Consciously and effectively utilizing Twitter to promote solid fiscal habits among the masses continues to be the goal of the Wealth With Whitney brand. In working to achieve this lofty feat, I interact with my followers daily through hashtags such as, #MondayMoneyGoals, #TuesdayTip, #WealthyWisdomWednesday, #ThursdayThoughts, and #FinancialRecapFriday, to be exact. In exploring #TuesdayTip further, the financial tips provided to followers come in the form of terms courtesy of The Economist's site. As such, I encourage my followers to research the alphabetical terms tweeted, which commences their Alphabet Adventure of Financial Terms. Since its inception, #TuesdayTip has been well-received and is currently ongoing, with letter "R" terms being explored. Thus, as this interaction progresses, I cannot help but reflect on a term that has not only been previously introduced, but has seen a recent spike in usage – collusion. Yes, collusion has amassed popularity parallel to the word kale.
Ten years ago, kale, a mafic, leafy green, flew off of supermarket shelves at a rapid pace. Likewise, kale appealed to various demographics, including but not limited to, A-list celebrities, Upper West Side mothers, and everyday individuals curious about the appeal of this bitter vegetable. As a result, kale successfully infiltrated popular culture, and subsequently left an indelible mark on 21st century zeitgeist. Moreover, the U.S. Department of Agriculture noted that between the years of 2007 and 2012, farm production of kale in the United States rose 60%. While many would (happily) agree that the kale craze has fizzled out, one cannot deny that for a solid decade, kale ran the world. Thus, as we fast forward to 2017, it appears that the word collusion has succeeded in replicating kale’s fame. In economics, collusion occurs when competing firms agree to work together to raise prices on goods and services, with the goal of yielding higher profits. The agreement between firms often involve: coming to terms on the increased prices consumers will face, striking a deal between suppliers and retailers, and colluding to exclude new firms from entering an industry, thus making the market more competitive. Agreements of this nature can occur under formal collusion, tacit collusion, or price leadership. Although routinely used by firms under capitalism, collusion is mostly associated with market structures under an oligopoly (the market or industry is dominated by a small number of sellers). Nevertheless, firms relentlessly collude, which has had adverse effects. Many problems with collusion are the negative outcomes incurred by consumers, which affect economic welfare as a whole. Therefore, collusion is heavily scrutinized by the government, so as to prevent consumers from paying exorbitant prices for goods and services (leading to a decline in consumer surplus), encourage new firms to enter into market, and to curb easy profits made by lazy, non-innovative, and unmotivated firms. However, because the relationship between economics and the government is one of laissez-faire (hands off; no interference), it will be difficult to truly regulate collusion. Nevertheless, the government will not give up without a fair fight. Given that firms are aware of the negative connotation associated with collusion, it is baffling that one of the largest for-profit organizations, the National Football League, may have allegedly engaged in collusion against activist and all-around talent, Colin Rand Kaepernick. As we watch Colin attempt to bridge his personal and professional aspirations, I cannot help but notice how this intersection is being halted. Such stagnation leaves me angry, confused, and yet captivated. As a result I am not only enthralled with Kaepernick’s quest to assist in the eradication of social injustices faced by indigenous and non-indigenous people of color, but to do so in a uniform and under the protection of the NFLPA (NFL Players Association). Thus, witnessing Colin be denied re-entry into sports is disheartening, and leaves me (and others) seriously questioning “why?”. Fortunately, this question (and the countless others) will not dissipate into the atmosphere, for a potential answer emerges, collusion. In a lawsuit filed by Kaepernick and his counsel against the NFL, it reports that allegedly all 32 league owners potentially conversed and unanimously concluded to lock Colin out of the league indefinitely. Carefully dissecting what we know, we have: The NFL (trade association that often operates under the guise of a monopoly), 32 competing owners, antitrust law regulation from the Federal Trade Commission, and Colin Kaepernick. Thus, if it successfully proven that collusion occurred, the judgment rendered could shake the highly-profitable relationship between economics and sports. If successful, I wonder, could the NFL be sanctioned for violating antitrust laws? Could the very fabric of laissez-faire unravel? Could Colin begin to rewrite the ethics and rules and regulations of the NFL? As we all continue to keep our ears to the ground, I will battle mixed emotions because no matter the outcome, the dynamic between the NFL, players, and fans (consumers) will drastically change.
1 Comment
|
WhitneyEducation enthusiast whose mission it is to see Financial Literacy receive well-deserved shine. Archives
September 2020
Categories |