http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/24/idUS264245887020111024

Quote :

"The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises. The document from the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department should please the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn. “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority,” was at times very specific, calling, for example, for taxation measures on financial transactions. “The economic and financial crisis which the world is going through calls everyone, individuals and peoples, to examine in depth the principles and the cultural and moral values at the basis of social coexistence,” it said."

If this were to come to fruition, then the human race deserves its grisly fate.

...or maybe it would turn out great. "Remember all those problems we had, and then we ceded all sovereignty to a single central authority that always made great decisions?"

10/24/2011 12:20:28 PM

Fuckin Township trying to tell ME where to place my mailbox

10/24/2011 12:24:39 PM

Are you comparing a town government to a world government? How foolish could you be? ...oh.

10/24/2011 12:32:01 PM

This town IS my world

10/24/2011 12:34:46 PM

Those catholics are always so forward thinking.

10/24/2011 12:37:12 PM

I feel an OAR song in here somehow.

10/24/2011 12:39:05 PM

Quote :

"Those catholics are always so forward thinking."

To be fair, it was a Catholic priest who postulated the Big Bang Theory and another outspoken Catholic who defended Evolution in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

They're as nutty as the rest of the theists on the god topic, but when it comes to science at least they're not as ass backwards as the rest of em.

And as far as the OP, I'm still not convinced that there is a specific distance at which governance with personal freedom is impossible. I believe that the human race will be better off when there are no nations, if that can ever happen.

[Edited on October 24, 2011 at 12:53 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2011 12:48:29 PM

lettuce pray . . . . . for maximum employment and stable prices

[Edited on October 24, 2011 at 12:52 PM. Reason : inB4 pedo jokes]

10/24/2011 12:51:47 PM

Quote :

"The document from the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department should please the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn."

Now, admittedly, the OWS protesters seem to have a lot more trust in their government than they should, but how in the world would ceding financial control to an even larger bank make the people protesting the massive banks and their control over us happy?

10/24/2011 12:56:52 PM

Quote :

"Now, admittedly, the OWS protesters seem to have a lot more trust in their government than they should, but how in the world would ceding financial control to an even larger bank make the people protesting the massive banks and their control over us happy?"

What you're missing is that OWS favors Democratic institutions over Capitalistic ones. They are upset with these large banks primarily because their power has eclipsed that of Democratic institutions like our government. I'm sure everyone at OWS would be upset if Bank Of America was made King Bank Of The World.

10/24/2011 1:00:14 PM

Ahahaha...you think our government is democratic? Are you talking about...the government of the United States?

Governments might start out as democracies, but they don't stay that way for long. Eventually, conflicts of interest form, groups realize they can steal from other groups, and it all goes to shit. Pure democracy only exists for the initial "mob rule" phase.

Quote :

"Now, admittedly, the OWS protesters seem to have a lot more trust in their government than they should, but how in the world would ceding financial control to an even larger bank make the people protesting the massive banks and their control over us happy?"

Faith, bro.

[Edited on October 24, 2011 at 1:03 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2011 1:03:01 PM

Quote :

"Ahahaha...you think our government is democratic? Are you talking about...the government of the United States?"

No, not really. It's democratic qualities have been overshadowed by the influence of Capital for well over a hundred years.

Quote :

"Governments might start out as democracies, but they don't stay that way for long. Eventually, conflicts of interest form, groups realize they can steal from other groups, and it all goes to shit. Pure democracy only exists for the initial "mob rule" phase."

This is a process called Capitalism.


*edit: and please don't start the "US is a republic herp derp" red herring that always plagues the mention of "Democratic" in the presence of idiots


[Edited on October 24, 2011 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2011 1:04:58 PM

Dan Brown's next book just wrote itself.

10/24/2011 1:06:26 PM

^^^Ok, now follow that line of thinking to it's logical conclusion, and explain why "socialism" is so bad, at least when compared to what we have now.

[Edited on October 24, 2011 at 1:06 PM. Reason : :]

10/24/2011 1:06:36 PM

Oh wait, lol, you probably think welfare recipients are the ones 'stealing from other groups'

ahahahahahaaaaahaha

10/24/2011 1:06:39 PM

Quote :

"This is a process called Capitalism."

No, that's not what capitalism is. Capitalism simply means that there is capital and private ownership. Capitalism is not a process.

Your dumb ass wants capitalism. The alternative is poverty/subsistence farming.

Quote :

"^^^Ok, now follow that line of thinking to it's logical conclusion, and explain why "socialism" is so bad, at least when compared to what we have now."

It's not that it's "so bad", it's that there's no way to get to socialism. In free market capitalism, prices (including wages) are dynamic. In socialism (worker control of means of production), there is no price mechanism. Some have suggested that the wage/price system be eliminated completely, but it's not clear how it would be determined who gets what under such a system.

