2 edits
Originally posted by kmax871/ I turned the standard oil story around on you.
1). Why would competition survive in a free market economy?
2). We have not seen a truly free market operate in a large enough market to fully test the hypothesis that a few small canny operators would always surface to challenge the supremacy of the would be monopolists.
3). Following your model of 'free' society, only advantages those that are willin g to duck the specifics and weasel out of the debate by welshing on your right of reply.
2/ There are as many examples as you care to look for , why is the automotive industry not one? Edit: Let's not forget that by you saying there has never been a large enough test market, you are shooting yourself in the foot with regard to the need for regulation. (For the second time)
3/ No, you are free to band with like minded collectivists and share amongst yourselves, that is if your system is so great. You do not need to be an entreprenuer or risk money in business ventures, is it so bad being an employee? The ones I know all live very comfortable lives.
4/ Once again you are free to join all sorts of collectivist organisations, sign your freedom over to them in return for a cuddly blanket. I have mentioned previously while in NZ I am a member of an organisation that has a dress code and a reasonably strict code of conduct. Should everyone live by that code....of course not.
5/ Eventually voluntary. We will not live to see the day but the cost of the true role of guvamint is something like 3% of your income. There will be freeloaders but people who value their life, liberty and private property would have no probs with this. We already have private police i.e. security firms, and people and companies already take other steps to protect their own property.
Now how does that compare with National Socialism, sieg hiels, (haha, oh the 'sound byte' hypocrite) referenda on every gummint decision, airheads and all the other BS. So as long as you're playing the game kmax, I will play the man...like a drum boom boom boom on the head.
Originally posted by WajomaLibertarians are definitely right wing- that is not a debate. They believe in the freedoms of the indivdual over anything else- a clear right wing ideal.
Fallen into the old left/right linear thinking? having trouble adding another dimension?
Libertarians are neither left nor right wing.
Free people are not equal, like it or not there are those amongst us who work harder and smarter, there are those out to just cruise, and there are those that are just plum lazy. So how do we even all the worlds popu ...[text shortened]... t his need for my skills, I hope he keeps growing the company, there'll be more work.
The whole point of a 100% "death" tax would be to turn a country into a meritocracy- with everyone having to work, rather than live off their parents achivements. The tax money could go to improving nationalised industries, such as the railways, roads, schools and hospitals. This way, everyone starts relatively equal, and there is a strong welfare state, for those who fall on hard time. People would also spend more before they die, on goods. This extra investment, rather than saving for their children, would boost economic growth.
Those unemployed could be employed by the government to build better infrastructure- creatinbg a stronger economy. People who don't want to work have no choice. To me forced jobs, giving what would be "slackers" a fair wage for contributing their labour tto society and the economy is better than letting them be unemployed and starving, as you would support.
Do you think your employer pays you a fair wage? He is a millionaire- he must have made his money through some form of exploitation where the value of the labour he pays for is far less than the value of the product created.
A person can be greedy without acting on that impulse. If they do, as you point out, that is theft. I'm glad to see you acknowledge a thief is as guilty as a greedy person who takes something- as of course they are the same.
Originally posted by wedgehead2Well you're correct there is no debate. Libertarians are neither left nor right wing.
Libertarians are definitely right wing- that is not a debate. They believe in the freedoms of the indivdual over anything else- a clear right wing ideal.
The whole point of a 100% "death" tax would be to turn a country into a meritocracy- with everyone having to work, rather than live off their parents achivements. The tax money could go to improving na ...[text shortened]... thief is as guilty as a greedy person who takes something- as of course they are the same.
As opposed to the economic controls espoused by the left as to the controls on personal freedoms favoured by the right.
So definitely not fitting into your linear left/right vision.
Originally posted by WajomaIf my employer did not pay a fair wage I wouldn't work there.
Well you're correct there is no debate. Libertarians are neither left nor right wing.
As opposed to the economic controls espoused by the left as to the controls on personal freedoms favoured by the right.
So definitely not fitting into your linear left/right vision.
,,,,and the company and his wealth keeps growing. Three cheers for capitalism.
Hip,hip hooray, hip,hip hooray, hip,hip hooray (applause)
Originally posted by WajomaIf your employer pays a fair wage, how come he makes so much money? Economics dictate that profit is made when you sell something at more than you got for- e.g. your labour.
If my employer did not pay a fair wage I wouldn't work there.
