What annoys you most about your culture?

[Galleleo]

Of course the Free Market Theory isn't perfect, when Adam Smith thought off it, we lived in a completely different world. It is in no way comparable to the world we live in now. But it's principles still work to an extend, which is why a monopoly can't lean back and ask ridiculous high prices once they have established that monopoly. Other people are smart too, can do the same things, invent the same stuff (it's not that hard to get around a patent). So if a monopoly were to lean back, they would lose their position. So, though being a monopoly allows them to charge higher prices then in a market with tough competition, it still can't ask for ridiculous high prices cause they would lose their position. Same with innovation, they might be able to take longer then in a market with high competition, but they can't put it off. That is the Free Market System, just not in it's entirety.

Thomas Malthus predictions about the economy led to economy being called the dismal science, that never came true because of the agrarian revolution. Same as that you cannot use the Free Market Theory to it's full extent, but it's still accurate and it's what drives Capitalism.

[Jerome Scuggs]

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.

I honestly was arguing with no intention of educating, had I known I would have explained and then defended my points

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.

Now THIS one you should have written in response to Epi's posts. To me, here's how this thread goes down.

-Jerome makes an offhand remark about how it is in fact regulation that jacks up gas prices

-Epi then argues that giving one guy control of anything is a bad idea because he can charge whatever he wants, and then tacks on the first ad hominem attack ("Are you thinking things through at all?")

-Jerome proceeds to respond via logic, though in retrospect to your post about Microsoft/hardware companies, somewhat mishandles the argument. Needless to say, neither I or Epi really wind up going in-depth about it, therefore I consider it non-issue, and by his admission I would suspect so does he.

This is where I suppose the mudslinging starts, because Jerome is quite sarcastic. But beyond it, Jerome makes valid points about incorrect mindset (ie: that Government-induced monopoly and Natural monopoly are two different things, a fact which seems to be looked over repeatedly)

Keep in mind, the post is basically a regurgitation of quite a few Economics books by Greenspan, Friedman, etc. Had I known that it would later be a chief point for attacking my knowledge of economics, I would have included sources and links.

-Gran Guerrerro posts about Microsoft. Jerome means to reply to this post, but when he sees phrases like "I mean under a communistic society no one was allowed to flourish to the level of a rich pig, but at least everyone was treated equally, and never like shit", he merely recalls horror stories of the mile-long breadlines in soviet russia. Though the post is never directly responded too, Microsoft becomes a big example for Jerome.

-Epinephrine then writes a post which basically does do a good job of explaining why monopolies are bad - but if you know anything about economics, he does make a good point for why government-created monopolies (i.e. the Post Office, health care, etc) are, in fact, bad. He then provides two historic examples of how Microsoft's monopolistic hold on the software market were broken, which in Jerome's eyes merely show that Epi's argument that monopolies are unbeatable machines sort of contradictory. Think about it like this, face - if you were making a case for the Dallas Cowboys winning this season, would you prove it by using historical examples of Dallas losing or choking? No, that would appear to be the oponent's argument.

He also makes a comment: "Basically everyone in the world agrees that monopolies are bad, especially people who know much more than you or I and have much more experience dealing with such things." As you see, he obviously does not keep up with politics or economics, as I then reference three M A J O R players in today's economic/political scene who do, in fact, angree with the things I am saying.

Epi also makes a case of Rockafeller's Standard Oil. He says that Rockafeller COULD have charged whatever he wanted, but completely leaves out the fact that he DIDN'T. He also states that Rockafeller's monopolistic practices would displace tons of workers, which shows Epi's ignorance of the example he uses - Rockafeller's method of horizontal integration, which basically meant he bought up small companies but did not fire anyone - he even let the owners of the company keep the company, usually with a better company.

So coming out of this post, all I see is a good attack at the type of monopoly I also do not approve of, and then a mishandling of an empirical event. Top it off with another jab about my being Ignorant, and I figure I probably don't even have to reply - anyone with a basic understanding of history could refute alot of his points.

-So this is where I spend two pages going point-by-point. When I'm not defending the natural monopoly, I am also exposing his utter failure to even do a shred of research on his statistics.

