What is a libertarian?

[SniperFire]

Here we go again....


Libertarians want to ensure equal rights for all and in so doing would impose laws that would limit the ability of the majority to impose it's will on the minority and this is wrong because it;s their god given right because who cares about individual rights when you have the numbers right? Do I have your argument right?

I think Einstein had you in mind when he came up with his definition of insanity.

You are babbling and spinning off on a tangent once again.

actually no that's your argument. Libertarians are totalitarians because they would prevent people from passing a law .

Ah. You are going back to the other discussions where some of you jackbooters were claiming you would not permit vast majorities of locals to pass laws to start a local soup kitchen, because that would destroy your puritanical requirements for Libertarian Rule.

No, in this instance I was referring to your insistence that the American Way of supporting democracy and freedom around the globe was 'imperialism,' even though other libertarians would disagree with you.

We just have to keep your oppressive dictates straight here.

 

[bripat9643]

Perhaps, but he was arguing that the absence of government regulation would make the mean old monopolies go away thanks to consumer choice. Which is of course, historically absurd, unless you are promoting pitchfork anarchy problem-solving of the peeps to storm the Bastille.

This is an honest question. How could a monopoly be maintained in the real world without government supporting it?

Oh, I dunno. How about forming a CARTEL where you set your prices just to the point where the next marginal producer of said alternative cannot profitable produce?

Every cartel that has ever been attempted has always fallen apart when the members began cheating on their agreement to charge a given price. in the early days of the oil business, producers formed cartel after cartel, and they all collapsed.

Furthermore, if a cartel set a price above the market price, how would that prevent the "next marginal producer" from making a profit? In fact, it would make it easier for him to make a profit. If the cartel sets a price below the market price, then how is the consumer harmed?

You really haven't thought this out, have you?

 

[SniperFire]

This is an honest question. How could a monopoly be maintained in the real world without government supporting it?

Oh, I dunno. How about forming a CARTEL where you set your prices just to the point where the next marginal producer of said alternative cannot profitable produce?

Every cartel that has ever been attempted has always fallen apart when the members began cheating on their agreement to charge a given price. in the early days of the oil business, producers formed cartel after cartel, and they all collapsed.

Furthermore, if a cartel set a price above the market price, how would that prevent the "next marginal producer" from making a profit?

You really haven't thought this out, have you?

I like you and hate to slap you around. The poster was talking about ALTERNATIVE products to those provided by the CARTEL.

 

[SniperFire]

Every cartel that has ever been attempted has always fallen apart when the members began cheating on their agreement to charge a given price.

That is unadultrated horsepucky, by the way.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, I dunno. How about forming a CARTEL where you set your prices just to the point where the next marginal producer of said alternative cannot profitable produce?

If they are artificially lowering their prices to get rid of competition then once the competition is gone they will have to raise their prices or go broke.

Foolish.

What if said alternative has several times production cost disadvantage, and the CARTEL can produce it's products for a tiny FRACTION of the alternative product?

Or what is economies of scale of said CARTEL keep it cost prohibitive for new entries into the marketplace?

Have you thought any of this out, or are you reading from 'Dumbass Libertainan Theory Guide' tonight?

What if we could run cars off unicorn farts? Since when can any cartel produce anything for a fraction of the cost of the competition? What prevents the competition from using the same methods of production as the cartel?

What makes economies of scale something only cartels can take advantage of?

You are accusing others of not thinking things out? Your arguments are worse than stupid. They don't even bare a resemblance to what is actually possible in the real world.

Can you produce a single example of a real world cartel that actually worked?

 

[LibertyForAll]

Foolish.

What if said alternative has several times production cost disadvantage, and the CARTEL can produce it's products for a tiny FRACTION of the alternative product?

Or what is economies of scale of said CARTEL keep it cost prohibitive for new entries into the marketplace?

Have you thought any of this out, or are you reading from 'Dumbass Libertainan Theory Guide' tonight?

I fail to see the problem if the consumer is getting a fair price, business is a competition. If the monopoly exerts unfair pressure on a commodity that is necessary for life then I can see a problem. Like air, water or food. Otherwise don't buy it if you don't like the price or the company.

I am not an economist and like I said it was an honest question. I don't know everything there is to know on this earth and I like discussing things to broaden my knowledge. I am merely laying out my logic and you are free to discuss where you think I am wrong. I will read what you say and evaluate it and I may change my mind if you make sense. I even sometimes learn from those who call me names for no reason.

You don't know shit.

It is often argued that monopolies tend to become less efficient and less innovative over time, becoming "complacent", because they do not have to be efficient or innovative to compete in the marketplace. Sometimes this very loss of psychological efficiency can increase a potential competitor's value enough to overcome market entry barriers, or provide incentive for research and investment into new alternatives. The theory of contestable markets argues that in some circumstances (private) monopolies are forced to behave as if there were competition because of the risk of losing their monopoly to new entrants. This is likely to happen when a market's barriers to entry are low. It might also be because of the availability in the longer term of substitutes in other markets. For example, a canal monopoly, while worth a great deal during the late 18th century United Kingdom, was worth much less during the late 19th century because of the introduction of railways as a substitute.

Monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SniperFire]

If they are artificially lowering their prices to get rid of competition then once the competition is gone they will have to raise their prices or go broke.

Foolish.

What if said alternative has several times production cost disadvantage, and the CARTEL can produce it's products for a tiny FRACTION of the alternative product?

Or what is economies of scale of said CARTEL keep it cost prohibitive for new entries into the marketplace?

Have you thought any of this out, or are you reading from 'Dumbass Libertainan Theory Guide' tonight?

What if we could run cars off unicorn farts? Since when can any cartel produce anything for a fraction of the cost of the competition? What prevents the competition from using the same methods of production as the cartel?

What makes economies of scale something only cartels can take advantage of?

Wow. Read a history book.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, I dunno. How about forming a CARTEL where you set your prices just to the point where the next marginal producer of said alternative cannot profitable produce?

Every cartel that has ever been attempted has always fallen apart when the members began cheating on their agreement to charge a given price. in the early days of the oil business, producers formed cartel after cartel, and they all collapsed.

Furthermore, if a cartel set a price above the market price, how would that prevent the "next marginal producer" from making a profit?

You really haven't thought this out, have you?

I like you and hate to slap you around. The poster was talking about ALTERNATIVE products to those provided by the CARTEL.

Irrelevant. How does a cartel prevent competitors from producing the exact same product they produce?

 

[SniperFire]

I fail to see the problem if the consumer is getting a fair price, business is a competition. If the monopoly exerts unfair pressure on a commodity that is necessary for life then I can see a problem. Like air, water or food. Otherwise don't buy it if you don't like the price or the company.

It is often argued that monopolies tend to become less efficient and less innovative over time, becoming "complacent", because they do not have to be efficient or innovative to compete in the marketplace.

Your empty theory didn't break up Ma Bell and launch the communications revolution.

 

[SniperFire]

Every cartel that has ever been attempted has always fallen apart when the members began cheating on their agreement to charge a given price. in the early days of the oil business, producers formed cartel after cartel, and they all collapsed.

Furthermore, if a cartel set a price above the market price, how would that prevent the "next marginal producer" from making a profit?

You really haven't thought this out, have you?

I like you and hate to slap you around. The poster was talking about ALTERNATIVE products to those provided by the CARTEL.

Irrelevant. How does a cartel prevent competitors from producing the exact same product they produce?

You clearly don't even know what a cartel is.

 

[bripat9643]

What if we could run cars off unicorn farts? Since when can any cartel produce anything for a fraction of the cost of the competition? What prevents the competition from using the same methods of production as the cartel?

What makes economies of scale something only cartels can take advantage of?

Wow. Read a history book.

In other words, you don't know.

I've read hundreds of history books, and none of them say that only cartels can take advantage of economies of scale or prevent competitors from using their methods of production. Furthermore, that's a topic for an economics book. Historians don't know squat about it.

 

[bripat9643]

It is often argued that monopolies tend to become less efficient and less innovative over time, becoming "complacent", because they do not have to be efficient or innovative to compete in the marketplace.

Your empty theory didn't break up Ma Bell and launch the communications revolution.

Ma bell was a legal, government protected monopoly. It's not an example that supports your case. It does precisely the opposite.

 

[bripat9643]

You clearly don't even know what a cartel is.

Then explain it to us naifs.

 

[SniperFire]

You clearly don't even know what a cartel is.

Then explain it to us naifs.

Here, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

Every cartel that has ever been attempted has always fallen apart when the members began cheating on their agreement to charge a given price.

That is unadultrated horsepucky, by the way.

Wrong. That is historical fact. If you don't believe it, then produce an historical example of a cartel that actually achieved its aims.

 

[bripat9643]

You clearly don't even know what a cartel is.

Then explain it to us naifs.

Here, dumbass.

How does that explain the meaning of the term "cartel?"

Do you know the meaning of "non sequitur?"

 

[SniperFire]

It is often argued that monopolies tend to become less efficient and less innovative over time, becoming "complacent", because they do not have to be efficient or innovative to compete in the marketplace.

Your empty theory didn't break up Ma Bell and launch the communications revolution.

Ma bell was a legal, government protected monopoly.

Pointless distinction.

 

[MuadDib]

Deadwood was a failure, as was everything of/from the wild, wild, west days.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/228681-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-free-market.html

There was no such thing as the "wild, wild west."

It was just a bad, bad movie.

 

[SniperFire]

Then explain it to us naifs.

Here, dumbass.

How does that explain the meaning of the term "cartel?"

I should always make a point of dumbing it down for you.

You wanted to know how the next marginal producer could not compete.

You are welcome.

 

[SniperFire]

Every cartel that has ever been attempted has always fallen apart when the members began cheating on their agreement to charge a given price.

That is unadultrated horsepucky, by the way.

Wrong. That is historical fact.

You are the dumbass that argued there were no monopolies before 1890.