What annoys you most about your culture?

[genocidal]

You basically just restated your old post while telling me that companies have shareholders. Free market theory has been disproven time and time again.

[Kolar]

Regulations are what prevents Microsoft from completely owning Apple (though they pretty much buy up everything else they can).

Fixed.

[Vykromond]

No no, to fix it you would have to change "prevents" to "prevent."

I think.

Actually I dunno. Troll King?

[Da1andonly]

I would agree with you Vyk, and I'm just a lousy Finn.

[Epinephrine]

What I am doing is dismissing the notion that natural monopolies are inherently evil. I am arguing that they got to where they were by being good what they do, and if they want to stay that way, they will continue to be the best - and if they don't, they go the way of their previous competitors.

EDIT: let me rephrase that: Dog eat dog.

I actually judged your intelligence on the quality of your posts and the quality of your arguments, both of which are pretty average.

All you managed to do is prove yourself wrong. Your entire rambling post has basically pointed out that... monopolies aren't good, and that competition will eventually force companies to innovate and force companies to lower prices. Yes that's right... you used example after example of how COMPETITION is good. What that has to do with a real monopoly, I have absolutely no idea. I've already spoken too much. With one line Troll King was able to distill down your entire post into exactly what you were talking about.

Good thing the real world is a bit smarter than high school debators.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I actually judged your intelligence on the quality of your posts and the quality of your arguments, both of which are pretty average.

All you managed to do is prove yourself wrong. Your entire rambling post has basically pointed out that... monopolies aren't good, and that competition will eventually force companies to innovate and force companies to lower prices. Yes that's right... you used example after example of how COMPETITION is good. What that has to do with a real monopoly, I have absolutely no idea. I've already spoken too much. With one line Troll King was able to distill down your entire post into exactly what you were talking about.

Good thing the real world is a bit smarter than high school debators.

You know, I won't even argue if you're not going to even TRY to justify anything you say. Especially since I called you out on your generalizing and lying before, and at the point where you ignore or concede it, I'm going to assume you are as wishy-washy on your other stances, as well. You're severing out of the tons of analysis I make and misconstruing what I say. If you're going to just bullshit your way out, then I won't bother.

And, for the record, this guy doesn't care what you think about my intelligence, because at worst I'm hearing the pleas of someone who is trying to replace any actual argumentation with questions of character (in the debate world we call it 'ad hominem'), and at best it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

If you're the kind of guy the real world's going to throw my way, I'd rather win the lottery or become a rockstar and live out my life in the isolated confines of my own little world.

[Vykromond]

EDIT: 4get it

ps thanks for the support da1

[genocidal]

EDIT: 4get it

ps thanks for the support da1

4got10

[Liquid Blue]

4got11

dammit

[Kolar]

efrerfef

[Facetious]

You're right. I'm not benefitting from monopolies. This Microsoft computer that I got for under $300 that I am using to read this thread that says people don't benefit from Monopolies (like Microsoft) is in no way shape or fucking form, a benefit.

^ Having read over this whole monopoly discussion, this is the closest you've come to explaining why monopolies are good. To me, though, the reason PCs are so cheap is because of the competition between the hardware manufacturers, not because of Microsoft's control over the market, so even that seems kind of bogus to me.

Truth me told, I know nothing about economics, and you know one of my favorite forum activities is arguing with Troll King and Epi, so I wish I could side with you, Jerome. Given how much you've written, the fact that I knew nothing about economics is irrelevant, I think, if your several paragraphs of writing can't teach me anything, clearly, they aren't that great.

All your argument seems to be is that "monopolies aren't that bad" and when they ask you to prove that monopolies are good, you insult them personally instead of doing that. I can't say I get it.

[Cops]

Wait, because REGULATIONS prevent economic competition and thus prosperity, the monopolies are the 'criminals'?
Analogy: The Nazis are murdering alot of Jews, thus Jews are a crime to our society in this day and age, because they cause murder.

Jesus christ you Canadians are so ingrateful for the very companies that allow you to connect to the internet and bitch.

That was a pretty piss poor stance to attack all Canadians, you generalized that all Canadians think one way and act one way which is exactly what the nazis did. I think you're arguments aren't holding up that strong, although Epinephrine has definitely taken some cheap shots.

Without competition Microsoft can set whatever prices it wants, I think you're forgetting that Microsoft is a corporation and as a corporation it seeks to earn more money, so once they've cornered the market they could set prices as high as they wanted. I think its bad for people and bad for the government to let companies have complete control of the market. I've seen the direct benefits of breaking up monopolies, I've seen my parents phone bills drop enormously in the past five years.

[Singularity]

Doesn't every debate class usually cover somewhere that analogies are the last resort of the debater and should not be used unless faced with retards you just need to convince one way or another?

[Foreign]

That was a pretty piss poor stance to attack all
Without competition Microsoft can set whatever prices it wants, I think you're forgetting that Microsoft is a corporation and as a corporation it seeks to earn more money, so once they've cornered the market they could set prices as high as they wanted.

All redundancy aside, do you honestly think this is true? Would everyone buy a copy of Windows or Office for the same price they would buy a car even if it were the only purchasing option? No. Why? Because everyone besides Microsoft isn't incapable of creating an operating system. I think Jerome's argument is that there are always alternatives that prevent monopolies from being that extreme. Unless a law is passed saying "you must buy microsoft products or you will die" people will have the freedom to create alternative solutions that don't require shelling out so much dough (i.e. free as in beer). So yes, Microsoft can charge whatever it wants, monopoly or not, but at least in the realm of computer software consumers have control of the market, not the corporations.

[Zeebu]

MONOPOLIES R GUD MKAY