Govt is corrupt, so why do liberals want bigger govt !?!?

[AuSable River]

No, how is making an alliance/merger with another company theft? Like I said, they'd simply merge (probably with favorable terms too) with their suppliers (a vertical merger).

BTW, I didn't assume you were an anarchist, you sound more like a Laissez-Faire proponent to me. Unregulate markets like the ones you dream for are bound to put the consumers and workers at a disadvantage, because the government would be too weak to step in on their behalf to stop the Cartels and Monopolies (that will form in an unregulated system) from fixing prices and enforcing wage slavery.

Capitalism is an animal that is best kept on a very short leash.

Never have I thought that I would agree with you.

illogical

kept on a leash by whom ???

indeed, using your logic -- the chickens would be kept on a leash by the foxes.

a short lived cartel would evaporate when they failed to satisfy consumer preferences by inviting competition, inspiring boycotts, and motivating a search for substitution goods.

moreover, it is illogical to create the mother of all monopolies in the form of government to oversee any free market monopoly that has neither guns, gavels, or votes.

ponder that irrefutable wisdom government lover.

[The Black Forrest]

Never have I thought that I would agree with you.

illogical

kept on a leash by whom ???

indeed, using your logic -- the chickens would be kept on a leash by the foxes.

a short lived cartel would evaporate when they failed to satisfy consumer preferences by inviting competition, inspiring boycotts, and motivating a search for substitution goods.

moreover, it is illogical to create the mother of all monopolies in the form of government to oversee any free market monopoly that has neither guns, gavels, or votes.

ponder that irrefutable wisdom government lover.

Yummy. I do like the myth of the completely free market.

[AuSable River]

and agricultural is heavily subsidized by government !!!!!

thanks for adding more ammo to my assertion that government is a market for corruption that uses tax and regulatory power in a quid pro quo scheme for special interest votes (in Iowa, nebraska, kansas, et al) and campaign contributions (from companies like monsanto, archer daniels, et al)

mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/06/big-farm-raked-in-record-profits-in.html

Thanks for proving my point further.

now get off the liberal circus train and get on the truth to power train.

As I understand it, agricultural subsidies exist to prevent monopolies/oligopolies from forming, which make agricultural commodities more expensive for us. It keeps the large farms from engaging in a massive price war to drive their competition out of business, which would then be followed by a massive increase in the price of said commodity when there is no longer any competition to keep the price down.

I'm actually not entirely sure how it works, but I know that it is not some shady back room deal with agricultural lobbyists. It is actually meant to benefit both farmers and consumers.

agricultural subsidies exist to get politicians reelected and to protect big agri from competition so they can maintain market share.

indeed, every single line in the tax code pertaining to agriculture was put in place a a quid pro quo scheme of preferential tax and regulatory policies for campaign contributions (bribes) from corrupt corporations or special interest votes from iowa, nebraska, kansas, et al.

as for this nonsense about massive price wars.

1) corporations do indeed try to gain market share by lowering prices ------ I like that.

2) corporations that try to immediately raise prices --- i dont like that --- will immediately suffer
a) irrepairable reputation damage,
b) inspire competition
c) inspire the use of substitution goods (African agri, asian agri, et al)
d) inspire boycotts.

3) this scheme has been tried before, the free market kills it dead in its tracks by various methods including this one:

a) when a cartel is forming and they are lowering prices and increasing sales but losing revenue --- short them
b) when they raise prices ---- use the profits from short sales to open a competing firm.

In sum, no firm on Earth has ever made money by lowering prices to the point where they are losing money hand over fist in order to chase out the competition.

then absurdly, raise prices to profligate levels and further lose money from decreased sales, lost reputation, boycotts, renewed competition, and substitution goods and services.

it is a fantasy -- that you have been led to believe.

some professor has read you 'goodnight moon' and you still believe it .

put 2+2 together folks --- you all have brains.

the truth will set you free ---dont fight it.

[Blakk Metal]

___________________________________

They form cartels. It's what happens when you privatise areas of government, and it's what will happen if you remove government altogether without destroying capitalism first. It's not difficult economics.--socialist

How would these cartels form and become all powerful in a free and voluntary society when they dont have guns, gavels, or votes ?????

for the 16th time --- explain the PROCESS, not the end game of how these firms gain a cartel in a voluntary society.

for example, some liberal said they would buy all the resources ??!!!

what if I dont want to sell mine ?

what if another aspiring cartel wants those resources too ???

if your independent thinking, read this short article and get back with me:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns ... oil-story/

There is typically only one natural monopoly needed to be purchased to take over an area. The only common exception is internet service, where there are two.

Driving things towards monopolies, hence creating corporate hegemony.-- socialist

so what ???

if this short-lived monopoly raises prices or lowers quality ---we boycott, form our own company take their market share,

Companies don't just form.

or find substitution goods.

You assume they will exist.

for example, if the oil companies raised gas prices, we convert in short order to electric cars

That didn't happen in real life.

and those CEOs in the oil company who tried to screw the consumer would forever be branded by their competitors as rotten -- hence they would never be able to acquire any substantive amount of private capital.

liberals who love big govenrment dont understand the importance of reputation within a free society.

Reputation means precisely nothing.

Source.--socialist

WHat !??!!

I need a source that actors in the free market who dont invest wisely wont lose their net worth ???!!!

come on dude stop being a troll

do you want a source for 2+2 ???

Please, do explain that particular helping of bullshit.--socialist

are you serious.

You need me to explain how a company that mismanages its operations and/or doesnt satisfy consumer preferences goes out of business.

Are you serious ??!!

Yes. *points at Microsoft*

Nah, a small clique do things through voluntary means, everyone else is compelled to do so.-- socialist

ridiculous,

in a free society, every exchange is beneficial to both parties or it wouldnt have taken place.

for a laugh please give an example of when someone would be compelled to do something against their will so I can debunk your 'logic'

Get a shitty job.

