YaHooka Forums  

Go Back   YaHooka Forums > The Chronic Colloquials > Politics And Current Affairs
Home FAQ Social Groups Links Mark Forums Read

Politics And Current Affairs Discussion on politics, current affairs and law. Do something today to make a difference.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 11-18-2007, 10:04 PM   #161 (permalink)
RON PAUL or BUST
 
acesea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 203
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kosh View Post
You do know why AIDS proliferated so much in the eighties don't you? Because addicts had to share needles - thats an example of where govt ussually steps in and provides clean needles in this case. For who could profit in supplying clean needles to addicts if doing so was illegal even if it would save thousands of lives?

Quote:
I tend more toward a 'sense' that some types of education can be harmful;
I enjoy your frankness and clarity. But you've dug yourself in a trench. It is admirable that you believe the government should help everyone. It sounds beautiful and I am sure rings very nicely in most people ears.

BUT, you lack the 'sense' of awareness that helping for the sake of helping is pathetic when in the 'end' you have done more BAD than GOOD.

You must be informed that in fact Americans through their good heart wished to eradicate polio in Africa but instead WE BROUGHT THE AIDS VIRUS INTO THE HUMAN BODY MAKING IT THE AWFUL TRAGEDY THAT WE LIVE WITH TODAY!

Dr. Koprowski went forth to the Congo and obtained kidneys from chimps which were infected with SIV and then created the vaccine for polio which he administered orally to Africans. In doing so SIV was transported into the human body which otherwise would have never happened and we now have HIV.

This occurred because America wanted to do good. Study your history. It does not follow that the will to do good will in fact realize in a good outcome. History proves this time and time ago.

Do not belittle my argument that you lack credibility yet still are justified in having a credible argument because you have 'intuition'. I do not require you to cite "numbers and consultants and Yale and Oxford and Oprah and Fox." I ask that you stick to facts. Demonstrate what can be proved. You demonstrate no facts.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by acesea; 11-19-2007 at 02:19 AM.
acesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2007, 03:50 PM   #162 (permalink)
RON PAUL or BUST
 
acesea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 203
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
kosh, you raise an interesting point. Albeit one which can be very easily clarified. As individuals participants in capitalistic systems we have been conditioned through educational institutions as well as by our peers that 'monopolies' occur in a capitalistic economy. This has been repeated ad nauseum so often that it has in many minds come to stand as fact.

I ask you, please cite at least one example of a true pure "monopoly" in the actual definitional and conceptual context of the term:
-exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

Without waiting for a response I will cut to the chase and tell you that you will not find one. A monopoly can not exist in a capitalistic economy and you have been deceived/lied to by those in power who yearn to use and abuse the government for sake of intervention.

Austrian economists decades ago have disproved the concept of the existence of monopolies in a free market. What will surprise you even more is they went further to prove that the only true monopolies that exist in capitalistic economies are not what you have been led to believe but instead that monopolies only come to exist under the guise of government agencies and government grants of power to subsidiaries of the state.

As much as people may cite that Microsoft (for instance) is a monopoly, it is not. There are numerous operating systems and software companies in existence with which it competes. Most interestingly Linux is FREE so competition is really working in regards to Operating Systems. When looked more closely in depth it will be seen that monopolies in there very nature can not exist in open markets not regulated by governments because a business like Microsoft will never be fully be able to identify and set a monopolistic price point at any obscene level it so chooses because it will always fear that another business(man) will identify the ridiculous price discrepancy and rush to offer the market such a product at a discounted price. In a free and open market there will always be incentive for competition which through this device will always keep prices in check and limit any exclusive control of markets- no matter how large a corporation gets.

It is ONLY through government sponsored/mandated/cartelized force that monopolies exist and can exist. Hence creating a socialized healthcare system in essence IS creating a monopoly in healthcare. The government being the sole supplier to society of piped water IS in its very essence a monopoly. Forcing society to obey only one type of state ordained police system IS a monopoly on policing. Coercing society that electricity must only be managed and purchased from state sponsored power plants IS a monopoly.