If socialism should be taken to mean, "state capitalism + welfare," then that's a different discussion.

Quote :

"Oh wait, lol, you probably think welfare recipients are the ones 'stealing from other groups'"

I'm thinking of the banks and corporations that have managed to steer regulations in such a way that they receive undue benefits. "Welfare" is a drop in the bucket.

Let's keep it on topic though, for Christ's sake. We don't need another "socialism versus capitalism" thread.

[Edited on October 24, 2011 at 1:35 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2011 1:34:33 PM

Quote :

" No, that's not what capitalism is. Capitalism simply means that there is capital and private ownership. Capitalism is not a process. "

Capitalism occurs over spans of time, you know. It's not an eternal ideal endlessly spinning with no outcomes. It engenders certain trends over time, such as the condensation and concentration of wealth/power.

Quote :

"I'm thinking of the banks and corporations that have managed to steer regulations in such a way that they receive undue benefits. "Welfare" is a drop in the bucket."

You're correct about the drop in the bucket. You don't seem to understand how banks and corporations got powerful enough to steer regulations in the first place [hint: See above]

Also this is such a common libertarian train of thought, that all the problems we see now such as increasing inequality and grosser concentrations of wealth, are all the result of regulations, and wouldn't occur in 'natural' Capitalism. So, out of curiosity, what *are* the income and wealth distributions under ideal, eternal, endless Capitalism?

[Edited on October 24, 2011 at 1:38 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2011 1:36:45 PM

Quote :

"So, out of curiosity, what *are* the income and wealth distributions under ideal, eternal, endless Capitalism? "

Changes over time depending on various conditions, such as technological advancement. The thought experiment requires a recognition that under anarcho-capitalism, without a government to protect firms against competition or to bail out creditors, there is no such thing as a permanent store of value, or a long-term demand on the labors of others. While a Bill Gates will manage to build a vast fortune, he has no way under such a system to keep it forever. Microsoft will eventually be displaced by some other upstart. Buying bonds or stocks is no guarantee that such firms will not vanish in bankruptcy in some future correction. Even throwing the money into cash is no guarantee against failure of the issuing bank.

As such, in the long-run all financial wealth is lost somehow, the only long-run income is from human labor. In the production of which we are all equals.

Like right now, if the government had not existed, lots of very wealthy people would have just lost most if not all of their wealth. Thanks to the government, the super-rich of tomorrow will not only be the same people as yesteryear, but they will be even richer than they otherwise would have been.

10/24/2011 2:31:00 PM

Quote :

"What you're missing is that OWS favors Democratic institutions over Capitalistic ones."

I didn't miss that. What I'm missing is what historical precedent suggests that such an institution would ever be or remain democratic and beholden to the interests of the people at large?

The arguments are easy enough to make, such an institution and it's leaders should not be elected by any sort of democratic vote, to prevent them from being influenced and swayed by politics, they should not have to fear for their jobs when they have to make tough choices. So they should be appointed, or perhaps elected by the nations themselves. Which then leads to the question of whether you trust your government (the same one that has such a problem already with insiders and conflicts of interest among its regulators) to fairly elect or appoint someone to a world wide regulatory agency? I sure don't.

10/24/2011 6:39:03 PM

I for one welcome our new Overlords.

10/24/2011 7:48:46 PM

Quote :

"Governments might start out as democracies, but they don't stay that way for long. Eventually, conflicts of interest form, groups realize they can steal from other groups, and it all goes to shit. Pure democracy only exists for the initial "mob rule" phase."

Eventually? Immediately is the appropriate term. Pure democracy, republic or dictatorship, people will always come together to form factions to support a common interest. From angry mobs to cliques of rules cadres, people are always arguing over the definition of the "greater good" and which problem deserves its slice of limited resources. This is a constant in human history.

The key is to check the factions so that one single group cannot overwhelm the others and thus force compromise. OWS believes that this balance has been disrupted and needs to be restored (though where that line should be placed is an open debate).

10/24/2011 8:54:03 PM

Quote :

"While a Bill Gates will manage to build a vast fortune, he has no way under such a system to keep it forever. Microsoft will eventually be displaced by some other upstart. "

"Eventually" how? Granted, software is an exception in many cases, but most of the time larger firms enjoy economies of scale, the benefits of globalization, and a few other perks that smaller businesses just don't get. Free marketers seem to have a tough time explaining why a larger firm would ever fall to a smaller firm, except by some vague notion of inevitability like "They're bound to mess something up sooner or later." In other words, the rational actors (whose rational behaviors markets depend on) must act irrationally at some point or another, and thus feudal corporate dynasties are avoided.