I cite quite a few historic examples of monopolies being not bad at all, and in fact saving people from the injustice that government-run companies had subjected them to.

I extend my offer to show one ACTUAL case of a natural monopoly ever abusing commodity prices, and he still fails to produce evidence. He does cite the case of AT&T, but sadly, it is a government-regulated monopoly, in that AT&T dealt with the government and in return gained its market dominance - and then was backstabbed with anti-trust suits.

Granted, I probably mishandled my disproving his arguments about Standard Oil, merely saying "he didn't" to each point he makes. While I guess this is one of the FEW arguments I do not back up in some way shape, or form, it should not even be a moot point - Epinephrine re-wrote history, and I called out his bullshit. Simple as a "he didn't".

-Epi then proceeds to ignore all of the research I have done, all the lies of his I have exposed, and falls on ad hominem.





Now look, I don't want to sound pissy, but it seems that through this debate, I have been the one using empirical cases to justify my argument, while Epi debates "woulda coulda shoulda"... but I'm the guy who apparently has serious flaws in my argument. Epi is the one who starts and accordingly continues the question of character attacks - yet I'm the guy getting personal - even when Epi drops any factual argument in his last post.

I called out Epi's obvious abuses of history and ignorance of the current political landscape, yet I'm the guy who's "not in the real world".

I make repeated offers to find one instance of a bad natural monopoly that ruined people's lives. I don't even get my challenge acknowledged. When someone calls me a bastard who's an asshole, and I say, "I'm not a bastard", you're left to conclude that I do agree that I am an asshole, right? So why is Epi ignoring these specific points I made and yet acting like he's answered everything I could possibly throw out?

Now look, when I debated in high school, the debates might have been simpler, but the rules were the same as College debating, which Epi flaunts all over the goddamned place. And he violates perhaps the two GOLDEN rules of debate, and then a third:

-If you drop an argument, you concede it.
(He pretty much doesn't answer any of my specific points by the last post he makes, amongst other things)

-If one person makes an argument, but another person presents evidence disproving previous analytical argument, the person with evidence has the power of proof and therefore, is ahead in the debate.
(Pretty much all my arguments versus his, as well.)

-Empirical, i.e. historical, evidence subsumes "woulda coulda" arguments unless the "woulda coulda" arguments provide compelling evidence saying the status quo will change and why.
(My examples with rockefeller, vanderbilt, hill, etc versus his "well rockafeller COULD have done x, y, z - but he didn't what's your point?)

From a purely forensic standpoint, Epi would have been messy, all over the place, displayed poor refutation, mishandled grouped arguments, and of course, made poor generalizations if not lies.

I didn't come here to educate or entertain. I presented and argued to the best of my ability. I know that arguing the points I argued is always going to be an uphill battle, because society has imprinted a set of values in people that leans toward altruism and equality, but I tried. As poorly as I might or might not have done it - I tried.

[Jerome Scuggs]

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?

Well Singularity, imagine that I am a well-versed poet and you are a telephone book.

[Liquid Blue]

you know I'm perturbed that I'm not mentioned once in that breakdown of the topic

:turned:

[Facetious]

Well, in my mind, Epi doesn't need to explain why monopolies are bad, because they already aren't allowed. If you're running around saying that they're a good thing, explaining why they aren't bad isn't good enough for me to decide we should turn around and allow them. All I can figure is that you're trying to have a "debate" instead of a discussion and there's some sort of difference there that I don't really understand, because if you're trying to have an argument or a discussion, you lost. Monopolies aren't allowed, and you made zero case that they should be allowed other than "well, it wasn't that bad before" and "look, it works now." Those contradict each other, clearly. Maybe you won the "debate." I have no idea. I didn't bother reading most of Epi's posts, because I knew that I already pretty much agreed with his point of view before this thread. All I know is that what you wrote here was pretty meaningless.

