Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

The free market way to eliminate monopolies

Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 9:31:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"But no such measure, even if it lived up to every expectation of
its sponsors, could do as much to assure effective competition as
the elimination of all barriers to international trade. The existence
of only three major automobile producers in the United States"
and one of those on the verge of bankruptcy"does raise a threat
of monopoly pricing. But let the automobile producers of the
world compete with General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler for the
custom of the American buyer, and the specter of monopoly pricing
disappears."
-Milton Friedman

He is saying that by eliminating trade barriers, you force big companies to compete with companies all over the world. Thus, forcing them to compete. I think this is the best thing I have read all day!
Do you agree with this, or is Friedman just making stuff up?
lannan13
Posts: 23,099
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 3:00:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 9:31:22 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
"But no such measure, even if it lived up to every expectation of
its sponsors, could do as much to assure effective competition as
the elimination of all barriers to international trade. The existence
of only three major automobile producers in the United States"
and one of those on the verge of bankruptcy"does raise a threat
of monopoly pricing. But let the automobile producers of the
world compete with General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler for the
custom of the American buyer, and the specter of monopoly pricing
disappears."
-Milton Friedman

He is saying that by eliminating trade barriers, you force big companies to compete with companies all over the world. Thus, forcing them to compete. I think this is the best thing I have read all day!
Do you agree with this, or is Friedman just making stuff up?

I agree with this, but the average American wouldn't allow it because they want to support American industries and only buy American cars. So because of that we get protectionism.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 5:28:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 3:00:28 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:31:22 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
"But no such measure, even if it lived up to every expectation of
its sponsors, could do as much to assure effective competition as
the elimination of all barriers to international trade. The existence
of only three major automobile producers in the United States"
and one of those on the verge of bankruptcy"does raise a threat
of monopoly pricing. But let the automobile producers of the
world compete with General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler for the
custom of the American buyer, and the specter of monopoly pricing
disappears."
-Milton Friedman

He is saying that by eliminating trade barriers, you force big companies to compete with companies all over the world. Thus, forcing them to compete. I think this is the best thing I have read all day!
Do you agree with this, or is Friedman just making stuff up?

I agree with this, but the average American wouldn't allow it because they want to support American industries and only buy American cars. So because of that we get protectionism.

I understand that sentiment. Heck, I used to have that sentiment. Then I learned about free trade, and that changed.
lannan13
Posts: 23,099
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 5:30:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 5:28:31 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:00:28 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:31:22 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
"But no such measure, even if it lived up to every expectation of
its sponsors, could do as much to assure effective competition as
the elimination of all barriers to international trade. The existence
of only three major automobile producers in the United States"
and one of those on the verge of bankruptcy"does raise a threat
of monopoly pricing. But let the automobile producers of the
world compete with General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler for the
custom of the American buyer, and the specter of monopoly pricing
disappears."
-Milton Friedman

He is saying that by eliminating trade barriers, you force big companies to compete with companies all over the world. Thus, forcing them to compete. I think this is the best thing I have read all day!
Do you agree with this, or is Friedman just making stuff up?

I agree with this, but the average American wouldn't allow it because they want to support American industries and only buy American cars. So because of that we get protectionism.

I understand that sentiment. Heck, I used to have that sentiment. Then I learned about free trade, and that changed.

Oh how I agree.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
brunoalley
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 6:20:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why, in your view, would this not just expand the reach from a national monopoly to an international monopoly-- and all the larger and more monopolistic for it?

If I'm a monopolistic widget dealer in the U.S. (already a large and powerful economy), what prevents my firm from becoming a global monopoly once I have effectively broken away from other competitors through Rockefeller-like practices?
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 7:44:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 6:20:04 PM, brunoalley wrote:
Why, in your view, would this not just expand the reach from a national monopoly to an international monopoly-- and all the larger and more monopolistic for it?

If I'm a monopolistic widget dealer in the U.S. (already a large and powerful economy), what prevents my firm from becoming a global monopoly once I have effectively broken away from other competitors through Rockefeller-like practices?

