Ron Paul Ideas: Utopia vs Reality.

[Teenforpaul08]

Well, if the consumer is getting the best price, the best quality and the best product from a big business, why should that business have higher priced competition that has to survive by law?

That's stupid if you're trying to say that high priced firms have a right to exist in the marketplace. If I got into the car business and made million dollar cars, should Ford and GM have to raise their prices so I can compete with them?

I understand economics quite well thank you. And I can spot that your argument is completely irrational.

Man, you really don't know the first thing about economics.

low prices are great. The problem is, who's gonna make them stay low? If there;s other businesses, then they stay low, but when an industry is owned by one entity, there is no incentive to keep it low.

 

[thechitowncubs]

Can we refrain from personal attacks and instead help people understand things?

What would Ron Paul do?

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Nonsense, there was an article on LRC about this today. He doesn't die, he goes and reallocates his labor to an industry he can make a difference in.


Yeah, but that's irrelevant. If a big company is doing a good job, they probably deserve to be big, because THEY ARE DOING A GOOD JOB!


The government is the biggest monopoly in the land. Monopoly on law. Monopoly on force. Monopoly on defense. Monopoly on money. Monopoly on justice. Monopoly on property.


First you have to prove something, before saying "There."

The only reason I can refute you so easily, is that I learned some basic economic facts. You can learn them to, then you can make better and more consistent arguments. Right now, you're just arguing off the top of your head, and unfortunately, it's not good enough to make your points.

You just can't quite understand the basics of economics.

Big companies do a good job so YOU (the sheep) buys from them. All the little guys die out, so now they don't HAVE to do a good job because they are your only choice. UNDERSTAND NOW? I hate repeating myself over and over.

 

[jjockers]

Man, you really don't know the first thing about economics.

low prices are great. The problem is, who's gonna make them stay low? If there;s other businesses, then they stay low, but when an industry is owned by one entity, there is no incentive to keep it low.

Free Market = Incentive. Other companies come in and offer lower prices. If predatory pricing occurs, and perhaps small companies quit or move, then maybe the big company will increase prices again .. but as soon as they do that, more upstart companies will see an avenue to enter business. Big companies cannot sustain predatory pricing or they will go bankrupt.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Can we refrain from personal attacks and instead help people understand things?

What would Ron Paul do?

I think Ron Paul wants the best for the people, and he sees that since free market worked in the past, it can work again. The problem is, times changed. And there are many, many factors to why it can't work today.

 

[jjockers]

The key is to keep it as easy as possible to start a business. Thus the problem with regulations.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Free Market = Incentive. Other companies come in and offer lower prices. If predatory pricing occurs, and perhaps small companies quit or move, then maybe the big company will increase prices again .. but as soon as they do that, more upstart companies will see an avenue to enter business. Big companies cannot sustain predatory pricing or they will go bankrupt.

What other companies? Do you know the definition of a monopoly? If one corperation controls an industry, upstart companies can't compete.

What you're thinking of is a environment like NOW. Yes, in a regulated environment, no single company can have the whole cake because it's against the law, BUT in a FREE MARKET, the monopoly eats the WHOLE cake. There is no such thing as a start up company because there is no market share for that company. You can't start off a company with 0% market share and expect to expand.

 

[me3]

low prices are great. The problem is, who's gonna make them stay low? If there;s other businesses, then they stay low, but when an industry is owned by one entity, there is no incentive to keep it low.

In a free market, the only way to keep out competitors is to keep prices low. If a single company in a market allows room in their prices for competition, competitors will come into their market.

Big companies do a good job so YOU (the sheep) buys from them. All the little guys die out, so now they don't HAVE to do a good job because they are your only choice. UNDERSTAND NOW? I hate repeating myself over and over.

But they have to continue to do a good job, because there will always be new small guys.

And there will be big guys who cross over if there is a profit to be made as well.

Unless you can understand the profit motive both from a consumer and business standpoint, you can't make a sound argument, no matter how many times you protest and claim that I do not understand economics.

 

[Conza88]

Can we refrain from personal attacks and instead help people understand things?

What would Ron Paul do?

You're kidding right. Start from the top of the thread. See who throws the first stone. Not that matters AT ALL... Teen doesn't want to understand, logic is his enemy. Reason is a vice. It is evil, he must not know - for he does not want to..

