# News & Current Events > Economy & Markets >  Tired of RP Supporters' Economic BS

## krazy kaju

First, let me clarify some things. I am a Ron Paul supporter and I am a follower of the Austrian school of economics. Something that has dissapointed me, however, has been the intense lack of economic understanding among Ron Paul supporters. Normally, I wouldn't be disturbed, but in this case I am. RP supporters who post regularly on different forums, on youtube, and who discuss Ron Paul with others come out as ignorant cultists to many people because of their economic stupidity. So let me set some things straight that I see a lot of Ron Paul fans get wrong.

*1. The Gold Standard*

OK, this one really gets me angry. Many Ron Paul supporters don't even know what the gold standard is. I'll tell you what it isn't: it's not the scenario where a currency is pegged to gold. That's a _gold exchange standard_.

The gold standard is the situation where either gold coins are used as currency or where there are certificates representing certain values of gold (i.e. you could have a 1 oz certificate exchangable for 1 oz of gold at any time). Banks usually store gold and provide certificates for their gold reserves.

*2. Fractional Reserve Banking*

What's bad with fractional reserve banking?

Well first, you need to understand what fractional reserve banking is. Fractional reserve banking is when you deposit money in an irregular deposit in a bank, and that bank takes some of your money and loans it out. The problem with this is that the bank just created money.

Use this example:
You deposit $100
The bank loans out $90
You take out $40
100-90-40 = -30

The bank was just forced to create $30. Since money cannot be created by banks under a gold standard, fractional reserve banking is impossible, furthermore, any bank that engages in fractional reserve banking in a free market is bound to fail when it runs out of reserves in a panic.

*3. Monopolies*

Monopolies are not a problem in a free market. I often see many RP supporters not knowing what to say about monopolies.

Dominick T. Armentano is a leading economist in the study of markets and monopolies. I suggest you look at this and this.

The fact of the matter is that a true monopoly cannot exist in a free market. The larger businesses become the harder economic calculation gets, so 100% market share becomes impossible in a developed economy. However, companies like Microsoft that are labeled monopolies due to their rather large market share, are actually beneficial for people. Microsoft, for example, provided cheaper goods to more people and thus gained greater market share. Pepsi and Coca Cola could be considered an oligopoly, though both of them provide superior products to their competitors. Another example is Alcoa, which greatly cheapened aluminum and thus gained huge market share.

In each of these examples, these "monopolies" were actually beneficial to the people and the market. Also, in each of these examples, there were always competitors who were able to stop any price gouging by competing away market share.

*4. Global Warming and the Environment*

If any wannabe Al Gores try to claim that the free market is bad due to global warming, hit them up with this fact: the IPCC reported that the expected sea level rise in the 21st century will be 1 and a 1/2 feet. The sea level rise in the 20th century was one foot. In short: no big deal.

So what about pollution? Well, the market eliminates pollution better. First, you have to realize that government is the big polluter. Nuclear tests are just one example. Secondly, normal tort law prevents pollution from occurring in free markets. If a business pollutes somebody's land, that someone will sue them for damages. This is the case always, unless government intervenes with tort reform.

*5. Health Care*

Again, high health costs are not a result of the free market, but of government intervention. People who have free health care abuse it. For example, in France, it is not unknown for people to go doctor to doctor searching for the first one to provide them the prescription they want to fill their addiction. In other countries, like the UK and Canada, people are forced onto long waiting lists because there are doctor shortages - the demand is just too high because health care is absolutely free.

This spills over into ER units as people with minor problems cannot find family doctors so they go to the ER for treatment.

For more info on health care, I suggest you look at this excellent Cato Institute report on why universal health care just makes the problem worse. You might also want to look at this and this.

*6. Inflation, Business Cycles, and the Situation in America*

I often see many Ron Paul supporters stumbling to describe how inflation causes the business cycle. Well, I'm here to save you. If there's one thing I know about Austrian economics it has to be the Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT). But before you learn why credit expansion causes a business cycle, you need to learn how an economy grows in a free market under normal conditions.

An economy grows by capital accumulation. That is, it grows as people and businesses acquire more capital - like more houses, cars, factories, machinery, etc. Capital is basically any type of land, building, or machinery. The more capital that is accumulated, the more products can be produced. For example, if I purchase a factory and machinery, I can produce more goods with those capital goods than without. If I purchase only a factory, I cannot produce as many goods because I don't have the essential machinery.

So what causes capital accumulation? Saving and investment. Before you can purchase land, build a building, or buy machinery, you need to save. Another option is to take out a loan or to get money via investment. The more ordinary people save, the more they buy out CDs (aka mutuum contracts) and the more they invest in companies. In this way, companies are able to purchase more capital to expand production.

So in a normal growing economy you have constant price deflation as the economy becomes more capital intensive. That means that saving/investing allows businesses to purchase more capital goods to expand production (more supply = lower prices) and cut costs by releasing workers. These workers would go to the industries producing capital goods (think: caterpillar) due to higher demand of capital goods. In this way, you have constant increasing real wages and therefore a rise in the standard of living.

So what happens when a central bank introduces more currency artificially by lowering interest rates?

First, the new credit lowers interest rates at banks, which provides incentives for people and businesses to buy more capital goods and to invest in the capital goods market more. Regular people buy more houses and cars, businesses buy more land, buildings, and machinery. This higher demand creates a larger market for businesses that produce capital goods.

This is where the business cycle really sets into full swing. Businesses that produce consumer goods do not release workers because there is abnormally high consumption. However, businesses producing capital goods need those workers. What ensues are higher wages as businesses compete for workers. This is where inflation really kicks in. All of a sudden, we see rising prices for everything as workers have more and more money (most of which was created by the central bank).

As inflation accelerates, two things happen that signify the end of the boom and the beginning of the bust:
1. It stops being profitable for banks (and people) to loan out low interest loans because inflation wipes out their purchasing power, so the interest rate shoots up even if the CB keeps artificially low rates.
2. Since interest rates go up, it no longer is as profitable for people and businesses to purchase more capital goods. Therefore, businesses that produce capital goods begin to go under as there is less and less demand. Simultaneously, due to all the new workers who are released from the capital goods market, it becomes less and less profitable for consumer good businesses to purchase capital goods since workers are competing for lower and lower wages.

In addition, the high inflation makes it more profitable for consumer good producing businesses to hire workers instead of buying machinery, since real wages are falling due to inflation (meaning greater returns for businesses if you hire more workers). The above causes an even lower demand for capital goods, which forces more and more capital goods producing businesses to liquidate.

Eventually, the higher interest rate force inflation to a crawl and might even cause a deflation as we saw in the Great Depression. What happened differently in the "stagflation" years was that the Fed tried to "paper over" the recession with lower interest rates. At that point, it just created perpetual inflation coupled with large amounts of frictional unemployment: unprofitable businesses were being created and then liquidated due to artificially low interest rates while the workers were being constantly moved from consumer goods production to capital goods production.

All of the resulting inflation and unemployment was inevitable and could only be ended by the Fed jacking up interest rates - which it did when Paul Volcker came to the helm.

Unfortunately, credit expansion still ensued and that's why we've seen the S&L crash, the early 90s recession, and the early 2000s recession. We should've seen a recession last year and this year, but we didn't because the Bernanke Fed decided to paper over this recession. This will just prolong the pain until we see a recurrance of stagflation but on a much larger scale.

When inflation hits hard, the trade deficit will reverse. Central banks around the world that have been storing the American dollar will suddenly see businesses exchanging their currencies for USDs because falling American real wages will make it profitable for them to purchase goods from America. Inflation will really skyrocket then when all that money will be released.

More government intervention will surely result, which will drive us deeper into depression when more union control, deficit spending, higher minimum wages, etc. will aggrevate the inflation and the unemployment problems.

____

So yeah, that's pretty much it. I hate to see RP supporters not knowing the basics so I had to do something.

Ask if you have any questions, challenges, etc.

----------


## CoreyBowen999

I think most people here understand 90% of that

----------


## danberkeley

+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 yaaaayyyy!

----------


## krazy kaju

> I think most people here understand 90% of that


Ahh, well let's hope that all the people failing to comprehend any of it over on youtube will wander into this thread.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I think most people here understand 90% of that


Yeah, I do.

----------


## RSLudlum

> I think most people here understand 90% of that


Thanks for the explaination of the 'business cycle'...That's the one issue in your list that I've never really understood or could wrapped my head around on how it actually comes about.

----------


## Kludge

Well said, even if it was in a collectivist manner

----------


## slacker921

> Ahh, well let's hope that all the people failing to comprehend any of it over on youtube will wander into this thread.


Just understand that some of the folks on YouTube, Digg, reddit, etc who say the crazy BS and profess to be Paul supporters *are not*.  They're "sock puppets" who are trying to make the sane Paul supporters look like a bunch of kooks.  If you don't think people do that then you haven't spent any time at all reading the John McCain Forum.  It was being done long before the Internets were invented, and it's not just an online phenomenon ("iron my shirt!").

and then there are the other folks..

----------


## ARealConservative

> Ask if you have any questions, challenges, etc.


Wouldn't an economy with true inflation at 1-3% outperform an economy experiencing price deflation in the long run?

Dynamics regarding wealth accumulation and consumer spending patterns would seem certain change and I'm curious how you see the ramifications playing out.

I realize this is purely a hypothetical as allowing central planners to control the money supply does not allow for such precise control of inflationary oversight even if that was truly the goal of the fed.

----------


## Dr.3D

> and then there are the other folks..


Yep, I've seen some of the so called economics majors who have come on here and made an ass of themselves.  What they fail to comprehend is, the stuff they were told in college isn't necessarily the truth.  There are many schools of thought when it comes to economics and most of what is taught in the colleges is not Austrian economics.  Rather, it tends to be of the school of thought tailored after what has been happening in this country since 1913.

----------


## jacmicwag

Not sure I agree totally with the Austrian theories but it beats socialism all the way to the bank. Great post. Keep in mind that 90% of RP supporters probably know more about their candidate than the rest of America knows about theirs (McCain or Obama). Not a bad start even short of perfection.

----------


## NH4RonPaul

> *1. The Gold Standard*


This is an easy mistake.. however it doesn't mean we don't oppose the Fed Res printing of money and inflation. Same with....

*2. Fractional Reserve Banking*

I'm not a money person so I have no idea what that is.




> *3. Monopolies*
> 
> Monopolies are not a problem in a free market. I often see many RP supporters not knowing what to say about monopolies.


I remember how bad it was when the phone company was busted up. However I also would never use a Microsoft product and don't have to, I buy only Macs and that was my choice. I actually got a much more reliable and virus free product to this day I recommend them. Microsoft products may be widely used, but they are seriously inferior.




> *4. Global Warming and the Environment* 
> Like I said, if you look at a lot of these kids they are using the COMMUNIST FIST in their icons, so they are coming from the far left. They have been so brainwashed about global warming they can't see straight. Just remember it's only another ploy by the UN to get global tax for their world government, since AIDS, pandemic, oil shortages and terrorism have thusfar failed to scare us.


*5. Health Care*

Any Ron Paul supporter pushing for universal health care may as well just forget it and go vote for commie Obama... geesh. I had to fend off the health care groups that were stalking Ron in NH... constantly trying to stick stickers on him. AND THAT GOES FOR THE "ONE" CAMPAIGN AND "ED IN 08" AS WELL. All UN inspired programs that seek to redistribute the wealth. We have some misguided Republicans running for office who ascribe to those programs. Ron Paul does NOT, no matter what they say.

----------


## Kade

> Ask if you have any questions, challenges, etc.


I'm sorry, but Dr. Armentano is a clown in a business suit. 

I'm very well read on the man, before you decide to say that I don't understand him... instead of going down a laundry list of things that are highly flawed in his thinking, I'll just simply point out that Dr. Clownsuit has been saying for two years now that the price of Oil would be falling drastically... in fact, he said this as soon as last May.

I can say many things in the course of several years, and than point to where I said it to prove I am some sort of prophet...

The simple refutation that monopolies are caused by government barriers is simply not true. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. Nobody likes to mention such companies as De Beers (who ironically have infiltrated several articles and books about themselves to defend their business model). 

De Beers is an arbiter of prices of a rare resource. There is not an economic culmination higher than that. 

If economic theory follows information theory, as inevitably as it always has, a monopoly exists because that is the end evolutionary result of competing organisms and organizations. Natural predation is not just created, but industries are... few companies can compete with a company that has so utterly cornered the market and resources that they are unable to to even enter the market.. 

The response is always "in a free market monopolies are not possible".  That is an absolute statement... and one that alludes to something we seem to inherently understand... a fear of trusts, and the need for competition. 

Even economic models need competition in my opinion.

----------


## krazy kaju

> Thanks for the explaination of the 'business cycle'...That's the one issue in your list that I've never really understood or could wrapped my head around on how it actually comes about.


The business cycle always has been a huge problem for me until a couple weeks ago when I finnished reading the relevant portions of Mises's _Human Action_ and Jesus Huerta de Soto's _Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles_.

If you want to have an in depth understanding of business cycles and banking practices, I suggest you purchase de Soto's book. It's relatively expensive ($50) but it's well worth the price at over 800 pages.




> Well said, even if it was in a collectivist manner


Okay Ayn Rand.






> Just understand that some of the folks on YouTube, Digg, reddit, etc who say the crazy BS and profess to be Paul supporters *are not*.  They're "sock puppets" who are trying to make the sane Paul supporters look like a bunch of kooks.  If you don't think people do that then you haven't spent any time at all reading the John McCain Forum.  It was being done long before the Internets were invented, and it's not just an online phenomenon ("iron my shirt!").
> 
> and then there are the other folks..


I never really thought about that. That's really sad actually. Who has so much time in their day that they can actually do that?




> Wouldn't an economy with true inflation at 1-3% outperform an economy experiencing price deflation in the long run?
> 
> Dynamics regarding wealth accumulation and consumer spending patterns would seem certain change and I'm curious how you see the ramifications playing out.
> 
> I realize this is purely a hypothetical as allowing central planners to control the money supply does not allow for such precise control of inflationary oversight even if that was truly the goal of the fed.


Let's clarify some terminology first.
*High time preference* means you prefer money and goods now.*Low time preference* means you prefer money and goods later.*Stages of production* refers to the length of the production cycle.The *first stage of production* is the one that produces consumer goods that are rather easily produced.Later stages of production, like the 5th and 6th stage, are the more "*capital intensive* stages." That means that they require more capital goods for production and that they most likely produce capital goods (though not necessarily as a car could be considered a durable consumer good).Greater saving and investment lengthens the production cycle, meaning less money goes into the first stages of production while more money goes into the furthest stages of production. This creates a more capital intensive economy and therefore greater wealth accumulation.

To illustrate this example, Hayek used right triangles like this:


The y-axis represents consumption, while the x-axis represents the stages of production, time of production, depth of capital structure, and saving. As you can see, increased consumption means that you have less capital depth, and vice versa. If consumption decreases and saving/capital structure moves from A to B you experience higher growth rates because the capital goods can help produce more consumer goods, causing price deflation as there are more goods that are produced but lower demand.

Inflation only occurs because of two things:
Higher demand (higher time preferences)Increased money supply

I'd also like to clarify one thing: low monetary expansion is not necessarily a bad thing. We had monetary expansion when there was an international gold standard, as gold is constantly being mined. What is bad is monetary expansion via the banks lowering rates. That simulates increased saving which does not in fact exist and causes the stages of production to increase when in reality there is no demand for the higher-level capital goods produced by the furthest stages of production.

But let us assume the central bank can perfectly manage the monetary system as to set the interest rate at the market rate (which is impossible) as to prevent monetary expansion via the banks from occurring. Instead, let's say that the price inflation comes from deficit spending, which can only be facilitated by monetary expansion.

The problem with this scenario is that:
All inflation increases real interest rates. Even if the CB sets a low interest rate, banks charge more because they too want to hedge themselves against inflation.Deficit spending and monetary expansion will just cause an "inflation tax." There are many effects of this. From the purely economic standpoint, there is more spending than saving, because of this tax, which slows growth. From a behavioral standpoint, people are less likely to save and more likely to spend.

To show the negative effects of the inflation tax (and every other tax), let's use this example:
You have $100, your time preference dictates that you save 10%, so in this case you'd be saving $10.
However, taxes and inflation take away 50% of your money/purchasing power, so you are left with $50. Since you save 10%, you save $5.

Add the behavioral effects of inflation and we can definitely determine that inflation will cause slower growth rates.

BUT inflation is possible in a free market. Let me explain. If people have higher and higher time preferences instead of lower and lower time preferences, there would be constantly increasing demand for consumer goods, decreasing supply, and therefore price inflation. This is unlikely, however, because the more wealthy a nation becomes (that is, the higher real wages rise), more saving is bound to occur since people are spending less percentage-wise on consumer goods.

----------


## krazy kaju

> This is an easy mistake.. however it doesn't mean we don't oppose the Fed Res printing of money and inflation. Same with....


So you support business cycles?






> *2. Fractional Reserve Banking*
> 
> I'm not a money person so I have no idea what that is.


Fractional reserve banking is when the bank takes your savings and loans it out. The problem is that it creates money. In the example I used, you deposited $100 in the bank, the bank loaned out $90, and then you took out $50. In this case, the bank would either have to create $40 out of thin air or go bankrupt.

That's why full reserve banking is preferable.




> I remember how bad it was when the phone company was busted up.


Ironically, phone companies used to have government-created monopolies.




> However I also would never use a Microsoft product and don't have to, I buy only Macs and that was my choice. I actually got a much more reliable and virus free product to this day I recommend them. Microsoft products may be widely used, but they are seriously inferior.


This is a common mistake: imposing your own values on others.

Others might value the cheapness of Microsoft over the quality of Macs. That is why Microsoft, even though it has been attacked as a monopoly, is so great. They provide cheaper products that people want, opening up the computer market to people who cannot afford higher quality products.




> Any Ron Paul supporter pushing for universal health care may as well just forget it and go vote for commie Obama... geesh. I had to fend off the health care groups that were stalking Ron in NH... constantly trying to stick stickers on him. AND THAT GOES FOR THE "ONE" CAMPAIGN AND "ED IN 08" AS WELL. All UN inspired programs that seek to redistribute the wealth. We have some misguided Republicans running for office who ascribe to those programs. Ron Paul does NOT, no matter what they say.


I know, I never stated otherwise.




> I'm sorry, but Dr. Armentano is a clown in a business suit.


Always nice to start a post with an ad hominem, I see.




> I'm very well read on the man, before you decide to say that I don't understand him... instead of going down a laundry list of things that are highly flawed in his thinking, I'll just simply point out that Dr. Clownsuit has been saying for two years now that the price of Oil would be falling drastically... in fact, he said this as soon as last May.


Him being wrong on oil doesn't mean he is wrong about monopolies. Furthermore, the entire Austrian school agrees that monopolies are not a problem in free markets but at the same time Austrians predicted rising oil and energy prices.

You really have a bad strategy, don't you?




> I can say many things in the course of several years, and than point to where I said it to prove I am some sort of prophet...


That has nothing to do with anything in this thread.




> The simple refutation that monopolies are caused by government barriers is simply not true. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. Nobody likes to mention such companies as De Beers (who ironically have infiltrated several articles and books about themselves to defend their business model).


De Beers never was a monopoly. They have never had greater market share than 80%. Is that what you call a monopoly? I fear not...

Furthermore, if government regulations were removed, there would be more competitors willing and able to enter the market.




> De Beers is an arbiter of prices of a rare resource. There is not an economic culmination higher than that.


Actually, no they're not. There are competitors who would provide cheaper products if De Beers ever tried its hand at price gouging.

At the same time, there would be more competitors if not for governments around the world. The only reason De Beers has ever been describes as a cartel has been because of various African governments - like those of Botswana and Tanzania - which have created diamond monopolies in their own country that are owned 50% by gov't and 50% by De Beers.

This government granted monopoly over certain countries gives De Beers an unfair hand and there really isn't anything that any antitrust law here could possibly hope to do to change that.




> If economic theory follows information theory, as inevitably as it always has, a monopoly exists because that is the end evolutionary result of competing organisms and organizations. Natural predation is not just created, but industries are... few companies can compete with a company that has so utterly cornered the market and resources that they are unable to to even enter the market..


Just that it is economically impossible for a single company to completely corner a market without government help, due to the problems of economic calculation on a massive scale.

The fact of the matter is that there never has been a true free market monopoly and socialists in sheep clothing, i.e. you, have always failed to show how a free market monopoly is even possible.

Even in your example of De Beers, they weren't a monopoly by any means.




> The response is always "in a free market monopolies are not possible".  That is an absolute statement... and one that alludes to something we seem to inherently understand... a fear of trusts, and the need for competition.


Claiming that monopolies exist in a free market is an absolute statement with no evidence backing it.




> Even economic models need competition in my opinion.


Thanks Captain Obvious. Economic models do have competition.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

Welcome to the forums, kk

Some people who post BS are paid to do so. Sad, but true. Not so much a matter of time, as funds...

----------


## acptulsa

kk, thanks for the post, the thread and the discussion.  And I happen to have a sock puppet on the forum mentioned earlier.  I consider what I do there to be educational--or at least I try...

Kade, I don't know if DeBeer's is the best example.  I think it got it's lock on the diamond market with considerable help from the British government during the delcining years of the Empire.  Check it out and see what you think, I'd be interested to hear.

----------


## NH4RonPaul

First of all you have mixed in my quotes with those of another.




> Fractional reserve banking is when the bank takes your savings and loans it out. The problem is that it creates money. In the example I used, you deposited $100 in the bank, the bank loaned out $90, and then you took out $50. In this case, the bank would either have to create $40 out of thin air or go bankrupt.
> 
> That's why full reserve banking is preferable.


As I said, when I don't know about a subject I defer to the person who does.
If you say it's better then I agree.





> This is a common mistake: imposing your own values on others.
> 
> Others might value the cheapness of Microsoft over the quality of Macs. That is why Microsoft, even though it has been attacked as a monopoly, is so great. They provide cheaper products that people want, opening up the computer market to people who cannot afford higher quality products.


I'm not sure how I imposed my values on others by using Macs? I was willing to pay for better quality and have never regretted it and I recommend them for people who can't put up with the problems of the PC anymore. But I agree that MS has brought cheap technology to the masses who are willing to use throwaway computers, which in the end means it wasn't so cheap after all because they have to spend so much money on virus software or upgrade them a lot sooner.

The rest of the quotes you had in this post were not mine...

----------


## Kludge

I have used my PC for nearly 2 years, it still handles high-end gaming and photo/video editing very well, is upgradable if I don't want to buy a new machine and have not experienced any significant problems with it (nor do I have to check if my OS is supported), and that's with freeware AV software which frankly, I don't use.

And then there's the satisfaction gained from being able to build a PC with parts of your choosing....

----------


## krazy kaju

> I'm not sure how I imposed my values on others by using Macs? I was willing to pay for better quality and have never regretted it and I recommend them for people who can't put up with the problems of the PC anymore. But I agree that MS has brought cheap technology to the masses who are willing to use throwaway computers, which in the end means it wasn't so cheap after all because they have to spend so much money on virus software or upgrade them a lot sooner.


No, in your post you lamented about the low quality of Mircrosoft. It came out looking like you were saying Microsoft is bad for America, though I'm now guessing those weren't your intentions.

As for virus software, why even bring it up? It doesn't change the fact that Microsoft has a greater appeal because of cheaper products, even if they are inferior. Besides, there are plenty of free ways to protect yourself from virii. Like getting Linux.

----------


## ARealConservative

thanks for the clarification!

And post more, seriously!

As opposed to others that should post more seriously!

----------


## tmosley

Yes, thanks for the well thought out and understandable explanation.  I didn't really understand much about the business cycle before now.  I'm glad you cleared it up.

People generally aren't stupid, they are just ignorant.  The cure to ignorance is education.  Thanks for the lesson.

----------


## Conza88

> Wouldn't an economy with true inflation at 1-3% outperform an economy experiencing price deflation in the long run?
> 
> Dynamics regarding wealth accumulation and consumer spending patterns would seem certain change and I'm curious how you see the ramifications playing out.
> 
> I realize this is purely a hypothetical as allowing central planners to control the money supply does not allow for such precise control of inflationary oversight even if that was truly the goal of the fed.


Well not going on the entire economy, just thought I'd add this - it may help with comprehension for some people. 

Take Zimbabwe's stock exchange for example. _The ZSE is the best performing stock exchange in the world, with the key Zimbabwe Industrials Index up some 595% since the beginning of the year and 12,000% over twelve months. This jump in share prices is far in excess of increases in consumer prices._

Lol... kind of a whack point. It depends on what is meant by _'outperform',_ Zimbabwe's stock exchange is awesome _(haha)_ and '_outperforming'_ all others - but much like would happen with comparing it to an economy experiencing price deflation (I'm assuming because of sound money) then the latter is obviously going to have a better standard of living.

----------


## Kade

> Thanks Captain Obvious. Economic models do have competition.


No problem *[Redacted by Moderator]*. What Economic model do you think should be a competitor to the Free Market Model?

----------


## CUnknown

Let me respond to some of your points.

krazy kaju said:



> 2. Fractional Reserve Banking
> 
> What's bad with fractional reserve banking?
> 
> [...] The problem with this is that the bank just created money.


You just answered your own question.  When banks are allowed to just create money out of thin air, and then *charge interest* on money that has no backing, that creates severe problems that can only be overcome by continuous exponential economic growth.  When the exponential growth stalls out, you get the situation that we have now with the housing crisis -- massive deflation.  At some undetermined point in the future, this problem will grow severe enough that the entire system will collapse.  The collapse is inevitable.





> 3. Monopolies
> 
> Monopolies are not a problem in a free market. I often see many RP supporters not knowing what to say about monopolies.


If Ron Paul people complain about monopolies, it is because we do not have a true free market system in this country.  Monopolies which are attached to the hip with government and the bankers pose a major problem for the American people.  In a true free market system, in which there was a separation of business and state (in which the state left business completely alone and did not interfere), perhaps you are correct that monopolies would not be an issue.

However, with the system we have now, monopolies (and business excess/fraud in general, e.g. Enron, Haliburton) are a big issue and should be faught against.





> 4. Global Warming and the Environment
> 
> [...]the IPCC reported that the expected sea level rise in the 21st century will be 1 and a 1/2 feet. The sea level rise in the 20th century was one foot. In short: no big deal.
> 
> So what about pollution? Well, the market eliminates pollution better.[...] Secondly, normal tort law prevents pollution from occurring in free markets.


What you are saying here is tragically mistaken.  The 1-2 foot rise, first of all, is a *minimum*.  If there was a catastrophic positive-feedback climate changing event (odds being estimated at maybe 25-30%), the sea level would rise much higher than that, completely inundating many coastal areas, including, oh.... Florida, New York City, DC.

And even a 1 foot rise, by itself, is a huge deal.  As you say, that is in combination with the previous 1 foot rise that has given us Katrina, as well as massive flooding throughout other parts of the world.  Billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives wasted, with millions more lives severely disrupted.  Add another foot on top of that, and things will be still "managable", true, but it's far from being "no big deal."

"Tort law prevents pollution from occuring" in a free-market system.  Yeah.  Right.  We'll all have to stop driving our cars, and coal power plants will have to go offline because Joe Blow might sue.  If you believe this, you are severely deluded as to economic reality.  The reality is that pollution must continue to occur to keep our economy afloat.  Alternative energy will not be able to completely replace fossil fuels for many more years.





> 5. Health Care
> 
> Again, high health costs are not a result of the free market, but of government intervention. People who have free health care abuse it. For example, in France, it is not unknown for people to go doctor to doctor searching for the first one to provide them the prescription they want to fill their addiction.


And you're saying that this doesn't happen in the US?  




> In other countries, like the UK and Canada, people are forced onto long waiting lists because there are doctor shortages - the demand is just too high because health care is absolutely free.
> 
> This spills over into ER units as people with minor problems cannot find family doctors so they go to the ER for treatment.


Oh my gosh, if health care is cheap, people will want it!  And you're saying this is a problem somehow??  Because the rich people have to wait in lines along with poor people?  That is detestable.

You have it completely backwards regarding use of the ER.  The people who use the ER for regular treatment are all in the US.  They have no health care, so they are forced to use the ER.  No one does that in France, buddy.  Single-payer health care is much cheaper than the system of HMOs we have now.  The cost per person, including taxes, is far lower in countries with socialized systems, for the same medical care.  Yes, they have have to wait longer.  I would love to wait, myself, if the price was cut in half.  Lol.

----------


## ARealConservative

> No problem *[Redacted by Moderator]* What Economic model do you think should be a competitor to the Free Market Model?


man are you one angry cat!

----------


## Kade

> man are you one angry cat!


I didn't attack him personally in my first post... he started.

----------


## ARealConservative

> I didn't attack him personally in my first post... he started.


I wouldn't mind the nickname Captain Obvious.  

Caaptain ...  though?

----------


## Sandra

I also have to chime in on environmental impact and free markets. 

example:

 Office Depot discovered their paper supplier was cutting further into the rain forests than the supplier was representing. Office Depot has a eco friendly policy that drives customers to buy their products. As a result Office Depot eliminated that supplier and replaced them with an eco friendly supplier. 

Office Depot helped to save the rain forest even though the company may have to shell out a little bit more and pass it on to customers. Yet this action sparked sales at the store.

I have no idea if this was real or a PR stunt but it worked.

----------


## Kade

> I also have to chime in on environmental impact and free markets. 
> 
> example:
> 
>  Office Depot discovered their paper supplier was cutting further into the rain forests than the supplier was representing. Office Depot has a eco friendly policy that drives customers to buy their products. As a result Office Depot eliminated that supplier and replaced them with an eco friendly supplier. 
> 
> Office Depot helped to save the rain forest even though the company may have to shell out a little bit more and pass it on to customers. Yet this action sparked sales at the store.
> 
> I have no idea if this was real or a PR stunt but it worked.


It worked because the people beating the Climate Change drums!!

The scientists and others promoting awareness about Climate Change help change public opinion, so that they public can decide what it wants to do about it!

I don't understand why so many people are against the scientists in this... They are just promoting awareness... most of them don't have any idea about solutions beyond that... .

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

Joe D'Aleo, a Fellow in the American Meteorology Society, runs the IceCap site.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/hansens_anniversary_testimony/


The "expert" that started it all in 1988....

On June 23, 1988 James Hansen, Astronomer by degree but climatologist by self appointment testified in front of congress. It was an orchestrated testimony coordinated by Senator Al Gore and a Senator from Colorado, Tim Wirth (now running Ted Turners UN Foundation) who admitted they picked the day after calling the National Weather Service to ensure it was a hot day. He admitted proudly later they opened all the windows the night before, making air conditioning ineffective and making sure all involved including Hansen would be seen mopping their brow for maximum effect. Hansen testified Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe, with a high degree of confidence, a cause-and-effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.

See in the story below how hard Hansen has worked to try and make his prognostication verify by manipulating data. By his own comments to the UK Guardian When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think thats a crime. Well the disinformation that comprises the GISS data then by his own words is a crime, and in his own words he should be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature.

Here is the plot of actual NASA global satellite monthly temperatures since June 1988. Note the anomaly in May 2008 was lower than in June 1988 by nearly 0.3C. Of course, we dont have June 2008 numbers yet. Please note I am not saying that cooling began in 1988. Satellites show clearly that since 1979 there was a moderate warming which peaked in 1998. A cooling has taken place the last 6 to 7 years. Global station and ocean data with all its warts shows the warming from the early 1900s to the 1930s, cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s then warming again peaking in 1998. I am just making an observation that it is ironic that 20 years after his first testimony about global warming, it is half a degree F oooler globally, not supporting the drastic measure he advocates. Also we can explain not only the trends but each spike or dip with some natural phenomena as we have shown in recent posts.

----------


## krazy kaju

I think Kade has a stick up his ass. First, he insults a rather well known economist and dismisses his work simply because he was wrong about oil prices, even though Armentano's work Kade dismissed had nothing to do with oil prices and many economic and financial "experts" predicted the fall of oil prices.

I showed how Kade's example of De Beers was just plain wrong and I showed how a true monopoly is theoretically impossible and impossible in practice.

I hope Kade can get his head out of the sand and post something useful.

Anyways, off to responding to some points:



> Yes, thanks for the well thought out and understandable explanation. I didn't really understand much about the business cycle before now. I'm glad you cleared it up.


Thanks! 

I noticed that a lot of people have trouble with ABCT, even on the Austrian forums over at mises.com.




> What you are saying here is tragically mistaken. The 1-2 foot rise, first of all, is a minimum. If there was a catastrophic positive-feedback climate changing event (odds being estimated at maybe 25-30%), the sea level would rise much higher than that, completely inundating many coastal areas, including, oh.... Florida, New York City, DC.
> 
> And even a 1 foot rise, by itself, is a huge deal. As you say, that is in combination with the previous 1 foot rise that has given us Katrina, as well as massive flooding throughout other parts of the world. Billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives wasted, with millions more lives severely disrupted. Add another foot on top of that, and things will be still "manageable", true, but it's far from being "no big deal."


First, let me start with a big LOL. I wasn't asking about fractional reserve banking, it was a rhetorical question. Haha, but thanks for the explanation anyways.

Now, let's get to the bone of the subject here. The one and a half foot increase is what is predicted by an assembly of the world's most knowledgeable meteorologists, geologists, climatologists, and others who study the subject professionally. Worrying about huge ice chunks breaking off like Al Gore did isn't actually a big issue.

Also, the one foot rise in the last century didn't give us Katrina or any other disasters. The fact of the matter is that government insurance of people living near coastlines and other dangerous areas (think: San Francisco) gives an incentive to people to move closer to these areas. Katrina wouldn't have been a big problem had it not been for this government policy and the government's failure to monitor the levees in New Orleans.




> "Tort law prevents pollution from occuring" in a free-market system. Yeah. Right. We'll all have to stop driving our cars, and coal power plants will have to go offline because Joe Blow might sue. If you believe this, you are severely deluded as to economic reality. The reality is that pollution must continue to occur to keep our economy afloat. Alternative energy will not be able to completely replace fossil fuels for many more years.


I was referring to property rights. Nobody has property rights over the particles of air, so it'd be unlikely that anyone who brings a suit against a major carbon emitter would actually win. Furthermore, everyone emits carbon, end of story.

Pollution in the air isn't as big of a problem as claimed. With peak oil and cheaper and cheaper alternative fuels, the problem will work itself out. This, paired with the fact that carbon caps and taxes would destroy our economy, leaves us no option but to embrace free market capitalism.

Let me also bring something else into the argument. Bastiat famously stated that one should look beyond the first effects of an action and into the secondary "hidden" effects. Had it not been for years of monetary and fiscal mismanagement by governments around the world, we probably would have cheap, alternative, and low-polluting fuels and energy.




> And you're saying that this doesn't happen in the US?


That's a problem in the US, especially with Medicaid beneficiaries. The proper way to resolve the problem would be to deregulate drugs and end Medicaid.

In countries with national health care programs, this problem is on a much, much larger scale.




> Oh my gosh, if health care is cheap, people will want it! And you're saying this is a problem somehow?? Because the rich people have to wait in lines along with poor people? That is detestable.


I don't want to insult anyone but...

Why are you even posting on the Ron Paul forums if you disagree with his policies? My post was made specifically for your kinds of people.

Universal health care is not "cheap" health care. It is much, much more expensive health care that comes out of your income and consumption via income, corporate, payroll, and sales taxes.

The problem with universal health care isn't that it's free. It's that health care is a scarce resource and you need a price system to treat it as such. If prices rise, then demand is limited, shortages are eliminated, and surpluses begin as high profits bring in more and more entrepreneurs into the business. Prices fall and then everybody can benefit.

The problem isn't that rich and poor receive equal treatment, at least according to your idealistic Obama-suck-up world view.  The problem is that national health care is far more expensive, destructive, and very low quality than in a free market system.

Let the free market work and prices will plummet while quality rises.

Also, I'd like to point out that it isn't the rich and poor who stand in line. It's the poor and middle class, while the rich can afford to go to other countries to get quality health care.




> You have it completely backwards regarding use of the ER. The people who use the ER for regular treatment are all in the US. They have no health care, so they are forced to use the ER. No one does that in France, buddy. Single-payer health care is much cheaper than the system of HMOs we have now. The cost per person, including taxes, is far lower in countries with socialized systems, for the same medical care. Yes, they have have to wait longer. I would love to wait, myself, if the price was cut in half. Lol.


Errrr, wrong.

Moral hazard dictates that health care in countries with universal systems will be more expensive. Empirical studies show that it is. Taxes and regulations have a huge destructive force on many economies with universal health care.

Here, don't let me debate you. Let me compile a reading list for you:

The Grass Is Not Always Greener by Michael D. Tanner

How to Fix Health Care Delivery by Arnold Kling

Why McCain's Plan Bests Obama's by Michael D. Tanner

A Blueprint for Health Care Freedom by Michael F. Cannon

I also suggest you watch this series by John Stossel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsEAVbCkMM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=refrYKq9tZQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzhiG0dcwN8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp_Jh5EIT0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_KCLm9cekU

----------


## CUnknown

krazy kaju - 

I misunderstood your point about fractional reserve banking.  I thought you were saying that most Ron Paul people don't like it, but that it's actually not bad.  In fact you were saying that most Ron Paul people don't understand why it's bad.  Agreed on this point, sorry for the confusion.

Now on to Global Warming:

The 1' rise in sea level certainly contributed to the damage that hurricane Katrina caused.  I'm sure you agree with that.  How much it contributed, it's hard to say, but surely global warming has caused billions of dollars in damage, and we are only in the early stages so far.

So, a paraphrase of your opinion: "People just shouldn't live in areas that might be affected by climate change."   The government shouldn't be encouraging people to live in the most dangerous areas, I agree.  But, the fact is, that a huge chunk of the globe will potentially be seriously affected by climate change.  Just about every coastal area, for example.  All areas along the Mississippi -- are you saying people shouldn't live in Iowa, too?  

The sheer number of people on the planet, combined with the huge global surface area where potentially catastrophic events could be occuring, points to the ludicrous nature of your opinion on climate change.  People can't just move to safer areas, that isn't realistic.





> so it'd be unlikely that anyone who brings a suit against a major carbon emitter would actually win


So, you're admitting that the free market can't handle the carbon-emission pollution problem?  I see no other way to interpret this statement.  Oh, yes, you can get around this by stating "Pollution in the air isn't as big of a problem as claimed."  But, you have to admit, that if it was a big problem (as it demonstrably is), that the free market would be unable to solve it.





> Had it not been for years of monetary and fiscal mismanagement by governments around the world, we probably would have cheap, alternative, and low-polluting fuels and energy.


This one really takes the cake as far as rediculous proclamations.  And you know this... how?  Sounds like blind faith in the free market to me.





> Universal health care is not "cheap" health care. It is much, much more expensive health care that comes out of your income and consumption via income, corporate, payroll, and sales taxes.


The fact is, that we spend far more on health care per capita in the US than they do in countries with socialized systems, and get inferior results as measured by the health of the population.  Single-payer health care is a more efficient way to run things.  Please do your homework and get the facts before making claims of this type.

I will grant that our system is not completely a free market system for healthcare.   I think one thing we can agree on is that we need change, however, I would prefer change along proven lines -- all other industrialized countries have better healthcare systems than we do, we should craft our system to be more like theirs (i.e. single-payer), imo.  However, I would rather have change in your direction than no change at all, so we do agree at some level.





> Why are you even posting on the Ron Paul forums if you disagree with his policies?


Sure, I disagree with some of Ron Paul's policies (environment and health care are the biggies).  But, I agree with Ron Paul more than any other candidate, with the possible exception of Kucinich or Nader.

You seem to think I would prefer Obama to Ron Paul, and that's totally untrue.  I disagree with Obama about almost everything, including the environment and healthcare (Obama has never been for single-payer, and his stance on the environment is not nearly strong enough for me).

I would rather claw my eyes out with a rusty, dull spoon than vote for Obama.  I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries, of course.  I'm probably going to vote Libertarian in the general (I don't think the Greens will be on the ballot in Georgia, where I live).  I realize that the Libertarians aren't for single-payer healthcare or a carbon tax, but they have many other positions which I agree with them on.  And, more importantly, voting for them will help break the 2-party duopoly, which is of critical importance for me.

----------


## Alex Libman

Excellent points, all of them.

----------


## Danke

> I realize that the Libertarians aren't for single-payer healthcare or a carbon tax, but they have many other positions which I agree with them on.  And, more importantly, voting for them will help break the 2-party duopoly, which is of critical importance for me.


Amen!  I'd even vote for Nader if he was the only 3rd party choice.

----------


## Kade

> I hope Kade can get his head out of the sand and post something useful.


I asked you which economic model would you recommend in competing with the Free Market?

----------


## brandon

> *2. Fractional Reserve Banking*
> 
> What's bad with fractional reserve banking?
> 
> Well first, you need to understand what fractional reserve banking is. Fractional reserve banking is when you deposit money in an irregular deposit in a bank, and that bank takes some of your money and loans it out. The problem with this is that the bank just created money.
> 
> Use this example:
> You deposit $100
> The bank loans out $90
> ...


No, this is wrong. Fractional Reserve Banking does not create money, It creates the illusion that there is more money, but it doesn't actually create more.

 Using your example: Only two people do business at a bank. One person deposits 100 into a checking account. Another person gets a $90 loan. When the original person tries to withdraw their money, the bank does not and cannot create it. They simply are forced to say "Sorry, we don't have it."  This is called insolvency. On a larger scale scenario, a Bank Run usually causes this.  Often times the federal reserve will step in and actually create money to bail that bank out though.

And fractional reserve banking can exist under the gold standard. It would actually be exactly the same as it is today. The only difference would be that the fed couldn't bail them out when they've loaned out too much of their reserves.

Pay attention man, I don't want dummies going around and giving RP supporters a bad name!

----------


## Danke

If you don't think the Federal Reserve creates money, read "The Two Faces of Debt" put out by the Chicago Branch of the Federal Reserve.  

Now if you have a different definition of what most people consider money, I can agree, they don't create anything of value.

----------


## brandon

I agree the fed creates "money." The other banks do not though. There is a difference. Wachovia isn't running printing presses.

----------


## aravoth

> Let me respond to some of your points.
> 
> Oh my gosh, if health care is cheap, people will want it!  And you're saying this is a problem somehow??  Because the rich people have to wait in lines along with poor people?  That is detestable.
> 
> You have it completely backwards regarding use of the ER.  The people who use the ER for regular treatment are all in the US.  They have no health care, so they are forced to use the ER.  No one does that in France, buddy.  Single-payer health care is much cheaper than the system of HMOs we have now.  The cost per person, including taxes, is far lower in countries with socialized systems, for the same medical care.  Yes, they have have to wait longer.  I would love to wait, myself, if the price was cut in half.  Lol.


I don't think you understand they way our healthcare system works.

----------


## CUnknown

Danke - 

What I'd like to see is a Barr - Nader debate, televised across the country.  And don't invite McCain or Obama.

