[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
-left to compete, the market will still determine a fair price
Please explain monopoly competition.
Choosing not to consume.[/quote]
I can see how that better serves the customer than a competitive market.
Astute, as usual.
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Kinda like you sidestepped me asking you to name one monopoly that isn’t protected by the government.
Since most civilized countries have anti-trust laws, it’s rather difficult to find any monopoly that didn’t get busted apart at some point.
I notice that you didn’t rise up either and name me a non-government monopoly that was better for the customers than a multi-competitor environment.[/quote]
There’s not one. Monopolies are illegal unless they are government sponsored, dumb fuck.
I made one in this thread, and you ran like a little bitch who just got her first period.
I don’t think I have it all figured out. I just know when certain people need to shut up and color. You would be one needing to find his box of crayons.
But you started with the barbs. I just do a better job with mine than you do with yours.
[quote]You are a hack when it comes to business. Maybe you should ply your warez on computers instead of looking like an idiot in this discussion.
Right. Like you could tell the difference either way. Like I said, you’re just a tool who parrots what he’s been told.
[/quote]
I’m a tool who owns three business. All of them wildly successful. I may have “been told” things - but I put them into practice. And you have done what besides post on an internet forum?
I’ll put my business knowledge up against your sit-on-the-couch-and-eat expertise any day.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
There’s not one. Monopolies are illegal unless they are government sponsored, dumb fuck. [/quote]
The original post is about getting rid of anti-trust laws. You support the position. Yet, other than childish name calling, you’re unable to present any worthwhile argument to defend the position.
Somehow, we’re supposed to accept - because you say so - that monopolies are just fine and dandy, and that anti-trust laws only hurt the customers?
Why don’t you put all that business knowledge and experience to work, and give us a single argument on-topic? You know, one that mentions monopolies and anti-trust laws and demonstrates that the former are fine and the latter sucks?
'Til then, you’re a useless tool.
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
There’s not one. Monopolies are illegal unless they are government sponsored, dumb fuck.
The original post is about getting rid of anti-trust laws. You support the position. Yet, other than childish name calling, you’re unable to present any worthwhile argument to defend the position.
Somehow, we’re supposed to accept - because you say so - that monopolies are just fine and dandy, and that anti-trust laws only hurt the customers?
Why don’t you put all that business knowledge and experience to work, and give us a single argument on-topic? You know, one that mentions monopolies and anti-trust laws and demonstrates that the former are fine and the latter sucks?
'Til then, you’re a useless tool.
[/quote]
You start out the name calling by saying i am a tool, and now you want to center your fucking whining around the notion that MY name calling is childish? Cry me a river, puss lips. If you don’t want to go down this road, down start the name calling.
But to address your issue. It was already answered by others. If there are no legal barriers protecting the monopolies, then competition itself will prevent them from occurring.
Which goes to the heart of my original challenge to you. Find a fucking monopoly that isn’t protected by the government. You can’t because, besides being illegal - competition, or even the threat of such, will prevent them from occurring.
How fucking hard is that for you to understand?
Like I said - I may be a tool, but at least I am a tool who has actually been a producer rather than a consumer.
Now shit down, shut the fuck up, and color.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
But to address your issue. It was already answered by others. If there are no legal barriers protecting the monopolies, then competition itself will prevent them from occurring.[/quote]
I’m a bit underwhelmed by the keen insight your three businesses have given you into the matter. Care to elaborate? What prevents one competitor from eventually eliminating the others, or a few from banding together to control a market?
Kudos though for finally adressing the topic.
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
But to address your issue. It was already answered by others. If there are no legal barriers protecting the monopolies, then competition itself will prevent them from occurring.
I’m a bit underwhelmed by the keen insight your three businesses have given you into the matter. Care to elaborate? What prevents one competitor from eventually eliminating the others, or a few from banding together to control a market?
Kudos though for finally adressing the topic.
