Home | Community | Message Board

HighDesertSpores.com
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: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1710988 - 07/13/03 10:14 AM (18 years, 25 days ago)

DoctorJ writes:

Large amounts of money tend to generate income from interest, rent, stock trades and investment banking.

True. However, so do small amounts of money. The difference is merely one of degree.

Corporate mergers and superbanks tend to conglomerate large amounts of money...

Usually true.

... (and by extension, power)...

What "power" ? The power to force others?

.... which is a threat to the prosperity of the poor and the freedom of the individual.

Incorrect. The fact that you may have a million or even a billion dollars does nothing whatsoever to prevent me from acquiring the same. It in no way limits my freedom to act.

If the american way is to be preserved from devolving into a communist politburo type of situation (IE- 5% of people controlling 90% of resources)...

That is not a communist politburo type situation in any way shape or form. Don't confuse resources with currency.

... the rich should be taxed disproportionately higher
than poor people.


How does that logically follow? And by the way, the rich are taxed disproportionately higher than the poor.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Phred]
    #1711656 - 07/13/03 04:34 PM (18 years, 25 days ago)

Incorrect. The fact that you may have a million or even a billion dollars does nothing whatsoever to prevent me from acquiring the same. It in no way limits my freedom to act.

it limits your freedom to act and my freedom to choose if he were to
use that accumulated cash-power to buy out all your competitors, even
worse, your suppliers, strangling your business.

death by monopoly.

capitalism, without regulatory intervention, ultimately leads to large
pockets of resources and cash in the hands of few.

DrJ seems to be asserting that part of that regulatory intervention
should be dissuasive taxation of income.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: afoaf]
    #1711812 - 07/13/03 05:43 PM (18 years, 25 days ago)

afoaf writes:

it limits your freedom to act and my freedom to choose if he were to
use that accumulated cash-power to buy out all your competitors, even
worse, your suppliers, strangling your business.


Note that the people DoctorJ appears to be referring to are "the idle rich" -- those who sit back on their inherited wealth and do nothing but consume. However, for the sake of argument, let's presume he is actually referring to predatory businessmen who actively engineer hostile takeovers and such:

Such a businessman cannot force my competitors to sell their businesses to him, nor can he force my suppliers to stop selling to me. Even if he does manage to persuade some suppliers to stop selling to me, so what? Where is it written that suppliers are not allowed to change their minds? For that matter, where is it written that my decision to run a business requiring supplies obligates anyone to be a supplier?

death by monopoly.

Sigh. Coercive monopolies cannot exist without government intervention. They cannot exist in a free market for any length of time.

capitalism, without regulatory intervention, ultimately leads to large
pockets of resources and cash in the hands of few.


Almost certainly true. So what? The fact that Bill Gates has over 50 billion dollars in no way prevents me from some day having the same.

DrJ seems to be asserting that part of that regulatory intervention
should be dissuasive taxation of income.


I agree that this seems to be what he asserts. I only point out that his reasons for this assertion hold no water.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Phred]
    #1711837 - 07/13/03 05:49 PM (18 years, 25 days ago)

Almost certainly true. So what? The fact that Bill Gates has over 50 billion dollars in no way prevents me from some day having the same.

wouldn't it, though?

that is, if your intentions were to make your 50 million
in the software industry by offering a better web browser
or publishing application.

Coercive monopolies cannot exist without government intervention. They cannot exist in a free market for any length of time.

are you saying that monopolies only exist with government
intervention?

and how exactly can they not exist in a free market for any
length of time?

respectfully, is it a typo or does everything you just said seem
backwards to me?


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: afoaf]
    #1711937 - 07/13/03 06:28 PM (18 years, 25 days ago)

afoaf writes:

wouldn't it, though?
that is, if your intentions were to make your 50 million
in the software industry by offering a better web browser
or publishing application.


Who said I had to acquire my money in such a manner? I haven't the faintest idea how to write computer code. Nor do I know how to build a sports car capable of doing 200 miles an hour, so I doubt I'll try to go head-to-head with Ferrarri any time soon either.

are you saying that monopolies only exist with government
intervention?


Yes.

and how exactly can they not exist in a free market for any
length of time?


There has never been an example of a non-coercive monopoly, so historically I am on safe ground. Even speaking theoretically and ignoring historical fact, the only way in a free market a monopoly could exist for any length of time is if the monopoly company was able to provide a product of the highest possible quality at the lowest possible price with the best possible service and support to the widest possible audience -- in which case, who has been harmed?