Blah blah blah blah blah ebil government blah blah blah blah.---socialist

thats the most intelligent statement you have made in your entire post

nice comeback

nice strawman

And the alternative to government in a capitalist society is the sole existence of corporations, which would in time become political animals in themselves - or are people randomly going to set up their own utilities and healthcare?--socialist

how did people set up their own utilities and health care before government ???

read this and get back with me on how these things materialize in the free market -- it is called spontaneous order

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

Utilities are natural monopolies.

Bullshit, a large proportion of taxation is used to fund things like public healthcare. Here in the UK it is, at any rate, and in the good ol' US of A you actually spend more per capita on healthcare than we, with our universal healthcare, do. I call that a victory for socialism.--socialist

public health care in the USA is a broken bankrupt system designed by politicians to buy votes from the poor and elderly without creating a single hospital bed, trained doctor, MRI machine, et al.

it is an illusion whereby government pours literally trillions of dollars into the health care industry that only serves to raise costs while outcome flatline.

Indeed, the discretionary costs of health care for the elderly was LESS before medicare than it is today.

before medicare and other govt managed health care boondoggles, AMericans spent less than 5% of GDP on health care and outcomes were basically the same as today (sounds familar -- see govt education)

now 50+ years later, outcomes are basically the same, yet health care costs over 20% of GDP--- and this boondoggle is breaking the bank so that Americans within our lifetime will have a government that can only pay the interest on this debt, much less on anything else.

so much for your beloved govt managed health care and _____________ (u fill in the blank)

Europe must be even worse in that regard then, o wise one.

Ohohoho, I think you are, you're advocating completely doing away with government.--socialist

you think too much.

I believe in a true federalist system that brings government closer to the people at the state and local level.

not a one-size fits all management of the economy from washington that is thousands of miles away from the citizenry.

the federal govt should act as a legal arbiter of last resort (supreme court), it should provide for national defense, and it should act as an arbiter only when states come into disagreement with each other.

State government is only federal government, but smaller.

in sum, dont hate the message --- just hate me.

I was a dumb shumuck just like you would believed everything that I was told by some clueless govt. check cashing tenured professor and the crap that pop culture spews out (see michael moore)

but read my sources and open up you mind dude.

be objective and independent thinking and stop watching the BBC -- get a hair cut too, and no more tattoos.

later, I wasted too much time with you anyway..

No matter how cool you try to make yourself, you still aren't.

[AuSable River]

illogical

kept on a leash by whom ???

indeed, using your logic -- the chickens would be kept on a leash by the foxes.

a short lived cartel would evaporate when they failed to satisfy consumer preferences by inviting competition, inspiring boycotts, and motivating a search for substitution goods.

moreover, it is illogical to create the mother of all monopolies in the form of government to oversee any free market monopoly that has neither guns, gavels, or votes.

ponder that irrefutable wisdom government lover.

Yummy. I do like the myth of the completely free market.

strawman.

I'm not an anarchist

[Blakk Metal]

Yummy. I do like the myth of the completely free market.

strawman.

I'm not an anarchist

Then change the title.

[Enadail]

and without government as the buyer -- what would happen to these corrupt crony corporations ????

So... companies that deal with the government are all corrupt too? What? How does this even?

nobody has perfect knowledge, most especially government politicians and bureaucrats -- so what ???

That the free market is impossible. You keep referencing it, even though its not actually possible. The free market concept REQUIRES perfect knowledge. Thus without perfect knowledge, you cannot have a free market.

99% of free market firms fail, so what????

I donno, so what? You brought that up, not me?

the difference is that capital, resources, and wealth continually move to investors, individuals, consumers, firms, industries, et al that most efficiently use these resources at a given time in history.

Not true. It moves to whomever can best make use of those resources and afford those resources at any given time. Apple is by far not the most efficient company, not the best company, and yet its one of the most successful. Its success is predicated on human emotion, and has nothing to do with efficiency.

more important, the free market (WHILE NOT PERFECT) has a mechanism to constantly and instantly reallocate resources from less productive uses to more productive uses.

Again, free market REQUIRES perfect knowledge. Thus, without perfection, it doesn't exist. You end up with some other economic model, but its not free market.

More importantly, it does all this largely by free, competitive and VOLUNTARY MEANS.

Yes, free markets would be freely competitive. The real world is not. If I invent the next new super technology that will speed up processes x10, if I can't find investing, I'm screwed. If intel puts out hard smear campaigns, I'm screwed. If people with more money then me take all my resources I'm screwed. And none of those have ANYTHING to do with the government. These have everything to do with humans, the true fallibility here.

in contrast you beloved government is equally unknowing --- yet this is destructive because when it fails and fails and fails and .......

I by no means love the government. Its plenty flawed. You're the one making all these strong claims... you're the only one saying anyone who disagrees with you loves government, loves big government, etc. So far, you're mostly arguing with yourself.

it doesnt go out of business --- it RAISES TAXES and ACQUIRES MORE POWER.

If we elect in people who do that. If we don't, then they don't do that. Thus, its not government's fault, its our fault.

more importantly, government is a political animal ---not an economic actor --- hence all of its actions are based on politics which is proven in many cases to extremely economically unsustainable and wasteful.

Right, like LIBOR, or the giant payouts company official take? The things that have nothing to do with government, and solely on greed? Heck, as a small business owner, I take advantage of the fact that clients don't have perfect knowledge of the work they ask me to do and milk it. Not quite corruption, but a failing of humanity, and not at all linked to government.

Lastly, government is coercive and that is immoral to take somebody else's money by force (taxation) and give it to your lobbyist buddy so you can get reelected with special interest votes or campaign contributions (bribes)

You're absolutely right. Taking government money and applying it to special interest is wrong and immoral. So is a company hiring someone who is underskilled but related to someone in the company, or using shoddy materials because they're cheaper. You're not arguing against government here, but again, against human greed.

