Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 7:30 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
OUR unemployment rate
#21
RE: OUR unemployment rate
I will always find it humorous when fellow skeptics fall into economic pipe dreams of days long past and honestly believe it could work in an ideal manner.

Why do we have to suffer to make an ideal, a pure system? I reject the notion of any form of pure this-that whatever, especially on matters dealing with large scale economies. A hybrid capitalistic/socialist system, as is currently attempted all over the world, has shown far more long term stability than any short term purity binge could do.
Reply
#22
RE: OUR unemployment rate
(March 13, 2010 at 5:16 am)Saerules Wrote: Say that a company has a monopoly upon the water market. They are the only company that can provide said resource, and they can choose to set the price however they want.
Not true. What is stopping me from creating a company that also sells water?
Quote:They will thus attempt to maximize their profits... and they will sell only the worst "equal parts muck and water" to those in the worst financial situations (likely for prices that they will only be able to pay for by sacrificing their food, heating, shelter, property, etc), and the somewhat less 'dirty' (maybe toxins, maybe it runs in with the sewage, perhaps the water has become so overpriced that there is no longer an operating sewage for the middle-poor classes, thereby the smaller plumbing businesses have all been declared bankrupt) water is sold at exorbitant prices to the middle and poor classes... to the point where it may be simply more economical to drink the "mudwater" sold to the poorest of the poor.
Your example, whilst quaint, does not happen in the real world. Why? Because as soon as quality goes down, price goes up, etc people start to notice, and complain. If the company doesn't sort out the problem, other companies will be set up to match the new demand for cleaner, cheaper, water.

To take a more realistic example, consider the monopoly on transporting goods in the 18th century in England. Back then, canals were used to transport goods, as barges could support heavy loads and transport items safely. The canal business monopolised because of this fact; everyone wanted their goods transported, and there was no better alternative. Then...the train was invented. If you want to stop a monopoly, do what they do, but better.

Quote:What... except that the one with the monopoly controls all of the market already, and can afford to buyout all of the shares of your upstart company?
I don't know of many upstart companies that float on the stock market.
Quote:Or perhaps the monopoly has already struck exclusive deals with suppliers who are also monopolies... and the price to beat them out is beyond that which you can afford?
Favouritism isn't an attribute of free market capitalism. The keyword here is "free".

Quote:There is simply no way a fresh upstart can compete with a monopoly... not unless they are both able to capable of supplying all the things the now former monopoly is capable of supplying and able to compete with their prices and connections.
Ignoring the connections aspect since it is irrelevant (see above), you've mentioned previously that monopolies sell a low quality product for a high price. All a competitor needs to do then, is to sell the same quality product for a slightly lower price, and they've caused a problem for the monopoly company. Or, make a better quality product for the same price. Either way, if a lot of new businesses started doing this, you'd see a rapid change in the monopoly structure, as it tried to lower its prices or make a better product...both of which I can only see as good things.

Quote:Not to mention that if this is a truly free market... assassins and armies are services too...
Evidently you don't know a thing about the free market. The free market is not above the laws of the country. If a monopoly paid an assassin to kill competitors, they would be committing a crime. Same if they created an army.
Reply
#23
RE: OUR unemployment rate
(March 13, 2010 at 11:39 am)Synackaon Wrote: I will always find it humorous when fellow skeptics fall into economic pipe dreams of days long past and honestly believe it could work in an ideal manner.

Why do we have to suffer to make an ideal, a pure system? I reject the notion of any form of pure this-that whatever, especially on matters dealing with large scale economies. A hybrid capitalistic/socialist system, as is currently attempted all over the world, has shown far more long term stability than any short term purity binge could do.

Well said. The arguments by purists (whether Marxists or libertarians) always say something like our ideal system was never tried, and earlier attempts didn't get it right, weren't pure enough, bla bla bla. I say they were close enough for comfort. As you say a hybrid system e.g. capitalism with government intervention when necessary or more efficient than market alternatives is the best way to go.

