Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds - Original Sensible Seeds
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: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblepaperbackwriter
Edward Lear


Registered: 03/31/14
Posts: 1,888
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21956651 - 07/17/15 03:13 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

psyconaught said:
Quote:

paperbackwriter said:
Or land rights.  Gotta make food too.



are you saying we shouldn't be able to own land?




Each according to their need sure.  Beyond that no.


--------------------
Why should we strive with cynic frown
To knock their fairy castles down?  ~ Eliza Cook

It's rather embarrassing to have given one's entire life to pondering the human predicament and to find that in the end one has little more to say than, 'Try to be a little kinder.' ~Aldous Huxley

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShins
Fun guy
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21956656 - 07/17/15 03:15 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Unrestrained capitalism means capitalism unrestrained by external forces. What the fuck do you think it means?





but capitalism is always restrained by external forced, that's what I just blatantly explained to you;  capitalism is always restrained by supply and demand.

What it is socialism restrained by?  The debt ceiling? which, like clockwork is raised every time they get near it?  What exactly is restraining the socialists?



You really need to begin to use your brain to think deeper man.  First you thought communism could exist, when it contradicts itself (as I explained)  and now you think capitalism is "unresrrained"  you need to think more.


--------------------
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OnlineBigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,026
Last seen: 1 minute, 3 seconds
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21956657 - 07/17/15 03:15 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

Let me lay this out plainly. Under Capitalism, a company must necessarily grow or die. There is a reason for this. If they're not growing, someone else is, and they will either be bought, or forced out of the market. Acquisition and merger is the name of the game in Capitalism. You see, in it's early stages Capitalism thrives on competition, and there are winners and losers. Over time there are very few winners, and without regulation you end up with monopolization.

Once a company has a monopoly, they are not subject to the forces of the market, they are the market. If they own all of the farmland, they can charge whatever they want for food, because they are the only source. If they own all the water rights, same deal. If they own all of the housing, same deal.

Eventually companies span out into new markets, and swallow competition there also. Eventually you would end up with one company owning all private property, and it would simply be a communist dictatorship, like Soviet Russia! :smile:


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OnlineBigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,026
Last seen: 1 minute, 3 seconds
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: Shins]
    #21956660 - 07/17/15 03:16 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Shins said:
Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Unrestrained capitalism means capitalism unrestrained by external forces. What the fuck do you think it means?





but capitalism is always restrained by external forced, that's what I just blatantly explained to you;  capitalism is always restrained by supply and demand.

What it is socialism restrained by?  The debt ceiling? which, like clockwork is raised every time they get near it?  What exactly is restraining the socialists?



You really need to begin to use your brain to think deeper man.  First you thought communism could exist, when it contradicts itself (as I explained)  and now you think capitalism is "unresrrained"  you need to think more.




Supply and demand aren't external forces, they are part of Capitalism.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepaperbackwriter
Edward Lear


Registered: 03/31/14
Posts: 1,888
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21956674 - 07/17/15 03:21 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Let me lay this out plainly. Under Capitalism, a company must necessarily grow or die. There is a reason for this. If they're not growing, someone else is, and they will either be bought, or forced out of the market. Acquisition and merger is the name of the game in Capitalism. You see, in it's early stages Capitalism thrives on competition, and there are winners and losers. Over time there are very few winners, and without regulation you end up with monopolization.

Once a company has a monopoly, they are not subject to the forces of the market, they are the market. If they own all of the farmland, they can charge whatever they want for food, because they are the only source. If they own all the water rights, same deal. If they own all of the housing, same deal.

Eventually companies span out into new markets, and swallow competition there also. Eventually you would end up with one company owning all private property, and it would simply be a communist dictatorship, like Soviet Russia! :smile:




:whathesaid:


--------------------
Why should we strive with cynic frown
To knock their fairy castles down?  ~ Eliza Cook

It's rather embarrassing to have given one's entire life to pondering the human predicament and to find that in the end one has little more to say than, 'Try to be a little kinder.' ~Aldous Huxley

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShins
Fun guy
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21956685 - 07/17/15 03:24 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Let me lay this out plainly. Under Capitalism, a company must necessarily grow or die. There is a reason for this. If they're not growing, someone else is, and they will either be bought, or forced out of the market. Acquisition and merger is the name of the game in Capitalism. You see, in it's early stages Capitalism thrives on competition, and there are winners and losers. Over time there are very few winners, and without regulation you end up with monopolization.