10/26/2011 9:38:03 AM

The larger firm won't necessarily fall, but it will lose customers to smaller competitors. Larger firms come with their own set of problems. They have "bloated bureaucracy" of their own, they have necessarily more rigid policies, and are less likely to be able to adapt to evolving customer needs. The best way to get a monopoly is to have the government give you one. Monopolies simply don't exist in a free market since most or all barriers to entry today are artificial.

By having the state take over some function that you think needs to happen, you're essentially saying, "Fuck it. We're going to have a monopoly anyway, so we might as well give it to the guys with the biggest guns. I'm sure they'll do what's good for the people." Problem is that there's no proof monopolies are sustainable in a free market; globalization makes the forming of monopolies less likely.

...unless, of course, we have some sort of world government that creates a monopoly.

10/26/2011 10:06:22 AM

Large firms fall to smaller firms all the time. Better product, leaner business model, cheaper product, etc. Look how poorly GM has done over the last 30 years compared to upstarts like Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. Due partly to the excellence of the products, partly to the piss poor quality of GM by comparison, partly to bad business management by GM, etc.

Target is another example. Started off as a small Minnesota store and is now one of the largest retailers on the planet mostly because of a strong brand identity and well defined corporate vision.

Ben and Jerry's, an example of a niche product that developed through branding, quality of product, and innovation.

There are lots of examples, it doesn't take much time to start ticking off examples when you think about it.

If you want an example of a large firm adapting when it looked like it was going to become irrelevant and then prospering take a look at GE's history. For an example of the opposite look at say...US Steel.

10/26/2011 11:35:33 AM

Quote :

"Large firms fall to smaller firms all the time. Better product, leaner business model, cheaper product, etc. Look how poorly GM has done over the last 30 years compared to upstarts like Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. Due partly to the excellence of the products, partly to the piss poor quality of GM by comparison, partly to bad business management by GM, etc."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda

Quote :

"Honda has been the world's largest motorcycle manufacturer since 1959, as well as the world's largest manufacturer of internal combustion engines measured by volume, producing more than 14 million internal combustion engines each year. Honda surpassed Nissan in 2001 to become the second-largest Japanese automobile manufacturer. As of August 2008, Honda surpassed Chrysler as the fourth largest automobile manufacturer in the United States. Honda is the sixth largest automobile manufacturer in the world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan

"upstarts"

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 11:49 AM. Reason : .]

10/26/2011 11:49:06 AM

I'm sorry, I should have specified cars.

Yes, they've been making motors and motorcycles for forever, but their rise in the auto industry, especially the US, was pretty meteoric and sort of out of nowhere. GM was the world's largest auto producer for 77 years, now they aren't. Primarily because they've been outcompeted despite numerous attempts to tariff competition out of the market.

What Honda, Toyota, etc. did from approx. 1980 on would be like if Harley Davidson suddenly went from a negligible % of US auto sales to 50% of the market.

For a more impressive example, look at kia which went from not making a car to having 9% US market share. Yes, they're an established company, but they developed a completely new segment and now are a major player.

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 12:10 PM. Reason : afsdfsd]

10/26/2011 12:06:47 PM

Quote :

"Yes, they've been making motors and motorcycles for forever, but their rise in the auto industry, especially the US, was pretty meteoric and sort of out of nowhere."

Out of nowhere? Not out of their massive bedrock of experience running a multinational corporation and their massive pile of capital?

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2011 12:23:00 PM

Yeah. Considering the fact that they had virtually zero presence in the US auto market or the global auto market until the 70s. The success of the Japanese auto manufacturers was more predicated on the failures of the US auto industry to recognize changing trends and unwillingness or inability to adapt to change.

Japanese firms identified the oil crisis as a game changer and started making small, fuel efficient vehicles. This gave them a foothold in the US market which they then grew. Look at Honda pre-1980 and tell me that they should have grown into the powerhouse they are now... it's pretty improbable. It's a company that didn't exist until 1947... jump forward 60 years and look where it's at. It's not like they started out as a huge multinational. They started making motorcycles in post WWII Japan, opened a single storefront in Los Angeles in 1959, and now are huge in several areas. How did this growth occur?

Again, Kia is probably an even better example since they made bicycles, didn't even have a US dealership until the 1990s, and now have a 9% market share.

10/27/2011 12:38:05 AM

Would this mean that the chapters I'm covering right now on foreign currency derivatives, and hedging are no longer needed? I might be for that part of the proposal!

10/27/2011 12:54:52 AM

Wow it's almost as though large firms can instantly jump on any market they see an opportunity in! And they can take advantage of the global labor pool, global resources pool, and global consumer pool! It's okay though, eventually they will make a bad decision of some kind and then an upstart will take over!

