Tired of RP Supporters' Economic BS

[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.