----------


## krazy kaju

> I misunderstood your point about fractional reserve banking.  I thought you were saying that most Ron Paul people don't like it, but that it's actually not bad.  In fact you were saying that most Ron Paul people don't understand why it's bad.  Agreed on this point, sorry for the confusion.


Haha, no prob.




> The 1' rise in sea level certainly contributed to the damage that hurricane Katrina caused.  I'm sure you agree with that.  How much it contributed, it's hard to say, but surely global warming has caused billions of dollars in damage, and we are only in the early stages so far.


Sea levels have been rising for centuries naturally. Are we accelerating that rise? Slightly, yes.

But destroying trillions of dollars of investment and consumption in just America alone will not offset the price of other hurricanes, floods, and global-warming related disasters.

Furthermore, global warming does serve a slightly positive purpose. Less people die from heat related deaths and certain lands that never have been fertile are now becoming fertile.




> So, a paraphrase of your opinion: "People just shouldn't live in areas that might be affected by climate change."   The government shouldn't be encouraging people to live in the most dangerous areas, I agree.  But, the fact is, that a huge chunk of the globe will potentially be seriously affected by climate change.  Just about every coastal area, for example.  All areas along the Mississippi -- are you saying people shouldn't live in Iowa, too?


Look, Gore's doomsday scenario is wholly unscientific and nothing but crises talk. In the 70s and 80s there was worry about global cooling, then there was worry about technology taking over in the 80s and 90s, and now we have global warming hysteria.

Global warming will have a negative impact, but one and a half feet of sea level rise will not flood the Mississippi, Bangladesh, or Florida. There's nothing to worry about.




> The sheer number of people on the planet, combined with the huge global surface area where potentially catastrophic events could be occuring, points to the ludicrous nature of your opinion on climate change.  People can't just move to safer areas, that isn't realistic.


This statement points to the ludicrous nature of _your_ opinion. There is no scientific evidence that shows that global warming and very, very modest sea level rise will cause any huge catastrophes.




> So, you're admitting that the free market can't handle the carbon-emission pollution problem?  I see no other way to interpret this statement.  Oh, yes, you can get around this by stating "Pollution in the air isn't as big of a problem as claimed."  But, you have to admit, that if it was a big problem (as it demonstrably is), that the free market would be unable to solve it.


That isn't really a point of debate. If carbon were a HUGE problem, that would warrant intervention. Maybe you should start with killing cows? All that methane in their farts... 





> This one really takes the cake as far as rediculous proclamations.  And you know this... how?  Sounds like blind faith in the free market to me.


You know, there are these things called taxes that take away trillions of dollars from the economy and deposit them in bureaucracies and everywhere where they're not supposed to be. These things called taxes literally destroy investment, saving, and consumption.

Then there are these other things in the real world called regulations. Regulations cause great economic harm by severely limiting competition.  Because of regulations, many small businesses can't compete and are driven out of the market.

If you know consider all the subsidies that oil companies have gotten, making alternative fuels even more noncompetitive...





> The fact is, that we spend far more on health care per capita in the US than they do in countries with socialized systems, and get inferior results as measured by the health of the population.  Single-payer health care is a more efficient way to run things.  Please do your homework and get the facts before making claims of this type.


First off, I did my homework. Why don't you look at the four or so links I posted along with the documentary about the failures of universal health care?

Secondly, we spend more on health care because we are richer. We have to deal with less taxes that sap our spending. When you have more money, you are at liberty to spend a greater percentage on nonessentials like health.

Lastly, it's undeniable that the US has superior health care. Again, *do your homework* and read the sources and watch the video I provided for you. The WHO actually ranked the US #1 in terms of health *quality*. The reason why the US scored low overall on the WHO report was because many of the categories used - i.e. 'fairness of distribution' and 'equality' - had nothing to do with quality. DALE (average lifespan) also does not measure the quality of health care since DALE is greatly affected by suicide and homicide rates as well as exercise and eating habits. The US did score number one in health care responsiveness, which was the only category of health measurement in the WHO report that measured health care quality.




> I will grant that our system is not completely a free market system for healthcare.   I think one thing we can agree on is that we need change, however, I would prefer change along proven lines -- all other industrialized countries have better healthcare systems than we do, we should craft our system to be more like theirs (i.e. single-payer), imo.  However, I would rather have change in your direction than no change at all, so we do agree at some level.


Again, *if you would've done your homework and read the materials I provided*, you would've realized otherwise. The fact of the matter is that national health care programs are failing - *especially* single payer health care programs like those in Britain and Canada. Doctor shortages are abundant (ironic, I know), the quality is relatively poor, people die on waiting lists, etc.

If you would've read what I provided you, you would've seen that Americans have higher survival rates among certain diseases as compared to Brits. For example, Americans with cancer have far higher survival rates than Brits. Why? Because of our superior system of health care.




> I asked you which economic model would you recommend in competing with the Free Market?


Son, do you even know what an economic model is?




> No, this is wrong. Fractional Reserve Banking does not create money, It creates the illusion that there is more money, but it doesn't actually create more.
> 
>  Using your example: Only two people do business at a bank. One person deposits 100 into a checking account. Another person gets a $90 loan. When the original person tries to withdraw their money, the bank does not and cannot create it. They simply are forced to say "Sorry, we don't have it."  This is called insolvency. On a larger scale scenario, a Bank Run usually causes this.  Often times the federal reserve will step in and actually create money to bail that bank out though.
> 
> And fractional reserve banking can exist under the gold standard. It would actually be exactly the same as it is today. The only difference would be that the fed couldn't bail them out when they've loaned out too much of their reserves.
> 
> Pay attention man, I don't want dummies going around and giving RP supporters a bad name!


Haha, I know all of those facts. I think I stated in the OP that fractional reserve banking causes bank failures. I didn't clarify however, and you're entirely correct.

I guess it's my bad for not explaining thoroughly, so thanks for clarifying the issue for those who don't know.

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

the root cause of fractional reserve banking is interest and specifically compound interest, which the austrians defend. Unfortunately, compound interest is legalized extortion and will always lead to economic implosion since you can't screw people forever.

----------


## ARealConservative

> the root cause of fractional reserve banking is interest and specifically compound interest, which the austrians defend. Unfortunately, compound interest is legalized extortion and will always lead to economic implosion since you can't screw people forever.

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> 


I'd like to hear your rebuttal.
How is charging rent(which implies ownership = tax) on a medium of exchange - which by definition cannot be owned - sound economic policy? If someone owns the medium of exchange, how can there be a free market?

----------


## krazy kaju

> the root cause of fractional reserve banking is interest and specifically compound interest, which the austrians defend. Unfortunately, compound interest is legalized extortion and will always lead to economic implosion since you can't screw people forever.


The "compound interest paradox" is a sham.

Say that I'm the bank and I give you a $5 loan that you have to repay with interest at $6. However, if I buy $1 worth of goods from you, you'll have enough money to pay the loan back.

In a larger economy the trades are more complex involving not only banks, but individual lenders as well as people who have not taken loans out (or paid them back) and people who invest large sums of money in the economy.

----------


## danberkeley

> I'd like to hear your rebuttal.
> How is charging rent(which implies ownership = tax) on a medium of exchange - which by definition cannot be owned - sound economic policy? If someone owns the medium of exchange, how can there be a free market?


LOL. cows can be used as a medium of exchange. oh no! perhaps no one should own cows! LOL

----------


## ARealConservative

> I'd like to hear your rebuttal.
> How is charging rent(which implies ownership = tax) on a medium of exchange - which by definition cannot be owned - sound economic policy? If someone owns the medium of exchange, how can there be a free market?


I'm not going to spend alot of time explaining or debating sophomoric points.  

1)  the principals of voluntary association dictate that compound interest should be allowed in a free society.  

2)  money must be viewed as property in a free society.

3)  it is impossible to monopolize the medium of exchange in a free society.

----------


## CUnknown

> Look, Gore's doomsday scenario is wholly unscientific and nothing but crises talk.


It's really unfortunate that you have no idea what you're talking about regarding the severity of global warming.  It's even past the point of theory and entering reality.  You can just read the news to see the damage it's causing -- fires in California, floods along the Mississippi, heat waves in the north east, drought in the south east ... ... ... *all at the same time*.  And that's just the US -- there's also cyclones in Burma killing a hundred thousand people, floods in Bangladesh displacing millions.

And sometime in the next few years, the arctic will be completely without ice during the summer.

And you're telling me global warming isn't a big deal?  Global warming denial is pseudoscience of the worst kind, akin to creationism and holocaust denial.  You have your head in the sand, and I fear you'll never wake up.





> Why don't you look at the four or so links I posted along with the documentary about the failures of universal health care?


I checked out one of them, and it said this:  "Although other countries spend considerably less than the United States on health care, both as a percentage of GDP and per capita [...]"  Which of course backs up what I was saying.   How do you explain that one away -- it came from your own document!

Countries like France spend less money *both as a percentage of GDP and per capita*, even including taxes, on health care.  And they cover everyone.  That is far, far superior to the broken system we have, people in America would gladly wait in line so they can have health care more cheaply and so no one dies for lack of care.  Less money for better care.  How can you argue with that?  It blows my mind..  




> The fact of the matter is that national health care programs are failing


Heh, I would much prefer "failing" to "already failed 30 years ago and continuing to get worse."

That WHO ranking which you are refering to does indeed have the US as #1 in responsiveness.  Meaning, we have shorter lines for those who can afford it.  That much is true.  How you can just blow off "fairness of distribution" as if it doesn't matter, though, is mind-boggling.

Let's use an abstract example.  In the US, let's say, we spend $10 total on health care for both person A and B.  However, only person A gets any treatment beyond ER visits.  In France, they spend the equivalent of $7 for person A and B.  Both A and B get full treatment, although they have to wait a little longer.  Obviously, France's system is superior to the US, it seems impossible to deny.

You have the "free market" built up in your mind as the ultimate good, something that is perfect with no failings whatsoever.  Nothing is perfect.  It has flaws.  Sometimes, government intervention is better than the free market.  Sometimes, the free market is better than government intervention.  

Right now, we have the worst kind of mixed system -- a system where government and business have merged and both become corrupted by it.  Our system obviously sucks, everyone knows it.  People on what is called the 'right' say, "Our mixed system has failed because of government intervention!"  People on the 'left' say "Our mixed system has failed because of the involvement of business and the free market!"  But both know it has failed.

Admittedly, I think our health care system would get better if government completely got out of it, like you want.  But I think the best health care system is one where business completely gets out.   I think our country's workings should be mixed, but a mixed system where either the government or business has complete reign.  In some fields government should get out, and in other fields, business should get out.

----------


## Danke

I am not sure which group(s) are denying GW.  But I know of 30,000+ scientists who are not convince man has much to do with it.

And there are many who think the pluses of GW out number the minuses.

Man has adapted to climate change in the past, nothing says man can't successfully adapt in the future.

And some are now predicting that we will begin global cooling in the near future.

So should we artificially put restrictions on man's natural technological progress because of the controversial fear that we might be able to do something to reverse GW?

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> I'm not going to spend alot of time explaining or debating sophomoric points.  
> 
> 1)  the principals of voluntary association dictate that compound interest should be allowed in a free society.  
> 
> 2)  money must be viewed as property in a free society.
> 
> 3)  it is impossible to monopolize the medium of exchange in a free society.




You are correct that it is impossible to monopolize a medium of exchange in a free society. Once a king or government employs interest as an agent to take more than you give, there is no longer free society and eventually all the money will be concentrated in the hands of the few.

You use a "voluntary association" argument to legitimize taking more than you give and call me sophomoric... LOL!
You think the poor agreed to compound interest? When was that vote?


If anyone can answer how an economic system based on taking more than you give can EVER lead to a free society, let me know.

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> The "compound interest paradox" is a sham.
> 
> Say that I'm the bank and I give you a $5 loan that you have to repay with interest at $6. However, if I buy $1 worth of goods from you, you'll have enough money to pay the loan back.
> 
> In a larger economy the trades are more complex involving not only banks, but individual lenders as well as people who have not taken loans out (or paid them back) and people who invest large sums of money in the economy.


Your example isn't compound interest, it's a $1 service fee which is completely different.

----------


## ARealConservative

> You are correct that it is impossible to monopolize a medium of exchange in a free society. Once a king or government employs interest as an agent to take more than you give, there is no longer free society and eventually all the money will be concentrated in the hands of the few.


Great!  Another class warfare statist pretending to support Ron Paul while actually opposing everything he stands for.




> You use a "voluntary association" argument to legitimize taking more than you give and call me sophomoric... LOL!
> You think the poor agreed to compound interest? When was that vote?


They voted by agreeing to the conditions and entering into a business transaction.  It was an independent decision to borrow someone elses capital.  They were given the terms  which included compounding interest.  

If I loan you a cow and a bull for 5 years, why cant I ask to get 5 cows and 5 bulls back in return?  Why should you be allowed to compound the benefits of my capital, but I cant?





> If anyone can answer how an economic system based on taking more than you give can EVER lead to a free society, let me know.


Your failure is you seem to want to have monopoly control on the perception of value.  

My $1,000 is worth an extra $10 the first 30 days, but worth $10.50 the next 30 days because that is the amount of additional revenue I could of made by putting this money to use myself rather then loaning it to you.  If you dont want to agree to such an arrangement, then dont.

----------


## Kade

> Son, do you even know what an economic model is?


Why yes *[Redacted by Moderator]*, I do. Do you?

A simple example for you (I won't get into Quesneyian models), would be qualifying the question you seem unwilling or unable to respond. The question of the Free-market model versus Centrally Planned Model, which, for this experiement only, we will leave as extremely broad examples of "economic models".

In a Free Market system, the argued point is that the "invisible hand" of the free market will guide a system to economic prosperity, and without the hubris, do so without central planning. A valiant and noble argument this may be, many theorists still believe that no one economic model can capture the forces behind an economic system. I believe this as well, and strongly favor a "freemarket" approach to economic models...

Some models that I favor include your oiled version of the Free Market, some Keynesian models, Reflexivity (Leontief and Soros), and in regards to price optioning equity, the Black-Scholes model. 

You can continue to ignore me, or respond by asking more questions, you still have not answered my question. If you respond nicer, I will do the same. Arbitrarily dismissing me does not equate to me going away. 

Cheers.

----------


## Indy4Chng

> *2. Fractional Reserve Banking*
> 
> What's bad with fractional reserve banking?
> 
> Well first, you need to understand what fractional reserve banking is. Fractional reserve banking is when you deposit money in an irregular deposit in a bank, and that bank takes some of your money and loans it out. The problem with this is that the bank just created money.
> 
> Use this example:
> You deposit $100
> The bank loans out $90
> ...


There is nothing wrong with this.  You of course are showing this on a 1 to 1 basis.  But of course banks have 100's of customers and loans are always ending and issuing new loans, plus they have the option of calling in the loans.   This would take tons of the investment power out of the country, and like you said investment is usually made through loans.  Plus what would be the incentive to run a bank.  You would not make any money as you would have to pay the person giving money almost the same as you would charge the person you were losing money.  After your overhead expenses and default risk no one would bank.  I am new to the Ron Paul movement but I highly doubt that Ron Paul supports eliminating loaning on margin.  Plus a free market would support loaning on margin, do you only want a quasi-free market?

----------


## ARealConservative

> There is nothing wrong with this.  You of course are showing this on a 1 to 1 basis.  But of course banks have 100's of customers and loans are always ending and issuing new loans, plus they have the option of calling in the loans.   This would take tons of the investment power out of the country, and like you said investment is usually made through loans.  Plus what would be the incentive to run a bank.  You would not make any money as you would have to pay the person giving money almost the same as you would charge the person you were losing money.  After your overhead expenses and default risk no one would bank.  I am new to the Ron Paul movement but I highly doubt that Ron Paul supports eliminating loaning on margin.  Plus a free market would support loaning on margin, do you only want a quasi-free market?


Ron Paul has never directly addressed fractional reserve banking to my knowledge, but Murray Rothbard sure has - and clearly opposes it.

As for a bank - it would operate totally different.  Rather then earning interest on simple saving/money market accounts - this would be a service they provide to guard your wealth accumulation.

CD's could continue to earn interest of course.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> First, let me clarify some things. I am a Ron Paul supporter and I am a follower of the Austrian school of economics. Something that has dissapointed me, however, has been the intense lack of economic understanding among Ron Paul supporters. Normally, I wouldn't be disturbed, but in this case I am. RP supporters who post regularly on different forums, on youtube, and who discuss Ron Paul with others come out as ignorant cultists to many people because of their economic stupidity. So let me set some things straight that I see a lot of Ron Paul fans get wrong.
> 
> *1. The Gold Standard*
> 
> OK, this one really gets me angry. Many Ron Paul supporters don't even know what the gold standard is. I'll tell you what it isn't: it's not the scenario where a currency is pegged to gold. That's a _gold exchange standard_.
> 
> The gold standard is the situation where either gold coins are used as currency or where there are certificates representing certain values of gold (i.e. you could have a 1 oz certificate exchangable for 1 oz of gold at any time). Banks usually store gold and provide certificates for their gold reserves.
> 
> *2. Fractional Reserve Banking*
> ...


Well said. I've gotten in heated arguments with some people over many of these topics.

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> They voted by agreeing to the conditions and entering into a business transaction.  It was an independent decision to borrow someone elses capital.  They were given the terms  which included compounding interest.  
> 
> If I loan you a cow and a bull for 5 years, why cant I ask to get 5 cows and 5 bulls back in return?  Why should you be allowed to compound the benefits of my capital, but I cant?


What if you are out of land and are looking to loan a couple cows and bulls or else they'll die anyway.. why should you get compounded benefits of animals that would have simply died if it weren't for me?

It is impossible for a one-size-fits-all growth function to guide an economy when economic growth is not exponential, except for one time in history after the steam engine was invented.

All compound interest does is give incentive for people to be lazy and unproductive.

A truly free society doesn't need "incentives."
Who's the authoritarian who gets to decide what should be an incentive?

----------


## danberkeley

> What if you are out of land and are looking to loan a couple cows and bulls or else they'll die anyway.. why should you get compounded benefits of animals that would have simply died if it weren't for me?
> 
> It is impossible for a one-size-fits-all growth function to guide an economy when economic growth is not exponential, except for one time in history after the steam engine was invented.
> 
> All compound interest does is give incentive for people to be lazy and unproductive.
> 
> A truly free society doesn't need "incentives."
> Who's the authoritarian who gets to decide what should be an incentive?


lol. what if he sold cow because the cow was going to die? or should he not be able to benefit from the transaction because the cow would have died? lol then again, that's why gold and silver became the most popular mediums of exchange throughout history. because gold and silver dont die. lol btw, compound interest does not make people lazy. people have to work hard to able to save money then lend it out without having worry about it having enough money in the short run.

----------


## ARealConservative

> What if you are out of land and are looking to loan a couple cows and bulls or else they'll die anyway.. why should you get compounded benefits of animals that would have simply died if it weren't for me?


It would be really nice if you could find a way to answer my question without asking a question.

So back to the cow and bull.  Why can't I ask for more back then the original cow and bull?


ps...when I run out of room, I kill the cow and bull and sell the meat, hide, and everything else.

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> It would be really nice if you could find a way to answer my question without asking a question.
> 
> So back to the cow and bull.  Why can't I ask for more back then the original cow and bull?
> 
> 
> ps...when I run out of room, I kill the cow and bull and sell the meat, hide, and everything else.


You can ask for whatever you want. In our system, you have no competition since everyone will ask for around the same legal extortion limit set by Bernanke + bank service % fee. We either agree or die.
If there were real competition, our risk of being extorted would be less.

Moreover, your example isn't compounding a medium of exchange, you are compounding real assets, which is completely different. The things money is a substitute for may in certain cases follow a growth function, like the case of animal reproduction, but economic growth overall and most modes of production do not. 

You just can't magically grow a money supply according to an asymptotic function and expect it to last. All this does is ensure at the end of the game all money is returned to the makers of the game.

----------


## danberkeley

> You can ask for whatever you want. In our system, you have no competition since everyone will ask for around the same legal extortion limit set by Bernanke + bank service % fee. We either agree or die.
> If there were real competition, our risk of being extorted would be less.
> 
> Moreover, your example isn't compounding a medium of exchange, you are compounding real assets, which is completely different. The things money is a substitute for may in certain cases follow a growth function, like the case of animal reproduction, but economic growth overall and most modes of production do not. 
> 
> You just can't magically grow a money supply according to an asymptotic function and expect it to last. All this does is ensure at the end of the game all money is returned to the makers of the game.


Then again, us Astrians recognize that paper backed by nothing more than the paper itself has not much intrinsic value. It is hardly money and history has shown it to be a medium of exchange that does not last. Also, when we refer to money, we do not assume the US dollar but money as money itself... Legal extortion? LOL

----------


## ARealConservative

> You can ask for whatever you want.


Great.  so I *can* ask for compound interest, which is a complete flip flop of what you originally claimed.  Game.Set.Match.   





> In our system, you have no competition since everyone will ask for around the same legal extortion limit set by Bernanke + bank service % fee. We either agree or die.


Don't be silly.  Rates vary wildly.  Maybe I am running out of room for cows, and my freezer is stocked with meat.  I will gladly loan you a bull and a cow for a much lower rate then the farm next door.  

The only reason to bring up Bernake though is you are still discussing fiat currency, which is not what this dicussion entails.




> Moreover, your example isn't compounding a medium of exchange, you are compounding real assets


a medium of exchange is anything we want it to be.  it can be gold, paper money, or cigarettes.

In our example it is bulls, and I did compound it.  For simplicity I didn't fully disclose the APY, but trust me, it was compounded.  





> You just can't magically grow a money supply according to an asymptotic function and expect it to last. All this does is ensure at the end of the game all money is returned to the makers of the game.


And now the class warfare communist drivel comes out.  I was wondering when it would show its ugly head.

The workers of the world unite - you are being exploited!

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> Great.  so I *can* ask for compound interest, which is a complete flip flop of what you originally claimed.  Game.Set.Match.   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.  Rates vary wildly.  Maybe I am running out of room for cows, and my freezer is stocked with meat.  I will gladly loan you a bull and a cow for a much lower rate then the farm next door.  
> 
> The only reason to bring up Bernake though is you are still discussing fiat currency, which is not what this dicussion entails.
> 
> ...


Yes, you can ask for my kidneys if you want. It doesn't make it right or intelligent. But then again I don't expect any more from the likes of you. 

It's common sense, not marxism. Tell me... what kind of production follows a geometric curve to keep up with an asymptotic function?

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> Then again, us Astrians recognize that paper backed by nothing more than the paper itself has not much intrinsic value. It is hardly money and history has shown it to be a medium of exchange that does not last. Also, when we refer to money, we do not assume the US dollar but money as money itself... Legal extortion? LOL


How would compound interest work with gold as a medium of exchange?
The production of gold will never be geometric.
Isn't that the reason for Bretton Woods in the first place?

----------


## ARealConservative

> Yes, you can ask for my kidneys if you want. It doesn't make it right or intelligent. But then again I don't expect any more from the likes of you.


oooohhhh....the likes of me  

If I'm going to die from a kidney failure, seems like it would be pretty intelligent to ask if anybody would sell one.....to the likes of me  




> It's common sense, not marxism.


It's an irrational fear that free markets exploit the lower class.  Pepper it up with words like proletariat and bourgeoisie and bingo!




> Tell me... what kind of production follows a geometric curve to keep up with an asymptotic function?

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> oooohhhh....the likes of me  
> 
> If I'm going to die from a kidney failure, seems like it would be pretty intelligent to ask if anybody would sell one.....to the likes of me  
> 
> 
> 
> It's an irrational fear that free markets exploit the lower class.  Pepper it up with words like proletariat and bourgeoisie and bingo!


I'm pro free-market. It's impossible to have a free market with compound interest.
Your attacks on me aren't worth much considering your lack of understanding of logarithmic functions.
PolySci degree?

----------


## danberkeley

> I'm pro free-market. It's impossible to have a free market with compound interest.
> Your attacks on me aren't worth much considering your lack of understanding of logarithmic functions.
> PolySci degree?


Why, mathematically and practically, is it impossible to have  a free market compound interest?

----------


## ARealConservative

> I'm pro free-market. It's impossible to have a free market with compound interest.


It is impossible to prevent compound interest in a free market.

I'd say this paradox trumps yours.

----------


## krazy kaju

> Why yes *[Redacted by Moderator]*, I do. Do you?
> 
> A simple example for you (I won't get into [color="red"Quesneyian[/color] models), would be qualifying the question you seem unwilling or unable to respond. The question of the Free-market model versus [color="red]Centrally Planned Model[/color], which, for this experiement only, we will leave as extremely broad examples of "economic models".
> 
> In a Free Market system, the argued point is that the "invisible hand" of the free market will guide a system to economic prosperity, and without the hubris, do so without central planning. A valiant and noble argument this may be, many theorists still believe that no one economic model can capture the forces behind an economic system. I believe this as well, and strongly favor a "freemarket" approach to economic models...
> 
> Some models that I favor include your oiled version of the Free Market, some Keynesian models, Reflexivity (Leontief and Soros), and in regards to price optioning equity, the Black-Scholes model. 
> 
> You can continue to ignore me, or respond by asking more questions, you still have not answered my question. If you respond nicer, I will do the same. Arbitrarily dismissing me does not equate to me going away. 
> ...


First of all, you clearly do not know what a model is. An economic model tries to quantify certain aspects of human action. It is not much different from a mathematical model.

For example, the Phillips Curve is a model:


There are also models to show Pareto efficient behavior:


The supply and demand curve is a popular economic model:


The Hayekian triangle could be considered an economic model:


The PPF curve is also an economic model:


There's also the IS/LM model:


Secondly, where did I propose anything but the free market?

Thirdly, I took the liberty to highlight your grammatical mistakes. Besides not knowing jack $#@! about economics, you could really improve your English. Remember, this is coming from someone who's first language is Polish.

Lastly, don't tell me I'm rude. You were the one who called a relatively well-known and respected economist a "clown" and other insults. You should be ashamed of yourself, your own ignorance, and your stupidity.




> There is nothing wrong with this.  You of course are showing this on a 1 to 1 basis.  But of course banks have 100's of customers and loans are always ending and issuing new loans, plus they have the option of calling in the loans.   This would take tons of the investment power out of the country, and like you said investment is usually made through loans.  Plus what would be the incentive to run a bank.  You would not make any money as you would have to pay the person giving money almost the same as you would charge the person you were losing money.  After your overhead expenses and default risk no one would bank.  I am new to the Ron Paul movement but I highly doubt that Ron Paul supports eliminating loaning on margin.  Plus a free market would support loaning on margin, do you only want a quasi-free market?


First of all, you're completely ignoring the history of full-reserve banking. Full reserve banking used to be the norm.

Secondly, you have to understand the difference between an irregular deposit contract and the mutuum contract. By taking your money into a deposit, the bank acknowledges that you can withdraw all of your money *at any time*. This is key, because if they do not have ALL the money at ALL times, they broke their contract. A mutuum contract means that you can only take back your money after a given time (i.e. one year). This today is known as a certificate of deposit (CD) and is essentially a loan to the bank.

So it's key to remember that legally speaking, not keeping full reserves is wrong. Take gold and oil ETFs, for example. You can buy and sell on the market without having physical assets, but there has to be a one to one ratio legally when it comes to paper representations and barrels of oil/ounces of gold.

Lastly, saving and investment would not be killed by full reserve banking. Saying so is ridiculous, why weren't saving and investment killed when we practiced full reserve banking earlier? You would just have to pay banks a small fee for storing your money unless you gave it to them in a CD. Investment would probably increase, actually, as people would not keep large amounts of money in deposits but move into stocks and CDs.




> Your example isn't compound interest, it's a $1 service fee which is completely different.


The same principle applies. As long as lenders and people who are not in debt can buy the services/products of people who pay compound interest, there is no danger to the economy.

You also have to remember that banks don't want your property. They want their money, so they won't make a loan if they know you can't pay it back. They only take collateral for the "what if" scenario.

----------


## MsDoodahs

Just a quick hello and welcome to the forums, krazy kaju.

Thanks for what you'e doing.

----------


## The_Orlonater

Krazy Kaju= epic win.

Great posts, thank you.

----------


## cien750hp

> *1. The Gold Standard*
> 
> OK, this one really gets me angry. Many Ron Paul supporters don't even know what the gold standard is. I'll tell you what it isn't: it's not the scenario where a currency is pegged to gold. That's a _gold exchange standard_.
> 
> The gold standard is the situation where either gold coins are used as currency or where there are certificates representing certain values of gold (i.e. you could have a 1 oz certificate exchangable for 1 oz of gold at any time). Banks usually store gold and provide certificates for their gold reserves.


first off, let me post a disclaimer here that i am highschool student so my knowlege isn't quite up to everyones level here, but, this seems backwards to me. the gold exchange standard seems to me like a certificate could be exchanged for gold, where the gold standard would just be a standard the currency is pegged to.
are the names just confusing like that or am i missing something?


(i understand it now as say, under the gold  standard you could take $100 in and get 1/10th ounce of gold, but under the gold EXCHANGE standard you merely know your $100 is worth $100 and no more can be printed causing devaluation of your money because it is pegged to the amount of gold they own but you can't actually get a piece of gold) that seems backwards :/


edit: i based that off of gold at $1000/ounce

----------


## krazy kaju

> first off, let me post a disclaimer here that i am highschool student so my knowlege isn't quite up to everyones level here, but, this seems backwards to me. the gold exchange standard seems to me like a certificate could be exchanged for gold, where the gold standard would just be a standard the currency is pegged to.
> are the names just confusing like that or am i missing something?
> 
> 
> (i understand it now as say, under the gold  standard you could take $100 in and get 1/10th ounce of gold, but under the gold EXCHANGE standard you merely know your $100 is worth $100 and no more can be printed causing devaluation of your money because it is pegged to the amount of gold they own but you can't actually get a piece of gold) that seems backwards :/
> 
> 
> edit: i based that off of gold at $1000/ounce


The gold standard is a system where you have certificates that represent holdings of physical gold, similar to how you can buy into the pool accounts on kitco.com, monex.com, and Perth Mints. Essentially, under a gold standard, gold coins and certificates that represent one ounce, two ounce, etc. are considered currency. Banks usually store the gold and produce certificates that you then use as currency.

Under a gold exchange standard, a fiat currency (like the USD) is pegged to gold by the central bank. The central bank then promises to exchange the fiat currency for gold. The problem with the gold exchange standard is that the government can change or completely remove the peg, which allows high rates of monetary expansion and inflation to continue.

Many people erroneously believe that Ron Paul is for a gold exchange standard when in reality he is for a true gold standard. Early on in his campaign I believe he stated something about removing the capital gains tax and restrictions on using gold and silver as currency as to allow it to compete against the USD.

----------


## krazy kaju

> It's really unfortunate that you have no idea what you're talking about regarding the severity of global warming.  It's even past the point of theory and entering reality.  You can just read the news to see the damage it's causing -- fires in California, floods along the Mississippi, heat waves in the north east, drought in the south east ... ... ... *all at the same time*.  And that's just the US -- there's also cyclones in Burma killing a hundred thousand people, floods in Bangladesh displacing millions.


Just that those fires, floods, heat waves happened before. The difference now is that we have over six billion people living closely together, so disasters today cause many more deaths than the same disaster would've caused hundreds of years ago.

Am I denying that some disasters, most notably floods, are increasing in intensity? No. But at the same time that doesn't justify destroying a several trillion dollar economy and hundreds of millions of lives to have a very negligible impact on the environment as India and China keep expanding.

At the same time, we have less people dying from the cold in the winter and we have more fertile land in some areas.




> And sometime in the next few years, the arctic will be completely without ice during the summer.


You need to learn to use sources. I'm not going to believe this until you provide a reputable source.




> And you're telling me global warming isn't a big deal?  Global warming denial is pseudoscience of the worst kind, akin to creationism and holocaust denial.  You have your head in the sand, and I fear you'll never wake up.


Where have I said global warming isn't real?

I explicitly stated that global warming is real, but that folks like Al Gore are blowing the situation out of proportion. Again, I'll direct you towards my good friends at the 2007 IPCC who said that global sea levels will rise only by one and a half feet maximum this following century... not the 20 feet that Al Gore "predicted" in order to make a quick buck (not to mention a footnote in a history book somewhere).




> I checked out one of them, and it said this:  "Although other countries spend considerably less than the United States on health care, both as a percentage of GDP and per capita [...]"  Which of course backs up what I was saying.   How do you explain that one away -- it came from your own document!


You checked one source? Congratulations, at least we know you can read.

What you just said is in agreement with everything I've stated so far. Since the United States is so much more wealthier (after-tax) than every other nation, Americans can afford to spend a greater percentage of their wealth on nonessentials like health care.




> Countries like France spend less money *both as a percentage of GDP and per capita*, even including taxes, on health care.  And they cover everyone.  That is far, far superior to the broken system we have, people in America would gladly wait in line so they can have health care more cheaply and so no one dies for lack of care.  Less money for better care.  How can you argue with that?  It blows my mind..


Where the hell did you get the "better care" from?

Doctors and nurses are paid less. There are doctor shortages. They make significant use of copayment to ease shortages... which _doesn't_ amount to universal health care. American cancer and AIDs patients have better survival rates... The WHO ranked the USA #1 in terms of health care *quality* (not equality or DALE).

Where do you get this absurd notion that universal health care = better health care?




> Heh, I would much prefer "failing" to "already failed 30 years ago and continuing to get worse."


Notice that for the past 30 years we've had greater government intervention.

Correlation, anyone?




> That WHO ranking which you are refering to does indeed have the US as #1 in responsiveness.  Meaning, we have shorter lines for those who can afford it.  That much is true.  How you can just blow off "fairness of distribution" as if it doesn't matter, though, is mind-boggling.


If you read the methodology report of the WHO, responsiveness accounts for health care quality also. That includes quality and quantity of medical equipment, hospitals, family doctor practices, etc.




> Let's use an abstract example.  In the US, let's say, we spend $10 total on health care for both person A and B.  However, only person A gets any treatment beyond ER visits.  In France, they spend the equivalent of $7 for person A and B.  Both A and B get full treatment, although they have to wait a little longer.  Obviously, France's system is superior to the US, it seems impossible to deny.


Wrong again buddy. As I've stated _ad nauseum_, nations with universal health care have the worst quality health care. The more government gets involved, the worse it is (i.e. Canada and the UK). The countries with the best universal health care (i.e. France, Netherlands, Switzerland) make the greatest use of *market* forces like copayments... yet they still have inferior health quality to the United States.

And you still haven't responded to the points I made backed by the sources I posted previously. i.e. how US cancer patients have better survival rates than the cancer patients of nations with universal health care.




> You have the "free market" built up in your mind as the ultimate good, something that is perfect with no failings whatsoever.  Nothing is perfect.  It has flaws.


You love strawmen, don't you?




> Sometimes, government intervention is better than the free market.  Sometimes, the free market is better than government intervention.


I love statements made without proof.




> Right now, we have the worst kind of mixed system -- a system where government and business have merged and both become corrupted by it.  Our system obviously sucks, everyone knows it.  People on what is called the 'right' say, "Our mixed system has failed because of government intervention!"  People on the 'left' say "Our mixed system has failed because of the involvement of business and the free market!"  But both know it has failed.
> 
> Admittedly, I think our health care system would get better if government completely got out of it, like you want.  But I think the best health care system is one where business completely gets out.   I think our country's workings should be mixed, but a mixed system where either the government or business has complete reign.  In some fields government should get out, and in other fields, business should get out.


More unbacked statements.

This debate is getting boring with you ignoring everything I say and all the sources I provide and then you responding with the same stuff all over again.

How 'bout you go a couple pages back in the thread and actually read through the sources and watch the video I provided? Then you'll actually understand what's at stake here and the free market way to fix health care.

Seriously. Just read the sources.

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> It is impossible to prevent compound interest in a free market.
> 
> I'd say this paradox trumps yours.


It is also impossible to prevent murder in a free society. What is your point?  



Unless real wealth is destroyed, real wealth creation MUST follow follow this curve in a compounding interest economic system or the system will implode. That is why we were forced to change to a fiat currency ... reached the point in 1971 where this chart explodes and no "Real" medium of exchange(gold/silver) can match this curve. And now we can't even make paper dollars fast enough so now everything is electronic or book entries.

So yes - compound interest can exist in the portion of the curve which is linear (1800-1971) and growth is relatively small, and the system will work. But it will be inevitably destroyed at the point where we can't keep up with infinite growth (the asymptote) as demanded by our money tied to this mathematical function. And at that point, all real wealth(homes, land, property) will have completed its journey through the system and back to the FED. The unnatural explosive growth of money in a compounding interest system is what caused the conditions for the creation of the FED and fiat currency in the first place, and it will happen again 200 years from now if we repeat the mistake in the next economic system after this collapses

----------


## danberkeley

> The unnatural explosive growth of money in a compounding interest system is what caused the conditions for the creation of the FED and fiat currency in the first place...


So your saying that the bankers that secretly wrote the Federal Reserve Act are our saviors because they saved us from "unnatural explosive growth of money in a compounding interest system"? lol No wonder our standard of living has improved since then.

----------


## cien750hp

> The gold standard is a system where you have certificates that represent holdings of physical gold, similar to how you can buy into the pool accounts on kitco.com, monex.com, and Perth Mints. Essentially, under a gold standard, gold coins and certificates that represent one ounce, two ounce, etc. are considered currency. Banks usually store the gold and produce certificates that you then use as currency.
> 
> Under a gold exchange standard, a fiat currency (like the USD) is pegged to gold by the central bank. The central bank then promises to exchange the fiat currency for gold. The problem with the gold exchange standard is that the government can change or completely remove the peg, which allows high rates of monetary expansion and inflation to continue.
> 
> Many people erroneously believe that Ron Paul is for a gold exchange standard when in reality he is for a true gold standard. Early on in his campaign I believe he stated something about removing the capital gains tax and restrictions on using gold and silver as currency as to allow it to compete against the USD.


ohhh it all makes sense now! thanks for clarifying all of that.
we definitely need those competing currencies now  at least we're allowed to buy gold and silver on the market, even though we can't use it

----------


## ronpaulblogsdotcom

You have 30 posts and you are the expert on what RP supporters know and dont know? Sorry doesnt work that way.

Maybe if you enlightened us with more than 30 posts we would be smart as well.

The average Rp supporter is the best educated group in ANY current political group.

And some of that is just your opinion. Monopolies good? hehe And you use Microsoft and Coca Cola as examples.. Microsoft has crappy overpriced products that are not created for the markets. They are packaged to capture as many markets as possible.

And Coca Cola has killed countless people to force coca cola in countries that did not want to take it. I can get a canned cola from countless companies that tastes the same or better. Many with healthier cane sugar than fructose....

Remember the origins... Cocaine!

Personally I think monopolies dont create economies of scale. They create waste and complacent companies.

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> So your saying that the bankers that secretly wrote the Federal Reserve Act are our saviors because they saved us from "unnatural explosive growth of money in a compounding interest system"? lol No wonder our standard of living has improved since then.


No, they did the only logical thing possible to keep a flawed system functioning. Human resistance to change overwhelms conscience and/or intelligence.
They either figured the flaw out then, or had their economic "PNAC" in place planned ahead of time knowing simple mathematics. 
If we were all herded into state of the art detention centers with food, shelter, and sustenance for all, would our standard of living not increase? It's seductive but we know from history it will fail because tyranny is inconsistent with the human spirit. Likewise, compound interest is seductive but it is inconsistent with simple physical/natural laws.

Thus, we have sacrificed liberty and ownership for false prosperity. We have chosen to rent many things instead of owning a few outright(as RP says 'living within our means'), and in doing so we have given up our sovereignty. We chose seduction instead of intelligence.
In 1913 or 1971 we could have changed the system knowing we were approaching a physical impossibility - a mathematical slope of infinity.

----------


## krazy kaju

> You have 30 posts and you are the expert on what RP supporters know and dont know? Sorry doesnt work that way.
> 
> Maybe if you enlightened us with more than 30 posts we would be smart as well.


Are you saying that Ron Paul supporters don't post on any other forums anywhere else on the internet?

I've seen Paulites come and go at mises.com asking about various things. Maybe look at the Ron Paul Issues forum here on this site. Three questions about monopolies right there.

I see Ron Paul supporters on totse.com, sociocide.com, philosophyforum.com, and other sites being confused about the gold standard and the gold exchange standard.

I've been registered on this site for much longer than my 30 posts would suggest.




> The average Rp supporter is the best educated group in ANY current political group.


Where have I said otherwise?




> And some of that is just your opinion. Monopolies good? hehe And you use Microsoft and Coca Cola as examples.. Microsoft has crappy overpriced products that are not created for the markets. They are packaged to capture as many markets as possible.


Microsoft might have crappy products  but people buy them because they're cheaper than all the other products. People value the cheapness of Microsoft over the quality of Mac. It's called marginalism, marginal utility, subjectivism, and many other things. In short, people value what they value and you shouldn't be imposing your own values of quality on them.

SEE! Here, another Paul supporter who doesn't understand Paul's stance against anti-trust laws. Thank you for proving my point.




> And Coca Cola has killed countless people to force coca cola in countries that did not want to take it. I can get a canned cola from countless companies that tastes the same or better. Many with healthier cane sugar than fructose....


Then get those canned colas! But many people prefer Coca Cola or Pepsi to some third no-name brand. Why do you have a right to impose your values on them?




> Remember the origins... Cocaine!


So now you're for the drug war? What a great Ron Paul supporter you are! 




> Personally I think monopolies dont create economies of scale. They create waste and complacent companies.


Give one example of an actual monpoly existing in a free market. Just one that had bad effects. Try. I dare you.

----------


## pacelli

> You have 30 posts and you are the expert on what RP supporters know and dont know? Sorry doesnt work that way.
> 
> Maybe if you enlightened us with more than 30 posts we would be smart as well.


Your 1000 post count, and my 3800 post count, and Kaju's 30 post count, are meaningless.  Meaningless.  It is clear after reading the content of Kaju's remarks and observing his written thought processes, that he has a level of intelligence that fits in nicely with the majority of Ron Paul supporters.  I welcome him to the forum and hope that he continues to teach us a thing or two.

----------


## ronpaulblogsdotcom

> Are you saying that Ron Paul supporters don't post on any other forums anywhere else on the internet?
> 
> I've seen Paulites come and go at mises.com asking about various things. Maybe look at the Ron Paul Issues forum here on this site. Three questions about monopolies right there.
> 
> I see Ron Paul supporters on totse.com, sociocide.com, philosophyforum.com, and other sites being confused about the gold standard and the gold exchange standard.


Yes there are other RP sites. But it doesnt sound like you go there either. DailyPaul Ronpaulforum and here are the top 3.




> Where have I said otherwise?