I'm grateful I enter this after it's so blatantly obvious this guy is a troll of ignorance at a base level and a complete douche who gets kicks out of trying to defend logical fallacies...

Rounds of applause go to:

me3, powerofreason, mini-me, brandonyates, nate895, nbhadja, ClockwiseSpark, Anti Federalist, literatim, jjockers, Brassmouth.

And to those that are impervious to reason:

TeenforPaul08, RonpaulSupporter7777. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Conza88, why do your posts always take up half the page? LOL.

 

[jjockers]

What other companies? Do you know the definition of a monopoly? If one corperation controls an industry, upstart companies can't compete.

What you're thinking of is a environment like NOW. Yes, in a regulated environment, no single company can have the whole cake because it's against the law, BUT in a FREE MARKET, the monopoly eats the WHOLE cake. There is no such thing as a start up company because there is no market share for that company. You can't start off a company with 0% market share and expect to expand.

Bear with me as a provide a physics analogy.
Consider:
light travels at the speed of light.
light cannot decelerate from the speed of light.
nothing can accelerate to 100% the speed of light.

analogy, as per your statement above:
Monopoly holds 100% market share
Monopoly has no competition and thus cannot "decelerate" from 100% market share
nothing can "accelerate" to 100% market share.

Thus, monopolies only exist if they were preordained (regulated), much like light, to exist as such.

In fact, it is impossible for a company to become a monopoly in a free market, much like it is impossible for an object to accelerate to the speed of light.

A silly analogy for sure, but it is apropos.

Follow the logical process: if one company achieves massive wealth from a particular upstart industry with very little competition, many many more companies will try to improve on their company business model and enter the same new upstart industry because it is lucrative. That's logical. It's also exactly what happens. For example, consider the boom in social networking websites, search based websites, reality TV, etc.. One successful company in a new industry naturally leads to more competition in that industry. Thus, no monopolies.

 

[noxagol]

You just can't quite understand the basics of economics.

Big companies do a good job so YOU (the sheep) buys from them. All the little guys die out, so now they don't HAVE to do a good job because they are your only choice. UNDERSTAND NOW? I hate repeating myself over and over.

They have to continue to do a good job and provide low prices or new competition will enter and take business away from them.

Research ALCOA. They got hit with anti-trust legislation for doing too good of a job, despite the fact they were a monopoly, and charging too low of prices that no one else could afford to get in and make money.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Bear with me as a provide a physics analogy.
Consider:
light travels at the speed of light.
light cannot decelerate from the speed of light.
nothing can accelerate to 100% the speed of light.

analogy, as per your statement above:
Monopoly holds 100% market share
Monopoly has no competition and cannot "decelerate" from 100% market share
nothing can "accelerate" to 100% market share.

Thus, monopolies only exist if they were preordained (regulated), much like light, to exist as such.

In fact, it is impossible for a company to become a monopoly in a free market, much like it is impossible for an object to accelerate to the speed of light.

A silly analogy for sure, but it is apropos.

Follow the logical process: if one company achieves massive wealth from a particular upstart industry with very little competition, many many more companies will try to improve on their company business model and enter the same new upstart industry because it is lucrative. That's logical. It's also exactly what happens. For one example, consider the boom in social networking websites, search based websites, reality TV, etc.. One successful company in a new industry naturally leads to more competition in that industry. Thus, no monopolies.

Light is constant. Growth of a company is not constant so you logic is extremely distorted.

You don't seem to think things through, ever. You give examples of things that OCCUR IN A REGULATED MARKET. The examples you give are irrelevant because it is not free market.

OMG, get that through your head. I mad because my posts fall on blind eyes.

If there was a free market, a new industry can be created but a monopoly of a existing industry cannot just begin having magical competitors. You can't get growth from 0% market share.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

They have to continue to do a good job and provide low prices or new competition will enter and take business away from them.

Research ALCOA. They got hit with anti-trust legislation for doing too good of a job, despite the fact they were a monopoly, and charging too low of prices that no one else could afford to get in and make money.

ANTITRUST IS REGULATION

We are debating whether free market is sustainable or not.

They don't have to do a good job because they are your only choice. There;s no new upstarts because these monopolies already have 100% market share. Where are they gonna "upstart?"

