Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Capsules   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
Anonymous

monopolies...
    #1797722 - 08/10/03 09:20 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

there's been some talk as of late about how in capitalism, a problem of competition is that it can give rise to monopolies, which exploit the market and drive up prices and drive down quality.

i don't buy it. if there is a company that is charging alot for a shitty product, how does the fact that it's the only company charging alot for a shitty product make it less likely that someone else will come along and make an improved version of the product or sell it for less?

if we live on an island, and i'm the only guy making lemonade, and charging $5.00 a glass for it, what's to keep someone else from making lemonade and charging $2.00 a glass for it? it's not as though i'm forcing anyone to not make lemonade and compete with me...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: ]
    #1797770 - 08/10/03 09:47 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

The Myth of Monopolies is one of the most common "objections" to Laissez-faire Capitalism, and one of the easiest to debunk.

Your reasoning is correct. Coercive monopolies can exist only with government intervention.

In a free market, where any competitor can challenge an existing provider of a product or a service, the only way a monopoly can be maintained for any length of time is for the provider of the good or service to deliver consistently the best possible product at the lowest possible price with the highest possible standards of quality, delivery time, support, etc. This is an incredibly tough set of circumstances to fulfill.

If any company were ever to be able to deliver all those factors, who is harmed? The consumers are getting the best possible deal.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: monopolies... [Re: ]
    #1797845 - 08/10/03 10:31 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

I would like someone to please give an example of any true MONOpoly (no Fidel, Microsoft is NOT a monopoly) that has lasted more than the length of time a patent is in effect that was NOT aided or abetted by the government in some way.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1797857 - 08/10/03 10:39 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Don't hold your breath.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGernBlanston
unintended sideeffect
Male

Registered: 05/28/03
Posts: 842
Loc: OR
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Phred]
    #1797988 - 08/10/03 11:27 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

if we live on an island, and i'm the only guy making lemonade, and charging $5.00 a glass for it, what's to keep someone else from making lemonade and charging $2.00 a glass for it? it's not as though i'm forcing anyone to not make lemonade and compete with me...




There are a couple of things that could keep these $2 lemonade people away.

1 - You have already used most of the lemon and sugar supply on your island. The remaining lemon orchard is under specific contract with you, since you buy so many lemons from them, to sell you a guaranteed large percentage of their lemons at a guaranteed low price. So anyone else looking for lemons on this island has a hard time finding any to buy, and pays 2x as much for their lemons as you do.

2 - After a period of prolonged success do to your lemon arrangement, you decide to purchase controlling interest in the lemon orchard, dictating who you sell lemons to in the first place. You decide not to sell lemons to any businesses at all.

3 - Since you have been such a great economic force on the island, bringing business to the lemon farmers and the sugar importers and providing people with a steady supply of a delicious product, the local government believes that you are 'good for the economy'. You ask them for tax breaks and get them. You get so popular, through campaign contributions, sponsoring fundraisers for your friends in government, and allowing your govt. buddies to have free lemonade whenever they like, that eventually they legislate regulations on the lemonade industry on your island. Of course, you benefit from all of these regulations, whereas any potential competitors (if you still have any after cornering the market in lemons, and undercutting prices) will be forced to comply with new regulatory procedures that will not really help their business grow, as yours continues to hold dominant market share.

4 - Hell... after a few years of this, all of your competitors will simply vanish. You will have "Wal-Mart-ized" them. Now, since you are the only lemonade vendor on the island, and people have come to rely on your lemonade to relieve their sweaty existances, you can begin charging $7 for your lemonade instead of the $5 that you used to. People may complain a bit, but they need the lemonade, so they'll pay the $7.

Is this the definiton of a monopoly? Not exactly. But I think you might need to refine your question. It has been proven time and time again (Sony, BMG, United Artists, Virgin, and the RIAA working together to freeze CD prices, for example) that big businesses reach a saturation point, and through the workings of the system, cement a place for themselves in that system... There is pretty much nothing a small retailer can do against Wal-Mart. Nothing. So while these "new-monopolies" may not consist of a single company anymore (usually), the effect is the same.


--------------------
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.
  --  Howard Zinn

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: GernBlanston]
    #1798081 - 08/10/03 12:12 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

The example you were replying to was not mine, but mushmaster's. However, I'll comment on your points anyway:

1 - You have already used most of the lemon and sugar supply on your island. The remaining lemon orchard is under specific contract with you, since you buy so many lemons from them, to sell you a guaranteed large percentage of their lemons at a guaranteed low price. So anyone else looking for lemons on this island has a hard time finding any to buy, and pays 2x as much for their lemons as you do.