In sum, a free market is impossible, and even attempting a free market in the real world, where emotion, information, and human faults come into play, only create a corrupt system.--endial

big time strawman dude.

nobody is advocating anarchy dude.

go back and read my posts.[/quote]

I have read your posts, but I don't see how its a strawman at all. I'm not advocating anarchy and I'm not accusing you of advocating it either. Again, you're the only one who's mentioning anarchy. I'm saying the basis of your argument, free market is better, is fundamentally flawed.

[AuSable River]

___________________________________




How would these cartels form and become all powerful in a free and voluntary society when they dont have guns, gavels, or votes ?????

for the 16th time --- explain the PROCESS, not the end game of how these firms gain a cartel in a voluntary society.

for example, some liberal said they would buy all the resources ??!!!

what if I dont want to sell mine ?

what if another aspiring cartel wants those resources too ???

if your independent thinking, read this short article and get back with me:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns ... oil-story/

There is typically only one natural monopoly needed to be purchased to take over an area. The only common exception is internet service, where there are two.

so what ???

if this short-lived monopoly raises prices or lowers quality ---we boycott, form our own company take their market share,

Companies don't just form.

or find substitution goods.

You assume they will exist.

for example, if the oil companies raised gas prices, we convert in short order to electric cars

That didn't happen in real life.

and those CEOs in the oil company who tried to screw the consumer would forever be branded by their competitors as rotten -- hence they would never be able to acquire any substantive amount of private capital.

liberals who love big govenrment dont understand the importance of reputation within a free society.

Reputation means precisely nothing.

WHat !??!!

I need a source that actors in the free market who dont invest wisely wont lose their net worth ???!!!

come on dude stop being a troll

do you want a source for 2+2 ???



are you serious.

You need me to explain how a company that mismanages its operations and/or doesnt satisfy consumer preferences goes out of business.

Are you serious ??!!

Yes. *points at Microsoft*

ridiculous,

in a free society, every exchange is beneficial to both parties or it wouldnt have taken place.

for a laugh please give an example of when someone would be compelled to do something against their will so I can debunk your 'logic'

Get a shitty job.

thats the most intelligent statement you have made in your entire post

nice comeback

nice strawman

how did people set up their own utilities and health care before government ???

read this and get back with me on how these things materialize in the free market -- it is called spontaneous order

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

Utilities are natural monopolies.

public health care in the USA is a broken bankrupt system designed by politicians to buy votes from the poor and elderly without creating a single hospital bed, trained doctor, MRI machine, et al.

it is an illusion whereby government pours literally trillions of dollars into the health care industry that only serves to raise costs while outcome flatline.

Indeed, the discretionary costs of health care for the elderly was LESS before medicare than it is today.

before medicare and other govt managed health care boondoggles, AMericans spent less than 5% of GDP on health care and outcomes were basically the same as today (sounds familar -- see govt education)

now 50+ years later, outcomes are basically the same, yet health care costs over 20% of GDP--- and this boondoggle is breaking the bank so that Americans within our lifetime will have a government that can only pay the interest on this debt, much less on anything else.

so much for your beloved govt managed health care and _____________ (u fill in the blank)

Europe must be even worse in that regard then, o wise one.

you think too much.

I believe in a true federalist system that brings government closer to the people at the state and local level.

not a one-size fits all management of the economy from washington that is thousands of miles away from the citizenry.

the federal govt should act as a legal arbiter of last resort (supreme court), it should provide for national defense, and it should act as an arbiter only when states come into disagreement with each other.

State government is only federal government, but smaller.

in sum, dont hate the message --- just hate me.

I was a dumb shumuck just like you would believed everything that I was told by some clueless govt. check cashing tenured professor and the crap that pop culture spews out (see michael moore)

but read my sources and open up you mind dude.

be objective and independent thinking and stop watching the BBC -- get a hair cut too, and no more tattoos.

later, I wasted too much time with you anyway..

No matter how cool you try to make yourself, you still aren't.

microsoft aint that bad. and I use it voluntarily.

jeez the version I am using is free with my $150 computer and it works pretty good.

and last time I checked, microsoft wasnt banging down my door or taking money out of my paycheck without accountability.

if you dont like it or you can do better.--- use linux or form your own operating system

WOW, we are all slaves to the evil microsoft corporation.

wwooooooooo woooooooooooooooooo

help me government, i give you all my liberties so that you can save me from the boogeyman bill gates and his evil microsoft military machine.

save us !!!!

[Mosasauria]

Never have I thought that I would agree with you.

illogical

kept on a leash by whom ???

indeed, using your logic -- the chickens would be kept on a leash by the foxes.

a short lived cartel would evaporate when they failed to satisfy consumer preferences by inviting competition, inspiring boycotts, and motivating a search for substitution goods.

moreover, it is illogical to create the mother of all monopolies in the form of government to oversee any free market monopoly that has neither guns, gavels, or votes.

ponder that irrefutable wisdom government lover.

1. Please use grammar.
2. Why, the very damned thing that paves the roads, keeps the water and air clean, makes sure that the people are fed and healthy(Or at least is supposed to), and is supposed to and often does stop the exploitation of humanity(Maybe the US government doesn't succeed in this, but there are others that certainly do).
3. How is that Alaje's logic at all?
4. Except when something(In this case, a cartel that, let's say, sells food) is the sole seller of food, and does everything in its power to make sure its the sole seller of food, it's the sole seller of food. Even if this cartel raises prices drastically, people will still buy it, because its the only reliable source of food. They could try and find another way, but then what? Wouldn't the cartel try to enforce its monopoly?
5. The government isn't a monopoly, though. The government can be held accountable by the people if the people actually take a stand(You know, actually electing good candidates and voting them out when they get corrupt). And if you think a free market monopoly doesn't have guns, you're wrong. They can't have courts or votes, but aren't those the properties of a government?
6. I think this refutes most of your "wisdom"

[AuSable River]

___________________________________




How would these cartels form and become all powerful in a free and voluntary society when they dont have guns, gavels, or votes ?????

for the 16th time --- explain the PROCESS, not the end game of how these firms gain a cartel in a voluntary society.

for example, some liberal said they would buy all the resources ??!!!

what if I dont want to sell mine ?

what if another aspiring cartel wants those resources too ???

if your independent thinking, read this short article and get back with me:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns ... oil-story/

There is typically only one natural monopoly needed to be purchased to take over an area. The only common exception is internet service, where there are two.

so what ???

if this short-lived monopoly raises prices or lowers quality ---we boycott, form our own company take their market share,

Companies don't just form.

or find substitution goods.