Everyone talks about change; and while we need some moderate change (more like a little tweaking), let's not ignore all the good we've accomplished in this country (or else we'll miss the opportunity to build on some of those successes). When I hear people whining about the good old days, I wonder what they're talking about exactly? Is it Jim Crow they miss so much, or perhaps segregation, or maybe back alley abortions? Ahh wouldn't the world be better if women couldn't vote, blacks couldn't come in our restaurants, and heck with it - while we're at it, why not just reinstitute burning heretics at the stake?
Reply
#24
RE: OUR unemployment rate
(March 12, 2010 at 10:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I'm not joking. I find it ironic that you say they "kill free enterprise" when the "solution" of regulation kills it even more. If a company is good at something; if it has a large market share, a lot of consumers, why should it be punished? It has those customers because it provides a good service. There isn't anything stopping another company from being formed with a competitor product, other than the regulation on business that scares off the people with ideas.

When I say regulation, I don't mean state run industries. There is a need for government regulation within large industries, however. The banking crisis of 2007-2008 comes to mind - banks gave out sub-prime loans with knowledge that payback would be questionable at best, thinking that the market would continue to expand, and the bubble burst when debts became so great banks went under overnight, with lots of people cashing out their remaining stock before it fell, leaving the country to pick up the pieces. One of the biggest mistakes in the last decade was the deregulation of the U.S. baking industry.

Monopolies in the real world have huge influence, socially, economically, and politically. There's a reason why they stay at the top, and it's not because they have a genuinely better product or service.

(March 12, 2010 at 10:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote: A case in point would be Microsoft. For years they provided an Operating System solution that 99% of people used. They had a monopoly because they were forward thinking, they were successful, and it worked for most of the people. However, in recent years they have been struck back slightly by the increase in Linux netbooks and laptops, the continuous advances of Apple, and of course Solaris. Monopolies are not permanent, and they can easily be crippled by a superior product (Firefox, Chrome, Opera vs Internet Explorer for another example).

They've also had a monopoly because they employed practices that actively stifled development of innovative technologies and competing products. They've lost a few antitrust cases because of this.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/138880/mi...peals.html

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

What monopolies can do is set prices artificially high, since there is no accessible alternative - and slash prices for the same effect. They can also impact legislation having to do with competing technologies and methods. Microsoft has been struck back slightly, but still holds almost 90% of market share.

I understand that companies shouldn't be punished for doing well, but when competition is eliminated due to the size/influence of the company and not its product, it works against the principles of the free market. Competition HELPS a company recognize market trends, and ultimately force the company to provide a better product or risk going under. Artifically creating a market in which no one can compete doesn't help anyone, especially the end-user.

(March 12, 2010 at 10:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I don't see any problem with Laissez-faire economics; all it requires is people to think about new approaches to government. I used to be a left-wing person, thinking the government should have a control over things, but then I realised that the "government" has no reason to demand such things when it fails so miserably so often. A smaller government that focuses on maintaining human rights and civil liberties is a path to true freedom. A market that runs itself (through Laissez-faire capitalism) is the natural solution to an economy not controlled by a government, but encouraged by one.

You don't see how it can be used by some to simply make a lot of money, and abandon the market?
You don't see how it can promote economic stagnation and artificial price gouging?
You don't see how companies would be able to get away with illegal conduct if there was absolutely no regulating force?
You don't see a problem with not having an institution involved with keeping public interest part of the economic equation?

To say government should have NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in the market would be economic suicide. No country could realistically survive on such a policy. It only leads to robber barons and monopolies with no end in sight. The only natural solution to that would be government intervention.

It's America's social stigma against everything that is socialism, not realizing that the country has many socialized systems, and could benefit from many more.

Ask yourself, what economic systems do the countries with the highest GDPs per capita employ? Is it a coincidence that their governments also have many world-leading human rights and civil liberties initiatives?

