So now that we are one quarter away from a double dip...

[Ignignokt]

Doesn't happen in China. Why is that?


In china, everything is still controlled. The loser is the consumer and the peoper.lol

[Winehole23]

In china, everything is still controlled. The loser is the consumer and the peoper.lolIt's more semi-controlled. The government controls access to credit, but not to profit, so much. There are powerful private concerns in China.

[Winehole23]

Otherwise, their version of (state-steered) capitalism wouldn't work so well.

China's been on a tear since practically the 60's, but actually, way more dramatically after GHWB and Bill Clinton.

[Winehole23]

GDP growth is hard to deny.

[Winehole23]

ghttp://www.itulip.com/images/chinausagdp.gif

[ElNono]

Wow, you have no concept of supply and demand. If the Monopoly were to make a shitty product and raises prices, they will lose out to a competitor who innvovated and is willing to pump a cheaper product.the public will then demand a better product and the monopoly would have not done anything about innovation.

A monopoly implies a lack of competition. This is what's been escaping you in every single of your responses. We know for a fact that monopolies will go at any length to squash any raising competition, and if not for anti-competitive regulation they will succeed 9 out of 10 times.

What the public demands is irrelevant when you only have one supplier.

Furthermore, under your model, whatever innovation the little guy comes up with can be automatically copied and produced by the bigger guy, because patent and copyright protection doesn't apply.


This is what is happening to the cable companies as we speak.

What is happening to cable companies? They have more competition today from phone companies, but they're hardly going broke.


Ultimately this helps the consumer. Those firms if they are artificially dumping or slashing the price of their goods for a while will operate on loss or small profit, otherwise if they are not doing this artificially and they're running huge profit margins, then they are not dumping according to the term.

It helps the consumer, price wise, short term. Once they corralled the market and drove competition bankrupt, they're free to do and charge whatever they want. That's how you capture markets without government intervention.


This did happen in history. You had the Southern Improvement Company in which Oil refineries and railroads colluded to cut production and raise prices. This SIC included the famous Standard oil.

What happened is that the refineries and railroads colluded to raise prices to make a profit and force all other competitors to join or cease. The plan backfired because the Oil producers refused to pay high rates and in turn, this placed an embargo on the SIC and anyone affiliated with it. The SIC then disbanded and never collected a rebate.

This is the same shit that happens when you raise tarrifs on an international stage. The countries always raise their own and impose embargos, tarriffs never help, infact on tarrif, the Smith Howley Tarriff act was responsible for the depression.

So, if you were to impose anti dumping laws against foreign producers, you would see the same results. You help the national industries at the expense of the consumer.

Except when it's done at the international level, and producers simply have no say. This happens more often than people think, see 'DRAM price fixing' or even more recently 'LCD price fixing'.


you never asked this question. link??


What's the incentive for investing in R&D if somebody else can just take it and make it cheaper and potentially better somewhere else? What's the Free Market solution to that?

[ElNono]

The Mixed Keynesian economy didn't prevent Madoff either, No economy unless the Govt has complete control of the resources can prevent fraud by "private" investors or buisinessmen.

Sure it can. Madoff was eventually caught, did he not? By regulators none the less. And faces jail time for breaking a multitude of regulations.


Do you think in a Free Market Bernie Madoff would keep his reputation intact after the fact?

Does it matter? Again, what's preventing anybody from opening a bank and not backing up any of the deposits? I obviously don't need to inform the public either, since there's no regulation forcing me to do that. I can keep on siphoning money to the Cayman Islands until too many people want their money back, at which point I can simply declare bankruptcy and insolvency.

Heck, if Madoff got away with it for so long WITH regulators peeking at his numbers, image the fortune you can amass with nobody looking. Does it matter to Madoff what his reputation looks like after the fact?

[ElNono]

That's right, this sentence is sufficient evidence.

This is ridiculous, people who believe this tripe are unaware of the fact that market forces change constantly.

That's why CNN, Time Warner, GM have all lost marketshare.