I suppose nothing really. Unless it is just too difficult to obtain the business infrastructure to branch out globally and the other global widget dealers could become more competitive.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 9:19:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 9:31:22 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
"But no such measure, even if it lived up to every expectation of
its sponsors, could do as much to assure effective competition as
the elimination of all barriers to international trade. The existence
of only three major automobile producers in the United States"
and one of those on the verge of bankruptcy"does raise a threat
of monopoly pricing. But let the automobile producers of the
world compete with General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler for the
custom of the American buyer, and the specter of monopoly pricing
disappears."
-Milton Friedman

He is saying that by eliminating trade barriers, you force big companies to compete with companies all over the world. Thus, forcing them to compete. I think this is the best thing I have read all day!
Do you agree with this, or is Friedman just making stuff up?

a) That only works if companies around the world are familiar with the market that's been opened up.

b) That only works if companies have a cost-efficient strategy to compete.

c) That only works if an implicit cartel doesn't exist. Sometimes, companies don't compete on purpose because they have ulterior motives at stake with regards to how they want society to be organized. They're content with their own corners of the world, and they don't want to be challenged by each other, so they don't challenge each other.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 9:24:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I mean a perfect example of this failing is in local neighborhoods. Friedman refers to the most macroscopic of scenarios, but most people really don't care about monopolies like that first. What they care about are the stores and shops in their hometown, and how they have a specific way of doing business that they don't like.

Yea, companies in nearby towns can challenge local monopolies, but a) they're busy with maintaining their local customer base, b) they have to persuade customers to travel over to them and advertise elsewhere, and c) they probably have social values that they share with businesses in other towns, so they really don't want to compete.
Alomoes
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2015 9:17:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The way I see it, getting rid of tariffs would allow unskilled labor jobs to leave the US, and allow for growth of the service economy, everything from your grocery store cashier to the doctors, lawyers, and psychologists. Agree? Disagree?

As for monopolies themselves, I don't know how competition would survive. Even after all the tariffs are taken down, businesses that are not competitive should go bankrupt. This would mean that manufacturing would move to the most cost effective places. That means manufacturing goes where there is the cheapest labor.

I guess in order to stay competitive other things will need to be considered. One of which is quality of production, and the other is brand loyalty. I'm sure there are other factors, like cost of transporting goods, but that doesn't seem very important in the age of globalism, although I'm probably dreadfully wrong. The people who are doing well currently but do not have cheap labor in manufacturing are probably relying on skilled labor to survive. Companies such as Boeing, who deal with R&D are examples of what I mean. German automobile manufacturing is another. I'm not too savvy with various companies. I should learn about at least the big ones, but meh.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2015 10:01:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 9:31:22 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
"But no such measure, even if it lived up to every expectation of
its sponsors, could do as much to assure effective competition as
the elimination of all barriers to international trade. The existence
of only three major automobile producers in the United States"
and one of those on the verge of bankruptcy"does raise a threat
of monopoly pricing. But let the automobile producers of the
world compete with General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler for the
custom of the American buyer, and the specter of monopoly pricing
disappears."
-Milton Friedman

He is saying that by eliminating trade barriers, you force big companies to compete with companies all over the world. Thus, forcing them to compete. I think this is the best thing I have read all day!
Do you agree with this, or is Friedman just making stuff up?

Your going to have to include a whole lot more than a quote from Freidman to convince people that free markets are the way to go. I am of cource open to more or less restrictions in the economy depending on the situation but I was wondering if you could answer some questions about this style of economics.

1. What will prevent companies from using unethical practices such as child labour?

2. How can you be sure that no monopolies will form, after all the formation of monopolies is one of the major critisisms of free market economics?

3. What will be in place to assist poor families up the ladder. After all wealth is often inherited (directly through wills and indirectly due to the fact that rich families can give their children better opportunities)?
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2015 10:28:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Your going to have to include a whole lot more than a quote from Freidman to convince people that free markets are the way to go. I am of cource open to more or less restrictions in the economy depending on the situation but I was wondering if you could answer some questions about this style of economics.