,,,,and the company and his wealth keeps growing. Three cheers for capitalism.
Hip,hip hooray, hip,hip hooray, hip,hip hooray (applause)
The right (aprt from facists) doesn't generally clamp down on personal freedoms- suggesting the Republicans are either a rare exception, or facists- make up your own mind!
By the way- capitalism is a right wing ideology, as is facism, as opposed to socialism or communism.
Originally posted by wedgehead2eg, drugs, homosexual marriages, euthanasia, prostitution, abortion.
If your employer pays a fair wage, how come he makes so much money? Economics dictate that profit is made when you sell something at more than you got for- e.g. your labour.
The right (aprt from facists) doesn't generally clamp down on personal freedoms- suggesting the Republicans are either a rare exception, or facists- make up your own mind!
By the way- capitalism is a right wing ideology, as is facism, as opposed to socialism or communism.
1 edit
Originally posted by Wajoma1). Standard Oil:Writes Dominick Armentano [professor of economics at the University of Hartford],
1/ I turned the standard oil story around on you.
The little-known truth is that when the government took Standard Oil to court in 1907, Standard Oil's market share had been declining for a decade. Far from being a "monopoly," Standard's share of petroleum refining was approximately 64% at the time of trial. Moreover, there were at least 147 other domestic oil-refining competitors in the market —
This bit of logic from your muse, that I found on the Independent Institute website:-
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=243
The Immorality of Antitrust Law
August 1, 1999
Dominick T. Armentano
The economic inefficiencies associated with antitrust law enforcement are now generally acknowledged.......
I'll spare everyone else the rant but of particular interest was Armentano's use of Adam Smith's philosophies to bolster his anti anti-trust view
Pro-antitrust economists never tire of citing Smith’s famous condemnation of price fixers: “people of the same trade seldom meet together . . . but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” But those same economists rarely acknowledge that Smith immediately went on to assert that “it is impossible, indeed, to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice.” Smith, a professor of moral philosophy, was opposed to antitrust law on practical and ethical grounds.
So on Armentano's say so we are to accept that the doyen of laissez faire trade confirms his interpretation of why anti-trust is bad. Why were the Sherman anti-trust laws enacted in the first place?
This from Wiki and if you need a better source i'll find it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
Using highly effective and widely criticized tactics, Standard Oil absorbed or destroyed most of its competition in Cleveland, Ohio, then throughout the northeastern United States, putting numerous small corporations out of business.
And
Standard Oil's market position had been established through an emphasis on efficiency and responsibility. As the company grew larger through more effective business practices, it developed other strongly competitive (some say anti-competitive) strategies, including a systematic program of offering to purchase competitors. Many business owners rejected the offer, but many accepted it. After purchasing them, Rockefeller shut down the ones he believed to be inefficient while keeping the others. In a seminal deal, in 1868, the Lake Shore Railroad, a part of the New York Central, gave Rockefeller's firm a 25 cents/bbl. 71% discount off of its listed rates in return for a promise to ship at least 60 carloads of oil daily and to handle the loading and unloading on its own, a huge competitive advantage. Smaller companies decried the deals as being unfair because they were not producing enough oil to qualify for discounts. In 1872, Rockefeller joined the South Improvement Company which would have allowed him to receive rebates for shipping oil but also to receive drawbacks on oil his competitors shipped. When word got out of this arrangement, competitors convinced the Pennsylvania Legislature to revoke South Improvement's charter. No oil was ever shipped under this arrangement.
And
By 1890, Standard Oil controlled 88% of the refined oil flows in the United States. In 1904 when the lawsuit began it controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales. Most of its output was kerosene, of which 55% was exported around the world. In terms of cost efficiency, Standard's plants were about the same as competitors. After 1900 it did not try to force competitors out of business by underpricing them. [2] Beyond question, the federal Commissioner of Corporations concluded, the dominant position in the refining industry was due "to unfair practices-to abuse of the control of pipe-lines, to railroad discriminations, and to unfair methods of competition." [3] Gradually, its market share fell to 64% by 1911.
Libertarians such as Armentano and yourself who would rail against the tyranny of those who would obstruct the freedom of the powerful always seem to manage to paint a picture of how wonderful the consequences of monopolies could be but unfortunately in the real world they are not usually arrived at by honorable means where respect for the labors of ones competitors are considered and enshrined.