Nobody claim that they don't change, but they do so within a framework that ensures competition. That's exactly WHY it changes. If that framework were not to exist, you would see more captive markets, less competition and less actual change.

[ElNono]

In china, everything is still controlled. The loser is the consumer and the peoper.lol

They're growing faster than we are. And the loser is the US also, losing all manufacturing to them.

[Ignignokt]

Sure it can. Madoff was eventually caught, did he not? By regulators none the less. And faces jail time for breaking a multitude of regulations.



Does it matter? Again, what's preventing anybody from opening a bank and not backing up any of the deposits? I obviously don't need to inform the public either, since there's no regulation forcing me to do that. I can keep on siphoning money to the Cayman Islands until too many people want their money back, at which point I can simply declare bankruptcy and insolvency.

Heck, if Madoff got away with it for so long WITH regulators peeking at his numbers, image the fortune you can amass with nobody looking. Does it matter to Madoff what his reputation looks like after the fact?


Strawman, A free market system can have objective law that prevents the use of force or fraud.

Please study more of these things.

[Ignignokt]

They're growing faster than we are. And the loser is the US also, losing all manufacturing to them.

When you have artificial wage increases, ofcourse you're going to gut all your manufacturing.

Chineese companies have to spend fuel to get their supplies here. American companies don't have to use the same shipping methods, we have an advantage. Where made that advantage useless is by forcing labor unions, and raising minimum wage, and inflating the money supply in order to combat the effects of those laws. We've also made it illegal to use vertical integration here in the states.

So don't blame free markets for this, blame interventionist moneterist and progressive thought for this.

[ElNono]

Strawman, A free market system can have objective law that prevents the use of force or fraud.

Please study more of these things.

You mean, regulations.

In a fiat economy you're not forced to back the money that comes in. That's how every bank, including the Fed, operates. There are regulations stating what minimum percentage they have to back up. Without those regulations, why would they back up any money at all?

[LnGrrrR]

Monopolies that exist because the consumer out of his free will is willing to pay for it's product and because of it's innovative and low prices is just.

About collusion, give me an example of what you consider collusion..

Collusion... say, for instance, all the farmers that supply an area decide to jack up the prices of bread, egg, and various other staple items much higher than normal (20 bucks for a loaf of bread, 15 bucks for eggs, 20 for a gallon of OJ etc etc).

[Wild Cobra]

A monopoly implies a lack of competition. This is what's been escaping you in every single of your responses. We know for a fact that monopolies will go at any length to squash any raising competition, and if not for anti-competitive regulation they will succeed 9 out of 10 times.

I have to cut in here.

What you forget is the same regulations that make it hard for small start-ups would be gone, making it easier for someone to start in a market dominated by a monopoly. When you eliminate the connection between the corporation, and the lawmakers, they can no longer get regulations that keep them the top dog.

This is the proper way to relax regulations. Not just any regulation, but those that interfere with the free market unnecessarily.

[Ignignokt]

Collusion... say, for instance, all the farmers that supply an area decide to jack up the prices of bread, egg, and various other staple items much higher than normal (20 bucks for a loaf of bread, 15 bucks for eggs, 20 for a gallon of OJ etc etc).

Lol.. that's called subsidies in these times.

[boutons_deux]

What regulations are maintaining Microsoft's monopoly?

the consolidation of the health insurance industry into local monopolies?

what specific regulations do you want killed that are preventing entry of competitors?

[ElNono]

I have to cut in here.

What you forget is the same regulations that make it hard for small start-ups would be gone, making it easier for someone to start in a market dominated by a monopoly. When you eliminate the connection between the corporation, and the lawmakers, they can no longer get regulations that keep them the top dog.

This is the proper way to relax regulations. Not just any regulation, but those that interfere with the free market unnecessarily.

I don't necessarily disagree that sometimes regulations are too many, too broad and too overreaching. Even that some are specifically tailored to favor somebody and thus bad regulation. But the fantasy that companies are not greedy and that would not try to game the system is completely naive. A baseline of regulation is required to even the field.