Once a company has a monopoly, they are not subject to the forces of the market, they are the market. If they own all of the farmland, they can charge whatever they want for food, because they are the only source. If they own all the water rights, same deal. If they own all of the housing, same deal.

Eventually companies span out into new markets, and swallow competition there also. Eventually you would end up with one company owning all private property, and it would simply be a communist dictatorship, like Soviet Russia! :smile:






Monopoly does not happen permanently in capitalism, and if it ever did, it would be by selling the best value of product.  It would be all of the company's customers who elevate the company to monopoly because they are all so happy with the increase in standard of living the product gives.

in other words; the company will have earned its place as top dog because it was sovastly superior as improving the value of standard of living of its customers with its products.  They got rich by serving humanity's demands the most effectively - that's a good thing.


but of course any other company could always undercut them if yhey ever price gouge.  Mergers and aquisitions are also all totally voluntary, and no company has ever completely bought out their competition that i know of.

I challenge you to name just one monopoly that came to be with no government involved.


--------------------
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShins
Fun guy
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21956694 - 07/17/15 03:27 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:

Shins said:
Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Unrestrained capitalism means capitalism unrestrained by external forces. What the fuck do you think it means?





but capitalism is always restrained by external forced, that's what I just blatantly explained to you;  capitalism is always restrained by supply and demand.

What it is socialism restrained by?  The debt ceiling? which, like clockwork is raised every time they get near it?  What exactly is restraining the socialists?



You really need to begin to use your brain to think deeper man.  First you thought communism could exist, when it contradicts itself (as I explained)  and now you think capitalism is "unresrrained"  you need to think more.




Supply and demand aren't external forces, they are part of Capitalism.





They are not part of capitalism.  They are economic fundamentals that exist naturally regardless of tge economic system.

you are incredibly uneducated in economics.  I strongly suggest you gets some books and educate yourself before you make more posts and make a fool of yourself again.


--------------------
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OnlineBigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,026
Last seen: 1 minute, 3 seconds
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: Shins]
    #21956703 - 07/17/15 03:30 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Shins said:
Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Let me lay this out plainly. Under Capitalism, a company must necessarily grow or die. There is a reason for this. If they're not growing, someone else is, and they will either be bought, or forced out of the market. Acquisition and merger is the name of the game in Capitalism. You see, in it's early stages Capitalism thrives on competition, and there are winners and losers. Over time there are very few winners, and without regulation you end up with monopolization.

Once a company has a monopoly, they are not subject to the forces of the market, they are the market. If they own all of the farmland, they can charge whatever they want for food, because they are the only source. If they own all the water rights, same deal. If they own all of the housing, same deal.

Eventually companies span out into new markets, and swallow competition there also. Eventually you would end up with one company owning all private property, and it would simply be a communist dictatorship, like Soviet Russia! :smile:






Monopoly does not happen permanently in capitalism, and if it ever did, it would be by selling the best value of product.  It would be all of the company's customers who elevate the company to monopoly because they are all so happy with the increase in standard of living the product gives.

in other words; the company will have earned its place as top dog because it was sovastly superior as improving the value of standard of living of its customers with its products.  They got rich by serving humanity's demands the most effectively - that's a good thing.


but of course any other company could always undercut them if yhey ever price gouge.  Mergers and aquisitions are also all totally voluntary, and no company has ever completely bought out their competition that i know of.

I challenge you to name just one monopoly that came to be with no government involved.




You can't undercut a monopoly. A company that held a monopoly would have vastly greater means of production already established. You would not be able to establish yourself against them, they become monopolies for a reason. Also, if anyone started to appear competitive, they would just buy you out. However, as a company begins to monopolize, they seek other means of growth, such as political influence, which we're seeing today.

You may see some apple juice stands pop up, but real competitive industry would be gone. They would grow to expand into every single market, and eventually control the entire economy, and pay you too little wages to be capable of starting a competitive business. They would charge you those wages back for food, housing and water. They would rule.

Right now there's a monopoly that hasn't come to be because the government has prevented it. That is Comcast+Time Warner.

