Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Blame the trust laws, not the companies.

themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2013 10:39:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Many people today like to blame huge corporations for getting so big that their decisions have massive effects on the economy. Well, I say that we really shouldn't blame them as much as we do.

These businesses obviously started somewhere, and grew... and grew... and grew... to where they are today. While we can blame them for doing wrong, we shouldn't blame them for getting so big, because that is what the American dream from a business perspective is.

Therefore we should look at why these businesses got to be the size that they are, and I would like to point to the anti-trust laws that were legislated to prevent monopolies. As far as I can tell, these laws only prevent a company from owning 100% of the market. They are perfectly allowed to own 99.99999% of the market, but just not all of it. It is for this reason that the anti-trust laws should have kept businesses from even getting a few whole percent of the market, instead of for-all-intents-and-purposes the entire market.

Thoughts?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
slo1
Posts: 4,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 7:47:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/7/2013 10:39:58 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
Many people today like to blame huge corporations for getting so big that their decisions have massive effects on the economy. Well, I say that we really shouldn't blame them as much as we do.

These businesses obviously started somewhere, and grew... and grew... and grew... to where they are today. While we can blame them for doing wrong, we shouldn't blame them for getting so big, because that is what the American dream from a business perspective is.

Therefore we should look at why these businesses got to be the size that they are, and I would like to point to the anti-trust laws that were legislated to prevent monopolies. As far as I can tell, these laws only prevent a company from owning 100% of the market. They are perfectly allowed to own 99.99999% of the market, but just not all of it. It is for this reason that the anti-trust laws should have kept businesses from even getting a few whole percent of the market, instead of for-all-intents-and-purposes the entire market.

Thoughts?

You are right. Public companies and the people who own them are rewarded when they grow so that is what they are going to do. It is the nature of capitalism.

Which brings us to the laws that come into play when a company gets so large it becomes more of a drag on society than a benefit. The entire discussion has moved from monopoly to is it bad for competition as we see in the Justice department trying to stop or at least spin off some assets in the American Airline/US Airway merger. If they merged they would be the largest airline but a far cry from a monopoly.

We also even stepped back further in the banking industry and started questioning is "too big to fail" one of those areas of public interest which should be regulated. Our downturn during the Great Recession was big enough with gov intervention when they propped up AIG and a number of other large institutions that could have introduced the Great Depression II, had they not stepped in. The question at hand is whether they should be regulated so they can go bankrupt without causing devastation to the entire economy.

It is an interesting topic on when companies get too big and when they should be regulated as a result.

The laws, though, are enforced long before a true monopolies are established as we see with the AA/US Air merger.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 7:59:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/7/2013 10:39:58 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
Many people today like to blame huge corporations for getting so big that their decisions have massive effects on the economy. Well, I say that we really shouldn't blame them as much as we do.

These businesses obviously started somewhere, and grew... and grew... and grew... to where they are today. While we can blame them for doing wrong, we shouldn't blame them for getting so big, because that is what the American dream from a business perspective is.

Therefore we should look at why these businesses got to be the size that they are, and I would like to point to the anti-trust laws that were legislated to prevent monopolies. As far as I can tell, these laws only prevent a company from owning 100% of the market. They are perfectly allowed to own 99.99999% of the market, but just not all of it. It is for this reason that the anti-trust laws should have kept businesses from even getting a few whole percent of the market, instead of for-all-intents-and-purposes the entire market.

Thoughts?

Right direction wrong conclusion. Monopolies and oligopolies form due to market imperfections. Monopolies are unsustainable without government intervention. This includes patents, copyright laws, exclusive charters, and so on. Standard Oil was only able to gain a monopoly because they held so many patents. The constitution states that intellectual property should only be protected for a limited time, in order to encourage innovations, but the government issues them for extended periods of time, and many companies are protected indefinitely.

The government also tries to direct the market through bailouts, regulations, licensing, subsidization, and so on. All of these policies contribute to the formation of monopolies.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 1:28:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I always confused why people are so afraid of one giant business managed to take a total control of the market.

True, if one can do such thing there will be no competitor to bring down the price but on the other hand, they can only set the price at minimum profit as their production permit because if they do other wise somebody will going to penetrate those segment of their business and break their monopoly.

In fact larger business also mean larger production and more efficient production through better availability of resources. And efficiency means lower cost and price, and market stability also means stable employment.

In my opinion, monopoly seem to be even more preferable if social well being of the people is a factor of consideration.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:04:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 1:28:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I always confused why people are so afraid of one giant business managed to take a total control of the market.


True, if one can do such thing there will be no competitor to bring down the price but on the other hand, they can only set the price at minimum profit as their production permit because if they do other wise somebody will going to penetrate those segment of their business and break their monopoly.


In fact larger business also mean larger production and more efficient production through better availability of resources. And efficiency means lower cost and price, and market stability also means stable employment.

In my opinion, monopoly seem to be even more preferable if social well being of the people is a factor of consideration.

People tend to view the fact that SOME big businesses have poor working conditions, and since they can sell they product for a lower price (due to increased efficiency), it drives out the more expensive local markets. This means that another business can't penetrate the market unless they are either big enough to afford such high efficiencies, or have somehow invented a way to be more efficient without becoming huge.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 4:45:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 6:04:43 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/22/2013 1:28:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I always confused why people are so afraid of one giant business managed to take a total control of the market.


True, if one can do such thing there will be no competitor to bring down the price but on the other hand, they can only set the price at minimum profit as their production permit because if they do other wise somebody will going to penetrate those segment of their business and break their monopoly.


In fact larger business also mean larger production and more efficient production through better availability of resources. And efficiency means lower cost and price, and market stability also means stable employment.

In my opinion, monopoly seem to be even more preferable if social well being of the people is a factor of consideration.

People tend to view the fact that SOME big businesses have poor working conditions, and since they can sell they product for a lower price (due to increased efficiency), it drives out the more expensive local markets. This means that another business can't penetrate the market unless they are either big enough to afford such high efficiencies, or have somehow invented a way to be more efficient without becoming huge.

exactly, monopoly hurt businesses not the people. People who own inefficient enterprises will certainly suffer from the emergence of a giant corporation, not the consumer who use their product or the employee who sold their labor to them.

In job-to-job comparison employee who work in a large corporation tend to have more salary, better benefit, and safer working place compare to a small and medium enterprise who couldn't afford the same degree of efficiency. If they don't do that it employee will be working elsewhere where the wages are better, allowing their competitor access to labor supply which could result in the breaking of monopoly.