In a free market, with no government barriers to entry, anyone may choose at any time to challenge existing manufacturers. To someone looking to start their own business, it usually makes sense to enter a less-crowded field than a more-crowded field. If there is only one provider of widgets, the chance of my seizing ten per cent of the market share of widgets (always assuming I have the know-how to make good widgets) away from him is far greater than my chance of seizing ten per cent of the market share of gadgets away from the existing three hundred and fifty gadget makers.

For example, I live in a small village in a third world country. There are dozens of restaurants here, some of them excellent. On the other hand, there is only one car-rental outlet, and it is pretty shabby, even though technically speaking it is a "monopoly". If I were to choose to get into business again here, I would open a car rental business and challenge the monopoly, aiming for an easy fifty per cent or better market share of the car rental market rather than have the dubious pleasure of opening the forty-second restaurant and fighting like hell to seize two per cent of the dining-out business.

respectfully, is it a typo or does everything you just said seem
backwards to me?


Nope. It's just that the "myth of monopolies" has been debunked so many times by so many economists that I often just assume that everyone else is as familiar with that particular false concept as I am, so I rarely bother to explain it in full.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Phred]
    #1711965 - 07/13/03 06:40 PM (18 years, 25 days ago)

Who said I had to acquire my money in such a manner? I haven't the faintest idea how to write computer code. Nor do I know how to build a sports car capable of doing 200 miles an hour, so I doubt I'll try to go head-to-head with Ferrarri any time soon either.

it was a hypothetical scenario redirecting your gates
example.

the point being, his 50 million has been used in an
attempt to stop entrants or hinder existing players
in the aforementioned software markets which all
ties back to the original point that large pockets of
cash can be used as tools of oppression.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,516
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 9 minutes
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: afoaf]
    #1712023 - 07/13/03 07:03 PM (18 years, 25 days ago)

Armed robbery is not theft because the "victim" has the freedom to choose death.


--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Don't vibe my harsh, bro.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: afoaf]
    #1712037 - 07/13/03 07:09 PM (18 years, 25 days ago)

afoaf writes:

the point being, his 50 million has been used in an
attempt to stop entrants or hinder existing players
in the aforementioned software markets...


The key word here is "attempt".

Does Steve Jobs of Apple Computers have as much money as Bill Gates? Nope.

Yet did Bill Gates prevent Apple from being an extremely profitable company? Nope.

Has Microsoft driven Apple out of business? Nope.

That is because, despite all of Microsoft's marketing might, many people remain convinced that Microsoft's products are not the best available, so they choose other products.

...which all
ties back to the original point that large pockets of
cash can be used as tools of oppression.


Two points:

a) "can be" is not equivalent to "will be".

b) Offering people money to perform certain acts (i.e. to sell their business to you) is not oppression, it is trade.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1712043 - 07/13/03 07:12 PM (18 years, 25 days ago)

BabyHitler writes:

Armed robbery is not theft because the "victim" has the freedom to choose death.

Armed robbery is theft. Offering to buy a competitor's business from him is not.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineDoctorJ
"Nazi, Satanist Anti-Christ"
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,843
Loc: space
Last seen: 4 months, 1 day
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Phred]
    #1712617 - 07/13/03 10:36 PM (18 years, 25 days ago)

ah, I fear I have typecast myself by not using the right disclaimers.

pinksharkmark, I must admit that your real world examples are quite good, and they remind me of a situation which existed in the US over two hundred years ago, which is to say, total undevelopment. In a totally undeveloped area, Large amounts of money are necessary to bring development. An ultra-capitalist, almost feudalist organization is actually helpful at this stage of development. These systems and structures will build roads and power plants and services that are needed.

But in a highly populated area that happens to be more advanced than most places in the world, we've already taken care of all that. And our population is higher and the money just piles up in one place even though thre are a lot of people who need it and a lot of good work that can be done with it.

But instead of going toward good things, it is used to buy legislators, cheat investors, and maniplulate the very fabric of the economy itself. You may not understand it because it is illogical, but I can't be held accountable for the logicality of people who are empty inside.


Remem,ber, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm not saying I'm wrong, I'm saying that different things work for different people in different stages of the game.


--------------------
'You can go to a hospital
Get yourself cleaned out.'