It's for the simple fact that these concepts are intertwined and not mutually exclusive.
Reply
#25
RE: OUR unemployment rate
(March 13, 2010 at 12:05 pm)Tiberius Wrote:
(March 13, 2010 at 5:16 am)Saerules Wrote: Say that a company has a monopoly upon the water market. They are the only company that can provide said resource, and they can choose to set the price however they want.
Not true. What is stopping me from creating a company that also sells water?
I covered that. A monopoly means that they are the exclusive owners of a product in a market, and even if the were no longer a monopoly (by your creating a company that also sells water), they would be easily capable of bankrupting you in any number of ways (many of them legal, such as buying out all of your stock and making themselves the owners of "your" company). Also, how are you going to get the water to make this company... especially when the monopoly has already employs those who collect the water to be sold themselves?

Quote:
Quote:They will thus attempt to maximize their profits... and they will sell only the worst "equal parts muck and water" to those in the worst financial situations (likely for prices that they will only be able to pay for by sacrificing their food, heating, shelter, property, etc), and the somewhat less 'dirty' (maybe toxins, maybe it runs in with the sewage, perhaps the water has become so overpriced that there is no longer an operating sewage for the middle-poor classes, thereby the smaller plumbing businesses have all been declared bankrupt) water is sold at exorbitant prices to the middle and poor classes... to the point where it may be simply more economical to drink the "mudwater" sold to the poorest of the poor.
Your example, whilst quaint, does not happen in the real world. Why? Because as soon as quality goes down, price goes up, etc people start to notice, and complain. If the company doesn't sort out the problem, other companies will be set up to match the new demand for cleaner, cheaper, water.

To take a more realistic example, consider the monopoly on transporting goods in the 18th century in England. Back then, canals were used to transport goods, as barges could support heavy loads and transport items safely. The canal business monopolised because of this fact; everyone wanted their goods transported, and there was no better alternative. Then...the train was invented. If you want to stop a monopoly, do what they do, but better.
It doesn't matter if people complain. There is absolutely nothing that can be done (outside of government action) to compete for (perhaps not even obtain and/or sell) the resource that a monopoly is based around.

My example may have been "quaint"... but the disgusting thing is that worse things have happened. Remember the East India Trading Company? The things that Upton Sinclair asserted in The Jungle were for the most part true. Exploitation on a mass scale is what you get with no regulation... just look at the alaskan salmon fishing industry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_salmon_fishery . There are damned good reasons why the government should be a part of the market, or at least why the market needs regulations.

Quote:
Quote:What... except that the one with the monopoly controls all of the market already, and can afford to buyout all of the shares of your upstart company?
I don't know of many upstart companies that float on the stock market.
Quote:Or perhaps the monopoly has already struck exclusive deals with suppliers who are also monopolies... and the price to beat them out is beyond that which you can afford?
Favouritism isn't an attribute of free market capitalism. The keyword here is "free".
Did I say favoritism? No. I suggested that the company would offer its services to the highest bidder (because they are being paid more by them)... and that any upstart trying to beat the monopoly on this front must firstly have as much or more money than the company with the monopoly.

Quote:
Quote:There is simply no way a fresh upstart can compete with a monopoly... not unless they are both able to capable of supplying all the things the now former monopoly is capable of supplying and able to compete with their prices and connections.
Ignoring the connections aspect since it is irrelevant (see above), you've mentioned previously that monopolies sell a low quality product for a high price. All a competitor needs to do then, is to sell the same quality product for a slightly lower price, and they've caused a problem for the monopoly company. Or, make a better quality product for the same price. Either way, if a lot of new businesses started doing this, you'd see a rapid change in the monopoly structure, as it tried to lower its prices or make a better product...both of which I can only see as good things.
Or rather, you'd see a lot of those small and new businesses bought out or go bankrupt as they attempt to compete with the industry giant.

Quote:
Quote:Not to mention that if this is a truly free market... assassins and armies are services too...
Evidently you don't know a thing about the free market. The free market is not above the laws of the country. If a monopoly paid an assassin to kill competitors, they would be committing a crime. Same if they created an army.

