«12. . .144145146147148149150. . .270271»
People blame all kinds of things for all kind of situations. As with most cases her blame is misplaced. The government should have no role in that man's housing status.
But there are plenty of things government rightfully should shoulder the blame for. (Government rarely does...) Like this latest rise in my blood pressure:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-national-guard-bonus-20161020-snap-story.html
Unrestrained capitalism leads to monopolization within each market which is another version of restrained capitalism.
Hey, could a couple of you guys endorse me so I can write proposals for the WA?
I will reiterate. Any free market monopolization is beneficial to the consumer. If the monopoly ever tries to take advantage of the consumer, a substitute brand will pop up that the consumers can then use. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the monopoly to make sure that that never happens, so they have to play nice.
Phrontisteries and Xyanth
You obviously do not live in the real world. Reiterating an academic response doesn't stop reality. In a free market nothing will stop the monopoly from taking appropriate measures to insure it will not be threatened by an upstart. This can be by ensuring it has unlimited access to the resources needed to corner the market, to allow itself to grant its competitor "an offer it can't refuse", to utilize the freedom of the market to enforce natural or even unnatural barriers of trade that will allow it to continue its dominance of the market indefinitely, etc.
Freedom, as our dear founder has stated time and again works on both sides of the street. Freedom isn't fair. It is free. Your argument stems from free being fair. That is not realistic. It only approaches that state when barriers to the market are so low as to be nigh absent. Monopolies are structured to make that criteria rare if not unique or limited to a localized environment giving the monopoly time to counteract any threat such competition might posed to its preeminence over the market as a whole.
Of course the hidden cameras are unethical. But it isn't technically illegal. It is on the same scale as wikileaks. I find wikileaks far more abhorrent if only because it is a foreign entity seeking to influence America's election. Regardless of Russian interaction or not it is still an entity based on foreign land seeking to have a disproportionate influence on American politics.
How so? Can you show us some examples?
Can competing organisms of the same niche coexist for an extended period of time in an uncontrolled ecosystem?
Mathematically speaking, an impossibility. Unless it is a very chaotic ecosystem indeed.
Owning more also means earning more in an open market private property society.
I'll take that as a no. You cannot show me an example.
Late to the show here, but my two cents.
First off, for the most part, I am pro free market. For the most part. That being said, lets move on.
As far as I know there is/has never been a truly free market in modern history. Even the highest rated free market nations still have government restrictions and regulations. With that in mind, we have no real way to tell what would situation would arise from monopolies in a 100% free market. We could guess, but that would be arbitrary. The situations would be dependent on government policy, and that policy would be the deciding factor on whether or not a monopoly would be beneficial to a free market.
For example, the United States. One of the freest market nations in the world, and we are full of monopolies. If you don't believe this Google "The Illusion of Choice." 10 corporations control roughly 90% of the consumer goods market if I recall correctly. This hasn't happened by accident or by simple market dynamics, but by political machinations. A great example is Wal Mart. Their products are sub par, foreign made, mass produced garbage. Their products suck, and there are way better alternatives to 99% of their goods. But they have taken advantage of US and international law to flood the market with their garbage with almost no risk to their prosperity.
A truly free market would be independent of government manipulation, but that's not the case in the USA. Big corporations spend millions lobbying congress to get laws passed to their benefit. Over time these corporations manage to get enough laws passed that make it extremely difficult to nearly impossible for competing companies to get a foothold in particular markets. Even if Little Farms INC has a superior product to Monsanto, without some government support or massive investments, they will never get their product to enough consumers to get a foot hold in the market or threaten Monsanto. We can thank Citizens United for this, a bill heavily lobbied by huge corporations. Myface.com may be superior to other social networking sites, but enough campaign contributions can make sure it never sees the light of day.
That being said, if we could remove the cash from politics a monopoly may not be that bad. If a company's only security was the quality of their product any rival with a better product could be a threat. But when the best security is the manipulation of the political machine, quality is not the priority, self preservation is. And that comes in the form of political donations.
I am looking for volunteers wishing to command and deal with the upcoming Zombie Apocalypse™.
Alas, I will be on the road most of that day.
Overall, in economics, as well as in politics, the pursuit of perfectionism is wrong and dangerous. The real world is made up of imperfect people, with limited rationality. Economics should choose the system which gives rise to the best possible solution, the feasible optimum, and not the abstract insufficiency.
Let's go back to the last century. At that historical moment, it was increasingly clear that, in many sectors, competition, as the multiplicity of many small businesses, was giving up to clear the path for the concentration and the dominance of one or a few firms: that is, monopoly and oligopoly. Since then, the monopoly and oligopoly businesses have always spoken more in politics. And today oligopoly is considered to be the prevailing market situation in the most advanced capitalist countries.
The market with many small companies is usually filled with monopolistic elements in the sense that each economic rival tends to build, maintain and to strengthen its special sphere of influence, where it exerts its special power in the market. The free market with absolutely perfect competition is a good idea but it remains pretty utopian and the predatory action of corporations ruin this utopian dream of perfection.
What needs to be done?
The Impression I get is that the more nations in a region that take the same course of action, the more effective it well be overall for the region.
Maybe We should decide whether to work on a cure, kill the zombies, or accept the apocalypse and join the zombie hordes.
My Nation has little military but good science so I'm in favor of the cure.
Government, indeed anyone, has a moral duty to stop someone (say Mr Murphy and Mr Dolan - in a town in Lincoln County New Mexico) using force, or the threat of it, to prevent other people going into their line of business. Although we should remember that in real life the government came in on the side of Murphy-Dolan. The murderers of the unarmed Mr Tunstall and the unarmed Mr McSween - the men whose only "crime" was to be in business in competition with Murphy-Dolan - went unpunished, apart from by "Billy the Kid" and whilst he and his men did wear badges and described themselves as officers of the law (something the films leave out) most people would not regard them as government officials. Or Mr Wyatt Earp on his "Vengeance Ride" in next door Arizona - indeed Mr Earp had to leave Arizona due to legal problems relating to the men he shot dead.
However, "Anti Trust" "competition policy" is itself a use of force - and the historical record is clear, government "competition policy" actions are usually HARMFUL (not just useless - actually harmful). There are economies of scale - but there are also diseconomies of scale (management and control) if a company gets too big and too dominate for too long.
There is an extensive literature on the harmful effects of "Anti Trust" "Competition Policy" written by people who are certainly NOT anarchists (and I am not an anarchist either).
Still let us turn to more important matters.........
The Zombies are coming - I propose we shoot them on site.
And then apologise to the families of Clinton and Trump supporters afterwards - "understandable mistake - they are so like zombies".
Alas I have no cure missiles - but many thanks for the cure missiles you fired at my nation.
However, I did have zombie killing specialists - so I have sent them to you. Hopefully this will prevent your nation being overrun and give you time to work on cures.
Eh, it's looking pretty bleak right now, but I appreciate the aid.
I'd like to try out a super weapon just to see what happens, does anyone volunteer?
As Long as it's not hordes send it my way.
«12. . .144145146147148149150. . .270271»
Advertisement