Last edited by acesea; 11-19-2007 at 04:41 PM.
acesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2007, 04:01 PM   #163 (permalink)
j-wonder
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
^ good point, but im curious about the implications of that with industries like oil or uranium....resources rather than duplicable services where supply could potentially be owned by a handful of private groups....no competition can come about....unless the gov't nationalizes it of course...
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2007, 04:29 PM   #164 (permalink)
RON PAUL or BUST
 
acesea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 203
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by j-wonder View Post
^ good point, but im curious about the implications of that with industries like oil or uranium....resources rather than duplicable services where supply could potentially be owned by a handful of private groups....no competition can come about....unless the gov't nationalizes it of course...
Oil and uranium are not industries. They are commodities. The industry they partake in is ENERGY. Nevertheless, it is not possible for one firm to gain exclusive control over oil or uranium resources. It has never been done because the incentive for profit is too large for other businesses when a single corporation or group grows too powerful, acquires excessive amounts of resources, and/or unreasonably raises prices. Hence, this mechanism persuades others to enter this same market and fight for profit- in essence compete- thus bringing the level of prices to as close to minimum as the market will bear.

More objectively, because oil and uranium are commodities competing against other forms of energy today we see new competition coming in the form of renewables. Solar, hydro, wind, etc are coming to market and keeping all the prices in check. The important concept is that there are alternatives and that oil and uranium will never have exclusive rights to energy. For this to happen the government would have to come in and prohibit the manufacturing of all alternatives and prohibit there sales. (Like cannabis, this would only create a black market. Sort of like what will happen when healthcare will be socialized.) Soon enough renewable energy resources will be able to supplant the prices of oil and uranium. But the reality is that there can never be a monopoly on oil or uranium because they would still need to compete with solar cell and wind turbine manufacturers.

It has been demonstrated that even in industries like that of microprocessors where Intel and AMD reign supreme true competition still exists and there is little commingling between the two. Even so, if either one of them brought prices too high or quality fell too low another firm, VIA, is ready to swoop in and meet consumers needs.

Last edited by acesea; 11-19-2007 at 04:37 PM.
acesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2007, 08:06 PM   #165 (permalink)
j-wonder
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
...now your just talking yourself into circles...the oil industry is the industry based around the commodity of oil, which has dozens, hundreds of uses other than energy production. there most certainly is an oil industry, likewise for uranium. im not sure what point your trying to make by telling me that they are commodities....obvio usly this is my point....and as for what u mean by gaining exclusive control...perhaps not exclusive, but one of a very few comapnies that do own such commodities can behave almost like a monopoly... especially in a pure free market, just look at stardard oil.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2007, 08:22 PM   #166 (permalink)
RON PAUL or BUST
 
acesea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 203
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by j-wonder View Post
...now your just talking yourself into circles...the oil industry is the industry based around the commodity of oil, which has dozens, hundreds of uses other than energy production. there most certainly is an oil industry, likewise for uranium.
In that case I retract my comment. You first mentioned oil and uranium in the same sentence which clearly implied energy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by j-wonder View Post
with industries like oil or uranium.
Oil definitely has thousands of other uses, uses which consume more of it than merely automobiles.

Quote:
im not sure what point your trying to make by telling me that they are commodities....obvio usly this is my point....and as for what u mean by gaining exclusive control...perhaps not exclusive, but one of a very few comapnies that do own such commodities can behave almost like a monopoly... especially in a pure free market, just look at stardard oil.
I understand what you are trying to say, but...

Quote:
almost like a monopoly
is not a 'monopoly' just like almost winning is not actually winning.

In regards to oil in the sense of polymers and the like it is very interesting that one of the largest competitors to this type of usage is in fact hemp and other organic fibers.