10/27/2011 12:39:54 PM

Yes, because it's not like history is full of examples of companies going broke because they ventured into an unfamiliar business and lost their shirts.

Again, we're not talking about massive companies here (compared to their competition) when the Japanese auto manufacturers broke into the US market. They were pretty small players on the international stage and not considered a threat to the US big 3. It was only when the big 3 failed to react to the oil crisis that they started bleeding market share.

And while I know you'd prefer to think that under capitalism the little guy never wins because it's an inherently unfair system, but that's simply not the case. The biggest barriers to entry and competition almost always come from the government, frequently pushed for by the largest players in a given industry, but ultimately from the government. Things like tariffs, import taxes, and hugely expensive licensing and testing fees are what make competition so difficult.

Is there any reason that florists should be licensed? Fuck no! And yet in some states they are and there are limits on the number of florists licenses that can be granted. Look at the absurdly expensive testing that was designed by Mattel and Hasbro to prevent competition from foreign toymakers following the lead paint scare a few years back.

10/27/2011 3:41:53 PM

10/27/2011 4:22:51 PM

Really. You think government is a bigger barrier to entry than "My competition is a global corporation with a factory in China, where steel is cheaper and labor costs pennies." or "My competition has the capital such that they can buy materials, energy, distribution, and labor in bulk and I have to sell at a loss just to meet their prices." Maybe, maybe 40 years ago you could make this case, when regulations were tighter, tax code more progressive, and commerce less global. Today, or any time in the past 30 years, it's just a fucking joke. Globalization in particular has solidified, without any help necessary from government, the dominance of already-large firms that can take advantage of the global labor and materials pools.

And still, your only explanation for a larger firm being taken by a smaller firm is that there is a *chance* that they will fuck up at some point. Such as a bad investment decision or a poorly executed transition. Not that smaller firms have any inherent benefits, just that "everybody fucks up sooner or later, right?" and sooner or later a big firm will fuck up. Nevermind that in the time it takes for a large firm to actually make a critical error, 1,000 smaller firms will fuck up in relatively minor ways and go completely bankrupt.

I mean, missing something so obvious and just firing off the standard libertarian mythology of "there was no monopolies until gubmint made them..." just indicates to me that you aren't thinking critically about this, instead just parroting what you've heard elsewhere.


Also lol at "the lead paint scare" being in quotes, as though it's at all contestable that kids chewing on lead-coated toys is extremely fucking dangerous.

[Edited on October 28, 2011 at 10:19 AM. Reason : .]

10/28/2011 10:07:25 AM

Quote :

"My competition has the capital such that they can buy materials, energy, distribution, and labor in bulk and I have to sell at a loss just to meet their prices."

Why? If your competition is "a monopoly" then they are monopoly pricing to maximize profits. Just don't price your products at twice the marginal cost of production and you should sell out.

As a market becomes concentrated, pricing strategy becomes less competitive, prices rise, profits soar, and fewer firms leave the market and more firms make the investment to enter, until competition is restored and pricing becomes more competitive. Rinse and repeat.

10/28/2011 10:19:48 AM

Quote :

" Why? If your competition is "a monopoly" then they are monopoly pricing to maximize profits. Just don't price your products at twice the marginal cost of production and you should sell out. "

Monopolies still deal with startups frequently, typically by distributing risk in a way that they can undercut with ease when necessary.

Consider Sheetz's business model: When Sheetz open up in a small town, they immediately put their gas prices at that station about 10-15 cents below the operating cost. They operate at a loss and make up the difference with profits from their more established stations elsewhere. This puts the smaller stations out of business, then they jack the price back up once the competition shutters. Do you see how ability to do this sort of thing is only available to larger firms that can redistribute risk among their assets?

I mean lol, your argument here is that monopoly companies can't change their prices, that once they start gouging they can't react to being undercut by dinky startups.

[Edited on October 28, 2011 at 10:24 AM. Reason : .]

10/28/2011 10:23:59 AM

Quote :

"They operate at a loss and make up the difference with profits from their more established stations elsewhere. This puts the smaller stations out of business, then they jack the price back up once the competition shutters. Do you see how ability to do this sort of thing is only available to larger firms that can redistribute risk among their assets?"

Finish the story. So, Sheetz has raked up huge losses selling gasoline at a loss (demand goes up as prices go down, as people drive from other areas to take advantage of the cheap gas, so not only did Sheetz sell all the gas in town, it sold much of the gas in the region).

But, whatever happens, the other stations exist. Short of buying them all up and bulldozing them, all the other stations in town can be reopened by their owners or purchased from bankruptcy proceedings at short notice and reopened.