No one is preventing anyone from starting their own lemon orchard and supplying my potential competitor.

No one is preventing anyone from importing lemons.

No one is preventing anyone from selling orange-aid or lime-aid or iced tea which serve the same purpose as lemonade and may in fact turn out to be more popular.

2 - After a period of prolonged success do to your lemon arrangement, you decide to purchase controlling interest in the lemon orchard, dictating who you sell lemons to in the first place. You decide not to sell lemons to any businesses at all.

The complete lack of available lemons on the island now makes it even more enticing for a competitor to start his own orchard or to start importing lemons.

3 - Since you have been such a great economic force on the island, bringing business to the lemon farmers and the sugar importers and providing people with a steady supply of a delicious product, the local government believes that you are 'good for the economy'. You ask them for tax breaks and get them... etc. etc.

Which is my point exactly. Coercive monopolies cannot exist for any length of time without government intervention.

4 - Hell... after a few years of this, all of your competitors will simply vanish. You will have "Wal-Mart-ized" them.

See above. Government intervention.

Is this the definiton of a monopoly? Not exactly.

Then why spend all that time addressing something not being discussed, especially if you are going to drag government into it?

But I think you might need to refine your question. It has been proven time and time again (Sony, BMG, United Artists, Virgin, and the RIAA working together to freeze CD prices, for example) that big businesses reach a saturation point, and through the workings of the system, cement a place for themselves in that system...

You are describing the practices of a cartel, not a monopoly. It has also been proven time and time again that cartels inevitably disintegrate.

There is pretty much nothing a small retailer can do against Wal-Mart. Nothing.

Then why are there still smaller retailers? When you want to buy clothes, is WalMart your only choice? Nope. When was the last time you were in a shopping mall? There is almost nothing you can buy in WalMart that you can't buy in other smaller stores as well, from kitchen supplies to CDs to vitamins to televisions.

So while these "new-monopolies" may not consist of a single company anymore (usually), the effect is the same.

Again, you are describing a "cartel", not a monopoly. And what "effect" are you describing? Collusion by the members of the cartel to raise prices? That sure as hell hasn't occurred in the department store area -- quite the reverse.

I am more familiar with the department stores in Canada than I am with those in the States, but in Ottawa, for example, if I am looking for cheap stuff, I can choose between WalMart, Kmart, Woolworth's, Sears, Hudson's Bay, Giant Tiger and probably a few more I have forgotten about. The existence of WalMart hasn't meant that all of a sudden I have to pay more for my cheap stuff -- I now pay less. WalMart's competitors have dropped their prices in order to retain market share, so I as a consumer have benefited from the entry of WalMart into the Canadian market.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineololiuqui
LSD-25

Registered: 08/07/03
Posts: 266
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Phred]
    #1798098 - 08/10/03 12:25 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

the psychedelic godfathers had a monopoly...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1798129 - 08/10/03 12:40 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

I would like someone to please give an example of any true MONOpoly

I don't think it needs to be 100% by one company. 3-4 major supermarkets can band together and agree to keep prices inflated and keep ripping off the consumer. Happens a lot in the UK.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: monopolies... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1798139 - 08/10/03 12:45 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

So you can't provide an example? Just one would help, I am not asserting that such a situation has never existed, I would just like a verifiable example.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1798156 - 08/10/03 12:52 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Just one? In the UK? The privatised water supply comes to mind.

In fact monopoly control of the water supply in many third world countries is a huge problem.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineyelimS
bohem

Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1798171 - 08/10/03 12:58 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

haha, monopoly, that's a fun word. i wonder what a monostereo is.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: monopolies... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1798177 - 08/10/03 01:01 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
Just one? In the UK? The privatised water supply comes to mind.




Did you state privatised, as in once owned by the government? Something the government had a monopoly on and then turned this monopoly over to another entity's control? Sorry, this does not fit the qualifications which I gave earlier.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineyelimS
bohem

Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1798182 - 08/10/03 01:04 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

i think norway's two main airline companies has the same prices. or at least used to.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1798191 - 08/10/03 01:09 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Something the government had a monopoly on and then turned this monopoly over to another entity's control?

How do you even compare the two? The government isn't running the nations water supply for a profit, a corporations sole goal is to earn profit.