You assume they will exist.

for example, if the oil companies raised gas prices, we convert in short order to electric cars

That didn't happen in real life.

and those CEOs in the oil company who tried to screw the consumer would forever be branded by their competitors as rotten -- hence they would never be able to acquire any substantive amount of private capital.

liberals who love big govenrment dont understand the importance of reputation within a free society.

Reputation means precisely nothing.

WHat !??!!

I need a source that actors in the free market who dont invest wisely wont lose their net worth ???!!!

come on dude stop being a troll

do you want a source for 2+2 ???



are you serious.

You need me to explain how a company that mismanages its operations and/or doesnt satisfy consumer preferences goes out of business.

Are you serious ??!!

Yes. *points at Microsoft*

ridiculous,

in a free society, every exchange is beneficial to both parties or it wouldnt have taken place.

for a laugh please give an example of when someone would be compelled to do something against their will so I can debunk your 'logic'

Get a shitty job.

thats the most intelligent statement you have made in your entire post

nice comeback

nice strawman

how did people set up their own utilities and health care before government ???

read this and get back with me on how these things materialize in the free market -- it is called spontaneous order

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

Utilities are natural monopolies.

public health care in the USA is a broken bankrupt system designed by politicians to buy votes from the poor and elderly without creating a single hospital bed, trained doctor, MRI machine, et al.

it is an illusion whereby government pours literally trillions of dollars into the health care industry that only serves to raise costs while outcome flatline.

Indeed, the discretionary costs of health care for the elderly was LESS before medicare than it is today.

before medicare and other govt managed health care boondoggles, AMericans spent less than 5% of GDP on health care and outcomes were basically the same as today (sounds familar -- see govt education)

now 50+ years later, outcomes are basically the same, yet health care costs over 20% of GDP--- and this boondoggle is breaking the bank so that Americans within our lifetime will have a government that can only pay the interest on this debt, much less on anything else.

so much for your beloved govt managed health care and _____________ (u fill in the blank)

Europe must be even worse in that regard then, o wise one.

you think too much.

I believe in a true federalist system that brings government closer to the people at the state and local level.

not a one-size fits all management of the economy from washington that is thousands of miles away from the citizenry.

the federal govt should act as a legal arbiter of last resort (supreme court), it should provide for national defense, and it should act as an arbiter only when states come into disagreement with each other.

State government is only federal government, but smaller.

in sum, dont hate the message --- just hate me.

I was a dumb shumuck just like you would believed everything that I was told by some clueless govt. check cashing tenured professor and the crap that pop culture spews out (see michael moore)

but read my sources and open up you mind dude.

be objective and independent thinking and stop watching the BBC -- get a hair cut too, and no more tattoos.

later, I wasted too much time with you anyway..

No matter how cool you try to make yourself, you still aren't.

if your independent thinking, rational, and objective

peruse this and get back with me:

http://mises.org/daily/5266/

[Mosasauria]

As I understand it, agricultural subsidies exist to prevent monopolies/oligopolies from forming, which make agricultural commodities more expensive for us. It keeps the large farms from engaging in a massive price war to drive their competition out of business, which would then be followed by a massive increase in the price of said commodity when there is no longer any competition to keep the price down.

I'm actually not entirely sure how it works, but I know that it is not some shady back room deal with agricultural lobbyists. It is actually meant to benefit both farmers and consumers.

agricultural subsidies exist to get politicians reelected and to protect big agri from competition so they can maintain market share.

indeed, every single line in the tax code pertaining to agriculture was put in place a a quid pro quo scheme of preferential tax and regulatory policies for campaign contributions (bribes) from corrupt corporations or special interest votes from iowa, nebraska, kansas, et al.

as for this nonsense about massive price wars.

1) corporations do indeed try to gain market share by lowering prices ------ I like that.

2) corporations that try to immediately raise prices --- i dont like that --- will immediately suffer
a) irrepairable reputation damage,
b) inspire competition
c) inspire the use of substitution goods (African agri, asian agri, et al)
d) inspire boycotts.

3) this scheme has been tried before, the free market kills it dead in its tracks by various methods including this one:

a) when a cartel is forming and they are lowering prices and increasing sales but losing revenue --- short them
b) when they raise prices ---- use the profits from short sales to open a competing firm.

In sum, no firm on Earth has ever made money by lowering prices to the point where they are losing money hand over fist in order to chase out the competition.

then absurdly, raise prices to profligate levels and further lose money from decreased sales, lost reputation, boycotts, renewed competition, and substitution goods and services.

it is a fantasy -- that you have been led to believe.

some professor has read you 'goodnight moon' and you still believe it .

put 2+2 together folks --- you all have brains.

the truth will set you free ---dont fight it.

Except if its got a monopoly, then there sure as hell won't be any of those, or at least, they won't affect business. Why would you risk going against your sole source of Item X? Let's say Item X is food. Do you really want to launch boycotts against the source of food for your family, even if the food is expensive? Would you really want to risk starvation and possible retaliation when it likely won't achieve much because you're not the only person who needs food, and it's highly likely that others, especially those who are wealthier, will continue to buy from this monopoly?

[Enadail]

microsoft aint that bad. and I use it voluntarily.

jeez the version I am using is free with my $150 computer and it works pretty good.

and last time I checked, microsoft wasnt banging down my door or taking money out of my paycheck without accountability.

if you dont like it or you can do better.--- use linux or form your own operating system

WOW, we are all slaves to the evil microsoft corporation.

wwooooooooo woooooooooooooooooo

help me government, i give you all my liberties so that you can save me from the boogeyman bill gates and his evil microsoft military machine.

save us !!!!

