant that as sarcasm, but... Fry's Electronics closed completely, while Best Buy keeps closing stores and laying people off at an accelerated rate[0]. Local grocery stores are almost extinct, as Walmart[1], Amazon, Kroger, and Albertson's crowd out or buy out everyone else. It's a serious problem, your sarcasm notwithstanding. 0. https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/business/best-buy-store-closures-worker… 1. https://ilsr.org/walmarts-monopolization-of-local-grocery-markets/

Banks are probably the worst example you could have given. There were ~12,500 banks in the US as recently as 1990 (when the population was much smaller than it is today!) Since the regulations that were passed following the great financial crisis, almost zero new banks have been founded. https://ilsr.org/number-of-new-banks-created-by-year-1993-to-2013/

Dodd-Frank & other banking regulation are self-serving for large banks because it shuts out smaller competitors and new entrants [1]. Administration & compliance becomes more expensive for everyone, but bigger companies are able to absorb the cost. The impact this has had on small banks & credit unions has been catastrophic [2]. New regulation will only serve to concentrate banking power & wealth in the hands of increasingly few players. [1] https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/surprise-big-banks-love-regulat… [2] https://ilsr.org/vanishing-community-banks-national-crisis/

Here's one: https://ilsr.org/walmart-charged-predatory-pricing/ Admittedly, I'm only taking 30 seconds to search for these things, so the quality might not be 100% accurate. I've held these opinions of wal-mart for over 20 years now, and it's difficult finding old corroborating links via the google bubble. They did exist, but 30 points of karma lost is not worth going through six pages of google search results to find that perfect article to satiate the person from Arkansas.

What is your goal here? Do you understand what malfist wrote by "near monopoly power", and agree that it's a correct description of California's anti-trust lawsuit? If not, what do you not understand? As to your new set of questions, do you mean my personal beliefs, or do you mean the process by which the courts determine if an organization is abusing monopoly power, or to you mean an actual court decision? I'll answer all three. Personally, yes, these companies abuse their near monopoly power. The failure to enforce the Robinson–Patman Act, the de-fanging of the FTC and consumer protection agencies, and the post-Borkian re-casting of antitrust law to "consumer welfare", has, IMHO, devastated the American free market resulting in a centralized command economy dominated by a handful of megacorporations. Nor am I alone in this belief. It is not hard to find articles like "Walmart’s Monopolization of Local Grocery Markets" at https://ilsr.org/article/independent-business/walmarts-monopolization-… which, among other things, points out how the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department has, since the 1960s, greatly raised the threshold for what "highly concentrated" market capture means, and WalMart is extreme even by that definition. The legal process is to identify the relevant market. This can neither be too narrow - the market for "RC Cola" is not "those who buy RC Cola but also includes other colas - nor too large -- RC Cola is not really…

Before I answer what is the status quo, I'll just ask: why wouldn't internet access be free to access if it's taxpayer funded? Remember, we were constructing hypotheticals here, and there's no reason the government needs to make a profit on something like this, any more than it makes a profit on roads and bridges [0]. Now, on to the status quo. In what follows, I'm going to consider broadband only. Dialup exists, but isn't particularly interesting because, well... it sucks. Among the problems the US has with broadband is that only 25 million out of around 330 million of us actually access the internet at broadband (25Mbps+) speeds [1]. The reasons for this are up for debate, but the most logical explanations would seem to be lack of access, lack of affordability, or a combination of both. Another problem we have is a lack of competition among broadband providers. According to [2], 83 million Americans only have a single broadband internet provider available to them. If that's, say, Comcast, a company not well known for its stellar customer service, to put it mildly [3], then your choice amounts to either deal with the devil and take whatever they offer you, or just don't have broadband. So, how did we get here? I'm not one to just reflexively say "blame the gubmint," but, in this case, it's true. There was competition in the cable industry in the mid 1990's, until the Telecommunications Act of 1996, an astoundingly complex piece of legislation, scrambled the…

This article[1] though on a biased (in that they have a point of view) site, has links to some state data, so it's convenient to link to it. It's also specific to medicaid benefits. > Of the 50 companies with the most employees on Medicaid in Massachusetts, almost half are retail and restaurant chains. The list includes CVS, Home Depot, May Department Stores, Sears, Kohl’s, Walgreen, Lowe’s, and Best Buy. > Similar data was recently released by Wisconsin, Missouri, and New Jersey. Topping all three states’ lists are many of the same retailers, including Walmart, Target, Dollar General, and Home Depot, as well as restaurant chains such as Olive Garden and Red Lobster. It doesn't seem exactly fair to do it based on total number of employees though. What about percentage of employees? Looking at the Missouri (state health care) data, Walmart is at about double the rate as Target, it has: Walmart work force: 43,281 Walmart MHN Enrolled employees (E): 2403 Walmart MHN Enrolled family members (N): 3633 Walmart total employees (E+N): 6036 Walmart Percentage of Missouri Workforce Enrolled(E) or Responsible for Enrollee (N) 13.95% Target work force: 7,580 Target MHN Enrolled employees (E): 282 Target MHN Enrolled family members (N): 317 Target total employees (E+N): 599 Target Percentage of Missouri Workforce Enrolled(E) or Responsible for Enrollee (N) 7.9% Actually the rest of the data[2] is interesting (kind of old; 2011), and…

