monopolistic practices arelive and may even be thriving in the 21st century. are e market and legal forces that can curb them. as in the past, the trick is to remain vigilant against these practices. what robert frost said about walls is true of monopolies, too. someing there ishat does not lo a monopoly, if aonopoly is required guarantee the avaibility ofn esseial service such as leones or electricity at an affordable pce, then mospeopilage tothe kinds e t almost aentuer economistsnd mostof test ofs spindletop a standard oi el prey much aseople did backn.olies one company controing an industry gis that comny el prey much aseoptoo much powerlies to control output and set prices too much power to earn higherrofits thanompetionould aow to control output and set prices too much power thiss davannenberg mediaÑÑogÑ ♪ annenberg media ♪ ford's model t seemed like the perfect car. it never wore out, never went out of style. how could it be beat? the tva and other electric companies bought hundreds of mlions of dollars worth of eipment every year. what lengths would

if the kid in the south bronx can even afford to buy broadband service for one of the monopolists, who may not be choosing to put fast service into their neighborhood -- they have already paid the rich neighborhood. there are a lot of premises it got thrown past us. the idea that jacob, we might in five years see more competition or faster services being provided with verizon has already said they are not going to build fio any further than they already haves one-stop for most people, unless you want to pay exorbitant prices or moved one of the few cities that either google or a mass -- municipality that is putting this gigabit level of internet service, we are never going to catch up large chunks of the rest of the industrialized world takes for granted at a price a fraction of what we paid. let's not likely to the internet works well now. from the consumer's point of view, it does not work well at all. itwhat i meant, we agreed works well in terms of fostering themation and allow encourage and free expression. >> he makes a good point. net neutrality is part of a broader conversation

you talk about monopolistic behavior -- if we're going to talk about time warner or stories, we will be here forever. >> i will go first. i believe the merger should be blocked will stop i think we already have a problem with unresponsive overly concentrated power in the cable sector and the merger would make it worse. not only net neutrality things and i've tried to stick with them but i think prices are the thing that bothers me. time warner, the average bill in 1992 was between $12 and $20. a lot of it is a ramming but has grown outlandishly. the average comcast bill is $155 per customer per month. if comcast succeeds in getting the same money they've got out of new yorkers, that means in this state alone, one point $6 billion year extra for consumers. cable companies are making enough money as it is and i think the merger should be stopped. comcast has not said anything as to what would be in the public interest. they say these vapid, empty things like we will be delivering in the public interest. i think there's nothing about the merger i have read that makes it the public inter

make out a case why replacing one monopolist with another. kent actually relevant to the merger. and our service is better and give them something more the we charge more for, quality adjustment, data throwing around. >> i don't think you can say they replace the exact same internet costing one hundred $5 for something with $155. >> it will give you a chance for a brief last word. >> i'm a lay person and i don't see whether there is an antitrust system working this country or -- where we have the concept of too big to fail, hyperbanks. i wish you would enlighten me where this is working because that is where we have this huge concentration of wealth. end whole countries being run out. >> there may be issues in the financial markets and by suspect you want to look for blame, you look at the antitrust economics or dan forsman agencies, and higher in the chain and the federal reserve. and treating those banks very differently than the antitrust authorities. eddie founder to be some actual economic basis for breaking up the bank. i guarantee there were a lot of political reasons, >>

if the kid in the south bronx can even afford to buy broadband service for one of the monopolists, who may not be choosing to put fast service into their neighborhood -- they have already paid the rich neighborhood. there are a lot of premises it got thrown past us. the idea that jacob, we might in five years see more competition or faster services being provided with verizon has already said they are not going to build fios any further than they already have one-stop for most people, unless you want to pay exorbitant prices or moved one of the few cities that either google or a mass -- municipality that is putting this gigabit level of internet service, we are never going to catch up large chunks of the rest of the industrialized world takes for granted at a price a fraction of what we paid. let's not likely to the internet works well now. from the consumer's point of view, it does not work well at all. >> what i meant, we agreed it works well in terms of fostering innovation and allow them encourage and free expression. >> he makes a good point. net neutrality is part of a broader co

one thing that is hard to figure out is why these rapacious monopolists invested trillions, literally trillions of dollars and demonstrated every improving speeds relative to the costs of content and various -- especially rapid increases in prices that have generally gone up. >> that is not true. the price has gone up faster is an inflation. and talking about cable video. >> the point is we are not experiencing -- i understand people hate comcast, their customer service is terrible. would you rather pay less than we pay for what we want? all of these things are true but we have to be careful about translating that kind of conflict into, i want to bring this back to net neutrality into specific counterproductive rules here. this was a burst of honesty on your hard. to those who nationalized the infrastructure. essentially by the government or the very minimum regulated so heavily by the government that essentially in distinguishable from what is offering a. and whether i don't agree with the promises here but most importantly, there's a problem going from those premises is imposition o