Of course, this story would work better for something like lumber or steel pipe. Gasoline, being a retail market, is monopolistic competition and does not compete in a way that allows the form of price competition you are assuming. That a station exists elsewhere in town at 15 cents less is meaningless to most people, as they only shop at the gas stations they pass on a daily basis. As such, your story of a town with lots of gas stations, Sheetz stations open, then for a long time only has Sheetz stations, seems false.

Nevertheless, a professor at UNC studies free market monopolies and I'm sure would love to hear more of this example. Do you have any links describing such a successful free-market monopoly run that stuck? He has on at least one occasion stated that no such example has been documented in written history.

10/28/2011 10:56:06 AM

Quote :

"Finish the story. So, Sheetz has raked up huge losses selling gasoline at a loss (demand goes up as prices go down, as people drive from other areas to take advantage of the cheap gas, so not only did Sheetz sell all the gas in town, it sold much of the gas in the region)."

Actually the losses aren't huge because they are localized to particular towns with immediate competition.

Quote :

" But, whatever happens, the other stations exist. Short of buying them all up and bulldozing them, all the other stations in town can be reopened by their owners or purchased from bankruptcy proceedings at short notice and reopened."

Lmao you think it's cheap to close and reopen a gas station? You think anyone would even do that knowing the Sheetz down the street can do what it did over and over again, having already successfully done it once?

Quote :

" Of course, this story would work better for something like lumber or steel pipe. Gasoline, being a retail market, is monopolistic competition and does not compete in a way that allows the form of price competition you are assuming. That a station exists elsewhere in town at 15 cents less is meaningless to most people, as they only shop at the gas stations they pass on a daily basis. As such, your story of a town with lots of gas stations, Sheetz stations open, then for a long time only has Sheetz stations, seems false. "

Well, most small towns typically have one or two major highways that have strips running perpendicular to them, with gas stations often within site of each other. When you pass multiple gas stations on the way to work, you take note of the prices and act accordingly next time you fill up. I'm telling this story because it's precisely what I saw happen in two small towns in Pennsylvania that I lived in. I saw Sheetz move in, I saw them undercut all the stations on the strip, I saw those stations close within two or three months, like clockwork. They even moved to somewhat more remote strips later and did the same. I later found talking to people online and elsewhere that this sort of thing happened all over the country. There's way more obvious examples too, like fucking Walmart, who beats the shit out of small businesses because their large capital gives them access to global product markets.

Quote :

"Do you have any links describing such a successful free-market monopoly run that stuck? "

Western Union, Standard Oil, US Steel, the MLB, AT&T, DeBeers, Microsoft, Monsanto, there's more

The reason they didn't stick to the present was because they were broken up by our democratic institutions once they achieved monopoly status and started flexing their anti-competitive muscles.

Quote :

"Nevertheless, a professor at UNC studies free market monopolies and I'm sure would love to hear more of this example. He has on at least one occasion stated that no such example has been documented in written history."

That's a really cool and unique story about how a guy who teaches at a university said a thing.

[Edited on October 28, 2011 at 11:05 AM. Reason : .]

10/28/2011 11:03:29 AM

Quote :

"Lmao you think it's cheap to close and reopen a gas station?"

Sure it is. You sell the gas in the tank then put something saying "closed" over your sign and turn the lights off. Then, sometime later, come back, sweep up, refill the tank, and turn the lights back on.

Quote :

"There's way more obvious examples too, like fucking Walmart"

So, I left out the important proviso. "a successful free-market monopoly run that" ultimately harmed consumers. Walmart prices seem to be permanently lower. Standard Oil's certainly were. None of the examples you have given ever started monopoly pricing strategies. Presumably because they could not: as they took market share from their competitors through lower prices, a competitor is waiting in the wings to buy an abandoned retail outlet at foreclosure prices and reverse the trend.

Quote :

"because they were broken up by our democratic institutions"

Of the ones you list, most had no monopoly without the government. Western Union at first had a monopoly thanks to patent law and when these expired got their friends in the legislature to ban their competitors (look up the history of the wireless telegraph). AT&T also had a monopoly by legislation (look up the history of MCI and microwave telecommunications). Microsoft arguably has no monopoly, certainly wouldn't if not protected by copyright law. MLB also wouldn't have a monopoly if Congress hadn't given them one. That just leaves US Steel which, I'm pretty sure, never had a monopoly as they never had much more than half market share. That just leaves Monsanto, which is again dependent upon copyright and patent law.

10/28/2011 11:26:26 AM

Quote :

"Sure it is. You sell the gas in the tank then put something saying "closed" over your sign, cancel your distributor, lay off your employees (or reduce their hours to zero and watch them quit), and turn the lights off. Then, sometime later, after paying rent and/or taxes for the land, come back, sweep up, reobtain your certifications, recontract with the supplier, refill the tank, rehire attendants, and turn the lights back on. "

Fixed, if you really think it's costless to repeatedly close and open a business...I...I just don't know where to start..

