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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Doesn't happen in China. Why is that?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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

---

It's more semi-controlled. The government controls access to credit, but not to profit, so much. There are powerful private concerns in China.

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.

GDP growth is hard to deny.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

you never asked this question. link??

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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

---

That doesn't really answer my question though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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?

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/genera...al/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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.