The obvious difference is the government wouldn't increase the price of water by 400% as the privatised company that got hold of the Bolivian water system did.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: monopolies... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1798198 - 08/10/03 01:14 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

well shit alex... let me tell you what i'd do if i was a bolivian...

buy up some water filtration equipment, perhaps with capital raised from cocaine smuggling...

then get all the villigers to pee in a drum i'd haul around. at the end of the day, i'd filter that piss. whamo! clean drinking water. i'd undercut the competition and be the freakin' king of the place.

you see that man? ingenuity... that's what this is about...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: monopolies... [Re: ]
    #1798222 - 08/10/03 01:24 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

He jests at scars that never felt a wound.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: monopolies... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1798237 - 08/10/03 01:32 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
Something the government had a monopoly on and then turned this monopoly over to another entity's control?

How do you even compare the two? The government isn't running the nations water supply for a profit, a corporations sole goal is to earn profit.

The obvious difference is the government wouldn't increase the price of water by 400% as the privatised company that got hold of the Bolivian water system did.




Who established the monopoly? My understanding by the use of the term privatised implies that the government had owned and most likely established the monopoly. In other words, I would consider this as falling under the terms of aided or abetted. Here is my original request:

I would like someone to please give an example of any true MONOpoly (no Fidel, Microsoft is NOT a monopoly) that has lasted more than the length of time a patent is in effect that was NOT aided or abetted by the government in some way.

I should also like to add that anything which has come into being or maintained itself through criminal or violent acts would not qualify as becoming a monopoly via laissez faire capitalist means. Can you or anyone else provide a verifiable instance of such a monopoly?


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1798246 - 08/10/03 01:38 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

I don't understand your definition of a monopoly. A monopoly is by definition a situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service.

Water corporations are clearly an example of this.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGernBlanston
unintended sideeffect
Male

Registered: 05/28/03
Posts: 842
Loc: OR
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: ]
    #1798251 - 08/10/03 01:40 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

*looks up*
Was there a point to that?

Anyhoo...

No one is preventing anyone from starting their own lemon orchard and supplying my potential competitor.
No one is preventing anyone from importing lemons.
No one is preventing anyone from selling orange-aid or lime-aid or iced tea which serve the same purpose as lemonade and may in fact turn out to be more popular.


Indeed; but if you believe that being forced to import lemons, or to start your own growing operation is going to allow you to cultivate lemons at a lower price, thus allowing you to competitively sell lemonade at a lower price, then your logic has failed you.

As an intellectual exercise, this is interesting and all. But there are those (here and elsewhere) who believe that capitalism works at all levels. The freedom of the consumer outweighs the potential downfalls of the consolidation of corporate power. Capitalism works if the government does not get involved. Blah blah blah.

If anyone truly believes that corporate society exists in a beautiful, shiny, and purely theoretical plane, then I actually feel a bit sorry for you. If you think that government doesn't get involved in corporate affairs, to the mutual benefit of both parties, then you are just wrong.

Which is my point exactly. Coercive monopolies cannot exist for any length of time without government intervention.

Exactly. There is governement intervention, ergo, coercive monopolies do exist.

Then why are there still smaller retailers? When you want to buy clothes, is WalMart your only choice? Nope. When was the last time you were in a shopping mall? There is almost nothing you can buy in WalMart that you can't buy in other smaller stores as well, from kitchen supplies to CDs to vitamins to televisions.

I think that by "smaller retailers", you believe I am referring to The Gap, and Barnes and Noble, and Home Depot. Sure - I can still go to any of those places and get what I need at cometitive prices, but that's not what I'm talking about.

When Wal-Mart opened a Supercenter in my town 23 months ago, there was a Home Depot in town already. That was the only retail Super-Box in town. In those 23 months, my town of about 18,000 people has lost 67 businesses. Small clothing retailers, camera shops, film developers, small electronics, office supply, hardware stores, sporting goods stores, a candy store, tire shops... all phases of business. All 67 of these stores were locally owned. Upon losing these stores, the community was then ripe for the inclusion of a Target, Lowes, Sam's Club, and a handful of other smaller (but still gigantic) chains.

THAT's what I meant by the Wal-Mart comment.

And while a cartel is not technically a monopoly, the end result is the same. We pay the prices they set; we buy the products they offer for sale. And when their toe-hold on an area is set; when the competition is driven out, then that's when they jack the prices back up, lower the supply, and force us to play their game. That's a functional monopoly if I've ever heard of one.


--------------------
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.
  --  Howard Zinn

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: monopolies... [Re: GernBlanston]
    #1798254 - 08/10/03 01:42 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

*looks up*
Was there a point to that?


Nice one Gern!

:lol:

And while a cartel is not technically a monopoly, the end result is the same. We pay the prices they set; we buy the products they offer for sale. And when their toe-hold on an area is set; when the competition is driven out, then that's when they jack the prices back up, lower the supply, and force us to play their game. That's a functional monopoly if I've ever heard of one.

