Corporate Welfare

[guerilla]

No, it's not. There is no connection between your argument (all monopolies are created by government interference) and your conclusion (without government interference there would be no monopolies).

Uhm, ok.

Once you expand your definition to accept other forms of monopoly beyond the type you describe, then you'll see why your argument is flawed.

Yes, if we change the meaning of words, we can invalidate an argument. Which is exactly why I use precise definitions.

Alright, let's try it this way. Monopolies are bad for markets, and ultimately bad for consumers.

I agree that monopolies (my definition, not yours) are bad, but that's a value claim. It has nothing to do with economics.

Any advantage gained by consumers in the area of lower prices is temporary and will be immediately negated once the competition is eliminated, because prices will be raised.

This isn't a given. It's just an opinion. I can think of many reasons why this wouldn't and doesn't happen. You're assuming that demand is inelastic, and that no substitutes exist, and that the original price level established is insensitive. In other words, once a firm comes in with lower prices, they usually have to keep prices low or invite competition back in at the higher level. The idea of predatory pricing is some bizarre social democrat fantasy.

When your price is too low, you're predatory pricing.
When your price is too high, you're gouging.
When your price is at the same level of competitors, you are colluding.

Any such rhetorical argument can be made if someone wants to. At the end of the day, we can only judge the price, not the intent behind it.

Low prices are good for consumers. If one firm wants to run at a loss, good for them, and good for consumers.

In many markets it takes months or years and immense capital expenditures to break into. What incentive would a company have to spend all of that money and time to break into a market, when they know that they will be forced out of business through uncompetitive practices?

Those aren't uncompetitive practices. Those are competitive practices.

Can you explain how a firm can get big and successful without competing on price, or service, or using lots of capital, or making good acquisitions? Are you just against big firms? If so, why? It's very strange to me that you are so incredibly pro-government and yet you are so anti-business. Normally affiliates are the other way around because their class interests align with capitalism not with social democracy.

The Ancap position is that if they did raise their prices, other competitors would step in and create more competition - but how?

You don't understand Ancap, it's better if you stop referring to it, it doesn't make your argument at all. Ancap is a moral/philosophical position, not an economic one. I am not making moral or ethical arguments. I am making economic arguments, and economics is value free.

 

[guerilla]

I guess I'm not sure what your claim is then, I thought it was that anarcho capitalism is the way to avoid corruption such as corporate bailouts?

My claim was that government is systemically corrupt.

Dude... I'm not really trying to win a formal debate here, can we drop the lawyer disclaimers? Once discussions get reduced to squabbles over what precisely was or was not said the actual discourse kind of gets lost I find.

I am not sure how you can expect me to argue things I haven't said.

 

[Lucidity]

My claim was that government is systemically corrupt.

So you're not offering anarcho capitalism as an alternative?

I am not sure how you can expect me to argue things I haven't said.

Not really into "arguing" with people on forums (see: post count), if that's what it is we're supposed to be doing right now. If you say you support anarcho capitalism, I'm not allowed to assume certain basics of that philosophy unless you personally specifically spell it out in this thread? In that case I'll give you the win sir, for I violated parliamentary procedure!

 

[tacoX]

They're laying off teaches because of the money they're losing to GE...so they're out. Affiliates and seniors are fair game though.

who needs teachers anyways when your an affiliate gangster?

 

[LotsOfZeros]

I'll just leave this right here:

... That goes for most of the pro-socialism posters in this thread. How you folks make money competing on the internet is beyond me.

 

[turbolapp]

Do property rights extend to Intellectual Property? I thought I remember a discussion where you were torn on this, G.

 

[justo_tx]

who needs teachers anyways when your an affiliate gangster?

Can't tell if that's supposed to be ironic or not.

 

[guerilla]

So you're not offering anarcho capitalism as an alternative?

Nope. I'm trying to point out the obvious and let people reach their own conclusions.

Not really into "arguing" with people on forums (see: post count), if that's what it is we're supposed to be doing right now.