Well because you are ranting about how bad RP supporters are at understanding your favored topics.  Remember these are your topics. Not everyones. Supporting RP means you like him more than the other candidates, nothing more. I actually disagree with RP about quite a few things. Some of them are on these topics.....

Why don't you create a quest to inform other candidates supporters about ...well anything substantive. At least get them to RP supporters level....




> Microsoft might have crappy products  but people buy them because they're cheaper than all the other products. People value the cheapness of Microsoft over the quality of Mac. It's called marginalism, marginal utility, subjectivism, and many other things. In short, people value what they value and you shouldn't be imposing your own values of quality on them.
> 
> SEE! Here, another Paul supporter who doesn't understand Paul's stance against anti-trust laws. Thank you for proving my point.


I didn't say that was RPs stance. I wrote it, its mine.... And as for the other things I have never seen anyone decide that Microsoft's stuff was cheap. The "standard" version of Office 2007 is $314!  That is about half the price of many entry level computers. And it is just software and most people only need Word and Excel..... Most people have no idea what Windows costs as it is bundled on new computers. Microsoft has made its empire with bundling the OS and forcing people to buy work/friend compatible Office suites. Not from some economy of scale or cheap prices.




> Then get those canned colas! But many people prefer Coca Cola or Pepsi to some third no-name brand. Why do you have a right to impose your values on them?


Who said I was? I am just stating that Coca Cola is not superior in taste or health aspects. In fact it has a history of not being healthy.  Especially if you get in their way. Killer Coke But remember monopolies are not bad, and sometimes kill just for fun, not that they know monopolies can get a strangelhold on an industry.

And I like how you marginalize the other drinks. I am talking about top quality, niche and imported drinks and you make it sound like white label drinks.




> So now you're for the drug war? What a great Ron Paul supporter you are!


Who said I parrot RPs ideas? I dont. But I think deceptive packaging is obviously bad when there are drugs in the foods. If someone wants a bag of cocaine that is stupid but fine in my opinion. But putting cocaine in a drink to addict people? WTF?





> Give one example of an actual monpoly existing in a free market. Just one that had bad effects. Try. I dare you.


I might spend some time on thinking about this if you define "actual monopoly" and "free market". Is the United States with its corporate and legal realities one now? And can you give me an example following your definitions to the two above that have had LONGTERM good effects? Long term in my definition is at least 10 to 20 years.

----------


## krazy kaju

> Yes there are other RP sites. But it doesnt sound like you go there either. DailyPaul Ronpaulforum and here are the top 3.


Good job ignoring what I said. I was talking about non-RP forums where Ron Paul supporters post.




> Well because you are ranting about how bad RP supporters are at understanding your favored topics.  Remember these are your topics. Not everyones. Supporting RP means you like him more than the other candidates, nothing more. I actually disagree with RP about quite a few things. Some of them are on these topics.....
> 
> Why don't you create a quest to inform other candidates supporters about ...well anything substantive. At least get them to RP supporters level....


This is an RP forum, isn't it?




> I didn't say that was RPs stance. I wrote it, its mine.... And as for the other things I have never seen anyone decide that Microsoft's stuff was cheap. The "standard" version of Office 2007 is $314!  That is about half the price of many entry level computers. And it is just software and most people only need Word and Excel..... Most people have no idea what Windows costs as it is bundled on new computers. Microsoft has made its empire with bundling the OS and forcing people to buy work/friend compatible Office suites. Not from some economy of scale or cheap prices.


Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to buy anything. Providing bundles, aka discounts on software, is a great thing that cuts costs for everyone. You can't criticize Microsoft as being bad when people _voluntary_ buy their products. There is no coercion.

If anything, you should be arguing for less government intervention by abolishing patent and copyright laws that prevent competition from lowering the prices of Microsoft products.




> Who said I was? I am just stating that Coca Cola is not superior in taste or health aspects. In fact it has a history of not being healthy.  Especially if you get in their way. Killer Coke But remember monopolies are not bad, and sometimes kill just for fun, not that they know monopolies can get a strangelhold on an industry.


Thanks for providing more proof of government failing. 

You still have to provide an example of a free market monopoly though!




> And I like how you marginalize the other drinks. I am talking about top quality, niche and imported drinks and you make it sound like white label drinks.


... yet nobody buys them? Why? *Because they prefer Coca Cola and/or Pepsi.* People like *you* want to raise the price of those products by adding needless regulations and breaking up companies like that, decreasing efficiency and killing entrepreneurship.




> Who said I parrot RPs ideas? I dont. But I think deceptive packaging is obviously bad when there are drugs in the foods. If someone wants a bag of cocaine that is stupid but fine in my opinion. But putting cocaine in a drink to addict people? WTF?


Cocaine was in a lot of products back then and people actually sought it out. There was demand and they filled it.




> I might spend some time on thinking about this if you define "actual monopoly" and "free market". Is the United States with its corporate and legal realities one now? And can you give me an example following your definitions to the two above that have had LONGTERM good effects? Long term in my definition is at least 10 to 20 years.


Monopoly is 100% market share. Free market is a market without any regulations beyond basic protection or natural rights.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Good job ignoring what I said. I was talking about non-RP forums where Ron Paul supporters post.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an RP forum, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to buy anything. Providing bundles, aka discounts on software, is a great thing that cuts costs for everyone. You can't criticize Microsoft as being bad when people _voluntary_ buy their products. There is no coercion.
> ...


Kaju, it's great to have another person here who knows what he's talking about. It seems like you shut Kade up, because he hasn't responded. I go at it with him all the time and he just ignores facts and responds with insults.

Thanks for quieting some of the naysayers.

----------


## ronpaulblogsdotcom

> Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to buy anything. Providing bundles, aka discounts on software, is a great thing that cuts costs for everyone. You can't criticize Microsoft as being bad when people _voluntary_ buy their products. There is no coercion.


Ya keep telling yourself that. No coercion as in none at all? I would say there is some coercion. If Microsoft was really the saint you say they are they would have made all their products save copies to open source formats. Not .doc .xls .ppt etc..... They did that for a reason. 

Bundles are not discounts. Bundles are two or more products sold together. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(marketing) Discounts are Discounts. You can give one on any product. Even one product...

Sometimes there are natural reasons for bundling like cellular phones and service. But bundling in a monopolistic industry is an intrusion to competition in my opinion.

Microsoft did this to create a standard. I can understand this, but dont think Microsoft did this to benefit anyone but themselves and their shareholders. The reason the internet is so big is because Microsoft did not understand it and get their hands on it first. 

.html is an open source and most successful standards that have truly helped people have been open source. 

Microsoft has only relaxed some strangles they were putting on systems because of legislation. Not because of some concern for the consumer.




> If anything, you should be arguing for less government intervention by abolishing patent and copyright laws that prevent competition from lowering the prices of Microsoft products.


LOL - Abolish one of the last bastions of American ingenuity? Intellectual Property? Why would I want to support that? Besides if little copyright enforcement helped spur IP development China would be designing all our software and France would still be in the Pharmaceutical business. Since the patents left, the French Pharma companies stopped researching drugs. No incentive....




> ... yet nobody buys them? Why? *Because they prefer Coca Cola and/or Pepsi.* People like *you* want to raise the price of those products by adding needless regulations and breaking up companies like that, decreasing efficiency and killing entrepreneurship.


I don't believe people prefer Coca Cola because of a superior product or some economy of scale you talk about. Whenever I go shopping Coke costs the same or more as everything else. 

Coca Cola sells because of marketing and distribution. If you had blind taste tests I could pick 20 beverages that I think taste better and could be sold retail at the same as Coca Cola. I think other people would do the same.  But it would not be in the vending machine 20 feet away...




> Cocaine was in a lot of products back then and people actually sought it out. There was demand and they filled it.


Most were medicinal. And why not just write it on the label? I don't think they ever did....O ya the stigma of being an addict.... You are imagining this demand. Do you have proof? Or were people simply addicted to one of the most addicting substances in the world and could buy it without going to a drug pusher?

----------


## krazy kaju

> Ya keep telling yourself that. No coercion as in none at all? I would say there is some coercion. If Microsoft was really the saint you say they are they would have made all their products save copies to open source formats. Not .doc .xls .ppt etc..... They did that for a reason. 
> 
> Bundles are not discounts. Bundles are two or more products sold together. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(marketing) Discounts are Discounts. You can give one on any product. Even one product...
> 
> Sometimes there are natural reasons for bundling like cellular phones and service. But bundling in a monopolistic industry is an intrusion to competition in my opinion.
> 
> Microsoft did this to create a standard. I can understand this, but dont think Microsoft did this to benefit anyone but themselves and their shareholders. The reason the internet is so big is because Microsoft did not understand it and get their hands on it first. 
> 
> .html is an open source and most successful standards that have truly helped people have been open source.


What's your point? Are you against more products for one, cheaper price (or DISCOUNTS)? Again, nobody was forced to buy Microsoft products, there have been, there are, and there always will be competitors to Microsoft. The reason Microsoft was so successful was because they created a product consumers liked.

Is there anything wrong with that? Why should anti-trust laws 




> Microsoft has only relaxed some strangles they were putting on systems because of legislation. Not because of some concern for the consumer.


Really, what you're talking about is a problem with government granted monopolies, eg intellectual "property," and not anything to do with the free market.




> LOL - Abolish one of the last bastions of American ingenuity? Intellectual Property? Why would I want to support that? Besides if little copyright enforcement helped spur IP development China would be designing all our software and France would still be in the Pharmaceutical business. Since the patents left, the French Pharma companies stopped researching drugs. No incentive....


Maybe you forgot about this little thing called competition. If you're a big Pharma company of course you don't want intellectual property to be abolished because smaller businesses will then compete with you.

Why do you think ibuprofen, a chemical only found in certain trees in the South American jungle, is so cheap? Because where no government monopolies exist the price system is allowed to work as normal, when prices are high producers have an incentive to produce more driving prices down. But in a gov't enforced monopoly situation there is no such thing as it is in the interest of a single controlling company to keep supply low and prices high.

Also, you really need to provide a source.




> I don't believe people prefer Coca Cola because of a superior product or some economy of scale you talk about. Whenever I go shopping Coke costs the same or more as everything else.


You're obviously not getting something: *People buy Coca Cola because they value coke more than other drinks.* You don't buy coke if you like pepsi more. You don't buy Coke or Pepsi if you like Dr. Pepper more. You don't buy Coke, Pepsi, or Dr. Pepper more if you like Mott's Apple Juice more.

Do you get it now? *It's about voluntary transactions and the freedom of choice.* Why anyone would want to destroy Coca Cola or Pepsi and therefore driving the prices of those brands up and destroying the stocks of thousands of people, I have no clue.




> Coca Cola sells because of marketing and distribution. If you had blind taste tests I could pick 20 beverages that I think taste better and could be sold retail at the same as Coca Cola. I think other people would do the same.  But it would not be in the vending machine 20 feet away...


What a huge fallacy. You really think you know better than everyone else, don't you? You really think that *your* values, *your* preferences, and *your* tastes are universal?

And if Coca Cola became #1 by advertising, then so what? You want to destroy their freedom of speech?




> Most were medicinal. And why not just write it on the label? I don't think they ever did....O ya the stigma of being an addict.... You are imagining this demand. Do you have proof? Or were people simply addicted to one of the most addicting substances in the world and could buy it without going to a drug pusher?


Drugs used to be legal and cocaine quite popular as a medicine, you know, and many people knew when they were taking products with coca. Here is a link, and as you can clearly see many of the medicines have coca listed either in their name or somewhere on them. Also, please note *Coca*-Cola. It was no secret that there was cocaine in Coca-Cola, there's a reason the "coca" was in the name.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Your 1000 post count, and my 3800 post count, and Kaju's 30 post count, are meaningless.  Meaningless.  It is clear after reading the content of Kaju's remarks and observing his written thought processes, that he has a level of intelligence that fits in nicely with the majority of Ron Paul supporters.  I welcome him to the forum and hope that he continues to teach us a thing or two.


+ infinity

----------


## krazy kaju

Thanks for all the good comments everyone.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Thanks for all the good comments everyone.


I absolutely LOVE this thread and am learning some things I did not know.

Thank you, kaju.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Remember these are your topics. Not everyones.


I'm enjoying the discussion and explanations Kaju is providing!  This is GREAT STUFF!




> Why don't you create a quest to inform other candidates supporters about ...well anything substantive. At least get them to RP supporters level....



NO!!!!!  Stay here, Kaju, please!  I love what you're doing!

----------


## ARealConservative

> It is also impossible to prevent murder in a free society. What is your point?


fees on top of loans aren't murder is the point.  Many have tried to explain how a commodity backed economic system handles it.

Your graphs might make sense on paper, but real world economics aren't so simple.

The only analogy I can think of is to argue that flying an airplane is impossible in a free society because if too many people fly utter chaos would erupt so nobody can fly and then compare airplane flight with murder as something government can naturally oppose.

----------


## danberkeley

> No, they did the only logical thing possible to keep a flawed system functioning.


There was nothing wrong with the system. But if there was, then our current system is much worse. 




> Human resistance to change overwhelms conscience and/or intelligence.


Yes. That is why krazy kaju keeps schooling you but you won't admit that your claims are flawed.





> They either figured the flaw out then, or had their economic "PNAC" in place planned ahead of time knowing simple mathematics. 
> If we were all herded into state of the art detention centers with food, shelter, and sustenance for all, would our standard of living not increase? It's seductive but we know from history it will fail because tyranny is inconsistent with the human spirit. Likewise, compound interest is seductive but it is inconsistent with simple physical/natural laws.


Huh? Moving from a free society to a detention center is an improvement in the standard of living?





> Thus, we have sacrificed liberty and ownership for false prosperity. We have chosen to rent many things instead of owning a few outright(as RP says 'living within our means'), and in doing so we have given up our sovereignty. We chose seduction instead of intelligence.


i'm trying to figure out how you went from "rent many things" to "given up our sovereignty"




> In 1913 or 1971 we could have changed the system knowing we were approaching a physical impossibility - a mathematical slope of infinity.


...???

----------


## buffalokid777

> I don't think you understand they way our healthcare system works.


You got it avaroth.......the only way to fix the healthcare system.....is to take the profit out of being sick......profit in the medical industry can only be given to those who keep people well........

The easiest way to make this happen is regulations within the FDA......

The regulations that would need to be made....is to......

1.) Make the leadership in the FDA electable......

2.) No one who had EVER worked for a food producer, pharmecutical company, or been involved in the health care industry would be barred from running for FDA positions of power........

3.) No one who served the FDA in an employment opportunity could ever take a job in the food , medical, or drug industry or could receive payments legally from the food, drug , or medical industry.....after finishing their term in the FDA......

This is a sure fire way to stop the medical industry from keeping people sick for profit.....by not being able to help people profit from doing their will

The profits of the health industry should go to those who keep people well.........

----------


## danberkeley

> You got it avaroth.......the only way to fix the healthcare system.....is to take the profit out of being sick......profit in the medical industry can only be given to those who keep people well........
> 
> The easiest way to make this happen is regulations within the FDA......
> 
> The regulations that would need to be made....is to......
> 
> 1.) Make the leadership in the FDA electable......
> 
> 2.) No one who had EVER worked for a food producer, pharmecutical company, or been involved in the health care industry would be barred from running for FDA positions of power........
> ...


yes. because we all know our elected officials at the federal level keep us safe.

----------


## buffalokid777

> yes. because we all know our elected officials at the federal level keep us safe.


actually...we know that those who are supposed to keep us safe have sold out to corporate entities who would keep us sick so they can profit off the sickness they have created.....

That is why I feel we need to take the profit out of sickness....and give it those whose product is wellness......

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Kaju, here's a heads up. Don't listen to bufallokid. He will spew nonsense on topics he knows nothing about.

So, buffalokid...you're at it again? Do you have any evidence to back up your claims this time, or will you be spewing rhetoric with your fingers in your ears again.

----------


## buffalokid777

> Kaju, here's a heads up. Don't listen to bufallokid. He will spew nonsense on topics he knows nothing about.
> 
> So, buffalokid...you're at it again? Do you have any evidence to back up your claims this time, or will you be spewing rhetoric with your fingers in your ears again.


we all know your dan berkley.....I only stop in here once and awhile for an I told you so....

like freddie mac...fannie mae......wow $100,000 in shorts to $188,000 in about a  1/3 of a year, nice gains 

hows that shearson lehman, ubs, and merryl lynch stock treating you rockandrollsouls/danberkeley?

HAHAHAHAHA........

----------


## danberkeley

> we all know your dan berkley.....I only stop in here once and awhile for an I told you so....


you told us what? nothing you've said has been true or come true.




> like freddie mac...fannie mae......wow $100,000 in shorts to $188,000 in about a  1/3 of a year, nice gains 
> 
> hows that shearson lehman, ubs, and merryl lynch stock treating you rockandrollsouls/danberkeley?



lehman is down....




> actually...we know that those who are supposed to keep us safe have sold out to corporate entities who would keep us sick so they can profit off the sickness they have created.....
> 
> That is why I feel we need to take the profit out of sickness....and give it those whose product is wellness......


take the profit out of sickness? sound great, Obama fan! (sarcasm). besides, hostipals were once run by churches and other charitable organizations and provided services for free or at very low prices. however, government regulation put them out of business. next, i expect you to give us an ad hominem about the church followed by another statement that is totally irrelevent to this topic.

----------


## krazy kaju

Again, thanks for all the good words everyone.

And buffalokid: are you saying that profit needs to be eliminated in the health care industry? Then let me enlighten you with this little quote from Adam Smith:
_It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages._

You can't take the profit motive out of the health care industry and expect it to work. The profit motive is what drives everyone to do what they do. Hospitals won't be built on a massive scale to fill demand if you can't make a profit. People won't become doctors unless they can make a profit. Insurance companies will cease to exist if they can't make a profit.

The key to fixing our health care industry is to eliminate the regulations making health care expensive. For example, we could start by deregulating the health insurance industry. Regulations force insurance companies to cover more things than they otherwise would, which drives costs and prices up. Other things which we should do is eliminate Medicare and Medicaid which drives prices up by introducing a lot of artificial demand into the system. It's not unknown for doctors to cheat Medicare and Medicaid by millions of dollars which is a major reason for high medical costs.

Other things which could be done would be eliminating union control over businesses. When businesses are forced to purchase expensive insurance coverage instead of setting aside HSAs for their employees, it again causes health care costs to rise due to an influx of artificial demand.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the US still has the best health care quality ever. If you would've read the sources I provided earlier in this thread you would've seen that Americans with fatal diseases have better survival rates than Europeans and that the WHO report on health care quality actually ranks the US number one in terms of quality.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That is why I feel we need to take the profit out of sickness....and give it those whose product is wellness......


What are you suggesting here?  Are you suggesting even more government regulation to fix the problem that they themselves created with other regulation?

What we need to do is to get government out of the health care business and let the market decide.

----------


## pacelli

> the only way to fix the healthcare system.....is to take the profit out of being sick......profit in the medical industry can only be given to those who keep people well........
> 
> The easiest way to make this happen is regulations within the FDA......
> 
> The profits of the health industry should go to those who keep people well.........


Are you aware that health care might not necessarily include the administration of medications?  The FDA has nothing to do with surgical procedures that are practiced by the medical industry.

Also, patients who choose to pay for heath care do so for 1 reason: To profit from the treatment.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> RP supporters who post regularly on different forums, on youtube, and who discuss Ron Paul with others come out as ignorant cultists to many people because of their economic stupidity. So let me set some things straight that I see a lot of Ron Paul fans get wrong.


I understand there are stupid people all over the place, and they probably participate in all kinds of groups, and I'm sure some are RP supporters.

But...

Have you considered that many of the people you're talking about might not be Ron Paul supporters?  They might tell you they are, but it doesn't make it true.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> we all know your dan berkley.....I only stop in here once and awhile for an I told you so....
> 
> like freddie mac...fannie mae......wow $100,000 in shorts to $188,000 in about a  1/3 of a year, nice gains 
> 
> hows that shearson lehman, ubs, and merryl lynch stock treating you rockandrollsouls/danberkeley?
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA........


Your entire post is you spewing crap out of your butt. You made about 10 things up in that post. I've never recommended any financials nor have I purchased shares in any.

----------


## mport1

Great OP.  A must read if you aren't well versed in economics.

----------


## Kade

> First of all, you clearly do not know what a model is. An economic model tries to quantify certain aspects of human action. It is not much different from a mathematical model.
> 
> Secondly, where did I propose anything but the free market?
> 
> Thirdly, I took the liberty to highlight your grammatical mistakes. Besides not knowing jack $#@! about economics, you could really improve your English. Remember, this is coming from someone who's first language is Polish.
> 
> Lastly, don't tell me I'm rude. You were the one who called a relatively well-known and respected economist a "clown" and other insults. You should be ashamed of yourself, your own ignorance, and your stupidity.


No, if anything is first, it is most certainly not your ability to define a model, which you chose to do by posting pictures. This comes back to the first critique, which you did not respond adequately too. 

My grammatical mistakes become more prevalent the more I lose my cool, which, noting the freshly planted infraction I obtained, most certainly happened here. I do not take the time to put what I type through some sort of dictionary filter, although if you are a Firefox user, I imagine my mistakes become easier to notice. 

I also would like to point out that I insulted an economist, not you at first, you provided the first personal attack, and I responded in kind. 

If I were ignorant of the subject, I would be ashamed, but I am not, and your circular reasoning, your flawed expanses of copy and paste nonsense isn't getting anywhere, and having fully read most of the garbage you have toyed with here, I do feel as if my intelligence has taken a hit, and your contorted version of reality is quite frustrating.  

So... with that said, your sly weaseling out of context and into a proper straw-man you have somehow set up a nice defended position around free market absolutism, of course by stretching the limitations on the definitions of "controlled" and "model". 

I too could do what you are doing, with a proud label of "liberty" cloaking my actions against stagnant and destructive economic theory, I can cut and paste and ultimately paraphrase from the numerous wordy and biting essays of the Cato Institute, or the Mises Institute, and I could comeback to everyone's critique with the phrase "well that isn't a free market", or a "that isn't the proper definition"... all of this is wordplay and newspeak and propaganda of the ultimate lie wrapped around the protective warm uterus of our newest masters on this planet, the corporations. You are no champion of liberty, you are no champion of the free market, democracy, or for that matter, reason; [removed]

So, what should we talk about first? Let's start with this...

*1. What is your definition of "Monopoly" and does it differ from what is accepted in economic circles?*

----------


## ARealConservative

> No, if anything is first, it is most certainly not your ability to define a model, which you chose to do by posting pictures. This comes back to the first critique, which you did not respond adequately too.


He didn't just post pictures, he also defined the term.

Some days I don't know what your problem is.  This guy is not your enemy.

----------


## Kade

> He didn't just post pictures, he also defined the term.
> 
> Some days I don't know what your problem is.  This guy is not your enemy.


I've consistently defined my problem with this guy.

Here is a definition of Economic Model we can all work with, one that he seems to agree with me on, (yet attacks me for anyway):

*Economic Model

An economic model attempts to abstract from complex human behavior in a way that sheds some insight into a particular aspect of that behavior.  This process inherently ignores important aspects of real-world behavior, making the modeling process an art as well as a mathematical exercise.*

There are several ways of looking at these models, besides just using mathematical techniques... 

In the broadest sense, a free market is a simplistic model for developing economic policies. I have offered two competing models in this regard, for which I asked why those models could not also be allowed to "compete" in the battlefield of economic theory. He responded like an oiled three-legged badger engulfed in flames.

----------


## krazy kaju

> No, if anything is first, it is most certainly not your ability to define a model, which you chose to do by posting pictures. This comes back to the first critique, which you did not respond adequately too.


I defined a model and my first critique completely destroyed your points. You, however, chose not to respond at all and instead asked about economic models. You clearly didn't even know what an economic model is as there is no such thing as a "free market model" or a "socialist model" or a "Keynesian model."

Many neoclassical economists are capitalist, yet some like Oskar Lange are socialists even though they use the same models.

Some Keynesians are more capitalistic than others. Two examples would be Greg Mankiw and Paul Krugman, even though they use the same models.

Economics and political economy are two different things. Economics as such is only the study of how individuals interact whereas political economy is trying to apply recommendations to the real world. This is why you have such a huge disparity among economists within the exact same school of thought (i.e. Lange vs. Becker).




> I also would like to point out that I insulted an economist, not you at first, you provided the first personal attack, and I responded in kind.


Yes, but that's the entire point. A little prick like you insults somebody who is respected in their field and has studied economics for longer than you've been alive. He was wrong about one thing, oil prices, which many other economists and financial experts were also wrong about, yet you use it to call him a clown and then somehow use that to discredit his empirical studies of monopolies?

Not only is that insulting to anyone with a sense of honor, it's illogical and unreasonable.




> If I were ignorant of the subject, I would be ashamed, but I am not, and your circular reasoning, your flawed expanses of copy and paste nonsense isn't getting anywhere, and having fully read most of the garbage you have toyed with here, I do feel as if my intelligence has taken a hit, and your contorted version of reality is quite frustrating.


Do you really need to be wasting everyone's time with useless ad hominem attacks?




> So... with that said, your sly weaseling out of context and into a proper straw-man you have somehow set up a nice defended position around free market absolutism, of course by stretching the limitations on the definitions of "controlled" and "model".


Nope.




> I too could do what you are doing, with a proud label of "liberty" cloaking my actions against stagnant and destructive economic theory, I can cut and paste and ultimately paraphrase from the numerous wordy and biting essays of the Cato Institute, or the Mises Institute, and I could comeback to everyone's critique with the phrase "well that isn't a free market", or a "that isn't the proper definition"... all of this is wordplay and newspeak and propaganda of the ultimate lie wrapped around the protective warm uterus of our newest masters on this planet, the corporations. You are no champion of liberty, you are no champion of the free market, democracy, or for that matter, reason; and with Bronisław Geremek having died over the weekend, it looks as if Poland is without a foundation of common sense and rational discourse, if you are a prime example of what they are stacking this day and age.


You truly are an idiot of the highest order. Where have I copied and pasted things from Cato or LvMI? Examples/proof please.

Where have I used newspeak? I only pointed out the things I did about economic models to show your blatant stupidity and ignorance. The discussion of "what economic model you support" is completely irrelevant in the context you used it: there is no such thing as a "free market model."

Where have I said that I am the noblest fighter for liberty? I haven't even used the word "liberty" once in this thread.

Lastly, are you really being ethnocentrist, racist, and xenophobic? Wow. Just wow. Is that what you have to resort to in the face of reason? You don't know what you're talking about, so you have to throw around insults, not only at individuals, but at entire nations?

You should be ashamed of yourself.




> *1. What is your definition of "Monopoly" and does it differ from what is accepted in economic circles?*


I already answered that. Why don't you read my posts before you reply? That sounds like a really good idea.




> I've consistently defined my problem with this guy.
> 
> Here is a definition of Economic Model we can all work with, one that he seems to agree with me on, (yet attacks me for anyway):
> 
> *Economic Model
> 
> An economic model attempts to abstract from complex human behavior in a way that sheds some insight into a particular aspect of that behavior.  This process inherently ignores important aspects of real-world behavior, making the modeling process an art as well as a mathematical exercise.*
> 
> There are several ways of looking at these models, besides just using mathematical techniques... 
> ...


No, you copy and paste a definition for what an economic model is, yet you still don't have a clue what you're talking about? That's really sad.

Again, there is no such thing as a "free market model" or a "mixed economy model" or a "socialist model." An economic model is precisely a way to represent human action in a simple mathematical way that is easy to understand.

That's why you have the supply and demand curve and the PPF curve. It's easier to explain various actions economic agents carry out that way and their effect on the economy.

And I have yet to see you respond to one point I made in response to your OP in this thread. You're just running around in circles looking for excuses to slither out of a face-to-face debate.

----------


## Kade

> I defined a model and my first critique completely destroyed your points. 
> 
> Some Keynesians are more capitalistic than others. Two examples would be Greg Mankiw and Paul Krugman, even though they use the same models.
> 
> Economics and political economy are two different things. Economics as such is only the study of how individuals interact whereas political economy is trying to apply recommendations to the real world. This is why you have such a huge disparity among economists within the exact same school of thought (i.e. Lange vs. Becker).
> 
> 
> * A little prick like you insults somebody who is respected in their field and has studied economics for longer than you've been alive.* He was wrong about one thing, oil prices, which many other economists and financial experts were also wrong about, yet you use it to call him a clown and then somehow use that to discredit his empirical studies of monopolies?
> 
> ...


Sigh.

----------


## Kade

> I defined a model and my first critique completely destroyed your points. 
> 
> Some Keynesians are more capitalistic than others. Two examples would be Greg Mankiw and Paul Krugman, even though they use the same models.
> 
> Economics and political economy are two different things. Economics as such is only the study of how individuals interact whereas political economy is trying to apply recommendations to the real world. This is why you have such a huge disparity among economists within the exact same school of thought (i.e. Lange vs. Becker).
> 
> 
> * A little prick like you insults somebody who is respected in their field and has studied economics for longer than you've been alive.* He was wrong about one thing, oil prices, which many other economists and financial experts were also wrong about, yet you use it to call him a clown and then somehow use that to discredit his empirical studies of monopolies?
> 
> ...


Still not answering. I also never said "socialist model" are you ^%&^%* dense?

You made one good point in there, and the rest was more trash. I am trying to get away from the insults... you are not. 

Anyway I'll debate. 

Define monopoly.

----------


## krazy kaju

> Still not answering. I also never said "socialist model" are you ^%&^%* dense?
> 
> You made one good point in there, and the rest was more trash. I am trying to get away from the insults... you are not. 
> 
> Anyway I'll debate. 
> 
> Define monopoly.


_I already have defined monopoly. Please go back and reread my earlier posts where I have done so._

You calling me dense is beyond comprehension. You said "free market model," so by your definition there should be a "mixed economy model" and a "socialist model" as well. Yet, there is no such thing as a "free market," "mixed economy," or "socialist model." There are various mathematical models used to represent basic functions of the economy, yet different economists draw different conclusions form them in regards to political economy (e.g. Becker and Lange, Smith and Marx, Mankiw and Krugman).

You don't even know what you're talking about and you haven't even responded to one of my refutations of your contentions, yet saying I'm talking trash? You're the one who hasn't responded to any of my points in a respective manner, you're the one who has gone around insulting relatively well known and respected economists, and you're the one acting like a little prick.

Just grow up. Let's pretend this never happened and then maybe you should _actually respond to my refutation of your ideas._

----------


## pacelli

> I've never recommended any financials nor have I purchased shares in any.


Nor is it anyone's business whether you have or haven't.

----------


## Kade

> _I already have defined monopoly. Please go back and reread my earlier posts where I have done so._
> 
> You calling me dense is beyond comprehension. You said "free market model," so by your definition there should be a "mixed economy model" and a "socialist model" as well. Yet, there is no such thing as a "free market," "mixed economy," or "socialist model." There are various mathematical models used to represent basic functions of the economy, yet different economists draw different conclusions form them in regards to political economy (e.g. Becker and Lange, Smith and Marx, Mankiw and Krugman).
> 
> You don't even know what you're talking about and you haven't even responded to one of my refutations of your contentions, yet saying I'm talking trash? You're the one who hasn't responded to any of my points in a respective manner, you're the one who has gone around insulting relatively well known and respected economists, and you're the one acting like a little prick.
> 
> Just grow up. Let's pretend this never happened and then maybe you should _actually respond to my refutation of your ideas._


Monopoly.

----------


## Kade

> _I already have defined monopoly. Please go back and reread my earlier posts where I have done so._


*
3. Monopolies

Monopolies are not a problem in a free market. I often see many RP supporters not knowing what to say about monopolies.

Dominick T. Armentano is a leading economist in the study of markets and monopolies. I suggest you look at this and this.

The fact of the matter is that a true monopoly cannot exist in a free market. The larger businesses become the harder economic calculation gets, so 100% market share becomes impossible in a developed economy. However, companies like Microsoft that are labeled monopolies due to their rather large market share, are actually beneficial for people. Microsoft, for example, provided cheaper goods to more people and thus gained greater market share. Pepsi and Coca Cola could be considered an oligopoly, though both of them provide superior products to their competitors. Another example is Alcoa, which greatly cheapened aluminum and thus gained huge market share.

In each of these examples, these "monopolies" were actually beneficial to the people and the market. Also, in each of these examples, there were always competitors who were able to stop any price gouging by competing away market share.*

That really isn't a definition. All you said was that a monopoly is not possible in a free market.

Define Monopoly.

----------


## krazy kaju

*I have already defined monopoly in response to your OP in this thread. How many times do I have to tell you this?*

----------


## Kade

> *I have already defined monopoly in response to your OP in this thread. How many times do I have to tell you this?*


Okay. I admit that I cannot find it. Can you please show me where you defined Monopoly in this thread?

----------


## krazy kaju

Post #84 of this thread. It wasn't in response to you though, which probably contributed to the confusion.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Post #84 of this thread. It wasn't in response to you though, which probably contributed to the confusion.


you also said enough in post #15 to where any person wanting to reasonably understand the position you are coming from would:




> De Beers never was a monopoly. They have never had greater market share than 80%.
> ..
> ..
> ..
> Just that it is economically impossible for a single company to completely corner a market without government help, due to the problems of economic calculation on a massive scale.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that there never has been a true free market monopoly

----------


## Kade

> you also said enough in post #15 to where any person wanting to reasonably understand the position you are coming from would:


No, this is what I was looking for:
*
Monopoly is 100% market share. Free market is a market without any regulations beyond basic protection or natural rights.*

----------


## Kade

> Monopoly is 100% market share. Free market is a market without any regulations beyond basic protection or natural rights.



Okay we can work with this...

You and I can both agree that if a monopoly exists, it would not benefit civilized society, correct?

Do you consider an enterprise that has less than 100%, but sufficient control over a particular service or product as a monopoly as well? Must the proper language we use to describe pure oligopoly as 100% of the market share? If so why?

----------


## ARealConservative

> No, this is what I was looking for:
> *
> Monopoly is 100% market share. Free market is a market without any regulations beyond basic protection or natural rights.*


you can't completely corner a market without 100% market share so in every sense of the word, he defined monopoly in post #15.  

you both could do a better job of dealing with each other, but it looks like you both prefer pissing contests....which I can totally relate to.

----------


## Kade

> you can't completely corner a market without 100% market share so in every sense of the word, he defined monopoly in post #15.  
> 
> you both could do a better job of dealing with each other, but it looks like you both prefer pissing contests....which I can totally relate to.


I don't consider counter negation as a sufficient definition of something... he defined monopoly as "not this", and then preceded to quantify that with a "because of this".

"*A monopoly cannot exist in a free market.*"

This is an almost pure tautology. Especially when he defines monopoly in context of a free market, ie, as in percentage of shares.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> I don't consider counter negation as a sufficient definition of something... he defined monopoly as "not this", and then preceded to quantify that with a "because of this".
> 
> "*A monopoly cannot exist in a free market.*"
> 
> This is an almost pure tautology. Especially when he defines monopoly in context of a free market, ie, as in percentage of shares.


Shares in what, Kade? Please be more specific 

I think it's funny you pursue arguing with kaju, who obviously knows a great deal more on the subject than you do. If I recall correctly, you thought "free market" was an economic model. Why is it you have to argue with someone on a topic you have no understanding of?

----------


## krazy kaju

> I don't consider counter negation as a sufficient definition of something... he defined monopoly as "not this", and then preceded to quantify that with a "because of this".
> 
> "*A monopoly cannot exist in a free market.*"
> 
> This is an almost pure tautology. Especially when he defines monopoly in context of a free market, ie, as in percentage of shares.


Wrong. A monopoly, by definition, is a business that has 100% market share. There are no other businesses that provide the same product and the monopoly can raise prices and if necessary drive any potential competitors out of the market.



Take this from the American Heritage Dictionary:

   1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently ... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (Milton Friedman).
   2. Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
   3.
         1. A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
         2. A commodity or service so controlled.
         3. Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
         4. Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.
   4.
         1. Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
         2. Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.


All of these are simply longer ways of saying "100% market share." The only historical examples of free market monopolies are "first mover cases" - when a company or business comes up with a new product that nobody else is selling. The first business to sell telephones would've been a "monopoly" in this case.

However, such monopolies never hold in a free market because competitors will try to innovate and create cheaper and/or better products. Furthermore, the claims made recently that Microsoft is a monopoly or that Alcoa was a monopoly are just absurd. Microsoft has large market share not because it uses coercive practices but because consumers choose to purchase Microsoft products over, say, Unix and Mac products. It is an entirely voluntary transaction and it shows that for one reason or another consumers value Microsoft over its competitors.

The same was true with Alcoa. When Alcoa was brought to court many years ago for being a monopoly it only had large market share because it changed aluminum from a very expensive metal to one of the cheapest metals ever. Is this kind of competition bad? No. Did Alcoa have the market "cornered" and was it able to control prices? No.

Kade's own example of De Beers is an example of government enforced monopoly. The governments of Tanzania, Kenya, and a few other nations grant control over their mines to De Beers. They do not let the highest bidder or the people who homesteaded control them. Instead, they seize the mines and give 50% share to De Beers. This isn't a failure of the free market, but a failure of government.

Kade has yet to show *one* measly example of a free market monopoly ever existing.

Furthermore, free market monopolies are impossible. Besides the fact that competition can always bring a monopoly to its knees, no single company can develop the economy of scale to control an entire market. The larger a corporation gets, the more bureaucratic it gets, the more waste it produces, and the less competitive it becomes. This is the problem with our sprawling government right now and with every government created monopoly.

----------


## Kade

> Shares in what, Kade? Please be more specific 
> 
> I think it's funny you pursue arguing with kaju, who obviously knows a great deal more on the subject than you do. If I recall correctly, you thought "free market" was an economic model. Why is it you have to argue with someone on a topic you have no understanding of?


You are way out of this loop... but I can humor you.. he used the word shares not me, so by proxy you have attacked him. Nice.

And in my op, I did say "free market" was an economic model, (which it is) however, we are apparently working with Kaju's personal definitions. So I invite you to join in on that.

----------


## Kade

> Wrong. A monopoly, by definition, is a business that has 100% market share. There are no other businesses that provide the same product and the monopoly can raise prices and if necessary drive any potential competitors out of the market.
> 
> 
> 
> Take this from the American Heritage Dictionary:
> 
>    1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently ... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (Milton Friedman).
>    2. Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
>    3.
> ...


Chill dude. Please. I have enough enemies on this forum. What am I wrong about, I merely posted what you wrote.

I can't give you an example of monopoly till you and I properly define monopoly. 

I wrote:
_
You and I can both agree that if a monopoly exists, it would not benefit civilized society, correct?

Do you consider an enterprise that has less than 100%, but sufficient control over a particular service or product as a monopoly as well? Must the proper language we use to describe pure oligopoly as 100% of the market share? If so why?
_

This is what I would like you to respond to...

----------


## krazy kaju

> You are way out of this loop... by I can humor you.. he used the word shares not me, so by proxy you have attacked him. Nice.


Market shares. Do you even know what that means?




> And in my op, I did say "free market" was an economic model, (which it is) however, we are apparently working with Kaju's personal definitions. So I invite you to join in on that.


No. You're so blatantly ignorant that it's beyond my comprehension how anyone can be so blind to not see the information spoon fed to them. The entire economic community accepts that an economic model is something like the supply and demand curve or IS/LM or Pareto efficiency equilibrium. Yet you forge on and make your own definitions like a "free market model."

There is no such thing. Economic models and political economy do not mix. One is scientific in nature, one is political/philosophical in nature. Different economists derive different political ideas from models. Like how Lange went against the entire neoclassical school in using Pareto efficiency as a justification for socialism.

----------


## krazy kaju

> Chill dude. Please. I have enough enemies on this forum. What am I wrong about, I merely posted what you wrote.
> 
> I can't give you an example of monopoly till you and I properly define monopoly. 
> 
> I wrote:
> _
> You and I can both agree that if a monopoly exists, it would not benefit civilized society, correct?
> 
> Do you consider an enterprise that has less than 100%, but sufficient control over a particular service or product as a monopoly as well? Must the proper language we use to describe pure oligopoly as 100% of the market share? If so why?
> ...


I should chill? I won't chill until you end your shrill, insulting, and ignorant behavior.

If you can show one example of a company having below 100% market share IN THE FREE MARKET, but being able to "corner the market," and control prices, you are right that these are monopolies and that we need anti-trust laws.

The problem with this reasoning is that it has never happened and cannot happen. All examples of monopolies, from your local cable utilities to Bell Telephone Company, are examples of government intervention killing competition.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Market shares. Do you even know what that means?
> 
> 
> 
> No. You're so blatantly ignorant that it's beyond my comprehension how anyone can be so blind to not see the information spoon fed to them. The entire economic community accepts that an economic model is something like the supply and demand curve or IS/LM or Pareto efficiency equilibrium. Yet you forge on and make your own definitions like a "free market model."
> 
> There is no such thing. Economic models and political economy do not mix. One is scientific in nature, one is political/philosophical in nature. Different economists derive different political ideas from models. Like how Lange went against the entire neoclassical school in using Pareto efficiency as a justification for socialism.


Exactly what I'm saying. He has no idea what he's talking about. It's downright obnoxious when someone preaches ignorance.

----------


## Kade

> Market shares. Do you even know what that means?


A market share is a piece of ultimately available services, products, or information that is being serviced by a company.




> *No. You're so blatantly ignorant* that it's beyond my comprehension how anyone can be so blind to not see the information spoon fed to them.


I am far better at insulting people than you are. I am asking one more time for you to stop.




> The entire economic community accepts that an economic model is something like the supply and demand curve or IS/LM or Pareto efficiency equilibrium. Yet you forge on and make your own definitions like a "free market model."


We haven't set a proper parameter for you to assume anything yet... you, understandably avoided allowing a definition of economic model to include competing concepts.




> There is no such thing. Economic models and political economy do not mix. One is scientific in nature, one is political/philosophical in nature. Different economists derive different political ideas from models. Like how Lange went against the entire neoclassical school in using Pareto efficiency as a justification for socialism.


Which do you prefer to deal with... if we do the scientific one, which I ask that we do, we must start with proper definitions, which brings me back to this: 
_
Do you consider an enterprise that has less than 100%, but sufficient control over a particular service or product as a monopoly as well? Must the proper language we use to describe pure oligopoly as 100% of the market share? If so why?_

----------


## krazy kaju

> A market share is a piece of ultimately available services, products, or information that is being serviced by a company.


Good, at least we know you can use google.




> I am far better at insulting people than you are.


At least we know who was more popular in third grade, right?




> I am asking one more time for you to stop.


Listen you little prick. You should've stopped a long time ago. You shouldn't have even started. As I've said repeatedly, first you insult a relatively well-known and well-respected economist for making a bad call that many other economists also made.

Second, you insult me and then *my entire nationality*. Do you feel any shame?




> We haven't set a proper parameter for you to assume anything yet... you, understandably avoided allowing a definition of economic model to include competing concepts.


Why don't you try to provide one example of a free market monopoly existing?

