Ron Paul Ideas: Utopia vs Reality.

[Teenforpaul08]

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

In the 90's much of the market share for internet was untapped, therefore AOL, MSN, and yahoo wasn't a triopoly.

 

[noxagol]

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?

I was showing a monopoly company doing a good job to discourage competition from entering.

The reason you can only get Comcast is because the local government says it is the only one you can have. My brother can only get verizon for phone, despite the fact he has a cable line connected, gets cable interet, and our local cable company offers cable phone. They can't do it because it is illegal.

Government creates monopolies. If a business does not satisfy their customers, someone else will come and do it because there is money to be made. I don't understand what part you do not get about this.

 

[noxagol]

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.

And those farm companies came about because of farm subsidies. That is where all those farm subsidies go to, those big ebil farm corporations.

 

[jjockers]

In the 90's much of the market share for internet was untapped, therefore AOL, MSN, and yahoo wasn't a triopoly.

If monopolies, duopolies, etc can only defined under certain conditions such as how well an industry is 'tapped', how do we measure how well a market share is tapped? Isn't that the point of innovation? We're always looking for new ways to tap into an industry.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

And those farm companies came about because of farm subsidies. That is where all those farm subsidies go to, those big ebil farm corporations.

ROFL. Wait so the farm companies I just made up, apparently used farm subsidies? Even though I made them up, hypothetically, to prove a point?

 

[Mini-Me]

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?

You were missing the irony of his argument! He was saying that antitrust regulation was leveled against that company because the company kept prices low - in other words, it continued to do what was best for the consumer, yet antitrust legislation was used against it anyway, even though it was completely unnecessary and the free market was succeeding at providing goods and services to consumers for the lowest possible cost.

Furthermore, about Comcast - do you know why Comcast is a monopoly? It's not because the free market failed. Oh, no - ask your local government. Comcast is a monopoly in your area because Comcast wined and dined your local politicians for an EXCLUSIVE MONOPOLY CONTRACT, most likely numbering 15 years in duration as do most, and ALL COMPETITION IS BANNED BY THE GOVERNMENT. In my area, the local monopoly is Time Warner Cable, and the government literally forbids any other company from competing! Cable monopolies are some of the prime examples of how the worst, and possibly only, true monopolies are there because the government literally made them.

Oh, uh...I'm back from dinner...

 

[Teenforpaul08]

If monopolies, duopolies, etc can only defined under certain conditions such as how well an industry is 'tapped', how do we measure how well a market share is tapped? Isn't that the point of innovation? We're always looking for new ways to tap into an industry.

Countries! If every town in America offered only comast because is a monopoly, the country is tapped. Comast's next step would be to move try to get market share overseas

For internet, not alot of people had access to the internet (in the 90's), so there was still potential to sway new customers to your service. This means it's untapped.

 

[Danke]

Standard oil would have up every gas station in america if the GOVERNMENT didn't force them to break up.


]

I don't have the research handy to link to, but that was a ruse. Rockefeller controlled the other oil companies through various trust after the so-called break up.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

You were missing the irony of his argument! He was saying that antitrust regulation was leveled against that company because the company kept prices low - in other words, it continued to do what was best for the consumer, yet antitrust legislation was used against it anyway, even though it was completely unnecessary and the free market was succeeding at providing goods and services to consumers for the lowest possible cost.

Furthermore, about Comcast - do you know why Comcast is a monopoly? It's not because the free market failed. Oh, no - ask your local government. Comcast is a monopoly in your area because Comcast wined and dined your local politicians for an EXCLUSIVE MONOPOLY CONTRACT, most likely numbering 15 years in duration as do most, and ALL COMPETITION IS BANNED BY THE GOVERNMENT. In my area, the local monopoly is Time Warner Cable, and the government literally forbids any other company from competing! Cable monopolies are some of the prime examples of how the worst, and possible only, true monopolies are there because the government literally made them.

Oh, uh...I'm back from dinner...

WOw.

Ok, from now on, when I say a specific company, I just mean it as a metaphor, example. Just because I named a company doesn't mean I think they're a monopoly.

 

[Alawn]

I am not at all convinced that our society will greatly benifit from hard-line "Milton Friedman" stlye economics.

Well first of all Milton Friedman is not the style Ron Paul suggests at all. This is a huge mistake. Ron Paul is an Austrian Economist. Friedman is a Chicago school economist. They are not the same thing. Contrary to popular belief Friedman's ideas were not actually free market. They were something between Austrian and Keynesian. We haven't a had free market in the US in a hundred years.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

I don't have the research handy to link to, but that was a ruse. Rockefeller controlled the other oil companies through various trust after the so-called break up.