The exact opposite is the usual M.O. Very grubby tactics by very determined men are usually enacted on a no quarter given no quarter taken principle. I would love for you to have been the little guy trying to stand up to Standard Oil at its peak and see what your thoughts of monopoly were after the experience. That is if you survived the experience.
EDIT: I think you think you turned something on me. It may have been your credibility. And dont worry I will answer the other points you made in turn. I also have a life.
Originally posted by kmax87Could you hi-light the grubby tactics please, I couldn't find any.
1).[i] Standard Oil:Writes Dominick Armentano [professor of economics at the University of Hartford],
The little-known truth is that when the government took Standard Oil to court in 1907, Standard Oil's market share had been declining for a decade. Far from being a "monopoly," Standard's share of petroleum refining was approximately 64% at the time of tri ...[text shortened]... d dont worry I will answer the other points you made in turn. I also have a life.
Originally posted by WajomaHow am I meant to find out what you support?
You need to ask? Shows that like kmax you like to hear the sound of your own keyboard more than actually finding out about the subject you're typing about.
I am trying understand what kind of Libertarian you are- a more leftish one (which I doubt) or one closer to the Republicans.
2 edits
Originally posted by Wajoma"Rebates, preferences, and other discriminatory practices in favor of the combination by railroad companies; restraint and monopolization by control of pipe lines, and unfair practices against competing pipe lines; contracts with competitors in restraint of trade; unfair methods of competition, such as local price cutting at the points where necessary to suppress competition; [and] espionage of the business of competitors, the operation of bogus independent companies, and payment of rebates on oil, with the like intent."
Could you hi-light the grubby tactics please, I couldn't find any.
In one example of Standard's aggressive practices, a rival oil association decided to build an oil pipeline, hoping to overcome the virtual boycott imposed on Standard's competitors. In response, the railroad company (at Rockefeller's direction) denied the consortium permission to run the pipeline across railway land, forcing consortium staff to laboriously decant the oil into barrels, carry them over the railway crossing in carts, and then pump the oil manually back into the pipeline on the other side. When he learned of this tactic, Rockefeller then instructed the railway company to park empty rail cars across the line, thereby preventing the carts from crossing his property.
Standard's actions and secret transport deals helped its kerosene to drop in price from 58 to 26 cents between 1865 and 1870. Competitors might not have appreciated the company's business practices, but consumers appreciated the drop in prices. Standard Oil, being formed well before the discovery of the Spindletop oil field and a demand for oil other than for heat and light, was well placed to control the growth of the oil business. The company was perceived to own and control all aspects of the trade. Oil could not leave the oil field unless Standard Oil agreed to move it: the "posted price" for oil was the price that Standard Oil agents printed on flyers that were nailed to posts in oil producing areas, and producers were in a take-it-or-leave-it position.
All the above from the same wiki article. I saw an ABC docco years ago on the woman Ida M. Tarbell, who uncovered the tactics employed by Standard oil in destroying its competitors. Undercutting prices to levels that meant that Standard was actually losing money helped them drive out any competition not wise enough to accept the offer to sell. Violence was also used in some circumstances to coerce when all else failed.
The same practices have been used by Qantas in recent times to get rid of two local competitors. Compass and Impulse were run into the ground when Qantas used its size to offer ridiculous fares as low as $49 between Australian capital cities at the time losing heavily on each seat but somehow always coinciding their specials with any offer by either of the two low budget efforts. Now if you call that moral or consider that it was proper to rack up debt, to destroy the competition as well as destroy the livelyhoods that went along with that then I'll stop now because I don't think there is anything left to say.
Originally posted by whiteroseNo. How about "some of the time"? 😛
Well, if we agree that "most of the time" people do not start off with the same opporunities, then why should I have to define it further? I could say that nobody starts off with exactly the same amount of opportunity as anyone else. Would that make you happier?
Originally posted by wedgehead2No, I stand against the socialists who would force me to work for my brother.\
Stand and fight against equality. What a true american hero. Do you really feel work is a repressive institution? Do you dislike helping other people? What do you do with your free time, other than spouting right wing nonsesne on this site?
Thank you for calling me an American Hero.
I love work and my job. I wish more people enjoyed theirs.
I help other people every day.
What I do with my free time is no of your business "brother".
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however your insults are deeply disturbing. Wouldn't you rather spend your free time "discussing" the topic at hand?