1. What will prevent companies from using unethical practices such as child labour?

Possibly the UN. More likely, however, with the development of technology in the modern world, companies are going to rely on more capital intensive methods of production and/or more skilled labor since capital is becoming more inexpensive.
2. How can you be sure that no monopolies will form, after all the formation of monopolies is one of the major critisisms of free market economics?

You can't. However, by allowing all companies in the world to compete, the source of competition is much larger. The world is quite big.
3. What will be in place to assist poor families up the ladder. After all wealth is often inherited (directly through wills and indirectly due to the fact that rich families can give their children better opportunities)?
-Wealth is stored in bank accounts. That means that that money is invested elsewhere to help grow the economy.
-That will be up to the individual countries. I am not suggesting that we centrally plan the world here. However, basic microeconomics teaches that when firms act according to the Law of Decreasing Opportunity Cost, there will be a huge influx in the number of goods produced. This will cause the economy to be running at its most efficient, and will increase the supply of goods for consumption. This will make food more accessible, technology more practical, and the world more united.

Furthermore, with all nations' economies tied together, the possibility of war decreases.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2015 10:32:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/23/2015 9:17:58 PM, Alomoes wrote:
The way I see it, getting rid of tariffs would allow unskilled labor jobs to leave the US, and allow for growth of the service economy, everything from your grocery store cashier to the doctors, lawyers, and psychologists. Agree? Disagree?
Agree

As for monopolies themselves, I don't know how competition would survive. Even after all the tariffs are taken down, businesses that are not competitive should go bankrupt. This would mean that manufacturing would move to the most cost effective places. That means manufacturing goes where there is the cheapest labor.
Capital is just as important as labor. Whichever one has the lower marginal cost is the best choice, and not everything can be outsourced.

I guess in order to stay competitive other things will need to be considered. One of which is quality of production, and the other is brand loyalty. I'm sure there are other factors, like cost of transporting goods, but that doesn't seem very important in the age of globalism, although I'm probably dreadfully wrong. The people who are doing well currently but do not have cheap labor in manufacturing are probably relying on skilled labor to survive. Companies such as Boeing, who deal with R&D are examples of what I mean. German automobile manufacturing is another. I'm not too savvy with various companies. I should learn about at least the big ones, but meh.
This is referred to as monopolistic competition. It is a real thing, and it provides for a fairly competitive system.

Furthermore, with the additional connectivity, people will have access to better information which is crucial to better competition. This will definitely help the poor countries.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 2:45:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/23/2015 10:28:03 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Your going to have to include a whole lot more than a quote from Freidman to convince people that free markets are the way to go. I am of cource open to more or less restrictions in the economy depending on the situation but I was wondering if you could answer some questions about this style of economics.

1. What will prevent companies from using unethical practices such as child labour?

Possibly the UN. More likely, however, with the development of technology in the modern world, companies are going to rely on more capital intensive methods of production and/or more skilled labor since capital is becoming more inexpensive.
2. How can you be sure that no monopolies will form, after all the formation of monopolies is one of the major critisisms of free market economics?

You can't. However, by allowing all companies in the world to compete, the source of competition is much larger. The world is quite big.
3. What will be in place to assist poor families up the ladder. After all wealth is often inherited (directly through wills and indirectly due to the fact that rich families can give their children better opportunities)?
-Wealth is stored in bank accounts. That means that that money is invested elsewhere to help grow the economy.
-That will be up to the individual countries. I am not suggesting that we centrally plan the world here. However, basic microeconomics teaches that when firms act according to the Law of Decreasing Opportunity Cost, there will be a huge influx in the number of goods produced. This will cause the economy to be running at its most efficient, and will increase the supply of goods for consumption. This will make food more accessible, technology more practical, and the world more united.

Furthermore, with all nations' economies tied together, the possibility of war decreases.