Oh, that's right, because they're practically and theoretically impossible.




> Which do you prefer to deal with... if we do the scientific one, which I ask that we do, we must start with proper definitions, which brings me back to this: 
> _
> Do you consider an enterprise that has less than 100%, but sufficient control over a particular service or product as a monopoly as well? Must the proper language we use to describe pure oligopoly as 100% of the market share? If so why?_


Maybe you should read posts before you quote them.

----------


## Kade

> Good, at least we know you can use google.
> 
> 
> 
> At least we know who was more popular in third grade, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you little prick. You should've stopped a long time ago. You shouldn't have even started. As I've said repeatedly, first you insult a relatively well-known and well-respected economist for making a bad call that many other economists also made.
> ...


No, you listen you stupid little $#@!. 

I can't offer you a example of free market monopoly because you can't define your head out of your own ass. Since you are going to target my grammar, isn't Google a proper noun?

Try "googling" "Ignorant Rabble".

----------


## Kade

> Exactly what I'm saying. He has no idea what he's talking about. It's downright obnoxious when someone preaches ignorance.


And you, coming onto a thread without any real reason. If you are an example of what it is to "know what I am talking about" I'd rather eat my own hand off.

----------


## krazy kaju

> No, you listen you stupid little $#@!. 
> 
> I can't offer you a example of free market monopoly because you can't define your head out of your own ass. Since you are going to target my grammar, isn't Google a proper noun?
> 
> Try "googling" "Ignorant Rabble".


Back to your old little games. *I'VE ALREADY DEFINED WHAT A MONOPOLY IS, UNLESS YOU FAILED FIRST GRADE YOU SHOULD HAVE REALIZED BY NOW.*

More ad homs, more shamelessness. You're pathetic.

----------


## Kade

You know, I'll tell you what I am tired of... 

Copy and Paste "experts" like this clown with a Firefox browser/dictionary and a few Cato papers on his tabs. 

You can smoke them out of their holes with a few very simple questions that they seem absolutely incapable of answering... 

"I'm a traveling assclown, and according to my definition of what a "free market" is, and my definition of "monopoly", I can't be touched, because they cancel each other out!"

Rothbardians can eat my ass. I tried to be reasonable. This fledgling blister of pseudo-intellectualism is a toolshed of stupid.

----------


## Kade

> Back to your old little games. *I'VE ALREADY DEFINED WHAT A MONOPOLY IS, UNLESS YOU FAILED FIRST GRADE YOU SHOULD HAVE REALIZED BY NOW.*
> 
> More ad homs, more shamelessness. You're pathetic.


*DOES AN ENTERPRISE THAT HAS LESS THAN 100% OF MARKET SHARE EVER COUNT AS A MONOPOLY?*

You are thick. And I mean really **cking thick man.

----------


## IRO-bot

This could be one badass debate if you two would quit the namecalling and define some terms.

----------


## Kade

And you are one to lecture me. Every time I let someone go, let them talk out of their ass, it gets carried away... of course I'm going to resort to this, I offered respect, and in return you shat your brain on the table, what little there was.

You are nothing more than a sniveling little $#@! with a cheap keyboard and a state-owned laptop probably fresh out of a 101 course on Rothbardian economics. Toolshed.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> And you, coming onto a thread without any real reason. If you are an example of what it is to "know what I am talking about" I'd rather eat my own hand off.


No, because you never shut up. All you do is open your mouth and talk trash. 

Back your claims up with something. You've never provided one piece of evidence to support anything you say and then you insult people. Again, you should be banned.

You don't know what you're talking about here and google isn't going to educate you. You're ignorant and insulting and I'm not saying that to put you down. It's a fact. 

If you're going to spew garbage everywhere and make ludicrous claims be prepared to back them up. Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true.

----------


## krazy kaju

> You know, I'll tell you what I am tired of... 
> 
> Copy and Paste "experts" like this clown with a Firefox browse and a few Cato papers on his tabs. 
> 
> You can smoke them out of their holes with a few very simple questions that they seem absolutely incapable of answering... 
> 
> "I'm a traveling assclown, and according to my definition of what a "free market" is, and my definition of "monopoly", I can't be touched, because they cancel each other out!"
> 
> Rothbardians can eat my ass. I tried to be reasonable. This fledgling blister of pseudo-intellectualism is a toolshed of stupid.


You have not challenged ONE of my refutations of your contentions. You refuse to debate, instead playing a game of definitions and throwing around insults. I have not copy and pasted one thing, I have not called myself an expert, but you challenged me to a debate and I stood up and refuted every single one of your contentions.

Then you switch to some odd "what do you propose in place of a free market model" bull$#@!. What is that even supposed to mean? Where have I proposed anything besides a free market? Furthermore, how is the free market an economic model?

Then you switch to asking me to define a monopoly. If you had the reading comprehension of a seven year old you would've comprehended what I was saying in numerous previous posts.

You're just one giant progressive tool, a socialist in sheep's clothing. You don't even know what you're talking about. Every single response you've made has been besides the point and filled with *racial hatred*, ignorance, and insults.

Just GTFO.

----------


## Kade

> No, because you never shut up. All you do is open your mouth and talk trash. 
> 
> Back your claims up with something. You've never provided one piece of evidence to support anything you say and then you insult people. Again, you should be banned.
> 
> You don't know what you're talking about here and google isn't going to educate you. You're ignorant and insulting and I'm not saying that to put you down. It's a fact. 
> 
> If you're going to spew garbage everywhere and make ludicrous claims be prepared to back them up. Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true.

----------


## krazy kaju

> *DOES AN ENTERPRISE THAT HAS LESS THAN 100% OF MARKET SHARE EVER COUNT AS A MONOPOLY?*
> 
> You are thick. And I mean really **cking thick man.


Did you pass first grade?

Read the damn thread.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> This could be one badass debate if you two would quit the namecalling and define some terms.


IRO, you clearly don't read through posts. In one post you criticized me, yet you didn't even read it fully. You might want to go take a look at how I responded if you never did. Kaju has been articulate and precise with his argument. All Kade does is stick his fingers in his ears and whine. 

I suggest you post something productive or refrain from fueling the fire. Kaju could teach a class with his postings. He knows what he's talking about.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> 


Put up or shut up, Kade. You've never defended any of your positions. All you can do is argue aimlessly and blindly. It's obnoxious.

Posting rude pictures and insults doesn't validate any of your opinions. If anything, it discredits you more than you've done to yourself. Want to know why you have so many enemies on the board? Look at the ignorance you've shown. Are you still in high school, Kade?

----------


## Kade

> You have not challenged ONE of my refutations of your contentions. You refuse to debate, instead playing a game of definitions and throwing around insults. I have not copy and pasted one thing, I have not called myself an expert, but you challenged me to a debate and I stood up and refuted every single one of your contentions.
> 
> Then you switch to some odd "what do you propose in place of a free market model" bull$#@!. What is that even supposed to mean? Where have I proposed anything besides a free market? Furthermore, how is the free market an economic model?
> 
> Then you switch to asking me to define a monopoly. If you had the reading comprehension of a seven year old you would've comprehended what I was saying in numerous previous posts.
> 
> You're just one giant progressive tool, a socialist in sheep's clothing. You don't even know what you're talking about. Every single response you've made has been besides the point and filled with *racial hatred*, ignorance, and insults.
> 
> Just GTFO.


Alright tooly, let's start over. 

Real simple here... like a nice warm bath...okay chief? This ought to be easy for you...

You ready?
_
Is it conceivable that a monopoly can exist if it does NOT have 100% of the market share? In other words, is there a threshold for sufficient control over a product or service, or for that matter information?_

----------


## Kade

> Put up or shut up, Kade. You've never defended any of your positions. All you can do is argue aimlessly and blindly. It's obnoxious.


I haven't taken a position yet you troglodyte.

----------


## Kade

> Kaju could teach a class with his postings. He knows what he's talking about.

----------


## Kade

> Did you pass first grade?
> 
> Read the damn thread.


You don't get it. You don't refute someone by pointing them back towards your copy and paste jobs...

Sorry. This one you will have to think of on your own chief... you can do it.

----------


## krazy kaju

Kade, seriously. READ THE DAMN THREAD.

But since I don't want your idiocy filling another two pages with "define monopoly," I'll spare you the supposedly intellectually challenging process of reading a few posts.

Technically speaking, a monopoly cannot exist unless it has 100% market share. But as I've stated *time and time again*, it is impossible for a company to have "monopoly control" (i.e. controlling prices) without 100% market share. This leaves us in the same exact place we've been 10 or so pages ago, so I guess I'll have to ask you the same exact question I've been asking you all along.

Can you provide one example of a single business, corporation, etc. being able to corner the market and unfairly dictating prices in a free market?

----------


## krazy kaju

> You don't get it. You don't refute someone by pointing them back towards your copy and paste jobs...
> 
> Sorry. This one you will have to think of on your own chief... you can do it.


Where have I copy and posted anything?

Stop spewing $#@! out of your mouth, it's unhygienic.

----------


## Kade

> Where have I copy and posted anything?
> 
> Stop spewing $#@! out of your mouth, it's unhygienic.


Sigh.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Alright tooly, let's start over. 
> 
> Real simple here... like a nice warm bath...okay chief? This ought to be easy for you...
> 
> You ready?
> _
> Is it conceivable that a monopoly can exist if it does NOT have 100% of the market share? In other words, is there a threshold for sufficient control over a product or service, or for that matter information?_


All you need to do is look up the definition of monopoly to answer that question, Kade. You're just being ignorant. You're throwing around terms dealing with monopoly, but you don't even know what it means.

Monopoly -  a market in which there are many buyers but only *one seller*
Monopoly - Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service
Monopoly -  A monopoly is when a business, usually a large corporation, is the only provider of a good or service. Monopolies are usually bad for an economy because they restrict free trade, which allows the market itself to set prices.

If you are the only one who produces and sells a computer, don't you have 100 percent of that market share? I mean, come on. It's one thing to not understand, but you're being blatantly ignorant...or you can't read. It's in the darn definition if you take the time to look it up.

----------


## IRO-bot

> IRO, you clearly don't read through posts. In one post you criticized me, yet you didn't even read it fully. You might want to go take a look at how I responded if you never did. Kaju has been articulate and precise with his argument. All Kade does is stick his fingers in his ears and whine. 
> 
> I suggest you post something productive or refrain from fueling the fire. Kaju could teach a class with his postings. He knows what he's talking about.


If I have I have forgetten it.  Link it for me if you could be so kind.  You are fueling the fire too with your insults to Kade and manloving to Kaju.

I haven't made a claim about Kaju not Kade.  I know they both are highly intellegent.  They both need to calm down.  I know Kade has a bad temper.  I want to see a REAL debate so I can get educated.  I would like a "reset" button.  Define the terms of what this and that means and start the debate.  One sided arguements are boring.

----------


## krazy kaju

So are you finally going to give in and debate are you going to continue being a bitch, Kade?

----------


## Kade

> Kade, seriously. READ THE DAMN THREAD.
> 
> But since I don't want your idiocy filling another two pages with "define monopoly," I'll spare you the supposedly intellectually challenging process of reading a few posts.
> 
> Technically speaking, a monopoly cannot exist unless it has 100% market share. But as I've stated *time and time again*, it is impossible for a company to have "monopoly control" (i.e. controlling prices) without 100% market share. This leaves us in the same exact place we've been 10 or so pages ago, so I guess I'll have to ask you the same exact question I've been asking you all along.
> 
> *Can you provide one example of a single business, corporation, etc. being able to corner the market and unfairly dictating prices in a free market?*


I cannot provide an example, given your constraint of what entails a monopoly of one ever have existing. 

I also can't give you an example of a true free market economy either....

----------


## krazy kaju

So you can't show how a monopoly could exist in a free market?

Why did you post in this thread in the first place?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> If I have I have forgetten it.  Link it for me if you could be so kind.  You are fueling the fire too with your insults to Kade and manloving to Kaju.
> 
> I haven't made a claim about Kaju not Kade.  I know they both are highly intellegent.  They both need to calm down.  I know Kade has a bad temper.  I want to see a REAL debate so I can get educated.  I would like a "reset" button.  Define the terms of what this and that means and start the debate.  One sided arguements are boring.


1. If you read from page one as opposed to the last page of the thread you'd see kaju is trying to have a real debate. 2. It's intelligent. 3. If you definite intelligence by insults and opinions without evidence to support them, then yes. Kade is intelligent.

----------


## krazy kaju

BTW, Kade, your signature is really cute. I didn't even know you're that immature.

----------


## Kade

> So you can't show how a monopoly could exist in a free market?
> 
> Why did you post in this thread in the first place?


Because I believe your definition of a monopoly is insufficient. I believe that an enterprise can be monopolistic if it controls a sufficient amount of control over prices, goods, services, or information.

----------


## micahnelson



----------


## Kade

> BTW, Kade, your signature is really cute. I didn't even know you're that immature.


Look, you can look to my earlier posts and see that I stopped insulting you, and tried to be respectful, and you kept pushing. It may be immature, but it seems to work.

Can't argue with experience... or is that something you want to chime in on?

Why do you think I have Rockandroll all riled up? If he just apologized for being an autistic anus originally, I would gladly remove the signature.

----------


## yongrel

What began as an informative and illuminating thread clarifying the nuances as well as the big picture of Austrian economics has now become a cluster$#@!.

That is all.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Because I believe your definition of a monopoly is insufficient. I believe that an enterprise can be monopolistic if it controls a sufficient amount of control over prices, goods, services, or information.


No. Just because that's what YOU think a monopoly is doesn't mean it's so. Go read the official definitions I've posted. If Apple makes 99.9 percent of all the computers in the world and sells that many and I make .1 of them, apple still isn't even considered a monopoly.

Would you consider that a monopoly? If so, then you'd be wrong. And, that's not by my standards. That's according to an official definition.

----------


## krazy kaju

> Because I believe your definition of a monopoly is insufficient. I believe that an enterprise can be monopolistic if it controls a sufficient amount of control over prices, goods, services, or information.


You're retarded:




> Can you provide one example of a single business, corporation, etc. being able to corner the market and unfairly dictating prices in a free market?


Post #150

----------


## IRO-bot

> 1. If you read from page one as opposed to the last page of the thread you'd see kaju is trying to have a real debate. 2. It's intelligent. 3. If you definite intelligence by insults and opinions without evidence to support them, then yes. Kade is intelligent.


Can you quote where I said Kaju wasn't trying to have a real debate? 

As to your 3. Kade may have started it but it takes a better man not to follow.  I have seen some very childish remarks coming from Kaju.

Oh, and finally.  What I believe is more inlined with Kaju than Kade.  I am trying to learn more about the ABCT and the free-market as propsed by the Austrians.

Kade belives that there are a few things that shouldn't be left up to the market.  I always listen to his reasons and thoughts.  He doesn't always yell at people.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Can you quote where I said Kaju wasn't trying to have a real debate? 
> 
> As to your 3. Kade may have started it but it takes a better man not to follow.  I have seen some very childish remarks coming from Kaju.
> 
> Oh, and finally.  What I believe is more inlined with Kaju than Kade.  I am trying to learn more about the ABCT and the free-market as propsed by the Austrians.
> 
> Kade belives that there are a few things that shouldn't be left up to the market.  I always listen to his reasons and thoughts.  He doesn't always yell at people.


He can believe what he wants. I have a problem with him posting his beliefs as fact without backing them up with evidence.

----------


## Kade

> You're retarded:
> 
> 
> 
> Post #150


Again, you have resorted to what I thought would be the end to this nonsense...

----------


## Kade

> He can believe what he wants. I have a problem with him posting his beliefs as fact without backing them up with evidence.


What did I post as fact?

----------


## ARealConservative

> You're retarded:
> 
> 
> 
> Post #150


sorry Kade, but this is fast becoming an axiom on these forums.  

It also seems to be the norm for you to use the signature feature in a crass manner when someone proves capable of debating you.  If anything, please eliminate that nonsense now.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> What did I post as fact?


Are you going to respond to the definitions of monopoly I've posted, as well as the example I've provided? Please, do. Don't just ignore it.

----------


## krazy kaju

Kade:

_I believe that an enterprise can be monopolistic if it controls a sufficient amount of control over prices, goods, services, or information._

Kaju, a few posts before:

_Can you provide one example of a single business, corporation, etc. being able to corner the market and unfairly dictating prices in a free market?_

I'm asking you to provide just one pathetic little example of a company that was not given an unfair advantage by government being able to control the market.

----------


## Kade

> sorry Kade, but this is fast becoming an axiom on these forums.  
> 
> It also seems to be the norm for you to use the signature feature in a crass manner when someone proves capable of debating you.  If anything, please eliminate that nonsense now.


My retardation as a self-evident truth? That makes little sense.

----------


## DrYongrel



----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Kade:
> 
> _I believe that an enterprise can be monopolistic if it controls a sufficient amount of control over prices, goods, services, or information._
> 
> Kaju, a few posts before:
> 
> _Can you provide one example of a single business, corporation, etc. being able to corner the market and unfairly dictating prices in a free market?_
> 
> I'm asking you to provide just one pathetic little example of a company that was not given an unfair advantage by government being able to control the market.


Not only can he not provide an example, his use of monopolistic doesn't even make sense. I've defined a monopoly. Even if the conditions kade described were to be in place, that would not make an enterprise monopolistic. He can believe it if he wants, but it's just flat out wrong according to the definition. Wrong use of the word, and a clear lack of understand of it.

----------


## Kade

> Kade:
> 
> _I believe that an enterprise can be monopolistic if it controls a sufficient amount of control over prices, goods, services, or information._
> 
> Kaju, a few posts before:
> 
> _Can you provide one example of a single business, corporation, etc. being able to corner the market and unfairly dictating prices in a free market?_
> 
> I'm asking you to provide just one pathetic little example of a company that was not given an unfair advantage by government being able to control the market.


There are no examples of a free market *krazy kaju*. It would be impossible for me to provide an example of a monopoly existing in a non-existent economy.

----------


## krazy kaju

So your claim falls Kade. You can't provide one theoretical nor one real life example of a business being able to corner a market without unfair advantage.

Why are you even trying to debate?

----------


## Kade

> Not only can he not provide an example, his use of monopolistic doesn't even make sense. I've defined a monopoly. Even if the conditions kade described were to be in place, that would not make an enterprise monopolistic. He can believe it if he wants, but it's just flat out wrong according to the definition. Wrong use of the word, and a clear lack of understand of it.


I'm sorry *rockandrollsouls*, can you please reduce your level of *fail*?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> My retardation as a self-evident truth? That makes little sense.


Kade, are you going to respond to the definitions of monopoly along with my example?

What about your wrong use of the term "monopolistic?" A company cannot be considered a monopoly unless it has 100% of the market share.

----------


## IRO-bot

Kaju, I believe Kade way back before the fighting if you felt there should be competition for economic models?  Do you believe this?

He also asked what models would you suggest?

(I was hoping for these answers, unless I missed them)

----------


## ARealConservative

> My retardation as a self-evident truth? That makes little sense.


Hence the axiom.  it doesn't have to make sense when it is self evident.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> I'm sorry *rockandrollsouls*, can you please reduce your level of *fail*?


Kade, I'm asking you honestly and sincerely without posting insults. Will you respond to the evidence, definitions, and examples I've provided? Will you make a remark on your statement based on this evidence? Will you give a proper response that isn't just an insult?

----------


## Kade

> Kade, are you going to respond to the definitions of monopoly along with my example?
> 
> What about your wrong use of the term "monopolistic?" *A company cannot be considered a monopoly unless it has 100% of the market share.*


Only technically. In practice, there were, and exist today, real monopolies. These monopolies are, in theory, protected by Government regulation. I believe you are wrong, I believe it does not require 100% of the market share. I believe an enterprise can be a monopoly if it exhibits sufficient control of everything from prices, to the level of economic competition.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Kaju, I believe Kade way back before the fighting if you felt there should be competition for economic models?  Do you believe this?
> 
> He also asked what models would you suggest?
> 
> (I was hoping for these answers, unless I missed them)


IRO, you missed em. You must think that Kade's use of the term "free market model" made it an economic model. This is false. The free market is not an economic model. An economic model would be something similar to the supply and demand curve.

----------


## krazy kaju

> Kaju, I believe Kade way back before the fighting if you felt there should be competition for economic models?  Do you believe this?
> 
> He also asked what models would you suggest?
> 
> (I was hoping for these answers, unless I missed them)


I don't even know what that means. An economic model is purely mathematical.

What he's trying to ask is whether I believe a market should have competition, and I do. What he's trying to get at is that monopolies prevent competition. What he's failing to realize is that it is impossible for a business to gain complete control over a market to prevent competition.

----------


## IRO-bot

Also, Kaju, or rockandrollsouls, i guess,  Rock said earlier that if MAC had 99.9% of the market share and he had .1% how is that essentially not a monopoly, and controlling of prices, etc.

----------


## krazy kaju

> Only technically. In practice, there were, and exist today, real monopolies. These monopolies are, in theory, protected by Government regulation. I believe you are wrong, I believe it does not require 100% of the market share. I believe an enterprise can be a monopoly if it exhibits sufficient control of everything from prices, to the level of economic competition.


Then provide one example of a monopoly existing where it is not granted exclusively by government. Light regulations can exist.

----------


## Kade

> IRO, you missed em. You must think that Kade's use of the term "free market model" made it an economic model. This is false. The free market is not an economic model. An economic model would be something similar to the supply and demand curve.


Yes, kaju has made it clear that he refuses to think of a free market (something that has never really existed) as a model.

This was part of the original contention. I do view the concept of a free market as a broad and simplistic model that can be used to develop economic policy.

----------


## IRO-bot

> I don't even know what that means. An economic model is purely mathematical.
> 
> What he's trying to ask is whether I believe a market should have competition, and I do. What he's trying to get at is that monopolies prevent competition. What he's failing to realize is that it is impossible for a business to gain complete control over a market to prevent competition.


I think what it meant was What people believe is correct.  As in Austrian, Keysian, etc....maybe.  edit: or aparantly a real model.  *shrugs*  I am the one learning here.

Anyways,  thank you for the responses Rock and Kaju.

----------


## krazy kaju

> Also, Kaju, or rockandrollsouls, i guess,  Rock said earlier that if MAC had 99.9% of the market share and he had .1% how is that essentially not a monopoly, and controlling of prices, etc.


Did Mac ever have 99.9% market share? Was this only the result of the "first mover" situation? Did Mac control prices unfairly? Was Mac able to prevent competitors from entering the market?

You people need to learn to think critically for yourself.

----------


## Kade

> Then provide one example of a monopoly existing where it is not granted exclusively by government. Light regulations can exist.


The old salt monopolies come to mind.

----------


## krazy kaju

> Yes, kaju has made it clear that he refuses to think of a free market (something that has never really existed) as a model.
> 
> This was part of the original contention. I do view the concept of a free market as a broad and simplistic model that can be used to develop economic policy.


A political economy cannot be an economic model. A model and an economic system are two entirely different things. What are you even trying to get at?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Only technically. In practice, there were, and exist today, real monopolies. These monopolies are, in theory, protected by Government regulation. I believe you are wrong, I believe it does not require 100% of the market share. I believe an enterprise can be a monopoly if it exhibits sufficient control of everything from prices, to the level of economic competition.


Kade, according to the definition it DOES require 100 percent of the market share to be a monopoly. Just because you disagree doesn't make common knowledge wrong. I can believe the sky is green but it doesn't make it so. You believe that sufficient control, or however you put it, makes an enterprise a monopoly, but it's WRONG. It's factually WRONG. There are no monopolies right now that I'm aware of, and when we did have a monopoly it was due to government involvement.

----------


## krazy kaju

> The old salt monopolies come to mind.


You know, references, sources, etc. would be welcome.

----------


## Kade

> Kade, according to the definition it DOES require 100 percent of the market share to be a monopoly. Just because you disagree doesn't make common knowledge wrong. I can believe the sky is green but it doesn't make it so. You believe that sufficient control, or however you put it, makes an enterprise a monopoly, but it's WRONG. It's factually WRONG. There are no monopolies right now that I'm aware of, and when we did have a monopoly it was due to government involvement.


It matters if you believe that something as potentially damaging to a society (such a monopoly) ought not to be defined merely by technical terms... improperly at that. I am not alone in my definition.

----------


## DrYongrel



----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Did Mac ever have 99.9% market share? Was this only the result of the "first mover" situation? Did Mac control prices unfairly? Was Mac able to prevent competitors from entering the market?
> 
> You people need to learn to think critically for yourself.


Even if it did have 99.9 percent market share it wouldn't be considered a monopoly, and iro and kade don't get it. 100 percent people. They can think a large market share is unfair and "wrong" but it doesn't mean it's a monopoly.

----------


## Kade

> You know, references, sources, etc. would be welcome.


Sorry. I will find some for you.

----------


## DrYongrel



----------


## rockandrollsouls

> It matters if you believe that something as potentially damaging to a society (such a monopoly) ought not to be defined merely by technical terms... improperly at that. I am not alone in my definition.


No no no. Kade, this is where we differ. Just because you think the definition ought to be something else doesn't make it so. You're definition is wrong. I can define clouds as fluffy sugary marshmallows you can sleep on but it doesn't mean it's right. You can't go and throw around terms that you aren't using correctly and then say "well, that's according to my definition."

Also, you might want to research what an economic model is. Austrian economics is not an economic model. 

Economic Model - An economic model attempts to abstract from complex human behavior in a way that sheds some insight into a particular aspect of that behavior.
Economic Model - A model is a theoretical construct that represents economic processes by a set of variables and a set of logical and quantitative relationships between them.

You can say a model is different according to your definition, but that doesn't make it so either.

----------


## Kade

> Even if it did have 99.9 percent market share it wouldn't be considered a monopoly, and iro and kade don't get it. 100 percent people. They can think a large market share is unfair and "wrong" but it doesn't mean it's a monopoly.


See, I have issue with this, and I imagine if kaju is as clever as I think he is, he would know that you are doing him a disservice by responding...

There is no reason to argue against monopolies if you believe that 99.9% of market share is acceptable in terms of economic competition. 

Thus, I could end the debate with a simple social commentary. I am instead trying to establish the talking points for a debate on the original thesis of this thread.

----------


## Kade

This example might be poor, but it gives access to some of the information I claimed.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> See, I have issue with this, and I imagine if kaju is as clever as I think he is, he would know that you are doing him a disservice by responding...
> 
> There is no reason to argue against monopolies if you believe that 99.9% of market share is acceptable in terms of economic competition. 
> 
> Thus, I could end the debate with a simple social commentary. I am instead trying to establish the talking points for a debate on the original thesis of this thread.


Kade, the bottom line is your definition of a monopoly is not the definition of a monopoly. You can't go around calling things monopolies when they aren't. You're definition isn't the correct one. Hell, I may not agree with a 99.9 percent market share for an entity but that doesn't mean my warped definition applies.

Also, you might want to research what an economic model is. Austrian economics is not an economic model. 

Just because you disagree doesn't mean the real definition is wrong and you are right.

Economic Model - An economic model attempts to abstract from complex human behavior in a way that sheds some insight into a particular aspect of that behavior.
Economic Model - A model is a theoretical construct that represents economic processes by a set of variables and a set of logical and quantitative relationships between them.

You can say a model is different according to your definition, but that doesn't make it so either.

----------


## DrYongrel



----------


## Kade

Salt monopolies also existed in China, http://www.salt.org.il/china1.html, and in France and Japan. Although I don't think, because of the Gabelles, that France counts as an example.

----------


## Kade

> 


I can't see any of these pictures. I imagine that is a good thing.

----------


## krazy kaju

Yongrel, LOL.

The key to the entire "monopoly" debate is whether or not a single business can effectively corner the market and demand unfair prices. This is not possible unless government intervention is present. Restrictive regulations, large entry fees, explicit government-granted or government-created monopolies, etc.

I have yet to see an example of price gouging existing where competition is allowed to occur.

----------


## DrYongrel

> Yongrel, LOL.
> 
> The key to the entire "monopoly" debate is whether or not a single business can effectively corner the market and demand unfair prices. This is not possible unless government intervention is present. Restrictive regulations, large entry fees, explicit government-granted or government-created monopolies, etc.
> 
> I have yet to see an example of price gouging existing where competition is allowed to occur.


I agree with you. I'm just an old fashioned austrian, but with a funny hat.

I also have a low tolerance for "you're stupid! No, YOU'RE stupid" threads, having worn away my patience by participating in plenty of my own.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Don't forget, there is a fine like between Oligopoly and Monopoly. Might want to research the difference.

----------


## krazy kaju

East India Company - monopoly granted by British Crown (you should know that). Remember Ghandi?

France - you stated yourself the example of the French salt tax. Also see this. "French kings developed a salt monopoly by selling exclusive rights to produce it to a favored few who exploited that right..."

China - " The foreigner coming to China earlier in this century would be struck by the care with which salt was treated in the countryside. Salt was a government monopoly, heavily taxed and therefore expensive."   T.R.Tregear. link

----------


## krazy kaju

> I can't see any of these pictures. I imagine that is a good thing.


I'm laughing my ass off over here. It's a pity you can't see them.

----------


## DrYongrel



----------


## Kade

> Yongrel, LOL.
> 
> The key to the entire "monopoly" debate is whether or not a single business can effectively corner the market and demand unfair prices. This is not possible unless government intervention is present. Restrictive regulations, large entry fees, explicit government-granted or government-created monopolies, etc.
> 
> I have yet to see an example of price gouging existing where competition is allowed to occur.


I had a lengthy debate about this the other day with some "friends"... 

I understand your position. I really do... what do you believe would be the mechanism to restrict total control of competition in a pure free market, ie, without government regulation?

----------


## DrYongrel

> I understand your position. I really do... what do you believe would be the mechanism to restrict total control of competition in a pure free market, ie, without government regulation?


Force.

----------


## Kade

> Force.


Whose force?

----------


## krazy kaju

> I had a lengthy debate about this the other day with some "friends"... 
> 
> I understand your position. I really do... what do you believe would be the mechanism to restrict total control of competition in a pure free market, ie, without government regulation?


No entry fees, no regulation. Large established companies can afford to pay for regulation, paperwork, arbitration if necessary, etc. Small companies that are just entering the market oftentimes cannot.

Take the national defense industry as an example. Only large companies can effectively bid for contracts due to the excessive regulation and the Congressional ass-kissing done.

----------


## Kade

> No entry fees, no regulation. Large established companies can afford to pay for regulation, paperwork, arbitration if necessary, etc. Small companies that are just entering the market oftentimes cannot.
> 
> Take the national defense industry as an example. Only large companies can effectively bid for contracts due to the excessive regulation and the Congressional ass-kissing done.


Alright, in this case I agree with you. 

If there were no real entry costs to entering into a market, when one entity does perform better, thus, gaining more profit from the market, what prevents them from purchasing the other enterprises?

Just curious.

----------


## micahnelson

> No entry fees, no regulation. Large established companies can afford to pay for regulation, paperwork, arbitration if necessary, etc. Small companies that are just entering the market oftentimes cannot.
> 
> Take the national defense industry as an example. Only large companies can effectively bid for contracts due to the excessive regulation and the Congressional ass-kissing done.


So the government, to promote the free market, added regulation. 

Small business set asides allow small players in the defense contracting business to bid and compete with other small businesses. Its kind of like the little leagues. The function of this has been for large businesses to partner with small businesses for smaller contracts. If you are still imagining our little league analogy, imagine a ten year old holding the bat, and Sammy Sosa swinging the ten year old. 

Effectively, after winning the contract, the small business is purchased by the larger business. This has led to further expansion and consolidation of defense contractors, and destroying the chances of smaller competitors.

The central planning did the opposite of its purported goal, which was to keep competition alive. 

Any regulation is more easily addressed, lobbied away, or bypassed by large corporations, so any government mechanism to control a market will eventually lead to the success of the largest beast in the room.

----------


## Kade

Kaju, 

Do you believe that there is a sliding scale for the benefit of lower taxes and less regulation of the market? In essence, do you believe that countries that have lower taxes and less regulation also have lower poverty rates, higher median income, trade balances, and higher budget surpluses?

----------


## Kade

> So the government, to promote the free market, added regulation. 
> 
> Small business set asides allow small players in the defense contracting business to bid and compete with other small businesses. Its kind of like the little leagues. The function of this has been for large businesses to partner with small businesses for smaller contracts. If you are still imagining our little league analogy, imagine a ten year old holding the bat, and Sammy Sosa swinging the ten year old. 
> 
> Effectively, after winning the contract, the small business is purchased by the larger business. This has led to further expansion and consolidation of defense contractors, and destroying the chances of smaller competitors.
> 
> The central planning did the opposite of its purported goal, which was to keep competition alive. 
> 
> Any regulation is more easily addressed, lobbied away, or bypassed by large corporations, so any government mechanism to control a market will eventually lead to the success of the largest beast in the room.


There is no quantifiable proof that leaving a market to fend for itself will not ultimately result in the same exact outcome.

----------


## aravoth

> There is no quantifiable proof that leaving a market to fend for itself will not ultimately result in the same exact outcome.


what

----------


## Kade

> what


Since a free market has never existed in theory, there is no proof that a free market would not end with powerful pure oligopolies. 

This country is arguably run by corporations...which, in theory, is just an exercise of power. The government and corporations have free reign, and the only open markets for businesses in this country is food and entertainment.

----------


## micahnelson

> There is no quantifiable proof that leaving a market to fend for itself will not ultimately result in the same exact outcome.


Lets assume the exact same thing did happen,  the attempt at regulating pulled time and money out of the engine of society to comply with regulations. Certainly an industry could put resources to better use for society as a whole. 


Discussing a free market is very difficult when we are dealing with government spending. Since the money is virtually limitless, and most people support government programs, there is no demand to cut costs. It is the same problem as having a nation of uneducated consumers. The true market price of things can't be measured when the lion's share of the spending power is in the hands of a small group of men with almost unlimited funds. 

$339 Million for one F22?

$6 Billion for levy repair in New Orleans? Thats the entire yearly budget of the state of RI. Where is that money going, do they care?

Can't have a free market when one entity has unlimited funds, pretty soon all the goods and services will be marketed to them.

----------


## Kade

Anyway, since people have stopped responding, I'll lay my position out... (for the first time).

I believe that there is no scientific evidence to back up the claims of the Austrian schools. Most of the arguments are made with verbal logic, and not 

I demonstrated an argument/debate that got way out of hand simply because I tried to define a monopoly (and free market) outside of the acceptable range required for Austrian theory to survive. This debate spiraled out of control because I dared to touch a few of the strings holding it up, namely, verbal nonsense.

This is why a linguist can smoke any Austrian in a matter of two sentences... as evidenced by Chomsky's beat-down sessions. 

For a respectful libertarian who might be looking to know more about Austrian Economic theory and it's flaws, I point you towards a piece by a professor of economics at George Mason:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...an/whyaust.htm

----------


## yongrel

> Since a free market has never existed in theory, there is no proof that a free market would not end with powerful pure oligopolies. 
> 
> This country is arguably run by corporations...which, in theory, is just an exercise of power. The government and corporations have free reign, and the only open markets for businesses in this country is food and entertainment.


To most Austrians, economics is not an empirical science which lives on proofs and evidence, but is rather a purely logical science. Ludwig von Mises, who pioneered this concept, termed it praxeology.

One can reasonably and logically arrive at all Austrian economic concepts from the indisputable notion that humans act using limited means to achieve desires and goals.

As von Mises said:



> As thinking and acting men, we grasp the concept of action. In grasping this concept we simultaneously grasp the closely correlated concepts of value, wealth, exchange, price, and cost. They are all necessarily implied in the concept of action, and together with them the concepts of valuing, scale of value and importance, scarcity and abundance, advantage and disadvantage, success, profit, and loss. The logical unfolding of all these concepts and categories in systematic derivation from the fundamental category of action and the demonstration of the necessary relations among them constitutes the first task of our science. The part that deals with the elementary theory of value and price serves as the starting point in its exposition. There can be no doubt whatever concerning the aprioristic character of these disciplines.


To put simply, one doesn't need proof in economics, only logic. When debating someone whose avatar is von Mises, you might have some difficulty if you insist exclusively on proof.

----------


## krazy kaju

> Alright, in this case I agree with you. 
> 
> If there were no real entry costs to entering into a market, when one entity does perform better, thus, gaining more profit from the market, what prevents them from purchasing the other enterprises?
> 
> Just curious.


First off, did you notice that I responded on the last page to your sources about salt monopolies? Just wondering.

Anyways, there are really two answers to this. The first one is that even if a company purchased all the other companies in the world, stifling competition, it would still live under the fear of competition. If they ever raise prices unfairly or become inefficient, other people will see potential profits.

For example, small businesses might begin to spring up to compete with the larger, inefficient (or cheating) business. The common counter-claim by anti-trust advocates is that the larger business could run a deficit for a while to run off all the small businesses.

Even in the above case, rich entrepreneurs might see a chance to profit more and either invest in the smaller businesses or use their own capital to form their own competing business. Whenever there is a chance to profit off of something, competitors will rise out of the woodwork.

The second answer refers to economies of scale. If we assumed the entire world practiced free trade and free markets, no company would ever be able to gain even close to 100% market share. Really, 10% market share would be an amazing feat.

The reason for this would be that at a certain point, as the company expands, it becomes too bureaucratic and too inefficient to be able to effectively compete. At that point, it becomes profitable for other well established companies to compete with it at its "home turf."

Let's say, for example that Company A gains a monopoly over the entire San Francisco Bay Area. As it tries to expand its operations to the entirety of California, it simply becomes too large and too bureaucratic. At that point, companies in Nevada, Oregon, Arizona, etc. see a profit in expanding their operations there. Also, as stated before, smaller businesses might begin to spring up as waste raises prices, which allows smaller businesses to compete better against Company A. So Company B, Company C, and Company D from three surrounding states might begin to compete with Company A while a couple smaller businesses spring up in the Bay Area and elsewhere in California that also compete with Company A.

What you have is true capitalism: a system that is dynamic and that always heads in the direction of equilibrium. Companies that become too large are either forced to shrink or to go bankrupt. Companies that charge unfair prices are out competed by neighboring companies or by smaller, rising businesses.

----------


## TastyWheat

Thanks for the info, but if what you say is true then a lot more people than us confuse the gold standard with the gold exchange standard.

I disagree with your 2nd item though.  I'll admit the system confuses me as it is, but how does physical gold differ from physical cash?  Banks can't create physical money and they don't mail out cash everytime there is a transfer so there's is probably more credit money than fiat money in circulation anyway.

----------


## Kade

> Can't have a free market when one entity has unlimited funds, pretty soon all the goods and services will be marketed to them.


This country was a tabula rasa, and the lack of proper regulation has given us corporate overlords, most of which are so tentacled in conservative folds, that "free enterprise" has become one giant slopping piece of propaganda. 


Austrians do not understand the modern economy. In this day and age, every piece of available evidence shows us that in countries with higher taxation and higher welfare spending, poverty rates are lower, median income is higher, there is strong international competitiveness, trade balances are stronger, and there are larger budget surpluses. 

I am not a communist. I am not that much of a socialist. I don't think that the evidence is anything more than just fact... it does not sway my feelings and support for the free market. What it does is illustrate that this debate has been waged between competing masters, with very little in the way of decent recourse... the most open democracies are the most healthy right now, by any standard, and that is where I look first.

----------


## Kade

> First off, did you notice that I responded on the last page to your sources about salt monopolies? Just wondering.


I did notice you responding, and I appreciate it. The taxation for the Salt Monopolies was ultimately an attempt to stop the original monopolies created by the feudal powers... which I don't really count as "government"... sometimes governments are created as a result of a monopoly. 

The rest of your post I have to read further before I reply.

----------


## Kade

I will be back... in the meantime, Caplan's link:

Why Am I Not An Austrian Economist

----------


## krazy kaju

> Anyway, since people have stopped responding, I'll lay my position out... (for the first time).
> 
> I believe that there is no scientific evidence to back up the claims of the Austrian schools. Most of the arguments are made with verbal logic, and not 
> 
> I demonstrated an argument/debate that got way out of hand simply because I tried to define a monopoly (and free market) outside of the acceptable range required for Austrian theory to survive. This debate spiraled out of control because I dared to touch a few of the strings holding it up, namely, verbal nonsense.
> 
> This is why a linguist can smoke any Austrian in a matter of two sentences... as evidenced by Chomsky's beat-down sessions. 
> 
> For a respectful libertarian who might be looking to know more about Austrian Economic theory and it's flaws, I point you towards a piece by a professor of economics at George Mason:
> ...


Actually, you were running around playing games claiming that we were making definitions which made free markets and monopolies not compatible at all.

That is not true. If you have the reading comprehension skills of a first grader, you would've seen that I responded several times to the myth that a business can grow into a force that is able to dominate a market.

As for your statements that the Austrian school is disproven by empiricism, those claims are false. We have seen time and time again government actions fail just as Austrians have predicted they will. Countries with more welfare and higher minimum wages have more unemployment, regulations and taxes reduce competition, credit expansion via central banks have caused incalculable damage (which no other school predicted), socialism cannot exist prosperously, etc.

All of the ideas and predictions of Carl Menger, Eugen Bohm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, FA Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and others have been proven right time and time again. Is there some room for improvement? I don't know. Personally, I think that maybe both the neoclassical and the Austrian schools could gain if only there wasn't such a great intellectual divide between them.

You have to understand the Caplan isn't really criticizing anything relevant to our debate about monopolies.

----------


## Kade

> Actually, you were running around playing games claiming that we were making definitions which made free markets and monopolies not compatible at all.
> 
> That is not true. *If you have the reading comprehension skills of a first grader*, you would've seen that I responded several times to the myth that a business can grow into a force that is able to dominate a market.


Why do you keep going here?

----------


## krazy kaju

Why do you keep repeating the same things ad nauseum, even if they've already been dealt with?

----------


## Kade

> Why do you keep repeating the same things ad nauseum, even if they've already been dealt with?


I haven't actually... .if anything I showed that you cannot work without absurd logical constructs. 

I will be back to deal with your insults in a little bit, fear not.

----------


## krazy kaju

Kade, I've responded to every single one of your points and you continue with the same "but there has never been a free market waaaaaaaaaaah" or "but what if they can control prices waaaaaaaaah..." even if I responded to those critiques before in this very thread in response to you.

Instead of complaining about the same things over and over again, can't you debate the other things I'm putting forth? The reason this thread has practically gone nowhere for numerous pages was precisely your refusal to read what I'm posting and then you posting the same critique ad nauseum.

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> Let's say, for example that Company A gains a monopoly over the entire San Francisco Bay Area. As it tries to expand its operations to the entirety of California, it simply becomes too large and too bureaucratic. At that point, companies in Nevada, Oregon, Arizona, etc. see a profit in expanding their operations there. Also, as stated before, smaller businesses might begin to spring up as waste raises prices, which allows smaller businesses to compete better against Company A. So Company B, Company C, and Company D from three surrounding states might begin to compete with Company A while a couple smaller businesses spring up in the Bay Area and elsewhere in California that also compete with Company A.