Monopolization will hurt business owner but it is the better to the societies. It creates good working condition, efficient product and service, and more stable economic condition.

In my view, anti-trust is the sources of all problem in modern day economy, it create market inefficiency which could be otherwise with an invisible hands.

They say in long term we're all death, I said we probably die even faster if we're not waiting for the long term to come.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 11:35:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 4:45:06 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:04:43 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/22/2013 1:28:45 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I always confused why people are so afraid of one giant business managed to take a total control of the market.


True, if one can do such thing there will be no competitor to bring down the price but on the other hand, they can only set the price at minimum profit as their production permit because if they do other wise somebody will going to penetrate those segment of their business and break their monopoly.


In fact larger business also mean larger production and more efficient production through better availability of resources. And efficiency means lower cost and price, and market stability also means stable employment.

In my opinion, monopoly seem to be even more preferable if social well being of the people is a factor of consideration.

People tend to view the fact that SOME big businesses have poor working conditions, and since they can sell they product for a lower price (due to increased efficiency), it drives out the more expensive local markets. This means that another business can't penetrate the market unless they are either big enough to afford such high efficiencies, or have somehow invented a way to be more efficient without becoming huge.

exactly, monopoly hurt businesses not the people. People who own inefficient enterprises will certainly suffer from the emergence of a giant corporation, not the consumer who use their product or the employee who sold their labor to them.

In job-to-job comparison employee who work in a large corporation tend to have more salary, better benefit, and safer working place compare to a small and medium enterprise who couldn't afford the same degree of efficiency. If they don't do that it employee will be working elsewhere where the wages are better, allowing their competitor access to labor supply which could result in the breaking of monopoly.

Monopolization will hurt business owner but it is the better to the societies. It creates good working condition, efficient product and service, and more stable economic condition.

In my view, anti-trust is the sources of all problem in modern day economy, it create market inefficiency which could be otherwise with an invisible hands.

They say in long term we're all death, I said we probably die even faster if we're not waiting for the long term to come.

In theory it is supposed to provide better working conditions, but in practice, the opposite seems to be true. The better salary is a valid point, as bigger businesses can therefore afford bigger salaries. All that being said, how would you propose that these big businesses keep themselves from doing harm to a countries economy by their decisions?

I mean, I am all for big business, as there are clear-cut benefits to the efficiency (unlike what my rural sociology teacher might say), but the decisions that these huge businesses make, and their subsequent impacts on the economy can do a lot of harm as happened in 2008.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 11:41:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In theory it is supposed to provide better working conditions, but in practice, the opposite seems to be true. The better salary is a valid point, as bigger businesses can therefore afford bigger salaries. All that being said, how would you propose that these big businesses keep themselves from doing harm to a countries economy by their decisions?

I mean, I am all for big business, as there are clear-cut benefits to the efficiency (unlike what my rural sociology teacher might say), but the decisions that these huge businesses make, and their subsequent impacts on the economy can do a lot of harm as happened in 2008.

lol you seem to contradict yourself when you acknowledged that big business is more efficiency and provide better benefit , yet you fear they would have hurt business if left unchecked.

Better benefit and efficiency are already a mark of good economy, if what monopolized industry do is a source of better economy more of them couldn't be bad isn't it?

Monopolized industry also need to rely on good economic (and I mean good mood of their consumer which would permit stable spending). It is in all of their interests to make sure that the economy is good and stable.

In fact it is the competition that forces all of this large corporation to expand their financial profit to the point of economic instability because they need to compete with one another in order to survive. They have no rooms for nurturing their market and stabilize their economy because if they don't make profit right now they are going to die, swallow by their nearest rival which will keep coming up thanks to your government intervention that do not permit "the fittest" to reign dominance in one industry.

It is not only the anti-trust law that is to blame though, all kind of protectionism either domestic or international is a huge obstacle against the true monopoly. All those patents, business tax, import regulation, everything is a discord in what supposed to be arranged by a perfect invisible hands which would make this world a better place than a hellhole we're sitting in.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 1:44:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 11:41:52 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
In theory it is supposed to provide better working conditions, but in practice, the opposite seems to be true. The better salary is a valid point, as bigger businesses can therefore afford bigger salaries. All that being said, how would you propose that these big businesses keep themselves from doing harm to a countries economy by their decisions?

I mean, I am all for big business, as there are clear-cut benefits to the efficiency (unlike what my rural sociology teacher might say), but the decisions that these huge businesses make, and their subsequent impacts on the economy can do a lot of harm as happened in 2008.

lol you seem to contradict yourself when you acknowledged that big business is more efficiency and provide better benefit , yet you fear they would have hurt business if left unchecked.

Hurt small business, but the big business itself is good.

Better benefit and efficiency are already a mark of good economy, if what monopolized industry do is a source of better economy more of them couldn't be bad isn't it?

Too much of a good thing can be bad for you. Also, the more giant conglomerate monopolies you have, the lower total number of businesses you have, which means you have less businesses to fall back on if one or more go bankrupt.

Monopolized industry also need to rely on good economic (and I mean good mood of their consumer which would permit stable spending). It is in all of their interests to make sure that the economy is good and stable.

Not if they are providing something like milk or eggs, that everyone needs to make a good portion of their food. Unless a foreign business that can handle the demand can come in and take over (which would make them an even bigger business), a monopoly can act however they want to.

In fact it is the competition that forces all of this large corporation to expand their financial profit to the point of economic instability because they need to compete with one another in order to survive. They have no rooms for nurturing their market and stabilize their economy because if they don't make profit right now they are going to die, swallow by their nearest rival which will keep coming up thanks to your government intervention that do not permit "the fittest" to reign dominance in one industry.

As long as a company has demand, they can stop expanding whenever they want.

It is not only the anti-trust law that is to blame though, all kind of protectionism either domestic or international is a huge obstacle against the true monopoly. All those patents, business tax, import regulation, everything is a discord in what supposed to be arranged by a perfect invisible hands which would make this world a better place than a hellhole we're sitting in.

Um... Lassie-Faire economics don't work. That's why the Great Depression happened. You can't trust on an 'invisible hand' to guide your economy.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 9:41:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hurt small business, but the big business itself is good.
? sorry but I don't really see the point.

Better benefit and efficiency are already a mark of good economy, if what monopolized industry do is a source of better economy more of them couldn't be bad isn't it?

Too much of a good thing can be bad for you. Also, the more giant conglomerate monopolies you have, the lower total number of businesses you have, which means you have less businesses to fall back on if one or more go bankrupt.