For someone complaining about how no one is getting your point, you sure don't understand other peoples'...

His point was that you can be a company with bad practices/coercive techniques and still be successful. Government has no play in it. Microsoft has been sued over trust issues how many times? For a long time, Microsoft was considering only allowing microsoft approved software to be installed on their OS. And as their OS ran many of the world's companies, if they had done so, they'd have no fear in being depowered, as most companies could not afford to go elsewhere.

No one is making a claim that Microsoft is evil, simply that companies fail as hard as government does; the only difference, we can't control who runs a company.

[Silent Majority]

agricultural subsidies exist to get politicians reelected and to protect big agri from competition so they can maintain market share.

Given that it is generally the Democrats who support farm subsidies, and the Democrats are generally not from rural districts. I would say that is false.

indeed, every single line in the tax code pertaining to agriculture was put in place a a quid pro quo scheme of preferential tax and regulatory policies for campaign contributions (bribes) from corrupt corporations or special interest votes from iowa, nebraska, kansas, et al.

Certainly, which is why we need campaign finance reform.

as for this nonsense about massive price wars.

1) corporations do indeed try to gain market share by lowering prices ------ I like that.

2) corporations that try to immediately raise prices --- i dont like that --- will immediately suffer
a) irrepairable reputation damage,
b) inspire competition
c) inspire the use of substitution goods (African agri, asian agri, et al)
d) inspire boycotts.

It's hard to compete against someone who can afford to take a loss in order to drive you out of business, and it's hard boycott food.

3) this scheme has been tried before, the free market kills it dead in its tracks by various methods including this one:

a) when a cartel is forming and they are lowering prices and increasing sales but losing revenue --- short them
b) when they raise prices ---- use the profits from short sales to open a competing firm.

In sum, no firm on Earth has ever made money by lowering prices to the point where they are losing money hand over fist in order to chase out the competition.

That's bullshit. My cable company does this every few years.

then absurdly, raise prices to profligate levels and further lose money from decreased sales, lost reputation, boycotts, renewed competition, and substitution goods and services.

If there is no competition to go to, sales decreases and boycotts just won't happen. And large firms can afford to take short term losses to drive competition out of business. Startups generally don't have that ability

it is a fantasy -- that you have been led to believe.

The only fantasy I'm seeing is your belief in the infallibility of the free market.

some professor has read you 'goodnight moon' and you still believe it .

How cute.

put 2+2 together folks --- you all have brains.

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they're an idiot.

[Aethyopea]

Aha, this guy.

if you have a shred of independence or objectivity in your thinking--- read 'how capitalism saved AMerica" by dilorenzo

it is for beginners, but you would benefit from it.

then get back with me -- without the inane trollish retorts devoid of fact, logic and empirical support.

hence, I wont waste anymore time trying to enlighten you.

So in order to prove that we're independent thinkers, we're supposed to do exactly what you say we should do and real world money for some book. Uh-huh.

[AuSable River]

illogical

kept on a leash by whom ???

indeed, using your logic -- the chickens would be kept on a leash by the foxes.

a short lived cartel would evaporate when they failed to satisfy consumer preferences by inviting competition, inspiring boycotts, and motivating a search for substitution goods.

moreover, it is illogical to create the mother of all monopolies in the form of government to oversee any free market monopoly that has neither guns, gavels, or votes.

ponder that irrefutable wisdom government lover.

1. Please use grammar.
2. Why, the very damned thing that paves the roads, keeps the water and air clean, makes sure that the people are fed and healthy(Or at least is supposed to), and is supposed to and often does stop the exploitation of humanity(Maybe the US government doesn't succeed in this, but there are others that certainly do).
3. How is that Alaje's logic at all?
4. Except when something(In this case, a cartel that, let's say, sells food) is the sole seller of food, and does everything in its power to make sure its the sole seller of food, it's the sole seller of food. Even if this cartel raises prices drastically, people will still buy it, because its the only reliable source of food. They could try and find another way, but then what? Wouldn't the cartel try to enforce its monopoly?
5. The government isn't a monopoly, though. The government can be held accountable by the people if the people actually take a stand(You know, actually electing good candidates and voting them out when they get corrupt). And if you think a free market monopoly doesn't have guns, you're wrong. They can't have courts or votes, but aren't those the properties of a government?
6. I think this refutes most of your "wisdom"

i think this debunks your wiki-centric wisdom:

http://mises.org/daily/5266/

nonetheless, it is supremely illogical that the liberal mind believes in the lunacy of creating the mother of all monopolies -- the federal government with all the guns, gavels, legislative power -- to protect us from a hypothetical single cartel in consumer based industries.

Bizarre if you ask me.

and you cannot reconcile this irrational stance.

[Mosasauria]

There is typically only one natural monopoly needed to be purchased to take over an area. The only common exception is internet service, where there are two.


Companies don't just form.

You assume they will exist.

That didn't happen in real life.

Reputation means precisely nothing.

Yes. *points at Microsoft*

Get a shitty job.

nice strawman

Utilities are natural monopolies.

Europe must be even worse in that regard then, o wise one.

State government is only federal government, but smaller.

No matter how cool you try to make yourself, you still aren't.

if your independent thinking, rational, and objective

peruse this and get back with me:

http://mises.org/daily/5266/

So in order to prove we're independent thinking, rational, and objective, we have to read a biased blog post from someone who's primary goal is to create a new neo-Confederate movement? Nice.

[Miss Defied]

How would these cartels form and become all powerful in a free and voluntary society when they dont have guns, gavels, or votes ?????

Wait, there are no guns in your free market utopia? Fuck that.

for example, some liberal said they would buy all the resources ??!!!

what if I dont want to sell mine ?

what if another aspiring cartel wants those resources too ???

