Ron Paul Ideas: Utopia vs Reality.

[nate895]

OMG. Think man.

Google could not afford servers. Bigger companies would make sure they don't see the light of day.

So, it would all be a massive conspiracy? You can't conspire between a group so large, it would be impossible.

 

[nbhadja]

Dude, wow man. THINK!

say there's a track race. Will all the runners get first place? NO

Some companies will get the edge, in a free market, sooner or later. Then, with the more resources they have, they will make sure they stay ahead, eventually buying out everyone else.

If that runner in first place had more energy (resources) than the guy in second place, his margin of lead would widen.

In a free market economy it is extremely hard for a company to stay on top for long. Competition will knock them off.

But in a gov controlled economy it is very easy for a company to be #1. They simply just have to bribe the politicians and the politicians will slaughter all competition for them.

A perfect example is the pharmaceutical industry.

US drug companies were charging extremely high prices for their drugs so the free market took over and people started buying their medicine from places like Canada for much cheaper. Instead of letting the free market work forcing the US companies to lower their prices to match the Canadian prices (actually with shipping cost difference, they even could have had their prices a little higher than the Canadian prices and still won) they went to the politicians in Washington, threw millions of dollars at them and the US politicians made it illegal to import most drugs from other countries.

That was your government controlled economy and it failed for the MILLIONTH TIME!

 

[Teenforpaul08]

First of all, your logic is wrong. But assuming it is right, what would be the problem with one company buying out every other company?
That easy huh? You can just say my logic is wrong and it's wrong. ROFL.

 

[brandon]

No monopoly. Google would not exist if they let microsoft own everything. Sergey brin would be working for microsoft now.

You have failed to answer my question at all. What regulation enabled google to enter the market?

In a free market, any company can enter the market. Get it?

 

[powerofreason]

OMG. Think man.

Google could not afford servers. Bigger companies would make sure they don't see the light of day.

Umm WTF did you just say???

 

[brandon]

First of all, your logic is wrong. But assuming it is right, what would be the problem with one company buying out every other company?

That easy huh? You can just say my logic is wrong and it's wrong. ROFL.

Yes, I didn't want to debate the logic you used to reach your conclusion. I was just saying that I don't agree with it.

I want to know what the problem would be with a company having a monopoly.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

In a free market economy it is extremely hard for a company to stay on top for long. Competition will knock them off.

But in a gov controlled economy it is very easy for a company to be #1. They simply just have to bribe the politicians and the politicians will slaughter all competition for them.

A perfect example is the pharmaceutical industry.

US drug companies were charging extremely high prices for their drugs so the free market took over and people started buying their medicine from places like Canada for much cheaper. Instead of letting the free market work forcing the US companies to lower their prices to match the Canadian prices (actually with shipping cost difference, they even could have had their prices a little higher than the Canadian prices and still won) they went to the politicians in Washington, threw millions of dollars at them and the US politicians made it illegal to import most drugs from other countries.

That was your government controlled economy and it failed for the MILLIONTH TIME!

U guys are not thinking. THIS example HAPPENED IN A REGULATED MARKET! NOT A FREE MARKET!

If it was truely free, the biggest pharmacuetical company would make sure people don't exposed to outside goods. Plus, ron paul doesn't support free trade so it would cost more to import.

 

[powerofreason]

if it was truely free, the biggest pharmacuetical company would make sure people don't exposed to outside goods.

...


How?

 

[RonpaulSupporter7777]

You all make a great point that monopolies are sustained through corrupt government regulations. The only thing I think that is left out is that some regulations, such as anti-trust laws, have kept certain aspects of monopolies in check that would not be so in a truely free market economy.

Lets face it. The rich will still be rich if we convert over to a truely free market, hands off economy in America. How would further deregulation in areas where regulation has provided substantial benefits really benefit the poor and middle class citizens of our country?

 

[brandon]

U guys are not thinking. THIS example HAPPENED IN A REGULATED MARKET! NOT A FREE MARKET!

If it was truely free, the biggest pharmacuetical company would make sure people don't exposed to outside goods. Plus, ron paul doesn't support free trade so it would cost more to import.

Actually, Ron Paul does support free trade.

You're in way over your head kid. Do some research.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Yes, I didn't want to debate the logic you used to reach your conclusion. I was just saying that I don't agree with it.

I want to know what the problem would be with a company having a monopoly.

Easy. If they control every part of the industry with no regulations, they change prices as they see fit. Which can be a lot or A LOT!!!

 

[Mini-Me]

U guys are not thinking. THIS example HAPPENED IN A REGULATED MARKET! NOT A FREE MARKET!

If it was truely free, the biggest pharmacuetical company would make sure people don't exposed to outside goods. Plus, ron paul doesn't support free trade so it would cost more to import.

Actually, Ron Paul does support unilateral free trade - i.e. no government restrictions on trade. He does NOT support "free trade agreements" like NAFTA, which are really just managed trade for the benefit of multinational corporations. There's a difference.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Actually, Ron Paul does support free trade.

You're in way over your head kid. Do some research.

No he doesn't. He has always been against NAFTA and other agreements. Kid, who have you been supporting? I think you're supposed to be in Obama's forums.

 

[powerofreason]

Easy. If they control every part of the industry with no regulations, they change prices as they see fit. Which can be a lot or A LOT!!!

You cannot control an entire industry unless you are able to provide a superior product at a superior price forever. Supposing this is possible, why would that be bad?

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Actually, Ron Paul does support unilateral free trade - i.e. no government restrictions on trade. He does NOT support "free trade agreements" like NAFTA, which are really just managed trade for the benefit of multinational corporations. There's a difference.

HE supports things like taxes on trade and tariffs. This would make imports cost more than making it yourself.

 

[Mini-Me]

Easy. If they control every part of the industry with no regulations, they change prices as they see fit. Which can be a lot or A LOT!!!

...and why, may I ask, would no upstarts come to challenge their dominance? Also, why would no other established companies branch out into this market sector, forcing the monopoly to lower their prices or lose customers?

 

[powerofreason]

No he doesn't. He has always been against NAFTA and other agreements. Kid, who have you been supporting? I think you're supposed to be in Obama's forums.

NAFTA is not free trade you fucking retard

 

[powerofreason]

HE supports things like taxes on trade and tariffs. This would make imports cost more than making it yourself.

Ron Paul is NOT a protectionist. Go kill yourself immediately.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

You cannot control an entire industry unless you are able to provide a superior product at a superior price forever. Supposing this is possible, why would that be bad?

If you control the industry, you can make sure there are no competitors by blocking it out (censoring, destroying) and if one entity controls everything, you're fucked.

 

[nbhadja]

No he doesn't. He has always been against NAFTA and other agreements. Kid, who have you been supporting? I think you're supposed to be in Obama's forums.

You are a idiot. Nafta is NOT free trade, it is the complete opposite. I think you are trolling.