quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You seem to have missed my point completely.
Used cars tires bicycles etc were all originally produced by corporate monopolies.
I do not disagree with your concept of saving money and reducing your carbon footprint...my point was and is that there is no competition because of corporate monopolies.
You may not be aware of what exactly commodities are. A little research will help you to see what these commodities are who controls these commodities.
You might also want to check and see what percentage of us food comes from corporate farms vs. private farms of less than 1000 acres.
I point out factual data and you characterize that as whining...

You do realize that, as long as there are multiple corporations producing the same item and selling it in the same markets, that does NOT constitute a "monopoly", right?

Wrong...Perhaps you might avail yourself of the many fine publications which document how the few corporations who control a given commodity have historically conspired to "fix" both the price and the quantity avalable of any given commodity



Just because a company is large does not mean that it has no competition... and a monopoly is defined as having no competition...


You might want to look up what happened when some african states with large supplies of diamonds, tried to sell them in competition with the de beers corp.

ie, "Monopolies are thus characterised by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide, and a lack of viable substitute goods."

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp
What Does Monopoly Mean?
A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products.


Yes, factory farms currently produce about 90% of our nation's food. Another 6% by total value is imported from other countries (higher in some types of foods than others, with fish being one of the highest percentage imports at nearly 80% imported). However, the local food movement has increased its share of the market from a mere .03% five years ago to around 4% in just five short years. That sounds substantively more than "useless".

Many would consider 90% to be "nearly all" as in the above definition




Commodities: iron ore, crude, coal, salt, sugar, corn, soybeans, cotton, coffee, aluminum, electricity...basically, base materials that are not differentiated between suppliers.... coal is coal is coal. These are traded on a common market and their value is determined NOT by the market but by the value of certificates (futures) which IMPLY ownership of percentages of all of the available (or producible) quantity of that item.


The value of the futures certificates is determined by the quantity of product allowed on the market by the monopoly...reference the above cited de beers diamond case.





Things with smaller available quantities tend to trade at higher values, simply because what exists is highly limited. OTOH, things like cotton, corn, and soybeans have a volatile market that depends on speculation about potential upcoming supply -- and if anything throws off the supply, whether by excess (surplus) or insufficiency (shortage), the anticipated value of any futures sold AND the market as a whole will be affected.

Is it possible that if one controls 90% of say soy beans that producer would have the ability to control the quantity of soy beans on the market by the simple expedient of planting more or less of that product. History is repleat with examples of this.

Now... that being said, I still hold that it is possible and beneficial for companies to choose how and where they purchase the actual RAW MATERIALS (since we are not speaking of commodity futures here, but of actual materials),


If one holds the futures cert to term they own the commodity.
If corporate farms control 90% of the market then anyone who wishes to purchase more than 10% of the total must deal with the monopoly.

and to do so as much as possible from local producers with whom they have established a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship that is NOT bound to the fluctuations of an artificially manipulated commodities market.

Who are the local producers for coal,oil,cars,tires,iron,zink, or any other commodity?

People have been doing this for years, and somehow, it works out. As I mentioned in my earlier post, one big stickler is energy -- and even then, a larger and larger percentage of individuals is taking the issue of energy into their own hands and choosing to generate at least a portion of their own energy... so explain to me again how this is not realistic and I'm missing "the point".

You seem to be missing the point of the gross numbers involved. If one group controls 90% of something there is no competition for that 90%. There is only competition for the remaining 10%

Calla