By the way, of course when companies become large they utilize the government for their own ends. It's the easiest way to go. Monopolies would only exist without government intervention. There are means aside from the government of monopolizing. The same means that prop them up to the point where they are capable of influencing the government.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns

Edited by Bigbadwooof (07/17/15 03:32 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepsyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: paperbackwriter]
    #21956707 - 07/17/15 03:31 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

paperbackwriter said:
Quote:

psyconaught said:
Quote:

paperbackwriter said:
Or land rights.  Gotta make food too.



are you saying we shouldn't be able to own land?




Each according to their need sure.  Beyond that no.



How do you determine need? By an overarching dictatorial government panel? Does someone in New York City need less land than someone in rural Kentucky?


--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShins
Fun guy
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: psyconaught]
    #21956758 - 07/17/15 03:49 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

I disagree with much of that but regardless, name one monopoly that came to be without any government help.

I say that the only way a monopoly can exist and persist is with the help of government.

Why exactly in theory would a monopoly be bad anyways assuming it is the very best and most efficient and least wasteful at fulfilling consumer demand and thus improving the consumer's standard of living the most for the money? Isn't that technologic innovation and advancement?


if it is money buys political influence then isn't the solution then to LIMIT THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT so that they cannot legally buy political influence?  Socialism centralizes power, which creates the power centers in which political infuennce an be bought.


--------------------
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Edited by Shins (07/17/15 03:54 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OnlineBigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,026
Last seen: 1 minute, 3 seconds
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: Shins]
    #21956871 - 07/17/15 04:27 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

psyconaught said:
Quote:

paperbackwriter said:
Quote:

psyconaught said:
Quote:

paperbackwriter said:
Or land rights.  Gotta make food too.



are you saying we shouldn't be able to own land?




Each according to their need sure.  Beyond that no.



How do you determine need? By an overarching dictatorial government panel? Does someone in New York City need less land than someone in rural Kentucky?



Quote:

Shins said:
I disagree with much of that but regardless, name one monopoly that came to be without any government help.

I say that the only way a monopoly can exist and persist is with the help of government.

Why exactly in theory would a monopoly be bad anyways assuming it is the very best and most efficient and least wasteful at fulfilling consumer demand and thus improving the consumer's standard of living the most for the money? Isn't that technologic innovation and advancement?


if it is money buys political influence then isn't the solution then to LIMIT THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT so that they cannot legally buy political influence?  Socialism centralizes power, which creates the power centers in which political infuennce an be bought.




I don't hate Capitalism, just so you are aware. I just feel that it is an economic structure that has served its purpose, and we can do better.

Any market can be monopolized without government intervention. If one company can't out compete another, it is good business to just merge. It is more cost effective. Competition is part of Capitalism, for sure, but that does not mean that capitalists like competition.

Do I really need to explain why monopolies are bad? Competition is what drives innovation in Capitalism. Competition is the core of Capitalism, as it forces companies to go to greater and greater lengths regarding ingenuity and innovation to out compete their competitors. Also, if there is no competition, then you can set the price however high you like, especially on goods with inflexible demand like oil, water, food etc.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepaperbackwriter
Edward Lear


Registered: 03/31/14
Posts: 1,888
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21956915 - 07/17/15 04:39 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

Utilities are a good example of natural monoplies.


--------------------
Why should we strive with cynic frown
To knock their fairy castles down?  ~ Eliza Cook

It's rather embarrassing to have given one's entire life to pondering the human predicament and to find that in the end one has little more to say than, 'Try to be a little kinder.' ~Aldous Huxley

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShins
Fun guy
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21956916 - 07/17/15 04:40 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

There's always competition though. The only way to eliminate competition is by using the government's monopoly on legal force.  You can't just price gouge to anything because it will be worth it for competition to under sell you, that's why monopolies don't happen in a free market,  unless in theory one company could vastly out compete all the competitors.  But remember,  companies are competing to adress consumer demand by improving the standard of living of the consumers the most for the money with its products.  Its almost democratic in that the general public almost votes for companies by choosing to patronize or not. If some company managed to win all of those customers,  it was serving all of those people by improving their lives somehow.  You onlu get rich by serving the public.


--------------------
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShins
Fun guy
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: paperbackwriter]
    #21956920 - 07/17/15 04:41 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

paperbackwriter said:
Utilities are a good example of natural monoplies.