Amen.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: GernBlanston]
    #1798442 - 08/10/03 02:48 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

GernBlanston writes:

Indeed; but if you believe that being forced to import lemons, or to start your own growing operation is going to allow you to cultivate lemons at a lower price, thus allowing you to competitively sell lemonade at a lower price, then your logic has failed you.

Why do you believe that I cannot grow my own lemons as cheaply as the guy selling his lemonade for $5 a glass? Or for that matter, import them for less?

I live in the Dominican Republic, where one heck of a lot of rice is grown. There is not enough rice grown here to satisfy demand, so we are a net importer of rice. The imported rice is substantially cheaper than the locally-produced rice, even taking into consideration the shipping costs and currency conversion losses (the Dominican peso is not exactly in demand on international money markets) -- so much so that the government taxes it heavily in order to prevent the domestic growers from going under.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that even by growing my own lemons and/or importing them, I find that I still can't make a profit by selling my lemonade for any less than $5 a glass, just like my competitor. Does this not mean that the consumer of lemonade is getting the best possible deal on lemonade whether it's being sold by me, my competitor, or someone else? Who is being harmed in this scenario?

Capitalism works if the government does not get involved.

Laissez-faire Capitalism by definition is no longer Capitalism once the government involves itself in the economy.

If you think that government doesn't get involved in corporate affairs, to the mutual benefit of both parties, then you are just wrong.


Of course it gets involved, which is why monopolies are possible. All I am pointing out is that a longterm monopoly is impossible without government intervention.

When Wal-Mart opened a Supercenter in my town 23 months ago, there was a Home Depot in town already. That was the only retail Super-Box in town. In those 23 months, my town of about 18,000 people has lost 67 businesses. Small clothing retailers, camera shops, film developers, small electronics, office supply, hardware stores, sporting goods stores, a candy store, tire shops... all phases of business. All 67 of these stores were locally owned. Upon losing these stores, the community was then ripe for the inclusion of a Target, Lowes, Sam's Club, and a handful of other smaller (but still gigantic) chains.

I fail to see what that has to do with the establishment and perpetuation of monopolies. What is the point that you are trying to make here? That businesses fail when consumers are given the choice to buy the same product for less money?

And while a cartel is not technically a monopoly, the end result is the same. We pay the prices they set; we buy the products they offer for sale.

Yeah, you buy those products for less money than you did before WalMart opened for business.

Let's look at your town. Did all the locally-owned businesses close their doors the same day the WalMart opened? No. They closed their doors when enough of the citizens of your town voluntarily chose to buy their stuff at the WalMart rather than pay higher prices at the places they had previously patronized. How is this an indication of monopoly-building? Or cartel-building, for that matter?

And when their toe-hold on an area is set; when the competition is driven out, then that's when they jack the prices back up, lower the supply, and force us to play their game.

Yeah... everyone always says that will happen (the jacking up of prices), but no one ever provides an example of it happening. WalMart prices are the same in Iowa as they are in Montana. They are the same whether the WalMart has been there for two years or ten years, they are the same whether there are three other department stores in town or none.

That's a functional monopoly if I've ever heard of one.

Please provide us an example of an item in a WalMart store in a town where the WalMart has "driven out all the competition" which is priced higher than the same item in a WalMart store in another town where the WalMart store isn't the only game in town. You are not providing us with actual examples, you are merely speculating on what possible future actions WalMart may undertake if they ever succeed in becoming the sole retail outlet in a given area.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCornholio
A liberal guy(on hiatus)

Registered: 01/13/03
Posts: 845
Loc: Austin, TX
Last seen: 20 years, 4 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Phred]
    #1798894 - 08/10/03 05:14 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

First off, I agree with what GernBlanston is saying.

With regards to the lemonade, we can assume if the lemon company was buying lemons locally, then that was the best price, and those forced to import won't get as good a deal.

With regard to Walmart, I read a Harvard business case study showing that Walmart does not charge consistent prices in all its stores. It has people in each community constantly checking local prices to ensure Walmart is lowest. Where competition was eliminated, prices were higher. Where competition came back, prices were lowered until the competition was eliminated. People soon figured out the game and stopped competing, and Walmart has been able to keep higher prices in most communities.

That's the power of big business.

And Autonomous, while you may never find a pure monopoly, Microsoft qualifies from an economist's perspective because they are big enough to have all the inherent powers of a monopoly. That's why the Government threatened to break them up.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Cornholio]
    #1799015 - 08/10/03 05:49 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

"how does the fact that it's the only company charging alot for a shitty product make it less likely that someone else will come along and make an improved version of the product or sell it for less?"

prohibitively high cost of starting a new business and trying to compete with one that already has pre-established distribution, promotion, and manufacturing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGernBlanston
unintended sideeffect
Male

Registered: 05/28/03
Posts: 842
Loc: OR
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Phred]
    #1799060 - 08/10/03 06:05 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

I am, for some reason, reminded now of the old adage:

"Never try to teach a pig to fly. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig."