That is imposing government regulations (laws) upon the market. Hence the market is not free. I think I understood the concept of a 'free market' well enough, thank you very much. I do believe that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi or http://www.wowwiki.com/Goblin or other such trade-princes governments are perfect examples of a free market... although the Ferengie actually do have a few "rules".
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#26
RE: OUR unemployment rate
All through this you've made the claim that government intervention through regulation would somehow solve the problem. My question to you is what makes the government so special, as to be able to do this? Doesn't government suffer from the same problems you associate with business (i.e. corrupt individuals wanting more power). Don't most people in government have an active role in business prior to their appointment?

This was my previous point about rethinking what government does. Other people have claimed here that only a moderate system would work in the real world, and I agree...if we stick with the current setup of government. However, Libertarianism is a lot more than just saying "free speech, free market". It's an entire shakeup of how the government operates, and there are no problems with having a privatized market that isn't controlled by the government. Anything government regulation does now, private regulation (through charities set up specifically to act as watchdogs and corporate petitioning organisations) can do as well, and often better. Government spends excessive amounts of money on wasteful beaurocracy; private organisations do not (since they cannot afford it). The problem with government thinking at the moment is that they assume they can afford anything, and they rack up massive debts doing this. Governments have worse credit ratings that any individual or collection of individuals.

This all reminds me of a funny video I watched recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14C-H3W03VI&hd=1

So true Wink
Reply
#27
RE: OUR unemployment rate
Adrian Wrote:All through this you've made the claim that government intervention through regulation would somehow solve the problem. My question to you is what makes the government so special, as to be able to do this? Doesn't government suffer from the same problems you associate with business (i.e. corrupt individuals wanting more power). Don't most people in government have an active role in business prior to their appointment?

It doesn't necessarily have to be a government... but it remains that businesses must be regulated. So must government as it turns out, hence America's system of "checks and balances"... though it is too much of an oligarchy (and most of its people too stupid to the point an oligarchy might well be better) for my liking. If you know of a power aside from by government that can form laws, then I think we're all ready to hear about this as of yet unheard of power. But before you begin... is his name 'Jesus'?

If a business model or government or any other form of organization is set up in such a way that can check its own "corruption"... then there is no complaint towards it from me. But how many large business or governments are set up in ways that check their own power, except by regulation from other governments or organizations (ie unions)? What makes the government so special as to being able to do such things as it does... is that the government is the concentrated and directed power fueled by its workers on lower strata. If every one of those workers were to stop providing fuel for the government, then the government becomes weak. However, most of those workers depend on the government for their livelihood and regulations... without which problems like I outlined a few posts back are an easy occurrence.

Quote:This was my previous point about rethinking what government does. Other people have claimed here that only a moderate system would work in the real world, and I agree...if we stick with the current setup of government. However, Libertarianism is a lot more than just saying "free speech, free market". It's an entire shakeup of how the government operates, and there are no problems with having a privatized market that isn't controlled by the government. Anything government regulation does now, private regulation (through charities set up specifically to act as watchdogs and corporate petitioning organisations) can do as well, and often better. Government spends excessive amounts of money on wasteful beaurocracy; private organisations do not (since they cannot afford it). The problem with government thinking at the moment is that they assume they can afford anything, and they rack up massive debts doing this. Governments have worse credit ratings that any individual or collection of individuals.

Why do you assume private organizations could not afford it? A private organization acting as 'watchdog' (or even several 'watchdogs') are as manipulatable as is government. I don't think a government assumes it can afford everything... eg. you hardly see the government of Ethiopia going on a spending spree. You may be referring to a specific government that is lost on me... but governments are simply an organization set up to form regulation and manage the connected macrosystem that we call a nation. I don't see why a private business should fare any better.