I think we can ALL agree that cannabis in the form of hemp growth ought to be a very, very welcome alternative by our politicians at this point in time.
acesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2007, 09:12 AM   #167 (permalink)
Radical Dreamer
 
verklingen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: texas
Posts: 11,175
Thanks: 806
Thanked 1,473 Times in 937 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by acesea View Post
Without waiting for a response I will cut to the chase and tell you that you will not find one. A monopoly can not exist in a capitalistic economy and you have been deceived/lied to by those in power who yearn to use and abuse the government for sake of intervention.
Do you know why a monopoly cannot exist in a capitalistic economy? The very same reason a capitalistic economy which is driven solely by profit cannot provide ensured prosperity.

Think of this in terms of kosh's plant analogy, wherein for-profit capitalism is likened to a plant reaching for the sun haphazardly. The for-profit capitalist, one who might be inclined to seek monopoly, can be identified with our plant in much the same way. Unchecked by prudence, the plant overshadows those below him as he towers toward the sun in his quest for a monopoly on sunlight. But over time, many entrepreneur seedlings beneath him -- lucky enough to have caught a glimpse of the sun -- steal precious nutrients away from the soil at his base. Eventually this causes the plant to fall under its own weight, and many eager entrepreneur seedlings are there to fill the void in hopes that they may one day grow so tall.

You'll say "exactly right! That's the way of it. The system balances itself, fluctuating between one or the other extreme as those who cannot compete are weeded out and only the best are left. The subsequent plants will be better than those before them at soaking up sunlight and might be able to grow even BIGGER before the collapse! That's evolution." But. . . is it? In this situation, there will always be winners and losers. No later plant will ever be more of a winner than the winners who came before him. How is that evolution? Seems more like botanic masturbation to me.

For-profit capitalism is exactly the same, except it is a social masturbation. Some win some lose, and the winners and losers are ever trading places through the dynamics of profit. Why is the operating paradigm driving our economy focused on who can win the most profit? Profit has existed since before the dawn of civilization. Is our society really any more evolved than the tribes of old who warred for profit, or the kings who pillaged whole nations for it? Are we any better at seeking profit? Has there really been any progress in this regard?

"Yes!" you will say. "We have better technology that makes us able to live easier and have a better quality of life. We have more and better diversion. We don't have to worry so much about our welfare or our personal safety. We can even expect to live longer thanks to the advances a for-profit economy has offered us. Life is easier and more fulfilling than it's ever been thanks to capitalism." And I will ask. . . "for who?" Aren't there still losers, and lots of them? Is that really evolution: a situation that is no different from the situation mankind has ever been in?

There's an evolutionary hypothesis called the Red Queen effect, which aptly recognizes the evolutionary application for the following words of the Red Queen from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass: "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place." Nations have been running and running for millenia to gain profit; some winning and some losing down through the ages. Plants have been growing and falling, growing and falling, growing and falling. From a biological standpoint, this race catalyzes biological evolution as species develop countermeasures against other species' developments toward the pursuit of resources. But can the same be said from a social standpoint? Do we ever "evolve" to get better at amassing resources? How could a move in that direction even be considered "evolution" anyway? What are we: physiological machines built to procure the greatest amount of resources at the expense of the most individuals possible? That's what unchecked, imprudent for-profit capitalism would leave one to believe, isn't it?

But we are no longer under biological pressure. Our Red Queen's race is a purely social one that can turn on a dime instead of taking generations to manifest. So why, then, do we continue to operate under a competitive paradigm when there's nothing to compete for? It's got us stuck in this rut, thinking that we've evolved passed our forbears only because our profits can now buy us shinier things. Why don't we reach for something beyond more of the same?
__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”
rip matt

Last edited by verklingen; 11-20-2007 at 09:16 AM.
verklingen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2007, 03:37 PM   #168 (permalink)
RON PAUL or BUST
 
acesea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 203
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by verklingen View Post
Do you know why a monopoly cannot exist in a capitalistic economy? The very same reason a capitalistic economy which is driven solely by profit cannot provide ensured prosperity.