Quote :

"So, I left out the important proviso. "a successful free-market monopoly run that" ultimately harmed consumers. Walmart prices seem to be permanently lower. Standard Oil's certainly were. None of the examples you have given ever started monopoly pricing strategies. Presumably because they could not: as they took market share from their competitors through lower prices, a competitor is waiting in the wings to buy an abandoned retail outlet at foreclosure prices and reverse the trend. "

So wait, now you are existing that monopolies exist, but cannot be harmful?

Quote :

"Of the ones you list, most had no monopoly without the government. "

Perhaps the ones you focus on. Even then, those ones got help from the government *after* they grew to a size large enough to engage in corruption through normal market measures.

Quote :

"Western Union at first had a monopoly thanks to patent law and when these expired got their friends in the legislature to ban their competitors (look up the history of the wireless telegraph). "

Patent law is arguably protection of private property. Is that your gripe with government? Because if you want to remove government protection of private property, why didn't you say so?? I mean what you're saying is "The only reason they had a monopoly is they retained ownership of their ideas."

Quote :

"Microsoft arguably has no monopoly, certainly wouldn't if not protected by copyright law. "

Lovin how you use the present tense, a decade after their near-monopoly was broken up and competition was thus allowed to flair up again. And again you seem to be against the concept of intellectual property altogether. Thing is, all private property is protected by the government, intellectual or not.

Quote :

"MLB also wouldn't have a monopoly if Congress hadn't given them one. "

Not necessarily, here's one take http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2004/03/mlb-monopoly-and-the-anti-trust-exemption/

Quote :

"That just leaves US Steel which, I'm pretty sure, never had a monopoly as they never had much more than half market share. "

US Steel produced more than 2/3 of all Steel in the US during its first year of production alone. They had more than 50% for a full decade between 1901 and 1911. It was the first billion-dollar corporation in history and the largest in the world at one point.

Quote :

"That just leaves Monsanto, which is again dependent upon copyright and patent law."

Lol, they are "dependent" on having ownership over their ideas. How terrible of the government to enforce this.



And what about Debeers? You know, that wildly successful diamond company that actively exploits their near-monopoly status by strategically manipulating the market supply of diamonds?

Also, any thoughts on polyopolies like the cell phone business? If there was actually real competition, why would they all be charging for text messages at a 10,000% profit rate?

[Edited on October 28, 2011 at 11:44 AM. Reason : .]

10/28/2011 11:41:00 AM

Quote :

"a decade after their near-monopoly was broken up and competition was thus allowed to flair up again"

What history have you been smoking? The court order was to make Internet Explorer optional in Windows, an option no one took. Microsoft was not broken up. The only lasting effect of the anti-trust case was Microsoft descended on Washington and formed an army of lobbyists to re-direct the government apparatus away from itself and onto its competitors.

Quote :

"Lol, they are "dependent" on having ownership over their ideas. How terrible of the government to enforce this."

I agree. Not even the writers of patent and copyright law consider "ideas" property, as they purposefully put in sunsets. Would you really consider land property if your title expired after 25 years?

Quote :

"Also, any thoughts on polyopolies like the cell phone business? If there was actually real competition, why would they all be charging for text messages at a 10,000% profit rate?"

My cheap nationwide pre-paid plan comes with unlimited data and text messaging. Feels like competition to me. You should sign up.

Quote :

"You know, that wildly successful diamond company that actively exploits their near-monopoly status by strategically manipulating the market supply of diamonds?"

Yes, you know that wildly successful diamond company that uses the government to ban the importation of diamonds from mines they don't own?

Quote :

"Perhaps the ones you focus on. Even then, those ones got help from the government *after* they grew to a size large enough to engage in corruption through normal market measures."

Well, it was your list. Nevertheless, you took the words right out of my mouth. The wrong was not their size, but the large government that gives them monopoly power. In my opinion, were it not for the political corruption their size would be a benefit to society. As such, we should stop the political. I guess your opinion is that the large corrupt political system cannot be stopped, so we should stop corporations from getting big and taking advantage...But a large corrupt political system is not going to let you keep corporations small, so even in your view you will fail miserably.

[Edited on October 28, 2011 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/28/2011 12:03:06 PM

Quote :

"What history have you been smoking? The court order was to make Internet Explorer optional in Windows, an option no one took. "

What do you mean? IE's share dropped from about 90% to less than 60% since then.

Quote :

"Microsoft was not broken up. The only lasting effect of the anti-trust case was Microsoft descended on Washington and formed an army of lobbyists to re-direct the government apparatus away from itself and onto its competitors. "

I'd say "going from a practical monopoly market of browsers to a plurality" counts as a lasting effect.