So from the point of view of your hypothetical San Franciscan, free-market monopolies exist. At least until the point B,C, and D come to the rescue.

Also, are piracy and smuggling intentionally left out? I would think it would have a more immediate and dramatic effect on a burgeoning free-market monopoly, unless by definition piracy is not a part of a free-market.

----------


## ARealConservative

> So from the point of view of your hypothetical San Franciscan, free-market monopolies exist. At least until the point B,C, and D come to the rescue.


you only have 1 gas station in x miles of your home.

----------


## aravoth

How can a business grow to a monopoly in a true free market? If there are no costly regulations that bury small businesess before they even begin, how can one grow to such proportions that it attains a monopoly? There wouldn't be any government interference, no subsidies, no such thing as government sponsered "no-bid contracts". So the only way a business could possibly make it to the top is by being the best competitor, not by exploiting taxpayers. 

But in order to do that it would have to compete with the gargantuan amount of rivals there would be. The reason I think there would be a lot of competition is because if busineses didn't have to pay the government a ton of money every year, and the regulations where non existant, a person could literally open a business for less than a hundred bucks, and expand it very, very fast. The expansion would of course lead to increased production, which would lead to increased employment across the board. Millions of companies would all be doing this at the exact same time. The larger companies couldn't pinch out the smaller ones very easily, becuase in a free market economy, property rights would have to be respected, so no commercial districts would get taken by eminent domain to "enhance the economic vitality of the region", only to have a big chain shopping mall put up where a few small family own clothing businesses used to be. I've seen it done before. We've all seen water supplies get polluted, and none of us can do anything about it, becuase "regulations" allow it to happen. 

I just don't understand how regulations protect individual rights, nor do I understand how it helps to perpetuate business. All I have ever seen is abuse of Government Regulations by major coporations and large companies. In fact, I'm convinced that those large entities love regulation, and could not exist, nor could they ever have gotten where they are today without them. 

The way I see it, Government is the monopoly. And it maintains it's monoply by granting special favors and enahncing "regulations" for the betterment of "the little guy". But in reality Small businesses are driven out by bigger ones because of those regulations, the "little" guy's drinking water, and air is legally polluted. It seizes "Suzie's Custom Tailoring shop" through eminent domain to "improve" the economic vitality of the area, only to plop a Big Box store in it's place.And why does it do all these things? To grant no-bid contracts, and reap enormous profits to whatever companies gave them the most campaign donations. Government puts the economic prosperity of an entire nation into it's hands, when it should be in the hands of every individual. 

I am part of the market, as is every single person on the planet. I don't need to be regulated, nor do I need to be governed. And I believe that no one else does either. Not that I believe the human race is enlightened or anything like that, but I do believe the government sure as hell isn't enlightend. It is, after all, Governments that start wars, Governments that restrict business, Governments that slaughter millions of people every single year through wars, starvation, genocide. It is Governments that Create "classes" by destroying money, and keep the poor exactly where they are at so that thier "promises" to help them can be repeated year after year, garunteeing them votes. 

Anyway, thats how I feel about it. But again, I still don't see how a monopoly can exist in a free market.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> How can a business grow to a monopoly in a true free market? If there are no costly regulations that bury small businesess before they even begin, how can one grow to such proportions that it attains a monopoly? There wouldn't be any government interference, no subsidies, no such thing as government sponsered "no-bid contracts". So the only way a business could possibly make it to the top is by being the best competitor, not by exploiting taxpayers. 
> 
> But in order to do that it would have to compete with the gargantuan amount of rivals there would be. The reason I think there would be a lot of competition is because if busineses didn't have to pay the government a ton of money every year, and the regulations where non existant, a person could literally open a business for less than a hundred bucks, and expand it very, very fast. The expansion would of course lead to increased production, which would lead to increased employment across the board. Millions of companies would all be doing this at the exact same time. The larger companies couldn't pinch out the smaller ones very easily, becuase in a free market economy, property rights would have to be respected, so no commercial districts would get taken by eminent domain to "enhance the economic vitality of the region", only to have a big chain shopping mall put up where a few small family own clothing businesses used to be. I've seen it done before. We've all seen water supplies get polluted, and none of us can do anything about it, becuase "regulations" allow it to happen. 
> 
> I just don't understand how regulations protect individual rights, nor do I understand how it helps to perpetuate business. All I have ever seen is abuse of Government Regulations by major coporations and large companies. In fact, I'm convinced that those large entities love regulation, and could not exist, nor could they ever have gotten where they are today without them. 
> 
> The way I see it, Government is the monopoly. And it maintains it's monoply by granting special favors and enahncing "regulations" for the betterment of "the little guy". But in reality Small businesses are driven out by bigger ones because of those regulations, the "little" guy's drinking water, and air is legally polluted. It seizes "Suzie's Custom Tailoring shop" through eminent domain to "improve" the economic vitality of the area, only to plop a Big Box store in it's place.And why does it do all these things? To grant no-bid contracts, and reap enormous profits to whatever companies gave them the most campaign donations. Government puts the economic prosperity of an entire nation into it's hands, when it should be in the hands of every individual. 
> 
> I am part of the market, as is every single person on the planet. I don't need to be regulated, nor do I need to be governed. And I believe that no one else does either. Not that I believe the human race is enlightened or anything like that, but I do believe the government sure as hell isn't enlightend. It is, after all, Governments that start wars, Governments that restrict business, Governments that slaughter millions of people every single year through wars, starvation, genocide. It is Governments that Create "classes" by destroying money, and keep the poor exactly where they are at so that thier "promises" to help them can be repeated year after year, garunteeing them votes. 
> ...


Agreed. However, in the worst case scenario, I believe an oligopoly could exist.

----------


## aravoth

> Agreed. However, in the worst case scenario, I believe an oligopoly could exist.


Not 100% sure on the definition of "oligopoly", But isn't when companies "set the market"? Like All gas companies agreeing amoungst each other that none of them will ever sell gasoline cheaper than 5$ a gallon? 

If so, wouldn't some rambunchous business owner cut the market out from beneath them all by selling it for 2$ a gallon? He could totally corner the entire market for a while doing that, until someone else droppped to 1.99 a gallon, then a gas war would ensue. 

I'm probably way off, but if thats the case, I'd undercut everyone.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Not 100% sure on the definition of "oligopoly", But isn't when companies "set the market"? Like All gas companies agreeing amoungst each other that none of them will ever sell gasoline cheaper than 5$ a gallon? 
> 
> If so, wouldn't some rambunchous business owner cut the market out from beneath them all by selling it for 2$ a gallon? He could totally corner the entire market for a while doing that, until someone else droppped to 1.99 a gallon, then a gas war would ensue. 
> 
> I'm probably way off, but if thats the case, I'd undercut everyone.


Pretty close. And, yes. That's why I said in the worst case scenario. 

However, even that is unlikely in a free market.

----------


## muzzled dogg

omg rebuttals

----------


## The_Orlonater

I really, really liked the discussion of this thread. Reminds me why I hang out on RP forums! 

I'm with Kaju on this, though.

----------


## danberkeley

lol. Kaju, stop wasting your time with Kade. He/she reminds me of buttalokid777.

----------


## Danke

> lol. Kaju, stop wasting your time with Kade. He/she reminds me of buttalokid777.


We need diversity here.




> You're a pretty good presence here *electronicmaji*, you and I have much in common...

----------


## aravoth

> We need diversity here.


why?

----------


## danberkeley

> We need diversity here.


Doesnt mean Kaju should keep wasting him time with Kade. Anywho, what ever happened to electronicmaji?

----------


## Danke

> why?

----------


## Danke

> Doesnt mean Kaju should keep wasting him time with Kade. Anywho, what ever happened to electronicmaji?

----------


## danberkeley

> 


Huh?

----------


## aravoth

> Huh?


I Think he's implying that socialists and regulated economies are inherently segregationist with deep roots in slavery. 

And I agree entirely.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Doesnt mean Kaju should keep wasting him time with Kade. Anywho, what ever happened to electronicmaji?


Maji is an Obama supporter who was actually registered with the Obama forums.

----------


## krazy kaju

> So from the point of view of your hypothetical San Franciscan, free-market monopolies exist. At least until the point B,C, and D come to the rescue.
> 
> Also, are piracy and smuggling intentionally left out? I would think it would have a more immediate and dramatic effect on a burgeoning free-market monopoly, unless by definition piracy is not a part of a free-market.


From the San Franciscan perspective, a free market monopoly could only exist if it satisfied the needs of its consumers. If Company A in San Francisco becomes inefficient or price gouges, it becomes profitable for Company B in Berkeley to compete.

You have to realize that all such "monopolies" invariably exist, but usually on a much smaller scale in a free market. Separate neighborhoods might have grocery store "monopolies."

In the real world businesses cannot obtain monopolies over entire cities, I just used the example as a simplification. Usually, there are too many different "demands," i.e. some people might want the new samsung phone with texting while others might want those ever-so-fashionable razor phones. You get the picture.

----------


## buffalokid777

> From the San Franciscan perspective, a free market monopoly could only exist if it satisfied the needs of its consumers. If Company A in San Francisco becomes inefficient or price gouges, it becomes profitable for Company B in Berkeley to compete.
> 
> You have to realize that all such "monopolies" invariably exist, but usually on a much smaller scale in a free market. Separate neighborhoods might have grocery store "monopolies."
> 
> In the real world businesses cannot obtain monopolies over entire cities, I just used the example as a simplification. Usually, there are too many different "demands," i.e. some people might want the new samsung phone with texting while others might want those ever-so-fashionable razor phones. You get the picture.


I think your idea of monopoly is flawed.....I see this as your explanation of a monopoly......




> Monopoly is 100% market share. Free market is a market without any regulations beyond basic protection or natural rights.



My question to you is why not a company who has 90% market share and the resources to bankrupt a startup company who might compete not be a monopoly ?.......

The startup company may have a better, more efficient way to produce and deliver product for cheaper than the 90% market share company, but the 90% market share company uses their resources to bury the company by taking a loss.....to bury their superior production/distribution improvements by the startup......

I don't think a company needs 100% market share to be a monopoly......

They simply need enough market share to controll the market.....

I define a monopoly as where 1 company controlls a market and uses that power to stop other competitors from easy entry into the market and being competition though they may have more efficient production.........

----------


## krazy kaju

> My question to you is why not a company who has 90% market share and the resources to bankrupt a startup company who might compete not be a monopoly ?.......


Because the companies with 10% market share are able to undercut the company with 90% market share if it becomes inefficient or begins to price gouge.




> The startup company may have a better, more efficient way to produce and deliver product for cheaper than the 90% market share company, but the 90% market share company uses their resources to bury the company by taking a loss.....to bury their superior production/distribution improvements by the startup......


This is a common myth. If a business model is truly profitable, people will invest in it even if it runs some losses early on.

On the other hand, a company with 90% market share cannot run losses because the other companies with 10% market share will use that to their advantage.




> I don't think a company needs 100% market share to be a monopoly......
> 
> They simply need enough market share to controll the market.....
> 
> I define a monopoly as where 1 company controlls a market and uses that power to stop other competitors from easy entery into the market and being competition though they may have more efficient production.........


Provide one example of that happening in a free market, or a close-to-free market economy.

----------


## buffalokid777

> The way I see it, Government is the monopoly. And it maintains it's monoply by granting special favors and enahncing "regulations" for the betterment of "the little guy". But in reality Small businesses are driven out by bigger ones because of those regulations, the "little" guy's drinking water, and air is legally polluted. It seizes "Suzie's Custom Tailoring shop" through eminent domain to "improve" the economic vitality of the area, only to plop a Big Box store in it's place.And why does it do all these things? To grant no-bid contracts, and reap enormous profits to whatever companies gave them the most campaign donations. Government puts the economic prosperity of an entire nation into it's hands, when it should be in the hands of every individual. 
> 
> I am part of the market, as is every single person on the planet. I don't need to be regulated, nor do I need to be governed. And I believe that no one else does either. Not that I believe the human race is enlightened or anything like that, but I do believe the government sure as hell isn't enlightend. It is, after all, Governments that start wars, Governments that restrict business, Governments that slaughter millions of people every single year through wars, starvation, genocide. It is Governments that Create "classes" by destroying money, and keep the poor exactly where they are at so that thier "promises" to help them can be repeated year after year, garunteeing them votes. 
> 
> Anyway, thats how I feel about it. But again, I still don't see how a monopoly can exist in a free market.


You are correct Aravoth....government IS the monoply.......and now lots of corporations are taking advantage of that thru lobbying and campaign donations to create monopolies for the products they produce........by prostrating themselves before the eternal monopoly of federal government.....

That is why the constitution was such an incredible document.....it took the monopoly out of government by making the states a partner with a limited federal government.....since the document was signed.....we have seen the business monopolists seek to turn the federal government into a monopoly by destroying states rights so they can get what they want through a centralized government.....and the saddest part is they are winning.....if things keep going the way they are.....the federal government will destroy states rights which is exactly what the founders didn't want to happen.......Roe vs Wade led us down this path.....the Federal Government ursuped a power from the states.......it is not the federal government's place to decide this....it is each individual state that should decide.....after that, the federal government sought to take even more states rights to decide....and with much success I might add...and the monopolists in business have taken full advantage.....

----------


## danberkeley

> From the San Franciscan perspective, a free market monopoly could only exist if it satisfied the needs of its consumers. If Company A in San Francisco becomes inefficient or price gouges, it becomes profitable for Company B in Berkeley to compete.
> 
> You have to realize that all such "monopolies" invariably exist, but usually on a much smaller scale in a free market. Separate neighborhoods might have grocery store "monopolies."
> 
> In the real world businesses cannot obtain monopolies over entire cities, I just used the example as a simplification. Usually, there are too many different "demands," i.e. some people might want the new samsung phone with texting while others might want those ever-so-fashionable razor phones. You get the picture.


The greatest problem, when determining if a firm is a monopoly, arises when defining the firm's market. What is the firm's market? This is where the courts screw you over in antitrust cases. Try defining Microsoft's market. Who ever says "computers", "operating systems", "software", or anything along those lines is a fool.





> I think your idea of monopoly is flawed.....I see this as your explanation of a monopoly......
> My question to you is why not a company who has 90% market share and the resources to bankrupt a startup company who might compete not be a monopoly ?.......
> 
> The startup company may have a better, more efficient way to produce and deliver product for cheaper than the 90% market share company, but the 90% market share company uses their resources to bury the company by taking a loss.....to bury their superior production/distribution improvements by the startup......


What or who defines what is "better" or more "efficient". The government? You? The market must decide and reward those producers who procide the "better" or more "efficient" goods and services. This is what a free market is. 






> I don't think a company needs 100% market share to be a monopoly......


Of course it does. WHat do you think "mono" means?




> They simply need enough market share to controll the market.....
> 
> I define a monopoly as where 1 company controlls a market and uses that power to stop other competitors from easy entry into the market and being competition though they may have more efficient production.........


That scenario never holds up in the long run or in real life. What constitutes a market for any given firm?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Great. Buffalo kid is back preaching his opinion. Buffalo, let me start you off at square one. Why don't you RESEARCH the definition of monopoly and oligopoly.

----------


## buffalokid777

> Great. Buffalo kid is back preaching his opinion. Buffalo, let me start you off at square one. Why don't you RESEARCH the definition of monopoly and oligopoly.


I know my definitions.....

Monopoly.....One entity controlls the market......

Oligopoly,,,,,,Several entities controll the market in collusion.....

Don't try to redifine the terms.....

Those are the historical definitions.....

I don't work for the ministry of truth........

----------


## danberkeley

> I know my definitions.....
> 
> Monopoly.....One entity controlls the market......


no. it's one entity only in a market.




> Oligopoly,,,,,,Several entities controll the market in collusion.....


no. several entities only in one market. no need of collusion.




> Don't try to redifine the terms.....


but you already did.




> Those are the historical definitions.....


true. they are marxist definitions i.e. yours




> I don't work for the ministry of truth........


obviously


...

what's  with you and "control"? any firm can, directly or indirectl, have some degree of control in any given market.

----------


## Kade

> Anyways, there are really two answers to this. The first one is that even if a company purchased all the other companies in the world, stifling competition, it would still live under the fear of competition. If they ever raise prices unfairly or become inefficient, other people will see potential profits.
> 
> For example, small businesses might begin to spring up to compete with the larger, inefficient (or cheating) business. The common counter-claim by anti-trust advocates is that the larger business could run a deficit for a while to run off all the small businesses.
> 
> Even in the above case, rich entrepreneurs might see a chance to profit more and either invest in the smaller businesses or use their own capital to form their own competing business. Whenever there is a chance to profit off of something, competitors will rise out of the woodwork.
> 
> The second answer refers to economies of scale. If we assumed the entire world practiced free trade and free markets, no company would ever be able to gain even close to 100% market share. Really, 10% market share would be an amazing feat.
> 
> *The reason for this would be that at a certain point, as the company expands, it becomes too bureaucratic and too inefficient to be able to effectively compete. At that point, it becomes profitable for other well established companies to compete with it at its "home turf."*
> ...


There is no absolutely evidence to support this claim. Some companies have grown to enormous size without establishing a bureaucracy which stifled it. This hand-waving explanation of "they get too big" doesn't even offer an empirical or financial reason why the size is a problem---when the size is, if anything, a benefit.

In order for this argument to be meaningful, you must be show that the costs of bureaucracy exceed the benefits accruing due to economies of scale. In order to deflate this flaw in market capitalism, you must go a step further and demonstrate that the costs of bureaucracy ALWAYS exceed the benefits of economies of scale.

It is noteworthy that increasing mechanization and computerization drastically improves economies of scale, and there is no sign that industrial and information technologies will stop improving over time. In short, even if economies of scale are not sufficiently beneficial we can expect them to race up the mountain in due time.

Companies have become so large, that they themselves have become the authority...

----------


## Kade

And for a small example of the failure of this reasoning, particularly that barriers to entry would somehow magically become lower upon deregulation one could simply look at the microprocessor market.

To build anything resembling a modern fab facility for microprocessors requires several billion dollars. That doesn't even account for the team of highly skilled engineers to design a processor nor for the multi-million dollar supercomputers to do it on. (And competing with Intel, AMD, TMSC, or IBM will require a number of such facilities.

----------


## Kade

The failure of this thread, as I have demonstrated at least twice, is that the people who pretend to be experts about this play with verbal logic as if it were silly putty on a newspaper. 

It's ridiculous, and it doesn't have any real application to a modern economy.  They argue about definitions because they cannot stand on their own two feet without strictly defined parameters. If you live in this country, and you work, you know that the economy doesn't bow down to pretend definitions of real problems. 

More research should be done in behavioral economics. I am partial to Soros' Reflexivity.

----------


## ARealConservative

Kade, posting three times in 5 minute span does not mean you didn't get your ass handed to you up to this point in the debate.

----------


## Kade

> Kade, posting three times in 5 minute span does not mean you didn't get your ass handed to you up to this point in the debate.


I had to leave yesterday. I know what side you are on, so you are no arbiter of who was handed what...

I was definately handed ass, but it came from another source. 

There were no points made. Kaju and Rockandroll contradicted each other... it was a farce, and I exposed it for what it is...word games.

----------


## IRO-bot

> I know my definitions.....
> 
> Monopoly.....One entity controlls the market......
> 
> Oligopoly,,,,,,Several entities controll the market in collusion.....
> 
> Don't try to redifine the terms.....
> 
> Those are the historical definitions.....
> ...


I read about Oligopoly like you asked me to.  I understand now where you are coming from.  Do you believe these are bad?  Especially if to compete in a market you need a HUGE sum of money to get started?  Doesn't that hinder any competition.  Something like the movie industry I suppose.  The top 4 or 6 own 90% of the market share.

Don't get me wrong, I am not for regulation, I just want your opinion how this is beneficial in a free market.

----------


## Kade

> I read about Oligopoly like you asked me to.  I understand now where you are coming from.  Do you believe these are bad?  Especially if to compete in a market you need a HUGE sum of money to get started?  Doesn't that hinder any competition.  Something like the movie industry I suppose.  The top 4 or 6 own 90% of the market share.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I am not for regulation, I just want your opinion how this is beneficial in a free market.


A pure oligopoly_ is_ a monopoly. These word games are what is holding this conversation down.

Any enterprise that stifles economic competition, through any method, is, in my opinion, damaging to an economic system.

That is the base of this conversation, and ultimately that is where Austrian economists fail.

----------


## krazy kaju

> There is no absolutely evidence to support this claim. Some companies have grown to enormous size without establishing a bureaucracy which stifled it. This hand-waving explanation of "they get too big" doesn't even offer an empirical or financial reason why the size is a problem---when the size is, if anything, a benefit.


Again, your poor reading comprehension has failed you. Firms cannot get larger indefinitely without suffering losses at some point, and this is an empirical fact. We saw this when Alcoa lost some 20% market share within a year or two.

Besides, what matters isn't the size of a firm, but whether or not that firm is able to satisfy customer needs. If a business becomes too large to effectively satisfy its customers, it will be undercut by competitors and by new entrepreneurs. If that business is able to satisfy consumers, then its market share will grow.

If a firm's market share grows to 90% or beyond it can only do so if consumers prefer their products much more to their competitor's products. This is obviously a good thing and there really is nothing to critique here.




> In order for this argument to be meaningful, you must be show that the costs of bureaucracy exceed the benefits accruing due to economies of scale. In order to deflate this flaw in market capitalism, you must go a step further and demonstrate that the costs of bureaucracy ALWAYS exceed the benefits of economies of scale.


No. Depending on the business the inherent costs of operation vary. Certain businesses can become very, very large before they reach the "tipping point." The fact of the matter is that most businesses never become "too large."

The flaw in your reasoning is that the size of the business matters, not the service it provides to its customers. If a business "outgrows" itself or if it begins to dictate unfair prices, it will be undercut by competitors and entrepreneurs who are out seeking an easy profit.




> It is noteworthy that increasing mechanization and computerization drastically improves economies of scale, and there is no sign that industrial and information technologies will stop improving over time. In short, even if economies of scale are not sufficiently beneficial we can expect them to race up the mountain in due time.


Yes, and again, *this is a good thing*. The larger a company can become and the more efficient it can become, the cheaper its products become. How is this a bad thing?

What we're debating is whether or not that firm would be in a position to unfairly corner the market. The answer is no, because it cannot become indefinitely larger without eventually suffering losses, and because of that, there will always be nearby competitors willing to compete for consumers' business.




> And for a small example of the failure of this reasoning, particularly that barriers to entry would somehow magically become lower upon deregulation one could simply look at the microprocessor market.


... or one could look at the oil industry where you need to lobby Congress in order to get leases and have to pay huge costs for regulation...




> To build anything resembling a modern fab facility for microprocessors requires several billion dollars. That doesn't even account for the team of highly skilled engineers to design a processor nor for the multi-million dollar supercomputers to do it on. (And competing with Intel, AMD, TMSC, or IBM will require a number of such facilities.


Yes, but if a microprocessor firm truly corners the market and begins dictating unfair prices, what will happen? You're assuming that the market is static, when in fact it is very dynamic.

Rich entrepreneurs, with the help of rich venture capitalists, will see a profit to make. They will enter the market to compete with the large dinosaurs demanding unfair prices. Venture capital firms are often willing to see prolonged losses as long as a good business model is in place that will be able to make it through in the long run. That's the reason why we have the internet in the first place. We wouldn't have had Yahoo or Google or the commercialization of the internet had it not been for the losses many venture capitalists took for quite a long time.




> The failure of this thread, as I have demonstrated at least twice, is that the people who pretend to be experts about this play with verbal logic as if it were silly putty on a newspaper.


You haven't demonstrated jack $#@! once. Please post *one* example of playing with verbal logic.




> It's ridiculous, and it doesn't have any real application to a modern economy.  They argue about definitions because they cannot stand on their own two feet without strictly defined parameters. If you live in this country, and you work, you know that the economy doesn't bow down to pretend definitions of real problems.


Where have I ever said anything that doesn't apply to the real economy?

Again, you're a master at unsourced and unbacked statements.




> More research should be done in behavioral economics. I am partial to Soros' Reflexivity.


Soros isn't even an economist. He might be a $#@!ing genius at making money, but that doesn't give him much credibility. Keynes was a genius at making money, but his policies have lead to some of the worst and most prolonged busts in the history of world economies.

As for his theory of reflexivity, I don't even know what it has to do with anything we're debating. He's simply making an observation that the economy is never at equilibrium, which nobody claims it is, and then gives an absurd hypothesis when he states its an inherent flaw of the market. Anyone with a decent knowledge of the market knows that is bull$#@!, because the collective rational expectations of millions of investors and entrepreneurs can only be wrong if wrong market signals prevail, which can only be caused by government - i.e. unstable inflation.




> There were no points made. Kaju and Rockandroll contradicted each other... it was a farce, and I exposed it for what it is...word games.


Word games about what? What are you even talking about?




> A pure oligopoly_ is_ a monopoly. These word games are what is holding this conversation down.


Yes, but an oligopoly provides competition and does not damage the market. Do you see Coca Cola and Pepsi dictating unfair prices for their products? Nope.




> Any enterprise that stifles economic competition, through any method, is, in my opinion, damaging to an economic system.


Yes, and I don't understand how you claim that I'm playing word games when I explicitly and implicitly stated several times that you can consider a firm a monopoly if it is able to corner the market and dictate unfair prices.




> That is the base of this conversation, and ultimately that is where Austrian economists fail.


How so?

First of all, this view on monopolies is not unique to Austrian economists. Many neoclassical, monetarist, and supply-side economists agree.

Secondly, you have failed to provide one example of a business gaining a monopoly or a monopoly-like power over the market.

----------


## Kade

> Again, your poor reading comprehension has failed you. Firms cannot get larger indefinitely without suffering losses at some point, and this is an empirical fact. We saw this when Alcoa lost some 20% market share within a year or two.


I suppose it's a compliment that I read. Alcoa hardly counts an a prime example of a trend for large firms to suffer losses at some point... I don't consider this empirical at all. 




> Besides, what matters isn't the size of a firm, but whether or not that firm is able to satisfy customer needs. If a business becomes too large to effectively satisfy its customers, it will be undercut by competitors and by new entrepreneurs. If that business is able to satisfy consumers, then its market share will grow.


Now it's changing of the game. The Austrian understanding of marginal utility is not dependent on cardinal utility, rather it is more like an intrinsic ordinal utility. The concept of customer satisfaction has no measurable quantity that will satisfy your claim that customers ultimately can topple larger entities. I realize now where you are getting your information, and I realize you are actually an idiot. This is more word games, and more stupid verbal logic theory that has no bearing on the modern economy. You're an idiot.



> If a firm's market share grows to 90% or beyond it can only do so if consumers prefer their products much more to their competitor's products. This is obviously a good thing and there really is nothing to critique here.


Again, more cardinal utility nonsense, a real Austrian ought to jump in now and crucify your idiotic ass. But they have no idea what you are talking about... namely, they hate me enough to side with you now... but keep talking.



> No. Depending on the business the inherent costs of operation vary. Certain businesses can become very, very large before they reach the "tipping point." The fact of the matter is that most businesses never become "too large."


No? You have provided no proof other than your nonsensical, almost Lewisque approach to this conversation. Full circle. You need to provide actual proof that any company has a tipping point, ESPECIALLY if you are going to imply that sellers are the cause... Ironically, I mentioned the micro-chip manufacturers to illustrated enormous cost to entry.  



> The flaw in your reasoning is that the size of the business matters, not the service it provides to its customers. If a business "outgrows" itself or if it begins to dictate unfair prices, it will be undercut by competitors and entrepreneurs who are out seeking an easy profit.


If there is a flaw anywhere here, it is the idea that you are using reason. A business can become so large that it ultimately will become the authority. This has happened throughout history. Do you know how many times I've had to sit through lecture after lecture of these retard talking points? I understand your stupid system. It hasn't been tested, and it's highly speculative. You can't answer even the most remote question sufficiently, and you continue to say the same $#@! over and over. 




> Yes, and again, *this is a good thing*. The larger a company can become and the more efficient it can become, the cheaper its products become. How is this a bad thing?


It's not. Just look at how the biggest monopoly in the planet's history, the Government of the U.S. came to power. It is a corporation. Nothing about this corporation is efficient. If you disagree that the government is run like a business, (without competition), then you only need to observe that your It's a good thing" is flawed. 




> What we're debating is whether or not that firm would be in a position to unfairly corner the market. The answer is no, *because it cannot become indefinitely larger without eventually suffering losses*, and because of that, there will always be nearby competitors willing to compete for consumers' business.


*
[Redacted by Moderator]*




> ... or one could look at the oil industry where you need to lobby Congress in order to get leases and have to pay huge costs for regulation...


Agreed.




> Yes, but if a microprocessor firm truly corners the market and begins dictating unfair prices, what will happen? You're assuming that the market is static, when in fact it is very dynamic.


I haven't assumed anything. If Intel or AMD end up buying each other... what is the next course of action for the consumer?  A price does not have to be ultimately unfair... it can be slightly greater than the perceived cost of entry into the market... thanks for playing.



> Rich entrepreneurs, with the help of rich venture capitalists, will see a profit to make. They will enter the market to compete with the large dinosaurs demanding unfair prices. Venture capital firms are often willing to see prolonged losses as long as a good business model is in place that will be able to make it through in the long run. That's the reason why we have the internet in the first place. We wouldn't have had Yahoo or Google or the commercialization of the internet had it not been for the losses many venture capitalists took for quite a long time.


I don't disagree with this. 



> You haven't demonstrated jack $#@! once. Please post *one* example of playing with verbal logic.



Every time you post something as an assumption. Every time you say "empirical fact" yet show nothing... You are talking to a crowd of sheep who will not hold you accountable for this travesty of a conversation. You have offered nothing of value in here, except a central premise that Ron Paul Supporters are idiots (something I don't necessarily disagree with). Ironically, they are eating out of your $#@!. So much for thinking for themselves. 




> Where have I ever said anything that doesn't apply to the real economy?
> 
> Again, you're a master at unsourced and unbacked statements.


Wow. Ironic. This sentence is exactly what I said to you several pages back. 





> Soros isn't even an economist. He might be a $#@!ing genius at making money, but that doesn't give him much credibility. Keynes was a genius at making money, but his policies have lead to some of the worst and most prolonged busts in the history of world economies.


Now that you have wandered outside your copy and paste world, you have exposed your adolescent dribble of a mind. *If I said that there is no current pure Keynesian economy in existence, and therefore why attempts at a Keynesian economy fail, it would be the total sum of all of your arguments.* I won't go there, because I have more respect for intellectual discourse. 



> As for his theory of reflexivity, I don't even know what it has to do with anything we're debating. He's simply making an observation that the economy is never at equilibrium, which nobody claims it is, and then gives an absurd hypothesis when he states its an inherent flaw of the market. Anyone with a decent knowledge of the market knows that is bull$#@!, because the collective rational expectations of millions of investors and entrepreneurs can only be wrong if wrong market signals prevail, which can only be caused by government - i.e. unstable inflation.


It has everything to do with what we are debating. *You're statement that a monopoly cannot exist in a free market is false.* It is a positive statement, and it deserves proper evidence. You have given none. 






> First of all, this view on monopolies is not unique to Austrian economists. Many neoclassical, monetarist, and supply-side economists agree.
> 
> Secondly, you have failed to provide one example of a business gaining a monopoly or a monopoly-like power over the market.


The United States of America is a monopoly. It gained power for itself, mostly through the abuse of force and monetary system. Everything about it follows in line with what you think cannot happen. Ultimately, this is the end result of a failure to understand principles in social psychology, and the evolution of groups. If there is a tabula rasa, if there is a clean slate where a market can form without any regulation... IT WILL BECOME THE REGULATING BODY!

Where do you think the regulations are coming from? Not just the elected officials... but the corporations, the money itself is paying for it... they gain power because they paid for the power... there is nothing in Austrian Economics that explains that away. Nothing. A unregulated market would find a way, any way, to pursue the ultimate purpose of it's existence to any end... 

I am a realist. You very early demonstrated your abuse of the language by trying to pigeonhole the definition of model and a monopoly. Realistically speaking, it is better for any economic system, as research has shown, to have a more balanced economy, or rather a mixed economy. An anarchist economy is not tested and a working understanding of market forces eliminates completely any viability that might have been overlooked. Scientific insight has also completely shed light on the actual chances of an unregulated market existing in the utopian view that Austrian Economist take... in other words, the ultimate cost of deregulation is nearly unquantifiable, unpredictable, immeasurable, without qualification, and without any empirical observation on it's ultimate course. Or.. you can pretend that the failed market economies of Mexico, Brazil, and Chile were just flukes. 

So you march on here, calling everyone an idiot, and proceed to copy and paste a few CATO papers and what not all over place, and then continue to define the debate in terms that are easy to molest.  I don't buy it, but then again, I don't go with herds. 

I'm glad the herd has accepted your nonsense. Cheers.

And to the rest of you clowns, go think for yourselves, tools. Ron Paul has given you a gift... now use it.


http://ideas.repec.org/s/nbr/nberwo.html

----------


## aravoth

> A pure oligopoly_ is_ a monopoly. These word games are what is holding this conversation down.
> 
> Any enterprise that stifles economic competition, through any method, is, in my opinion, damaging to an economic system.
> 
> That is the base of this conversation, and ultimately that is where Austrian economists fail.


Can't say that I follow you here. Companies have no regulatory power. They can't tax, they can't make you do anything. Just the government. That's the "enterprise" that stifles economic competition. 

Are you one of those people that thinks competition only exists when the "Government" creates it or something? As far as "Austrian" economists failing. The only place I can see where they failed miserably is not doing more to spread their ideals. They have predicted every single boom and bust cycle,  every down turn. Not as a means to make money, but to warn people so that they would be prepared enough to keep their houses, and their property. 

People that think the government should never let anyone fail, and think that the government is the supreme authority on fairness, they are the ones that don't know $#@!. They argue their ridiculous illogical points tooth and nail. A year ago these clowns said inflation wasn't a problem. They said no way gas will go up to 100$ a barrel, "growth is strong", "Price stability", etc. And now when poorly ran companies are going bankrupt, it's these same people that want the taxpayers to bail them out, because they're just "Too big to fail". Now the American people are on the hook for bad loans they didn't even make. How's that for fairness? All made possible, and brought to you in high-def by your Government.

Enterprise doesn't stifle enterprise. They are powerless with out the help of the federal government.

----------


## ARealConservative

> I suppose it's a compliment that I read. Alcoa hardly counts an a prime example of a trend for large firms to suffer losses at some point... I don't consider this empirical at all.


hmmm.

You were asked to provide some examples, and failed miserably in doing so.  In fact, after spending time reading the links you actually did provide regarding salt monopolies and quickly seeing how retarded of an example you provided, I did a complete turnabout regarding you.

You are what I have encountered a thousand times in liberal circles.  You clearly have fooled yourself into thinking of yourself as a critical thinker far above the masses, but it simply isn't true.  You are a poser of the highest order Kade.  An intellectual lightweight trying desperately to be something you aren't.....intelligent.





> Ironically, I mentioned the micro-chip manufacturers to illustrated enormous cost to entry.


Yet you failed to prove any form of harm coming from that particular industry and the duopoly that exists.  Where is the price gauging?  Typical modern day liberal looking to hand the keys over to government for a non exist problem that you dream up as theoretically possibly in your class warfare mindset.




> Do you know how many times I've had to sit through lecture after lecture of these retard talking points? I understand your stupid system. It hasn't been tested, and it's highly speculative. You can't answer even the most remote question sufficiently, and you continue to say the same $#@! over and over.








> It's not. Just look at how the biggest monopoly in the planet's history, the Government of the U.S. came to power. It is a corporation. Nothing about this corporation is efficient. If you disagree that the government is run like a business, (without competition), then you only need to observe that your It's a good thing" is flawed.


finally something factual.  Our government is a monopoly.  No $#@! "genius"

----------


## Kade

> Can't say that I follow you here. Companies have no regulatory power. They can't tax, they can't make you do anything. Just the government. That's the "enterprise" that stifles economic competition. 
> 
> Are you one of those people that thinks competition only exists when the "Government" creates it or something? As far as "Austrian" economists failing. The only place I can see where they failed miserably is not doing more to spread their ideals. They have predicted every single boom and bust cycle,  every down turn. Not as a means to make money, but to warn people so that they would be prepared enough to keep their houses, and their property. 
> 
> People that think the government should never let anyone fail, and think that the government is the supreme authority on fairness, they are the ones that don't know $#@!. They argue their ridiculous illogical points tooth and nail. A year ago these clowns said inflation wasn't a problem. They said no way gas will go up to 100$ a barrel, "growth is strong", "Price stability", etc. And now when poorly ran companies are going bankrupt, it's these same people that want the taxpayers to bail them out, because they're just "Too big to fail". Now the American people are on the hook for bad loans they didn't even make. How's that for fairness? All made possible, and brought to you in high-def by your Government.
> 
> Enterprise doesn't stifle enterprise. They are powerless with out the help of the federal government.


Buying power _is_ regulatory power in the modern era. This is the very forefront of Behavioral Economics.

----------


## Kade

> Yet you failed to prove any form of harm coming from that particular industry and the duopoly that exists.  Where is the price gauging?  Typical modern day liberal looking to hand the keys over to government for a non exist problem that you dream up as theoretically possibly in your class warfare mindset.


I'm not looking to hand the keys to anyone.  Nor do I have a class warfare mindset... I would prefer most people just starve themselves out of existence. I just can't deal with incompetence and ignorance. I don't like pretenders. Don't pretend the free market isn't going to hurt people. Don't pretend the government is accountable. Don't pretend you know what you are talking about...

These things matter. 

The oil lobbyist control aspects of this government, and they are "gauging" prices quite well. But I suppose you won't like that example... 

Here do some reading: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0723-05.htm

----------


## ARealConservative

> I'm not looking to hand the keys to anyone.


then you fail to grasp your own mixed economy "model".   Big shocker!

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> A pure oligopoly_ is_ a monopoly. These word games are what is holding this conversation down.
> 
> Any enterprise that stifles economic competition, through any method, is, in my opinion, damaging to an economic system.
> 
> That is the base of this conversation, and ultimately that is where Austrian economists fail.


Wrong. Monopoly = controlled by one. Oligopoly = controlled by a few. Don't go making your own definitions again, Kade. There is a clear difference. 

And, an Oligopoly is not beneficial to a free market, but if anything was to happen an Oligopoly would be much more plausible than a Monopoly.

And, buffalo kid, we know you can use goggle. Congratulations.

----------


## Kade

> then you fail to grasp your own mixed economy "model".   Big shocker!


Look I say one thing, and you guys define me for me... then suddenly, when I say something else in contrast with your definition, I don't understand.

Me: I favor behavioral economics.
RPFS: No, you are a socialist.
Me: Mixed economy is not socialism... but okay.
RPFS: You want to hand the keys to everyone.
Me: No I don't.
RPFS: Than you don't understand your socialist economy!! HAR HAR AHRA!

Seriously. Cut it out. I know where I stand.

----------


## Kade

> Wrong. Monopoly = controlled by one. Oligopoly = controlled by a few. Don't go making your own definitions again, Kade. There is a clear difference. 
> 
> And, an Oligopoly is not beneficial to a free market, but if anything was to happen an Oligopoly would be much more plausible than a Monopoly.
> 
> And, buffalo kid, we know you can use goggle. Congratulations.


I ought to use the "goggle" myself. A pure oligopoly is a monopoly. Again with the word semantics.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Look I say one thing, and you guys define me for me... then suddenly, when I say something else in contrast with your definition, I don't understand.
> 
> Me: I favor behavioral economics.
> RPFS: No, you are a socialist.
> Me: Mixed economy is not socialism... but okay.
> RPFS: You want to hand the keys to everyone.
> Me: No I don't.
> RPFS: Than you don't understand your socialist economy!! HAR HAR AHRA!
> 
> Seriously. Cut it out. I know where I stand.


I didn't say you are handing your keys to everyone, I said to "someone".  someone <> everyone

If everybody gets to keep their keys for themselves, it isn't a mixed economy.  I'm sorry if you fail to see the big picture of your own ideas Kade, but this is why you are a fake.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> I ought to use the "goggle" myself. A pure oligopoly is a monopoly. Again with the word semantics.


No, this is why they have two separate definitions. There is no monopoly unless it is controlled by ONE. An oligopoly is controlled by a few. Therefore, it is impossible for an oligopoly to be a monopoly.

----------


## aravoth

> Buying power _is_ regulatory power in the modern era. This is the very forefront of Behavioral Economics.


Yeah, but that power rests with the market. Companies don't have to sell and be absorbed. 

Look whats happening with video cards right now. Nvidia was setting the standard. And setting the price. And they could, becuase their product was kicking ass. Now ATI has come out with it's 4870, and the HD4870X2 will be out next month. It is more powerful than nvidia's new line, and uses DDR5, which is brand new tech. Nvidia won't even be selling DDR5 models until there next line comes out. ATI did all of that, and sold their video cards for less than half the price of a 9800. 

I guess what I'm saying is, Nvidia cornered the market basically, had game makers optimize thier games specifically for Nvidia Drivers, then ATI finally comes out of the woodwork again, and now a price war is starting to ensue. And as far as I'm concerned, ATI has the upper hand now. And the average consumer gets to enjoy graphics cards that only Hollywood special effects studios used to.

That was just the market at work. One company grew to be a giant in it's industry, started to drive up prices, and got it's feet cut off by the little upstart. Happens all the time.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Yeah, but that power rests with the market. Companies don't have to sell and be absorbed. 
> 
> Look whats happening with video cards right now. Nvidia was setting the standard. And setting the price. And they could, becuase their product was kicking ass. Now ATI has come out with it's 4870, and the HD4870X2 will be out next month. It is more powerful than nvidia's new line, and uses DDR5, which is brand new tech. Nvidia won't even be selling DDR5 models until there next line comes out. ATI did all of that, and sold their video cards for less than half the price of a 9800. 
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is, Nvidia cornered the market basically, had game makers optimize thier games specifically for Nvidia Drivers, then ATI finally comes out of the woodwork again, and now a price war is starting to ensue. And as far as I'm concerned, ATI has the upper hand now. And the average consumer gets to enjoy graphics cards that only Hollywood special effects studios used to.
> 
> That was just the market at work. One company grew to be a giant in it's industry, started to drive up prices, and got it's feet cut off by the little upstart. Happens all the time.


Except AMD isn't exactly in the place to be cutting prices...they have around a -5 EPS, no p/e ratio, a load of debt, and no solid plan.

----------


## IRO-bot

Does an oligopoly working together have the same effect as a monopoly?

----------


## The_Orlonater

I always miss the conversation!!!!!!1

----------


## krazy kaju

> I suppose it's a compliment that I read. Alcoa hardly counts an a prime example of a trend for large firms to suffer losses at some point... I don't consider this empirical at all.