How can they go bankrupt without somebody taking their place if there is a demand? If the only company who manufactured egg in this country went bankrupt, I bet there will be hundred of thousand of investors willing to buy off their staffs and equipment to produce a new eggs manufacture company.

Not if they are providing something like milk or eggs, that everyone needs to make a good portion of their food. Unless a foreign business that can handle the demand can come in and take over (which would make them an even bigger business), a monopoly can act however they want to.

Well if they don't produce it at a reasonable price, somebody will going to break their monopoly very soon. In my economic paradise every big business will always need to produce their products at the cheapest possible rate because there will be no law, politic, or regulation to help them keeping their potential competitors out of the market.

There will be monopoly but they will have to do it themselves

As long as a company has demand, they can stop expanding whenever they want.
No they can't, they will always need to expand if they want somebody to invest in their company and not their competitors. Also expansion result in better resources which would enhance your technological edge, if you lose that edge you're going to lose to your competitors. That's why everyone need to keep expanding even though they know that it will not probably be good for their future.

Um... Lassie-Faire economics don't work. That's why the Great Depression happened. You can't trust on an 'invisible hand' to guide your economy.
It is actually debatable whether free market cause the Great Depression. Also your nation economy wasn't exactly free by the time of it.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 10:39:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 9:41:29 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Hurt small business, but the big business itself is good.
? sorry but I don't really see the point.

Monopolies would hurt small businesses, because monopolies tend to exist by buying out smaller companies. However, the big business by itself does no harm, only it's expansion (by buying out or out-competing) tends to do the harm.

Better benefit and efficiency are already a mark of good economy, if what monopolized industry do is a source of better economy more of them couldn't be bad isn't it?

Too much of a good thing can be bad for you. Also, the more giant conglomerate monopolies you have, the lower total number of businesses you have, which means you have less businesses to fall back on if one or more go bankrupt.

How can they go bankrupt without somebody taking their place if there is a demand? If the only company who manufactured egg in this country went bankrupt, I bet there will be hundred of thousand of investors willing to buy off their staffs and equipment to produce a new eggs manufacture company.

There must be adequate demand. Note how some large car companies have fallen due to a lack of demand. As for your eggs example, would those investors make one large company, or would they each have their own small company that may eventually combine into one large one again?

Not if they are providing something like milk or eggs, that everyone needs to make a good portion of their food. Unless a foreign business that can handle the demand can come in and take over (which would make them an even bigger business), a monopoly can act however they want to.

Well if they don't produce it at a reasonable price, somebody will going to break their monopoly very soon. In my economic paradise every big business will always need to produce their products at the cheapest possible rate because there will be no law, politic, or regulation to help them keeping their potential competitors out of the market.

Who would take over the demand though? If you wanted to compete with a massive corporation, you can't just jump into the market unless you already have a lot of assets to begin with. Taking over the demand of an entire monopoly (small patents discluded) in this day and age would require billions of dollars and the best equipment out there along with a massive logistical network. You don't just jump into that, especially without experience.

There will be monopoly but they will have to do it themselves

What do you mean? As in the people who own the business will have to monopolize it themselves?


As long as a company has demand, they can stop expanding whenever they want.
No they can't, they will always need to expand if they want somebody to invest in their company and not their competitors. Also expansion result in better resources which would enhance your technological edge, if you lose that edge you're going to lose to your competitors. That's why everyone need to keep expanding even though they know that it will not probably be good for their future.

Um... Lassie-Faire economics don't work. That's why the Great Depression happened. You can't trust on an 'invisible hand' to guide your economy.
It is actually debatable whether free market cause the Great Depression. Also your nation economy wasn't exactly free by the time of it.

Well, I highly doubt regulation was the cause, since it's well known that the over-selling of stocks was a major factor (if not the cause).
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 3:24:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Monopolies would hurt small businesses, because monopolies tend to exist by buying out smaller companies. However, the big business by itself does no harm, only it's expansion (by buying out or out-competing) tends to do the harm.
I mean why the extinction of small business would be of any damage to the society or economy. I though we're both agree that monopolized corporation work better, provide better income, and more stable employment. So what is so bad about your retailer next door being phased out of business, replace by big brand retail which pay their employee better and probably sell its product at a better price?

There must be adequate demand. Note how some large car companies have fallen due to a lack of demand. As for your eggs example, would those investors make one large company, or would they each have their own small company that may eventually combine into one large one again?

Not if they are providing something like milk or eggs, that everyone needs to make a good portion of their food. Unless a foreign business that can handle the demand can come in and take over (which would make them an even bigger business), a monopoly can act however they want to.

Well if they don't produce it at a reasonable price, somebody will going to break their monopoly very soon. In my economic paradise every big business will always need to produce their products at the cheapest possible rate because there will be no law, politic, or regulation to help them keeping their potential competitors out of the market.

Who would take over the demand though? If you wanted to compete with a massive corporation, you can't just jump into the market unless you already have a lot of assets to begin with. Taking over the demand of an entire monopoly (small patents discluded) in this day and age would require billions of dollars and the best equipment out there along with a massive logistical network. You don't just jump into that, especially without experience.

Not every investor put all their money in the business, somebody like Buffet would probably be able to take over your company if you've gone bankrupt due to cash flow mismanagement.

All that would happen would be the change of ownership, if business is doing well I don't think you will need to replace its executive and all the stuff. What you need is someone with a lot of money, which is not that difficult to find in and out of your country.

There will be monopoly but they will have to do it themselves

What do you mean? As in the people who own the business will have to monopolize it themselves?

They can not relied on anything but economy of scale in order to monopolized the market, they can not relied on law or government regulation to keep their competitor out of business, they will have to buy them out which could be mush more expensive than simply offer their product at reasonable price.

Well, I highly doubt regulation was the cause, since it's well known that the over-selling of stocks was a major factor (if not the cause).

See? you doubt :D
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 9:09:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 3:24:42 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Monopolies would hurt small businesses, because monopolies tend to exist by buying out smaller companies. However, the big business by itself does no harm, only it's expansion (by buying out or out-competing) tends to do the harm.
I mean why the extinction of small business would be of any damage to the society or economy. I though we're both agree that monopolized corporation work better, provide better income, and more stable employment. So what is so bad about your retailer next door being phased out of business, replace by big brand retail which pay their employee better and probably sell its product at a better price?

I don't think it would hurt the society, it would just hurt the small business, and worsen the consequences if that company were to fail (the bigger they are, the harder they fall).