Quote :

"I agree. Not even the writers of patent and copyright law consider "ideas" property, as they purposefully put in sunsets. "

Lol what? Because they are temporary they're not property? Sunsets are a compromise between the needs of the society and individual liberty to own what you create. They are a compromise again individual liberty. Or do you think that an inventor, upon coming up with an idea, should instantly share that idea with everyone else?

Quote :

"Would you really consider land property if your title expired after 25 years? "

Yes, for those 25 years, that land would be my property. You have to pay taxes on land now, does that make land not-property? Land tax is another example of individual liberty being compromised for the good of society (It does society no good for land ownership to be permanent without cost, that just leads to familial, dynastic land ownership and Feudalism)

Quote :

"My cheap nationwide pre-paid plan comes with unlimited data and text messaging. Feels like competition to me. You should sign up. "

Lol having your exorbitant texting prices inside a bundle doesn't refute the charge that it's ridiculously overpriced nationwide by all the providers, including your own. All they've done for you is shuffle the costs into an arrangement that seems more efficient to you, so you mistakenly assume that means it's a fair price of some kind or that those underlying costs don't still have individual measures attached to them.

Quote :

" Yes, you know that wildly successful diamond company that uses the government to ban the importation of diamonds from mines they don't own? "

Lmao please explain further because this is news to me. Last I heard, Rhodes used his own capital (and some he borrowed from Rothschild) to buy up minable land in South Africa, then colluded with larger Syndicates to form a supply monopoly. It's a pretty classic story of "Rich folks get insane advantage in capitalizing on newly booming industry" The story goes on with plenty of strategic price fixing for most of the 20th century. No government intervention seems necessary, each step taken was entirely in line with regular free market machinations. Please explain though, how DeBeers never could have risen to power with government (unless you're referring to bans on the import of blood diamonds, lol)

Quote :

" The wrong was not their size, but the large government that gives them monopoly power."

Governments don't give monopoly power for shits and giggles, just to fuck with markets for laughs. These firms are only able to corrupt government to assist them BY FIRST getting to an exorbitant size by regular market mechanisms. This should be obvious, it's not some kind of paradoxical chicken-egg scenario, there simply is no corrupting of government until you reach a certain size naturally whereby the rest of the industry cannot compete with you for influence, even if all your competitors band together. Hrm sounds strangely similar to a monopoly.

Quote :

" In my opinion, were it not for the political corruption their size would be a benefit to society. "

That's because you are likely a direct descendant of European peasants who routinely licked the buttholes of their Lords clean. I'm not sure if it's a genetic or simply cultural passage of those opinions though.

Quote :

" I guess your opinion is that the large corrupt political system cannot be stopped, so we should stop corporations from getting big and taking advantage..."

No, my opinion is that large political systems aren't inherently corrupt, that corruption is a byproduct of unconstrained capital accumulation creating economic power-holders that can hold governments hostage.

Quote :

"But a large corrupt political system is not going to let you keep corporations small, so even in your view you will fail miserably. "

Again, you think a large political system inherently bows to corporations. That's not the case. It bows to greater powers who can corrupt it. If corporations are limited in their size and scope, their accumulation of capital/power reaches a practical cap, and so there's no real incentive to bow to them. It also helps if corporations can't make campaign contributions, and industrial monopolies can't threaten the economy itself if the government doesn't capitulate to their needs.

What we basically have is a hostage situation where the police are making concessions to the terrorists. You're suggesting the solution is to eliminate the police department so there is nobody to make concessions. My suggestion is that we use the police department to make it more difficult for hostages to be taken in the first place, instead of just reacting to each hostage-taking situation as it comes up when the terrorists already have leverage.

[Edited on October 31, 2011 at 12:43 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2011 12:32:59 PM

Quote :

"What do you mean? IE's share dropped from about 90% to less than 60% since then."

Which says nothing at all about how many people took the option to remove IE from windows. My company has 100% of the computers installed with Firefox. Yet those same computers also all have IE installed on them. That would be us not taking the option, since even before the case, you could install another browser in windows.

Quote :

"I'd say "going from a practical monopoly market of browsers to a plurality" counts as a lasting effect."

See above, you're mistaking the effect of a better browser being on the market with the government telling microsoft they have to let you uninstall IE.

Quote :

" What we basically have is a hostage situation where the police are making concessions to the terrorists. You're suggesting the solution is to eliminate the police department so there is nobody to make concessions. My suggestion is that we use the police department to make it more difficult for hostages to be taken in the first place, instead of just reacting to each hostage-taking situation as it comes up when the terrorists already have leverage."

