Reply With Quote
It would surprise no one if you posted this from a public library
you're full of , go take a dump
It would surprise no one if you posted this from a public library
it's amoral, like most things that are customary.
Better than the alternatives, but failures like monopolies are inevitable.
It takes a fine balance between decent regulation and a free hand. Total lassez-faire is a proven failure, and over-regulation is almost as bad.
+1
It is a tool, no more no less. Many on the right treat it like some infallible deity, and many of the left treat it like a irredeemable devil. It is neither.
and why's that? your make believe world is one i'm glad i don't live in.
I don't know about that. In concept, I don't think it is. Once it passed through the hands of the interpreters, however, it can look and feel pretty much that way.
Action talks bull walks.
blakehole23
Everything comes back to Blake for you.
What’s the obsession with Blake?
And how does my take relate?
I wouldn't call a monopoly a failure. It's simply running the table. Just as the Warriors aren't a failure if they run off 6 in a row by severe stacking of the deck. It might be bad for the NBA overall, but that doesn't make the team or monopoly a failure. I've never seen a failed business that's cornered the market well enough to have a monopoly.
What if one does and abuses the market position?
Who can kick em in the nuts?
In b4 ed and un able
What do you honestly expect when the cuck in your coalition is in high voice?
So protecting yourself from being kicked in the nuts is failing? It's not the monopoly that fails, it's the compe ion that either sold out to them or made ty business decisions that caused them to go under. Look at Microsoft, for example. What operating system even comes close to competing with Windows in the market? Is that the fault of Microsoft that no other company has refused to be bought out by them, or that their anti-trust practices where they do things like give away software packages other companies were trying to sell, are those somehow signs of failure? An overpowering en y isn't a failure. The failure is the people who allowed themselves to be put into that position. Then again sometimes something comes along and it becomes a necessity (like a telephone) and the company that created it doesn't want to share the technology or their infrastructure. So they can price fix and do other nasty things and you can do nothing about it, but you still have the ability to go start your own company.
So yeah, some regulation is fine if it means a healthier economy overall, but that doesn't make the regulated "failures".
The compe ion that failed is the definition of monopoly, silly.
oh, and we’re to blame for everything leading up to and after that. And there’s nothing to be done about it.
Good story. Are you familiar with the first half of the 20th century? Anti-trust law?
Thamks in advance for your non-response so far.
Lol "coalition"
Derrrrrp
You're not part of a coalition? Show us the post from the last two weeks in which you took on chump, lite, tranny, kidnapper, fluffer, etc.?
Today's cuck
The failure is not with the company but with the system that allows monopolies to form.
Lol "coalition"You're not part of a coalition? Show us the post from the last two weeks in which you took on chump, lite, tranny, kidnapper, fluffer, etc.?
Derrrrrp
Did you prefer the gang?
I agree that coalition almost grants you an undeserved heir of dignity.
lol heir
Lol "coalition"
Lol derp feels ganged up on.
Derrrrrp
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Blake