as monopolists in this limited sense, it can be argued that their prices, costs, and profits may be allcompanies are subject to competition and after all, consumers do seem to like having such a wide variety of choice available to them. in a sense that's exactly how gm was able to overcome ford's early advantage. or take advertising. obviously businesses use advertising to convince consumers that their products have special qualities, different personalities, really, trying in this way to increase consumer demand for them. of course, when my competitor also does this he is trying to increase the demand for his product at the expense of mine. how much advertising is self-canceling like this? how much contributes useful information about the products involved? clearly, these aren't easy questions to answer, though it must be said that there are other ways of avoiding price competition that are far more dubious than those we have been discussing. it could have been a novel. a newspaper reporter a crusading senator, and federal prosecutors teaming up to solve the biggest crime, in dollar am

acting like an unrestrained monopolist. >> they put trillions in the and every year increases speeds. when you take account of the tax that are offered in these other countries that are supposedly offering better isn'te, the service necessarily better and it costs more. it's easy to criticize what we have. but it's actually not at all clear that what we have is worse morewhat others have, nor expensive. and again relevant i think, more neutrality -- net relevant to the net neutrality costs of what are the bearing this, if it the case that our service isn't as good and perhapsea's that's one or two countries where that's true what are we for that and how much cost and burden are we willing to bear in order to correct this cost.ially very small >> so net neutrality, the internet has been an economic goose that's laid some very valuable eggs for this country. america has, to give credit to the internet, 30, 20 years ago the united asking if states was finished as a technological power. when you look at the world's top companies, they're almost all american. i think being the home of an a

that it exists in a constitution-free bubble protected by antitrust exemptions and monopolistic exemptions that allows it to operate outside of the law. no matter what party was in power in washington they gave the nfl reason to believe that it could be the wild west and whatever they had to do to get players on the field they could do it. whatever practices took place in the personal lives of players they could make it go away without the federal governmental saying wait a minute what's going on in these local communities. there's all kind of skulduggery that's gone on that the nfl has said to the world we are too big to fail we cannot be touched. and i think you are seeing a new era now where a lot of people in the federal government are saying wait a minute. this will not fly any longer. >> and if the players are to be believed this is really serious, the amount of drugs that they were given was really dangerous and there is evidence that there's -- whatever's happening today, that after people leave the nfl the misuse of opioid painkillers is four times worse among former players than

this is something new planned parenthood is attempting to do in order to have what we are calling monopolistic, with their future clientele. >> planned parenthood have been teaching that class for ten years now. the superintendent says, the instruction is age appropriate using objective and medically accurate information, the value of abstinence is identified as the only way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. >> perhaps you voted already today. it's a big night for the republican party. we'll find out how big in the next few hours. nbc news is projecting the republicans will retain their majority in the house of representatives for at least the last two years now of president obama's term. republicans have controlled the house since 2010. will republicans take control of the senate? these are live pictures now in kentucky, senator mitch mcconnell held off a tough challenge to retain his seat. the 72-year-old mcconnell spoke a short time ago about his re-election. >> too many in washington have forgotten that their job is to serve. so tomorrow, the papers will say i won t

talk about monopolistic behavior. i mean, if we're going to start telling time warner horror stories we could be here all night. >> there's a merger that we haven't talked about that and what that would mean. that's part of leaving things as they are, the anti-trust agency might or might not. >> i think the merger should be blocked. i think we have a problem with unresponsive overly power in the cable sector. i actually think prices is the thing that bothers me. comcast -- time warner, the average bill for time warner hich is 19.92 is probably like 100. t's grown to $ it's grown outlandishly and the average comcast bill is $155 per customer per month. so if comcast succeeds in getting the same money out of new yorkers as it got out of everybody else it will mean in the state alone $1.6 billion a year comsumers will pay. i think cable companies are making enough money as it is. i think the merger should stop. comcast has not said anything what would be in the public interest. they're saying these vapped empty we'll be

if there is an antitrust situation, if a cable company or someone else is using monopolistic techniques, then in fact the courts are already available. we should use the laws we have, and not try to create, if you will, a new form of regulation as though government created the internet. government only made the internet go to a few kilobytes per second of the fact is, innovation in the private sector and demand, including the netflixs of the world, have, are in fact what is driving the companies to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in increasing speed. those investments need to continue. the fcc and the president are on the wrong track. gerri: on the wrong track. congressman, thanks for coming on. thanks for coming in. come back soon. >> will do. gerri: still a lot more to come this hour including your voice. your voice is important to us. that's why during the show we want to you facebook me or beat me @gerriwillisfbn. send me an email. go to gerriwillis.com. at the government hour i will read your tweets and emails. >>> next one of the biggest names in investing. vanguard's found

constitutional republic is bound only by a law of laws, being monopolist on all law enforcement can always untie itself. instead, in contrary parlance, liberalism no longer has anything to do with limited government. the regulatory state has expanded its reach to encompass education, social welfare, and even the transmission of culture. judge and legal scholar michael mcconnell borrowed out embracing distinction by john rawls political liberalism and comprehensive liberalism. a political conception of justice applies to the framework of basic institutions whereas a comprehensive doctrine is one that addresses all aspects of life including conceptions of what is of value, ideals of personal character and ideals of friendship and mediating institutions. the constitutional principles of early american history limited the way government could conduct the public business but did not purport to tell citizens how they should live their lives. the first amendment followed exactly this approach. the american constitution, mcconnell writes, was an attempt to create a government strong enough to keep