Uhh.. Utilities are most often government enforced monopolies


--------------------
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OnlineBigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,026
Last seen: 1 minute, 3 seconds
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: Shins]
    #21956950 - 07/17/15 04:51 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Shins said:
There's always competition though. The only way to eliminate competition is by using the government's monopoly on legal force.  You can't just price gouge to anything because it will be worth it for competition to under sell you, that's why monopolies don't happen in a free market,  unless in theory one company could vastly out compete all the competitors.  But remember,  companies are competing to adress consumer demand by improving the standard of living of the consumers the most for the money with its products.  Its almost democratic in that the general public almost votes for companies by choosing to patronize or not. If some company managed to win all of those customers,  it was serving all of those people by improving their lives somehow.  You onlu get rich by serving the public.




Government is not the only means by which a monopoly could conceivably be produced. Who told you that nonsense? Businesses merge for the sake of the business, and to opt out of competition. It's not done to serve the people, it's done to serve the business. A powerful business can buy out any small-scale competitors.

The goal of business is to grow as large as absolutely possible and exclude competitors from the market. They are very clever at doing so. A big business can price gouge to the point of profit loss for a year or two to run a competitor out of the market who can't sustain themselves under such conditions. That is but one basic example.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns

Edited by Bigbadwooof (07/17/15 04:54 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShins
Fun guy
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21956963 - 07/17/15 04:54 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

None of the competition is obliged to sell or merge,  why would they if they can out compete?


--------------------
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OnlineBigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,026
Last seen: 1 minute, 3 seconds
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: Shins]
    #21956967 - 07/17/15 04:56 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Shins said:
None of the competition is obliged to sell or merge,  why would they if they can out compete?




Sorry, I added a bit that addresses this comment. Look back at my last post.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShins
Fun guy
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: Shins]
    #21956982 - 07/17/15 05:00 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

Government is the biggest monopoly there is in a country.  Doesn't it follow that if you want to limit monopoly you should limit government?  A tyrinous "majority" deciding on whim the aims of the most giant monopoly;  government is not only counter productive because it just doesnt work, but because it empowers government monopoly,


--------------------
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 21,994
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: Shins]
    #21956984 - 07/17/15 05:01 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Shins said:
There's always competition though. The only way to eliminate competition is by using the government's monopoly on legal force.  You can't just price gouge to anything because it will be worth it for competition to under sell you, that's why monopolies don't happen in a free market,  unless in theory one company could vastly out compete all the competitors.  But remember,  companies are competing to adress consumer demand by improving the standard of living of the consumers the most for the money with its products.  Its almost democratic in that the general public almost votes for companies by choosing to patronize or not. If some company managed to win all of those customers,  it was serving all of those people by improving their lives somehow.  You onlu get rich by serving the public.






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

Quote:

Monopoly charges and anti-trust legislation
See also: Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States

By 1890, Standard Oil controlled 88 percent of the refined oil flows in the United States. The state of Ohio successfully sued Standard, compelling the dissolution of the trust in 1892. But Standard simply separated Standard Oil of Ohio and kept control of it. Eventually, the state of New Jersey changed its incorporation laws to allow a company to hold shares in other companies in any state. So, in 1899, the Standard Oil Trust, based at 26 Broadway in New York, was legally reborn as a holding company, the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey (SOCNJ), which held stock in 41 other companies, which controlled other companies, which in turn controlled yet other companies. This conglomerate was seen by the public as all-pervasive, controlled by a select group of directors, and completely unaccountable.[31]
U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt depicted as the infant Hercules grappling with Standard Oil in a 1906 Puck magazine cartoon

In 1904, Standard controlled 91 percent of production and 85 percent of final sales. Most of its output was kerosene, of which 55 percent was exported around the world. After 1900 it did not try to force competitors out of business by underpricing them.[32] The federal Commissioner of Corporations studied Standard's operations from the period of 1904 to 1906[33] and concluded that "beyond question... the dominant position of the Standard Oil Co. in the refining industry was due to unfair practices—to abuse of the control of pipe-lines, to railroad discriminations, and to unfair methods of competition in the sale of the refined petroleum products".[34] Due to competition from other firms, their market share had gradually eroded to 70 percent by 1906 which was the year when the antitrust case was filed against Standard, and down to 64 percent by 1911 when Standard was ordered broken up[35] and at least 147 refining companies were competing with Standard including Gulf, Texaco, and Shell.[36] It did not try to monopolize the exploration and pumping of oil (its share in 1911 was 11 percent).[citation needed]

In 1909, the US Department of Justice sued Standard under federal anti-trust law, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, for sustaining a monopoly and restraining interstate commerce by:[37]

    "Rebates, preferences, and other discriminatory practices in favor of the combination by railroad companies; restraint and monopolization by control of pipe lines, and unfair practices against competing pipe lines; contracts with competitors in restraint of trade; unfair methods of competition, such as local price cutting at the points where necessary to suppress competition; [and] espionage of the business of competitors, the operation of bogus independent companies, and payment of rebates on oil, with the like intent."