Wow, isn't that jolly? Something doesn't hold up to your world view so you reject it.




> Now it's changing of the game. The Austrian understanding of marginal utility is not dependent on cardinal utility, rather it is more like an intrinsic ordinal utility. The concept of customer satisfaction has no measurable quantity that will satisfy your claim that customers ultimately can topple larger entities. I realize now where you are getting your information, and I realize you are actually an idiot. This is more word games, and more stupid verbal logic theory that has no bearing on the modern economy. You're an idiot.


This is the kind of $#@! and *word games* that stops the debate from actually happening.

The Austrian perspective vs. the neoclassical perspective on marginal utility doesn't matter in this debate. I'm not trying to quantify pleasure like some economists have in the past (i.e. Jevons), what I'm saying is that customers go to the business that serves them best.

Assuming all things are equal (i.e. no gov't intervention, same price), if you prefer Pepsi, will you get Coca Cola? The answer is that you'll purchase the Pepsi. I'm not saying you'll get 10 utils from getting Pepsi vs. 7 from Coke, I agree that pleasure cannot be quantified. But again, that's not what we're debating.

We're debating whether a firm can get monopoly control over a market and unfairly dictate prices. That simply cannot happen if the government doesn't impose entry fees, regulations, etc. Competitors will always be able to undercut an inefficient and/or cheating firm because consumers will start going to the competitors instead of the dinosaur semi-monopoly.




> Again, more cardinal utility nonsense, a real Austrian ought to jump in now and crucify your idiotic ass. But they have no idea what you are talking about... namely, they hate me enough to side with you now... but keep talking.


You're a $#@!ing tool. You don't even know what you're talking about, do you?




> No? You have provided no proof other than your nonsensical, almost Lewisque approach to this conversation. Full circle. You need to provide actual proof that any company has a tipping point, ESPECIALLY if you are going to imply that sellers are the cause... Ironically, I mentioned the micro-chip manufacturers to illustrated enormous cost to entry.


And I blew away your example.

So what's an example of a company becoming too large? Well, one was Alcoa, when it lost significant market share.

But I have a better one: government. You want to know why HUD projects fail? Do you want to know why the Marines, the Army, and the National Guard couldn't even secure open fields with AK 47s and RPGs just laying around?




> If there is a flaw anywhere here, it is the idea that you are using reason.


No wonder you're such a tool. Logic, reason, and rationality are flaws, according to you.




> A business can become so large that it ultimately will become the authority. This has happened throughout history.


You haven't provided one single example of this happening.




> Do you know how many times I've had to sit through lecture after lecture of these retard talking points? I understand your stupid system. It hasn't been tested, and it's highly speculative. You can't answer even the most remote question sufficiently, and you continue to say the same $#@! over and over.


Yet you consistently have failed to provide *ONE* example of a firm actually cornering the market.




> It's not. Just look at how the biggest monopoly in the planet's history, the Government of the U.S. came to power. It is a corporation. Nothing about this corporation is efficient. If you disagree that the government is run like a business, (without competition), then you only need to observe that your It's a good thing" is flawed.


Saying the government is a monopoly, ergo a free market is bad, is the most retarded thing ever. Government derives its monopoly power not from the market but from the people. Is government run like a business? Like a really bad one that would be undercut by competitors if it wasn't for the thread of litigation.




> Where is your $#@!ing proof for this you thick dense idiot?


Jesus, you really are retarded, aren't you?




> I haven't assumed anything. If Intel or AMD end up buying each other... what is the next course of action for the consumer?  A price does not have to be ultimately unfair... it can be slightly greater than the perceived cost of entry into the market... thanks for playing.


Wrong. If consumers are willing to purchase a non Intel-AMD product, then entrepreneurs will be able to fill the void. As I've said, venture capitalists are willing to lose money on end for years just to see "the light at the end of the tunnel." Only because the Intel-AMD merger are willing to try to undercut any potential competition doesn't mean that they will unless they truly are providing superior service to their customers.




> I don't disagree with this.


 So you're agreeing that a free market monopoly is impossible.




> Every time you post something as an assumption.


Put up or shut up.




> Every time you say "empirical fact" yet show nothing... You are talking to a crowd of sheep who will not hold you accountable for this travesty of a conversation.


All the examples I've used don't count according to you, because they go against all the lies that fill your head. Why don't you provide one example for a change?




> You have offered nothing of value in here, except a central premise that Ron Paul Supporters are idiots (something I don't necessarily disagree with). Ironically, they are eating out of your $#@!. So much for thinking for themselves.


Red Herring alert. Where have I said all Ron Paul supporters are idiots?




> Wow. Ironic. This sentence is exactly what I said to you several pages back.


No. Several pages back you were bitching about how we're blocking you from debate because of our definitions, even though we agreed on the same definition as you.




> Now that you have wandered outside your copy and paste world


Listen you little $#@!tard, where have I ever copy and pasted everything?




> *If I said that there is no current pure Keynesian economy in existence, and therefore why attempts at a Keynesian economy fail, it would be the total sum of all of your arguments.*


Nope. This is yet another example of how you twist all my arguments and then claim victory for yourself, without ever actually responding to my contentions.




> I won't go there, because I have more respect for intellectual discourse.


If you had any respect for intellectual discourse you would actually debate. Instead, you're throwing around ad homs, straw men, red herrings, and post hocs. Please, grow a $#@!ing brain.




> It has everything to do with what we are debating. *You're statement that a monopoly cannot exist in a free market is false.* It is a positive statement, and it deserves proper evidence. You have given none.


You cannot prove the nonexistence of something. For example, one cannot prove the nonexistence of God or the invisible purple hippo in my backyard.

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that a monopoly can logically or has historically existed in a free market or in a situation similar to the free market.




> The United States of America is a monopoly. It gained power for itself, mostly through the abuse of force and monetary system.


No, it gained power through the states that gained power through their residents. The government has monopoly power because people are stupid and gave that government monopoly power.

The key to changing that is educating people and reversing the trend of US government.




> Everything about it follows in line with what you think cannot happen.


No it doesn't. You're using government as an example of a free market monopoly. Words don't even begin to explain the idiocy behind that reasoning.




> Ultimately, this is the end result of a failure to understand principles in social psychology, and the evolution of groups. If there is a tabula rasa, if there is a clean slate where a market can form without any regulation... IT WILL BECOME THE REGULATING BODY!


So you're saying markets are self regulating? Wow, thanks for agreeing with all of my beliefs.




> Where do you think the regulations are coming from? Not just the elected officials... but the corporations, the money itself is paying for it... they gain power because they paid for the power... there is nothing in Austrian Economics that explains that away. Nothing. A unregulated market would find a way, any way, to pursue the ultimate purpose of it's existence to any end...


Your primary flaw here is that you believe that government is the product of a free market. It is not. The problem with government today is precisely what you pointed out: that we have a representational democracy.

This is where special interests are allowed to corrupt the government. Instead of that, a minarchy or kritarchy would be preferable and less likely to be corrupt due to self-policing.




> I am a realist.


No, you're just an idiot.




> blah blah blah I'm a $#@!ing retard


Do you really expect me to respond to all of your bull$#@!? You keep on spewing the same $#@! over, and over, and over, and over again.

When will you $#@!ing grow up and actually try to debate?

----------


## The_Orlonater

Well, I learned a lot.

So a true monopoly, or olipology cannot exist in a *true* free market?


There's always competitors.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Well, I learned a lot.
> 
> So a true monopoly, or olipology cannot exist in a *true* free market?
> 
> 
> There's always competitors.


A monopoly is near impossible. An oligopoly is possible, but still highly unlikely. The pseudo-free market that is government controlled like ours gives real free markets a bad name. It makes things like these much more probable.

----------


## Kade

> When will you $#@!ing grow up and actually try to debate?


When I try, you insult. Reduce your level of fail first. I got what I wanted out of this debate, and I'm not here to impress the herd. I couldn't figure you out at first, and seeing first hand your reactions, I realize that you are no different than the other clowns here. You have reduced yourself to the Truth Warrior complex, and have been properly exposed as a ranting idiot.  As I mentioned before, you are freshly out of some class, with new found ideas, and your excitement has gotten the best of you, so you come to some Ron Paul Forum, start a thread called "Tired of RP Supporters Economic Bull$#@!" and proceed to utter your trivial rantings on the economy that any fifth grader could have read from Mises' _The Theory of Money and Credit_.

You bore me, and you can't really think for yourself. We are playing word semantics here...over and over and over and over again... You think you're little economic ideas are the greatest things since breast milk (and ironically not too far removed), yet you get all up in arms about definitions. 

You are just a kid (or really pathetic adult) pretending to understand anything about the economy. 

This is the beauty of this conversation. You insulted people who make money, (like Soros) based on some arbitrary understanding you seem to think you possess... as if the toilet were a proper place to create economic theory. 

You can't even defend the most retarded of your statements, the assumption and  depressingly ignorant statement that a monopoly could not exist in a free market.
(but only because "free market" isn't a model, and monopoly is an arbitrary creation of your overly-inflated head)

I can argue like you... it's easy actually. You just pretend you are saying something worthwhile... use big words, copy and paste from smarter men, use lots of Google, use Firefox dictionary to notice their grammatical mistakes, and then use the criticizing person's own words back at him to make yourself sound particularly clever. 

I asked of you to be think for yourself, and you have. I commend you for that, but it wasn't that spectacular, it was rather like my first time with a red-head... you think it is something new... but alas, you are disappointed. 

There are much smarter people on this board than you. You are a pretender. I'm not surprised only the most belligerent idiots have come to your rescue.

----------


## Danke

> You're a $#@!ing tool. You don't even know what you're talking about, do you?...
> 
> No wonder you're such a tool. Logic, reason, and rationality are flaws, according to you...
> 
> Jesus, you really are retarded, aren't you?...
> 
> Put up or shut up...
> 
> Listen you little $#@!tard, where have I ever copy and pasted everything?...
> ...



*Kade won.   You are now "debating" at his level.*

----------


## Kade

Get a job, buy some stock, get rich, buy an election or two, milk the market for all it's worth, and buy yourself some women. 

That is the American way, and I have no problem with that because I don't pretend to want to make things better for other people... not anymore at least.

----------


## Kade

> *Kade won.   You are now "debating" at his level.*


That was pretty much my point, but I imagine you are going to be on the exact opposite side of whatever stance I take...

Honestly, I think Austrian Economics is interesting... at least when I learned about it a few years ago.. 

I've moved on... it's called the real world, and it starts today!

----------


## Kade

> A monopoly is near impossible. An oligopoly is possible, but still highly unlikely. The pseudo-free market that is government controlled like ours gives real free markets a bad name. It makes things like these much more probable.


Real Markets?

You mean the great "free market" of Brazil?

http://www.iadb.org/intal/aplicacion...04_moreira.pdf

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Real Markets?
> 
> You mean the great "free market" of Brazil?
> 
> http://www.iadb.org/intal/aplicacion...04_moreira.pdf


No, I mean real free markets. Do a google look up on what constitutes a free market economy.

----------


## Kade

> No, I mean real free markets. Do a google look up on what constitutes a free market economy.


That's my entire point in this damned thread... there is no real definition of a "free market" because it has not existed in the "utopian" form that is required to sufficiently qualify it testable.

The closest we have had to free markets other than the U.S. have been dismal failures. 

This includes Brazil, Chile, Mexico...etc.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Well, I learned a lot.
> 
> So a true monopoly, or olipology cannot exist in a *true* free market?
> 
> 
> There's always competitors.


sure, just as a benevolent dictator can exist and Kade can form a mixed economy and hand the keys to a  guy that will only have our collective interests at heart.

You know, real world stuff.

----------


## Kade

> sure, just as a benevolent dictator can exist and Kade can form a mixed economy and hand the keys to a  guy that will only have our collective interests at heart.
> 
> You know, real world stuff.


I really don't care about the "collective interests"... I care about the intellectual primacy. More of a technocracy, in the fashion of Madison. 

A liberal is not upset at the suffering of people as much as they are about the hypocrisy of people pretending they care. Some liberals do really care... no conservative ever does.

I am a liberal who does not care.

----------


## micahnelson

In a free market, what would the government's role be?

----------


## Kade

> In a free market, what would the government's role be?


Depends on who you ask... lol.

So much fail on this thread... so much...fail.

----------


## micahnelson

> Depends on who you ask... lol.
> 
> So much fail on this thread... so much...fail.


Im asking anyone who will answer. 

The possible answers could vary from "What Government?" to "Complete".

----------


## ARealConservative

> I really don't care about the "collective interests"... I care about the intellectual primacy. More of a technocracy, in the fashion of Madison.


So whose interest would this technocracy serve?

----------


## Kade

> So whose interest would this technocracy serve?


Power is inherently illegitimate. I believe all authority must demonstrate why they deserve elevated leadership roles. Any authority for it's own sake is unjustifiable. I believe in justified authority, which includes possible rule by the "informed class", rather those most able to justify why they should be rulers. I don't have limitations on who this may be... I can give an example of legitimate authority as a father who tells his son that he must be a certain age before he smokes his first blunt with him.

The technocracy would serve to protect the species survival, I suppose, to ultimately answer the question.

It comes down to first principles, and mine is that humanity is worth saving... for now.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Power is inherently illegitimate. I believe all authority must demonstrate why they deserve elevated leadership roles. Any authority for it's own sake is unjustifiable. I believe in justified authority, which includes possible rule by the "informed class", rather those most able to justify why they should be rulers. I don't have limitations on who this may be... I can give an example of legitimate authority as a father who tells his son that he must be a certain age before he smokes his first blunt with him.
> 
> The technocracy would serve to protect the species survival, I suppose, to ultimately answer the question.
> 
> It comes down to first principles, and mine is that humanity is worth saving... for now.



So for now, the technocrats interests are to save humanity, but ultimately it is likely the informed class that will decide who is served and how.   

I love it.....not your ideas obviously, they are flat out retarded.  I love seeing people with an inflated sense of worth expose themselves.

----------


## jjockers

> I believe all authority must demonstrate why they deserve elevated leadership roles





> ...rather those most able to justify why they should be rulers


To you, what is the difference between demonstrate and justify?

Right now, we have rulers who justify why they should be re-elected.  Is that similar?

Thanks

----------


## Kade

> So for now, the technocrats interests are to save humanity, but ultimately it is likely the informed class that will decide who is served and how.   
> 
> I love it.....not your ideas obviously, they are flat out retarded.  I love seeing people with an inflated sense of worth expose themselves.


I didn't really answer your question... you assume FAR too much.

If humanity, and by extension the individual are not to served, what then, is the answer for you to your own question?

I also said nothing about "serve".

----------


## Kade

> To you, what is the difference between demonstrate and justify?
> 
> Thanks


A complicated distinction. This is part of what makes an open democracy so important. People will follow justified authority. Demonstrating that one is an authority on any subject, to which the other authorities in that field/system agree, constitutes justification.

----------


## Kade

> I love it.....not your ideas obviously, they are flat out retarded.  I love seeing people with an inflated sense of worth expose themselves.


You don't know my ideas, and you barely limp across the finish line in regards to comprehending them. 

I should also note that this criticism was just laid out by me, (with far superior dialogue) to your defecating friend krazy kaju. 

You're own creative insults would be more entertaining to me. Thanks.

----------


## ARealConservative

> I didn't really answer your question... you assume FAR too much.


You said:  * The technocracy would serve to protect the species survival, I suppose, to ultimately answer the question.*

So the only thing I assumed, was that you would stand my your words.  I guess I do assume too much.





> I also said nothing about "serve".


Yes you did.   The technocracy would *serve* to protect the species survival.

I imagine you realized how idiotic it was, but you did say it.

----------


## The_Orlonater

Let me into this conversation.

----------


## Kade

> You said:  * The technocracy would serve to protect the species survival, I suppose, to ultimately answer the question.*
> 
> So the only thing I assumed, was that you would stand my your words.  I guess I do assume too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did.   The technocracy would *serve* to protect the species survival.
> 
> I imagine you realized how idiotic it was, but you did say it.


Serve is grossly out of context. I did not imply that people would "serve" anything in particular. 

Enslavement is a different concept than survival... Your assumption is that any authority would be inherently flawed... I am no anarchist, and I do not support unjustified authority. I might be assuming to much about people. I stick with what I know, so you will have to excuse my lack of energy and passion for any real authority at all...

----------


## Kade

> Let me into this conversation.


Sure.

Define "Economic Liberalism".

----------


## Kade

Granted, my own flaw in thinking might be that I assume people will ultimately follow the leadership chosen among the justified authority... 

My flaw is optimism.

----------


## The_Orlonater

> Sure.
> 
> Define "Economic Liberalism".


Classic Liberalism, or Social Liberalism?

----------


## Kade

> Classic Liberalism, or Social Liberalism?


Whatever you think it is Orlonater.

----------


## The_Orlonater

> Whatever you think it is Orlonater.



Well,

Social Liberalism would be what the name suggests. More government involvement in the economy. I would think they would put anti-trust laws in place and favor things like universal healthcare.

Classic Liberalism

Very limited, or no government involvement whatsoever.


That's the simple part of it.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Serve is grossly out of context. I did not imply that people would "serve" anything in particular.


You should really figure out how your mixed model is going to operate before claiming a stronger position in the real world.  Man generally has a purpose for his actions.

The bottom line is you ripped the keys out of the hands of the monopolist and placed them in the hands of technocrat and are still at the mercy of individuals who take actions to serve a purpose of some kind.

----------


## Kade

> You should really figure out how your mixed model is going to operate before claiming a stronger position in the real world.  Man generally has a purpose for his actions.
> 
> The bottom line is you ripped the keys out of the hands of the monopolist and placed them in the hands of technocrat and are still at the mercy of individuals who take actions to serve a purpose of some kind.


I don't really see a way around that ARC, but I am open to suggestions.

----------


## The_Orlonater

Well, that's what I think.

Do I win?

----------


## electronicmaji

KADE ...I love you!

----------


## Kade

> Well,
> 
> Social Liberalism would be what the name suggests. More government involvement in the economy. I would think they would put anti-trust laws in place and favor things like universal healthcare.
> 
> Classic Liberalism
> 
> Very limited, or no government involvement whatsoever.
> 
> 
> That's the simple part of it.


Social Liberalism doesn't really care about the economy. Economic Liberalism has only one meaning... It's remarkable how things get twisted so easily here... as if we are somehow speaking some kind of code language.

I hear the "Price is Right" failure music in the background....

----------


## Kade

> KADE ...I love you!


I could have used a bit of your insight earlier. Debating at all with some on here is like scraping barnacles off a boat, and almost as offensive. I forgot you were still around, I ought to change my signature.

----------


## Danke

> KADE ...I love you!


We know.

----------


## The_Orlonater

> Social Liberalism doesn't really care about the economy. Economic Liberalism has only one meaning... It's remarkable how things get twisted so easily here... as if we are somehow speaking some kind of code language.
> 
> I hear the "Price is Right" failure music in the background....


Harsh. 

To quote:

Social liberals support a mixed economy of mainly private enterprise with some state provided, guaranteed or regulated public services. For example, some social liberals defend obligatory universal health insurance, with the state paying a basic health insurance to the most poor of the society. 


How can some not *care* about the economy?

And stay away from the insults, I saw you and Kaju insulting each other like brats, I won't tolerate this and I'll just leave. There's plenty of great threads.

----------


## Kade

> Harsh. 
> 
> To quote:
> 
> Social liberals support a mixed economy of mainly private enterprise with some state provided, guaranteed or regulated public services. For example, some social liberals defend obligatory universal health insurance, with the state paying a basic health insurance to the most poor of the society. 
> 
> 
> How can some not *care* about the economy?
> 
> *And stay away from the insults*, I saw you and Kaju insulting each other like brats, I won't tolerate this and I'll just leave. There's plenty of great threads.


Demonstrate it, and you get the same respect, I promise.

Social Liberals do tend to support a mixed economy, which is a far cry from the implications you made in your first post... social liberals as a group favor, social liberties... they are willing to allow authority intervene in response to violations of liberties by internal entities.

When I say "they don't care"... it really is more of a independent vote in regards to the economy. They can be convinced to support a rational policy as long as it fits into their ideas on freedom.

----------


## electronicmaji

Social Liberalism doesn't care about the economy as much as it cares about people; the economy is only a source of social reform for the people.

----------


## The_Orlonater

> Demonstrate it, and you get the same respect, I promise.
> 
> Social Liberals do tend to support a mixed economy, which is a far cry from the implications you made in your first post... social liberals as a group favor, social liberties... they are willing to allow authority intervene in response to violations of liberties by internal entities.
> 
> When I say "they don't care"... it really is more of a independent vote in regards to the economy. They can be convinced to support a rational policy as long as it fits into their ideas on freedom.


I did demonstrate it. I don't shoot insults at you, do I? I never agreed with everything you said in this thread ,or any other threads. Now I'm sure there's things we agree on, but this is life. People disagree with you. Now, that the insults are gone, great. Let's not insult each other ,or talk about it anymore.

I just named SOME things social liberals would tend to support. It wasn't a far cry. They are a mix of Socialist ideals and Classica Liberalism.

Independent vote? Please clarify a bit more. Do they all think a little differently, group wise?

(Collectivism not intended)


(Now this conversation is getting somewhere)

----------


## Kludge

> Social Liberalism doesn't care about the economy as much as it cares about people; the economy is only a source of social reform for the people.




Forget about sustainability! People are suffering!

I dream of change. I have the audacity to hope for Obama!

----------


## The_Orlonater

> Social Liberalism doesn't care about the economy as much as it cares about people; the economy is only a source of social reform for the people.


I don't deny that.

What I don't deny is that they prefer government intervention in the economy.

----------


## electronicmaji

They prefer goverment intervention in the natural social order. Simple as that.

----------


## Kludge

Subsidize failure! Save some lives maybe...!

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> They prefer goverment intervention in the natural social order. Simple as that.


Why are you here, maji? Shouldn't you be over at the Obama forums? You are registered there. We don't need your socialist ideals clouding this debate.

----------


## yongrel

> They prefer goverment intervention in the natural social order. Simple as that.

----------


## Kade

> I did demonstrate it. I don't shoot insults at you, do I? I never agreed with everything you said in this thread ,or any other threads. Now I'm sure there's things we agree on, but this is life. People disagree with you. Now, that the insults are gone, great. Let's not insult each other ,or talk about it anymore.
> 
> I just named SOME things social liberals would tend to support. It wasn't a far cry. They are a mix of Socialist ideals and Classica Liberalism.
> 
> Independent vote? Please clarify a bit more. Do they all think a little differently, group wise?
> 
> (Collectivism not intended)
> 
> 
> (Now this conversation is getting somewhere)


Social liberalism is distinct from simply "liberalism". I want to make sure that distinction is clear. They are not the same. A social liberal does believe that society ought to protect liberty and opportunity, and that state intervention for this goal is acceptable. 

In this country, the two are often mixed, and the lines between them are very blurred... Social liberals are seen as the core of the "Left-liberalism", which is the recipient of considerable amount of trash talking on these forums. 

A liberal would cringe at the idea of that certain liberties, namely, welfare over opportunity, would be used to justify the distribution of wealth.

Economic liberalism is simply the belief that the economic actions of individuals acting in self interest would produce the best results for society.

----------


## micahnelson

> Social Liberals do tend to support a mixed economy, which is a far cry from the implications you made in your first post... social liberals as a group favor, social liberties... they are willing to allow authority intervene in response to violations of liberties by internal entities.


Social liberals tend to side on perceived fairness, as far as I see it. 

They want the homeless to be fed, clothed, and housed- but not necessarily employed unless it boosts the poor persons self esteem. 

They want workers to make more and CEO's to make less, and are willing to let the government step in to accomplish this. 

They think medical care is a basic human right, which can mean life saving care on the one side, and sex change operations on the other. They are willing to mandate these policies on insurance companies, etc. 

It is a bit of a Robin Hood complex. The problems are obvious, but I will state them for the record. Robin Hood could only provide for the poor as long as wealthy men attempted to move goods from one place to another. The moment he had a serious impact, the wealthy would stop moving goods through Sherwood Forest, thus ending the handouts to the poor. The poor will now have a harder time working as the economy has been slowed down. No one would say it is desirable to have such a discrepancy between the rich barons and the peasants- the question is not how best Robin should rob them (Taxes, regulation, and welfare) but rather how best to increase the wealth in general (Innovation, Free Markets, and Entrepreneurship)

----------


## Kade

> Why are you here, maji? Shouldn't you be over at the Obama forums? You are registered there. We don't need your socialist ideals clouding this debate.


People like maji are not your enemy. The faster you understand that, the faster you and I will get along.

----------


## Kludge

*eats his words*

----------


## Kade

> Social liberals tend to side on perceived fairness, as far as I see it. 
> 
> They want the homeless to be fed, clothed, and housed- but not necessarily employed unless it boosts the poor persons self esteem. 
> 
> They want workers to make more and CEO's to make less, and are willing to let the government step in to accomplish this. 
> 
> They think medical care is a basic human right, which can mean life saving care on the one side, and sex change operations on the other. They are willing to mandate these policies on insurance companies, etc. 
> 
> It is a bit of a Robin Hood complex. The problems are obvious, but I will state them for the record. Robin Hood could only provide for the poor as long as wealthy men attempted to move goods from one place to another. The moment he had a serious impact, the wealthy would stop moving goods through Sherwood Forest, thus ending the handouts to the poor. The poor will now have a harder time working as the economy has been slowed down. No one would say it is desirable to have such a discrepancy between the rich barons and the peasants- the question is not how best Robin should rob them (Taxes, regulation, and welfare) but rather how best to increase the wealth in general (Innovation, Free Markets, and Entrepreneurship)


This is true, and it is worthy to note that I slightly cringe while thinking about it. My own feelings on the economy, for which you know quite well, are not worthy of discussion here, as I have enough enemies as it is... 

My concern is the separation of these groups... not all liberals are social liberals in this regard. The concern about the economy comes as a reaction.

Liberals on the other hand, have far more to actually say in criticism of the economy, without exactly offering much in the way of a better solution... to be honest.

----------


## Kade

> If he'd stop labeling himself as a "social libertarian" we may be just slightly more receptive to "his" ideas.


I see no problems with social libertarians, if he believes he is one.

Do you have a problem with Chomsky? Usually it's the misconstrued notion of the dismantling of private property that really chaps the ass of the Liberts.... but needless to say, the definition fits.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> People like maji are not your enemy. The faster you understand that, the faster you and I will get along.


Yes, that's why you insult people when they don't agree with you and warp official terms and definitions to fit into your perception of the world. Sorry, buddy. Life doesn't work like that.

You've insulted everyone who has presented you with any factual information contrary to your opinion and I find that to be offensive. I'm getting the impression you can't admit you're wrong and you'll whittle and twist pieces of information to make sure you're not.

Sounds like the typical liberal plan to me. Just like how maji's savior Obama went and twisted his positions in hundreds of different ways. Look at his vote on FISA and his new position on the war. I'm sick of it.

----------


## Kludge

> I see no problems with social libertarians, if he believes he is one.
> 
> Do you have a problem with Chomsky? Usually it's the misconstrued notion of the dismantling of private property that really chaps the ass of the Liberts.... but needless to say, the definition fits.


Dismantling private property when most of us base our ideology on the craving to actually OWN property.

As it stands, NO ONE owns property, so you can't really dismantle private property. Social libertarianism pisses me off about as much as Anarcho-Communists. It's the poverty-minded ideology at its worse.

----------


## The_Orlonater

> Social liberalism is distinct from simply "liberalism". I want to make sure that distinction is clear. They are not the same. A social liberal does believe that society ought to protect liberty and opportunity, and that state intervention for this goal is acceptable. 
> 
> In this country, the two are often mixed, and the lines between them are very blurred... Social liberals are seen as the core of the "Left-liberalism", which is the recipient of considerable amount of trash talking on these forums. 
> 
> A liberal would cringe at the idea of that certain liberties, namely, welfare over opportunity, would be used to justify the distribution of wealth.
> 
> Economic liberalism is simply the belief that the economic actions of individuals acting in self interest would produce the best results for society.


Never agreed with you on this, until I did more research.

All in all I'm a left-leaning Libertarian.

Or maybe in the middle.

Anyway, touche.

----------


## electronicmaji

.......

I never said Obama was my saviour; I was the first one to recognize his flaws. 

I'm not a libertarian Socialist; like Chomsky. I'm a Social Libertarian. Big difference. 

I beleive in personal rights and freedoms like most Libertarians but I also beleive in the rights to basic human needs. 

If that makes me such a crook so be it.

----------


## micahnelson

> Liberals on the other hand, have far more to actually say in criticism of the economy, without exactly offering much in the way of a better solution... to be honest.


Which could be said of most groups debating this issue. 

Most people supporting "free markets" or "free trade" these days are corporatist, counter to the social liberals.

They support strong government action to protect industries from international competition, but done through the WTO or "Free Trade" Agreements. (As an aside, how can governments who produce absolutely nothing be in any position to negotiate a trade agreement)

They believe the government should protect the economy, so they will overlook bailouts of Banks. If the government were to bailout a home owner's mortgage- this would be considered socialism to them. 

They support military contractors as American Heroes, even as we are cutting salaries and benefits to actual soldiers. 

I think this is less of an ideology and more Doublethink. They are holding two conflicting views. 


To me, the government should be involved in the economy to protect rights- as it is involved in all aspects of life. This doesn't mean you have a right to a good nights sleep, a right to an affordable pizza, etc. It does mean you have the right to start a business, attract customers, and keep them. It does not mean you can have the government protect your losses at the taxpayers expense. 

I tend to rely on charity to take care of the poor before I would rely on government, considering their track record. Its not that I resent my money going to the poor- its the manner in which it is done and the amount of overhead. Would you donate to a charity where 10 cents on the dollar actually makes it to people in need?

----------


## Kludge

> .......
> 
> I never said Obama was my saviour; I was the first one to recognize his flaws. 
> 
> I'm not a libertarian Socialist; like Chomsky. I'm a Social Libertarian. Big difference. 
> 
> I beleive in personal rights and freedoms like most Libertarians but I also beleive in the rights to basic human needs. 
> 
> If that makes me such a crook so be it.



I don't know if you understand how utterly pissed real libertarians become when you say you believe in rights but not the right to property. That makes you a libertine, an ideological scourge that originally pissed off Ayn Rand enough to break ties with libertarians.

----------


## electronicmaji

> I don't know if you understand how utterly pissed real libertarians become when you say you believe in rights but not the right to property. That makes you a libertine, an ideological scourge that originally pissed off Ayn Rand enough to break ties with libertarians.


There are plenty of Libertarians who don't beleive in the right to property. The whole left-libertarian movement beleives in the public property ideal. Look of Geolibertarianism, Left-Libertarianism, and Progressive Libertarianism.

THERE ARE MANY schools of Libertarianism. Yours is hardly the only one; in fact is Anarcho-Capitalism; the only school of Libertarianism that doesn't have the word Libertarian in it.


Geolibertarianism via Wikipedia: "Geolibertarianism is a political movement that strives to reconcile libertarianism and geoism (or Georgism).[1] Geolibertarians are advocates of geoism, which is the position that all land is a common asset to which all individuals have an equal right to access, and therefore if individuals claim the land as their property they must pay rent to the community for doing so."

----------


## Kade

> Yes, that's why you insult people when they don't agree with you and warp official terms and definitions to fit into your perception of the world. Sorry, buddy. Life doesn't work like that.
> 
> You've insulted everyone who has presented you with any factual information contrary to your opinion and I find that to be offensive. I'm getting the impression you can't admit you're wrong and you'll whittle and twist pieces of information to make sure you're not.
> 
> Sounds like the typical liberal plan to me. Just like how maji's savior Obama went and twisted his positions in hundreds of different ways. Look at his vote on FISA and his new position on the war. I'm sick of it.


Is this an example of your facts that deserve an insult?

----------


## Kade

> Which could be said of most groups debating this issue. 
> 
> Most people supporting "free markets" or "free trade" these days are corporatist, counter to the social liberals.
> 
> They support strong government action to protect industries from international competition, but done through the WTO or "Free Trade" Agreements. (As an aside, how can governments who produce absolutely nothing be in any position to negotiate a trade agreement)
> 
> They believe the government should protect the economy, so they will overlook bailouts of Banks. If the government were to bailout a home owner's mortgage- this would be considered socialism to them. 
> 
> They support military contractors as American Heroes, even as we are cutting salaries and benefits to actual soldiers. 
> ...


You are pretty spot on. I ought to point out that no charity I have ever heard of uses more than 1/10th of a cent for actual charity...

But you are right... it is doublethink. But, you must admit that even if the labels have been smeared and stolen, people here still act within those confines...

----------


## Kludge

> There are plenty of Libertarians who don't beleive in the right to property. The whole left-libertarian movement beleives in the public property ideal. Look of Geolibertarianism, Left-Libertarianism, and Progressive Libertarianism.
> 
> THERE ARE MANY schools of Libertarianism. Yours is hardly the only one; in fact is Anarcho-Capitalism; the only school of Libertarianism that doesn't have the word Libertarian in it.


Anarcho-communism, agorism, voluntaryism, propertarianism off the top of my head, but thank you for your facts.


The trouble is that libertarianism is based on freedom, but if you have no property, what freedom do you really have? The government owns your life (draft, capital punishment), property (forfeiture of property if you fail to pay mandatory taxes, eminent domain) and labor (since gains from labor are owned by the gov't).

We are not free! Everything we own can be snatched up by the gov't at any time they choose! This is terribly disheartening to know and a feeling I'd love to rid of. It causes so much apathy among young people.... Myself too at one point.


If you own nothing, what rights do you have?

----------


## Kade

> I don't know if you understand how utterly pissed real libertarians become when you say you believe in rights but not the right to property. That makes you a libertine, an *ideological scourge that originally pissed off Ayn Rand enough to break ties with libertarians.*


I actually pin that on another group of people... for those, you should go talk to Theocrat.

----------


## Kade

> Anarcho-communism, agorism, voluntaryism, propertarianism off the top of my head, but thank you for your facts.
> 
> 
> The trouble is that libertarianism is based on freedom, but if you have no property, what freedom do you really have? The government owns your life (draft, capital punishment), property (forfeiture of property if you fail to pay mandatory taxes, eminent domain) and labor (since gains from labor are owned by the gov't).
> 
> We are not free! Everything we own can be snatched up by the gov't at any time they choose! This is terribly disheartening to know and a feeling I'd love to rid of. It causes so much apathy among young people.... Myself too at one point.
> 
> 
> If you own nothing, what rights do you have?


Might be worth reading: http://www.spunk.org/texts/otherpol/...e/sp000859.txt

----------


## electronicmaji

> Anarcho-communism, agorism, voluntaryism, propertarianism off the top of my head, but thank you for your facts.
> 
> 
> The trouble is that libertarianism is based on freedom, but if you have no property, what freedom do you really have? The government owns your life (draft, capital punishment), property (forfeiture of property if you fail to pay mandatory taxes, eminent domain) and labor (since gains from labor are owned by the gov't).
> 
> We are not free! Everything we own can be snatched up by the gov't at any time they choose! This is terribly disheartening to know and a feeling I'd love to rid of. It causes so much apathy among young people.... Myself too at one point.
> 
> 
> If you own nothing, what rights do you have?



"Some progressive libertarians (including geolibertarians) feel that property should be defined as "products of labor and human effort"[3], as opposed to land and natural resources, which they feel should be subject to regulation for purposes of "fair access.""

----------


## Kludge

> I actually pin that on another group of people... for those, you should go talk to Theocrat.


Psychologist Nathaniel Branden, who for a considerable period was Ayn Rand's lover and one of her closest associates until they had a falling out, has claimed that Rand "...did not realize that the majority of people who called themselves 'libertarians' were advocates not of anarchism but of constitutionally limited government (in essence, the Objectivist model)... In any event, today libertarianism is part of our language and is commonly understood to mean the advocacy of minimal government. Ayn Rand is commonly referred to as 'a libertarian philosopher.' Folks, we are all libertarians now. Might as well get used to it."[3]

----------


## Kludge

> "Some progressive libertarians (including geolibertarians) feel that property should be defined as "products of labor and human effort"[3], as opposed to land and natural resources, which they feel should be subject to regulation for purposes of "fair access.""


$#@! their feelings, they aren't rational.


If society owns your property, what freedoms do you have?

----------


## Kade

_Many sincere lovers of liberty now flock to the standard of the
Libertarian Party, as they did the Bolsheviks, completely igno-
rant of the history of the last century. As Santayanna said:
``Those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat
them.''
 What should be done? It should be obvious that government
enforcement of private contracts is not libertarian any more than
is taking state power to set people free. Libertarianism is and
always will mean socialism~the self emancipation of working
people.
 Libertarians must stop courting the Republican right and return
to their intellectual roots. By standing outside of the political
process we deny the state legitimacy, and like the state tortur-
ers in Atlas Shrugged, they will come and beg for libertarians to
take over.
 Remembering the experience of the Spanish libertarians, and
heeding the advice of John Galt, libertarians must refuse state
power even when begged. The state can never be a tool of libera-
tion. Only its complete and utter collapse will allow for the
emergence of non-statist institutions, libertarian coops, com-
munes, and free markets, to flourish and displace the political
state once and for all._

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> .......
> 
> I never said Obama was my saviour; I was the first one to recognize his flaws. 
> 
> I'm not a libertarian Socialist; like Chomsky. I'm a Social Libertarian. Big difference. 
> 
> I beleive in personal rights and freedoms like most Libertarians but I also beleive in the rights to basic human needs. 
> 
> If that makes me such a crook so be it.


You are registered at the Obama forums. Your definition of social libertarian is an oxymoron. "Rights to basic human needs" is another way of saying welfare and meddling in other countries. You don't need government welfare when a free market is in place. That's not social libertarian, that's socialist. There's absolutely nothing libertarian about it.

You are using tax payer dollars and redistribution of wealth. THAT is socialism. You should have stayed at the Obama forums.

----------


## electronicmaji

> $#@! their feelings, they aren't rational.
> 
> 
> If society owns your property, what freedoms do you have?


The freedom to yourself. Quite simply put; Society and Goverment can take anything away from you; your freedom to speech; freedom to property and such. But there are true freedoms that are never removable. 

Now I don't neccesarily condone taking away all these freedoms; but I think the so called Freedom to Own all Property and excluding the goverment from owning any is stupid and foolish. 

Ownage of physical land is not a catch all for the Libertarian movement. Not by a longshot; and I will not let the term Libertarian be defined by such a ridiculous extremist notion.

----------


## electronicmaji

> You are registered at the Obama forums. Your definition of social libertarian is an oxymoron. "Rights to basic human needs" is another way of saying welfare and meddling in other countries. You don't need government welfare when a free market is in place. That's not social libertarian, that's socialist. There's absolutely nothing libertarian about it.
> 
> You are using tax payer dollars and redistribution of wealth. THAT is socialism. You should have stayed at the Obama forums.



Yes I support some forms of Socialism. Thats why I am a SOCIAL Libertarian. 

Jesus christ, the intelligence of some our forms posters is downright scary

----------


## Kludge

> The freedom to yourself. Quite simply put; Society and Goverment can take anything away from you; your freedom to speech; freedom to property and such. But there are true freedoms that are never removable.


Clarify.

Society can take everything of value away from you. What's left?

----------


## electronicmaji

> Clarify.
> 
> Society can take everything of value away from you. What's left?


The freedom of your mind.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Yes I support some forms of Socialism. Thats why I am a SOCIAL Libertarian. 
> 
> Jesus christ, the intelligence of some our forms posters is downright scary


There's nothing LIBERTARIAN about that. You're trying to make a dirty word seem more appealing by sticking libertarian by it. Tell me, what's so libertarian about those policies . From what I understand, they directly contradict the party's platform. It's an oxymoron! The more people believe things like that, the closer the party will be too becoming what now defines a conservative!

----------


## Dr.3D

> Jesus christ, the intelligence of some our forms posters is downright scary


Is He on these forums too?

----------


## yongrel

> The freedom of your mind.

----------


## Kludge

> The freedom of your mind.


I'm stunned.

----------


## electronicmaji

> There's nothing LIBERTARIAN about that. You're trying to make a dirty word seem more appealing by sticking libertarian by it. Tell me, what's so libertarian about those policies . From what I understand, they directly contradict the party's platform. It's an oxymoron! The more people believe things like that, the closer the party will be too becoming what now defines a conservative!


Whats Libertarian about it is I dont beleive basic goods and work should be taxed. Whats Libertarian about it is I think people should be free to say what they want and do what they want with their life and their money.
Whats Libertarian about it is I think people have every right to be free. That simple.

----------


## yongrel

> Whats Libertarian about it is I dont beleive basic goods and work should be taxed. Whats Libertarian about it is I think people should be free to say what they want and do what they want with their life and their money.
> Whats Libertarian about it is I think people have every right to be free. That simple.

----------


## Kludge

> Whats Libertarian about it is I dont beleive basic goods and work should be taxed. Whats Libertarian about it is I think people should be *free to* say what they want and* do what they want with* their life and* their money.*
> Whats Libertarian about it is I think people have every right to be free. That simple.


But you don't believe that. You believe in taxation, and likely increased taxation to fund "necessities".

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Whats Libertarian about it is I dont beleive basic goods and work should be taxed. Whats Libertarian about it is I think people should be free to say what they want and do what they want with their life and their money.
> Whats Libertarian about it is I think people have every right to be free. That simple.


How can they be free with their money if you're taking it from them to fund socialist ideas? You can't say "Here, do what you want with you're money but I'm going to use some of it to fund programs like health care, foreign aid, etc etc"

----------


## Kade

> [IMG][/IMG]


You are getting annoying.

----------


## Kludge

> You are getting annoying.


There ought to be a law...

----------


## Kade

> There ought to be a law...


Self-regulating. No thanks.

----------


## electronicmaji

> But you don't believe that. You believe in taxation, and likely increased taxation to fund "necessities".


I think that some taxation is neccesary; but not incredible amounts of it no; I beleive in voluntary socialism. And the rest of taxation should be small amounts to fund the maintanence of roads and such; probably left up to the states and such.

----------


## Kludge

> Self-regulating. No thanks.


I see no experimental proof to back you up.

----------


## Kludge

> I think that some taxation is neccesary; but not incredible amounts of it no; I beleive in voluntary socialism. And the rest of taxation should be small amounts to fund the maintanence of roads and such; probably left up to the states and such.


Voluntary socialism is not a form of government. It is a social contract that would only be allowed in anarchy.

----------


## Kade

> Voluntary socialism is not a form of government. It is a social contract that would only be allowed in anarchy.


Who would enforce the free market Kludge... ?


...just curious.

----------


## electronicmaji

> Voluntary socialism is not a form of government. It is a social contract that would only be allowed in anarchy.


Why can't the goverment maintain voluntary socialist systems?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Why can't the goverment maintain voluntary socialist systems?


Well, mainly because the Constitution says all powers not delegated to the federal government are delegated to the states. Maybe you should pick it up and read it if you get a chance.