[Zeebu]

you know I'm perturbed that I'm not mentioned once in that breakdown of the topic

:turned:

i kinda got mentioned indirectly when i pooped on the 'he didnt' comments

[Liquid Blue]

lucky kid

[Epinephrine]

Ugh that's why I hate forensic debating. It's pure crap, and only certain American schools actually subscribe to it. The rest of the world (including many American schools such as Princeton, Harvard, Yale) use parlimentary debating, where ideas are the most important thing and where not every point has to be responded to if they are just stupid points (i.e. why did you compare Microsoft's profit vs the US GDP and not use revenue? And why didn't you realize that 2.83 billion divided by 13.2 trillion equals 0.02%? And what was the point of that anyway since we are talking about sectors of the economy and importance of the company within it and not the overall general economy?)

That's besides the point though because it's tangental to the argument.

The fact is neither of us have presented any good examples or have went in depth. Your name dropping people isn't evidence and you damn well know it. I would just name drop too if I really cared that much. You've spent 4 years of your life reading textbooks about this, and the best you can do is this? You've convinced absolutely no one on this board who have read your arguments.

Yes, the original post was about how you somehow think that if Standard Oil was around gas would be cheaper than it is now. I still don't see why that would be the case, nor have you explained at all why this would be the case.

Please explain why prices would be cheaper if Standard Oil was still around running the entire American oil market vs having a few mega-producers (large enough to keep most costs low) who constantly have to compete with eachother or else they will lose market share?

You want an example of a monopoly where people were affected because of a price abuser? Take a look at OPEC. They have a huge percentage of the world's reserves, and they can take steps to move up the price of oil if they wanted. It happened back in the 70s. Sure in the end prices fell, but why should the entire world economy be held hostage because of their unaccountable whims? Of course you're going to counter back 'but they are governments not companies' but I see absolutely no difference in them doing it, than if you had 1 oil company that controlled 60% of the world's reserves doing it themselves, a company that is unaccountable to anyone but themselves I might add.

There are some things where a monopoly matters more than others. In something like software, thanks to the internet, it's hard to have an uncontrollable monopolistic lead. Besides, without the threat of anti-trust I would bet that Microsoft would have taken MUCH bigger steps in protecting their market share. But something like oil for instance, where you literally can own an oilfield that has 20% of the world's reserves and dictate prices if you wanted... I don't think we should allow that. And hey we don't, we put pressure on Saudi Arabia using military power to keep prices low.

In some things where there is a huge infrastructural advantage, you cannot discount the power of monopolies. One example is the railroads in the 1800s. Because they had exclusive uses of land, they really did whatever they wanted. Of course now you're going to say, 'well the government let them do it'... well you know what? The government lets everyone do anything in business. Without the government, Microsoft could hire goons to firebomb the offices of every competing company if they wanted to and act like the mafia. Just because AT&T cut a deal with the government doesn't mean that other monopolies aren't going to do that. Money and politics always mix in our society. If a company is powerful, they will hire the lobbyists, pay for elections and pay for candidates so that their policies can be supported to the EXCLUSION OF OTHERS. They will abuse government power to maintain their market position. That is the real world.

What else. Well it's true that eventually the railroads lost out to new technology, thus the old argument 'no monopoly is forever'. Again I point to the fact that the government stopped them from taking more drastic action to maintain their hold on things, and thus government regulation is good in some ways. Secondly, I would also like to point out, that for the years that the railroads were abusing their powers (just as for the 5 years that IE5 was sucking it up until Firefox came out) the general population was not well served. Ensuring that there are at least a few big players with the necessary scale for economies of scale while having competition ensures that there is CONSTANT pressure to innovate and lower prices. Once you remove that reason, then companies have no reason to try hard other than the bare minimum it takes to discourage outside investors from setting up a competiting business.

Look, I read over a few of Greenspan's speeches and he quite eloquently makes a strong argument against regulating monopolies. His argument is that because outside capital can always set up competing businesses, even monopolies have to make sure they are in tip top shape or else they will be out competed. Actually it might have helped your posts if you even said anything near to that. The problem with his points is that while it may be true in the very long term, or it may be true in a perfect market the world is NOT a perfect market.

The government isn't going to stop existing. Big companies aren't going to stop trying to influence political power (and succeeding in it). And even if it were in the meantime, the public is not well served by monopolies once they start sliding into the 'well we have lots of market power, so let's stop trying as much because people will give us business anyway' stage. Most big companies reach that point once they grow a certain size, and if their business is protected by virtue of monopoly power, all the better. It's true that new technology and perhaps investors will eventually erode their position, but that could take anywhere from almost instantly (i.e. firefox) to over 10 years (how long it would take someone to make a microchip fabrication plant and design new chips if say AMD got bought out by Intel and it decided to start coasting). Inbetween, no one is served well.