So far as socialism goes... i honestly have no idea why you are against socialism. I myself am rather a fan of mixed capitalism/socialism/meritocracy. I don't see why you suggest the video above as 'so true Wink' when it is entirely inaccurate as to what socialism is. You don't see me presenting The Jungle to argue against all capitalism do you? (Rhetorical, I only use The Jungle to reflect on the trainwreck that is unregulated capitalism upon society)
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#28
RE: OUR unemployment rate
(March 13, 2010 at 5:16 am)Saerules Wrote: I covered that. A monopoly means that they are the exclusive owners of a product in a market, and even if the were no longer a monopoly (by your creating a company that also sells water), they would be easily capable of bankrupting you in any number of ways (many of them legal, such as buying out all of your stock and making themselves the owners of "your" company). Also, how are you going to get the water to make this company... especially when the monopoly has already employs those who collect the water to be sold themselves?
You didn't cover that. You say that monopolies are exclusive owners of a product in a market; I'm fine with that. My point was that there is nothing stopping another person from coming along and selling the same product (or similar product) on the market either...at least no in free market capitalism.

I already addressed the issue of buyouts. If you suspect a monopoly company might attempt a buyout, don't float your market on the stock exchange...at least not until you can actually get some good supportive investors.

How are we going to get the water? Do you really need to ask that? It rains; there are oceans, rivers, lakes. Use your head.

Quote:It doesn't matter if people complain. There is absolutely nothing that can be done (outside of government action) to compete for (perhaps not even obtain and/or sell) the resource that a monopoly is based around.
If I am a business owner, and my entire business depends on the satisfaction of my consumers, then complaints (when taken en-masse) are very important to the stability of my company. If one month, 10% of my consumers send in complaints, it's 10% of my profit that might suddenly switch to a new company that forms. My point was that monopolies can exist, but not indefinitely. It takes only one other company to be set up in order for the monopoly to cease to exist (as a monopoly). No business owner in their right mind would act as if they will have a monopoly forever, and thus complaints must be taken seriously. 10% complaining could result in 10% loss if a new company emerges that offers a better or cheaper product, and if more and more people go to that new company, advertising by word of mouth will grow, and my profits will decrease even more. It's called competition. I must change my business plan, lose a bit of profit by doing so (but by a significantly lower amount that losing consumers) and increase customer satisfaction.

Quote:My example may have been "quaint"... but the disgusting thing is that worse things have happened. Remember the East India Trading Company? The things that Upton Sinclair asserted in The Jungle were for the most part true. Exploitation on a mass scale is what you get with no regulation... just look at the alaskan salmon fishing industry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_salmon_fishery . There are damned good reasons why the government should be a part of the market, or at least why the market needs regulations.
According to the Wikipedia article you cited, this was a state (i.e government) based industry in the first place. I've never argued that the market shouldn't have regulations, but these regulations are market-based, not government based. The market will regulate itself through consumer / producer conversation, petition, and supply / demand.

Quote:Did I say favoritism? No. I suggested that the company would offer its services to the highest bidder (because they are being paid more by them)... and that any upstart trying to beat the monopoly on this front must firstly have as much or more money than the company with the monopoly.
Yeah...and that's favouritism. That isn't a free market principle. If a company refused to do business with a startup it could be legally challenged, and the startup would win. Of course, it probably wouldn't even get to trial as I doubt in a free market you'd even get this situation. A company wants to maximise its profits; having only one customer isn't exactly doing that.

Quote:Or rather, you'd see a lot of those small and new businesses bought out or go bankrupt as they attempt to compete with the industry giant.
I've addressed the fallacy of claiming that they will get bought out. The only way that will happen is if the industry giant sits down with the small company and writes a figure down on a piece of paper. The control of whether the small company accepts or rejects the offer is entirely in the hands of the person in charge of the company, exactly how it should be. You can't "force" anything unless the company floats on the stock market, and I've already said how that isn't necessary for a startup to do.

I a company goes bankrupt, it clearly wasn't producing a good enough product to rival that of the industry giant, and as I stated before, this would be an example of a monopoly working. If you have a product that your competitors cannot make profit on, you clearly have a very high satisfaction rate.

