May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: George Conklin on 19 Oct 2009 09:17 "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hbhnsf$me6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 2009-10-19, George Conklin <nil(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:hbgode$uvt$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > >> On 2009-10-19, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > George Conklin wrote: > >> >> "Larry Sheldon" <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:7k14uvF36mirbU1(a)mid.individual.net... > >> >>> Miles Bader wrote: > >> >>>> Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >> >>>>> The reason it will probably be less is because when > >> >>>>> private industry is in charge, there is a strong financial incentive > >> >>>>> to maximize efficiency - an incentive that simply does not exist > > when > >> >>>>> the government is in charge of roads. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> In a truly free market, on a truly level field of competition, most > >> >>>>> cost-effective mode of transport will will. > >> >>>> That's not necessarily true. It's common for them to get stuck in > > local > >> >>>> minima. Government intervention can help such situations (though of > >> >>>> course it doesn't always do so). > >> >>> In a truly free market, there is no Government Intervention. If there > >> >>> is government intervention there is no free market of any sort. > >> >> > >> >> Wrong. Governments preserve free enterprise by making sure you don't > > have a > >> >> monopoly, like Blue Cross and Blue Shield got to be because they have > > an > >> >> exemption from the rules against monopolies. > >> > > >> > In a free market, a "monopoly", by definition, can not form. > >> > >> A monopoly might form without government intervention but it cannot last > >> without it. It's the same with a cartel. When the government isn't there > >> to (help) prevent new businesses from starting or businesses cheating on > >> the cartel's rules monopolies and cartels fall apart. > > > > > > Wrong again. > > Explain how a monopoly or cartel can endure without government > intervention on behalf of the monopoly or cartel. > > A cartel buys up all the supplies and makes sure no one can compete. It is the natural state of things. Blue Cross and Blue Shield are exempt from the anti-trust legislation so they are free to form and keep others out, and they do so in most markets. Were they subject to the anti-monopoly laws, they could not do this.
From: Brent on 19 Oct 2009 09:36 On 2009-10-19, George Conklin <nil(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:hbhnsf$me6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> On 2009-10-19, George Conklin <nil(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> > >> > "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > news:hbgode$uvt$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >> On 2009-10-19, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > George Conklin wrote: >> >> >> "Larry Sheldon" <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:7k14uvF36mirbU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> >>> Miles Bader wrote: >> >> >>>> Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> writes: >> >> >>>>> The reason it will probably be less is because when >> >> >>>>> private industry is in charge, there is a strong financial > incentive >> >> >>>>> to maximize efficiency - an incentive that simply does not exist >> > when >> >> >>>>> the government is in charge of roads. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> In a truly free market, on a truly level field of competition, > most >> >> >>>>> cost-effective mode of transport will will. >> >> >>>> That's not necessarily true. It's common for them to get stuck in >> > local >> >> >>>> minima. Government intervention can help such situations (though > of >> >> >>>> course it doesn't always do so). >> >> >>> In a truly free market, there is no Government Intervention. If > there >> >> >>> is government intervention there is no free market of any sort. >> >> >> >> >> >> Wrong. Governments preserve free enterprise by making sure you > don't >> > have a >> >> >> monopoly, like Blue Cross and Blue Shield got to be because they > have >> > an >> >> >> exemption from the rules against monopolies. >> >> > >> >> > In a free market, a "monopoly", by definition, can not form. >> >> >> >> A monopoly might form without government intervention but it cannot > last >> >> without it. It's the same with a cartel. When the government isn't > there >> >> to (help) prevent new businesses from starting or businesses cheating > on >> >> the cartel's rules monopolies and cartels fall apart. >> > >> > >> > Wrong again. >> >> Explain how a monopoly or cartel can endure without government >> intervention on behalf of the monopoly or cartel. >> >> > > A cartel buys up all the supplies and makes sure no one can compete. Even if it were possible to 'buy up all the supplies', who or what prevents someone or some company in the cartel from making side deals? Deals that are very profitable to those willing to break from the cartel. Furthermore, what prevents new companies from entering the market? Especially foreign companies who have other sources for 'supplies'. > It is > the natural state of things. Blue Cross and Blue Shield are exempt from the > anti-trust legislation so they are free to form and keep others out, and > they do so in most markets. Were they subject to the anti-monopoly laws, > they could not do this. In other words they have the protection of the state. BTW anti-monopoly laws are not needed in a free market (including property rights). In the market we have are generally used as political tools to punish some and benefit others. Behind any old time evil robber baron or similar story there is government action that supported their activities. The least of which is the government siding with the monopolist or cartel and running over the property rights of others.
From: Dave C. on 18 Oct 2009 23:07 > A cartel buys up all the supplies and makes sure no one can compete. > It is the natural state of things. Blue Cross and Blue Shield are > exempt from the anti-trust legislation so they are free to form and > keep others out, and they do so in most markets. Were they subject > to the anti-monopoly laws, they could not do this. Blue Cross and Blue Shield (not to pick on them, other health insurance companies benefit, also) benefit from state laws stating which companies can offer insurance in the state. Insurance companies don't have to do anything to have a monopoly, the states gave them a monopoly. -Dave
From: Dave C. on 18 Oct 2009 23:11 > > > > In a free market, a "monopoly", by definition, can not form. > > > In a free market, a monopoly is always the end result. Government > must preserve the marketplace. > You've got that exactly backwards. Taking the example of health insurance...each state only has a limited number of health insurance providers operating in the state. From what I've heard, there is only ONE in Maine. This is due to state government interference in the health insurance industry. It is a government created monopoly. If health insurance company X wants to offer health insurance in Colorado, they have to get permission from Colorado first. That's not a free market, it is a state-created monopoly. -Dave
From: gpsman on 19 Oct 2009 11:22
On Oct 19, 8:44 am, "George Conklin" <n...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > Someone not thinking wrote: > "gpsman" <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote in message > > > Transit buses and big rig trucks can do > > the most damage. > > What's "damage" and what's "normal wear and tear"? > > It is a question of degree. When one vehicle can do 9,000 times more damage > than another, it is no longer an issue of "normal" wear and tear. Transit > buses and big rigs do 9,000 times more damage than a car. Transit buses and heavy trucks are "normal" traffic, thus any wear and tear attributed to them must be considered "normal". If you attribute no damage to passenger vehicles, 9000 times 0 still equals 0. ----- - gpsman |