EPTBible Required Curriculum - Page 21
| Forum Index > General Forum |
BroOd
Austin10831 Posts
| ||
|
SWOLE
United States91 Posts
On August 18 2009 18:16 Aegraen wrote: Not only that, do you know what created the Great Depression? The run on banks? You do know that banks are essentially bankrupt. If 70% or more of the people went right now to take out their money that the banking system would collapse. It's interesting that you bring this up, because everything that happened with the great depression just goes to show what a crock of shit liberarianism is: -Britain returning to the gold standard -Market failure -Laissez-faire government -Inequality of wealth And it was only through massive government intervention on top of an extremely lucrative world war that we were able to pull out. We put systems in to place to prevent future crashes and guess what happened when many of these protections were removed during the Bush adminstration -- with republicans invoking typical ultra-capitalist libertarian anti-government sentiment? We had another fucking crash. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 18 2009 18:30 SWOLE wrote: It's interesting that you bring this up, because everything that happened with the great depression just goes to show what a crock of shit liberarianism is: -Britain returning to the gold standard -Market failure -Laissez-faire government -Inequality of wealth And it was only through massive government intervention on top of an extremely lucrative world war that we were able to pull out. We put systems in to place to prevent future crashes and guess what happened when many of these protections were removed during the Bush adminstration -- with republicans invoking typical ultra-capitalist libertarian anti-government sentiment? We had another fucking crash. /sigh You know nothing of monetary history, nor the history of the country nor Government activity prior to the Great Depression. The FED was established in 1914, prior to that Clayton and Sherman acts in the late 1800s. On top of that, the main national banks were pushing for a centralized banking system in the late 1800s early 1900s in order to adapt a government regulated and controlled monopoly on currency. There is a clear pattern throughout history of prices skyrocketed and increasing wherever Government intervenes. On the other hand there is a clear pattern where prices are reduced when the private sector is left alone. Let me give you this example about the Statists proclaiming we need Government intervention in order to stop cartels and monopolies, and why this notion is fallacious and is actually backwards in actuality. First off, a monopoly or cartel does not mean that the market has broken down. Ask yourselves, how do monopolies or cartels come into existence? You say to yourselves oh, they drive prices down so they destroy their competitors. Bingo. Now, ask yourselves how is this a bad thing? This doesn't mean that more people are losing their jobs because market shares stay the same. The company who is "destroying" other companies are themselves hiring due to the new demand they have taken on. So, now that prices are low and they have now assumed this monopoly you say they won't keep prices low forever, or for any extensive amount of time. Of course, they won't. This is how monopolies destroy themselves. Other investors, entrepreneurs etc look at the business and see oh look how much profit they are making we should get into the sector and create new businesses! YES! Exactly, with no Government barrier entry these people can create competing businesses which in turn force lower prices. Monopolies are self-defeating. There needs no involvement with Government. As soon as Government gets involved and picks winners and losers and creates barriers, prices rise, competition dies. The same goes with cartels. Agreements between companies to price fix. Well, each company is still autonomous; thus it is not a monopoly, as I have described all ready how monopolies are self-defeating in the long run. So, now your saying ah-ha! See told you Government needs to get involved! Actually no. There will always be a company seeking to increase market share, so if prices are fixed how do you think they do this? Well, the companies secretely go to clientelle and offer to sale them at a lower price therefore increasing market share and profit. In the end, the other companies find out (not too long after either), and get mad at the dissenting company and the whole thing breaks apart and prices reduce drastically due to competition now that the companies are even madder at each other. But, the way it works today is that Government has stepped in and made it illegal to secretely offer different prices. It is actually a law to make public your prices; all in the name of "public good and public service", what a ruse. The orthodox view of Economics in todays world says Austrian economics is dead. Why do you think they want you to believe this when all evidence points to the contrary? Keynesian ideas promote growth of power and centralized authority. Of course the people in power are going to try and ram this down your throat misrepresenting the actualities of the situation. When you actually analyze all the blowback and externalities of Government involvement you start to see a clear precise pattern. This isn't to say that there should be no Government; on the contrary Government plays specific non-intervening roles in the market. They are referees as you will. Adjucating disputes, ensuring