I'm not going to sit here all night and argue individual points. I have made my point. You either get it or you don't, and you either agree or you don't. Both are okay.

'Nite.


--------------------
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.
  --  Howard Zinn

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCornholio
A liberal guy(on hiatus)

Registered: 01/13/03
Posts: 845
Loc: Austin, TX
Last seen: 20 years, 4 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1799092 - 08/10/03 06:17 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

DoctorJ said:
"how does the fact that it's the only company charging alot for a shitty product make it less likely that someone else will come along and make an improved version of the product or sell it for less?"


That's actually an easy one. Walmart doesn't make their own products. If an improved version of something comes along for less, Walmart can just add that item to what it already sells.

Edit: Sorry Doctor J, I should have replied to and quoted Mushmaster. I got confused when you replied to me.


--------------------

Edited by Cornholio (08/10/03 09:55 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: GernBlanston]
    #1799112 - 08/10/03 06:24 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

"With regard to Walmart, I read a Harvard business case study showing that Walmart does not charge consistent prices in all its stores."

I'll tell you what Wlmart does consistently. They consistently pay lower prices than manufacturers ask for goods. Of course, manufacturers could sell their products to startup chains at higher prices, but Walmart drives startups out of business.

manufacturers know that in order to get national distribution, they have to sign deals with Walmart at prices that are set by Walmart.

Walmart also charges "facing fees" for shelf space that usually run about $100,000 a month. Kinda sets the bar a little high for startup capital dont you think?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1799245 - 08/10/03 06:59 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

DoctorJ writes:

I'll tell you what Wlmart does consistently. They consistently pay lower prices than manufacturers ask for goods. Of course, manufacturers could sell their products to startup chains at higher prices, but Walmart drives startups out of business.

manufacturers know that in order to get national distribution, they have to sign deals with Walmart at prices that are set by Walmart.

Walmart also charges "facing fees" for shelf space that usually run about $100,000 a month. Kinda sets the bar a little high for startup capital dont you think?


And yet with all that, WalMart is still not a monopoly.

pinky



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: GernBlanston]
    #1799271 - 08/10/03 07:03 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

GernBlanston writes:

I'm not going to sit here all night and argue individual points. I have made my point. You either get it or you don't, and you either agree or you don't. Both are okay.

There's no reason to feel bad that you were unable to come up with an example of a non-government-supported monopoly. In the almost three years I have been posting here, no one else has either.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Phred]
    #1799272 - 08/10/03 07:03 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

"And yet with all that, WalMart is still not a monopoly."

not yet, but they are definitely ruthless enough to reach for that brass ring

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGernBlanston
unintended sideeffect
Male

Registered: 05/28/03
Posts: 842
Loc: OR
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Phred]
    #1799276 - 08/10/03 07:04 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Whatever helps you sleep at night, my friend.


--------------------
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.
  --  Howard Zinn

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1799285 - 08/10/03 07:06 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

DoctorJ writes:

not yet, but they are definitely ruthless enough to reach for that brass ring

More power to them.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Phred]
    #1799298 - 08/10/03 07:10 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

so you're saying that being a monopoly is bad, but pulling all the ruthless stops necessary in hopes of becoming one isn't?

I'm not being sarcastic, I reallty am interested in hearing your opinion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: monopolies... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1799325 - 08/10/03 07:18 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
I don't understand your definition of a monopoly. A monopoly is by definition a situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service...




It's not my definition of monopoly that you do not understand, but my request for an example of one that falls under the following criteria:

A true MONOpoly that has lasted more than the length of time a patent is in effect that was NOT aided or abetted by the government in some way. Any monopoly which has come into being or maintained itself through criminal or violent acts would not qualify for they would be working outside of laissez faire capitalist means. Nor would any monopoly that came into being under the government fall under these criteria for this would mean that the government aided or abetted it's development.

So far, all responses have been of evasion, equivocation or feigned misunderstanding. I would like verifiable examples showing that a monopoly can be created and maintained WITHOUT government or criminal interference in the market. Is this too much to ask?


P.S. Microsoft is NOT a monopoly, I can and have operated computers under a variety of operating systems, Linux, Unix, DR Dos, etc. What 'stops' people from using these other systems is their laziness and desire to avoid learning something different when they already know Windows. Personally, I think Windows sucks loose stools out of inflamed rectums.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1799356 - 08/10/03 07:23 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

DoctorJ writes:

so you're saying that being a monopoly is bad...