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,516
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 9 minutes
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Phred]
    #1712639 - 07/13/03 10:43 PM (18 years, 25 days ago)

What about threatening to force all of a businesses customers to stop buying that businesses product if they don't sell out to them cheap.

By "force" I mean threaten to withdraw their business if they don't comply with their demands to stop buying the other company's product.

Businesses can "force" other businesses to do many things. Essentially by threatening to kill the business.

It happens all the time. Dont pretend that it does not.


--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Don't vibe my harsh, bro.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: 1stimer]
    #1712664 - 07/13/03 10:54 PM (18 years, 25 days ago)

i'm gonna guess, judging from the quality of your posts, that you're a high school kid.

i'm gonna guess that your only experience with money has been a $6.00 an hour job or maybe an allowance...

you've probably never paid bills.

you definitely don't have your own medical or dental coverage...

i know you're at a very special time in life, a time when you know everything, but please don't come in here talkin' like this 'til ya been out in the real world son...


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,516
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 6 hours, 9 minutes
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: ]
    #1712805 - 07/13/03 11:45 PM (18 years, 25 days ago)

I think He's right. Taxes are not the most important thing to consider when choosing a candidate. I would count among the things that I would consider a higher priority to be things like civil rights, foreign policy, and upholding the constutuion.

I wish people would stop pretending their world is THE "real" world


--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Don't vibe my harsh, bro.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCornholio
A liberal guy(on hiatus)

Registered: 01/13/03
Posts: 845
Loc: Austin, TX
Last seen: 17 years, 8 months
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Phred]
    #1712837 - 07/13/03 11:56 PM (18 years, 25 days ago)

Quote:


are you saying that monopolies only exist with government
intervention?


Yes.

and how exactly can they not exist in a free market for any
length of time?


There has never been an example of a non-coercive monopoly, so historically I am on safe ground. Even speaking theoretically and ignoring historical fact, the only way in a free market a monopoly could exist for any length of time is if the monopoly company was able to provide a product of the highest possible quality at the lowest possible price with the best possible service and support to the widest possible audience -- in which case, who has been harmed?


Just to clarify here, pinky argues that unless a company owns 100% of the market, they are not a monopoly. In the purest sense of the word, he is right, but in a practical sense, companies that dominate the market are still regarded by most as monopolies (like Microsoft).
Quote:

In a free market, with no government barriers to entry, anyone may choose at any time to challenge existing manufacturers. To someone looking to start their own business, it usually makes sense to enter a less-crowded field than a more-crowded field. If there is only one provider of widgets, the chance of my seizing ten per cent of the market share of widgets (always assuming I have the know-how to make good widgets) away from him is far greater than my chance of seizing ten per cent of the market share of gadgets away from the existing three hundred and fifty gadget makers.


Pinky also believes in liassez-faire economics, which is no longer mainstream thought in academia (except at the University of Chicago where laissez faire has always been championed). Laissez-faire economists tend to take an overly simplistic view of the world to make their points. For example:

In a free market, with no government barriers to entry, anyone may choose at any time to challenge existing manufacturers.

Anyone? Well, to take on GM and Ford, and the giants of many other business, you pretty much need to have a few hundred million to get started, and find some suppliers that are willing to risk breaking their exclusive contracts with GM and Ford to sell to you (or some new suppliers with no experience). There's a lot of other barriers to entry as well. It's not nearly as easy as it sounds.

Quote:

respectfully, is it a typo or does everything you just said seem
backwards to me?


Nope. It's just that the "myth of monopolies" has been debunked so many times by so many economists that I often just assume that everyone else is as familiar with that particular false concept as I am, so I rarely bother to explain it in full.


Yes, some believe they have "debunked" the "myth of monopolies", but it's not the mainstream belief, which is probalby why you thought pinky had it backwards - you most likely learned economics from a mainstream school.


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCornholio
A liberal guy(on hiatus)

Registered: 01/13/03
Posts: 845
Loc: Austin, TX
Last seen: 17 years, 8 months
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1712840 - 07/13/03 11:57 PM (18 years, 25 days ago)

Quote:

Baby_Hitler said:
Businesses can "force" other businesses to do many things. Essentially by threatening to kill the business.

It happens all the time. Dont pretend that it does not.


I totally agree with you.


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisible1stimer
Religion=Rape
Registered: 11/18/01
Posts: 1,280
Loc: Amerika
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: ]
    #1712869 - 07/14/03 12:11 AM (18 years, 25 days ago)

Quote:

but please don't come in here talkin' like this 'til ya been out in the real world son...



