LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Close to being correct. Too bad you don't believe it and just posting in jest.
Printable View
LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Close to being correct. Too bad you don't believe it and just posting in jest.
Maybe if we stopped taxing productivity, productivity here would be less expensive....Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Complete bull, consumers have free will in a free market, you're probably thinking of an anarcho capitalist world, but that's not what i'm talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
The reason why you had monopolies gain control of market was because of govt reg that discouraged small buisiness. Look at NorthPac railroad. There were cartels that depended on govt sanction.
Very true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
These new banking regulations they speak of will reduce the profits of large banks, but might kill the smaller ones.
Big business and democrats being friends... Never a good mix...
And why do consumers loose confidence.... because the market was overvalued due to loose credit. The govt actually inflated the money supply after WW1 to pay for the war, that caused an economic depression world wide, the fed raised interest rates to combat it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
You keep trying to peg the New Deal with me, and I keep telling you that what worked was the increased spending. IE: the stimulus. I'm glad you finally recognize that it does.
Becuause you at first said that the recovery started in 1939, and you attributed to the New Deal, we had a long discussion about that. You seemed to have flip flopped.
Yeah he did, he said deficit spending was imperative to pump money into the economy. Do you not know one of the basic principles of keynes theory??Quote:
Keynes doesn't say that at all. Only if you don't know what he spoused.
He said you need the stimulus, be it as spending or tax breaks, and once you were out of the recession, you could then reduce the debt and balance your budget with a working economy. People blame Keynes because politicians don't follow through, but it's really not his fault, is it?
Infact, Keynes thought deficit spending as morally neutral. But you don't know what he actually espoused.
Buisiness will corall the market only if the govt sanctions them. Anti trust is immoral because it punishes good buisiness practices that didn't require force or fraud. The govt can arbitrarily send buisinessmen to jail for whatever whim they think is a violation of the anti trust laws.Quote:
Non government intervention is an utopia. Because Free Market is an utopia. The business with the most money will always try to corral the market, and most times succeed. At that point they will abuse their power.
Self-correcting markets are a fairy tale. No such thing ever existed and never will.
Self correcting markets are not a fairy tale.
Standard Oil lost its market share to innovation of the light bulb.
Cable Tv lost it's market share to Phone providers introducing tv packages.
GM lost its market control because of it's high prices, it's size which made it inefficient.. etc.
You see the market make corrections all the time.
Cue the "Did someone force them to buy Microsoft computers?"Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
You can buy linux or apple, again who forced you to buy Microsoft?Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
I just knew that response was coming. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Maybe you missed my question, but what do you think about collusion? Also, what about monopolies on certain vital items, say, bread, medicine, etc etc?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
About collusion, give me an example of what you consider collusion..
Maybe taxing doesn't matter... maybe China can simply exploit their population... how does the Free Market force their hand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
No such thing. Consumers only have free will when they have options. Once a company corrals a market, there's no longer options.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
What prevents a behemoth company from purchasing all the competition or simply colluding with the competition in the Free Market? How does the consumer benefit in that case?
Free Market is an utopia. There's no such thing in this world.
China is anything but a free market.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Exactly. So how do you change that? Because the Free Market that you want can't compete with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
How do you keep everybody in check? You can't obviously. That's why it's an utopia.
If the company has a product that no other competitor can match in price and quality, then the consumers will continue to purchase it. If the company colludes with other competition and raises prices, the demand drops because people are no longer willing to purchase that product, Rockefeller discovered this when he colluded with railroads, in the end they all lost money because the competition lowered it's prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Monopolies that are coercive only exist when the govt grants them power.
You have a point in the aspect that it's too expensive now to start a competitive business. The start-up taxes, fees, permits, etc. etc. hamper all but the rich from acceling. We need less regulations in those aspects.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
That's utter complete bull.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
If the labor force is oppressed, and a govt like china has many regulations, then they can only get so far in quality.
The reason why we lose labor oversees is because of our money inflation which debases the purchasing power of the consumer and the minimum wage laws.
Govt controls always bring about higher prices.
Why is it that knee surgery cost more than breast augmentation??
Very simple.
It was Standard oil's competitors that lobbied for anti trust laws against Rockefeller.
Regulation doesn't benefit the free market, it benefits the corporations who have the tools and chest to fight it leaving the defenseless near profit margin small buisinesses to vanish.
Some competitor always stands to profit from regulation.
Except when there's only one supplier of said product, and it can charge whatever they want and provide whatever quality they want. And if somebody decided to compete, they get either bought out or the competition gets turned into an uneven match until it collapses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Have you heard of the term dumping? Why do you think it exists?
No such thing. When *all* players in the market collude you get the same market distortion you dislike about government. Since there's no competition, the consumer is basically captive of said collusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
You never answered my question. If at least temporary monopolies are not granted in the form of patents or copyrights, what incentive does a company have to invest in R&D?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
If your idea is good and innovative enough and you don't have the capital, you can always make a business plan and hunt for VC funding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Bull. By artificially keeping their currency low, they keep their wages low. It's simply cheaper to hire them than to hire anybody here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
That gives them an unmatched competitive edge with the downside being poverty. But it's obviously like that by design.
Doesn't happen in China. Why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
What does that has to do with Government control or lack of?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
No basic anti-competitive regulation means no competition. Plain and simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
I also wonder what answers the Free Market has for Ponzi schemes like Madoff's. If there are no regulations forcing me to backup investments (heck, even deposits), then why should I?
And you can't tell me that an occurence of that en masse wouldn't cause deflation.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
This is what is happening to the cable companies as we speak.
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.Quote:
Have you heard of the term dumping? Why do you think it exists?
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.Quote:
No such thing. When *all* players in the market collude you get the same market distortion you dislike about government. Since there's no competition, the consumer is basically captive of said collusion.
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.
you never asked this question. link??Quote:
You never answered my question. If at least temporary monopolies are not granted in the form of patents or copyrights, what incentive does a company have to invest in R&D?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Do you think in a Free Market Bernie Madoff would keep his reputation intact after the fact?
That's right, this sentence is sufficient evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
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.