Nope. I'm saying that government intervention to create a monopoly is bad.

...but pulling all the ruthless stops necessary in hopes of becoming one isn't?

Are the transactions involved in these "ruthless" business dealings voluntary? Then it isn't bad. WalMart has the right to try to persuade suppliers to give them the absolute best possible deal WalMart can negotiate. Any supplier at any time is free to draw the line.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1799358 - 08/10/03 07:24 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

"I would like verifiable examples showing that a monopoly can be created and maintained WITHOUT government or criminal interference in the market. "

is there really such a thing as a world where govt and criminal interference in the market don't occur?

not to mention coercion and under the table networks

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: monopolies... [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1799362 - 08/10/03 07:26 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Please, try not to evade. Instead, attempt to answer the request.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1799368 - 08/10/03 07:29 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

"Please, try not to evade. Instead, attempt to answer the question."

speak for yourself.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: monopolies... [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1799379 - 08/10/03 07:31 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

How about just one example?


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1799404 - 08/10/03 07:37 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

I must admit, I cant think of any, although the phone company was pretty close

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1799411 - 08/10/03 07:40 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

DoctorJ writes:

is there really such a thing as a world where govt and criminal interference in the market don't occur?

Mushmaster's original post was to ask why people believe that under Capitalism, monopolies are inevitable. We are not talking about the mixed economies of today, we are talking about Capitalism. Having debated the pros and cons of Laissez-faire Capitalism for decades now, I can honestly say that there has never been a time in any of those debates when the "myth of monopolies" didn't arise. For some reason I have never been able to fathom, no one ever seems to object to the many government monopolies in the Collectivist societies -- just the "monopolies" who got where they were through merit rather than pull.

One more time -- in a Laissez-faire Capitalist society, government has no influence over economic matters. All business transactions are voluntary. Therefore monopolies if they are to come into existence must do so without the use of force being involved in their creation.

If one is to say "Oh, but criminals can use force, too," then one is saying nothing more than that monopolies can arise (and be maintained for as long as it takes the cops to catch the criminals) under any socio-political system, since none is crime free.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,635
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 29 minutes
Re: monopolies... [Re: Phred]
    #1799494 - 08/10/03 08:18 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

What monopolies exist today because govenrment intervention?

And by intervention do you include Patent and trademark laws?


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleiglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
Re: monopolies... [Re: Phred]
    #1799514 - 08/10/03 08:27 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: monopolies... [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1799608 - 08/10/03 09:03 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Baby_Hitler said:
What monopolies exist today because govenrment intervention?



The post office. Cable companies. Garbage collection companies. Water companies. Electric companies (depending on the state). Natural gas companies.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCornholio
A liberal guy(on hiatus)

Registered: 01/13/03
Posts: 845
Loc: Austin, TX
Last seen: 20 years, 4 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1799643 - 08/10/03 09:16 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Autonomous said:
The post office. Cable companies. Garbage collection companies. Water companies. Electric companies (depending on the state). Natural gas companies.


In other words, "natural monopolies". Those industries where it's tremendously wasteful to have duplication. I mean, it would be silly to run 5 cables into your home because there's 5 cable companies. Most people agree that natural monopolies are ok, provided the Government does step in to ensure they don't overprice.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,635
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 29 minutes
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1799702 - 08/10/03 09:38 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

What is the word for when a huge company puts pressure on other companies to help them kill another company?


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: monopolies... [Re: Cornholio]
    #1799851 - 08/10/03 10:23 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Cornholio said:
In other words, "natural monopolies". Those industries where it's tremendously wasteful to have duplication.



Phone companies used to be considered 'natural monopolies' in the U.S. However, since deregulation we have seen rates drop to 10ths or even 100ths of what they were before (adjusted for monetary inflation). Usually, it is established companies that have pushed for such protection of their economic turf as 'natural monopolies' to prevent new and innovative competitors from offering better service at a lower price.

Quote:

I mean, it would be silly to run 5 cables into your home because there's 5 cable companies.



What is silly is assuming that you would have 5 cables running into your house if there were competition.

Quote:

Most people agree that natural monopolies are ok, provided the Government does step in to ensure they don't overprice.



Ah, argumentum ad populum or, as my mother used to say, "If everyone jumped off a cliff would that make it the smart thing to do."


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: monopolies... [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1799886 - 08/10/03 10:35 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Baby_Hitler said:
What is the word for when a huge company puts pressure on other companies to help them kill another company?



