Tired of RP Supporters' Economic BS

[rockandrollsouls]

Yeah, but that power rests with the market. Companies don't have to sell and be absorbed.

Look whats happening with video cards right now. Nvidia was setting the standard. And setting the price. And they could, becuase their product was kicking ass. Now ATI has come out with it's 4870, and the HD4870X2 will be out next month. It is more powerful than nvidia's new line, and uses DDR5, which is brand new tech. Nvidia won't even be selling DDR5 models until there next line comes out. ATI did all of that, and sold their video cards for less than half the price of a 9800.

I guess what I'm saying is, Nvidia cornered the market basically, had game makers optimize thier games specifically for Nvidia Drivers, then ATI finally comes out of the woodwork again, and now a price war is starting to ensue. And as far as I'm concerned, ATI has the upper hand now. And the average consumer gets to enjoy graphics cards that only Hollywood special effects studios used to.

That was just the market at work. One company grew to be a giant in it's industry, started to drive up prices, and got it's feet cut off by the little upstart. Happens all the time.

Except AMD isn't exactly in the place to be cutting prices...they have around a -5 EPS, no p/e ratio, a load of debt, and no solid plan.

 

[IRO-bot]

Does an oligopoly working together have the same effect as a monopoly?

 

[The_Orlonater]

I always miss the conversation!!!!!!1

 

[krazy kaju]

I suppose it's a compliment that I read. Alcoa hardly counts an a prime example of a trend for large firms to suffer losses at some point... I don't consider this empirical at all.

Wow, isn't that jolly? Something doesn't hold up to your world view so you reject it.

Now it's changing of the game. The Austrian understanding of marginal utility is not dependent on cardinal utility, rather it is more like an intrinsic ordinal utility. The concept of customer satisfaction has no measurable quantity that will satisfy your claim that customers ultimately can topple larger entities. I realize now where you are getting your information, and I realize you are actually an idiot. This is more word games, and more stupid verbal logic theory that has no bearing on the modern economy. You're an idiot.

This is the kind of shit and word games that stops the debate from actually happening.

The Austrian perspective vs. the neoclassical perspective on marginal utility doesn't matter in this debate. I'm not trying to quantify pleasure like some economists have in the past (i.e. Jevons), what I'm saying is that customers go to the business that serves them best.

Assuming all things are equal (i.e. no gov't intervention, same price), if you prefer Pepsi, will you get Coca Cola? The answer is that you'll purchase the Pepsi. I'm not saying you'll get 10 utils from getting Pepsi vs. 7 from Coke, I agree that pleasure cannot be quantified. But again, that's not what we're debating.

We're debating whether a firm can get monopoly control over a market and unfairly dictate prices. That simply cannot happen if the government doesn't impose entry fees, regulations, etc. Competitors will always be able to undercut an inefficient and/or cheating firm because consumers will start going to the competitors instead of the dinosaur semi-monopoly.

Again, more cardinal utility nonsense, a real Austrian ought to jump in now and crucify your idiotic ass. But they have no idea what you are talking about... namely, they hate me enough to side with you now... but keep talking.

You're a fucking tool. You don't even know what you're talking about, do you?

No? You have provided no proof other than your nonsensical, almost Lewisque approach to this conversation. Full circle. You need to provide actual proof that any company has a tipping point, ESPECIALLY if you are going to imply that sellers are the cause... Ironically, I mentioned the micro-chip manufacturers to illustrated enormous cost to entry.

And I blew away your example.

So what's an example of a company becoming too large? Well, one was Alcoa, when it lost significant market share.

But I have a better one: government. You want to know why HUD projects fail? Do you want to know why the Marines, the Army, and the National Guard couldn't even secure open fields with AK 47s and RPGs just laying around?

If there is a flaw anywhere here, it is the idea that you are using reason.

No wonder you're such a tool. Logic, reason, and rationality are flaws, according to you.

A business can become so large that it ultimately will become the authority. This has happened throughout history.

You haven't provided one single example of this happening.

Do you know how many times I've had to sit through lecture after lecture of these retard talking points? I understand your stupid system. It hasn't been tested, and it's highly speculative. You can't answer even the most remote question sufficiently, and you continue to say the same shit over and over.

Yet you consistently have failed to provide ONE example of a firm actually cornering the market.

It's not. Just look at how the biggest monopoly in the planet's history, the Government of the U.S. came to power. It is a corporation. Nothing about this corporation is efficient. If you disagree that the government is run like a business, (without competition), then you only need to observe that your It's a good thing" is flawed.

Saying the government is a monopoly, ergo a free market is bad, is the most retarded thing ever. Government derives its monopoly power not from the market but from the people. Is government run like a business? Like a really bad one that would be undercut by competitors if it wasn't for the thread of litigation.

Where is your fucking proof for this you thick dense idiot?

Jesus, you really are retarded, aren't you?

I haven't assumed anything. If Intel or AMD end up buying each other... what is the next course of action for the consumer? A price does not have to be ultimately unfair... it can be slightly greater than the perceived cost of entry into the market... thanks for playing.

