Tired of RP Supporters' Economic BS

[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.