There must be adequate demand. Note how some large car companies have fallen due to a lack of demand. As for your eggs example, would those investors make one large company, or would they each have their own small company that may eventually combine into one large one again?

Not if they are providing something like milk or eggs, that everyone needs to make a good portion of their food. Unless a foreign business that can handle the demand can come in and take over (which would make them an even bigger business), a monopoly can act however they want to.

Well if they don't produce it at a reasonable price, somebody will going to break their monopoly very soon. In my economic paradise every big business will always need to produce their products at the cheapest possible rate because there will be no law, politic, or regulation to help them keeping their potential competitors out of the market.

Who would take over the demand though? If you wanted to compete with a massive corporation, you can't just jump into the market unless you already have a lot of assets to begin with. Taking over the demand of an entire monopoly (small patents discluded) in this day and age would require billions of dollars and the best equipment out there along with a massive logistical network. You don't just jump into that, especially without experience.

Not every investor put all their money in the business, somebody like Buffet would probably be able to take over your company if you've gone bankrupt due to cash flow mismanagement.

All that would happen would be the change of ownership, if business is doing well I don't think you will need to replace its executive and all the stuff. What you need is someone with a lot of money, which is not that difficult to find in and out of your country.

While that does seem like a way to solve the issue, wouldn't a bankruptcy due to a lack of demand disuade investors from taking over? Wouldn't that be like betting on the loser?

There will be monopoly but they will have to do it themselves

What do you mean? As in the people who own the business will have to monopolize it themselves?

They can not relied on anything but economy of scale in order to monopolized the market, they can not relied on law or government regulation to keep their competitor out of business, they will have to buy them out which could be mush more expensive than simply offer their product at reasonable price.

You could use regulations to keep would-be competitors out, as those regulations could create large barriers of entry into the market.


Well, I highly doubt regulation was the cause, since it's well known that the over-selling of stocks was a major factor (if not the cause).

See? you doubt :D

That is because I have seen evidence to suggest that the New Deal did more harm than good, so I have been questioning by Great Depression education. I am still confident that it was a very major factor though.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 11:45:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think it would hurt the society, it would just hurt the small business, and worsen the consequences if that company were to fail (the bigger they are, the harder they fall).

And what is your issue here again? I mean small businesses are part of the society what harm would it be if they are to go bankrupt, their staff assimilated back to the big business and the owners themselves reduced back to an employee, provide that their overall standard of living is better?


Not every investor put all their money in the business, somebody like Buffet would probably be able to take over your company if you've gone bankrupt due to cash flow mismanagement.

All that would happen would be the change of ownership, if business is doing well I don't think you will need to replace its executive and all the stuff. What you need is someone with a lot of money, which is not that difficult to find in and out of your country.

While that does seem like a way to solve the issue, wouldn't a bankruptcy due to a lack of demand disuade investors from taking over? Wouldn't that be like betting on the loser?

if there is no demand why bother doing business? If demand had become extremely small, a small business might reemerged and take over that section of the market. If they are not even worth for small business then it deserve to go.



You could use regulations to keep would-be competitors out, as those regulations could create large barriers of entry into the market.

Err.. and what? I said monopoly without govt intervention will make everyone happy, what's your point of bringing those regulation here?

Well, I highly doubt regulation was the cause, since it's well known that the over-selling of stocks was a major factor (if not the cause).

See? you doubt :D

That is because I have seen evidence to suggest that the New Deal did more harm than good, so I have been questioning by Great Depression education. I am still confident that it was a very major factor though.

Well I won't going to argue with you in this one, your American should know it better than me. Still I don't think it that mush relevant since your economy condition at the time isn't fit with the discussion we're having here.

And dude, delete of the comment you no longer want to engage, I don't want our conversation to stretch long across the A4.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 12:52:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 11:45:27 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I don't think it would hurt the society, it would just hurt the small business, and worsen the consequences if that company were to fail (the bigger they are, the harder they fall).

And what is your issue here again? I mean small businesses are part of the society what harm would it be if they are to go bankrupt, their staff assimilated back to the big business and the owners themselves reduced back to an employee, provide that their overall standard of living is better?

You are assuming that the staff is assimilated into the big business.



While that does seem like a way to solve the issue, wouldn't a bankruptcy due to a lack of demand disuade investors from taking over? Wouldn't that be like betting on the loser?

if there is no demand why bother doing business? If demand had become extremely small, a small business might reemerged and take over that section of the market. If they are not even worth for small business then it deserve to go.

I am asserting the situation of when there was a demand, but the demand died over time. Perhaps it would be expensive to convert to a new form of demand, and so they just go out of business. Some other large company would have to buy the old company, and buy all the equipment needed to make it into a profitable part of the new owners business. That would mean a lot of money risked.



You could use regulations to keep would-be competitors out, as those regulations could create large barriers of entry into the market.

Err.. and what? I said monopoly without govt intervention will make everyone happy, what's your point of bringing those regulation here?

Right, you seem to be against the concept of regulation, so I am showing how regulation can be beneficial.

That is because I have seen evidence to suggest that the New Deal did more harm than good, so I have been questioning by Great Depression education. I am still confident that it was a very major factor though.

Well I won't going to argue with you in this one, your American should know it better than me. Still I don't think it that mush relevant since your economy condition at the time isn't fit with the discussion we're having here.

And dude, delete of the comment you no longer want to engage, I don't want our conversation to stretch long across the A4.

I take it you are British?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 6:18:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You are assuming that the staff is assimilated into the big business.

And they should if they are productive and profitable, training new staffs can be costly and time consuming so whenever they can just buy off a new business they would prefer to keep most of the staff.

My uncle used to run a stereo factory when Asian financial crisis hit in late 19th his business suffered from a lack of liquidity and he is forced to sell off his business. The bank who buy his shares keep all of the staffs, including himself as a manager of the new bank-owned company even though it is a hostile takeover because the bank know he could run business and have him there can be mush easier than starting from zero.

I am asserting the situation of when there was a demand, but the demand died over time. Perhaps it would be expensive to convert to a new form of demand, and so they just go out of business. Some other large company would have to buy the old company, and buy all the equipment needed to make it into a profitable part of the new owners business. That would mean a lot of money risked.

If demand becomes smaller than the customer should pay a higher price in order to adjust with the law of supply-demand

You could use regulations to keep would-be competitors out, as those regulations could create large barriers of entry into the market.

Err.. and what? I said monopoly without govt intervention will make everyone happy, what's your point of bringing those regulation here?