contracts upheld, etc. So, there you have Government intervention and artificial price increases, a new centralized banking system run on Fractional Reserve banking and poor monetary policies that promote Inflation (Inflation actually helps one segment of people and hurts another; imagine if you will the first person to receive these new funds you have increased buying power while no one else has yet figured it out. So your buying power has increased. Now, on down the road when the money travels later in its lifespan Inflation increases the prices and others purchasing powers decrease such as those on limited fixed incomes, working class, etc.). Inflation is actually a Government manipulated tool to de-value the currency so as to pay down its debt, thereby destroying the wealth of the nation. Our founders warned us of a centralized banking system for this exact reason. I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. - President Thomas Jefferson. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. - President Thomas Jefferson I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power to borrow money. - Thomas Jefferson From the testimony of Marriner Eccles, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, before the House Banking and Currency Committee, Sept. 30, 1941: Congressman Patman: "Mr. Eccles, how did you get the money to buy those two billions of government securities?" Eccles: "We created it." Patman: "Out of what?" Eccles: "Out of the right to issue credit money." (i.e.Out of the right to create it. Do you see the insanity of it all? You and I must work hard for every dollar of ?? that we earn, while the banksters have the legal right to create money!). I had never thought the Federal Reserve Bank System would prove such a failure. The country is in a state of irretrievable bankruptcy. - Senator Carter Glass, June 7, 1938 The Federal Reserve (privately owned banks) are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. - Senator Louis T. McFadden (for 22 years Chairman of the U.S. Banking and currency Commission) If two parties, instead of being a bank and an individual, were an individual and an individual, they could not inflate the circulating medium by a loan transaction, for the simple reason that the lender could not lend what he didn't have, as banks can do.....Only commercial banks and trust companies can lend money that they manufacture by lending it. - Professor Irving Fisher, Yale University, in his book "100% Money" The bold effort the present bank had made to control government (Second National Bank of the U.S.), the distress it has wantonly produced...are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it. President Andrew Jackson If all the bank loans were paid up, no one would have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of currency or coin in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks for our money. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent monetary system. When one gets a complete grasp upon the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible - but there it is. It (the banking problem) is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it is widely understood and the defects remedied very soon. - Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Something to watch just to pique your interest, and get you to delve deeper into actual Economics and it's effects. I'm not even sure how many people here understand how a Fiat money system works. The above poster I guess doesn't even know the US was pulled off the Gold standard in the 1920s before the Great Depression. He doesn't even understand that the FED is behind every boom and crash by its monetary policy of artificially de-valueing the dollar and it's interest rate manipulation. It's all fake and artificial! But I'm just a kook and don't know what I'm talking about..... | ||
|
ThePhan2m
Norway2750 Posts
On August 18 2009 05:24 NExUS1g wrote: So the tigers won't need to eat some of the animals? A couple of corrections. Actually, the bible states that the animals did not eat eachother before the flood, neither did humans eat animals. After the flood, God allowed animals to eat other animals aswell as humans to eat animals. If you look closely on those verses after the flood ended. From biblical view, the animals came to Noa, God gathered the animals, not Noa or his sons. | ||
|
ThePhan2m
Norway2750 Posts
On August 18 2009 04:30 NExUS1g wrote: If they brought two of each and ate even one of each, how many birds would there be? If they brought 7 of each, 2 to keep alive, 5 to eat, it ensures that it would keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Keep in mind that it's not just the food for his family, but also the animals. Unless they both don't eat meat for a month and a half. I feel sorry for the hawks. I don't think they eat grain. Some reasoning should tell you that some animals MUST be eaten. Mindcrime has a clear point. It says NOTHING about them eating the animals. You assume every animal then ate / was the same then as now. When fnfact the bible states that neither animals nor humans ate eatchother before the flood. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42694 Posts
Mobile phone operators is a good example because the startup costs are immense unless you work with an established competitor from another area and agree to rent each others networks. Then they're very low. It naturally forms cartels which can easily destroy competition by denying them access. The free market has no interest in contesting that niche because while it exists in theory in practice there is no money to be made. | ||