----------


## Kludge

> Who would enforce the free market Kludge... ?
> 
> 
> ...just curious.



In anarchy? Private police forces.


I prefer to believe communities could sustain voluntaryism, in which they could fund projects. Everyone in the community would be covered though not required to pay... voting incentives could be used (i.e. Donations of $x allows you to vote on those employed) to encourage funding of the "public" programs.


Local, state and federal "governments" would still exist. They'd be funded by voluntary donations. It is an untested political system as of yet, but the only pragmatic and fair system I'm aware of.


We'd basically maintain our current country. We'd privatize everything that isn't related to enforcement of laws... sewage systems, roads etc. Police, Fire departments and the judicial system would be funded by voluntary donations. An incentive could be that if you donate over $25, you are allowed to directly vote on a police chief, judge etc.

----------


## Kludge

> Why can't the goverment maintain voluntary socialist systems?


You have never advocated a "voluntary socialist system". You have advocated coercing the "fortunate" to pay for the "unfortunate" whether they want to or not.

----------


## electronicmaji

> Well, mainly because the Constitution says all powers not delegated to the federal government are delegated to the states. Maybe you should pick it up and read it if you get a chance.


The constitution can be amended. This isn't a debate about the constitution at all. Its about the form of goverment.

----------


## Kade

> In anarchy? Private police forces.


Private police forces...

Wow... this opens a whole new line of debate... man, I don't even know where to start... 

I can picture exactly where it will end up in less than 6 years time.

----------


## electronicmaji

> You have never advocated a "voluntary socialist system". You have advocated coercing the "fortunate" to pay for the "unfortunate" whether they want to or not.


It has nothing to do with coercement; it has to do with Goverment sponsored and created charity that ensures to its best abilities basic rights like healthcare via opt-out socialized health voucher systems driven via private market. That simple. A certain percentage of everyone who doesn't optout income is taken; combined; they are given a voucher which is redeemable by private provider for a predetermined amount from the goverment.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> The constitution can be amended. This isn't a debate about the constitution at all. Its about the form of goverment.


Clearly, you haven't read through our rule of law. It can be amended, but not for things like that. Also, check your grammar.

----------


## Kludge

> It has nothing to do with coercement; it has to do with Goverment sponsored and created charity that ensures to its best abilities basic rights like healthcare via opt-out socialized health voucher systems driven via private market. That simple. A certain percentage of everyone who doesn't optout income is taken; combined; they are given a voucher which is redeemable by private provider for a predetermined amount from the goverment.


For healthcare maybe... How did you intend to fund law enforcement, infrastructure?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> For healthcare maybe... How did you intend to fund law enforcement, infrastructure?


Maji should just be banned. This is so socialist it's ridiculous. There's nothing libertarian here, which is probably why he joined the Obama forums.

----------


## aravoth

> Who would enforce the free market Kludge... ?
> 
> 
> ...just curious.


The free market is not enforced by anything except the invisible hand of the market.

----------


## Kludge

> *snip*


Attempting to become a liberal form of yongrel?

You didn't allow me to edit my post (which I requested before editing since my internet browser wasn't functioning properly)... 

The police would be voluntarily funded with voting incentives given to those who donate a specified amount.

----------


## aravoth

> It has nothing to do with coercement; it has to do with Goverment sponsored and created charity that ensures to its best abilities basic rights like healthcare via opt-out socialized health voucher systems driven via private market. That simple. A certain percentage of everyone who doesn't optout income is taken; combined; they are given a voucher which is redeemable by private provider for a predetermined amount from the goverment.


Jesus..... I need stuff, can I have your stuff? I wish my neighbors would buy my groceries for me. Maybe you could be charitable and set an example by paying for my child's healthcare?

----------


## yongrel

> It has nothing to do with coercement; it has to do with Goverment sponsored and created charity that ensures to its best abilities basic rights like healthcare via opt-out socialized health voucher systems driven via private market. That simple. A certain percentage of everyone who doesn't optout income is taken; combined; they are given a voucher which is redeemable by private provider for a predetermined amount from the goverment.

----------


## electronicmaji

> Maji should just be banned. This is so socialist it's ridiculous. There's nothing libertarian here, which is probably why he joined the Obama forums.


Hardly.....


Law enforcement would be funded by the same small amounts of taxes that fund normal road work.

----------


## yongrel

> Hardly.....
> 
> 
> Law enforcement would be funded by the same small amounts of taxes that fund normal road work.

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> Attempting to become a liberal form of yongrel?
> 
> You didn't allow me to edit my post (which I requested before editing since my internet browser wasn't functioning properly)... 
> 
> The police would be voluntarily funded with voting incentives given to those who donate a specified amount.


What's libertarian about incentives? Sounds like a euphemism for a state-sponsored privilege(license).

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

I can understand where Maji is coming from. All private property at some point was taken by force to get that way - sounds a lot like socialism, don't it?.
Moreover, how can anyone lay claim to something they didn't create?

----------


## constituent

> I can understand where Maji is coming from. All private property at some point was taken by force to get that way - sounds a lot like socialism, don't it?.
> Moreover, how can anyone lay claim to something they didn't create?


...and wasn't legitimately transfered to their "possession."

----------


## The_Orlonater

I've been out.

What's new?

----------


## Kludge

> What's libertarian about incentives? Sounds like a euphemism for a state-sponsored privilege(license).


However, there are no disincentives and giving an incentive affirms it's a privilege.

That said, we're dealing with academic ideals. What needs to happen now is a drastic reduction of government influence in the economy and in our lives. Those services that are required need to be moved to the state or local level as the federal government works on fixing the $#@!-ups (AKA national debt) of previous generations.

----------


## aravoth



----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> ...and wasn't legitimately transfered to their "possession."


yep, thank you. I was thinking it but didn't explicitly say it.

The early settlers knew this and had to come up with things like "Manifest Destiny" to justify their slaughter of those who didn't believe God transfered the title of his creation to us

----------


## ARealConservative

> I don't really see a way around that ARC, but I am open to suggestions.


Well....I suggest you remove your head from the sand because I just showed you the gigantic hole in your "working theory".

the difference between a  liberal Kade and a liberal FDR comes down to populism.

----------


## constituent

> the difference between a  liberal Kade and a liberal FDR comes down to populism.


ewwww... a vile response.

(good one though )

----------


## danberkeley

> I've been out.
> 
> What's new?


The same old stuff. Kade doesnt make any sense. Electronicmaji is back and in full force. I'm surprised buttalokid777 hasnt shown up. 

Here's a sample of Kade's logic...

Kaju: An oligopoly is not a monopoly.
Kade: Cats have four legs. Therefore, me win conversation.

----------


## ARealConservative

> ewwww... a vile response.
> 
> (good one though )

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> The same old stuff. Kade doesnt make any sense. Electronicmaji is back and in full force. I'm surprised buttalokid777 hasnt shown up. 
> 
> Here's a sample of Kade's logic...
> 
> Kaju: An oligopoly is not a monopoly.
> Kade: Cats have four legs. Therefore, me win conversation.


lmao

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> Yep, I've seen some of the so called economics majors who have come on here and made an ass of themselves.  What they fail to comprehend is, the stuff they were told in college isn't necessarily the truth.  There are many schools of thought when it comes to economics and most of what is taught in the colleges is not Austrian economics.  Rather, it tends to be of the school of thought tailored after what has been happening in this country since 1913.


Ran into this arguement with my bro-in-law. Kensian<sp and friedman schools of thought. All he blabbed about was the chicago schools. As though that was it, end of discussion. (sigh)...and you know the rest.

----------


## noxagol

Tell him to invest in a book called Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. This, AFAIK, is pretty much the Austrian economics book.

----------


## Kade

> The free market is not enforced by anything except the invisible hand of the market.


Does a democracy still exist? Do people still vote? Who enforces the free market when the free market is voted against by the people?

Who will stop the hordes of the bourgeoisie from storming the retails stores when food becomes scarce?

----------


## Kade

> Clearly, you haven't read through our rule of law. *It can be amended, but not for things like that*. Also, check your grammar.


Wrong.

The Constitution can be amended to ANYTHING, just as long as the process is followed.

_Article V: Amendment Process

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate._

----------


## noxagol

> Does a democracy still exist? Do people still vote? Who enforces the free market when the free market is voted against by the people?
> 
> Who will stop the hordes of the bourgeoisie from storming the retails stores when food becomes scarce?


Uh, well, first, the people CAN'T vote against the market as the government has no power to do anything to it. That's why democracy is bad. Uncontrolled power of the masses is a HORRIBLE thing for everyone because face it, people are $#@!ing idiots. The government represents the majority and must have its power SEVERELY limited to protect everyone from themselves in essence. 

And if food becomes scarce, we have bigger problems on our hands.

----------


## Kade

> Uh, well, first, the people CAN'T vote against the market as the government has no power to do anything to it. That's why democracy is bad. Uncontrolled power of the masses is a HORRIBLE thing for everyone because face it, people are $#@!ing idiots.
> 
> And if food becomes scarce, we have bigger problems on our hands.


If people can't vote "against" the market, how did we lose our "free market" in the first place...

You are embarrassing yourself.  




> The government represents the majority and must have its power SEVERELY limited to protect everyone from themselves in essence.


Protecting everyone from themselves? Where have I heard this from....

----------


## noxagol

> If people can't vote "against" the market, how did we lose our "free market" in the first place...
> 
> You are embarrassing yourself.


People ignored the Constitution. If we were still following it strictly then the government wouldn't be doing 99% of what it does now. Use your freaking brain. We ARE a democracy right now instead of the REPUBLIC we are suppose to be. 






> Protecting everyone from themselves? Where have I heard this from....


LOl, yes, but this is different. I'm not forcing people to make good decisions, I'm limiting them from using legalized theft from taking from other and limiting actions that could otherwise be perfectly OK in a free market. I'll restate, I'm protect everyone from everyone else in the use of government force.

----------


## Kade

> People ignored the Constitution. If we were still following it strictly then the government wouldn't be doing 99% of what it does now. Use your freaking brain. We ARE a democracy right now instead of the REPUBLIC we are suppose to be.


The ultimate authority of a country can always be overthrown, even the Constitution.

Considering the abuse it's taken lately... and the hijacking of it by such organizations as the "Heritage Foundation", it's not a long shot.






> LOl, yes, but this is different. I'm not forcing people to make good decisions, I'm limiting them from using legalized theft from taking from other and limiting actions that could otherwise be perfectly OK in a free market. I'll restate, I'm protect everyone from everyone else in the use of government force.


I know the concept... I really do... but my point still trends towards the fact that with nothing to stop certain market forces, ie, monopolies, the enterprises themselves will become the regulation... the authority. There is a central assumption that in a "pure free market" a monopoly could not exist...

There is no such thing... an enterprise will always spend it's resources on finding ways to destroy it's competition... and in the wake of these battles, the lowest class, in a poverty so utterly unimaginable, will rebel... and then we are left with everyone's worst nightmare here... a totalitarian regime.

This is what has happened with every practice run of a free market system. Excluding the rare example of the U.S.

----------


## Kade

An investigation of Smith's "invisible hand" from Marx's Das Kapital:

_In the progress of the division of labor, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labor, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is altogether incapable of judging, and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war. The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind, and makes him regard with abhorrence the irregular, uncertain, and adventurous life of a soldier. It corrupts even the activity of his body, and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employment than that to which he has been bred. His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expence of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the laboring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.
_

----------


## aravoth

> Does a democracy still exist? Do people still vote? Who enforces the free market when the free market is voted against by the people?
> 
> Who will stop the hordes of the bourgeoisie from storming the retails stores when food becomes scarce?


The second amendment.

----------


## Kade

> The second amendment.


Insufficient. The second amendment has armed those hordes, and they outnumber any army. They are the starving 80%... wording is not going to save you're food sources or your family, if you happen to be one of the "opulent minority".

Nice try though. The horde is also made up of previously free market advocates, stone-retarded backwoods provincial hicks, and ignorant racists joined forces with Africanized mobs in an ironic twist of social tolerance, all in order to secure some food.

----------


## aravoth

> Insufficient. The second amendment has armed those hordes, and they outnumber any army. They are the starving 80%... wording is not going to save you're food sources or your family, if you happen to be one of the "opulent minority".
> 
> Nice try though. The horde is also made up of previously free market advocates, stone-retarded backwoods provincial hicks, and ignorant racists joined forces with Africanized mobs in an ironic twist of social tolerance, all in order to secure some food.


Kade, food doesn't come from Safeway, and if the "Hordes" are armed, I'm sure they can find food with those arms easier than they can steal it. Animals don't shoot back. 

By the way. I grew up in a very small town. I knew some people you would call backwoods. And they are a hell of a lot more intelligent than anyone else I know in the city, by a long shot. Just about all of them are debt free, and have more financial sense than people in living McMansions at any new subdivision. Backwoods "hicks" would be the last people you'd  ever have to worry about. Unless you treid to take what they have. Which would be a hell of a lot more than you got in a situation like the one you're describing.

----------


## Kade

> Kade, food doesn't come from Safeway, and if the "Hordes" are armed, I'm sure they can find food with those arms easier than they can steal it. Animals don't shoot back. 
> 
> By the way. I grew up in a very small town. I knew some people you would call backwoods. And they are a hell of a lot more intelligent than anyone else I know in the city, by a long shot. Just about all of them are debt free, and have more financial sense than people in living McMansions at any new subdivision. Backwoods "hicks" would be the last people you'd  ever have to worry about. Unless you treid to take what they have. Which would be a hell of a lot more than you got in a situation like the one you're describing.


A small town is not equivalent to backwater redneck hicks... sorry. I'm remembering my childhood spent near the real fun... the North Georgia mountains...

Yeehahaaw.

Anyway, do some reading: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97...al/capital.htm

----------


## aravoth

> A small town is not equivalent to backwater redneck hicks... sorry. I'm remembering my childhood spent near the real fun... the North Georgia mountains...
> 
> Yeehahaaw.
> 
> Anyway, do some reading: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97...al/capital.htm


Oregon Cascades, trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

----------


## aravoth

> A small town is not equivalent to backwater redneck hicks... sorry. I'm remembering my childhood spent near the real fun... the North Georgia mountains...
> 
> Yeehahaaw.
> 
> Anyway, do some reading: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97...al/capital.htm


I respect George Soros's investment mojo, be he is from Europe. Authoritative governments, fascist regimes, destabilizing political forces, and submitting masses is all they know. That entire Continent has schizophrenia. No offense to the Irish, and the 2 or 300 people on the mainland that fight back. 

A serious question I have to ask you though..

Why do you always link outside sources to justify a statement you made? Most people do that when they have not conjured the thought themselves. Because the thought itself was far beyond their thought capacity. I'm not saying that's you, just pointing out the fact that whenever someone has no clue what they are talking about, that's what they do. Always, when someone is questioned on it, the same tired line is used. "I have done extensive research, looked at both sides of the issue, and made a decision". They say this to make them sound like they are well read, tolerant, and well aware of the oppositions positions, giving them superior ground in the argument.

The problem is that the "research" they do isn't research at all. All they are doing is reading the opinion of someone else. They will do no controlled experiments, they will not open their own business. Most people are not smart enough to understand all angles of the argument, so, typically, they will gravitate towards the one that a child can grasp. You can tell by the similarity between the save the world attitude of people like Obama supporters. Compare what they say to a child on an elementary school playground, the concepts are exactly the same, and equally childish. You see it in movie theaters also. A summer action film will always to better than documentary. I bring up movies becuase a strange thing happens when standing in line to buy your ticket there. Listen to the crowd next time you go. Try to find a couple that hasn't yet decided what to watch. Nearly always one of them will say, "I just don't want something complicated", "I don't want to think to much", "I rather watch things get blown up". Or something to that effect. It's becuase they would rather not think. The same is true of people with regards to political alignments and economics. To the masses, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one, regardless of it's impact. People don't think too far ahead, becuase they don't want to think too much. 

And always, the last thing most people want is responsibility. I began hearing it years ago in casual conversation. Average hard working people, all of the sudden started saying things like "they should fix that". They? 

How often do you think Nikola Tesla cited "sources" to prove that his AC current was better than Edison's DC? Or How many articles did Einstein reference people to in order to justify Relativity? Only thing they used was hard fact, hard data, and hard math. They came up with all of it, themselves. Number where there guide. And if we use numbers as our guide. Your version of what the economic reality should be, fails. Free Markets do not collapse a society, but they do get infected with Socialists, Communists, Fascists, and various other totalitarian elements. They pervert the system, exploit the masses, rob taxpayers, and destroy the wealth of entire nations. They do this becuase that's what the data shows they do, all throughout history free societies have been overrun by them. And all throughout history they have collapsed. Why that is almost always ignored by proponents of Socialism (soft fascism), and it's offshoots is beyond me. 

But your side is winning at this moment in history. But the Mighty Ship of State has a thousand major leaks in it. All of it caused by Government Regulatory bull$#@!, the very thing you think that is so enlightening is tearing us apart. Once people realize that the Government is bankrupt, and the people have nothing left give, the government with nothing left to loot from it's people. Then maybe, you will understand what I and others like me are talking about.

----------


## IRO-bot

This is the thread that doesn't end! 'Cause it goes on & on my friend. Some people started typeing & not knowing what it was, & they'll keep on typeing it forever just because...This is the thread that doesn't end.

----------


## Kade

> I respect George Soros's investment mojo, be he is from Europe. Authoritative governments, fascist regimes, destabilizing political forces, and submitting masses is all they know. That entire Continent has schizophrenia. No offense to the Irish, and the 2 or 300 people on the mainland that fight back. 
> 
> A serious question I have to ask you though..
> 
> Why do you always link outside sources to justify a statement you made? Most people do that when they have not conjured the thought themselves. Because the thought itself was far beyond their thought capacity. I'm not saying that's you, just pointing out the fact that whenever someone has no clue what they are talking about, that's what they do. Always, when someone is questioned on it, the same tired line is used. "I have done extensive research, looked at both sides of the issue, and made a decision". They say this to make them sound like they are well read, tolerant, and well aware of the oppositions positions, giving them superior ground in the argument.
> 
> The problem is that the "research" they do isn't research at all. All they are doing is reading the opinion of someone else. They will do no controlled experiments, they will not open their own business. Most people are not smart enough to understand all angles of the argument, so, typically, they will gravitate towards the one that a child can grasp. You can tell by the similarity between the save the world attitude of people like Obama supporters. Compare what they say to a child on an elementary school playground, the concepts are exactly the same, and equally childish. You see it in movie theaters also. A summer action film will always to better than documentary. I bring up movies becuase a strange thing happens when standing in line to buy your ticket there. Listen to the crowd next time you go. Try to find a couple that hasn't yet decided what to watch. Nearly always one of them will say, "I just don't want something complicated", "I don't want to think to much", "I rather watch things get blown up". Or something to that effect. It's becuase they would rather not think. The same is true of people with regards to political alignments and economics. To the masses, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one, regardless of it's impact. People don't think too far ahead, becuase they don't want to think too much. 
> 
> And always, the last thing most people want is responsibility. I began hearing it years ago in casual conversation. Average hard working people, all of the sudden started saying things like "they should fix that". They? 
> ...


I like this little mini rant of yours, and I completely agree with you. I would like to point out that I don't always link outside sources at all... much of what I say here comes from me and my experience... but people don't consider me an expert on much, even if, I strongly believe, I would cream them in a real debate...mano y mano.  I don't need outside sources for much, but I am not an expert on mass modern economies, and I doubt any idiot here is either...

I am an expert on psychological evolution, game theory, and the principia cybernetica, and I am a master social engineer. Those things I claim without any humility or modesty, and with all qualification deprived of arrogance and demonstrable skill.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Wrong.
> 
> The Constitution can be amended to ANYTHING, just as long as the process is followed.
> 
> _Article V: Amendment Process
> 
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate._


No...it can't be amended to contradict itself. Then there's not even a point in having a rule of law.

People wanted to amend it to allow slavery, too, ya know.

----------


## krazy kaju

So I haven't been here for a day or two but apparently this thread blew up. Since I don't feel like reading through a few pages of Kade's incessant bull$#@!, I'll just restate the truth here.

There are essentially two end-all be-all arguments which show why monopolies and free markets don't mix:

*ECONOMIES OF SCALE*

All economists accept that there is an optimal size for a firm, because the costs of operating exceed the maximum profits at a certain point due to calculation problems that are inherent in a bureaucracy.

Here is an *economic model* representing this:


This shows that a company would not be able to grow indefinitely and remain maximally efficient. This also shows that there always will be other businesses from nearby blocks, towns, cities, states, countries, etc. that are willing to undermine an unfair "monopoly-like" business.

Again, let me note that all economists of any worth accept this, and that Kade not accepting this really just shows how he ignores evidence that goes contrary to his preconceived beliefs.

*THE RICH ENTREPRENEUR/VENTURE CAPITALIST*

Even if the natural market entry fees are high, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists are willing to run losses for a long time against a larger, less efficient competitor as long as their business model is good. Again, there is a multum of evidence backing up my claim. Yahoo, Google, and Sun Microsystems are three examples of companies (and their venture capitalist investors) that ran losses for long periods of time in the hope of breaking through and becoming profitable in the long run.

___

Anyways, I'm still waiting for Kade, or anyone else for that matter, to show an example of a capitalist monopoly or oligopoly that were able to dictate unfair prices.

----------


## krazy kaju

> No...it can't be amended to contradict itself. Then there's not even a point in having a rule of law.
> 
> People wanted to amend it to allow slavery, too, ya know.


Actually, you can have the Constitution "contradict itself." Prohibition of alcohol and the 14th Amendment are two examples. The prohibition is quite obvious, as for the 14th Amendment, Virginia and New Jersey, upon accepting the Constitution, stated that the Constitution was to be read literally. Also, the "Founding Fathers" assurred the states that the Constitution would be read literally and therefore only apply to federal (not state) gov't. But the 14th Amendment changed that and forced the "Bill of Rights" to apply to state and local government as well.

So that is, in a way, a contradiction.

----------


## The_Orlonater

I really do like this thread.

Hell, we can make this a sticky.

----------


## aravoth

> Anyways, I'm still waiting for Kade, or anyone else for that matter, to show an example of a capitalist monopoly or oligopoly that were able to dictate unfair prices.


That's easy. Lemonade dude. Those damn kids and thier lemonade stands, they have a monopoly on an entire neighborhood. And once, I watched a price war at two competeing lemonaid stands, only instead of going down, they went UP! from 25 cents to 1 dollar in less than 15 minutes! Guess they figured a higher number meant you where better. 

Old people still bought from them. It's such a scam, 1 dollar for a cup of lemonade. They know people are thirsty, they know most people don't have the capacity to carry around water. They exploit hot weather, they exploit your instinct to drink when your thirsty. 

Why government didn't move in and break those two operations up is beyond me. I'm sure that serveral lazy fat assed children would have loved the opportunity to get off their blubber for a few hours and make some money, if only they wern't stuffing thier mouths with ho-ho's and playing world of warcraft. All the same, they are every bit as deserving of the profits those lemonade stands yeilded as the children who ran them. 

They should be taxed, they should be forced to sell during the winter time. Homeless people should be able to get discounted glasses of lemonade, and they should also serve hot cider during the cold months. We could distribute the tax money to all the other children. Or we could use the tax money to pay for starving children in a foreign country you've never heard of. Or we could use the tax money to bomb that country. 

The choice is not yours, but the possibilties are endless........

----------


## ARealConservative

> Anyways, I'm still waiting for Kade, or anyone else for that matter, to show an example of a capitalist monopoly or oligopoly that were able to dictate unfair prices.


come on now.

He gave you the computer processor example.....an example of how something that gets exponentially faster while dropping in costs is screwing us all.

----------


## The_Orlonater

> That's easy. Lemonade dude. Those damn kids and thier lemonade stands, they have a monopoly on an entire neighborhood. And once, I watched a price war at two competeing lemonaid stands, only instead of going down, they went UP! from 25 cents to 1 dollar in less than 15 minutes! Guess they figured a higher number meant you where better. 
> 
> Old people still bought from them. It's such a scam, 1 dollar for a cup of lemonade. They know people are thirsty, they know most people don't have the capacity to carry around water. They exploit hot weather, they exploit your instinct to drink when your thirsty. 
> 
> Why government didn't move in and break those two operations up is beyond me. I'm sure that serveral lazy fat assed children would have loved the opportunity to get off their blubber for a few hours and make some money, if only they wern't stuffing thier mouths with ho-ho's and playing world of warcraft. All the same, they are every bit as deserving of the profits those lemonade stands yeilded as the children who ran them. 
> 
> They should be taxed, they should be forced to sell during the winter time. Homeless people should be able to get discounted glasses of lemonade, and they should also serve hot cider during the cold months. We could distribute the tax money to all the other children. Or we could use the tax money to pay for starving children in a foreign country you've never heard of. Or we could use the tax money to bomb that country. 
> 
> The choice is not yours, but the possibilties are endless........


Damn f-in' kids!

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Actually, you can have the Constitution "contradict itself." Prohibition of alcohol and the 14th Amendment are two examples. The prohibition is quite obvious, as for the 14th Amendment, Virginia and New Jersey, upon accepting the Constitution, stated that the Constitution was to be read literally. Also, the "Founding Fathers" assurred the states that the Constitution would be read literally and therefore only apply to federal (not state) gov't. But the 14th Amendment changed that and forced the "Bill of Rights" to apply to state and local government as well.
> 
> So that is, in a way, a contradiction.


Yea, but we never should have had prohibition. It's completely unconstitutional. What's it going to take before people say, "hey, you can't do that."

----------


## IRO-bot

> Yea, but we never should have had prohibition. It's completely unconstitutional. What's it going to take before people say, "hey, you can't do that."


When it's too late and all of our rights are gone.

----------


## Kade

> *ECONOMIES OF SCALE*
> 
> All economists accept that there is an optimal size for a firm, because the costs of operating exceed the maximum profits at a certain point due to calculation problems that are inherent in a bureaucracy.


What you are referencing is the belief that firm size is limited by what is called "loss of control" in hierarchal levels. The proof for this was set in a paper by the economist Oliver E. Williamson in 1967. I agree with the paper. The proof, if I recall was the intentions of the superior are satisfied by the subordinate, and the proportional loss of control is cumulative, and measured by a very clever proof.  & (0 < & < 1) whereas & datum set of for the value of "control". Williamson was one of the fathers of the theory of Firm, and it is his proof alone that concludes that the size of firm is limited. You failed to specify this, and in doing so, also failed to inform our idiot readers that there is a inherent flaw in this strict analysis of firm size. This was explained in near flawless detail with a paper by Guilermo Calvo and Stanislaw Wllisz in the Journal of Political Economy in 1978. They showed, correctly in my opinion, that the size of the firm, based on the "loss of control" value of Williamson, actually depends greatest on the level of supervision and the supervision process. They demonstrated that if the supervision process allowed for a random, and unmeasurable amount of supervision towards it's lowest level workers, (something that would later be defined as a panopticon), the size of a firm was limitless. In other words, more control of supervision can allow a firm to completely bypass the only variable used to measure the limitations of a firm, the "loss of control" variable.

We see this now with several firms, who, although not entirely monopolies by your definition, exert enough control of their employees to allow themselves to continue to grow at a near limitless size... for example Verizon. That other forces intervene to stifle the growth, is of no concern to the central point that firm size is limited. It is not.

----------


## krazy kaju

Kade, I am not familiar with the works you listed. Saying that one of them is "near flawless" does not prove anything. You have to be able to show how a company can grow indefinitely without suffering from economic calculation problems as we have seen with governments the world over. Also, pointing out to a company like Verizon is quite pointless, it is nowhere near monopoly size. If Verizon were a monopoly, we would see a diseconomy of scale simply because it would not be able to accurately calculate the consumer needs of all of America.

Furthermore, you have to disprove my other theoretical example of how rich entrepreneurs and venture capitalists are able to take losses for a long time just to undercut established businesses.

Lastly, the burden of proof still falls on you to show *ONE* example of a capitalist monopoly or oligopoly that dictated unfair prices without being taken out by market forces.

----------


## krazy kaju

BTW rockandroll, what about the 3/5ths rule in the Constitution? Do you believe we should bring that back?

I don't want to debate right now, but I don't see any historical precedent that makes it illegal to amend the Constitution to contradict itself. Amendments 13, 14, and 15 are all contradictions to the original Constitution in a sense.

----------


## Kade

> Kade, I am not familiar with the works you listed. Saying that one of them is "near flawless" does not prove anything. You have to be able to show how a company can grow indefinitely without suffering from economic calculation problems as we have seen with governments the world over. Also, pointing out to a company like Verizon is quite pointless, it is nowhere near monopoly size. If Verizon were a monopoly, we would see a diseconomy of scale simply because it would not be able to accurately *calculate the consumer needs of all of America.*
> 
> Furthermore, you have to disprove my other theoretical example of how rich entrepreneurs and venture capitalists are able to take losses for a long time just to undercut established businesses.
> 
> Lastly, the burden of proof still falls on you to show *ONE* example of a capitalist monopoly or oligopoly that dictated unfair prices without being taken out by market forces.


Is this even a response? 

The bold illustrates your biggest flaw. Welcome to the 21st Century, where "customer needs" are measured by simple 16 bit codes stored on a small laptop.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> BTW rockandroll, what about the 3/5ths rule in the Constitution? Do you believe we should bring that back?
> 
> I don't want to debate right now, but I don't see any historical precedent that makes it illegal to amend the Constitution to contradict itself. Amendments 13, 14, and 15 are all contradictions to the original Constitution in a sense.


Which is why they should have never been there in the place 

I believe there is something that states if something is passed and it's unconstitutional, it was never actually a law to begin with.

----------


## Kade

> Which is why they should have never been there in the place 
> 
> I believe there is something that states if something is passed and it's unconstitutional, it was never actually a law to begin with.


This makes absolutely no sense. Any amendment is as binding as any other amendment... If an amendment passed repealing 1-10, then 1-10 would be repealed.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> This makes absolutely no sense. Any amendment is as binding as any other amendment... If an amendment passed repealing 1-10, then 1-10 would be repealed.


But when did the idea of passing unconstitutional amendments become commonplace? I've always been taught it's 100% wrong and unconstitutional to pass unconstitutional amendments.

The point of the amendments have been to protect the rights of individuals, and that idea has been lost along the way. Prohibition, taxation, and government sponsored programs don't exactly fit in the pattern of what's there

----------


## Kade

> *But when did the idea of passing unconstitutional amendments become commonplace?* I've always been taught it's 100% wrong and unconstitutional to pass unconstitutional amendments.
> 
> The point of the amendments have been to protect the rights of individuals, and that idea has been lost along the way. Prohibition, taxation, and government sponsored programs don't exactly fit in the pattern of what's there


You don't get it. There is no such thing as an "unconstitutional amendment".


*******************

This is what is left in this scorched earth policy of intellectual discourse? 

We are to bring back "constitutional government" with people who think like this!?

This is the flaw with the groupthink on these forums... let em talk long enough, individually, and we get garbage. The ball-rubbing that goes on needs to stop, and the people who can think for themselves ought to speak up more. 

I hope you people are satisfied... he is one of yours.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> You don't get it. There is no such thing as an "unconstitutional amendment".
> 
> 
> *******************
> 
> This is what is left in this scorched earth policy of intellectual discourse? 
> 
> We are to bring back "constitutional government" with people who think like this!?
> 
> ...


There definitely is. Just because it gets amended doesn't mean the amendment is right. That's why they can be repealed. Would you repeal something that was constitutional? What would be the reasons for repealing something aside from the fact that the amendment shouldn't have been in the first place

----------


## krazy kaju

> Is this even a response? 
> 
> The bold illustrates your biggest flaw. Welcome to the 21st Century, where "customer needs" are measured by simple 16 bit codes stored on a small laptop.


So you're admitting defeat?

----------


## Kade

> There definitely is. *Just because it gets amended doesn't mean the amendment is right.* That's why they can be repealed. Would you repeal something that was constitutional? What would be the reasons for repealing something aside from the fact that the amendment shouldn't have been in the first place


WTF?! 

Don't roll your eyes... this is pure idiocy.  Now something is unconstitutional to you if it isn't_ right_?

An amendment is part of the Constitution. There is no such thing as an unconstitutional amendment. This is the kind of thinking that I attack on here... pure, unadulterated idiocy. 

*krazy kaju* should be embarrassed that you are defending him.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> WTF?! 
> 
> Don't roll your eyes... this is pure idiocy.  Now something is unconstitutional to you if it isn't_ right_?
> 
> An amendment is part of the Constitution. There is no such thing as an unconstitutional amendment. This is the kind of thinking that I attack on here... pure, unadulterated idiocy. 
> 
> *krazy kaju* should be embarrassed that you are defending him.


A proposed amendment could very well be unconstitutional. This unconstitutional amendment could be ratified. It's happened before in history. That's why they were repealed. Again, what were the other reasons for repeal?

Please debate rather than throw out insults.

----------


## Kade

> So you're admitting defeat?


Of course not silly rabbit. 

Firm sizes are not limited. Monopolies can exist in free markets. 

Your premise: *Consumers will fix it. If prices get out of line in any market where there are no barriers to entry, competitors will fly in on a magical dragon and lower costs so that non-perfect competition disappears.*

If you magically wave away somehow all barriers to entry, and the imperfect knowledge of the consumer, and all the magical methods in which actual real markets differ from the Arrow-Debreu model, then you will see competitive equilibrium, and monopoly advantage will be evoporated. Your idiotic deception is manifest in the implication that this is somehow relevant to policy in a real world.

Information is imperfect. Barriers to entry are substantial. Akerlof and Stiglitz won a Nobel Prize for their work on imperfect information. 

In non-fantasy land, where I live, "monopolized rents" and  those odd rates of return are simply called "acceptable profits" and real world investors have a very special word for someone who proposes to start a company in a field without barriers to entry: Idiot.

Now, I've let you go on for quite some time, because this has been relatively entertaining to watch you prance around like some sort of deluded expert. You really are a clueless moron.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Of course not silly rabbit.


you don't have to admit it.  We all say you lost after posting *this* as an example.

We wanted something showing monopolies that came to be without direct government assistance

There are many reasons for your example to be ridiculous, this is the most glaring:

*Swingeing taxation of salt developed from the establishment of the Exclusive Company by Clive in 1765. This private company, owned by the East India Company’s senior servants, was given a total monopoly on salt. All production by others was declared illegal.*

Great example Kade!

----------


## Kade

> A proposed amendment could very well be unconstitutional. This unconstitutional amendment could be ratified. It's happened before in history. That's why they were repealed. Again, what were the other reasons for repeal?
> 
> Please debate rather than throw out insults.


Please stop. You seem like you have a nice bone in your body. I'm willing to let this one slip by, but you keep bumping your ignorance. There is no such thing as an unconstitutional amendment. A repeal itself is an amendment... the only way to "amend" the constitution. The Amendments and the Articles ARE THE CONSTITUTION. Ratification of an Amendment makes it a permanent part of the Constitution.

----------


## Kade

> you don't have to admit it.  We all say you lost after posting *this* as an example.
> 
> We wanted something showing monopolies that came to be without direct government assistance
> 
> There are many reasons for your example to be ridiculous, this is the most glaring:
> 
> *Swingeing taxation of salt developed from the establishment of the Exclusive Company by Clive in 1765. This private company, owned by the East India Company’s senior servants, was given a total monopoly on salt. All production by others was declared illegal.*
> 
> Great example Kade!


I gave the example of the Salt Monopolies in general you blithering idiot. The Salt Monopolies became so powerful that they became the governments themselves!!!

A modern example would be *Archer-Daniels Midland* and the *DRAM chip industry*. They are examples of price fixing in this market.  

Roll your eyes. You don't realize what you have been arguing for or against... you chose the wrong pony, and you look like a jilted lover to these two ignorant tools.

----------


## ARealConservative

> I gave the example of the Salt Monopolies in general you blithering idiot.






> Then provide one example of a monopoly existing where it is not granted exclusively by government. Light regulations can exist.






> The old salt monopolies come to mind.


Kade must be on the ropes again, he lies every time he is called out for his bull$#@!.

----------


## Kade

> Kade must be on the ropes again, he lies every time he is called out for his bull$#@!.


Laughable. This entire thread was an exposing of the stupidity of asking for a non-existent entity in a fantasy land. You lose chump. There are no ropes. Nothing special. Just three idiots playing naked in a pool of jell-o trying to make sense of where the conversation turned against them.

----------


## aravoth

> I gave the example of the Salt Monopolies in general you blithering idiot.


Dude.

"On 16 October 1599, Queen Elizabeth I of  England granted a charter to the EIC, awarding it a monopoly of the trade with the East."

Nope, no government intervention there.

----------


## Kade

So, to sum up this wordy travesty in the simplistic way possible, we have:

A false belief that monopolies cannot exist in a free market.
A false belief that there are no price fixing entities in the current market.
A false belief that there is such a thing as a "unconstitutional amendment" (unrelated to economy).
A false belief that attempts at highly unregulated markets have succeeded. 
A false belief that there is empirical evidence that shows that anarchist markets will magically create competitive equilibrium.

----------


## Kade

> Dude.
> 
> "On 16 October 1599, Queen Elizabeth I of  England granted a charter to the EIC, awarding it a monopoly of the trade with the East."
> 
> Nope, no government intervention there.


DUDE!!! NO WAY@!@$# DUDE NO WAY!!!

Besides ignoring every thing I just said before this, you fail to recognize the 100 other salt monopolies existing throughout the world at the time. It was used as an example to demonstrate that monopolies have existed and have become so large themselves, that they became the governments themselves.

----------


## aravoth

> So, to sum up this wordy travesty in the simplistic way possible, we have:
> 
> A false belief that monopolies cannot exist in a free market.


One example Kade. Enlighten us.

----------


## ARealConservative

Us ~ can anybody provide an example of a monopoly being formed without the government grantring them the status

Kade ~ sure, the old salt monopolies

Us ~ ummm, the government made it illegal to produce salt for all but a single company.  Is that really the example you wish to cite?

Kade ~ you people are all idiots.  Im talking about generalities here.

----------


## aravoth

> DUDE!!! NO WAY@!@$# DUDE NO WAY!!!
> 
> Besides ignoring every thing I just said before this, you fail to recognize the 100 other salt monopolies existing throughout the world at the time. It was used as an example to demonstrate that monopolies have existed and have become so large themselves, that they became the governments themselves.


100 other salt monopolies Kade, 100 OTHER $#@!ING MONOPOLIES. 

ONE HUNDRED SALT MONOPOLIES

ONE HUNDRED MONOPOLIES ALL SELLING THE SAME $#@! KADE

ONE HUNDRED OTHER MOTHER $#@!ING MONOPOLIES SELLING THE SAME $#@! IN THE SAME MARKET KADE

----------


## Kade

> Us ~ can anybody provide an example of a monopoly being formed without the government grantring them the status
> 
> Kade ~ sure, the old salt monopolies
> 
> Us ~ ummm, the government made it illegal to produce salt for all but a single company.  Is that really the example you wish to cite?
> 
> Kade ~ you people are all idiots.  Im talking about generalities here.


Again, just answered this. 

And again, generalities matter. There were many, many salt monopolies...citing a few that were given government legality does nothing to disturb the point.

Again, I point you to *Archer Daniels Midland* and *DRAM*. 

You lose. Good day sir.

----------


## Kade

> 100 other salt monopolies Kade, 100 OTHER $#@!ING MONOPOLIES. 
> 
> ONE HUNDRED SALT MONOPOLIES
> 
> ONE HUNDRED MONOPOLIES ALL SELLING THE SAME $#@! KADE
> 
> ONE HUNDRED OTHER MOTHER $#@!ING MONOPOLIES SELLING THE SAME $#@! IN THE SAME MARKET KADE


Same Market chief? 

Different markets, and occasionally different times in history. You are also going back to older points in this thread. I needed the Salt Monopolies as a way to figure out what kaju actually knew, before I decided to actually critique the stupidity. Deal with the current points, and you should know better than to use all caps, it's childish.

----------


## aravoth

burger king, mcdonalds, wendy's, carls junior, taco bell, arby's, subway, in and out, and red $#@!ing lobster are all monopolies kade.

----------


## Kade

> burger king, mcdonalds, wendy's, carls junior, taco bell, arby's, subway, in and out, and red $#@!ing lobster are all monopolies kade.


I wouldn't agree with that, in fact, I happen to think that market is a pretty successful competitive market.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> I wouldn't agree with that, in fact, I happen to think that market is a pretty successful competitive market.


He was being sarcastic...

----------


## Kade

> He was being sarcastic...


Thanks Captain Obvious. Was he being sarcastic about the relevance as well?

----------


## Kludge

_!__!__!__!__!__!__My text is exceptionally large!__!__!__!__!_

----------


## aravoth

> _!__!__!__!__!__!__my text is exceptionally large!__!__!__!__!_


and colorful

----------


## ARealConservative

> Again, just answered this. 
> 
> And again, generalities matter. There were many, many salt monopolies...citing a few that were given government legality does nothing to disturb the point.


You were asked to cite an example, your example was a list of those monopolies that gained such status directly from government force.




> Again, I point you to *Archer Daniels Midland* and *DRAM*. 
> 
> You lose. Good day sir.


If those are your examples of why we need to rip the keys away from business and give them to technocrats, then I most certainly do not lose.

----------


## Kade

> If those are your examples of why we need to rip the keys away from business and give them to technocrats, then I most certainly do not lose.


My personal wishes in regards to the economy are worthless in context to this debate. You can twist whatever you need to, but this thread should be dead, it's over. The premises are shot down, as they should have been... and the solution is not known, because NOBODY ought to claim to know all the answers. 

I do know that the Rothbardian solutions to the economy are insufficient. The examples I gave you are exactly what he requested, price fixers.

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

All enterprises offering a radically new good or service are monopolies by default. Yes, even in a free market. Until such a time that Adam Smith's ethereal hand of the market kicks in, we're $#@!ed.
So what is a monopoly? 100% market share for 10 seconds? A week? eternity?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> My personal wishes in regards to the economy are worthless in context to this debate. You can twist whatever you need to, but this thread should be dead, it's over. The premises are shot down, as they should have been... and the solution is not known, because NOBODY ought to claim to know all the answers. 
> 
> I do know that the Rothbardian solutions to the economy are insufficient. The examples I gave you are exactly what he requested, price fixers.


WWOD?

What would Obama do?

----------


## Kade

> All enterprises offering a radically new good or service are monopolies by default. Yes, even in a free market. Until such a time that Adam Smith's ethereal hand of the market kicks in, we're $#@!ed.
> So what is a monopoly? 100% market share for 10 seconds? A week? eternity?


This is a really great point sir, and I respect that you responded without vitriol. 

This will ultimately come down to what effect the monopoly has on society, and how long that effect lasts...

That is a philosophical question, and one that does not necessarily apply to the debate other than the central premise that we supposedly agreed upon, being that monopolies were not a good thing for the economy. 

Good point though.