Your scenario is also fairly silly. Plenty of top dogs cut deals under the table with say, suppliers, to kill the startup. If not for anti-competitive regulation, the startup wouldn't last a year.

Reminds me of Intel having to pay up after they were cutting deals with PC suppliers not to ship AMD chips a few years ago. These are big companies willing to grease whatever wheel to get their way.

[ElNono]

BTW, gTown... Now I know what you mean by 'what's happening to cable companies'...
Fucking Comcast died on me halfway through Sunday, and they won't send a tech until Tuesday afternoon.
I'm typing this shit on my iPhone :lol

[LnGrrrR]

Lol.. that's called subsidies in these times.

That doesn't really answer my question though.

[ElNono]

That doesn't really answer my question though.

There's no possibility of collusion in the free market cinderella. Everybody is a honest competitor, even in incredibly thin profit margin businesses. :rolleyes

I'm still waiting to hear what's the point of investing in innovation if everything is public domain after it's invented...

[Ignignokt]

That doesn't really answer my question though.

If companies want to get the highest value for their grain, rice, and such then there will be a threshold of up to how much they can make with out taking a loss. Collusion doesnt work in a free market, in your scenario supermarkets will boycott the suppliers who engage in sorts and will demand supplies from other regions. Walmart infact does this, if their suppliers can't lower their prices, they get other suppliers.

In a free market, it's the consumers who have the final say.

[Ignignokt]

There's no possibility of collusion in the free market cinderella. Everybody is a honest competitor, even in incredibly thin profit margin businesses. :rolleyes

I'm still waiting to hear what's the point of investing in innovation if everything is public domain after it's invented...

Patents..copyrights.. they give the investor time to milk the products rawness.

[ElNono]

Patents..copyrights.. they give the investor time to milk the products rawness.

Those instruments provided by the government grant a de-facto temporary monopoly... isn't that what you call market distortion?

[angrydude]

But oh, no, can't do anything about copyright! *gasp* Otherwise how would anyone ever produce anything? :rolleyes

The book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, available at http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm pretty much blows that argument out of the water.

In short:
Brand recognition/good-will
Being first
Being better
As for investing in innovation, it would be cheaper because you could piggy-back off the work of others instead of re-inventing the wheel every time.

People always seek profits. That is why they will innovate. It is why they always have innovated.

[Ignignokt]

Those instruments provided by the government grant a de-facto temporary monopoly... isn't that what you call market distortion?
no.
That's someone's intellectual right. Just like a book is someones intellectual right, art or song.

It is govts job to defend us from the stealing of our property in a free society.

[Winehole23]

People always seek profits. That is why they will innovate. It is why they always have innovated.It is one reason, maybe the most compelling. Others include fame, the pride of mastery, service to community and zeal for learning. But yeah.

Skillz to pay the billz.

[LnGrrrR]

If companies want to get the highest value for their grain, rice, and such then there will be a threshold of up to how much they can make with out taking a loss. Collusion doesnt work in a free market, in your scenario supermarkets will boycott the suppliers who engage in sorts and will demand supplies from other regions. Walmart infact does this, if their suppliers can't lower their prices, they get other suppliers.

In a free market, it's the consumers who have the final say.

How can supermarkets boycott the suppliers, if all the major suppliers are setting one price?

There's a reason they're called "staple" items... because people need them. And if all the major suppliers lock down the supply, where will the supermarket turn to? Local farmers? They can't supply enough to feed everyone.

My point is, if all the food suppliers collude to price certain items high, what fallback does the consumer have? Is it your contention that another supplier will magically appear, with crops grown instantly?

[ElNono]

no.
That's someone's intellectual right. Just like a book is someones intellectual right, art or song.

It is govts job to defend us from the stealing of our property in a free society.

The invention is the property. The patent or copyright is a temporary (or used to be, these days it's debatable) government-granted monopoly. As far as economics go, for all intents and purposes it's a monopoly.