Wrong. If consumers are willing to purchase a non Intel-AMD product, then entrepreneurs will be able to fill the void. As I've said, venture capitalists are willing to lose money on end for years just to see "the light at the end of the tunnel." Only because the Intel-AMD merger are willing to try to undercut any potential competition doesn't mean that they will unless they truly are providing superior service to their customers.

I don't disagree with this.

So you're agreeing that a free market monopoly is impossible.

Every time you post something as an assumption.

Put up or shut up.

Every time you say "empirical fact" yet show nothing... You are talking to a crowd of sheep who will not hold you accountable for this travesty of a conversation.

All the examples I've used don't count according to you, because they go against all the lies that fill your head. Why don't you provide one example for a change?

You have offered nothing of value in here, except a central premise that Ron Paul Supporters are idiots (something I don't necessarily disagree with). Ironically, they are eating out of your asshole. So much for thinking for themselves.

Red Herring alert. Where have I said all Ron Paul supporters are idiots?

Wow. Ironic. This sentence is exactly what I said to you several pages back.

No. Several pages back you were bitching about how we're blocking you from debate because of our definitions, even though we agreed on the same definition as you.

Now that you have wandered outside your copy and paste world

Listen you little fucktard, where have I ever copy and pasted everything?

If I said that there is no current pure Keynesian economy in existence, and therefore why attempts at a Keynesian economy fail, it would be the total sum of all of your arguments.

Nope. This is yet another example of how you twist all my arguments and then claim victory for yourself, without ever actually responding to my contentions.

I won't go there, because I have more respect for intellectual discourse.

If you had any respect for intellectual discourse you would actually debate. Instead, you're throwing around ad homs, straw men, red herrings, and post hocs. Please, grow a fucking brain.

It has everything to do with what we are debating. You're statement that a monopoly cannot exist in a free market is false. It is a positive statement, and it deserves proper evidence. You have given none.

You cannot prove the nonexistence of something. For example, one cannot prove the nonexistence of God or the invisible purple hippo in my backyard.

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that a monopoly can logically or has historically existed in a free market or in a situation similar to the free market.

The United States of America is a monopoly. It gained power for itself, mostly through the abuse of force and monetary system.

No, it gained power through the states that gained power through their residents. The government has monopoly power because people are stupid and gave that government monopoly power.

The key to changing that is educating people and reversing the trend of US government.

Everything about it follows in line with what you think cannot happen.

No it doesn't. You're using government as an example of a free market monopoly. Words don't even begin to explain the idiocy behind that reasoning.

Ultimately, this is the end result of a failure to understand principles in social psychology, and the evolution of groups. If there is a tabula rasa, if there is a clean slate where a market can form without any regulation... IT WILL BECOME THE REGULATING BODY!

So you're saying markets are self regulating? Wow, thanks for agreeing with all of my beliefs.

Where do you think the regulations are coming from? Not just the elected officials... but the corporations, the money itself is paying for it... they gain power because they paid for the power... there is nothing in Austrian Economics that explains that away. Nothing. A unregulated market would find a way, any way, to pursue the ultimate purpose of it's existence to any end...

Your primary flaw here is that you believe that government is the product of a free market. It is not. The problem with government today is precisely what you pointed out: that we have a representational democracy.

This is where special interests are allowed to corrupt the government. Instead of that, a minarchy or kritarchy would be preferable and less likely to be corrupt due to self-policing.

I am a realist.

No, you're just an idiot.

blah blah blah I'm a fucking retard

Do you really expect me to respond to all of your bullshit? You keep on spewing the same shit over, and over, and over, and over again.

When will you fucking grow up and actually try to debate?

 

[The_Orlonater]

Well, I learned a lot.

So a true monopoly, or olipology cannot exist in a true free market?


There's always competitors.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Well, I learned a lot.

So a true monopoly, or olipology cannot exist in a true free market?


There's always competitors.

A monopoly is near impossible. An oligopoly is possible, but still highly unlikely. The pseudo-free market that is government controlled like ours gives real free markets a bad name. It makes things like these much more probable.

 

[Kade]

When will you fucking grow up and actually try to debate?

When I try, you insult. Reduce your level of fail first. I got what I wanted out of this debate, and I'm not here to impress the herd. I couldn't figure you out at first, and seeing first hand your reactions, I realize that you are no different than the other clowns here. You have reduced yourself to the Truth Warrior complex, and have been properly exposed as a ranting idiot. As I mentioned before, you are freshly out of some class, with new found ideas, and your excitement has gotten the best of you, so you come to some Ron Paul Forum, start a thread called "Tired of RP Supporters Economic Bullshit" and proceed to utter your trivial rantings on the economy that any fifth grader could have read from Mises' The Theory of Money and Credit.

You bore me, and you can't really think for yourself. We are playing word semantics here...over and over and over and over again... You think you're little economic ideas are the greatest things since breast milk (and ironically not too far removed), yet you get all up in arms about definitions.

