Monopoly and Competition

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You know I have to think a free market means more than a market with out regulation a free market has to mean also a market not monopolized by parasitic influences [/quote]

Parasitism could not exist if the market were free.

No sane person would knowingly allow a leech to take him out.

In a free market he would be “free” to fix that.

Consider for example the parasitic minimum wage and entitlement laws that stand in a business owner’s way. Do you think if the market were free he would willingly pay a wage above its value to him or would give away his products for free?[/quote]

No but consider a force that was allowed to establish it self as a service . which made it viable . But then because of regulations change it’s focus could change from providing a service to making profit
[/quote]

Are you trying to say that ? -

a) providing a service =/= making a profit

and/or

b) that providing a service is mutually exclusive of making a profit

[/quote]

Not quite sure what your question is .My point is that if you have a powerful force in the market that was originally intended to be of service and they lose sight of service in search of profits than that force would be a parasite .
[/quote]

The incentive for production in a marked economy is profits, the service a company is offering is just a means to get to the profits. Therefor you are describing something else than a marked economy. [/quote]

Just curious would you agree that the Health Insurance Industry monopolizes Health Care Industry ?
[/quote]
It’s not technically a monopoly but yes health care is made horrendous by regulations. Doctors have no incentive to directly serve their patients. Their only job is to avoid getting sued or fined. If the patient survives their “care” that is just a lucky coincidence.

62

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You know I have to think a free market means more than a market with out regulation a free market has to mean also a market not monopolized by parasitic influences [/quote]

Parasitism could not exist if the market were free.

No sane person would knowingly allow a leech to take him out.

In a free market he would be “free” to fix that.

Consider for example the parasitic minimum wage and entitlement laws that stand in a business owner’s way. Do you think if the market were free he would willingly pay a wage above its value to him or would give away his products for free?[/quote]

No but consider a force that was allowed to establish it self as a service . which made it viable . But then because of regulations change it’s focus could change from providing a service to making profit
[/quote]

Are you trying to say that ? -

a) providing a service =/= making a profit

and/or

b) that providing a service is mutually exclusive of making a profit

[/quote]

Not quite sure what your question is .My point is that if you have a powerful force in the market that was originally intended to be of service and they lose sight of service in search of profits than that force would be a parasite .
[/quote]

What myself and some of the other posters are trying to get at is your fundamental misunderstanding of profit, what it means, and its function.

My question was somewhat rhetorical and was intended to point out this misunderstanding. I take from your response that you would agree with both of my points. ( a and b )

You say “lose sight of service in search of profits” and this shows that you believe service and profit to be mutually exclusive of one another when they are not. In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite.

If your business concern is unable to make a profit then it is not being of service to society. This is because profit represents the added value that the business creates from its activities. The business takes land, labor, and capital, and rearranges them in a way such that the end product or service is of more value than the sum of the individual pieces, and thus, value, and profit, is created.

If a business takes land, labor, and capital, and rearranges them in a way such that the end product is of less value than the sum of the individual pieces then the business finds itself with a loss. This is because there has been a destruction of value, that is, the individual inputs were of greater value than the output.

I think this is what LIFTICVSMAXIMVS was getting at in the above post.

Making profit is exactly the opposite of parasitism.

The above might not hold true in the very short run but must necessarily hold true in the long run.

63

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You know I have to think a free market means more than a market with out regulation a free market has to mean also a market not monopolized by parasitic influences [/quote]

Parasitism could not exist if the market were free.

No sane person would knowingly allow a leech to take him out.

In a free market he would be “free” to fix that.

Consider for example the parasitic minimum wage and entitlement laws that stand in a business owner’s way. Do you think if the market were free he would willingly pay a wage above its value to him or would give away his products for free?[/quote]

No but consider a force that was allowed to establish it self as a service . which made it viable . But then because of regulations change it’s focus could change from providing a service to making profit
[/quote]

Are you trying to say that ? -

a) providing a service =/= making a profit

and/or

b) that providing a service is mutually exclusive of making a profit

[/quote]

Not quite sure what your question is .My point is that if you have a powerful force in the market that was originally intended to be of service and they lose sight of service in search of profits than that force would be a parasite .
[/quote]

The incentive for production in a marked economy is profits, the service a company is offering is just a means to get to the profits. Therefor you are describing something else than a marked economy. [/quote]

Just curious would you agree that the Health Insurance Industry monopolizes Health Care Industry ?
[/quote]

I must admit I dont know enough about the american health care system to have a strong opinion regarding if the health insurance industry has a monopoly or not.

64

I have to think , parasite is probably the wrong word . I am an ameture linguist . But the FACT is Insurance
dominates the health care industry. And if you want to fix health care you will have to approach Insurance

65

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to think , parasite is probably the wrong word . I am an ameture linguist . But the FACT is Insurance
dominates the health care industry. And if you want to fix health care you will have to approach Insurance[/quote]

Sure, cut all that mandatory crap you have to take with any contract in any given state, force them to compete across state lines and give tax deductions that offset the advantage businesses have by deducting their employees health insurance.

66

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to think , parasite is probably the wrong word . I am an ameture linguist . But the FACT is Insurance
dominates the health care industry. And if you want to fix health care you will have to approach Insurance[/quote]

Sure, cut all that mandatory crap you have to take with any contract in any given state, force them to compete across state lines and give tax deductions that offset the advantage businesses have by deducting their employees health insurance.
[/quote]

I think all those things should happen anyhow but Fla. has different demographics than NY and if Fla. residents buy Ins. from NY. the NY company would just charge the same premium that Fla. does . I do not see it working to any one’s advantage .I do not see it happening either with out some Federal regulations to standardize services .

67

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to think , parasite is probably the wrong word . I am an ameture linguist . But the FACT is Insurance
dominates the health care industry. And if you want to fix health care you will have to approach Insurance[/quote]

Sure, cut all that mandatory crap you have to take with any contract in any given state, force them to compete across state lines and give tax deductions that offset the advantage businesses have by deducting their employees health insurance.
[/quote]

I think all those things should happen anyhow but Fla. has different demographics than NY and if Fla. residents buy Ins. from NY. the NY company would just charge the same premium that Fla. does . I do not see it working to any one’s advantage .I do not see it happening either with out some Federal regulations to standardize services .
[/quote]

Mebbe they would.

And then they would go bankrupt because some other firm would would swoop in and take their customers.

68

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to think , parasite is probably the wrong word . I am an ameture linguist . But the FACT is Insurance
dominates the health care industry. And if you want to fix health care you will have to approach Insurance[/quote]

Sure, cut all that mandatory crap you have to take with any contract in any given state, force them to compete across state lines and give tax deductions that offset the advantage businesses have by deducting their employees health insurance.
[/quote]

I am all for a market that is fair to customers

I think all those things should happen anyhow but Fla. has different demographics than NY and if Fla. residents buy Ins. from NY. the NY company would just charge the same premium that Fla. does . I do not see it working to any one’s advantage .I do not see it happening either with out some Federal regulations to standardize services .
[/quote]

Mebbe they would.

And then they would go bankrupt because some other firm would would swoop in and take their customers.

[/quote]