I fully agree that we should make the economy less strict based on borders and try and create more of a world economy instead of national economies. Heck I wouldnt be opposed to the dissolvement of the nation state altogether and the creation of a world democracy if we could do it right (of cource that would be very difficult and may lead many other problems). It is also true that banks do provide investments to stimulate the economy but how can you be sure that freidman style economics is the best way to do this. Not all banks are going to invest properly or do things the right way. An example of this can be seen in the recent reccession when a large number of banks had to be bailed out by the government. Also you state that the UN would step in to prevent things like child labour but as my source explains in a completely free market, there are no taxes, regulations, or subsidies. (http://www.investopedia.com...). Lastly so far all of this is just theory, I would like to see some practical evidence that these theories will hold up in the extremely complex world. Only then could I endorse this style.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 7:47:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 9:31:22 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
"But no such measure, even if it lived up to every expectation of
its sponsors, could do as much to assure effective competition as
the elimination of all barriers to international trade. The existence
of only three major automobile producers in the United States"
and one of those on the verge of bankruptcy"does raise a threat
of monopoly pricing. But let the automobile producers of the
world compete with General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler for the
custom of the American buyer, and the specter of monopoly pricing
disappears."
-Milton Friedman

He is saying that by eliminating trade barriers, you force big companies to compete with companies all over the world. Thus, forcing them to compete. I think this is the best thing I have read all day!
Do you agree with this, or is Friedman just making stuff up?

Just a few what-ifs:
-World Price > Domestic Price
-It really does create a new, bigger, international monopoly (as pointed out above)
-Transport costs are too high for it to be feasible, or transport isn't even possible in the first place
-The monopolist's market power is too great for the international competitors to enter
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
slo1
Posts: 4,359
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 6:02:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 9:31:22 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
"But no such measure, even if it lived up to every expectation of
its sponsors, could do as much to assure effective competition as
the elimination of all barriers to international trade. The existence
of only three major automobile producers in the United States"
and one of those on the verge of bankruptcy"does raise a threat
of monopoly pricing. But let the automobile producers of the
world compete with General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler for the
custom of the American buyer, and the specter of monopoly pricing
disappears."
-Milton Friedman

He is saying that by eliminating trade barriers, you force big companies to compete with companies all over the world. Thus, forcing them to compete. I think this is the best thing I have read all day!
Do you agree with this, or is Friedman just making stuff up?

It is a temporary solution. There is nothing special about a world market versus a national market that does not allow one company to eventually "win" and control a market, if there were no regulation. It is just bigger and would take more time and resources.
lannan13
Posts: 23,099
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 8:55:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 6:20:04 PM, brunoalley wrote:
Why, in your view, would this not just expand the reach from a national monopoly to an international monopoly-- and all the larger and more monopolistic for it?

If I'm a monopolistic widget dealer in the U.S. (already a large and powerful economy), what prevents my firm from becoming a global monopoly once I have effectively broken away from other competitors through Rockefeller-like practices?

Nothing really unless you run into a Communist nation who tries to Nationalize your business.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
mortdeus
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 9:57:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The reason monopolies can't be allowed to exist is that they can stifle competition (and most importantly incentive to innovate) simply by scaring every supplier and distributor into submission with a threat to:

1. Halt production. Which hurts everyone, but it's the little guys who live farther down the food chain that really get hit the hardest. This makes it much easier for the monopoly to manipulate the market into a conformity that suits it's best interests.

2. Cut them out. Which is pretty easy for a monopoly to do, considering all it has to do is to move production in house to devastate the markets.

3. Buy them out. This doesn't seem like a bad option! Until you realize that all three tactics can be used in conjunction with each other to completely trash a companies shares before it swoops in to buy them all up.

The fundamental reason why we need a Government that is willing to (and most importantly actually capable of) stepping in and break up monopolies, is the fact that they are pretty much guaranteed to form. People tend to criticize Rockerfeller as being a insatiably greedy, cutthroat of a businessman with absolutely no moral fiber whatsoever; having put so many business out of business using unfair tactics.

The fact is--if anybody else were put in his position--they would do the exact same thing, if given the opportunity; because otherwise they wouldn't have managed to build themselves up to such a position in the first place. And anybody who has managed to fight there way into such a position understands one fundamental truth about success in business.