Right, you seem to be against the concept of regulation, so I am showing how regulation can be beneficial.

ok I got it, still didn't see what kind of benefit you are trying to show in your example. Do you mean regulation can be good for monopoly or something else?

That is because I have seen evidence to suggest that the New Deal did more harm than good, so I have been questioning by Great Depression education. I am still confident that it was a very major factor though.

Well I won't going to argue with you in this one, your American should know it better than me. Still I don't think it that mush relevant since your economy condition at the time isn't fit with the discussion we're having here.

And dude, delete of the comment you no longer want to engage, I don't want our conversation to stretch long across the A4.

I take it you are British?

Sorry no :D

I'll give you a hint, my country have one of the most intense sunlight in the world, it is pretty humid and food is good.

Some of the people in this commodity already know my national identity. So keep silent ><
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 7:31:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 6:18:53 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
You are assuming that the staff is assimilated into the big business.

And they should if they are productive and profitable, training new staffs can be costly and time consuming so whenever they can just buy off a new business they would prefer to keep most of the staff.

I agree, however many employees aren't kept on for whatever reason.

My uncle used to run a stereo factory when Asian financial crisis hit in late 19th his business suffered from a lack of liquidity and he is forced to sell off his business. The bank who buy his shares keep all of the staffs, including himself as a manager of the new bank-owned company even though it is a hostile takeover because the bank know he could run business and have him there can be mush easier than starting from zero.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting that first sentence, but the 19th century was from 1800 to 1899. I think you meant 20th, unless your uncle is quite old.


I am asserting the situation of when there was a demand, but the demand died over time. Perhaps it would be expensive to convert to a new form of demand, and so they just go out of business. Some other large company would have to buy the old company, and buy all the equipment needed to make it into a profitable part of the new owners business. That would mean a lot of money risked.

If demand becomes smaller than the customer should pay a higher price in order to adjust with the law of supply-demand

That's not how supply and demand works. If you want to increase your demand, then you lower your price, so that more people may buy your product. If you have a excess of demand, that is when you increase the price, so you can drive off the excess demand.


You could use regulations to keep would-be competitors out, as those regulations could create large barriers of entry into the market.

Err.. and what? I said monopoly without govt intervention will make everyone happy, what's your point of bringing those regulation here?

Right, you seem to be against the concept of regulation, so I am showing how regulation can be beneficial.

ok I got it, still didn't see what kind of benefit you are trying to show in your example. Do you mean regulation can be good for monopoly or something else?

Pretty much any company that would like to either become a monopoly, or is a monopoly already.

That is because I have seen evidence to suggest that the New Deal did more harm than good, so I have been questioning by Great Depression education. I am still confident that it was a very major factor though.

Well I won't going to argue with you in this one, your American should know it better than me. Still I don't think it that mush relevant since your economy condition at the time isn't fit with the discussion we're having here.

And dude, delete of the comment you no longer want to engage, I don't want our conversation to stretch long across the A4.

I take it you are British?

Sorry no :D

I'll give you a hint, my country have one of the most intense sunlight in the world, it is pretty humid and food is good.

Some of the people in this commodity already know my national identity. So keep silent ><

Hmm... intense sunlight mots of humidity, good food, and a highway system that sounds like it was from the British...

I'd guess that it's either a southern Asian country, or it's a tropical island.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 11:28:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
My uncle used to run a stereo factory when Asian financial crisis hit in late 19th his business suffered from a lack of liquidity and he is forced to sell off his business. The bank who buy his shares keep all of the staffs, including himself as a manager of the new bank-owned company even though it is a hostile takeover because the bank know he could run business and have him there can be mush easier than starting from zero.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting that first sentence, but the 19th century was from 1800 to 1899. I think you meant 20th, unless your uncle is quite old.

Yes, it's my bad sorry, it was 20th century.

I am asserting the situation of when there was a demand, but the demand died over time. Perhaps it would be expensive to convert to a new form of demand, and so they just go out of business. Some other large company would have to buy the old company, and buy all the equipment needed to make it into a profitable part of the new owners business. That would mean a lot of money risked.

If demand becomes smaller than the customer should pay a higher price in order to adjust with the law of supply-demand

That's not how supply and demand works. If you want to increase your demand, then you lower your price, so that more people may buy your product. If you have a excess of demand, that is when you increase the price, so you can drive off the excess demand.

It can also be worked in vise verse. If the supply drop faster than demand, that also resulted in price increase I think that is called stagnation.

You could use regulations to keep would-be competitors out, as those regulations could create large barriers of entry into the market.

Err.. and what? I said monopoly without govt intervention will make everyone happy, what's your point of bringing those regulation here?

Right, you seem to be against the concept of regulation, so I am showing how regulation can be beneficial.

ok I got it, still didn't see what kind of benefit you are trying to show in your example. Do you mean regulation can be good for monopoly or something else?

Pretty much any company that would like to either become a monopoly, or is a monopoly already.

Understood but monopoly will not bring about a cheaper product and better employment if it isn't done economically. Regulation is the only way the company can have full control over the price regardless of market demand because they didn't need to use the price to keep their competitiveness, they used government regulation which is literally means forces to keep other out of business. In that case monopoly will result in hardship and widen income gap and social problems, thus it is not something I am willing to support.

That is because I have seen evidence to suggest that the New Deal did more harm than good, so I have been questioning by Great Depression education. I am still confident that it was a very major factor though.

Well I won't going to argue with you in this one, your American should know it better than me. Still I don't think it that mush relevant since your economy condition at the time isn't fit with the discussion we're having here.

And dude, delete of the comment you no longer want to engage, I don't want our conversation to stretch long across the A4.

I take it you are British?

Sorry no :D

I'll give you a hint, my country have one of the most intense sunlight in the world, it is pretty humid and food is good.

Some of the people in this commodity already know my national identity. So keep silent ><

Hmm... intense sunlight mots of humidity, good food, and a highway system that sounds like it was from the British...

I'd guess that it's either a southern Asian country, or it's a tropical island.

Close, move it a bit east and bingo. It's your favorite summer vacation spot :D
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 11:37:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 11:28:23 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
My uncle used to run a stereo factory when Asian financial crisis hit in late 19th his business suffered from a lack of liquidity and he is forced to sell off his business. The bank who buy his shares keep all of the staffs, including himself as a manager of the new bank-owned company even though it is a hostile takeover because the bank know he could run business and have him there can be mush easier than starting from zero.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting that first sentence, but the 19th century was from 1800 to 1899. I think you meant 20th, unless your uncle is quite old.

