The South Bank Sky Arts Awards

[Mr Pee]

But then, capitalism has always claimed to be about 'choice', when in fact it's about getting rid of the competition & creating a monopoly.

What rubbish. Again.

[Flosshilde]

So why do companies try & buy up other companies? Perhaps you could break the habits of a lifetime & explain? But I won't hold my breath - I've never seen any argument or justification from you to support your views.

[Mr Pee]

So why do companies try & buy up other companies?

Do you really need an explanation? Seriously?

[ahinton]

But then, capitalism has always claimed to be about 'choice', when in fact it's about getting rid of the competition & creating a monopoly.

Whatever it is supposed to be "about", the sad practical reality appears to be that it's not really "about" either; it could be argued that fundamentalist socialism is about "getting rid of the competition & creating a monopoly" (i.e. a state one) but, given that such socialism is now so far beneath the radar that its remains are almost untraceable outside certain specialist areas of academia and within minority political parties of insufficient clout to be represented by as much as a single MP, that seems to be of negligible practical significance.

[ahinton]

So why do companies try & buy up other companies? Perhaps you could break the habits of a lifetime & explain? But I won't hold my breath - I've never seen any argument or justification from you to support your views.

Buying up other companies is only one act of corporate capitalism and not all companies do this all the time, otherwise there would indeed be an increasing risk of the kinds of monopoly that you mention. Furthermore, companies sometimes also sell off parts of themselves when they deem it to be commercially expedient and/or profitable to do so. I'm no advocate of Thatcher, but do also bear in mind her observation about capitalism being the creation of a shilling our of sixpence and recognise that there are now - even in today's parlous market place - many more small businesses than there once were; that doesn't look like much like capitalist monopolism from where I'm sitting. What you're suggesting here is not "rubbish", as Mr Pee claims, but that does not make it absolutely correct.

[John Skelton]

But then, capitalism has always claimed to be about 'choice', when in fact it's about getting rid of the competition & creating a monopoly.

What rubbish. Again.

Suppose you were a Sky employee, Mr Pee, tasked with promoting the Sky brand (of course you aren't, but purely hypothetically) and someone made that statement in relation to broadcasting Premiership / Championship football or international cricket in the UK ... they'd be correct, wouldn't they? Any 'plurality' whatsoever has been forced on Sky and the governing bodies of the sports by not exactly over powerful or threatening regulators, and Sky's purchasing power has forced the price to a level that nearly destroyed one competitor (Setanta). All very nice for the governing bodies of those sports and the people who make money out of sport: though many supporters who pay increasing amounts to watch their teams play, and see ever more fantastic sums paid out in transfer fees and 'wages'; who see aggressive takeovers of their clubs, see moves to new anonymous stadiums given faceless corporate names, etc. don't see the Sky money and the money the Sky money draws after it as benefit but rather as betrayal. While people who would like to watch a game at home or a day's test cricket on a Saturday either have to subscribe to Sky or find a way of 'illegally' circumventing Sky (not very satisfactory even when possible. And, of course, morally to be deplored ).

So Flosshilde's remark isn't "rubbish" in the context of Sky Sports, is it? Or perhaps you would (or could) explain why / how it is "rubbish"?

Apologies for dragging the conversation down from the exalted level of The Arts, but as we've established they're not an interest of mine. Well done, by the way, for referring to "the Sky South Bank Awards, hosted at the Dorchester" on the Opera Lovers unite against the ROH and the BBC in unholy alliance thread. The subsection of this forum devoted to 'Choral Evensong' might be a bit more of a challenge, but I'm sure you can bring your favourite broadcaster in there! (if relevant and on-topic, of course).

[teamsaint]

The capitalists seem very keen to have competition (and choice) when it suits them . (ie to drive down wage costs, close branches etc).
less so, perhaps when they mess it up and need a hand out (of the multi multi Billionn pound type).
If competition and choice were really allowed by our governments , we would have probably only had one or two high St banks left.

Socialism for the wealthy, capitalism for the poor is how it works now.( under labour also).

John Skelton's remarks about Sky Sports are bang on. Not much competition, just buying up the market, at football fan's expense.

[Flosshilde]

Do you really need an explanation? Seriously?

What I want is your serious explanation. I already have my own, which I think is reasonably clear from what I've said. I suspect yours might be different, which is why I'd be interested in seeing it.


Ahinton - yes, my statement was an over-simplification, but I was making a point about BSB's activities. I'd also agree that the USSR & Mao's China denied people choices - & not just in what consumer goods were available - but I was attempting to hold a mirror up to the claim often made that the 'free market' (which might be to capitalism what the USSR was to socialism) provides choice, whereas socialism doesn't. The choice offered is, essentially, illusory.

[amateur51]

What rubbish. Again.

Straight out of The Troll's Notebook - please, do not feed!

[anotherbob]

"Only a few actually subscribe"? Most people I know subscribe to Sky, not just the musically interested. Try counting the number of Sky dishes in any chosen road.

There was a time when the presence of a Sky dish on a house was regarded as a bit of a social "identifier", and large numbers of them on "any chosen road" told you something about the residents. The expression "chav" had not then been coined, but looking back it was certainly applicable

.... it is such a convenient method of receiving programmes.

You mean by using a Personal Video Recorder and a TV? Is that an arrangement unique to SKY?

[VodkaDilc]

There was a time when the presence of a Sky dish on a house was regarded as a bit of a social "identifier", and large numbers of them on "any chosen road" told you something about the residents. The expression "chav" had not then been coined, but looking back it was certainly applicable
You mean by using a Personal Video Recorder and a TV? Is that an arrangement unique to SKY?

I mean using a satellite and a dish.
And the chav association with Sky dishes is, as anotherbob suggests, well and truly in the past.

[Flosshilde]

"Only a few actually subscribe"? Most people I know subscribe to Sky, not just the musically interested.

I was referring to members of the Board, not the population in general or your friends.

Sky dishes ... it is such a convenient method of receiving programmes.

Any more convenient than the traditional arial? & as it will, I assume, only receive BSB programmes actually less convenient.

[Bryn]

I was referring to members of the Board, not the population in general or your friends.



Any more convenient than the traditional arial? & as it will, I assume, only receive BSB programmes actually less convenient.

You assume wrongly. The Sky platform hosts a very wide range of channels, including all the BBC Channels, all the ITV channels, Channels 4 & 5, etc., etc. Many of them can be received via Sky without subscription, thought you might need to make a one-off payment for a Sky Card to access some of them.

[Flosshilde]

Ah, right. Still, I wouldn't want to subscribe to BSB.

[amateur51]

In all honesty, I don't have time to watch much terrestrial television, let alone subscribe to BSkyB. I have plenty of books, CDs plus the radio to occupy me

Smug of NW2