Quote:That is imposing government regulations (laws) upon the market. Hence the market is not free. I think I understood the concept of a 'free market' well enough, thank you very much. I do believe that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi or http://www.wowwiki.com/Goblin or other such trade-princes governments are perfect examples of a free market... although the Ferengie actually do have a few "rules".
No; these aren't laws that are imposed on the market, they are laws imposed on people. Laws imposed upon the market (by the government) are ones specific to the market; i.e protectionism. A free market has no laws imposed upon the market by the government; it is "free". This doesn't mean someone can set up a company called "Murder Inc." and think that they can escape the law of the people. I'd challenge you to find one country today where there is a specific law regarding rape imposed on the market only. I highly doubt you'll find one, because there are already existing laws regarding rape that are imposed on the people, who operate the market.

You can visualise this as a kind of chain:

GOVERNMENT (Impose laws on the people)
PEOPLE (Run the market)
MARKET

As I've already said, I don't oppose regulation of the market, as long as it comes naturally to the market. This regulation however, is imposed by the PEOPLE layer of the chain. A real-world example would be the sets of internet standards (that govern HTTP, HTML, etc) which multiple companies have signed up to and pledged to "obey". These standards are written by people, not the government, and are imposed upon all products that use HTTP / HTML (so that includes all browsers).

You ever wonder why Internet Explorer has been getting better at rendering HTML pages in recent years? It's because the W3C came up with standards and browsers like Firefox and Chrome were better at implementing them, resulting in people (consumers) switching from I.E to Firefox / Chrome. Microsoft finally dedicates some of its development to making sure that I.E conforms to standards, in the hopes that it'll get back some of its market share.

Imagine if Microsoft sold I.E as an piece of shareware, and that Mozilla sold Firefox, Google sold Chrome, etc. Nobody regulated the distribution of those pieces of software amongst the users but the users themselves. This is a natural market regulation.

Oh, and if you were wondering, even though I think Windows is a shoddy OS at best, I'm still against the EU pressuring them to put a "choose your browser" screen on the thing. They haven't done the same thing for Mac, or Linux, only Microsoft. Most people will know about alternative browsers from friends, web adverts, articles, etc anyway. I say let people come to Firefox and Chrome by themselves. There is no reason to force Microsoft to advertise their competition.
Reply
#29
RE: OUR unemployment rate
(March 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: You didn't cover that. You say that monopolies are exclusive owners of a product in a market; I'm fine with that. My point was that there is nothing stopping another person from coming along and selling the same product (or similar product) on the market either...at least no in free market capitalism.

I don't think you're being realistic here. A single company controls the industry and there's nothing stopping anyone from making money in that industry? The giant elephant in the room would have to be public influence, social influence, and political influence. When you have a monopoly, you can control the price of the product, materials, and manufacturing techniques. You can also influence the likelihood of competitors coming into the market by funding legislative efforts to stifle smaller competition and innovation. This is what happens in the real world. Monopolies are NOT a good thing and they rarely have the best products on the market.

What you're proposing would take all the regulation OUT of these practices, essentially let the company do whatever it wants to eliminate its competition. No amount of free market self-regulation could keep a monopoly from exercising its power, and being an industry controlling entity, it would be nearly impossible for any smaller company to be competitive in any arena.


(March 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I already addressed the issue of buyouts. If you suspect a monopoly company might attempt a buyout, don't float your market on the stock exchange...at least not until you can actually get some good supportive investors.

For most small businesses, an IPO is the only viable way to attract attention when going up against bigger, more established companies.

(March 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: How are we going to get the water? Do you really need to ask that? It rains; there are oceans, rivers, lakes. Use your head.

What if the larger company already holds rights to the oceans, rivers, lakes, and rain? Just thinking hypothetically here.

(March 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: If I am a business owner, and my entire business depends on the satisfaction of my consumers, then complaints (when taken en-masse) are very important to the stability of my company. If one month, 10% of my consumers send in complaints, it's 10% of my profit that might suddenly switch to a new company that forms. My point was that monopolies can exist, but not indefinitely. It takes only one other company to be set up in order for the monopoly to cease to exist (as a monopoly). No business owner in their right mind would act as if they will have a monopoly forever, and thus complaints must be taken seriously. 10% complaining could result in 10% loss if a new company emerges that offers a better or cheaper product, and if more and more people go to that new company, advertising by word of mouth will grow, and my profits will decrease even more. It's called competition. I must change my business plan, lose a bit of profit by doing so (but by a significantly lower amount that losing consumers) and increase customer satisfaction.