If I don't do it, somebody else eventually will.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 12:16:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 6:02:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:31:22 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
"But no such measure, even if it lived up to every expectation of
its sponsors, could do as much to assure effective competition as
the elimination of all barriers to international trade. The existence
of only three major automobile producers in the United States"
and one of those on the verge of bankruptcy"does raise a threat
of monopoly pricing. But let the automobile producers of the
world compete with General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler for the
custom of the American buyer, and the specter of monopoly pricing
disappears."
-Milton Friedman

He is saying that by eliminating trade barriers, you force big companies to compete with companies all over the world. Thus, forcing them to compete. I think this is the best thing I have read all day!
Do you agree with this, or is Friedman just making stuff up?

It is a temporary solution. There is nothing special about a world market versus a national market that does not allow one company to eventually "win" and control a market, if there were no regulation. It is just bigger and would take more time and resources.

DeBeers already tried (and failed), despite having all the ducks in a row.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 12:18:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 8:55:29 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/22/2015 6:20:04 PM, brunoalley wrote:
Why, in your view, would this not just expand the reach from a national monopoly to an international monopoly-- and all the larger and more monopolistic for it?

If I'm a monopolistic widget dealer in the U.S. (already a large and powerful economy), what prevents my firm from becoming a global monopoly once I have effectively broken away from other competitors through Rockefeller-like practices?

Nothing really unless you run into a Communist nation who tries to Nationalize your business.

You guys should ask DeBeers why even Rockefeller tactics can't sustain a world market monopoly.
lannan13
Posts: 23,099
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 12:23:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 12:18:01 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2015 8:55:29 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/22/2015 6:20:04 PM, brunoalley wrote:
Why, in your view, would this not just expand the reach from a national monopoly to an international monopoly-- and all the larger and more monopolistic for it?

If I'm a monopolistic widget dealer in the U.S. (already a large and powerful economy), what prevents my firm from becoming a global monopoly once I have effectively broken away from other competitors through Rockefeller-like practices?

Nothing really unless you run into a Communist nation who tries to Nationalize your business.

You guys should ask DeBeers why even Rockefeller tactics can't sustain a world market monopoly.

You got me there.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 12:26:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 12:23:48 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:18:01 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2015 8:55:29 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/22/2015 6:20:04 PM, brunoalley wrote:
Why, in your view, would this not just expand the reach from a national monopoly to an international monopoly-- and all the larger and more monopolistic for it?

If I'm a monopolistic widget dealer in the U.S. (already a large and powerful economy), what prevents my firm from becoming a global monopoly once I have effectively broken away from other competitors through Rockefeller-like practices?

Nothing really unless you run into a Communist nation who tries to Nationalize your business.

You guys should ask DeBeers why even Rockefeller tactics can't sustain a world market monopoly.

You got me there.

Thanks!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 12:29:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Even if you buy the all the governments of the world, there will always exist a black market undercutting your monopoly if you persist in price fixing.
lannan13
Posts: 23,099
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 12:32:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 12:26:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:23:48 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:18:01 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2015 8:55:29 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/22/2015 6:20:04 PM, brunoalley wrote:
Why, in your view, would this not just expand the reach from a national monopoly to an international monopoly-- and all the larger and more monopolistic for it?

If I'm a monopolistic widget dealer in the U.S. (already a large and powerful economy), what prevents my firm from becoming a global monopoly once I have effectively broken away from other competitors through Rockefeller-like practices?

Nothing really unless you run into a Communist nation who tries to Nationalize your business.

You guys should ask DeBeers why even Rockefeller tactics can't sustain a world market monopoly.

You got me there.

Thanks!

They're definately diamond barons. If you released the diamonds in those sheds in South Africa the Diamond would become practically worthless.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 12:37:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 12:32:42 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:26:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:23:48 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:18:01 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2015 8:55:29 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/22/2015 6:20:04 PM, brunoalley wrote:
Why, in your view, would this not just expand the reach from a national monopoly to an international monopoly-- and all the larger and more monopolistic for it?