Think of this in terms of kosh's plant analogy, wherein for-profit capitalism is likened to a plant reaching for the sun haphazardly. The for-profit capitalist, one who might be inclined to seek monopoly, can be identified with our plant in much the same way. Unchecked by prudence, the plant overshadows those below him as he towers toward the sun in his quest for a monopoly on sunlight. But over time, many entrepreneur seedlings beneath him -- lucky enough to have caught a glimpse of the sun -- steal precious nutrients away from the soil at his base. Eventually this causes the plant to fall under its own weight, and many eager entrepreneur seedlings are there to fill the void in hopes that they may one day grow so tall.

You'll say "exactly right! That's the way of it. The system balances itself, fluctuating between one or the other extreme as those who cannot compete are weeded out and only the best are left. The subsequent plants will be better than those before them at soaking up sunlight and might be able to grow even BIGGER before the collapse! That's evolution." But. . . is it? In this situation, there will always be winners and losers. No later plant will ever be more of a winner than the winners who came before him. How is that evolution? Seems more like botanic masturbation to me.

For-profit capitalism is exactly the same, except it is a social masturbation. Some win some lose, and the winners and losers are ever trading places through the dynamics of profit. Why is the operating paradigm driving our economy focused on who can win the most profit? Profit has existed since before the dawn of civilization. Is our society really any more evolved than the tribes of old who warred for profit, or the kings who pillaged whole nations for it? Are we any better at seeking profit? Has there really been any progress in this regard?

"Yes!" you will say. "We have better technology that makes us able to live easier and have a better quality of life. We have more and better diversion. We don't have to worry so much about our welfare or our personal safety. We can even expect to live longer thanks to the advances a for-profit economy has offered us. Life is easier and more fulfilling than it's ever been thanks to capitalism." And I will ask. . . "for who?" Aren't there still losers, and lots of them? Is that really evolution: a situation that is no different from the situation mankind has ever been in?

There's an evolutionary hypothesis called the Red Queen effect, which aptly recognizes the evolutionary application for the following words of the Red Queen from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass: "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place." Nations have been running and running for millenia to gain profit; some winning and some losing down through the ages. Plants have been growing and falling, growing and falling, growing and falling. From a biological standpoint, this race catalyzes biological evolution as species develop countermeasures against other species' developments toward the pursuit of resources. But can the same be said from a social standpoint? Do we ever "evolve" to get better at amassing resources? How could a move in that direction even be considered "evolution" anyway? What are we: physiological machines built to procure the greatest amount of resources at the expense of the most individuals possible? That's what unchecked, imprudent for-profit capitalism would leave one to believe, isn't it?

But we are no longer under biological pressure. Our Red Queen's race is a purely social one that can turn on a dime instead of taking generations to manifest. So why, then, do we continue to operate under a competitive paradigm when there's nothing to compete for? It's got us stuck in this rut, thinking that we've evolved passed our forbears only because our profits can now buy us shinier things. Why don't we reach for something beyond more of the same?
Stop masturbating in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by verklingen View Post
Do you know why a monopoly cannot exist in a capitalistic economy? The very same reason a capitalistic economy which is driven solely by profit cannot provide ensured prosperity.
Your metaphors are old and boring now. Switching to rhetorical questions and answering them with no evidence is fruitless. It does not in fact answer WHY and HOW 'profit cannot provide ensure prosperity.' Just because you say so? Just because your story or metaphor sound nice? lol

You have masturbated through all your posts in this thread for the most part only changing the terminology or context yet over and over again simply repeating that 'profit cannot ensure prosperity.'

We all see your position by now. But what is your support for WHY and HOW?

Tough nut to crack isn't it, lol? This is probably confusing to you. And no, posting yet another reply here reiterating the same point only using different words in a different story or in a different plant or water metaphor will still be the same as repeating 'profit cannot ensure prosperity.'

There must be a reasonable explanation as to you not being able to produce a HOW and a WHY..... hmm....