----------


## Mongoose470

From what I understand, ron Paul does not support going back to the classical gold standard.  He wants our dollar tied to a commodity instead and wants to allow competiting currencies.  Is that correct?

----------


## ARealConservative

> My personal wishes in regards to the economy are worthless in context to this debate.


Not at all.  your personal wishes are obviously to setup a utopia.





> You can twist whatever you need to, but this thread should be dead, it's over. The premises are shot down, as they should have been... and the solution is not known, because NOBODY ought to claim to know all the answers.


the Austrian Solution doesn't claim to know all the answers.  It simply suggests that letting individuals act freely in the market place is better then allowing the one true monopoly - government - dictate terms.




> I do know that the Rothbardian solutions to the economy are insufficient. The examples I gave you are exactly what he requested, price fixers.


Actually he asked for an example of a monopoly using its status to harm consumers.

Only one of the two subsequent examples involved price fixing (your original example was just awful).

What has not been demonstrated is how the intervention into these non-monopolies colluding actually made anything better for consumers.  How did we specifically benefit by allowing an outside business to cry to government to intervene?  Did costs go down?  Did service go up?  What was the end result?

----------


## Kade

> From what I understand, ron Paul does not support going back to the classical gold standard.  He wants our dollar tied to a commodity instead and wants to allow competiting currencies.  Is that correct?


Yes. That is correct. He does however believe that hard currency would help prevent inflation, and he would allow gold and silver to be legal currency.

----------


## Kade

> Not at all.  your personal wishes are obviously to setup a utopia.


Get over yourself. I thought we were past assumptions.




> the Austrian Solution doesn't claim to know all the answers.  It simply suggests that letting individuals act freely in the market place is better then allowing the one true monopoly - government - dictate terms.


Could have fooled me, arrogant pricks.



> Actually he asked for an example of a monopoly using its status to harm consumers.
> 
> Only one of the two subsequent examples involved price fixing (your original example was just awful).


He asked for a great deal of nonsense. To which I had rushed to reply. Salt Monopolies in China were hard examples of price fixing and 100% market share. The recent examples were price fixing examples, and satisfy a request that didn't really further the original points I were making. 




> What has not been demonstrated is how the intervention into these non-monopolies colluding actually made anything better for consumers.  How did we specifically benefit by allowing an outside business to cry to government to intervene?  Did costs go down?  Did service go up?  What was the end result?


I agree. What is noted and well document is that both systems have failures. Which is my point. I am against government central planning and I am against anarchist markets. The cat is out of the bag. You also don't know my personal position well, so I ask that you not pretend that you do.

----------


## Kludge

> arrogant **icks.


Please don't antagonize other forum members or I will take it upon myself to report your post.

----------


## Kade

> Please don't antagonize other forum members or I will take it upon myself to report your post.


You must be new to this thread. I've already been reported.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Please don't antagonize other forum members or I will take it upon myself to report your post.


Kade probably breaks forum rules more than anyone here and he's never banned. He just trolls socialist ideas and insults people. It gets obnoxious.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Get over yourself. I thought we were past assumptions.


How am I wrong?  Without any ability to demonstrate why the decision makers belonging to government are better then decision makers belonging to a for profit business, you side with the government decision makers.  Apparently you are willing to take great risks, and sacrifice real freedom for an improvement to society that is purely theoretical at best.




> Could have fooled me, arrogant pricks.


You entered this thread calling one of those people a clown in a suit.  Ive long believed that people take the greatest exception to flaws in others that they secretly are bothered by themselves.




> He asked for a great deal of nonsense. To which I had rushed to reply. Salt Monopolies in China were hard examples of price fixing and 100% market share.


You sure did because his major request was a monopoly that achieved such a status without government intervention.




> The recent examples were price fixing examples, and satisfy a request that didn't really further the original points I were making.


One was an example of price fixing.  The other was an example of illegally gaining monopoly status and had nothing to do with pricing.




> I agree. What is noted and well document is that both systems have failures. Which is my point. I am against government central planning and I am against anarchist markets


There are only two ways to achieve a technocracy.naturally via a free market or through government planning.  No third rail exists.

----------


## Kade

> Kade probably breaks forum rules more than anyone here and he's never banned. He just trolls socialist ideas and insults people. It gets obnoxious.


I get infraction after infraction, for your information. I am equally antagonized and insulted, and any fair bystander would notice this...

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> I get infraction after infraction, for your information. I am equally antagonized and insulted, and any fair bystander would notice this...


Kade, the only time anyone gives you a tough time is when you insult them and call them stupid. I've seen it for a while... When someone tries to explain their point of view or ask for you to support yours you let all hell break loose.

----------


## Kade

> How am I wrong?  Without any ability to demonstrate why the decision makers belonging to government are better then decision makers belonging to a for profit business, you side with the government decision makers.  Apparently you are willing to take great risks, and sacrifice real freedom for an improvement to society that is purely theoretical at best.


You are trying to save face. I don't believe the government or the invisible hand are great mechanisms for decision making. 




> You entered this thread calling one of those people a clown in a suit.  I’ve long believed that people take the greatest exception to flaws in others that they secretly are bothered by themselves.


Armentano is a clown.




> You sure did because his major request was a monopoly that achieved such a status without government intervention.


If you followed the thread, I had beef with this request specifically because of the limitations he put on the definition of monopoly, as to protect himself from a legitimate example. I would do the same thing if I thought I could get away with it... verbal toilet water.




> One was an example of price fixing.  The other was an example of illegally gaining monopoly status and had nothing to do with pricing.


Both were examples of price fixing. I'm not going to argue you're opinion on that matter.  Illegally gaining monopoly status was the whole point.



> There are only two ways to achieve a technocracy.…naturally via a free market or through government planning.  No third rail exists.


I don't know if that it is true... I don't like absolutes. I don't think anything is "natural" through a free market, because the thing that motivates the free market isn't exactly natural.. .the modern economy is too large and power is too deep.

----------


## Kade

> Kade, the only time anyone gives you a tough time is when you insult them and call them stupid. I've seen it for a while... When someone tries to explain their point of view or ask for you to support yours you let all hell break loose.


If you look at your message history, I guarantee you* rockandrollsouls*, that you will find that you insulted me first. I avoid insulting people who are respectful to me.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

I found a button for our forum target



and a pic for my to help visualize him



While I understand the frustration, every forum has a target... just like every village has an
idiot. 

I kinda like having him around...

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> If you look at your message history, I guarantee you* rockandrollsouls*, that you will find that you insulted me first. I avoid insulting people who are respectful to me.


I have looked. If you would consider acknowledging your Obama support insulting, then yes. Anything you don't like hearing is, to your ears, insulting. 

It gets old quick, buddy.

----------


## micahnelson

> I avoid insulting people who are respectful to me.


lol, how gracious of you. 

To address your examples...

ADM engaged in price fixing with other companies, but they are one of the most heavily subsidized corporations in America. Would they have been in a position to control the American market if they hadn't been receiving billions in profit since 1980? A little under half of their products are on subsidy from the Fed.

The DRAM cartel is probably a stronger example of what you were suggesting. Its a new tech, and all the players get together to capture and hold the market- not to compete. Game theory tells them that competition will make a few of them trillionaires, and the rest penniless- but collaborating will make them all billionaires. Without DOJ intervening, would this monopoly have lasted forever? Would greed taken over? Would one of the partners backed out of the deal when they realize they are doing more research than the other members? Who is to say... 

It is dishonest, or perhaps just hyperbole, to state that  monopolies and cartels cannot happen in a free market economy. They are just not as likely to survive without government aid, regulation and enforcement. 

No economic system can remove the instinct for a person to acquire as much as he possibly can. For this reason, fraud and cartels will abound in any economic system. The free market provides a higher degree of likely hood that such schemes will fail, especially when the alternative is allowing another monopoly (the government) to get in on the cartel. 

Thats my look at it anyway

----------


## Kade

> I found a button for our forum target
> 
> 
> 
> and a pic for my to help visualize him
> 
> 
> 
> While I understand the frustration, every forum has a target... just like every village has an
> ...


What do you call it when the entire village is comprised of idiots?

----------


## Kade

> I have looked. If you would consider acknowledging your Obama support insulting, then yes. Anything you don't like hearing is, to your ears, insulting. 
> 
> It gets old quick, buddy.


You would have also long ago noticed and listened to the other members who have told you that I don't support Obama anymore. 

Teach us about the Constitution *rockandrollsouls*.

----------


## ARealConservative

> You are trying to save face. I don't believe the government or the invisible hand are great mechanisms for decision making.


So you continue to seek a *great mechanism for decision making*.    How am I saving face by properly labeling this idealism as a pursuit of utopia?




> Armentano is a clown.


You are.




> Both were examples of price fixing. I'm not going to argue you're opinion on that matter.  Illegally gaining monopoly status was the whole point.


If simply being a monopoly is the issue, then you favor anarchy because a government is nothing if it isnt a monopoly.  The whole point is showing how in a free market a monopoly can harm consumers and remain a monopoly without government intervention.  




> I don't know if that it is true... I don't like absolutes.


Some things are absolute.

----------


## micahnelson

> What do you call it when the entire village is comprised of idiots?

----------


## Kludge

> What do you call it when the entire village is comprised of idiots?


Idiot Villiage.

Haw haw haw!

----------


## Kade

> If simply being a monopoly is the issue, then you favor anarchy because a government is nothing if it isn’t a monopoly.  The whole point is showing how in a free market a monopoly can harm consumers and *remain* a monopoly without government intervention.


Remain. Indeed, that would be the key wouldn't it. I already spoke about the idea that a value of time changes the outcome of this... I don't think any tyranny, regardless of it's source, even economic, can exist forever.

*krazy kaju* has said that a monopoly cannot exist in a free market. 

Do you still support this idea?

----------


## ARealConservative

> Remain. Indeed, that would be the key wouldn't it. I already spoke about the idea that a value of time changes the outcome of this... I don't think any tyranny, regardless of it's source, even economic, can exist forever.
> 
> *krazy kaju* has said that a monopoly cannot exist in a free market. 
> 
> Do you still support this idea?


he obviously meant a predatory monopoly.  

I seem to recall him pointing out that monopolies are unavoidable, like  the lone grocery story in a small town.

Or the only gas station within x miles of my house.


....and what happened to the rest of my quote.  Did you notice I nailed you on your pursuit of utopia and felt better to remove that portion?

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> What do you call it when the entire village is comprised of idiots?


Hmmm... 

A persecution complex?



[edit - lol DC pic ]

----------


## micahnelson

> *krazy kaju* has said that a monopoly cannot exist in a free market. 
> 
> Do you still support this idea?



I can't think of a monopoly, but the examples you mentioned before were cartels- which have a similar effect towards the consumer. 

One of the tenants of the Austrians (correct me if im wrong as if I have to say that in this thread, lol) is that a monopoly would not last long without government support, in part because of its inability to read market trends.  Isn't this concept the end of the debate? I don't think anyone can reasonably say that any market system can forever remove the possibility of a monopoly or cartel. The question is what the result is to the consumer, and how long it takes for bad monopolies and cartels to fail. 

If this debate is simply about their existence, then I think people misunderstand the invisible hand. It moves to correct things like monopolies, but it can't always prevent them.

----------


## micahnelson

Its official... I can kill any thread.

----------


## auctionguy10

A monopoly existing simply because no others have tried to compete(or have tried but provided inferior product/service and failed) in the market isn't a bad thing- because otherwise the goods/services would not be available. However- a monopoly that controls the entire market and makes entry into the market impossible is only going to happen with government intervention. 

I mean look at the anti-trust suit brought against microsoft- when netscape is alleging that it was going to be difficult for them to compete with microsoft since they gave out internet explorer for free. Did this hurt the consumer? They were still free to buy netscape if they wanted- and not only that- but the sucess of Mozilla Firefox shows that Netscape's real problem was that the majority did not WANT their product.

----------


## micahnelson

> I mean look at the anti-trust suit brought against microsoft- when netscape is alleging that it was going to be difficult for them to compete with microsoft since they gave out internet explorer for free. Did this hurt the consumer? They were still free to buy netscape if they wanted- and not only that- but the sucess of Mozilla Firefox shows that Netscape's real problem was that the majority did not WANT their product.


I would say Microsoft was approaching monopoly status. The market grew and they were unable to sense the changing demand, creating markets within markets that are now getting snapped up by Google, Apple, and the open source developers.

----------


## auctionguy10

> I would say Microsoft was approaching monopoly status. The market grew and they were unable to sense the changing demand, creating markets within markets that are now getting snapped up by Google, Apple, and the open source developers.


How were they reaching monopoly status when several other OS's and browsers were freely available? I don't think they should be villified because they provided what most people thought of as the best product around at the time. .

----------


## micahnelson

> How were they reaching monopoly status when several other OS's and browsers were freely available? I don't think they should be villified because they provided what most people thought of as the best product around at the time. .


I didn't say they "had" it, I said they were approaching it. Back then apple did not have the market share it has today and Linux was still a few years behind. This has changed due to innovation. 

It wasn't the government that saved the day, it was the rise of competitors. This is what happens in free markets. 

Did I say we should vilify them?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> I didn't say they "had" it, I said they were approaching it. Back then apple did not have the market share it has today and Linux was still a few years behind. This has changed due to innovation. 
> 
> It wasn't the government that saved the day, it was the rise of competitors. This is what happens in free markets. 
> 
> Did I say we should vilify them?


They weren't even close to approaching it. They were where they were at because windows was fairly stable, fresh, and user friendly. People were buying it more than a Mac OSX, linux, and other OS. Now we see Apple has responded by cleaning up their product, and it is quickly flushing windows out.

Not even close to a monopoly. The consumer was simply supporting the product they found to be best.

----------


## micahnelson

> They weren't even close to approaching it. They were where they were at because windows was fairly stable, fresh, and user friendly. People were buying it more than a Mac OSX, linux, and other OS. Now we see Apple has responded by cleaning up their product, and it is quickly flushing windows out.
> 
> Not even close to a monopoly. The consumer was simply supporting the product they found to be best.


People would have had a hard time buying OS X around the time of the Microsoft Antitrust case considering OS X wouldn't be released for another few years. 

I don't think you would see much competition coming from Linux during that time period either. 

I am not saying Microsoft was a predatory monopoly looking to eat your children, I am saying they were approaching a monopoly on PC operating systems. The only competition on the PC was infantile Linux, the only competition at ALL was the MAC. 

To say "They weren't even close to a monopoly" is overlooking factors that existed then, that do not exist now. 

To say "It was a predatory monopoly" would be overstating as well. They were just entering the honeymoon stage of natural monopolies. They were providing the best product at the time. Without competition, they would have made Windows Me and we would have been stuck with it. The market corrected it far better than the DoJ could have. In fact, the DoJ ended up accepting much of the restitution in the form of technology donations to schools. The Irony: Microsoft's punishment for giving away web browsers at no cost to crush competition? Microsoft must give away software to schools at no cost, crushing competition. 

This is a great example of how the government does a bad job dealing with monopolies, and the free market does a better job.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> People would have had a hard time buying OS X around the time of the Microsoft Antitrust case considering OS X wouldn't be released for another few years. 
> 
> I don't think you would see much competition coming from Linux during that time period either. 
> 
> I am not saying Microsoft was a predatory monopoly looking to eat your children, I am saying they were approaching a monopoly on PC operating systems. The only competition on the PC was infantile Linux, the only competition at ALL was the MAC. 
> 
> To say "They weren't even close to a monopoly" is overlooking factors that existed then, that do not exist now. 
> 
> To say "It was a predatory monopoly" would be overstating as well. They were just entering the honeymoon stage of natural monopolies. They were providing the best product at the time. Without competition, they would have made Windows Me and we would have been stuck with it. The market corrected it far better than the DoJ could have. In fact, the DoJ ended up accepting much of the restitution in the form of technology donations to schools. The Irony: Microsoft's punishment for giving away web browsers at no cost to crush competition? Microsoft must give away software to schools at no cost, crushing competition. 
> ...


They weren't anywhere close to approaching a monopoly. Plenty of other operating systems available. Windows happened to be the one people chose.

Did Microsoft have an advantage? Of course, but that doesn't make it anywhere close to being a monopoly. Heck, they weren't, and still don't make their own computers.

----------


## micahnelson

> They weren't anywhere close to approaching a monopoly. Plenty of other operating systems available. Windows happened to be the one people chose.


RARS, I am not talking about today, I am talking about back then. If you went to buy a PC there was one operating system available, and that was Windows. If you even knew about linux, you would have had to be a techie to install it. The fact that linux existed means that Microsoft wasn't your ONLY option, but Linux was fledgling at best. The strength of the open source model is what kept it alive. 

The Mac was a different market, (non PC) but even they only had a sliver of the desktop computer market. 

Microsoft had a 90% market share. They admitted it. They knew their customers gave it to them. That is approaching a monopoly on the desktop market, and certainly on the PC market.

----------


## micahnelson

> Did Microsoft have an advantage? Of course, but that doesn't make it anywhere close to being a monopoly. Heck, they weren't, and still don't make their own computers.


They didn't need to, they had pre-install agreements with all the manufacturers. The only competition required you to uninstall Microsoft Windows - which the consumers did not know how to do- and install Linux- which for all intents and purposes didn't work for the average consumer at the time. This means there was one choice for people who wanted to use a PC- Windows. 

They didn't have a monopoly on ALL of Information Technology. They didn't have a monopoly on all of computer operating systems. They were approaching a monopoly in the Desktop PC OS market. They were about as close as you could get without being one.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> RARS, I am not talking about today, I am talking about back then. If you went to buy a PC there was one operating system available, and that was Windows. If you even knew about linux, you would have had to be a techie to install it. The fact that linux existed means that Microsoft wasn't your ONLY option, but Linux was fledgling at best. The strength of the open source model is what kept it alive. 
> 
> The Mac was a different market, (non PC) but even they only had a sliver of the desktop computer market. 
> 
> Microsoft had a 90% market share. They admitted it. They knew their customers gave it to them. That is approaching a monopoly on the desktop market, and certainly on the PC market.


that's 3 different operating systems right off the bat. That doesn't make them anywhere close to a monopoly. Windows was more convenient for the consumer. Big difference. Please, look up the definition of monopoly.

----------


## danberkeley

> I would say Microsoft was approaching monopoly status. The market grew and they were unable to sense the changing demand, creating markets within markets that are now getting snapped up by Google, Apple, and the open source developers.


... so they gave their product away for free? how does that hurt the consumer? mind you, the purpose of the antitrust regulations was to protect the consumer. besides, netscape was such a slow browser. then came mozilla. should mozilla be prosecuted for "predatory pricing"? 

and as far as operating system were concerned, apple was "approaching monopoly status" when it came out with its OS before microsft's windows. if we want to prosecute microsoft now, we should have prosecuted apple then. how about prosecuting apple for the iPod? or yahoo as a search engine ten years ago. or google now with youtube? none of these company have a monopoly on any given market.

----------


## micahnelson

> that's 3 different operating systems right off the bat. That doesn't make them anywhere close to a monopoly. Windows was more convenient for the consumer. Big difference. Please, look up the definition of monopoly.


Done.

1  : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted                       action   
2  : exclusive possession or control   
3  : a commodity controlled by one party   
4  : one that has a monopoly  

Computers were built with Microsoft Windows in mind. Microsoft set the standard, the PC Manufacturers did not cater at all, at all, to Linux. Linux was a tadpole at this point. 

Microsoft had complete control of the PC OS market, from how the PC was designed to how they were sold. No one sold a complete PC without Windows unless it was home built. They controlled the market. They didn't not have 100% market share but in the PC world it was likely 98%. They had 90% of the total market for Desktop PCs. 

You realize if you would accept that Microsoft was almost a monopoly, and then the free market corrected the situation, you would have a great example of how free markets benefit the consumer even in the face of a monopoly?

This is why I am arguing the point, because it illustrates how free market actions against monopolies are more beneficial to consumers than government intervention on behalf of the consumer. Google, Apple, and the open source community did much more than the DoJ ever could. 

Monopolies, Near Monopolies, and Cartels pop up in free markets from time to time- but they are dealt with by competition when competition is allowed.

----------


## micahnelson

> ... so they gave their product away for free? how does that hurt the consumer? mind you, the purpose of the antitrust regulations was to protect the consumer. besides, netscape was such a slow browser. then came mozilla. should mozilla be prosecuted for "predatory pricing"?


I don't think the DoJ should have intervened. It was a consumer granted near-monopoly. Microsoft was the best at the time, hands down better than netscape. By giving away software for free, set a precedent which is now coming back to bite them in the butt. Sun is cranking out Open Office, Mozilla gives us firefox... its great for consumers. 

Please don't think I am advocating Market Interventionism. I am simply stating that Microsoft was a monopoly that might have been, if it weren't for the free market. People thought Big Daddy Government had to step in to save our computers from Greedy Bill Gates. All that needed was a little time and a little competition.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, in your post you lamented about the low quality of Mircrosoft. It came out looking like you were saying Microsoft is bad for America, though I'm now guessing those weren't your intentions.
> 
> As for virus software, why even bring it up? It doesn't change the fact that Microsoft has a greater appeal because of cheaper products, even if they are inferior. Besides, there are plenty of free ways to protect yourself from virii. Like getting Linux.


While I won't debate the economics of monopolies with you, as someone who watched the PC industry develop from infancy I can honestly say that your assertion that Microsoft helped make computer "cheap" is pure bunk.  Furthermore Microsoft violated free market principles in theory (if not in practice) by violating intellectual property.  Windows was a rip off from Apple's Mac interface which was a rip off of Xerox.  Technically I suppose it's Xerox's fault for not being more business savvy.

Anyway, it's not the operating system that made the PC inexpensive.  It's the hardware.  People seem to forget that it was the "IBM PC" and not the "Microsoft PC" that brought PCs into the board room.  (Apple first made the PC a viable commodity but they were relegated to the home / educational market until the Mac).  IBM was originally going to license CPM for their operating system, which was already used on widely available microcomputers like the Kaypro, but the guy who made CPM was out flying his ultralight and showed up late for the meeting.  (Again, not very business savvy.)  The IBM PC became a business standard partly for technology reasons and partly because business people already trusted the IBM name for computers.  The PC clone market came about because IBM neither protected its hardware nor its software.  (They allowed Microsoft to market MS-DOS instead of keeping it exclusive).  So companies OTHER than Microsoft were able to market a computer that did everything the IBM PC did for a fraction of the price.  Had Microsoft not existed the same thing would have happened only CPM would have been the operating system instead of MS-DOS.

After getting a virtual monopoly on the operating system Microsoft has engaged in other questionable practices taking idea after idea that someone else developed and through making slight changes and repacking them have undercut the innovators.  Again more better business savvy could have saved companies that have been the "victims" of MicroSoft, but the consumer hasn't been helped by these companies being forced out of business.  Further the example that you gave of free software (Linux) proves that consumers don't always take the cheapest version even when its available.  People have been led to believe that MicroSoft is the "standard" even as they lament that standard.  Case in point, when I was setting up a school computer lab I suggested using OpenOffice which is 100% MicroSoft office compatible and is free.  It would have saved the school a bundle of money based on the retail price of Office.  But the principle found a "cheap" education offer of MicroSoft Office.  They could afford it at that price and didn't want to "risk" using "non standard" software.

I'm not suggesting that the answer to monopolies is government regulation, but I dislike misinformation that wants to portray MicroSoft as some kind of "savior" of the computer industry when it isn't.

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't think the DoJ should have intervened. It was a consumer granted near-monopoly. Microsoft was the best at the time, hands down better than netscape. By giving away software for free, set a precedent which is now coming back to bite them in the butt. Sun is cranking out Open Office, Mozilla gives us firefox... its great for consumers. 
> 
> Please don't think I am advocating Market Interventionism. I am simply stating that Microsoft was a monopoly that might have been, if it weren't for the free market. People thought Big Daddy Government had to step in to save our computers from Greedy Bill Gates. All that needed was a little time and a little competition.


Oh boy.  The browser wars all over again.    I don't think Internet Exploder was ever "hands down" better than Netscape.  And the browser wars hurt consumers.  We went through a period where web developers were using non standard features from both browsers leading to the infamous "Best viewed by....." messages.  And "giving away Internet explorer for free" was HARDLY a precedent.  The first commercial product Bill Gates ever made, Microsoft Basic, was based on free software someone else had given away.  And Internet Explorer has never been "free" in the sense of Open Office and Mozilla.  (Where you're given the source code and you can do whatever you want with it.)  

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## danberkeley

> Oh boy.  The browser wars all over again.    I don't think Internet Exploder was ever "hands down" better than Netscape.  And the browser wars hurt consumers.  We went through a period where web developers were using non standard features from both browsers leading to the infamous "Best viewed by....." messages.  And "giving away Internet explorer for free" was HARDLY a precedent.  The first commercial product Bill Gates ever made, Microsoft Basic, was based on free software someone else had given away.  And Internet Explorer has never been "free" in the sense of Open Office and Mozilla.  (Where you're given the source code and you can do whatever you want with it.)  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John M. Drake


which was better? internet explorer or netscape? who cares, if people wanted netscape they could have used it. AOL forced its customer to use its much slower and buggy browser. but now we have Mozilla and others... all despite the gov's failure to break up Microsoft's "monopoly".

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> which was better? internet explorer or netscape? who cares, if people wanted netscape they could have used it. AOL forced its customer to use its much slower and buggy browser. but now we have Mozilla and others... all despite the gov's failure to break up Microsoft's "monopoly".


All you need is someone who is willing to deliver a better product. Firefox quickly took the browser wars without government help, laws, regulations, etc.

----------


## brandon

epic thread is epic

----------


## micahnelson

> Oh boy.  The browser wars all over again.    I don't think Internet Exploder was ever "hands down" better than Netscape.  And the browser wars hurt consumers.  We went through a period where web developers were using non standard features from both browsers leading to the infamous "Best viewed by....." messages.  And "giving away Internet explorer for free" was HARDLY a precedent.  The first commercial product Bill Gates ever made, Microsoft Basic, was based on free software someone else had given away.  And Internet Explorer has never been "free" in the sense of Open Office and Mozilla.  (Where you're given the source code and you can do whatever you want with it.)  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John M. Drake


Look I use Ubuntu, lay off me. At the time, I liked IE. At the time, I was like 14. At any rate, it at least appealed to 14 year old. I don't think the Browser Wars hurt consumers long term, at least we have some level of accepted open standards on the web. I don't think that was likely to happen until people saw how irritated consumers got with a half-functional World Wide Web.

----------


## The_Orlonater

I'm too lazy to read what's going on. I'm back, how's everyone's day?

----------


## aravoth

> I'm too lazy to read what's going on. I'm back, how's everyone's day?


Good! Kade was just telling us about his investment strategies, all of which yeild negative results, but Kade likes it that way. He also disclosed that he voluntarily donates 75% of his paycheck to the IRS, becuase he truely believes that his government loves him deeply, and that it will take care of him throughout his days. He also told us that Keynesian's saved America from almost certain death, and that Federal Reserve was the only thing that stopped the "Great Free Market Downturn" of 1929, after which it provided market stability, and allowed our great bueraucracy to lead us into the enlightend age we are now enjoying at this very moment. 

Fascinating stuff really.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Good! Kade was just telling us about his investment strategies, all of which yeild negative results, but Kade likes it that way. He also disclosed that he voluntarily donates 75% of his paycheck to the IRS, becuase he truely believes that his government loves him deeply, and that it will take care of him throughout his days. He also told us that Keynesian's saved America from almost certain death, and that Federal Reserve was the only thing that stopped the "Great Free Market Downturn" of 1929, after which it provided market stability, and allow our great bueraucracy to lead us into the enlightend age we are now enjoying at this very moment. 
> 
> Fascinating stuff really.


Kade will truly be remembered as one of the great scholars of our time

----------


## The_Orlonater

Lol, you guys.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Good! Kade was just telling us about his investment strategies, all of which yeild negative results, but Kade likes it that way. He also disclosed that he voluntarily donates 75% of his paycheck to the IRS, becuase he truely believes that his government loves him deeply, and that it will take care of him throughout his days. He also told us that Keynesian's saved America from almost certain death, and that Federal Reserve was the only thing that stopped the "Great Free Market Downturn" of 1929, after which it provided market stability, and allowed our great bueraucracy to lead us into the enlightend age we are now enjoying at this very moment. 
> 
> Fascinating stuff really.


good times.  We also found that either he always hates absolutes, or they never exist.  Not for sure which of those two he was actually saying but they are both "fascinating".

----------


## hypnagogue

I think this thread is far more instructive on the topics of ego and rhetoric than it is on the topic of economics...

----------


## ARealConservative

> I think this thread is far more instructive on the topics of ego and rhetoric than it is on the topic of economics...


The title of the thread kind of gave that one away

----------


## Paulitician

*Posting in one of the most epic threads ever*

----------


## The_Orlonater

Back to economics then? Someone say something.

Talk about the Keynesians.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> I think this thread is far more instructive on the topics of ego and rhetoric than it is on the topic of economics...


Will you be contributing, or pulling a Kade here? 

To be honest, the thread is full of some interesting information. However, it's overshadowed by Kade's insults, rhetoric, and unsupported opinion. Oh, and definitions from The Kade Dictionary on Life.

Kind of difficult to convey any factual information when you have someone with their fingers stuck in their ears screaming "2+2 = 5" and "dogs have 4 legs so I win."

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Back to economics then? Someone say something.
> 
> Talk about the Keynesians.


Merrill Lynch loss is significant....you can call an end to the bear rally in financials. I'm interested to see how the market responds tomorrow...then again, it never makes any sense so we should be in for some surprises...like always.

----------


## The_Orlonater

Who knows what the hell will happen?

----------


## hypnagogue

> Will you be contributing, or pulling a Kade here?


 Probably not. I'm just watching the train wreck.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Probably not. I'm just watching the train wreck.


Anything Kade touches turns into a train wreck, if you didn't know or didn't check his other posts throughout the board

----------


## The_Orlonater

> Anything Kade touches turns into a train wreck, if you didn't know or didn't check his other posts throughout the board


Kade loved to throw insults. He threw one at me before I told him to stop.


I agree with Kade and I disagree with him, just like everybody.

The trolling has to stop, NOW.(This is for everybody)

----------


## jmdrake

> which was better? internet explorer or netscape? who cares, if people wanted netscape they could have used it. AOL forced its customer to use its much slower and buggy browser. but now we have Mozilla and others... all despite the gov's failure to break up Microsoft's "monopoly".


No argument with you on the free market solving the Microsoft "problem".  It's just like the free market has solved the "problem" of money in politics.  Regardless of the final outcome we showed through moneybombs that lesser known candidates can compete with the big boys without needing some new "campaign finance reform".  Open source save the software industry from being completely dominated by one company and grassroots fundraising has opened the door to the Ron Pauls of the world.  Now if we can just do something about the media oligopoly.  

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> No argument with you on the free market solving the Microsoft "problem".  It's just like the free market has solved the "problem" of money in politics.  Regardless of the final outcome we showed through moneybombs that lesser known candidates can compete with the big boys without needing some new "campaign finance reform".  Open source save the software industry from being completely dominated by one company and grassroots fundraising has opened the door to the Ron Pauls of the world.  Now if we can just do something about the media oligopoly.  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John M. Drake


I'd certainly agree there is a media oligopoly. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I really feel like a message of freedom is not on the agenda for these companies. If only we could develop an "Apple" of the media and broadcast sector

----------


## jmdrake

> Look I use Ubuntu, lay off me. At the time, I liked IE. At the time, I was like 14. At any rate, it at least appealed to 14 year old. I don't think the Browser Wars hurt consumers long term, at least we have some level of accepted open standards on the web. I don't think that was likely to happen until people saw how irritated consumers got with a half-functional World Wide Web.


Sorry if it seemed like I was attacking you.  That's not the way I meant to come across.  You were 14 at the time?   Youngster!    (Ok, I'm an old fart).  I'll frankly admit that in some ways I'm nostalgic for the old web.  While I like the eye candy ok, I thought it was cool when you could still have good functionality surfing the web with Lynx or through your EMACS session.  (Those are text only browsers).  And every so often you see someone make REALLY good use of simple HTML.  (Like the Drudge Report interface or the clean look of the Google search engine.)  Haven't moved completely to Linux yet although I'm seriously looking that way.  (I REALLY hate Vista.  I think Vista is a bigger threat to Microsoft than DOJ ever was.)  I fully use Open Office at home and love it.

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## jmdrake

> I'd certainly agree there is a media oligopoly. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I really feel like a message of freedom is not on the agenda for these companies. If only we could develop an "Apple" of the media and broadcast sector


Ron Paul alluded to something like this in his speech announcing the "Campaign for Liberty".  Certainly the technology is there to be your own broadcaster with so many people having broadband.  The challenge will be reaching people not "plugged in" to the net as well as reaching enough netizens to make a difference.  

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## Fox McCloud

I don't think we'll ever truly have a free media that is able to adequately propagate the freedom message if we have the FCC in existence--by it's very nature, the FCC can form or destroy cartels (right now it's very favorable to the telecom cartel and is bashing the cable cartel)...not to mention it's highly regulatory in nature...

----------


## Kade

> Anything Kade touches turns into a train wreck, if you didn't know or didn't check his other posts throughout the board


I laid off of you, and like every thrashing and dying fish, you have to take another bite before going quietly towards eternity.

Tell us about the Constitution *rockandrollsouls*, tell us again about "unconstitutional amendments", please.

----------


## Kade

> Will you be contributing, or pulling a Kade here? 
> 
> To be honest, the thread is full of some interesting information. *However, it's overshadowed by Kade's insults, rhetoric, and unsupported opinion.* Oh, and definitions from The Kade Dictionary on Life.
> 
> Kind of difficult to convey any factual information when you have someone with their fingers stuck in their ears screaming "2+2 = 5" and "dogs have 4 legs so I win."


Absolutely ridiculous. I gave as much supported evidence as could be allowed in a thread without looking like I was stealing from someone else...

The only reason this thread is even interesting is because I didn't stand back and accept kaju's kool-aid. You've done nothing but rub that guy's ball sack this entire time... "full of interesting information"... none of which you offered.

----------


## Kade

> Good! Kade was just telling us about his investment strategies, all of which yeild negative results, but Kade likes it that way. He also disclosed that he voluntarily donates 75% of his paycheck to the IRS, becuase he truely believes that his government loves him deeply, and that it will take care of him throughout his days. He also told us that Keynesian's saved America from almost certain death, and that Federal Reserve was the only thing that stopped the "Great Free Market Downturn" of 1929, after which it provided market stability, and allowed our great bueraucracy to lead us into the enlightend age we are now enjoying at this very moment. 
> 
> Fascinating stuff really.


That now makes three of you who have completely distorted reality. No where in this  thread did I say anything relevant to this nonsense, it's one thing to throw jabs, it's another to lie, openly, and while proof is but a few clicks away. Shameful.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> That now makes three of you who have completely distorted reality. No where in this  thread did I say anything relevant to this nonsense, it's one thing to throw jabs, it's another to lie, openly, and while proof is but a few clicks away. Shameful.


It's always everyone but you, huh Kade? Sounds to me like these thing's make sense in Kade's world as opposed to the real world. Fine line between the two.

----------


## micahnelson

> Sorry if it seemed like I was attacking you.  That's not the way I meant to come across.... (I REALLY hate Vista.  I think Vista is a bigger threat to Microsoft than DOJ ever was.)  I fully use Open Office at home and love it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John M. Drake


No problem, lol. This thread is like 'NAM, you start thinking you're getting attacked from all sides, and get skittish.  I am currently using Vista for observation purposes. I do computer repair so I wanted to get experience with it. It isn't too bad if you have mucho RAM. I have 4 gigs in my computer ($85 dollars for Corsair on newegg). It runs very smoothly, but you have to go through about 30 minutes of tweaking to turn off all the nags and annoyances. I find it runs slightly slower than xp 64 bit edition on the same machine. XP is capped at 3 gig, but even with the memory reduction, it was by far the fastest. OS operation. As you would expect, XP 64 and Vista were much better for multimedia creation. 

It hope AMD doesn't drop off. It does take a while for competitors to get back online. We owe the burst of CPU power in many ways to the competition between the two.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> No problem, lol. This thread is like 'NAM, you start thinking you're getting attacked from all sides, and get skittish.  I am currently using Vista for observation purposes. I do computer repair so I wanted to get experience with it. It isn't too bad if you have mucho RAM. I have 4 gigs in my computer ($85 dollars for Corsair on newegg). It runs very smoothly, but you have to go through about 30 minutes of tweaking to turn off all the nags and annoyances. I find it runs slightly slower than xp 64 bit edition on the same machine. XP is capped at 3 gig, but even with the memory reduction, it was by far the fastest. OS operation. As you would expect, XP 64 and Vista were much better for multimedia creation. 
> 
> It hope AMD doesn't drop off. It does take a while for competitors to get back online. We owe the burst of CPU power in many ways to the competition between the two.


Thank heavens for Newegg. Nerd's dream store over there

----------


## Kade

> It's always everyone but you, huh Kade? Sounds to me like these thing's make sense in Kade's world as opposed to the real world. Fine line between the two.


Tell us about the U.S. Constitution, chief.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> Thank heavens for Newegg. Nerd's dream store over there


Or Provantage (for odds and ends)...best of all, it's in my home State

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> Tell us about the U.S. Constitution, chief.


I live right down the street from it.
Dick Cheney had some kind of gala on it a few weeks ago.

----------


## aravoth

> That now makes three of you who have completely distorted reality. No where in this  thread did I say anything relevant to this nonsense, it's one thing to throw jabs, it's another to lie, openly, and while proof is but a few clicks away. Shameful.


Kade, did you edit your posts in this thread to erase all the proof? You crafty little devil.....

----------


## Kade

> Kade, did you edit your posts in this thread to erase all the proof? You crafty little devil.....


No I haven't. 

_Far from advocating a "minimal state", we find it unquestionable that in an advanced society government ought to use its power of raising funds by taxation to provide a number of services which for various reasons cannot be provided or cannot be provided adequately by the market._
Hayek, "Law, Legislation, and Liberty" 1982

----------


## Fox McCloud

> No I haven't. 
> 
> _Far from advocating a "minimal state", we find it unquestionable that in an advanced society government ought to use its power of raising funds by taxation to provide a number of services which for various reasons cannot be provided or cannot be provided adequately by the market._
> Hayek, "Law, Legislation, and Liberty" 1982


considering that Hayek was a minarchist, I'm sure he was referring to having _just_ enough taxation for a night watchman state, and not a vast number of services.

That said,




> The Nonaggression Axiom
> 
>  THE LIBERTARIAN CREED rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synony*mous with invasion.


Taxation is still a form of aggression and coercion, therefore, it should be considered immoral, wrong, and an act of theft.

----------


## Kade

> considering that Hayek was a minarchist, I'm sure he was referring to having _just_ enough taxation for a night watchman state, and not a vast number of services.



*Far from advocating a "minimal state", we find it unquestionable that in an advanced society government ought to use its power of raising funds by taxation to provide a number of services which for various reasons cannot be provided or cannot be provided adequately by the market.*
Hayek, "Law, Legislation, and Liberty" 1982





> Taxation is still a form of aggression and coercion, therefore, it should be considered immoral, wrong, and an act of theft.


_... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right._
Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to James Madison), 1785

----------


## The_Orlonater

Let's pick up on this.

----------


## The_Orlonater

Bump. 


Seriously, I learned a good amount from this thread. I shall forbid thread to become zombie thread.

----------


## Mongoose470

to the OP.  way to win them over to your side and great job in ruining a good point with virulent insults.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> to the OP.  way to win them over to your side and great job in ruining a good point with virulent insults.


I suppose you're not familiar with the frustrating force that is Kade

----------


## micahnelson

> I suppose you're not familiar with the frustrating force that is Kade


Just curious, do you realize how often you do "  " this?

----------


## ARealConservative

> Just curious, do you realize how often you do "  " this?


are you looking for a percentage, or a grand total?

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

> Let's pick up on this.


freedom is a big responsibility for stupid creatures and invariably leads to control structures like monopolies and government where the "strong" control the "weak".

Socialism is like forcing calculus on a third grader. The results are even more catastrophic than social darwinism/free markets

----------


## The_Orlonater

> freedom is a big responsibility for stupid creatures and invariably leads to control structures like monopolies and government where the "strong" control the "weak".
> 
> Socialism is like forcing calculus on a third grader. The results are even more catastrophic than social darwinism/free markets


What's so wrong with free markets, wasn't that what this thread was about for a while?

When there's government interference then you get problems.


1+ what you said about socialism, and also can you please explain what "Social Darwinism?"

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Just curious, do you realize how often you do "  " this?


Yes, I do.

As much as it warrants use. When you have socialist propaganda from one end and ignorant people who comment in the thread without reading it, I roll my eyes.

It's like a , "Come on, man. You serious?"

----------


## The_Orlonater

Bump.

----------


## ronpaulblogsdotcom

> to the OP.  way to win them over to your side and great job in ruining a good point with virulent insults.


He didn't win me over. Seriously I am surprised that people here are so "liberty minded" that they are following his ideas like patents and copyrights.

Also his ideas on marketing and consumer choice are flawed in my opinion. 

He is stating that monopolies are 100% market saturation. Most organizations are going with  lower numbers like the EUs 90%. And finding examples that are 100% are difficult. 

Yes I have a marketing degree. It is fairly obvious the OP has an economics degree I would guess.

Most experts see everything as too much black and white issues. That is what drew me to Marketing in the first place is that it does not. It tends to not create extremism which most other practices do.

Krazy dont fret, economists are not my least favorite people. Philosophers are. The whole world is one way? Give me a break - (Nietzsche, Hegel, Kierkegaard, etc.).

But I have been working more than fulltime the last week, I have articles to write on my own blog, and don't feel like doing more citing and writing right now.

----------


## The_Orlonater

[QUOTE=ronpaulblogsdotcom;1571524]He didn't win me over. Seriously I am surprised that people here are so "liberty minded" that they are following his ideas like patents and copyrights.QUOTE]


It's called agreeing.

----------


## krazy kaju

Jesus, guys. This thread grew some 25 pages since I last posted?

WTF.

----------


## krazy kaju

BTW, since I'm super lazy and I don't feel like reading through the last 25 pages of thread, can anyone tell me if anything worthwhile has been going on?

Like, maybe at least one example of a capitalist monopoly? *cough* Kade *cough*

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> BTW, since I'm super lazy and I don't feel like reading through the last 25 pages of thread, can anyone tell me if anything worthwhile has been going on?
> 
> Like, maybe at least one example of a capitalist monopoly? *cough* Kade *cough*


I haven't been able to keep, also. Its' value has fluctuated, like a roller coaster. I just here to congratulate you on an epic thread . I'm sure others can do a decent summary for you...

enjoy

----------


## The_Orlonater

We were talking about liberalism. Then it stopped.


Bring up a new subject.

----------


## aspiringconstitutionalist

LOL!  I love the title of this thread almost as much as the content of the OP.

----------