Hmm, I don't know. But there are words to describe what huge or established companies get governments to do to help them kill competition... such as 'regulation,' 'occupation licensing,' 'recognition of a natural monopoly,' 'fees,' or 'permits.' These are usually accompanied by such things as 'permitting of grandfatherd facilities,' 'grandfathered status,' 'grandfatherd sources,' 'grandfather clauses,' or 'prohibition of ex-post facto laws.'


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1800270 - 08/11/03 12:12 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

It's not my definition of monopoly that you do not understand

Yes it is. I've given you the dictionary definition of a monopoly which you appear to reject in favour of your own definition.

A true MONOpoly that has lasted more than the length of time a patent is in effect that was NOT aided or abetted by the government in some way.

Who says? The dictionary certainly doesn't.

Microsoft is NOT a monopoly

Incidentally by the standard definition of monopoly - A monopoly is by definition a situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service... microsoft would clearly appear to be a monopoly.

Could you give us just one example of an important area of human life - food, water, power that you consider isn't a monopoly or cartel? Perhaps this will help us understand what you mean by your own personal and unique definition of the word monopoly.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCornholio
A liberal guy(on hiatus)

Registered: 01/13/03
Posts: 845
Loc: Austin, TX
Last seen: 20 years, 4 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1800648 - 08/11/03 03:28 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Autonomous said:
Phone companies used to be considered 'natural monopolies' in the U.S. However, since deregulation we have seen rates drop to 10ths or even 100ths of what they were before (adjusted for monetary inflation). Usually, it is established companies that have pushed for such protection of their economic turf as 'natural monopolies' to prevent new and innovative competitors from offering better service at a lower price.


Prices have plummeted allright, but not because of "new and innovative competitors". They plummeted because too many telecom companies were in the market and supply greatly exceeded demand. Dozens of telecom companies have recently declared bankruptcy, over 1/2 million jobs were lost, and over $2 TRILLION (not a typo) dollars in market value were lost. While I'm not saying this is because of deregulation, I'm saying that deregulation wasn't necessarily a good thing for a natural monopoly.

Quote:

What is silly is assuming that you would have 5 cables running into your house if there were competition.


So if you owned the cable running through a neighborhood, you would share it with your competitors and let them profit off of it??? I wouldn't!

Quote:

"Most people agree that natural monopolies are ok, provided the Government does step in to ensure they don't overprice."

Ah, argumentum ad populum or, as my mother used to say, "If everyone jumped off a cliff would that make it the smart thing to do."


I love it when people understand logical arguments. Fair enough, ignore the "Most people agree that" in my statement above. I already explained why they are ok (because duplication of resources would be tremendously wasteful).

Edit: Natural monopolies are the only type of monopolies I think should exist, and only with Government monitoring/intervention.


--------------------

Edited by Cornholio (08/11/03 03:33 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: monopolies... [Re: Cornholio]
    #1800656 - 08/11/03 03:38 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

What is silly is assuming that you would have 5 cables running into your house if there were competition.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if you owned the cable running through a neighborhood, you would share it with your competitors and let them profit off of it??? I wouldn't!




He's got you on this one (and others)....
That would be 5 cables running down the street, not into your house.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCornholio
A liberal guy(on hiatus)

Registered: 01/13/03
Posts: 845
Loc: Austin, TX
Last seen: 20 years, 4 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1800668 - 08/11/03 03:46 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
That would be 5 cables running down the street, not into your house.


Ok, still wasteful.
Quote:

He's got you on this one (and others)....


Cheap shot.  Back it up, BITCH!  :wink:   


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: monopolies... [Re: Cornholio]
    #1800686 - 08/11/03 03:55 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Ok, still wasteful.



True, but still not 5 cables into your house.


Quote:

Cheap shot. Back it up, BITCH! 



I guess I could copy his posts and paste them here, but instead I'll just say to re-read them.  :kiss:


And if you can't find them, remember.... absence of a post isn't proof it doesn't exist.  :grin:


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCornholio
A liberal guy(on hiatus)

Registered: 01/13/03
Posts: 845
Loc: Austin, TX
Last seen: 20 years, 4 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1800705 - 08/11/03 04:05 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
And if you can't find them, remember.... absence of a post isn't proof it doesn't exist.  :grin: 


:lol: 


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: monopolies... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1800888 - 08/11/03 07:16 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Alex123, I am requesting an example of a monopoly that came into being and has existed under the criteria which I listed and explained. Your inability to understand this request has NOTHING to do with the definition of the term monopoly - I am not disputing the standard dictionary definition in my request, just (again) asking for an example of one that has come into existence and been maintained without government or criminal intervention in the market.

