May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: Brent on 22 Oct 2009 13:33 On 2009-10-22, chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > Brent wrote: > >> chrisv wrote: >>> Brent wrote: >>> >>>>Sounds like you've just agreed that government interference is required. >>> >>> Why agree to something that is false? You sound like the government >>> is some magical force, that can do things more effectively than the >>> tricky, scheming, businessman cannot do (under the right >>> circumstances, of course). >> >>Government isn't a magical force, it's got a monopoly on legal violence. >>With that monopoly it can grant monopolies to others. > > "Government can grant monopolies" does not equal "monopolies require > government grant" I didn't say they were equal nor is that what I wrote. But good try. Monopolies require the aid of the state. Without it they are not monoplies, those with large market share can and often do fail. >>The large 'evil' >>businessmen that retain their freedom and their wealth must ally >>themselves with the state in some form. Good businessmen of equal >>business size have to at least purchase protection eventually. > Not necessarily. Large companies are eventually targeted by government creatures or need the permission of government creatures to continue/expand their operations. >>> It could be argued that "passing laws" can be *less* effective than >>> some of the methods of the businessman. >> >>Getting laws passed is how you crush your competition in the USA. > No, it is only one of many ways to do that. It's the primary method in the USA.
From: chrisv on 22 Oct 2009 13:55 Brent wrote: > chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >> "Government can grant monopolies" does not equal "monopolies require >> government grant" > >I didn't say they were equal nor is that what I wrote. Then why did you make such obvious statements, as if they supported your case? >But good try. Good try on your failed arguments. >Monopolies require the aid of the state. No they don't. >Without it they are not >monoplies, those with large market share can and often do fail. "Can and often" does not equal "will" >> Not necessarily. > >Large companies are eventually targeted by government creatures or need >the permission of government creatures to continue/expand their >operations. Can we interpret "permission" as "not being prosecuted for anti-competitive behavior"? If so, I will agree with you, but that's not the same as the government "granting" the monopoly. >> No, it is only one of many ways to do that. > >It's the primary method in the USA. Nonsense.
From: Brent on 22 Oct 2009 14:12 On 2009-10-22, chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > Brent wrote: > >> chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> "Government can grant monopolies" does not equal "monopolies require >>> government grant" >> >>I didn't say they were equal nor is that what I wrote. > > Then why did you make such obvious statements, as if they supported > your case? I don't take idiots reading things that aren't there into account. >>But good try. > Good try on your failed arguments. I guess those who don't make arguments can't have one's that 'fail'. >>Monopolies require the aid of the state. > No they don't. I ask again, how does a monopoly stop new competition without it? >>Without it they are not >>monoplies, those with large market share can and often do fail. > "Can and often" does not equal "will" Of course it doesn't, the company with large market share might continue pleasing their customers. If they stop pleasing their customers they'll fail eventually. >>> Not necessarily. >>Large companies are eventually targeted by government creatures or need >>the permission of government creatures to continue/expand their >>operations. > Can we interpret "permission" as "not being prosecuted for > anti-competitive behavior"? Depends on what you mean by "anti-competitive behavior". > If so, I will agree with you, but that's not the same as the > government "granting" the monopoly. Selective enforcement is a government favor. You and your competition do the same things. Your buddy has a high government office. You don't have any problems but the slightest little thing your competition does gets them fined or worse. >>> No, it is only one of many ways to do that. >>It's the primary method in the USA. > Nonsense. The 'build a better mouse trap' is limited to a few limited industries in the USA. Most are now regulated to the point where favor with the regulators, to have the regulations favor you and disfavor your competition is how to get ahead.
From: Hadron on 22 Oct 2009 14:13 chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> writes: > Brent wrote: > >> chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> "Government can grant monopolies" does not equal "monopolies require >>> government grant" >> >>I didn't say they were equal nor is that what I wrote. > > Then why did you make such obvious statements, as if they supported > your case? > >>But good try. > > Good try on your failed arguments. > >>Monopolies require the aid of the state. > > No they don't. Yes, they clearly do. As the examples given have shown. Why do you insist on being so infantile and thick?
From: chrisv on 22 Oct 2009 14:45
Brent wrote: > chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> Brent wrote: >> >>> chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> "Government can grant monopolies" does not equal "monopolies require >>>> government grant" >>> >>>I didn't say they were equal nor is that what I wrote. >> >> Then why did you make such obvious statements, as if they supported >> your case? > >I don't take idiots reading things that aren't there into account. Ironic, coming from the idiot who regularly makes clearly erroneous statements. Tell us again how "Getting laws passed is how you crush your competition in the USA." >>>But good try. > >> Good try on your failed arguments. > >I guess those who don't make arguments can't have one's that 'fail'. You "guess" lots of things, it seems. >>>Monopolies require the aid of the state. > >> No they don't. > >I ask again, how does a monopoly stop new competition without it? Think about the nature of Microsoft's products, and the products that depends on Microsoft's products. When you're done with that, think about Microsoft's relationships with the big OEM's. I've already told you, I'm not going to write a thesis for you. Microsoft's history is there for you to research yourself. >>>Without it they are not >>>monoplies, those with large market share can and often do fail. > >> "Can and often" does not equal "will" > >Of course it doesn't, the company with large market share might continue >pleasing their customers. If they stop pleasing their customers they'll >fail eventually. In other words, it was another throw-away comment from you, in no way supporting your case. >>>> Not necessarily. > >>>Large companies are eventually targeted by government creatures or need >>>the permission of government creatures to continue/expand their >>>operations. > >> Can we interpret "permission" as "not being prosecuted for >> anti-competitive behavior"? > >Depends on what you mean by "anti-competitive behavior". Nice evasion of my point. >> If so, I will agree with you, but that's not the same as the >> government "granting" the monopoly. > >Selective enforcement is a government favor. You and your competition do >the same things. Your buddy has a high government office. You don't have >any problems but the slightest little thing your competition does gets >them fined or worse. What a bunch of bullshit. Hang it up, buddy. >>>> No, it is only one of many ways to do that. > >>>It's the primary method in the USA. > >> Nonsense. > >The 'build a better mouse trap' is limited to a few limited industries >in the USA. Most are now regulated to the point where favor with the >regulators, to have the regulations favor you and disfavor your >competition is how to get ahead. Yet more unsupported nonsense. |