In a perfect world with perfect markets where things can move at blinding speed perhaps monopolies won't matter, but in the real world where money, politics and infrastructure prevent such things from happening, it does not serve anyone (other than major stockholders of those corporations) if you allowed them to continue. And if you're going to argue for the minor stockholders, I point to the fact that all the telcoms now are worth more than AT&T ever was back when it was broken up.

[genocidal]

LOLz wthi all these wordz in this thred u coud write a book AMIRITE !!!

[Epinephrine]

My Jerome-style play by play:

Jerome: If Standard Oil were still around, I'd be paying less for gas! Damn socialist government!

Me: Uh if that monopoly were around you'd probably be paying more!

Jerome: Nuh-huh! I won a lot of debates in high school saying that!

Me: Uh, yes. High school debating doesn't matter. In the real world, anti-trust laws have been around for 90 years. People with far more experience than either of us have shown that to be true. If your argument was really that compelling, there would be a greater call for things to change.

Jerome: Nuh-huh! Well I read a lot of books on it for a lot of years! Hey even these people [name dropping] think so!

Me: Uh...

Everyone else: Uh Jerome, maybe you should actually try proving your point.

Jerome: Wow epi's ignoring all my hard reserached name-dropping evidence and me just saying Nuh-huh!

Me: Here's some actual evidence, I will actually argue against real arguments that I bothered to research over the internet for the last few minutes because you never brought up these arguments.




As for Jerome's 'please give me and example' I point towards Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

You can read about all the companies prosecuted at your leisure. Look up the actual judgements if you want. Those companies were all found to have been monopolies.

I don't think that I really do need to provide examples ehough. What you are talking about is theoretical because it has never happened. Whenever a company is a monopoly it gets prosecuted. It would never get to the stage where absolutely no one intervenes and lets companies do whatever they want for a very long time (i.e. if Standard Oil still existed as a monopoly 96 years after it was broken up). Your argument is completely theoretical, and as such IDEAS matter the most, not examples. But since you wanted examples, you can read about the cases on the internet if you want. I'm not a lawyer nor am I an economist, so I don't care enough to read it for you. Besides, I already gave an excellent example (AT&T) but you just said 'yeah that was a monopoly but that's not what I'm talking about' so I'm not even going to bother giving any more.

[Jeansi]

I love this whole "Economics freshmen using their recently learned theories"-setting this thread is using. Keep if up boys!

edit: Excludes epi. Get the fuck out with your mature and grown up argumentation. THIS IS THE INTERNETZ!

[Galleleo]

I hate shareholders... stupid Hedge Funds forced ABN AMRO into selling either to Barclays or SRB/Fortis/Satander. ABN AMRO being the Netherlands biggest bank, and racking up a 40 billion dollar (or euro) PROFIT in 2005, that is profit, not sales. Is forced to sell so shareholders can make a quick buck out of it. Ridiculous. If ABN AMRO is forced to sell to the 3 banks SRB/Fortis and Satander it will be divided into pieces among those 3. I seriously don't get it...

[Arikel]

I recommend some of you to read http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/Dumm...764557262.html :greedy:

Not pointing any fingers though

[Zeebu]

what about de beers?

dont they control a huge percentage of the worlds diamonds? dont they only release a small percentage of the diamonds they own to keep prices high?

could that be called a monopoly that keeps the price elevated?

EDIT: obviously this doesnt matter... people buy dimonds as symbols that theyve got money... if everyone could afford them, who would care? i was just wondering if this could be used as an example

[Arikel]

what about de beers?

dont they control a huge percentage of the worlds diamonds? dont they only release a small percentage of the diamonds they own to keep prices high?

could that be called a monopoly that keeps the price elevated?

Yes it was like that untill a few years ago.
You can say De Beers has the monopoly of the diamond market. They held such power over the market that they used to only invite a select few companies and estabilish the prices at wich they had to sell their diamonds. They literally owned the mines in south africa.