So who queefed and made you the king of the messageboards my boy.

Actually i havent had a job that pays over $10 an hour, so your wrong.
Im a senior in college, so your wrong.
I pay all living expenses including bills, so your wrong.
I dont have medical or dental coverage cuz its too expensive so your right there. I guess were not all as privelaged as you(especially when it comes to being wrong).

You spew such ignorance maybe you shouldnt post here.


--------------------
ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey.

There is such emotion in the distortion.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1713507 - 07/14/03 06:35 AM (18 years, 25 days ago)

BabyHitler writes:

What about threatening to force all of a businesses customers to stop buying that businesses product if they don't sell out to them cheap.
By "force" I mean threaten to withdraw their business if they don't comply with their demands to stop buying the other company's product.


Well, I see we have both managed to stray pretty far from the topic of the thread -- tax cuts -- but I'll address your question anyway:

Where is it written that if you partake in a business transaction with a company once, you must continue forever? If by choosing to cease dealing with a particular company one is breaking a contract, it is of course an issue for the courts. If there is no contract, what is the problem?

Businesses can "force" other businesses to do many things. Essentially by threatening to kill the business.

Some business ventures are dependent on other businesses, true. That is why an intelligent businessman (one who understands the dangers of putting all his eggs in one basket) will either:

a) Sign longterm contracts with key suppliers whenever possible, and seek multiple suppliers whenever possible.

b) Expand his business to the point where he can buy out one of the suppliers, thereby assuring a steady supply of key components.

c) accept a buyout offer and get into a different business.

Just because one chooses to get into a particular line of business is no guarantee one will be successful at it. There are risks in every business venture. Manufacturers and resellers who depend on others for supplies risk losing their sources of supply not only through the suppliers' deliberate intransigence, but also through the possibility the supplier may go bankrupt, be bought out by a competitor, be sued out of existence by litigation-happy folks or regulated out of existence by legislation-happy governments, etc.

There is no force involved when a supplier -- upon termination of a contract -- decides to change the terms under which he will continue to do business with a particular customer.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1713524 - 07/14/03 06:59 AM (18 years, 25 days ago)

DoctorJ writes:

In a totally undeveloped area, Large amounts of money are necessary to bring development.

If this were true, no country would ever have become developed. Paleolithic societies didn't have lots of money to throw around. What is required for development is productive effort and access to technology.

It is true, however, that development will occur more quickly in a given area if outside investors are allowed to invest. The less these people are taxed, the more they have to invest.

But in a highly populated area that happens to be more advanced than most places in the world, we've already taken care of all that.

True. So now that we have, it is correct to tax the hell out of everyone? How does that follow?

And our population is higher...

Higher than who? Or do you mean "higher than it was in the past"? Either way, what does that have to do with justifying high taxes?

... and the money just piles up in one place even though thre are a lot of people who need it and a lot of good work that can be done with it.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying I have no right to keep the stuff I earned or had given to me as a gift by others of their own free will -- because others believe they can utilize my stuff better than I can?

But instead of going toward good things...

Who decides what these good things might be?

... it is used to buy legislators...

This is one of the reasons I am an advocate of Laissez-faire Capitalism. Under any political system, some legislators will be tempted to accept bribes and wield their power capriciously. That is why it is critical to limit their influence to the bare essentials.

... cheat investors...

Fraud should be (and is) illegal, and therefore a matter for the courts.

... and maniplulate the very fabric of the economy itself.

A phrase so vague as to be meaningless. Specifics, please.

You may not understand it because it is illogical, but I can't be held accountable for the logicality of people who are empty inside.

I have no problem with people who are either illogical or empty inside, as long as they leave me alone. My problem is when those empty illogical people are put in control of the taxation system.

...I'm saying that different things work for different people in different stages of the game.

Principles are principles. Freedom is freedom. No matter what stage of the game someone may be in on any given day, freedom from forcible interference for all individuals is of the greatest possible longterm benefit to all.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Cornholio]
    #1713532 - 07/14/03 07:21 AM (18 years, 25 days ago)

Cornholio writes:

Just to clarify here, pinky argues that unless a company owns 100% of the market, they are not a monopoly. In the purest sense of the word, he is right, but in a practical sense, companies that dominate the market are still regarded by most as monopolies (like Microsoft).