Is this sarcasm? [https://ilsr.org/report-most-americans-have-no-real-choice-in-internet…

I do not. I have exactly one ISP available in my region. This isn’t rare, in the US: https://ilsr.org/report-most-americans-have-no-real-choice-in-internet…

"In 43 metropolitan areas and 160 smaller markets, Walmart captures 50 percent or more of grocery sales. In 38 of these regions, Walmart’s share of the grocery market is 70 percent or more." https://ilsr.org/walmarts-monopolization-of-local-grocery-markets/ I could list off every one of these areas, but would probably run into the character count limit

One factor may be the regulatory caps on the market share of the biggest banks: https://ilsr.org/rule/market-share-caps/

> But ISPs obviously do have competition. This is absolutely untrue about 70+ million people in the US[1]. It's also functionally untrue for most of us who have a choice between 1-3 large companies. I live in a major US city, and my options are Comcast or AT&T. We don't even have Starlink yet. When 3-4 companies control nearly 100% of the market, there isn't any real choice. It's easy for them all to just be terrible. 1. https://ilsr.org/report-most-americans-have-no-real-choice-in-internet…

Walmart was repeatedly found guilty of predatory pricing, along with entering consent decrees to forbid predatory pricing throughout the 1990s. Arkansas https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1993/10/13/wal-mart-lo… Wisconsin https://ilsr.org/walmart-settles-predatory-pricing-charge/

Not having municipal broadband is different issue than having municipal broadband outlawed state-wide. https://ilsr.org/washington-state-removes-all-barriers-to-municipal-br… Seems to me the Democrats in WA have worked to allow municipal broadband to exist whereas the Republicans in OH are trying for the opposite outcome.

Outside of NYC Wallmart has significant marketshare over grocers. https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Walmart_Grocery_Monopoly_R… They've butted heads with their vendors over the years, and drive pricing decisions nationwide.

> yet they expect GbPS for 39.99 Have you ever paid for internet in the US? GbPS is more like $80+ first of all (especially with fees), second both federal and state governments have given Frontier alone nearly $2 BILLION dollars to get their network up to snuff. https://ilsr.org/fact-sheet-frontier-communications-has-failed-rural-a…

>This is an area where the cynical conventional wisdom just doesn't hold up to actual facts. Congress made it illegal for localities to grant monopolies back in 1992. Apparently, it did not stop states from granting monopolies: https://ilsr.org/preemption-detente-municipal-broadband-networks-face-…

129 million people have access to only 1 broadband provider. That's 40% of the country [1]. With wireless carriers maybe that increases to a little bit more, but they're prohibitively expensive usually to run as your main home internet connection. For social media you have: Facebook (Instagram, Whatsapp), Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat, YouTube, WeChat, TikTok. And these are just the ones with > 100 million users. You can find way more with users in the tens of millions or less. 1. https://ilsr.org/repealing-net-neutrality-puts-177-million-americans-a…

It does have bearing. Walmart has twice the revenue, and has a grocery monopoly in “43 metropolitan areas and 160 smaller markets”. Walmart put Main Street out of business in most small towns decades ago https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Walmart_Grocery_Monopoly_R…

https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Walmart_Grocery_Monopoly_R… I think you're underestimating Walmart's market share.

Walmart destroyed smaller shops doing this all over the US for decades. https://ilsr.org/walmart-charged-predatory-pricing/

Seems like they sold products below cost to drive out competition, with this apparently not being allowed in some US states / Germany, at least for staple food. https://ilsr.org/walmart-charged-predatory-pricing/

There is no reason to think that's the simplest explanation. An equally simple explanation is that for the majority of jobs there is essentially a wage monopoly/cartel keeping wages low, and workers have significant barriers to moving to different areas. [1][2][3][4] [1] https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/6/17204808/wages-employers-wor… [2] https://www.thenation.com/article/does-monopoly-power-explain-workers-… [3] https://ilsr.org/monopsony-labor-blp-episode-42/ [4] https://www.epi.org/publication/its-not-just-monopoly-and-monopsony-ho…

Not exactly. It turns out, AMZN cuts 4 jobs for any 1 job that it adds. The full report is truly alarming and has pretty disturbing implications for the overall economy: https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ILSR_AmazonReport_final.pd…

They currently collect sales tax in 24 states[1,2], and I'm guessing the writing is on the wall in the other 26. I don't know if there's any truth to this Radio Shack rumor, but I'd expect that avoiding tax nexus status probably isn't as big a deal for them as it used to be, because they're going to be forced to do soon, one way or another. [1] http://ilsr.org/rule/states-amazon-sales-tax-map/ [2] http://blog.taxjar.com/michigan-sales-tax-nexus-law/

We're at a tipping point already. What's helped the most recently is financing. Solar is already cheaper than retail in a few states; see e.g. this map that lets you play with dates and scenarios: http://ilsr.org/projects/solarparitymap/ As for game changers, see e.g. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/are-utilities-ready-for-th… http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utiliti…