Yes, it's my bad sorry, it was 20th century.

I am asserting the situation of when there was a demand, but the demand died over time. Perhaps it would be expensive to convert to a new form of demand, and so they just go out of business. Some other large company would have to buy the old company, and buy all the equipment needed to make it into a profitable part of the new owners business. That would mean a lot of money risked.

If demand becomes smaller than the customer should pay a higher price in order to adjust with the law of supply-demand

That's not how supply and demand works. If you want to increase your demand, then you lower your price, so that more people may buy your product. If you have a excess of demand, that is when you increase the price, so you can drive off the excess demand.

It can also be worked in vise verse. If the supply drop faster than demand, that also resulted in price increase I think that is called stagnation.

Technically speaking, a lack of supply and an excess of demand is the same thing. You should look up supply and demand graphs. The left Y-axis will be demand, the right Y-axis is supply, and the X-axis is price.

You could use regulations to keep would-be competitors out, as those regulations could create large barriers of entry into the market.

Err.. and what? I said monopoly without govt intervention will make everyone happy, what's your point of bringing those regulation here?

Right, you seem to be against the concept of regulation, so I am showing how regulation can be beneficial.

ok I got it, still didn't see what kind of benefit you are trying to show in your example. Do you mean regulation can be good for monopoly or something else?

Pretty much any company that would like to either become a monopoly, or is a monopoly already.

Understood but monopoly will not bring about a cheaper product and better employment if it isn't done economically. Regulation is the only way the company can have full control over the price regardless of market demand because they didn't need to use the price to keep their competitiveness, they used government regulation which is literally means forces to keep other out of business. In that case monopoly will result in hardship and widen income gap and social problems, thus it is not something I am willing to support.

How so would it result in hardship and widen the income gap and social problems?


That is because I have seen evidence to suggest that the New Deal did more harm than good, so I have been questioning by Great Depression education. I am still confident that it was a very major factor though.

Well I won't going to argue with you in this one, your American should know it better than me. Still I don't think it that mush relevant since your economy condition at the time isn't fit with the discussion we're having here.

And dude, delete of the comment you no longer want to engage, I don't want our conversation to stretch long across the A4.

I take it you are British?

Sorry no :D

I'll give you a hint, my country have one of the most intense sunlight in the world, it is pretty humid and food is good.

Some of the people in this commodity already know my national identity. So keep silent ><

Hmm... intense sunlight mots of humidity, good food, and a highway system that sounds like it was from the British...

I'd guess that it's either a southern Asian country, or it's a tropical island.

Close, move it a bit east and bingo. It's your favorite summer vacation spot :D

Australia?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 11:51:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It can also be worked in vise verse. If the supply drop faster than demand, that also resulted in price increase I think that is called stagnation.

Technically speaking, a lack of supply and an excess of demand is the same thing. You should look up supply and demand graphs. The left Y-axis will be demand, the right Y-axis is supply, and the X-axis is price.

exactly, and that is also exactly the situation you are purpose, the demand is declining so the business refused to supply further product at the volume to the market, if they still want those product they must now deal with a decreased supply situation where economy of scale can no longer be achieved and the subsequent price increased.
That's just how the market work, if you want to take a photograph, using film now you will found that the price is mush more expensive compare to what used to be in the past

You could use regulations to keep would-be competitors out, as those regulations could create large barriers of entry into the market.

Err.. and what? I said monopoly without govt intervention will make everyone happy, what's your point of bringing those regulation here?

Right, you seem to be against the concept of regulation, so I am showing how regulation can be beneficial.

ok I got it, still didn't see what kind of benefit you are trying to show in your example. Do you mean regulation can be good for monopoly or something else?

Pretty much any company that would like to either become a monopoly, or is a monopoly already.

Understood but monopoly will not bring about a cheaper product and better employment if it isn't done economically. Regulation is the only way the company can have full control over the price regardless of market demand because they didn't need to use the price to keep their competitiveness, they used government regulation which is literally means forces to keep other out of business. In that case monopoly will result in hardship and widen income gap and social problems, thus it is not something I am willing to support.

How so would it result in hardship and widen the income gap and social problems?

Because you can sell your product at mush more expensive price, consumer get poorer and business owner got more profit - social class becomes more apparent and unrest followed

That is because I have seen evidence to suggest that the New Deal did more harm than good, so I have been questioning by Great Depression education. I am still confident that it was a very major factor though.

Well I won't going to argue with you in this one, your American should know it better than me. Still I don't think it that mush relevant since your economy condition at the time isn't fit with the discussion we're having here.

And dude, delete of the comment you no longer want to engage, I don't want our conversation to stretch long across the A4.

I take it you are British?

Sorry no :D

I'll give you a hint, my country have one of the most intense sunlight in the world, it is pretty humid and food is good.

Some of the people in this commodity already know my national identity. So keep silent ><

Hmm... intense sunlight mots of humidity, good food, and a highway system that sounds like it was from the British...

I'd guess that it's either a southern Asian country, or it's a tropical island.

Close, move it a bit east and bingo. It's your favorite summer vacation spot :D

Australia?

No! I said East not further south. I come from Thailand, so proud to be misunderstood as a native speaker :D
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 12:00:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 11:51:29 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
It can also be worked in vise verse. If the supply drop faster than demand, that also resulted in price increase I think that is called stagnation.

Technically speaking, a lack of supply and an excess of demand is the same thing. You should look up supply and demand graphs. The left Y-axis will be demand, the right Y-axis is supply, and the X-axis is price.

exactly, and that is also exactly the situation you are purpose, the demand is declining so the business refused to supply further product at the volume to the market, if they still want those product they must now deal with a decreased supply situation where economy of scale can no longer be achieved and the subsequent price increased.
That's just how the market work, if you want to take a photograph, using film now you will found that the price is mush more expensive compare to what used to be in the past

You could use regulations to keep would-be competitors out, as those regulations could create large barriers of entry into the market.

Err.. and what? I said monopoly without govt intervention will make everyone happy, what's your point of bringing those regulation here?

Right, you seem to be against the concept of regulation, so I am showing how regulation can be beneficial.

ok I got it, still didn't see what kind of benefit you are trying to show in your example. Do you mean regulation can be good for monopoly or something else?

Pretty much any company that would like to either become a monopoly, or is a monopoly already.

Understood but monopoly will not bring about a cheaper product and better employment if it isn't done economically. Regulation is the only way the company can have full control over the price regardless of market demand because they didn't need to use the price to keep their competitiveness, they used government regulation which is literally means forces to keep other out of business. In that case monopoly will result in hardship and widen income gap and social problems, thus it is not something I am willing to support.