Extending your analogy, you're specifically suggesting that we hire the terrorist into the police department and also provide them with unlimited powers and funds to do as they see fit provided they call it "regulating". See also the entire bailout debacle.

10/31/2011 1:01:19 PM

Quote :

" Which says nothing at all about how many people took the option to remove IE from windows. My company has 100% of the computers installed with Firefox. Yet those same computers also all have IE installed on them. That would be us not taking the option, since even before the case, you could install another browser in windows. See above, you're mistaking the effect of a better browser being on the market with the government telling microsoft they have to let you uninstall IE."

You're assuming that the entire change is due to firefox being "better" in your subjective opinion. Sorry, but replacing one assumption with another isn't a very effective rebuke. Looks like it's a wash as to why IE started losing market share immediately after the anti-trust proceedings...

Quote :

"Extending your analogy, you're specifically suggesting that we hire the terrorist into the police department and also provide them with unlimited powers and funds to do as they see fit provided they call it "regulating". See also the entire bailout debacle."

Where do I "specifically suggest" that? I'm very curious to know, because I don't recall making a single statement about how the regulation should be handled, just that it should be done.


[Edited on October 31, 2011 at 3:54 PM. Reason : /]

10/31/2011 3:52:13 PM

Quote :

"What we basically have is a hostage situation where the police are making concessions to the terrorists. You're suggesting the solution is to eliminate the police department so there is nobody to make concessions"

An excellent analogy. In this case, the concession being given is "The terrorists don't need to capture or even guard the hostages, the police will do it for them, imprisoning any hostages that try to leave."

As such, if the police went away, then the whole hostage situation might never have occurred.

Quote :

"I'd say "going from a practical monopoly market of browsers to a plurality" counts as a lasting effect."

Which had nothing to do with the court ruling, as 99.999% of the windows machines sold still came with IE pre-installed. True, thanks to the court ruling it wasn't 100%, but only you could see causation here.

Quote :

"Lol having your exorbitant texting prices inside a bundle doesn't refute the charge that it's ridiculously overpriced nationwide by all the providers"

That some providers are losing money every year is proof that prices are not too high.

Quote :

"unless you're referring to bans on the import of blood diamonds, lol"

Quite right. Just as much violence occurs in the regions operated by DeBeers, but it is only their competitors' diamonds which are labelled blood diamonds. It is quite telling how in-bed you are with the corporations, as you continue to accept their propaganda for government interference without question.

Quote :

"there simply is no corrupting of government until you reach a certain size naturally"

Bullshit. The corruption is not a question of market size. Goldman Sachs is big, but they are certainly not the biggest. They get government favors not because they are big, but because their high-level employees went to school with high-level elected and appointed officials. You can't just buy this influence, you kinda need to be born with it. Solyndra got half a billion dollars from the government, yet the company was puny even for its own industry.

Quote :

"No, my opinion is that large political systems aren't inherently corrupt, that corruption is a byproduct of unconstrained capital accumulation creating economic power-holders that can hold governments hostage."

The council of my Homeowner Association voted itself a modest cash payout. The members rebelled and the entire council was forced to resign and we held new elections. All political systems, big and small, are corrupt because people are corrupt. People run for office in order to provide favors to their friends, whether those friends are Goldman Sachs, sugar farmers in Florida, or the nation's car dealership owners. This is not illegal and isn't even corruption, it is just politics being what politics is.

10/31/2011 4:24:15 PM

Quote :

"You're assuming that the entire change is due to firefox being "better" in your subjective opinion. Sorry, but replacing one assumption with another isn't a very effective rebuke. Looks like it's a wash as to why IE started losing market share immediately after the anti-trust proceedings..."

Unless your contention is that >40% of the market is purposefully choosing to install and use an inferior browser, and that the reason they are doing so is not because they didn't have that choice before (they did) but because the federal government forced microsoft to allow them to remove the superior browser, I would say I have a whole lot of support for my interpretation of the events than you do.

Quote :

"Where do I "specifically suggest" that? I'm very curious to know, because I don't recall making a single statement about how the regulation should be handled, just that it should be done."

Sorry, it wasn't you, it was McDanger in another thread. You both start to sound alike after your third or fourth foaming at the mouth rant.

[Edited on October 31, 2011 at 6:44 PM. Reason : lm]

10/31/2011 6:43:20 PM

Quote :

"Looks like it's a wash as to why IE started losing market share immediately after the anti-trust proceedings..."

Ah, well, I've found the problem. Your ignorance on the subject. Internet Explorer gained market share for just under three years after the settlement (from 82% to 95%) until late 2004 when it finally began dropping.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers

Again, you keep arguing things because you want them to be true, not because you've found any credible evidence.

10/31/2011 6:53:18 PM