[/quote]
It is not my problem that you are too dense to see that the topic was addressed without holding your hand.
You being underwhelmed is another issue that doesn’t register on my give-a-shit o-meter. My bank account, my family, the IRS, and myself are all quite pleased with my business knowledge.
Not that I am a genius by any stretch - I am just smarter, and far more experienced than anything you have ever done with your life.
Elaborate on what? You seem woefully ignorant about the power of competition. The only way groups can conspire to create a monopoly is with help from the government. You have been told this at least three times now.
How about you try a different topic? Evidently, you can’t hang in a name calling contest, and you don’t know shit about the power of a free market.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
But to address your issue. It was already answered by others. If there are no legal barriers protecting the monopolies, then competition itself will prevent them from occurring.
I’m a bit underwhelmed by the keen insight your three businesses have given you into the matter. Care to elaborate? What prevents one competitor from eventually eliminating the others, or a few from banding together to control a market?
Kudos though for finally adressing the topic.
It is not my problem that you are too dense to see that the topic was addressed without holding your hand.
You being underwhelmed is another issue that doesn’t register on my give-a-shit o-meter. My bank account, my family, the IRS, and myself are all quite pleased with my business knowledge.
Not that I am a genius by any stretch - I am just smarter, and far more experienced than anything you have ever done with your life.
Elaborate on what? You seem woefully ignorant about the power of competition. The only way groups can conspire to create a monopoly is with help from the government. You have been told this at least three times now.
How about you try a different topic? Evidently, you can’t hang in a name calling contest, and you don’t know shit about the power of a free market. [/quote]
So you don’t know. Just say so.
Tool.
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
But to address your issue. It was already answered by others. If there are no legal barriers protecting the monopolies, then competition itself will prevent them from occurring.
I’m a bit underwhelmed by the keen insight your three businesses have given you into the matter. Care to elaborate? What prevents one competitor from eventually eliminating the others, or a few from banding together to control a market?
Kudos though for finally adressing the topic.
It is not my problem that you are too dense to see that the topic was addressed without holding your hand.
You being underwhelmed is another issue that doesn’t register on my give-a-shit o-meter. My bank account, my family, the IRS, and myself are all quite pleased with my business knowledge.
Not that I am a genius by any stretch - I am just smarter, and far more experienced than anything you have ever done with your life.
Elaborate on what? You seem woefully ignorant about the power of competition. The only way groups can conspire to create a monopoly is with help from the government. You have been told this at least three times now.
How about you try a different topic? Evidently, you can’t hang in a name calling contest, and you don’t know shit about the power of a free market.
So you don’t know. Just say so.
Tool.
[/quote]
I do know. Like I said, you are woefully ignorant of the power of competition. You seem to be equally ignorant about the the need for governmental support to create and maintain a monopoly.
It’s not my fault you are so woefully ignorant. Perhaps you should be directing this frustration toward your parents. It can’t be all your fault.
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Kinda like you sidestepped me asking you to name one monopoly that isn’t protected by the government.
Since most civilized countries have anti-trust laws, it’s rather difficult to find any monopoly that didn’t get busted apart at some point.
[/quote]
Name one that had ill effect before anti-trust laws.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I do know.[/quote]
Yeah, you keep repeating that. What’s odd is that you’re apparently unable to use that knowledge to make or support arguments. Was my question too difficult?
Let’s say there are four or five oil companies selling gas in a country. What prevents them from banding together and raising their prices above market value?
I’m picking that example because we in Canada tend to pay more for our gas than you do in America. And that’s not due to tax issues. If you subtract all taxes, state and federal, from the price of gas on both sides of the border and adjust for dollar differences, you’ll note that gas prices in the US follows the price of crude much more closely than it does here in Canada. When the price of the barrel goes down, our price at the pumps also go down - eventually. Often, there are days or weeks of slow decline while prices in the US drop the next day or within a few days. The few articles I’ve read about that topic all pointed to our anti-trust laws as the culprit, because our AT laws are apparently much harder to apply in courts than yours are.