How so would it result in hardship and widen the income gap and social problems?

Because you can sell your product at mush more expensive price, consumer get poorer and business owner got more profit - social class becomes more apparent and unrest followed

Not unless the government adds more regulation in the form of price ceilings.

That is because I have seen evidence to suggest that the New Deal did more harm than good, so I have been questioning by Great Depression education. I am still confident that it was a very major factor though.

Well I won't going to argue with you in this one, your American should know it better than me. Still I don't think it that mush relevant since your economy condition at the time isn't fit with the discussion we're having here.

And dude, delete of the comment you no longer want to engage, I don't want our conversation to stretch long across the A4.

I take it you are British?

Sorry no :D

I'll give you a hint, my country have one of the most intense sunlight in the world, it is pretty humid and food is good.

Some of the people in this commodity already know my national identity. So keep silent ><

Hmm... intense sunlight mots of humidity, good food, and a highway system that sounds like it was from the British...

I'd guess that it's either a southern Asian country, or it's a tropical island.

Close, move it a bit east and bingo. It's your favorite summer vacation spot :D

Australia?

No! I said East not further south. I come from Thailand, so proud to be misunderstood as a native speaker :D

My world geography isn't all that great. I didn't think you were from Australia, since I would expect much more flawless English (no offense), but I was thinking that Australia was more East than South of Asia.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 12:34:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

Not unless the government adds more regulation in the form of price ceilings.

They didn't need to, just forcing competitor out give enough context for the company to force unlimited price increase.

That is because I have seen evidence to suggest that the New Deal did more harm than good, so I have been questioning by Great Depression education. I am still confident that it was a very major factor though.

Well I won't going to argue with you in this one, your American should know it better than me. Still I don't think it that mush relevant since your economy condition at the time isn't fit with the discussion we're having here.

And dude, delete of the comment you no longer want to engage, I don't want our conversation to stretch long across the A4.

I take it you are British?

Sorry no :D

I'll give you a hint, my country have one of the most intense sunlight in the world, it is pretty humid and food is good.

Some of the people in this commodity already know my national identity. So keep silent ><

Hmm... intense sunlight mots of humidity, good food, and a highway system that sounds like it was from the British...

I'd guess that it's either a southern Asian country, or it's a tropical island.

Close, move it a bit east and bingo. It's your favorite summer vacation spot :D

Australia?

No! I said East not further south. I come from Thailand, so proud to be misunderstood as a native speaker :D

My world geography isn't all that great. I didn't think you were from Australia, since I would expect much more flawless English (no offense), but I was thinking that Australia was more East than South of Asia.

And none taken. Well I did say it is "a bit east" and I thought it is fairly easy to guest since you already said South Asia.

When did your favorite vacation spot changed from my place to Australia anyway?
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:51:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/8/2013 7:59:14 AM, DanT wrote:
Right direction wrong conclusion. Monopolies and oligopolies form due to market imperfections. Monopolies are unsustainable without government intervention. This includes patents, copyright laws, exclusive charters, and so on. Standard Oil was only able to gain a monopoly because they held so many patents. The constitution states that intellectual property should only be protected for a limited time, in order to encourage innovations, but the government issues them for extended periods of time, and many companies are protected indefinitely.

Intellectual property is distinguished neither by monopoly nor by intervention, but only by intellect. All properties are "monopolies" in the trivial sense that they themselves have only one seller, whereas degree of monopoly power is a complex function of the number, relative size, independence and substitutability of other capitals, and can only be inferred from the mark-up. As for intervention, it's of course intervention regardless of whether it's for 14-28 years, as in the Constitution, or forever, and regardless of whether it's real property, such as the stolen land on which said constitution was drafted, or intellectual.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 5:33:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 12:51:35 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 11/8/2013 7:59:14 AM, DanT wrote:
Right direction wrong conclusion. Monopolies and oligopolies form due to market imperfections. Monopolies are unsustainable without government intervention. This includes patents, copyright laws, exclusive charters, and so on. Standard Oil was only able to gain a monopoly because they held so many patents. The constitution states that intellectual property should only be protected for a limited time, in order to encourage innovations, but the government issues them for extended periods of time, and many companies are protected indefinitely.

Intellectual property is distinguished neither by monopoly nor by intervention, but only by intellect.
Intellectual property, such as the lightbulb or the song "happy birthday to you" are the property of the intellectual who designed them only to the extent that it was their idea. Anything beyond that is a ta property grant from the state through patents and copyright laws.
For example; prohibiting someone other than Edison to manufacture light-bulbs (even if the bulb varied in size or shape to those manufactured by Edison), would be a state granted technological monopoly. Prohibiting restaurants, radio DJs, and TV producers from singing "happy birthday" is likewise a state granted technological monopoly.

All properties are "monopolies" in the trivial sense that they themselves have only one seller, whereas degree of monopoly power is a complex function of the number, relative size, independence and substitutability of other capitals, and can only be inferred from the mark-up. As for intervention, it's of course intervention regardless of whether it's for 14-28 years, as in the Constitution, or forever, and regardless of whether it's real property,
Yes, it is intervention regardless of duration. However, a short term monopoly would promote innovation, while a long term and/or permanent monopoly would hinder innovation.
such as the stolen land on which said constitution was drafted, or intellectual.
The constitution was not drafted on stolen land. The land did not belong to the state, it belonged to the colonists to whom the state is an agent of.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 11:23:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 5:33:53 AM, DanT wrote:
For example; prohibiting someone other than Edison to manufacture light-bulbs (even if the bulb varied in size or shape to those manufactured by Edison), would be a state granted technological monopoly. Prohibiting restaurants, radio DJs, and TV producers from singing "happy birthday" is likewise a state granted technological monopoly.

Even if the song is identical in lyrics and melody to that sung by its writers? And how long do you think real "monopolies" (I don't like the term, because people can and do use alternative birthdays songs and alternative lighting technologies, just as they use alternative real properties, but if you insist...) would last without without the state's blessing? If the consequences of police strikes are any indication, not long at all.

Yes, it is intervention regardless of duration. However, a short term monopoly would promote innovation, while a long term and/or permanent monopoly would hinder innovation.

It would hinder innovations dependent on patented innovations, but it would encourage truly novel innovations and those dependent only on innovations for which the patents have expired, just as permanent monopoly in, say, land, hinders its productivity even as it encourages discovery of new land (though there of course hasn't been new land to discover in quite some time, thus making the land monopolies even more difficult to apologize for than the patents and copyrights).