I love how you refute a hypothetical schenario with another hypothetical scenario and somehow that becomes "truth, logic and empirical evidence."

To answer the question, if you don't want to sell your resources there are many ways in which I can convince you to do so.
Likewise there are a number of ways I can deal with an aspiring cartel that tries to compete with me.
Corporations are just as capable of coersion as government.
And the free market will do nothing to alleviate crime.

if your independent thinking, read this short article and get back with me:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns ... oil-story/

What's with all this revisionist history? Doesn't quite fit into the myth of the Job Creators I guess.

[AuSable River]

if you have a shred of independence or objectivity in your thinking--- read 'how capitalism saved AMerica" by dilorenzo

it is for beginners, but you would benefit from it.

then get back with me -- without the inane trollish retorts devoid of fact, logic and empirical support.

hence, I wont waste anymore time trying to enlighten you.

So in order to prove that we're independent thinkers, we're supposed to do exactly what you say we should do and real world money for some book. Uh-huh.

no, it is just a short easy read that I recommend to balance a lifetime of fallacies that you were taught by govt. funded self-interested teachers in public education.

if you want to learn more about how government corrupts and destroys societal wealth to serve itself rather than the very people it claims to want to help--- check with some libertarians on what they recommend you read.

and dont hate the message -- just hate me.

[Blakk Metal]

There is typically only one natural monopoly needed to be purchased to take over an area. The only common exception is internet service, where there are two.


Companies don't just form.

You assume they will exist.

That didn't happen in real life.

Reputation means precisely nothing.

Yes. *points at Microsoft*

Get a shitty job.

nice strawman

Utilities are natural monopolies.

Europe must be even worse in that regard then, o wise one.

State government is only federal government, but smaller.

No matter how cool you try to make yourself, you still aren't.

microsoft aint that bad. and I use it voluntarily.

jeez the version I am using is free with my $150 computer and it works pretty good.

and last time I checked, microsoft wasnt banging down my door or taking money out of my paycheck without accountability.

if you dont like it or you can do better.--- use linux or form your own operating system

WOW, we are all slaves to the evil microsoft corporation.

wwooooooooo woooooooooooooooooo

help me government, i give you all my liberties so that you can save me from the boogeyman bill gates and his evil microsoft military machine.

save us !!!!

Microsoft has yet to go out of business, even though its servers, operation systems, internet services, and pretty much everything else suck. According to you, it should've.

Now fail to knock down my other points.

There is typically only one natural monopoly needed to be purchased to take over an area. The only common exception is internet service, where there are two.


Companies don't just form.

You assume they will exist.

That didn't happen in real life.

Reputation means precisely nothing.

Yes. *points at Microsoft*

Get a shitty job.

nice strawman

Utilities are natural monopolies.

Europe must be even worse in that regard then, o wise one.

State government is only federal government, but smaller.

No matter how cool you try to make yourself, you still aren't.

if your independent thinking, rational, and objective

peruse this and get back with me:

http://mises.org/daily/5266/

Explain the new AT&T for me.

1. Please use grammar.
2. Why, the very damned thing that paves the roads, keeps the water and air clean, makes sure that the people are fed and healthy(Or at least is supposed to), and is supposed to and often does stop the exploitation of humanity(Maybe the US government doesn't succeed in this, but there are others that certainly do).
3. How is that Alaje's logic at all?
4. Except when something(In this case, a cartel that, let's say, sells food) is the sole seller of food, and does everything in its power to make sure its the sole seller of food, it's the sole seller of food. Even if this cartel raises prices drastically, people will still buy it, because its the only reliable source of food. They could try and find another way, but then what? Wouldn't the cartel try to enforce its monopoly?
5. The government isn't a monopoly, though. The government can be held accountable by the people if the people actually take a stand(You know, actually electing good candidates and voting them out when they get corrupt). And if you think a free market monopoly doesn't have guns, you're wrong. They can't have courts or votes, but aren't those the properties of a government?
6. I think this refutes most of your "wisdom"

i think this debunks your wiki-centric wisdom:

http://mises.org/daily/5266/

nonetheless, it is supremely illogical that the liberal mind believes in the lunacy of creating the mother of all monopolies -- the federal government with all the guns, gavels, legislative power -- to protect us from a hypothetical single cartel in consumer based industries.

Bizarre if you ask me.

and you cannot reconcile this irrational stance.

AT&T. Your point is invalid.

[Silent Majority]

1. Please use grammar.
2. Why, the very damned thing that paves the roads, keeps the water and air clean, makes sure that the people are fed and healthy(Or at least is supposed to), and is supposed to and often does stop the exploitation of humanity(Maybe the US government doesn't succeed in this, but there are others that certainly do).
3. How is that Alaje's logic at all?
4. Except when something(In this case, a cartel that, let's say, sells food) is the sole seller of food, and does everything in its power to make sure its the sole seller of food, it's the sole seller of food. Even if this cartel raises prices drastically, people will still buy it, because its the only reliable source of food. They could try and find another way, but then what? Wouldn't the cartel try to enforce its monopoly?
5. The government isn't a monopoly, though. The government can be held accountable by the people if the people actually take a stand(You know, actually electing good candidates and voting them out when they get corrupt). And if you think a free market monopoly doesn't have guns, you're wrong. They can't have courts or votes, but aren't those the properties of a government?
6. I think this refutes most of your "wisdom"

i think this debunks your wiki-centric wisdom:

http://mises.org/daily/5266/

nonetheless, it is supremely illogical that the liberal mind believes in the lunacy of creating the mother of all monopolies -- the federal government with all the guns, gavels, legislative power -- to protect us from a hypothetical single cartel in consumer based industries.

Bizarre if you ask me.

and you cannot reconcile this irrational stance.

The legitimacy and power of said monopoly of force is derived from the people through the democratic process. We would have no such authority over cartels or monopolies in the private market.