Comcast is the only provider in my area. They are shitty but I will still use them because I have no choice. UNDERSTAND?

 

[literatim]

Comcast is the only provider in my area. They are shitty but I will still use them because I have no choice. UNDERSTAND?

Your government gave them an exclusive contract.

Even then, for TV you could switch to DirecTV or Dish, and for internet you could use a DSL company.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Your government gave them an exclusive contract.

Even then, for TV you could switch to DirecTV or Dish, and for internet you could use a DSL company.

I used that analogy to explain to people what monopoly means. It means having one choice in a certain service or industry.

 

[jjockers]

Light is constant. Growth of a company is not constant so you logic is extremely distorted.

You don't seem to think things through, ever. You give examples of things that OCCUR IN A REGULATED MARKET. The examples you give are irrelevant because it is not free market.

OMG, get that through your head. I mad because my posts fall on blind eyes.

If there was a free market, a new industry can be created but a monopoly of a existing industry cannot just begin having magical competitors. You can't get growth from 0% market share.

Your posts don't fall on blind eyes. Most of us have read similar accounts before. Your ideas are not new and have been demonstrated to be logical fallacies. You feel like you are constantly regurgitating the same thoughts on this thread. I and others, I'm sure, feel like we've been constantly disproving similar thoughts over many threads for several years. Still nothing wrong with going down this path again, though.

Your idea of a monopoly assumes a monopoly can develop in a free market. That's not possible -- other companies will quickly grasp the economic viability of an upstart industry. The only way a monopoly can exist is if it was ordained to exist, to setup as a monopoly, i.e. regulated in such a way to have no competition.

You will need to demonstrate how a monopoly of an existing industry can exist in a free market, before claiming how monopolies are the problem with a free market.

 

[ewizacft]

You are not even proving a point. What are you trying to prove here? Is it related to the debate?

No I am not proving a point. You claimed Ron Paul said this and that, but you made those things up.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Your posts don't fall on blind eyes. Most of us have read similar accounts before. Your ideas are not new and have been demonstrated to be logical fallacies. You feel like you are constantly regurgitating the same thoughts on this thread. I and others, I'm sure, feel like we've been constantly disproving similar thoughts over many threads for several years. Still nothing wrong with going down this path again, though.

Your idea of a monopoly assumes a monopoly can develop in a free market. That's not possible -- other companies will quickly grasp the economic viability of an upstart industry. The only way a monopoly can exist is if it was ordained to exist, to setup as a monopoly, i.e. regulated in such a way to have no competition.

You will need to demonstrate how a monopoly of an existing industry can exist in a free market, before claiming how monopolies are the problem with a free market.

OMG...I wish I could go back and copy paste my posts.


Please.


The reason Monopolies don't exist already is because government won't let to. SO they do the next best thing: duopolies, and others where a handful of companies work together to control prices so the little guys have no chance.

Now, let's start from the begining.

There once was a free market system

it had 30 bussiness selling food

a few of those businesses got ahead of others (because of different variables like location, demand, etc)

now, these few businesses, over time will expand because they can expand. The smaller ones die out (whether it be poor management, bad location etc)

Now with more time, there will be a handful of companies which shared market.

Now, they work together so they all get a good peice of the cake. 3 companies divide the cake up by 3. IF they're were 5 companies, they get smaller pieces so they make sure no more companies rise by working together and price fixing.

Other routes might have been like standard oil where they took almost everything.

 

[jjockers]

OMG...I wish I could go back and copy paste my posts.

Please.

The reason Monopolies don't exist already is because government won't let to. SO they do the next best thing: duopolies, and others where a handful of companies work together to control prices so the little guys have no chance.

Now, let's start from the begining.

There once was a free market system

it had 30 bussiness selling food

a few of those businesses got ahead of others (because of different variables like location, demand, etc)

now, these few businesses, over time will expand because they can expand. The smaller ones die out (whether it be poor management, bad location etc)

Now with more time, there will be a handful of companies which shared market.

Now, they work together so they all get a good peice of the cake. 3 companies divide the cake up by 3. IF they're were 5 companies, they get smaller pieces so they make sure no more companies rise by working together and price fixing.

Other routes might have been like standard oil where they took almost everything.

Suppose AOL, MSN, and Yahoo formed a triopoly. How then does Google break through and surpass them? They created a better product.