If I'm a monopolistic widget dealer in the U.S. (already a large and powerful economy), what prevents my firm from becoming a global monopoly once I have effectively broken away from other competitors through Rockefeller-like practices?

Nothing really unless you run into a Communist nation who tries to Nationalize your business.

You guys should ask DeBeers why even Rockefeller tactics can't sustain a world market monopoly.

You got me there.

Thanks!

They're definitely diamond barons. If you released the diamonds in those sheds in South Africa the Diamond would become practically worthless.

It was actually close to a ponzi scheme. People would find diamond mines, debeers would offer more than they were worth, hoard them, and then fix the price higher. Eventually, like all ponzi schemes, it has to end at some point.
lannan13
Posts: 23,099
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 12:38:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 12:37:21 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:32:42 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:26:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:23:48 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:18:01 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2015 8:55:29 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/22/2015 6:20:04 PM, brunoalley wrote:
Why, in your view, would this not just expand the reach from a national monopoly to an international monopoly-- and all the larger and more monopolistic for it?

If I'm a monopolistic widget dealer in the U.S. (already a large and powerful economy), what prevents my firm from becoming a global monopoly once I have effectively broken away from other competitors through Rockefeller-like practices?

Nothing really unless you run into a Communist nation who tries to Nationalize your business.

You guys should ask DeBeers why even Rockefeller tactics can't sustain a world market monopoly.

You got me there.

Thanks!

They're definitely diamond barons. If you released the diamonds in those sheds in South Africa the Diamond would become practically worthless.

It was actually close to a ponzi scheme. People would find diamond mines, debeers would offer more than they were worth, hoard them, and then fix the price higher. Eventually, like all ponzi schemes, it has to end at some point.

Yeah, then the entire jewlry industry will collapse.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 12:39:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 12:38:19 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:37:21 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:32:42 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:26:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:23:48 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:18:01 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2015 8:55:29 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/22/2015 6:20:04 PM, brunoalley wrote:
Why, in your view, would this not just expand the reach from a national monopoly to an international monopoly-- and all the larger and more monopolistic for it?

If I'm a monopolistic widget dealer in the U.S. (already a large and powerful economy), what prevents my firm from becoming a global monopoly once I have effectively broken away from other competitors through Rockefeller-like practices?

Nothing really unless you run into a Communist nation who tries to Nationalize your business.

You guys should ask DeBeers why even Rockefeller tactics can't sustain a world market monopoly.

You got me there.

Thanks!

They're definitely diamond barons. If you released the diamonds in those sheds in South Africa the Diamond would become practically worthless.

It was actually close to a ponzi scheme. People would find diamond mines, debeers would offer more than they were worth, hoard them, and then fix the price higher. Eventually, like all ponzi schemes, it has to end at some point.

Yeah, then the entire jewlry industry will collapse.

Nah, just diamonds will become less than special, and you will have to find other ways to pay for (impress) a sexmate.
lannan13
Posts: 23,099
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 1:17:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 12:39:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:38:19 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:37:21 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:32:42 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:26:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:23:48 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/27/2015 12:18:01 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2015 8:55:29 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 5/22/2015 6:20:04 PM, brunoalley wrote:
Why, in your view, would this not just expand the reach from a national monopoly to an international monopoly-- and all the larger and more monopolistic for it?

If I'm a monopolistic widget dealer in the U.S. (already a large and powerful economy), what prevents my firm from becoming a global monopoly once I have effectively broken away from other competitors through Rockefeller-like practices?

Nothing really unless you run into a Communist nation who tries to Nationalize your business.

You guys should ask DeBeers why even Rockefeller tactics can't sustain a world market monopoly.

You got me there.

Thanks!

They're definitely diamond barons. If you released the diamonds in those sheds in South Africa the Diamond would become practically worthless.

It was actually close to a ponzi scheme. People would find diamond mines, debeers would offer more than they were worth, hoard them, and then fix the price higher. Eventually, like all ponzi schemes, it has to end at some point.

Yeah, then the entire jewlry industry will collapse.

Nah, just diamonds will become less than special, and you will have to find other ways to pay for (impress) a sexmate.

It's all about those rubies.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~