Last edited by acesea; 11-20-2007 at 03:39 PM.
acesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2007, 03:54 PM   #169 (permalink)
RON PAUL or BUST
 
acesea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 203
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kosh View Post
Let the market play out to its logical conclusion? If one or two corporations began to be in control of a great portion of the global economies in terms of the ownership and provision of goods and services through their monopoly/ies - why surely they would become the proxy government? Would not they then have the power? Surely? And if they had a monopoly on resources including labour, and the manufacture and supply of all goods and services - wouldn't that then mean a total absense of competition and indeed a drift toward communism itself?
Kosh,

I've reread your post another time and wanted to pick out this section. I think it very strongly supports what I stated above about monopolies only being able to exist with the support of the state.

I've presented a simple case earlier as to how and why monopolies are not able to garner exclusive control without the support of a coercing state. If needed I can cite work by Ludwig von Mises which has never been refuted in the study of economics explaining how this is so (to much greater detail than I ever could).

One statement you presented I believe is false:

Quote:
If one or two corporations began to be in control of a great portion of the global economies in terms of the ownership and provision of goods and services through their monopoly/ies - why surely they would become the proxy government?
Garnering 'greater control of a great portion of an economy' does not directly and absolutely follow with corporations becoming a proxy of government. There is no such absolute rule that this takes place. Even such, the small minority that do, the majority of the fault rests with the government, not the corporation. The government is the one which has the 'power' to intervene in business. Business does not have 'power' to intervene in government.

When a corporation or any type of bureaucratic structure does become a proxy of the government there are significantly greater possibilities of the corporation to control increasingly greater portions of its market and with the further assistance of the state and the collective power that goes with it it could further strengthen its share of exclusive control while debilitating other corporations at its will.

As mentioned earlier, the few corporations that begin to intermingle too strongly with government and actually appear to express monopolistic tendencies, the fault still rests on the government, not capitalism. No where in our constitution does it stipulate that government has any authorization conducting much of the affairs that it partakes within corporations and the markets at our current present time. Running contrary to what a lot of people are led to believe, in order to prevent monopolies governments role is to be hands off- laissez faire. Instead many liberals and socialists alike love the opportunity to come in and regulate the market with force because they have the backing of the FBI, police, and the court system and slap businesses with being anti-competitive.

In enough elapsed time it becomes apparent that through the force the government used to punish/regulate a certain firm it has thus given greater rights and privileges to other competitors. All the more chilling is when state officials begin regulating markets to such an extent that they create new power structures which are manipulated at the government level and this sort of 'proxy' quickly entails instead of letting competition naturally work and promote advancement in the market.

Only with the use of force or the threat of using such force may monopolies come into existence in capitalistic economies. As long as the 'rule of law' remains supreme corporations will never be able to become true monopolies unless a government subsidizes them because the government in many regards deems itself 'the law.'

Last edited by acesea; 11-20-2007 at 04:10 PM.
acesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2007, 07:53 PM   #170 (permalink)
Radical Dreamer
 
verklingen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: texas
Posts: 11,175
Thanks: 806
Thanked 1,473 Times in 937 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by acesea View Post
Stop masturbating in this thread.



Your metaphors are old and boring now. Switching to rhetorical questions and answering them with no evidence is fruitless. It does not in fact answer WHY and HOW 'profit cannot provide ensure prosperity.' Just because you say so? Just because your story or metaphor sound nice? lol

You have masturbated through all your posts in this thread for the most part only changing the terminology or context yet over and over again simply repeating that 'profit cannot ensure prosperity.'

We all see your position by now. But what is your support for WHY and HOW?

Tough nut to crack isn't it, lol? This is probably confusing to you. And no, posting yet another reply here reiterating the same point only using different words in a different story or in a different plant or water metaphor will still be the same as repeating 'profit cannot ensure prosperity.'