Arguments can be differences of opinion.

If you say you support anarcho capitalism, I'm not allowed to assume certain basics of that philosophy unless you personally specifically spell it out in this thread?

If the basics of the philosophy are even accurate. Were they?

In that case I'll give you the win sir, for I violated parliamentary procedure!

It's not about procedure, it's about having a discussion that can lead somewhere. If you didn't want a discussion, don't post. But if you come out and claim I am missing the point, then be sure to back it up.

 

[JakeStratham]

Worth a read:

Liberalism, Cartels, Monopolies, and - - Mises Institute

Fear of Monopoly - Brad Edmonds - Mises Daily - I don't agree with one of the author's statements, but dismissing the entire piece for that reason would be silly.

I'll leave this here, too.*

Side note: Revelation seldom comes from forum debates. It comes from reading and exploring on our own. Whether due to ego or intellectual laziness, people rarely change their minds after reading these threads. A quick search brings up threads in which these ideas have already been debated. Some of those threads have the same participants.

That's the reason I drop links. Forum debates are rabbit holes. Easy to fall in, tough to claw your way back out.



* WF's resident honeydripper does not need it.

 

[Lucidity]

Nope. I'm trying to point out the obvious and let people reach their own conclusions.



Arguments can be differences of opinion.


If the basics of the philosophy are even accurate. Were they?


It's not about procedure, it's about having a discussion that can lead somewhere. If you didn't want a discussion, don't post. But if you come out and claim I am missing the point, then be sure to back it up.

I like discussions that go somewhere, but so far your responses have mainly been combative and kind of pedantic... which is about the best way to avoid actually discussing something but is an effective tactic for "winning" a debate. Not sure if that was your intention or not, but that's not really why I post in these things. So god speed sir, and again I'll cede the win!

Side note: Revelation seldom comes from forum debates. It comes from reading and exploring on our own. Whether due to ego or intellectual laziness, people rarely change their minds after reading these threads. A quick search brings up threads in which these ideas have already been debated. Some of those threads have the same participants.

That's the reason I drop links. Forum debates are rabbit holes. Easy to fall in, tough to claw your way back out.

Agreed. I do like to talk out these types of things with people because it's interesting to me, but more in the style of 2 guys having a beer... not two guys locked in courtroom battle which seems to be the default mode of communication on the internet for some reason.

 

[guerilla]

Do property rights extend to Intellectual Property? I thought I remember a discussion where you were torn on this, G.

I am pretty much in the IP is a monopoly camp. Ideas are not scarce like property. If we have one apple and you take it from me, I no longer have it. If I have an idea, and you figure the same thing out, I still have the idea to act upon.

All human innovation is marginal improvement and emulation. No one creates ideas without building on the ideas which came before, which makes exclusive ownership of an idea or pattern incredibly problematic.

I was going to write something up but got busy with work and forgot.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Side note: Revelation seldom comes from forum debates. It comes from reading and exploring on our own. Whether due to ego or intellectual laziness, people rarely change their minds after reading these threads.

I used to firmly believe in Ancap philosophies, but over the years as I've learned more about human nature and motivations (beyond just greed), I have moved away from it.

@Guerilla, I can never tell whether or not you're trolling, so kudos to you.

I can see you don't want to be pinned down on anything, nor do you want to respond to comments in this thread that make your position untenable. So since you would rather argue semantics than theory, let's start with this:

#1 - Do you believe a monopoly can exist without government interference?

#2 - Are monopolies good or bad for an economic system (ie. its effect on consumers, innovation, pricing, etc.)?

Once you state your positions on these it'll be easier to move forward in the debate, otherwise its going nowhere.

 

[FTC-Hater]

I enjoy this thread and wish to subscribe to all of your newsletters.

That is all.

 

[PhillipMarlow]

Regarding the Century of the Self film, take a peek at this. It's Eddie Bernays' work on Propaganda, published in 1928.