You are just a kid (or really pathetic adult) pretending to understand anything about the economy.

This is the beauty of this conversation. You insulted people who make money, (like Soros) based on some arbitrary understanding you seem to think you possess... as if the toilet were a proper place to create economic theory.

You can't even defend the most retarded of your statements, the assumption and depressingly ignorant statement that a monopoly could not exist in a free market.
(but only because "free market" isn't a model, and monopoly is an arbitrary creation of your overly-inflated head)

I can argue like you... it's easy actually. You just pretend you are saying something worthwhile... use big words, copy and paste from smarter men, use lots of Google, use Firefox dictionary to notice their grammatical mistakes, and then use the criticizing person's own words back at him to make yourself sound particularly clever.

I asked of you to be think for yourself, and you have. I commend you for that, but it wasn't that spectacular, it was rather like my first time with a red-head... you think it is something new... but alas, you are disappointed.

There are much smarter people on this board than you. You are a pretender. I'm not surprised only the most belligerent idiots have come to your rescue.

 

[Danke]

You're a fucking tool. You don't even know what you're talking about, do you?...

No wonder you're such a tool. Logic, reason, and rationality are flaws, according to you...

Jesus, you really are retarded, aren't you?...

Put up or shut up...

Listen you little fucktard, where have I ever copy and pasted everything?...

Please, grow a fucking brain...

Words don't even begin to explain the idiocy behind that reasoning...

No, you're just an idiot...

Do you really expect me to respond to all of your bullshit? You keep on spewing the same shit over, and over, and over, and over again...

When will you fucking grow up and actually try to debate?...

Kade won. You are now "debating" at his level.

 

[Kade]

Get a job, buy some stock, get rich, buy an election or two, milk the market for all it's worth, and buy yourself some women.

That is the American way, and I have no problem with that because I don't pretend to want to make things better for other people... not anymore at least.

 

[Kade]

Kade won. You are now "debating" at his level.

That was pretty much my point, but I imagine you are going to be on the exact opposite side of whatever stance I take...

Honestly, I think Austrian Economics is interesting... at least when I learned about it a few years ago..

I've moved on... it's called the real world, and it starts today!

 

[Kade]

A monopoly is near impossible. An oligopoly is possible, but still highly unlikely. The pseudo-free market that is government controlled like ours gives real free markets a bad name. It makes things like these much more probable.

Real Markets?

You mean the great "free market" of Brazil?

http://www.iadb.org/intal/aplicaciones/uploads/publicaciones/i_intalitd_op_24_2004_moreira.pdf

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Real Markets?

You mean the great "free market" of Brazil?

http://www.iadb.org/intal/aplicaciones/uploads/publicaciones/i_intalitd_op_24_2004_moreira.pdf

No, I mean real free markets. Do a google look up on what constitutes a free market economy.

 

[Kade]

No, I mean real free markets. Do a google look up on what constitutes a free market economy.

That's my entire point in this damned thread... there is no real definition of a "free market" because it has not existed in the "utopian" form that is required to sufficiently qualify it testable.

The closest we have had to free markets other than the U.S. have been dismal failures.

This includes Brazil, Chile, Mexico...etc.

 

[ARealConservative]

Well, I learned a lot.

So a true monopoly, or olipology cannot exist in a true free market?


There's always competitors.

sure, just as a benevolent dictator can exist and Kade can form a mixed economy and hand the keys to a guy that will only have our collective interests at heart.

You know, real world stuff.

 

[Kade]

sure, just as a benevolent dictator can exist and Kade can form a mixed economy and hand the keys to a guy that will only have our collective interests at heart.

You know, real world stuff.

I really don't care about the "collective interests"... I care about the intellectual primacy. More of a technocracy, in the fashion of Madison.

A liberal is not upset at the suffering of people as much as they are about the hypocrisy of people pretending they care. Some liberals do really care... no conservative ever does.

I am a liberal who does not care.

 

[micahnelson]

In a free market, what would the government's role be?

 

[Kade]

In a free market, what would the government's role be?

Depends on who you ask... lol.

So much fail on this thread... so much...fail.

 

[micahnelson]

Depends on who you ask... lol.

So much fail on this thread... so much...fail.

Im asking anyone who will answer.

The possible answers could vary from "What Government?" to "Complete".

 

[ARealConservative]

I really don't care about the "collective interests"... I care about the intellectual primacy. More of a technocracy, in the fashion of Madison.

So whose interest would this technocracy serve?

 

[Kade]

So whose interest would this technocracy serve?

Power is inherently illegitimate. I believe all authority must demonstrate why they deserve elevated leadership roles. Any authority for it's own sake is unjustifiable. I believe in justified authority, which includes possible rule by the "informed class", rather those most able to justify why they should be rulers. I don't have limitations on who this may be... I can give an example of legitimate authority as a father who tells his son that he must be a certain age before he smokes his first blunt with him.

The technocracy would serve to protect the species survival, I suppose, to ultimately answer the question.

It comes down to first principles, and mine is that humanity is worth saving... for now.