Microsoft could be considered by some to be a "de facto" monopoly. However, there are plenty of alternatives to Microsoft products. The reason Microsoft dominates the market is that more people freely choose to use Windows as their OS than Mac OS or Sun OS or Unix and all its variants. The majority of people (rightly or wrongly) feel Microsoft products suit their needs the best. It wasn't always this way -- in the late Seventies and early Eighties CP/M and Apple's OS were the "monopolistic" operating systems. Just as their "monopolies" were broken by Microsoft, it is entirely possible that Microsoft's "monopoly" will someday be broken.

Anyone? Well, to take on GM and Ford, and the giants of many other business, you pretty much need to have a few hundred million to get started, and find some suppliers that are willing to risk breaking their exclusive contracts with GM and Ford to sell to you (or some new suppliers with no experience). There's a lot of other barriers to entry as well. It's not nearly as easy as it sounds.

Is GM a monopoly? Is Ford?

If you want to start a business building automobiles you will of course need a higher initial investment than for a business building skateboards. This is true not only in a laissez-faire economy, but in any economy. What's your point?

Yes, some believe they have "debunked" the "myth of monopolies", but it's not the mainstream belief...

"Mainstream" is not equivalent to "truthful". As I pointed out, there is no historical example of any monopoly existing for any length of time without government intervention -- a fact (and yes it is a fact) that the "mainstream" Keynesian economics professors conveniently gloss over. I note you have been unable to provide such an example for us.

...which is probalby why you thought pinky had it backwards - you most likely learned economics from a mainstream school.

And the ever-declining academic performance of those educated in America's "mainstream" government schools should give you some idea of the worth of such schools.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCornholio
A liberal guy(on hiatus)

Registered: 01/13/03
Posts: 845
Loc: Austin, TX
Last seen: 17 years, 8 months
Re: to those that vote based on tax cuts [Re: Phred]
    #1713801 - 07/14/03 11:48 AM (18 years, 24 days ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Is GM a monopoly? Is Ford?


Fine. Oligopoly, which is almost the same thing from an economics perspective.

Quote:

If you want to start a business building automobiles you will of course need a higher initial investment than for a business building skateboards. This is true not only in a laissez-faire economy, but in any economy. What's your point?


The point is, it's not nearly as easy to break up a monopoly as laissez faire economists seem to believe. In fact, it's damn near impossible.

Quote:

"Mainstream" is not equivalent to "truthful".


True, but since most people who have made a career studying economics have independently written laissez faire off, it is probably less likely to be true than New Keynesianism.

Quote:

As I pointed out, there is no historical example of any monopoly existing for any length of time without government intervention -- a fact (and yes it is a fact) that the "mainstream" Keynesian economics professors conveniently gloss over. I note you have been unable to provide such an example for us.


Again, this goes back to the definition of monopoly. If a company dominates the market, call it what you will, but from most economists' perspective, it is a monopoly. And using this defenition of dominance, Microsoft is an example (or else why would an anti-trust suit have been brought up against them?)

Quote:

And the ever-declining academic performance of those educated in America's "mainstream" government schools should give you some idea of the worth of such schools.


While the quality of public schools is indeed poor, they teach what is taught by most of the top economics universities in the nation.


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


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during war
( 1 2 all )
EchoVortex 4,321 39 03/26/03 11:09 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* I guess Dems don't find all tax cut's a bad thing!
( 1 2 3 all )
luvdemshrooms 3,159 41 09/16/03 12:06 AM
by Phred
* W.House: Tax Cuts to Create 800,000 Jobs
( 1 2 3 all )
Ellis Dee 5,340 40 03/03/02 11:53 PM
by sparafucile
* Corzine speaks on the Bush tax cuts. luvdemshrooms 572 3 10/30/03 04:00 PM
by Phred
* ATTN: Supporters of Bush's tax cuts
( 1 2 3 4 all )
silversoul7 3,350 66 07/16/03 10:19 AM
by Anonymous
* Privatisation and Tax Cuts at work...USA
( 1 2 all )
carbonhoots 2,194 39 02/13/03 06:59 AM
by Prisoner#1
* Incredible article on the "tax cuts". luvdemshrooms 454 8 07/08/03 09:05 AM
by Rhizoid
* The Faith-Based Presidency EchoVortex 733 5 04/19/04 08:49 AM
by GernBlanston

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,096 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 17 queries.