The lawsuit argued that Standard's monopolistic practices had taken place over the preceding four years:[38]

    "The general result of the investigation has been to disclose the existence of numerous and flagrant discriminations by the railroads in behalf of the Standard Oil Co. and its affiliated corporations. With comparatively few exceptions, mainly of other large concerns in California, the Standard has been the sole beneficiary of such discriminations. In almost every section of the country that company has been found to enjoy some unfair advantages over its competitors, and some of these discriminations affect enormous areas."

The government identified four illegal patterns: 1) secret and semi-secret railroad rates; (2) discriminations in the open arrangement of rates; (3) discriminations in classification and rules of shipment; (4) discriminations in the treatment of private tank cars. The government alleged:[39]

    "Almost everywhere the rates from the shipping points used exclusively, or almost exclusively, by the Standard are relatively lower than the rates from the shipping points of its competitors. Rates have been made low to let the Standard into markets, or they have been made high to keep its competitors out of markets. Trifling differences in distances are made an excuse for large differences in rates favorable to the Standard Oil Co., while large differences in distances are ignored where they are against the Standard. Sometimes connecting roads prorate on oil—that is, make through rates which are lower than the combination of local rates; sometimes they refuse to prorate; but in either case the result of their policy is to favor the Standard Oil Co. Different methods are used in different places and under different conditions, but the net result is that from Maine to California the general arrangement of open rates on petroleum oil is such as to give the Standard an unreasonable advantage over its competitors"

The government said that Standard raised prices to its monopolistic customers but lowered them to hurt competitors, often disguising its illegal actions by using bogus supposedly independent companies it controlled.[40]

    "The evidence is, in fact, absolutely conclusive that the Standard Oil Co. charges altogether excessive prices where it meets no competition, and particularly where there is little likelihood of competitors entering the field, and that, on the other hand, where competition is active, it frequently cuts prices to a point which leaves even the Standard little or no profit, and which more often leaves no profit to the competitor, whose costs are ordinarily somewhat higher."

On May 15, 1911, the US Supreme Court upheld the lower court judgment and declared the Standard Oil group to be an "unreasonable" monopoly under the Sherman Antitrust Act, Section II. It ordered Standard to break up into 90 independent companies with different boards of directors, the biggest two of the companies were Standard Oil of New Jersey (which became Exxon) and Standard Oil of New York (which became Mobil).[41]




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


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShins
Fun guy
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
Re: New Poll 47% would vote for a Socialist [Re: ballsalsa]
    #21957054 - 07/17/15 05:16 PM (8 years, 8 months ago)

Standard oil Reduced the price of gas for the consumer by a large amount.  Standard oil revolutionized the gas industry and helped create cars, airplanes, and modern society.  John Rockafeller got extremely rich but the consumers also benefited.  standard oil itoday is not a monopoly and it never really ever was, it just dominated the market.



--------------------
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* A Shock Jock Voting Bloc? fft2 331 0 06/28/04 01:56 PM
by fft2
* Liberals suck. So do conservatives.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Anonymous 9,882 105 01/26/03 12:53 PM
by GoBlue!
* new poll shows decisive swing to bush... Annapurna1 2,138 17 08/26/04 02:08 PM
by Swami
* Socialist Leads U.S. Senate Race in Vt. RandalFlagg 763 2 05/29/05 09:25 PM
by Annapurna1
* Why Americans Must Vote for John Kerry
( 1 2 3 all )
Zahid 4,717 40 08/29/04 02:08 PM
by Zahid
* Blair Projected to Win Third Term Today Polls Show. lonestar2004 774 7 05/09/05 07:30 AM
by uno
* Time Poll - It is all over but the crying! JesusChrist 942 17 09/04/04 04:15 PM
by sir tripsalot
* poll ..do we still need this fucking board??...
( 1 2 all )
Annapurna1 2,191 36 09/16/04 01:27 PM
by Annapurna1

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,013 topic views. 8 members, 4 guests and 34 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 0.029 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.