It's not a good analogy, as most monopolies don't make customer service a top priority. The monopolies in the world acknolwedge their role and understand that they control the industry. It is simply put, their way or no way at all. Their main goal would be to cut costs, eliminate competition, and maximize profits, rather than improve the product as demands increase for a non-existing competing product.

Word of mouth advertising can't realistically compete with actual advertising campaigns by industry leaders. There's a reason Apple got popular in the last decade, and it's not because of word of mouth. Their marketing catered to an audience that was overlooked by Microsoft, and in an age where the software giant was faced with antitrust suits, they had no choice but to concede market share. It still is the undeniable leader of the industry, but it is regulation that made it step down a few notches, not the free market doing its thing.

(March 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: According to the Wikipedia article you cited, this was a state (i.e government) based industry in the first place. I've never argued that the market shouldn't have regulations, but these regulations are market-based, not government based. The market will regulate itself through consumer / producer conversation, petition, and supply / demand.

That is laissez-faire economics, and I illustrated in my last post why it is economic suicide. People don't work this way, it's not practical at all.

(March 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Yeah...and that's favouritism. That isn't a free market principle. If a company refused to do business with a startup it could be legally challenged, and the startup would win. Of course, it probably wouldn't even get to trial as I doubt in a free market you'd even get this situation. A company wants to maximise its profits; having only one customer isn't exactly doing that.
With no regulation, there would be no challenge legally. I also think Saerules meant the highest bidder in terms of public and market segments, not individual consumers.

(March 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I've addressed the fallacy of claiming that they will get bought out. The only way that will happen is if the industry giant sits down with the small company and writes a figure down on a piece of paper.

Yes, but there are MANY ways an industry giant can make a smaller company actually consider what's on that piece of paper. Have you heard of a hostile takeover?

(March 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The control of whether the small company accepts or rejects the offer is entirely in the hands of the person in charge of the company, exactly how it should be. You can't "force" anything unless the company floats on the stock market, and I've already said how that isn't necessary for a startup to do.

To compete with the big boys, going public is one of the best things a company can do. It's not in the hands of the person in charge if their only option is going under, or being bought out. There can be many facets of influence in a buyout situation.

(March 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I a company goes bankrupt, it clearly wasn't producing a good enough product to rival that of the industry giant, and as I stated before, this would be an example of a monopoly working. If you have a product that your competitors cannot make profit on, you clearly have a very high satisfaction rate.

Wrong. If a company goes bankrupt, there are many ways it could have failed. Raw materials, such as those controlled by monopolies, could have become too pricey. Tariffs and embargos could have been set in place. Manufacturing costs could have increased due to upped price in resources. Price points could have been too high for the public. Distrubutors may have had contracts with larger companies or monopolies.

This can all be circumvented by a monopoly. They can have the ability to outsource labor and resources, negotiate lower prices on raw materials, and influence foreign governments to lower tariffs, all the while buying product in bulk to lower costs for the consumer. Even though the quality and competitive advantage can be higher at a competing brand, the company can still go under due to lack of funding.

Bankruptcy doesn't necessarily have anything to do with quality of product.

(March 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: As I've already said, I don't oppose regulation of the market, as long as it comes naturally to the market. This regulation however, is imposed by the PEOPLE layer of the chain. A real-world example would be the sets of internet standards (that govern HTTP, HTML, etc) which multiple companies have signed up to and pledged to "obey". These standards are written by people, not the government, and are imposed upon all products that use HTTP / HTML (so that includes all browsers).

You're confusing a standard of technology with a regulation of market conduct. You're also citing that the people can agree on standards , but somehow if the government made that standard, it would be wrong, even if it came to the same conclusion. "Coming naturally" to the market is a hard sell, especially when it's a company's tendency to buy from the lowest bidder and sell to the highest bidder. Governmental regulation isn't there to stifle progress, but to promote diversity and competition, by making sure the largest companies don't get so large that it's impossible for any others to join the party. With laissez-faire, monopolies are an inevitability, not just an idle concern.