Hey I'm from Minnesota too!

 

[Mini-Me]

Countries! If every town in America offered only comast because is a monopoly, the country is tapped. Comast's next step would be to move try to get market share overseas

For internet, not alot of people had access to the internet (in the 90's), so there was still potential to sway new customers to your service. This means it's untapped.

Look at my post above about why Comcast is a monopoly in your area. Please shit your pants in horror at the truth...your local government is quite literally, "at the point of a gun," forbidding all other companies from doing business, using the coercive power of the state.

 

[Danke]

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.

Yeah, and the Constitution is an old, outdated document.

 

[Mini-Me]

WOw.

Ok, from now on, when I say a specific company, I just mean it as a metaphor, example. Just because I named a company doesn't mean I think they're a monopoly.

Stop backpedaling. You gave a specific example to back up your assertion that the free market causes uncontrolled monopolies, and I called you out on it and explained why you were wrong. The reason I'm attacking your supporting arguments is because I'm trying to get you to understand that your main point is supported by absolutely nothing of substance. You were wrong about that specific example, and you are wrong about your main idea as well.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Look at my post above about why Comcast is a monopoly in your area. Please shit your pants in horror at the truth...your local government is quite literally, "at the point of a gun," forbidding all other companies from doing business, using the coercive power of the state.

I'm using comast as a metaphor idiot. Replace comast with biglotz, sears, target, walmart, or anything you like.

 

[ClockwiseSpark]

I'm using comast as a metaphor idiot. Replace comast with biglotz, sears, target, walmart, or anything you like.

 

[Mini-Me]

I'm using comast as a metaphor idiot. Replace comast with biglotz, sears, target, walmart, or anything you like.

How can you consider any of them monopolies when they are all competing against each other in the same consumer retail market? Their prices are pretty damn low, which is exactly what the free market does. Not a single one of these supports your argument that companies form a monopoly, get lazy/greedy, and start gouging the consumer for all of eternity without any competition ever giving them a run for their money again. (...idiot. In any case, by what right are you calling me an idiot? You have spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors in every single post. You repeatedly ignore every point people make in an anti-intellectual attempt to pretend those points simply don't exist. Your economic reasoning is shallower than Paris Hilton, and your arguments are limited to making baseless assertions, skipping important logical steps, and then jumping to conclusions. Whenever you try to support your argument and your supporting argument is ripped to shreds, you hand-wave everything away and say you're still right, and then call us idiots. Furthermore, your petty insults alone aren't very persuasive, and it's going to take a lot more supporting logic to convince me that I'm an idiot even though I've been well into the top ninety-nine point ninth percentile intellectually since I was about eight years old. That said, I really don't even think I'm all that smart...it's just that most people's critical thinking skills are flat-out abysmal.)

By the way, that said...one of the things that gives Wal-Mart that "little extra edge" is corporate welfare, courtesy of government.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

How can you consider any of them monopolies when they are all competing against each other in the same consumer retail market? Their prices are pretty damn low, which is exactly what the free market does. Not a single one of these supports your argument that companies form a monopoly, get lazy/greedy, and start gouging the consumer for all of eternity without any competition ever giving them a run for their money again. (...idiot. In any case, by what right are you calling me an idiot? You have spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors in every single post. You repeatedly ignore every point people make in an anti-intellectual attempt to pretend those points simply don't exist. Your economic reasoning is shallower than Paris Hilton, and your arguments are limited to making baseless assertions, skipping important logical steps, and then jumping to conclusions. Whenever you try to support your argument and your supporting argument is ripped to shreds, you hand-wave everything away and say you're still right, and then call us idiots. Furthermore, your petty insults alone aren't very persuasive, and it's going to take a lot more supporting logic to convince me that I'm an idiot even though I've been well into the top ninety-nine point ninth percentile intellectually since I was about eight years old.)

Ok, then. When I talk about examples I will make up a fake company so idiots like you won't get mislead.

 

[Mini-Me]

Ok, then. When I talk about examples I will make up a fake company so idiots like you won't get mislead.

That would be an entirely invalid example, however, because you'd be outright making up the company, the company's current state of dominance, and the very rules of the market that supposedly help that company maintain its dominance. Hypothetical examples carry no weight by themselves, and their only use is to help illustrate logical principles...which seem anathema to your style of thinking.

By the way, it's "misled."

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Anyone else think that free-market is superior to superior to a resource-based economy?

PROVE IT.