I at first thought your inability to understand this was feigned, now I am not so sure. I will not engage in any further attempts at what appears to be a futile effort - getting you to understand this simple request.

One verifiable example please. If you are unable to come up with one, you could just do what DoctorJ did (admit it).


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1801210 - 08/11/03 10:12 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

I am not disputing the standard dictionary definition in my request, just (again) asking for an example of one that has come into existence..

So why use the word monopoly when you are talking about something completely different? Seeing as everything important to human existence is likely to have had some government involvement at some time or other what exactly is your point? Are you denying corporate monopoly of the water supply is a monopoly because the government had a hand in the water supply at some time?

I at first thought your inability to understand this was feigned, now I am not so sure.

No, it isn't feigned. You are using the word monopoly to mean something entirely different to what it actually means. I am sure you would agree that is very difficult to understand.

One verifiable example please

Did you read Gerns posts on the first page?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleiglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
Re: monopolies... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1801308 - 08/11/03 10:52 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

from merriam-webster dictionary (www.m-w.com)

Main Entry: mo?nop?o?ly
Pronunciation: m&-'n?-p(&-)lE

Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -lies
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to sell
Date: 1534
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: monopolies... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1801404 - 08/11/03 11:32 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
I at first thought your inability to understand this was feigned, now I am not so sure.

No, it isn't feigned.



This is now obvious. Since you are incapable of understanding I will now terminate my dialogue with you within this thread. Good day.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1801455 - 08/11/03 11:46 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Yes,I am unable to understand your personal and unique definition of the word monopoly. A definition that doesn't exist anywhere but your head.

Sorry.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGernBlanston
unintended sideeffect
Male

Registered: 05/28/03
Posts: 842
Loc: OR
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1801829 - 08/11/03 01:21 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Autonomous said:
This is now obvious. Since you are incapable of understanding I will now terminate my dialogue with you within this thread. Good day.




There are few people who are incapable of understanding a given point, outside of those with actual brain deficiencies.

I find that the case is actually that most people are incapable of efficiently making their point. If you are unable to eloqute the point you are trying to make in such a way that others understand you, if not necessarily agree, then I find that fault almost invariably lies with the point maker, not the point getter.

You have, however, been eloquent enough to be added to my "pompous, self-important ass" list... so there's at least something you have going for you, eh?


--------------------
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.
  --  Howard Zinn

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: monopolies... [Re: GernBlanston]
    #1801860 - 08/11/03 01:29 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

GernBlanston said:
You have, however, been eloquent enough to be added to my "pompous, self-important ass" list... so there's at least something you have going for you, eh?



Well, how about you? Can you come up with a verifiable example or will you only resort to name calling?


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1802095 - 08/11/03 02:34 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Have you read Gerns post on the first page? I've directed you to it at least once before.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCornholio
A liberal guy(on hiatus)

Registered: 01/13/03
Posts: 845
Loc: Austin, TX
Last seen: 20 years, 4 months
Re: monopolies... [Re: Autonomous]
    #1802150 - 08/11/03 02:45 PM (20 years, 7 months ago)

Just my own 2 cents here:

A "pure" monopoly as defined in the strictest dictionary sense has probably never existed, because even if a mom & pop shop that makes no money is competing against a megagiant, then the megagiant is technically not a "pure" monopoly.

But monopoly as used in practice normally means a company that has "monopoly power". This would apply to many companies, such as Microsoft, and the old Standard Oil, IBM, and AT&T. It might even apply to Walmart. If that weren't the case, how could the Government have threatened to break up Microsoft??? After all, Linux was around at the time.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Capsules   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Pure Capitalism
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Lallafa 10,806 76 12/25/01 11:30 PM
by Phred
* Walmart and Free Market Capitalism
( 1 2 all )
afoaf 2,310 28 09/24/05 10:26 AM
by Tao
* Monopoly Rules.... Capitalism. GabbaDjS 1,058 5 01/02/02 02:14 AM
by Ulysees
* Walmart- a pig of a corporate citizen carbonhoots 1,086 3 02/18/02 10:14 AM
by GabbaDj
* Money monopoly Silversoul 745 7 05/04/05 05:49 PM
by faslimy
* Orchards and American Integrity Zahid 556 1 10/20/03 02:25 PM
by wingnutx
* The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (School Vouchers)
( 1 2 all )
JesusChrist 3,321 28 04/17/09 01:39 AM
by JesusChrist
* Think about this next time you shop at Walmart.
( 1 2 3 all )
The_Red_Crayon 3,543 46 03/25/06 07:41 AM
by kotik

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,642 topic views. 0 members, 8 guests and 22 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.043 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 14 queries.