[Ignignokt]

The invention is the property. The patent or copyright is a temporary (or used to be, these days it's debatable) government-granted monopoly. As far as economics go, for all intents and purposes it's a monopoly.

Is literature, lyrics, etc a monopoly?

[Ignignokt]

Does KfC have to share their spices blend with Churchs?? Is that what you consider a free market??

[ElNono]

People always seek profits. That is why they will innovate. It is why they always have innovated.

Could be. The question is wether people would invest as much as they invest in R&D if there would be no such protections. The whole 'yeah, it's great because you can piggyback from somebody else invention' automatically means that the inventor might not even break even from it if a competitor gets to market first (and for some specific markets, unless you're already there, it's pretty difficult to do).

[ElNono]

Is literature, lyrics, etc a monopoly?

No, it's intellectual property. However, the copyright on said literature and lyrics is what's the government granted monopoly. Which is what prevents me from making copies of the book and selling it.

You can always also write and place your literature in the public domain, without the monopoly protection. That's still also intellectual property, but you simply waive the copyright protection.

[ElNono]

Does KfC have to share their spices blend with Churchs?? Is that what you consider a free market??

Well, what do you consider a free market? I thought in your free market world the government couldn't intervene in the market. If it's granting de-facto monopolies, then it's definitely intervening.

[Ignignokt]

Well, what do you consider a free market? I thought in your free market world the government couldn't intervene in the market. If it's granting de-facto monopolies, then it's definitely intervening.

How so and by what standard?

The govt is not invtervening in this case, what the govt is doing is protecting property rights of the individual the rightly are his, no one has the right to your mind, and a govt that incarcerates people who perpetrate fraud or who steal intellectual property are not altering the market to the advantage of another but are protecting the integrity of it and the laws of voluntary transaction which should be the only principle that should be enforced.

Why would a farmer keep growing crops if the govt allowed looters to take his fruit? What incentive would there be for a market if you remove the right to voluntary transaction or allow the disintegraton of it. Does not anti trust laws in this way actually enforce what they are trying to prevent, if a govt prevents a company desire to lower it's prices because it is able to do so without sacrificing anything and satisfy the consumer, then the govt is violating this principle which is the right of the company to its consumers.

And you wonder why the cost of goods is rising in this country..

[Winehole23]

if a govt prevents a company desire to raise it's prices because it is able to do so without sacrificing anything and satisfy the consumer, then the govt is violating this principle which is the right of the company to [screw] its [customers.] In the spirit of enforcing what one is trying to prevent: I fixed it for you, g.

[ElNono]

How so and by what standard?

By granting exclusivity rights to patent/copyright holders for a period time. The standard would be Patent/Copyright Law, I guess.


The govt is not invtervening in this case, what the govt is doing is protecting property rights of the individual the rightly are his, no one has the right to your mind, and a govt that incarcerates people who perpetrate fraud or who steal intellectual property are not altering the market to the advantage of another but are protecting the integrity of it and the laws of voluntary transaction which should be the only principle that should be enforced.

Except that's not how it works at all. What patent law does is exclude other people from temporarily using your invention (de-facto temporary monopoly) in exchange for making your invention public.

- You're not forced to patent your invention and make your invention public.
- You can still distribute your invention without making it public through specific licenses.

So property rights have little to do with it. Your property rights are enforceable even without a patent, provided you can prove the other person stole/copied your property.


Why would a farmer keep growing crops if the govt allowed looters to take his fruit? What incentive would there be for a market if you remove the right to voluntary transaction or allow the disintegraton of it. Does not anti trust laws in this way actually enforce what they are trying to prevent, if a govt prevents a company desire to lower it's prices because it is able to do so without sacrificing anything and satisfy the consumer, then the govt is violating this principle which is the right of the company to its consumers.

What if it's doing it for dumping reasons to corral a market and drive off competition? How does the consumer benefit from that in the long run?

[LnGrrrR]

I'm still waiting to see how Ig would deal with a group of food providers all raising their prices at once. His "find more farmers" solution doesn't work with the proposed hypothetical.