The constitution was not drafted on stolen land. The land did not belong to the state, it belonged to the colonists to whom the state is an agent of.

I was referring to the dispossession of the natives (and, to a lesser extent, the French immigrants with whom they'd formed a more symbiotic relationship), in which crime the colonists famously double-crossed their British partners.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 6:32:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 11:23:58 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/18/2013 5:33:53 AM, DanT wrote:
For example; prohibiting someone other than Edison to manufacture light-bulbs (even if the bulb varied in size or shape to those manufactured by Edison), would be a state granted technological monopoly. Prohibiting restaurants, radio DJs, and TV producers from singing "happy birthday" is likewise a state granted technological monopoly.

Even if the song is identical in lyrics and melody to that sung by its writers?
Yes, because you can never perfectly duplicate a song sung by another vocalist. Furthermore, it is not a zero sum game whereby the original loses money with every copycat vocalist singing their song, therefore the original vocalist loses nothing by allowing other vocalists to sing their song.
And how long do you think real "monopolies" (I don't like the term, because people can and do use alternative birthdays songs and alternative lighting technologies, just as they use alternative real properties, but if you insist...) would last without without the state's blessing? If the consequences of police strikes are any indication, not long at all.

1.) people use alternative birthday songs to avoid law suits.
2.) You are assuming the only option is intervention; intervention against monopolies, or intervention in favor of monopolies.
3.) No monopoly has ever formed without the influence of the state.
4.) I agree monopolies would not last long without the state's blessing, but I never said I was in favor of monopolies.
5.) To clarify my stance on monopolies, monopolies are only beneficial when the demand is homogenous.
Yes, it is intervention regardless of duration. However, a short term monopoly would promote innovation, while a long term and/or permanent monopoly would hinder innovation.

It would hinder innovations dependent on patented innovations, but it would encourage truly novel innovations and those dependent only on innovations for which the patents have expired,
Thus the longer it takes for a patent to about extended patents slowing down innovation.
just as permanent monopoly in, say, land, hinders its productivity even as it encourages discovery of new land (though there of course hasn't been new land to discover in quite some time, thus making the land monopolies even more difficult to apologize for than the patents and copyrights).

You can't really say there is a land monopoly, because there are so many land owners. Are you really trying to claim that the real-estate is a monopolized industry? It is probably one of the most competitive businesses out there.
The constitution was not drafted on stolen land. The land did not belong to the state, it belonged to the colonists to whom the state is an agent of.

I was referring to the dispossession of the natives (and, to a lesser extent, the French immigrants with whom they'd formed a more symbiotic relationship),
The constitution was not founded upon the disposition of natives. Furthermore, there was never a Native American Nation to dispossess, there many scattered nations who fought with each other over food and territory long before the white man arrived. The natives than used the European settlers to fight each other, all the while the European settlers gained land through trade and through conflicts with hostile tribes (who were often enemies of friendly tribes or allies of hostile European nations).
in which crime the colonists famously double-crossed their British partners.
I take it you are a Brit?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 9:16:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 6:32:28 PM, DanT wrote:
Yes, because you can never perfectly duplicate a song sung by another vocalist. Furthermore, it is not a zero sum game whereby the original loses money with every copycat vocalist singing their song, therefore the original vocalist loses nothing by allowing other vocalists to sing their song

Except that audiences don't usually have an appetite for an infinite number of versions of the same song. If, after the birthday song is sung at a party, you offer to sing it in a way that's truer to the original, the other guests will likely try to impress upon you, in the politest way possible, that the birthday song has already been sung and it's time to blow out the candles.

1.) people use alternative birthday songs to avoid law suits.

Right, and life goes on, same as life goes on after I pay for my groceries to avoid shoplifting charges.

2.) You are assuming the only option is intervention; intervention against monopolies, or intervention in favor of monopolies.

I'm assuming nothing, I'm stating a fact: when the police go on strike, real property claims are not respected.

3.) No monopoly has ever formed without the influence of the state.

No capital of any kind has formed without the influence of the state, so yes, you're correct.

4.) I agree monopolies would not last long without the state's blessing, but I never said I was in favor of monopolies.

I thought I made it clear that I was using "monopoly" in your weak sense, in which a patent for which there are (imperfectly) substitutable technologies that are unpatented or patented by others is a "monopoly". You're certainly in favor of land ownership, and no land is a perfect substitute for any other land.

Thus the longer it takes for a patent to about extended patents slowing down innovation.

Your grammar's pretty bad there, but I think I get what you're saying, and, again, it's not that simple. Even as extending the patent slows down innovation within the scope of the patent, it increases the earnings from the innovation for which it was awarded, thus encouraging innovation of that greater novelty. Theoretically, the correct balance is obvious: the patent should last until someone else would have come up with the idea, which is of course different for different ideas. Sometimes, especially in the past, communication barriers allow us to know at least the upper limit of that ideal duration, but the impracticality of consistently determining it is no excuse for arbitrarily setting it at fourteen years (a duration that grows more and more excessive as the pace of innovation increases).

You can't really say there is a land monopoly, because there are so many land owners. Are you really trying to claim that the real-estate is a monopolized industry? It is probably one of the most competitive businesses out there.

You're not factoring in heterogeneity. If it were only a matter of the number of owners, patents could hardly be called monopolistic, as there are many patent-owners.

The constitution was not founded upon the disposition of natives. Furthermore, there was never a Native American Nation to dispossess, there many scattered nations who fought with each other over food and territory long before the white man arrived. The natives than used the European settlers to fight each other, all the while the European settlers gained land through trade and through conflicts with hostile tribes (who were often enemies of friendly tribes or allies of hostile European nations).

Even by that rosiest of narratives (in fact, when the colonists did bother to seek consent, they typically got it from random individual natives with no authority, hence the ensuing massacres and "Indian giver" rationalizations), the colonists are no better than mercenaries. The fact that they found natives as imperialistic as them, with which to partner, hardly convinces me that their conquests are of a legitimacy deserving of permanence.

I take it you are a Brit?

No, I'm simply stating a fact. There was little talk of revolution when the British were removing the French and Indians. But once the colonists' power was consolidated, it was all liberty this and liberty that.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 8:39:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Blame everything that ails this country on all those who disobey the law and those entrusted to enforce the rule of law who refuse to up hold the rule of law.

"There can be no robbers, swindlers or corruption under the pretext of law.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%