(March 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: You ever wonder why Internet Explorer has been getting better at rendering HTML pages in recent years? It's because the W3C came up with standards and browsers like Firefox and Chrome were better at implementing them, resulting in people (consumers) switching from I.E to Firefox / Chrome. Microsoft finally dedicates some of its development to making sure that I.E conforms to standards, in the hopes that it'll get back some of its market share.

Yes, and you ever wonder how consumers got a hold of other web browsers? Through the regulation of the market and the developments of antitrust cases on this very subject. Microsoft was forced to package other browsers in their operating systems, or at least give the choice. This opened up a host of innovations and led to the modern-day Firefox and Opera browsers. The technology was always there, governmental regulation just made it more accessible.

(March 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Imagine if Microsoft sold I.E as an piece of shareware, and that Mozilla sold Firefox, Google sold Chrome, etc. Nobody regulated the distribution of those pieces of software amongst the users but the users themselves. This is a natural market regulation.

Imagine that Mozilla made an advertising campaign that sold Firefox, and started making exclusivity contracts with all major chains of software retailers. In addition, they negotiated rates to make their media more affordable, which in turn made price a selling point, as opposed to Chrome. Mozilla then goes further and makes Firefox the standard browser on every computer sold in the country, making Chrome all but obsolete and IE a viable, but less and less known solution, as advertising for IE is scarce. After a while, even if the other browsers had more to offer, they couldn't come close to the distribution and price juggernaut that is Firefox.

There's absolutely nothing stopping any one of them from becoming a monopoly and putting the others out of business by way of brute strength and market dominance.

(March 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Oh, and if you were wondering, even though I think Windows is a shoddy OS at best, I'm still against the EU pressuring them to put a "choose your browser" screen on the thing. They haven't done the same thing for Mac, or Linux, only Microsoft. Most people will know about alternative browsers from friends, web adverts, articles, etc anyway. I say let people come to Firefox and Chrome by themselves. There is no reason to force Microsoft to advertise their competition.

Mac and Linux don't have more than 90% market share, that was the point. It's not that other browsers weren't good enough, it was nearly impossible for them to make any money in the industry and promote their product. Free market is about having the best product and business model, not who can amass the greatest influence in distribution to stifle competition. It would be an economic version of eugenics, realistically.
Reply
#30
RE: OUR unemployment rate
(March 13, 2010 at 5:38 pm)Tiberius Wrote: This all reminds me of a funny video I watched recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14C-H3W03VI&hd=1

So true Wink

Nice poisoning the well you did there. Pippy would be proud.

EDIT : As a follow up, as I was getting food, I just realized that the movie you posted unfairly lambastes socialism while using the symbol associated with communism while not meshing capitalism and fascism together.

What a dick move.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A fair tax rate onlinebiker 57 2369 October 11, 2021 at 5:13 pm
Last Post: Fireball
  What's the going rate for the tooth fairy? Cod 16 1472 April 17, 2019 at 6:35 pm
Last Post: Figbash
  Rate me Foxaèr 19 1391 June 21, 2018 at 10:07 pm
Last Post: Joods
  How to prevent murders and lower crime rate. mcolafson 27 3277 September 23, 2016 at 6:13 pm
Last Post: Joods
  Rate the avatar of the person above you: part two Shell B 234 44853 September 10, 2014 at 5:40 pm
Last Post: Keri
  Rate the avatar of the person above [part 2] Autumnlicious 47 10415 August 18, 2013 at 7:04 am
Last Post: Kayenneh
  Where do you rate on Dawkins scale? GodlessGirl 88 29331 July 27, 2012 at 3:56 am
Last Post: Reforged
  Rate the avatar of the person above. Darwinian 348 113411 August 1, 2010 at 4:44 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Rate the signature of the person above. darkwolf176 66 11205 May 2, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Last Post: Violet



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)