[Miss Defied]

Please learn2quoteproperly. It detracts from the flow of the conversation and people need to understand who is saying what. Also, what's with the lines you draw at the top of some posts?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

___________________________________

They form cartels. It's what happens when you privatise areas of government, and it's what will happen if you remove government altogether without destroying capitalism first. It's not difficult economics.--socialist

How would these cartels form and become all powerful in a free and voluntary society when they dont have guns, gavels, or votes ?????

Simple, you pay people to carry the guns, and the other two are achieved by bribery. The free market is very open to corruption.

for the 16th time --- explain the PROCESS, not the end game of how these firms gain a cartel in a voluntary society.

Just look at the 19th century.

for example, some liberal said they would buy all the resources ??!!!

"Some liberal said"?

what if I dont want to sell mine ?

Someone else will, until you get to the point where the alternative to you working for the corporation in question is that you starve.

what if another aspiring cartel wants those resources too ???

I'm sure it would be perfectly possible for the bigger cartel to persuade the smaller cartel to work with the bigger cartel. You don't seem to understand what a cartel is.

A cartel is a formal agreement among competing firms. It is a formal organization where there is a small number of sellers and usually involve homogeneous products. Cartel members may agree on such matters as price fixing, total industry output, market shares, allocation of customers, allocation of territories, bid rigging, establishment of common sales agencies, and the division of profits or combination of these. The aim of such collusion (also called the cartel agreement) is to increase individual members' profits by reducing competition.

if your independent thinking, read this short article and get back with me:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns ... oil-story/

And the owners of corporations are any wiser? --- socialist dude

i covered this myriad times and for the last time for you

if free market actors fail, and they do, then they go bankrupt.

if government actors fail, and they do, they raise taxes and plunder more resources.

hence, within a free market there is always competition -- within government, it doesnt operate by the same self-adjusting rules.

In a free market, some competitors unite, become more powerful than other competitors and destroy the other competitors until there is only the original competitor left.

Oh, and this:
"if free market actors fail, and they do, then they go bankrupt." completely undermines the whole principle of the free market. You've just proved that the free market is unsustainable. Thanks for making my job that much easier.

Driving things towards monopolies, hence creating corporate hegemony.-- socialist

so what ???

if this short-lived monopoly raises prices or lowers quality ---we boycott, form our own company take their market share, or find substitution goods.

If you form your own company, they drop prices for a short time to such an extent that they undercut you, breaking you and driving you into bankruptcy, and because of their profits, they can afford to do this. Competition is strangled.

for example, if the oil companies raised gas prices, we convert in short order to electric cars and those CEOs in the oil company who tried to screw the consumer would forever be branded by their competitors as rotten -- hence they would never be able to acquire any substantive amount of private capital.

liberals who love big govenrment dont understand the importance of reputation within a free society.

I don't love big government. Your point is charmingly irrelevant.

moreover, it is absurd that liberals handwring over a private short-lived cartel without any gavels, guns, or votes -- yet they will gladly and irrationally hand all of their liberties over to the mother of all monopolies --- the federal government.

See my comments earlier about guns, gavels and votes.

Source.--socialist

WHat !??!!

I need a source that actors in the free market who dont invest wisely wont lose their net worth ???!!!

No, you need a source for this statement.

the difference is that capital, resources, and wealth continually move to investors, individuals, consumers, firms, industries, et al that most efficiently use these resources at a given time in history.

come on dude stop being a troll

Ah, the irony.

do you want a source for 2+2 ???

Nah, I'm fine, thanks.

Please, do explain that particular helping of bullshit.--socialist

are you serious.

You need me to explain how a company that mismanages its operations and/or doesnt satisfy consumer preferences goes out of business.

Are you serious ??!!

In a cartel situation, which is the inevitable consequence of a free market, all companies can agree to be equally mismanaged and unsatisfactory, and then crush any potential competition. It doesn't matter how unsatisfactory they are, as you can't compete.

Nah, a small clique do things through voluntary means, everyone else is compelled to do so.-- socialist

ridiculous,

in a free society, every exchange is beneficial to both parties global corporations and conglomerates or it wouldnt have taken place.

Fix'd.

for a laugh please give an example of when someone would be compelled to do something against their will so I can debunk your 'logic'

Simple. In a cartel situation, where there is no alternative and competition is squashed, you work for the companies who dominate, against your will, or you starve.

Blah blah blah blah blah ebil government blah blah blah blah.---socialist

thats the most intelligent statement you have made in your entire post

Flaming me. Skilful.

And the alternative to government in a capitalist society is the sole existence of corporations, which would in time become political animals in themselves - or are people randomly going to set up their own utilities and healthcare?--socialist

how did people set up their own utilities and health care before government ???

Last time I checked, they didn't.

Bullshit, a large proportion of taxation is used to fund things like public healthcare. Here in the UK it is, at any rate, and in the good ol' US of A you actually spend more per capita on healthcare than we, with our universal healthcare, do. I call that a victory for socialism.--socialist

public health care in the USA is a broken bankrupt system designed by politicians to buy votes from the poor and elderly without creating a single hospital bed, trained doctor, MRI machine, et al.

it is an illusion whereby government pours literally trillions of dollars into the health care industry that only serves to raise costs while outcome flatline.

Indeed, the discretionary costs of health care for the elderly was LESS before medicare than it is today.

before medicare and other govt managed health care boondoggles, AMericans spent less than 5% of GDP on health care and outcomes were basically the same as today (sounds familar -- see govt education)

now 50+ years later, outcomes are basically the same, yet health care costs over 20% of GDP--- and this boondoggle is breaking the bank so that Americans within our lifetime will have a government that can only pay the interest on this debt, much less on anything else.

so much for your beloved govt managed health care and _____________ (u fill in the blank)

And without Medicare and Medicaid, only the rich in America would be able to afford healthcare. It's progress of a sort.

I'm British, our socialist publicly-funded NHS works fine, thank you.

Ohohoho, I think you are, you're advocating completely doing away with government.--socialist

you think too much.

I believe in a true federalist system that brings government closer to the people at the state and local level.

