Prev: Does this ever happen to you?
Next: Public Transit?
From: Larry G on 3 May 2010 09:34
On May 3, 8:53 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2010-05-03, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > monopolies are real....  the pure capitalist market will and does
> > generate monopolies because that is one of the aspects of pure
> > capitalism that the participants will engage in to beat their
> > competitors.
>
> Yes, that's what government school teaches us, however it's impossible
> unless that monopoly pleases all of the customers all of the time and
> maintains lower prices than any would be competition can achieve. So,
> exactly why is that a bad things?

are you saying that effective monopolies do not exist because there is
always competition ? what if the companies engage in strategies to
kill the competition before it gets big enough to challenge? where
govt is not involved, it would happen all the time.
>
> > You can see this in action every time a WaWa or Sheetz moves in next
> > to a mom/pop place and lowers the gasoline prices lower than the
> > actual cost. The bigger companies can sustain the loss longer than the
> > little guy can and as soon as he is gone - the prices not only rise -
> > they go up even higher if there are no other nearby competitors.
>
> And when they jack up the prices afterwards nobody else moves in exactly
> why? When they jack up the prices why don't customers just get gas
> elsewhere?  

where are they going to go? 5, 10 miles down the road? If they do
that, then they'll set their prices accordingly. what part of this do
you not get?
>
> Can you even prove they are selling under their cost? Or is it
> another issue of their costs being lower?  (BTW, lots of gas stations
> are just francises, and are ma and pa even though it looks like big oil,
> and whatever WaWa or Sheetz is they can't be too big as I've never heard
> of them)  

you don't have to prove that if there is no govt involved. do you get
this point?
>
> The problem with undercutting competition by selling at a loss is that
> after 'winning' the endurance contest they can never make up for it with
> higher prices without inspiring new competition. Of course if takes 5
> years of permiting through the government then, well, they can be
> assured that such practices will benefit them.

Brent - the smart guy jacks the prices up but not so high that they
won't compete. There goal is to OUT COMPETE by using their size and
weigh to their advantage.
>
> > At an exit ramp, one company can buy all the prime land and then put
> > up a station that charges higher rates than if a competitor moved in
> > across the street.
>
> Because customers are too lazy to drive a little further? Again, another
> unfounded complaint.

not too lazy. you pull off to get gas and then what? they know they
have you and your choice is to either buy or make another stop.
>
> > For a more complete list of the strategies actually practiced:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Monopoly_versus_competitive_mar...
>
> Exactly how does having government as a referee make for a free
> market? Government is not impartial and it's not fair either.

govt restricts the ways that businesses can create and maintain
monopolies. You'd be the very first guy complaining to the govt about
your electric bill if they double the rates and you had no alternative
because they do, in fact, have a monopoly.
>

>
> It doesn't care if you live or die. Government cares about government.
> This is why everything gets sucked into the political system.

if your kid gets killed by a defective car seat - you are going to
demand that the govt make them stop making defective car seats. If a
chemical company moves in next door to you - you are going to go
running to the govt... don't be a hypocrite
>
> > every time you take an aspirin or eat a pork chop - the govt has
> > played a role in the efficacy and safety of those and virtually
> > anything that you eat.
>
> No. It has set a very very very low standard such that those who wish to
> provide a better quality product cannot or at the very least not
> indicate that they have done better than the FDA minimum. The low
> standards are set to allow the giant corporations producing medicore
> product to not face competitive issues. BTW, Aspirin is grandfathered
> in.

the standard is, of necessity, a compromise. It's not perfect and
there are numerous examples of where it does not work completely as
intended but you don't do away with all of it because it is not
perfect. Aspirin is subject to purity standards. If someone sells
contaminated aspirin.. you are going to go running to the govt are you
not? I bet you will.. if it destroys your liver..eh?

>
> > The nutrition labels on food are there because of govt.
>
> I'm sure you'll find that the details of how a nutrition label are put
> together are for the benefit of those who have the political inside
> track. Like how the government has decided that GMO foods don't have to
> be labeled. How it often decides that those companies who do not use
> whatever new fangled risky cost reduction methods that are the new
> hotness cannot label their products as such. Yeah, the FDA protects
> those with the political influence from undo competition of ma and pa's
> better made product.

yadda yadda yadda... you say first that govt should not be poking it's
nose into private business then you say they don't do it according to
the way you think they should.
this sounds a lot like the Tea Party folks... no matter the situation
- the govt does it wrong.

Political influence is a reality just like cockroaches. grow up.