but it does not protect them from monopolistic pricing that drives up their premiums. so what's the real problem here? the cost sharing or the price? despite these significant limitations for markets that are not competitive, health plans are doing all they can to deliver value to consumers. we all agree that we have to stop paying for volume and start paying for value. and that is exactly what health plans are doing. this consumer driven value oriented market is here to stay. 40% of health plan payments are now tied to value, and this percentage is continuing to grow. the breadth of innovation is considerable with our health plans. you can see it on this map here, across the country health plans are driving innovation to deliver value to consumers, we're building on this tool, this map, so policymakers, reporters and consumers can see what's happening in their markets. so what are the results? this slide provides a few examples about how health plans are delivering value to consumers and we have many many more. medical homes, patient centered medical homes has result

notice the anti-semitism and university campuses almost monopolistic. by of a copy? stop at the airport. go to the library. and read the whole loss -- the hamas charter. it will not go away that dilettante -- militant islam will rise with that. the one area i would point to it is not easy but keep that in mind. three years from now everybody does it like israel for whatever reason so get ready for that. refugees in my view and i am hardly a hawk that is the disaster. been concept it is a disaster there are good people. to have critics and educate palestinians but the concept is a disaster to keep the conflict alive were perpetual refugees exist. i speak i and the son of a refugee my mother was 100 years ago. imagine a few years from now and palestinians for their feathers six generations. do i have rights as a refugee? it is said disaster nobody has done anything about it. so i don't know if you follow this the year ago. and i give up the right of return where he was born. and with those refugees die of old man. the des moines agree come to terms to negotiate on this

we were dealing with a scarce resource, monopolistic resource and seen needed to be somebody to make sure the big players really didn't face competition played fair. that was really what it was about, take the radio industry was nascent. an interesting fact at one point, there was a conversation about taking 25% of the broadcast spectrum, on pbs, on board and look at this, broadcast spectrum was at one point earmarked for educational purposes, the commercial broadcasting industry fought that off, instead, got a public interest responsibility instead of having 25% go to non-profit educational purposes. nobody in 1934 looked at communication the way we look at it now and no thought it would be one-sixth of our economy. >> i will take off on the word monopoly. two words to keep in mind when you think about 1934, monopoly is one of them, actually, there were two monopolies, then, at&t and then, well, when we talk about monopoly, monopoly implies scarcity, we had radio. didn't have tv yet. i will get to that in a minute. we thought in terms of monopoly and scarcity, sort of, as i said, tw

we were dealing with a scarce resource, monopolistic resource and seen needed to be somebody to make sure the big players really didn't face competition played fair. that was really what it was about, take some of the responsibility, put them in one place and make sure this thing continues to grow, but there was no tba. the radio industry was nascent. an interesting fact at one point, there was a conversation about taking 25% of the broadcast spectrum, on pbs, on board and look at this, broadcast spectrum was at one point earmarked for educational purposes, the commercial broadcasting industry fought that off, instead, got a public interest responsibility instead of having 25% go to non-profit educational purposes. nobody in 1934 looked at communication the way we look at it now and no thought it would be one-sixth of our economy. >> i will take off on the word monopoly. i think there are two words to keep in mind when we think about 1934. monopoly is one of them. and larry and i think there were two monopolies. monopoly implies scarcity. we had radio. didn't have tv yet. i will get

but it does not protect them from monopolistic pricing that drives up their premiums. so what's the real problem here? the cost-sharing or the price? despite these significant limitations for markets that are not competitive, health plans are doing all they can to deliver value to consumers. we all agree that we have to stop paying for volume and start paying for value. and that is exactly what health plans are doing. this consumer-driven. value-oriented market is here to stay. 40% of health plan payments are now tied to value, and this percentage is continuing to grow. the breadth of innovation is considerable with our health plans. you can see it on this map here. across the nation health plans are driving innovation to deliver value to consumers. we're building on this tool, this map, so policymakers, reporters and consumers can see what's happening in their markets. so what are the results? this slide provides a few examples about how health plans are delivering value to consumers. and we have many, many more. medical homes. anthem patients' medical home program ha

authors and not only those no, sir, responded with condemnation of amazon as a monopolist and a bully in the shadow of the ukrainian civil war then raising, frustrated readers soon began to reconsider their relationship with amazon and, by extension, with the digital marketplace. even wall street wavered in its longstanding support of amazon's shock. the share price has fallen nearly 20% off its 52-week high. now, just ten days ago the two sides announced a deal which amazon says also encourages the publisher to deliver lower prices. in other words, both publisher and retailer have declared victory and gone home. yet the book community publishers, authors and readers may not be prepared to let them go. at the national book awards on wednesday evening last week, writer ursula he begin chat chiezed -- chastised publishers who put -- [inaudible] before art. and she also called on her colleagues to rise up against the prevailing order. she said books aren't just commodities. the profit motive is often in conflict with the aims of art. we live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable. bu