It's not a truly free market if there's government involved.

not a one-size fits all management of the economy from washington that is thousands of miles away from the citizenry.

Socialism is infinitely preferable to the 'free market'.

the federal govt should act as a legal arbiter of last resort (supreme court), it should provide for national defense, and it should act as an arbiter only when states come into disagreement with each other.


in sum, dont hate the message --- just hate me.

If you insist.

I was a dumb shumuck just like you would believed everything that I was told by some clueless govt. check cashing tenured professor and the crap that pop culture spews out (see michael moore)

Here's some advice: if you want to convince people you're right, don't insult them.

but read my sources and open up you mind dude.

You've insulted me, so no, I won't.

be objective and independent thinking and stop watching the BBC -- get a hair cut too, and no more tattoos.

I have a very sensible haircut and am completely devoid of tattoos. Again, if you're trying to convince people (which you're not, your entire post history consists of you jacking off your own ego and yelling about "TEH EBIL STATIST GOVERNMENT LOVING LIBERALS"), then don't stereotype and insult them.

later, I wasted too much time with you anyway..

The feeling's mutual.

Oh, and for your information, libertarian socialists (see Noam Chomsky) tend to dislike the bourgeois and corporate-dominated state of the 21st century, "liberal" does not automatically mean "statist".

[Mosasauria]

1. Please use grammar.
2. Why, the very damned thing that paves the roads, keeps the water and air clean, makes sure that the people are fed and healthy(Or at least is supposed to), and is supposed to and often does stop the exploitation of humanity(Maybe the US government doesn't succeed in this, but there are others that certainly do).
3. How is that Alaje's logic at all?
4. Except when something(In this case, a cartel that, let's say, sells food) is the sole seller of food, and does everything in its power to make sure its the sole seller of food, it's the sole seller of food. Even if this cartel raises prices drastically, people will still buy it, because its the only reliable source of food. They could try and find another way, but then what? Wouldn't the cartel try to enforce its monopoly?
5. The government isn't a monopoly, though. The government can be held accountable by the people if the people actually take a stand(You know, actually electing good candidates and voting them out when they get corrupt). And if you think a free market monopoly doesn't have guns, you're wrong. They can't have courts or votes, but aren't those the properties of a government?
6. I think this refutes most of your "wisdom"

i think this debunks your wiki-centric wisdom:

http://mises.org/daily/5266/

nonetheless, it is supremely illogical that the liberal mind believes in the lunacy of creating the mother of all monopolies -- the federal government with all the guns, gavels, legislative power -- to protect us from a hypothetical single cartel in consumer based industries.

Bizarre if you ask me.

and you cannot reconcile this irrational stance.

Because the government(Or, at least, democratic ones) isn't a damn monopoly!
Your source does nothing to debunk it, it only shows that this man thinks that because these early utility monopolies went to the government to corrupt it and strengthen their hold, that they aren't natural anymore. Which is a fallacy upon itself. Not to mention that it's little more than a blog post with no actual substance.
Let me explain it to you this way:
The government isn't a monopoly. The legislative power, guns, and gavels that you mention keep it from being a monopoly, because the people decide who wields those. If they don't like who wields them, they can work to have them removed(Albeit, this is tricky with the US Court System, but that's a discussion for another thread). This is also the very thing by which people still have breathable air, clean drinking water, land to live on without immediate threat, paved roads, food, and healthcare, all of which are covered by a fee so that this thing can still stay afloat and keep providing for everyone. Would you rather this tax money go to the pockets of the elite or back to the people?
Please, just because those who can vote haven't been diligent, don't start advocating for a complete removal of governmental power and the screwing over of millions of people.

[Mosasauria]

i think this debunks your wiki-centric wisdom:

http://mises.org/daily/5266/

nonetheless, it is supremely illogical that the liberal mind believes in the lunacy of creating the mother of all monopolies -- the federal government with all the guns, gavels, legislative power -- to protect us from a hypothetical single cartel in consumer based industries.

Bizarre if you ask me.

and you cannot reconcile this irrational stance.

The legitimacy and power of said monopoly of force is derived from the people through the democratic process. We would have no such authority over cartels or monopolies in the private market.

Exactly this.

[AuSable River]

How would these cartels form and become all powerful in a free and voluntary society when they dont have guns, gavels, or votes ?????

Wait, there are no guns in your free market utopia? Fuck that.

for example, some liberal said they would buy all the resources ??!!!

what if I dont want to sell mine ?

what if another aspiring cartel wants those resources too ???

I love how you refute a hypothetical schenario with another hypothetical scenario and somehow that becomes "truth, logic and empirical evidence."

To answer the question, if you don't want to sell your resources there are many ways in which I can convince you to do so.
Likewise there are a number of ways I can deal with an aspiring cartel that tries to compete with me.
Corporations are just as capable of coersion as government.
And the free market will do nothing to alleviate crime.

if your independent thinking, read this short article and get back with me:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns ... oil-story/

What's with all this revisionist history? Doesn't quite fit into the myth of the Job Creators I guess.

1) the government still has most of the guns honey.

2) I love how liberals cant answer this question. again, for the 10th time -- in a free society --- what if someone who holds a valued resource doesnt want to sell it to an aspiring cartel ????

and no, crime isnt legal and unenforceable within a free society because you still have government and you still have government courts.

and you still have free speech and hundreds of millions of citizens who are not working in government and they have a vested interest in nurturing a fair and impartial judicial system.

in contrast, outside the judicial system within our present corrupt crony capitalist system backroom deals get made all the time with your tax payer money that only benefit corrupt politicians and corrupt corporations.

and the ridiculous fact is that virtually all of these deals are legal ?!!

hence corporations dont need guns -- they use the government as their proxy.

and polticians dont need to govern responsibility to get reelected - they just buy votes from special interests and campaign contributions from certain corporations.

3)if it is revisionist history than debunk it.

you just cant debunk an argument by labeling it without any substantive logic, facts, or empirical evidence.