>
> My favorite example is a company that wanted to sell premium beef in the
> US but mostly wanted to export to Japan. It wanted to test every cow for
> mad-cow disease. That should be its right, yes? Nope. The FDA forced it
> to test only to the standard it set, not exceed it. Not show up the
> other beef companies.

they can't tranship to a country that does allow it?
>
> > The interstate highways and their standardized designs and
> > safety features are there because of the govt making tradeoffs between
> > lives lost / injure and the costs of mitigating.
>
> Ah. There's the costs you claimed weren't considered. US interstate is
> pretty crappy in terms of the best known road building and safety.
> Instead they decide to use heavy handed enforcement of low speed limits,
> too low even for the way the roads are designed in most cases.

again.. which way do you want it? do you want public roads - imperfect
as they are or do you not?
>
> > Without govt - there would be no public roads. Everywhere you went you
> > would be paying an entrepreneur whose road design and safety features
> > would be unique to him and the next road... you'd also pay another
> > toll on and it would be different.
>
> Do I need to go over the private-vs-socialist road system again? Without
> government, I might be able to pay only for what I use and drive proper
> speeds. Another bonus is that the government highwaymen wouldn't be an
> issue any more. Government also decides that to use its roads I have to
> give up my rights. Remember the fast one they've pulled on most people
> by creating the illusion that driving is a privilege it grants and
> therefore can mandate whatever it wants in return for that grant.

could you - if they owned the only bridge within 20 miles and charged
you $5 per crossing?

what is it with you and govt? is does not work the way you think it
should so we should do away with it? You're sounding more and more
like a Tea Party guy .
>
> > Govt has an important role and even though govt can and does screw up
> > - it does not negate the role and all the things it does that do work
> > properly.
>
> Yes, that's what government schools teach us and it's entirely wrong.
> Government works for the ruling class and others that can manipulate
> government. Not you, not me. Sure every so often it does it's job
> because of fear that the great mass will revolt in most cases.

ever hear of elections? that's the way this country is designed..
we don't rule with militias despite the fond fantasies of some
>
> > pure, unadulterated capitalism is anarchy .... go visit Somalia or
> > Yemen to see what pure Capitalism is about.
>
> It's amazing the job government schools have done. The problems in those
> countries are the direct result of those who wish to impose government
> at the point of a gun. Outside of the violence of those who wish to be a
> government Somalia has shown the natural self organizing tendencies of
> civilization. Now if only criminal gangs and foreign governments weren't
> trying to impose a government civilization could flurish.

do you mean the war lords who sells drugs and buy weapons and then
rule as dictators and kill whoever gets in their way?

this is the kind of "naturally organizing" govt that you believe will
occur?

what is your answer to criminal gangs? rival gangs? militia? do you
not believe in elected govt?


From: Harry K on 3 May 2010 10:13
On May 2, 9:14 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2010-05-03, Harry K <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I suspect they quit offering them because _nobody_ would buy them.
> > They were a very high priced option.
>
> I know it was a long time ago, but check the manufacturers' objections to
> the mandate. They were based on the prior experience.
>
> Most everything starts out as a high priced option.

Their objections have nothing to do with the subject. The
manufactureres have fought every safety and/or pollution mandate.


Harry K
From: Larry G on 3 May 2010 18:28
On May 3, 10:07 am, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> There is no capitalism at all in those two places.
>
> There is no pure capitalism anywhere, to the best of my knowledge.

what do you call a totally virtually unregulated market?

I call it pure capitalism...

you want an AK-47 or a steak or a girl slave? all you need is money
From: Larry G on 3 May 2010 18:32
On May 3, 11:09 am, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/3/2010 10:03, Brent wrote:
>
> > On 2010-05-03, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> pure, unadulterated capitalism is anarchy .... go visit Somalia or
> >>>> Yemen to see what pure Capitalism is about.
>
> >> There is no capitalism at all in those two places.
>
> > Actually there is. In periods when someone is not trying to impose a
> > government and wrecks it capitalism starts to peak out and people begin
> > to start making forward progess. Markets can exist even in prison camps..
>
> "market" not equal "capitalism".  There are markets in pure socialism.

actually: " Capitalism is an economic system where the means of
production are privately owned; wage labor is predominant; supply,
demand and price are at least partially determined by markets; and
profit is distributed to owners who invested in the business."

I think this pretty much describes the economy of Somalia. No?
From: Larry G on 3 May 2010 18:35
On May 3, 12:45 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2010-05-03, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5/3/2010 10:03, Brent wrote:
> >> On 2010-05-03, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> pure, unadulterated capitalism is anarchy .... go visit Somalia or
> >>>>> Yemen to see what pure Capitalism is about.
>
> >>> There is no capitalism at all in those two places.
>
> >> Actually there is. In periods when someone is not trying to impose a
> >> government and wrecks it capitalism starts to peak out and people begin
> >> to start making forward progess. Markets can exist even in prison camps.
>
> > "market" not equal "capitalism".  There are markets in pure socialism..
>
> Some form of market capitalism exists even in prison camps. Happy now?
> It even exists under socialism. It's called the 'black market'.

strangely enough, I totally agree with Brent.

what would one think ....."controls" capitalism.. yes.. I know this is
a fat pitch.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Prev: Does this ever happen to you?
Next: Public Transit?