According to you, the free market should rectify prices on both sides of the border, but it doesn’t seem to do so as effectively here. Why is that? If monopolies simply cannot form on their own, and anti-trust laws are useless, then why are we feeling the effect of an oligopoly subtly controlling the market?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Name one that had ill effect before anti-trust laws.[/quote]
Standard Oil.
[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
-left to compete, the market will still determine a fair price
Please explain monopoly competition.
Choosing not to consume.
I can see how that better serves the customer than a competitive market.
Astute, as usual.
[/quote]
Are you suggesting that boycotts cannot work to change corporate policy?
You lack little economic insight.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Are you suggesting that boycotts cannot work to change corporate policy?[/quote]
No, boycotts can work fine. Organizing them on a national level is another thing though. Especially if the “good” in question is somewhat essential to daily life.
Do you think a single one of those “Boycott Exxon/BP/Chevron” emails ever made a smidgen of difference on their balance sheets?
Since I lack little, you’re saying I have much? Ok.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Yet you seem not to have any problem with government monopolies like roads, health care, and police?
Monopolies are not inherently bad unless they coercively drive out competition and use political influence to protect their own interests at the expense of the consuming public.
In fact, monopolies can only happen by government mandate. As long as there exist a threat that someone will enter the market to compete with a monopoly a monopoly cannot charge “monopoly prices”. Monopolies will only remain on top if the public still chooses to consume their product.[/quote]
That’s because the profit motive that makes a monopoly injurious to the public is not nearly as strong in a government monopoly. Not that they are perfect, they come with their own benefits and drawbacks, but at least a government monopoly is subject to some sort of regulation and the profits don’t all go one group of people as in a private monopoly.
Guess what? All monopolies by private companies “coercively drive out competition and use political influence to protect their own interests at the expense of the consuming public.”
And I never said anything them not needing a government mandate. Several industries such as railroads and steel could not have achieved the status that they did back in the early 20th century if not for extensive government backing and protection. Doesn’t make them any less baleful.
[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Are you suggesting that boycotts cannot work to change corporate policy?
No, boycotts can work fine. Organizing them on a national level is another thing though. Especially if the “good” in question is somewhat essential to daily life.
Do you think a single one of those “Boycott Exxon/BP/Chevron” emails ever made a smidgen of difference on their balance sheets?
[/quote]
Well, I don’t know about any petrol boycotts, but I know what effect lessened consumption of said petrol has had in the recent past.
But I will dissent if you can name one essential good to daily life that has ever seen a monopoly.
Lacking little can also mean you have less than the little insight required to understand even the most simple phenomena…just sayin’.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well, I don’t know about any petrol boycotts, but I know what effect lessened consumption of said petrol has had in the recent past.[/quote]
And how have profits been affected?
Salt.
Is English your first language?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
That’s because the profit motive that makes a monopoly injurious to the public is not nearly as strong in a government monopoly.
[/quote]
It is the profit motive that restricts a monopoly from harming its customers lest they choose not to consume. Also, if a monopoly makes too large of a profit it will have to deal with competitors entering the market. The profit motive is nice that way.
The only way a monopoly can stay in business is if it can coerce – legal or otherwise – consumers into continuing to purchase their products.
How is a monopoly a bad thing if it does nothing to coerce consumers and continues to offer a product that none can compete with?
Are not copyright and trademarks legal monopolies?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Salt.[/quote]
Salt is not essential to life and it has never been a monopoly.
Anyone that lives on the ocean has access to it. It exists in pretty abundant quantities all over the face of the earth.
In the event of competition, a company can simply lower its prices to the point that its competitors cannot possibly hope to compete with it, drive them out of business, then continue business as usual.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
Salt.
Salt is not essential to life and it has never been a monopoly.[/quote]
Wrong on both counts. Look it up.