[JoeChalupa]

:lmao

[Ignignokt]

I'm still waiting to see how Ig would deal with a group of food providers all raising their prices at once. His "find more farmers" solution doesn't work with the proposed hypothetical.

It wouldn't work out to make a profit for these reasons:

1. Vendors like Walmart, HEB, and Target would boycott those farmers that colluded to raise prices and would look for international sources or other regional players.

Infact, to demonstrate how ignorant you are of market dynamics, Walmart already does this, they boycott producers who want to sell their products above market price.


2. To raise prices you have to cut down supply. The first people who would be pissed about this would be the shippers aka the truckers whose livelihoods depend on it, they will intervene by trying to weed away one of the parties in collusion who will benefit by getting cheaper rates than his competitor.

3. The price hikes wont be maintained for long because demand will fall, and the colluders would be losing out. This happened to the Southern Improvement Conmpany when Rockefeller and RR companies colluded for higher prices. Their customers and vendors of their products boycotted them and they got fucked.

If you can't grasp this concept, you wont grasp the law of supply and demand in a free market.

[Ignignokt]

:lmao

Keith bogans in for hack a shaq :59 4th qt

[LnGrrrR]

It wouldn't work out to make a profit for these reasons:

1. Vendors like Walmart, HEB, and Target would boycott those farmers that colluded to raise prices and would look for international sources or other regional players.

Infact, to demonstrate how ignorant you are of market dynamics, Walmart already does this, they boycott producers who want to sell their products above market price.

You're thinking on a national scale. I'm thinking more local. What if the local supermarkets in a surrounding area all raised the prices on staple items?



2. To raise prices you have to cut down supply. The first people who would be pissed about this would be the shippers aka the truckers whose livelihoods depend on it, they will intervene by trying to weed away one of the parties in collusion who will benefit by getting cheaper rates than his competitor.

Agreed that this would probably happen. However, if that happens, then there is no hypothetical obviously. So for the purposes of this hypothetical, we have to assume that all the companies stick to the proposed price hike.


3. The price hikes wont be maintained for long because demand will fall, and the colluders would be losing out. This happened to the Southern Improvement Conmpany when Rockefeller and RR companies colluded for higher prices. Their customers and vendors of their products boycotted them and they got fucked.

How can demand for staple items fall? That's kinda the point of a staple item. It's not like people can go without food, after all.


If you can't grasp this concept, you wont grasp the law of supply and demand in a free market.

I agree with you on most aspects, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate to see if all monopolies are kosher, or if there are some that you agree might be harmful.

[Ignignokt]

You're thinking on a national scale. I'm thinking more local. What if the local supermarkets in a surrounding area all raised the prices on staple items?

Um theory fails, there's hardly any local market that is self sustainable, prices from those markets are affected by regional ones.




Agreed that this would probably happen. However, if that happens, then there is no hypothetical obviously. So for the purposes of this hypothetical, we have to assume that all the companies stick to the proposed price hike.

This hypothetical does not exists in the real world, there are way to many dynamics. Greed can easily split this coalition.



How can demand for staple items fall? That's kinda the point of a staple item. It's not like people can go without food, after all. If you cut supply, you eliminate jobs in every sector, the farming, supplying, and vendor sector who will need less labor. You will have more unemployment and less purchasing power.

Lets look at one staple, people will stop purchasing products like cake, cookies, and will only buy what is needed to sustain themselves like bread and cereal. right there, certain suppliers would also be affected like bakeries, and desert companies. They will boycott those local farmers, and forced to go out of buisiness. This will lead to a dramatic fall in the demand of purchasing grain which will make those colluders operate on loss.





I agree with you on most aspects, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate to see if all monopolies are kosher, or if there are some that you agree might be harmful.

:toast

[LnGrrrR]

Ok Ig, fair enough. I don't have the historical nor economical background to counter what you're saying, so I'll take it at face value for now.

[ElNono]

Walmart or Target weren't selling LCD TVs from Samsung, LG and Sharp from 1996 to 2006?

News to me...