There must be a reasonable explanation as to you not being able to produce a HOW and a WHY..... hmm....
Address my points to keep me from calling you a jackass. Unless you'd be comfortable with that. This tripe leads me to speculate it wouldn't bother you.
__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”
rip matt
verklingen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2007, 10:06 PM   #171 (permalink)
RON PAUL or BUST
 
acesea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 203
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
saving space for edit.

Last edited by acesea; 11-20-2007 at 10:30 PM.
acesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2007, 04:49 PM   #172 (permalink)
devils advocate
 
kamikazi89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,803
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 2,989
Thanked 1,871 Times in 1,252 Posts
those touting the troop surge as a success are tacitly agreeing the rumsfeld years were a complete and utter failure
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis D. View Post
we need to make the wheels out of pizza.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Governor View Post
Time Bandits!







What's wrong with you people?
katie west is the best


Trump is a pussy


kamikazi89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2007, 07:18 PM   #173 (permalink)
Dreamer of the dreams
 
ziplock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 2,107
Thanks: 15
Thanked 91 Times in 71 Posts
I find this discussion on monopolies to be very interesting.

In my mind, all goods go through a process of raw material -> processing -> finished product -> distribution -> purchase. All of these variables in this extremely simplistic representation effect one another respectively. Cost in one effects cost in another. Due to the technological level of society and what is being manufactured, certain goods and services are in high and/or increasing demand. This then requires a specific amount of a specific kind of resource. Raw resources that are harvested, processed, and then used for manufacture of some sort of thing are the fundamental ground level of it all.

You would then only need to control a specific aspect of the market, the head of it, and through the manipulation of that could create a predictable domino effect throughout the market manipulating costs. As is, oil for example is a high demand raw resource that, when manipulated, effects the cost of goods and services across the board. The process of extraction and production is extremely costly. As such, establishing a competitive body within it requires a TREMENDOUS amount of assets/investments on hand in a market that has many corporations firmly footed. The risk involved in attempting to compete on this market simply does not justify the investment.

Considering this, the established corporations within this restricted market are then free to maneuver amongst themselves influencing one another competing for profit. This is the obvious conclusion, yes? At what sort of level this occurs (ie: espionage, etc) is anyones guess, but the potential is there for one to subtly gain control of a majority (if not all) of the influencing corporations within the market as it's a very selective, restricted one that effects prices for everything due to how society runs.

Now, (this with your commodity statement in mind acesea) due to the high level of money involved there is an incredible amount of potential profit. This profit can then be invested into alternative, competing commodities in energy. Oil being the dominant one used in energy today, the rest are still relatively open and developing markets. As such, with the amount they can potentially invest, they could very well from that base gain a huge advantage and begin developing the infrastructure to transition from their current market in oil to the next one, holding their position in the energy market and thus their influence. Nice run on sentence. Not really compelled to revise it... Anyways...

All this, in my mind, can occur within a capitalist environment. My question is, where is the flaw in my thinking? To me, a monopoly could very well exist (using the definition of: "exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices."). I'm not very well versed in economics though, I'm simply inquiring, because monopolies not being able to exist in a capitalist environment is a rather counter intuitive conclusion.
__________________
Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.
ziplock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2007, 10:05 AM   #174 (permalink)
Old School
 
Jimmy Coonan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,178
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 79
Thanked 124 Times in 89 Posts
As I understand it, monopolies first became a recognized problem in this country during the Gilded Age, US Steel and Standard Oil and all them. The government wasn't involved in promoting them; the late 1800s were the most laissez-faire, social darwinist time in our history. It was TR's government intervention that busted a lot of them.

In an unregulated economy, competition to a monopoly can always arise. But if the organization is big enough, it can squelch its competition by underselling it, providing more customer services, etc., doing all the things a big company with a big network can afford to do that a little startup can't.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake_Armstrong View Post
hey it just occured to me. guns + blackouts = bad, bad, bad.
"free <insert member name>"

4/20=Governor's Day.