 

[lukep]

Regarding the Century of the Self film, take a peek at this. It's Eddie Bernays' work on Propaganda, published in 1928.

+Rep.

Holy Shit; Satan himself knew back in 1928 that propoganda was to be used by the Government! :angryfire: (p.32)

-Looking forward to devouring this whole book.

Guerilla: You really, really should check out Century of the Self. (hxxp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6718420906413643126) -It's a BBC doumentary in 4 1-hour parts (Most of the best stuff is in the 1st hour) that shows you exactly how (with tons of video documentation) a Theory of Sigmund Freud's is responsible for the entire current shape of Capitalism today, both in the US and England.

You can't really understand capitalism without learning this specific history... And 99.9% of america has no clue whatsoever that any of this shit happened.

(It is even responsible for Hitler's power!)

 

[fvaldes]

It is impossible to separate politics and corruption.

that pretty much sums it up. As it is impossible to separate the human condition from corruption.

BUT there surely are countries where this kind of shit happens less right?


what gets me is that it is done openly and legally in a large scale...

seeing this as outsider boggles the mind...

 

[turbolapp]

I am pretty much in the IP is a monopoly camp. Ideas are not scarce like property. If we have one apple and you take it from me, I no longer have it. If I have an idea, and you figure the same thing out, I still have the idea to act upon.

All human innovation is marginal improvement and emulation. No one creates ideas without building on the ideas which came before, which makes exclusive ownership of an idea or pattern incredibly problematic.

I was going to write something up but got busy with work and forgot.

I see what your saying and it makes sense from a point of view of 2 entrepreneurs coming up with ideas to make money but what about stuff like trademark, copyright, torrents...etc. Authors, Movie studios, games...whatever. Same thing applies? (I feel most guilty about torrents from my favorite Authors "Hi! I'm your biggest fan! I steal all your books!! "

**disclaimer: the above is purely hypothetical, because I would never engage in theft of trademarked or copyright material. That would be wrong. And illegal. And considering some people out there think butt rape is appropriate for theft, consider me deterred. **

 

[guerilla]

I see what your saying and it makes sense from a point of view of 2 entrepreneurs coming up with ideas to make money but what about stuff like trademark, copyright, torrents...etc. Authors, Movie studios, games...whatever. Same thing applies? (I feel most guilty about torrents from my favorite Authors "Hi! I'm your biggest fan! I steal all your books!! "

We're talking about two different things unfortunately. One is the political/legal paradigm, and the other is what is consistent with reality.

Smoking pot isn't a big deal, any adult who isn't completely sheltered or naive knows this. Yet it is considered a very serious legal offense. Same thing with IP.

Legally, someone using torrents is stealing, but rationally, I don't think that same case can be made.

Property rights issues are really hard to discuss sometimes because many individuals have not really had to think about them in a systemic way. For example, if we own our own bodies, then how can anyone tell us what we can and cannot eat or say, who we can marry or love, what profession we choose or how much money we work for?

 

[guerilla]

that pretty much sums it up. As it is impossible to separate the human condition from corruption.

Which is why I am not a Utopian.

My statement was pretty clear, the ramifications of that understanding should be obvious to many. Government cannot be reformed. We've been trying for thousands of years, mostly due to man's arrogance, and his irrational belief that he can create a system which defeats nature.

You can't really understand capitalism without learning this specific history... And 99.9% of america has no clue whatsoever that any of this shit happened.

I have a very good understanding of capitalism in the economic sense. I don't worry myself with much with history when it comes to the social sciences. Historical narratives are heavily biased by the historian, which is why I prefer to stick to deduction, which is value free.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Guerilla, try not to hurt yourself running away from those questions. I know answering them will put you at a disadvantage in the discussion, but that's the point. Here I'll repost them:

#1 - Do you believe a monopoly can exist without government interference?

#2 - Are monopolies good or bad for an economic system (ie. its effect on consumers, innovation, pricing, etc.)?

Or you can concede if you'd like...