He needs to learn that lil Larry will never be the same again after this painful intrusion. Larry's family asks for privacy and respect while they cope with this tragic molestation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30_Units View Post
I read* that ducks are the best sources of essential moisture for children under three
Jimmy Coonan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2009, 07:13 PM   #175 (permalink)
Decade Yahookan
 
wellfleation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haverhill, MASSHOLE
Posts: 4,519
Thanks: 218
Thanked 660 Times in 466 Posts
Legalize it don't criminalize it

Agree?
__________________
FIGHTPOWER
wellfleation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2009, 10:21 PM   #176 (permalink)
Secretary of State?!
 
John F. Kerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,085
Thanks: 2,169
Thanked 783 Times in 504 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikazi89 View Post
those touting the troop surge as a success are tacitly agreeing the rumsfeld years were a complete and utter failure
that may be true,

but thanks to the troop surge obama can have his hoping and dreaming and not have it all be dragged down by a crazy spiralling civil war between sunnis and shiites...

in the end, bush will get his repuations ass kicked pretty hard for getting us into iraq, but at the end of the day, u gotta give the man credit for taking one last stand and really trying to win the war in a way that could actually succeed. its only thanx to his final push and demand for a surge and no surrender that america stands at the lofty position it is in today instead of just totally fucked not just economically but militarily and politically as well...
John F. Kerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2009, 06:58 AM   #177 (permalink)
bougeman
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,435
Thanks: 5,379
Thanked 6,506 Times in 3,666 Posts
The troop surge was suppose to quell violence so political reconciliation could take place. That didn't and won't happen as long as we are there. So the surge was a failure. The violence was on the downside before the surge began because the ethnic cleansing of the neighborhoods was almost complete and king david bought off the enemy. So even the surge getting credit for the violence subsiding is bullshit.

The very idea that bush should be lauded for his last stance for not "surrendering" makes me want to upchuck. The fuck should be sitting in a prison cell with blair,cheney,rumsfel d,powell,rice.......
stoneric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2009, 04:15 PM   #178 (permalink)
Life is Subtext
 
The Rev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Samsara
Posts: 25,262
Thanks: 14,884
Thanked 11,447 Times in 5,545 Posts
We all agree that oral is king, right?



The Rev
__________________


Budforce - My Friend
August 29, 1973- May 25, 2012


The Rev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2009, 04:59 PM   #179 (permalink)
Insight on a Stem
 
4nik8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Marijuanaville
Posts: 240
Thanks: 9
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsPlayYourWay View Post
The job you will get with your University diploma and the salary and profits you will make will most likely depend on those poor shmucks doing the menial jobs. You will not be doing the work, there for you do not deserve the money. The mere fact that you think you do makes you deserving of high taxation and getting your money distributed where it needs to go. Your ideology = greed. Have fun with that.


I'm not even believing my eyeballs on this one.

Are you SERIOUSLY proposing that lazy, unmotivated, uneducated people need to earn as much or MORE than the man who has sacrificed, put himself through school and made a commitment to having the KNOWLEDGE to MAKE and SUSTAIN the jobs in the first place?

You have GOT to be kidding me.
Wanna talk about greed?
YOUR IDEA represents greed. Wanting what someone else has in return for doing absolutely nothing except earning a pay check working a job that THEY provided.


That's utterly asinine.

You know what would happen, given your UTOPIA standpoint?
Nothing. Absolutely zilch.

Who, in their right mind, would go through all the work and head ache of making all those jobs a possibility when the alternative would be to stand back and cry and say you deserve as much as anyone else...regardless of the intellect it takes to do a job.
__________________

Last edited by 4nik8; 07-17-2009 at 05:02 PM.
4nik8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2009, 05:01 PM   #180 (permalink)
Insight on a Stem
 
4nik8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Marijuanaville
Posts: 240
Thanks: 9
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
One thing we can all agree on?

Sex is a wonderful thing.
__________________
4nik8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Inactive Reminders By Icora Web Design