|
NExUS1g
United States254 Posts
| ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 18 2009 22:51 Kwark wrote: Your point about cartels being self defeating was very much wrong. Take mobile phone operators in Europe. They got together and charged insane fees for roaming abroad because they knew they had no rivals. Now you're suggesting that that creates a niche for some other company to fill. Let me just break it down for you. The niche is for a company to create a mobile phone network that covers the entire continent of Europe (without hiring masts from any of the established companies it is attempting to undermine) in order to provide a service to a small group of businessmen and holidaymakers by not charging very much. That's your niche. Ever heard of startup costs? The EU recently stepped in and told them to lower the prices to just high rather than extortionate and they did, making life better for everyone but their shareholders. Think anyone else was on the brink of jumping in to fill that up? Mobile phone operators is a good example because the startup costs are immense unless you work with an established competitor from another area and agree to rent each others networks. Then they're very low. It naturally forms cartels which can easily destroy competition by denying them access. The free market has no interest in contesting that niche because while it exists in theory in practice there is no money to be made. How is there no money to be made? Pretty much everyone has a Cell Phone in the developed countries. How do you think these companies started in the first place? It's called capital acquisition; Investors, bank loans, etc. I'm also sure EU has a gazillion policies and regulations in place in that industry that precludes competition and easy business start up. How long on average does it take for a business to start in the EU? How many regulatory hoops do they have to jump through? By the Government making it rigid and structured and a lot harder to start a business up irregardless of cost associated then of course its going to preclude such start ups, but that isn't a market fault. Secondly, by charging such high prices it opens competition as prefaced. You're saying that its not economically feasible for a rival to start up? Where is your basis in fact? The cell phone market is a HUGE industry. I'm quite certain, as evident with pretty much every large market that investors would be jumping at the opportunity to get involved and reap the profits that the "cartel" is making. Its preposterous to say the start up costs outweigh any profits to be made. There is not one case in history that this proves true. Please document this for me. Also, does EU have any laws making it mandatory for companies to have their prices pubicly published? Like I said Government involvement is the problem child, not the market. Just watch this to get an idea of the way the Government operates. As an Edit: Who is forcing you to buy from them? In a voluntary arrangement how are these businesses forcing you to spend your money on their products? If a great proportion said, no these prices are not fair and stopped their service they would have no choice, but to lower prices. It's a voluntary free arrangement. Unless of course you actually think these companies are FORCING you into these arrangements?! | ||
|
NExUS1g
United States254 Posts
Other religions ARE taught in school. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 18 2009 23:06 NExUS1g wrote: For those of you who think this is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional to have an unsaid law prohibiting Christianity from being taught in school. Hence, this law shouldn't HAVE to exist if the Constitution was being followed in the first place. Other religions ARE taught in school. Nullification. Arm yourself and read up. It's just sad how far the paradigm has shifted from our founding. Hopefully we can reverse the trend before its too late. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42694 Posts
On August 18 2009 23:05 Aegraen wrote: How is there no money to be made? Pretty much everyone has a Cell Phone in the developed countries. How do you think these companies started in the first place? It's called capital acquisition; Investors, bank loans, etc. I'm also sure EU has a gazillion policies and regulations in place in that industry that precludes competition and easy business start up. How long on average does it take for a business to start in the EU? How many regulatory hoops do they have to jump through? By the Government making it rigid and structured and a lot harder to start a business up irregardless of cost associated then of course its going to preclude such start ups, but that isn't a market fault. Secondly, by charging such high prices it opens competition as prefaced. You're saying that its not economically feasible for a rival to start up? Where is your basis in fact? The cell phone market is a HUGE industry. I'm quite certain, as evident with pretty much every large market that investors would be jumping at the opportunity to get involved and reap the profits that the "cartel" is making. Its preposterous to say the start up costs outweigh any profits to be made. There is not one case in history that this proves true. Please document this for me. Also, does EU have any laws making it mandatory for companies to have their prices pubicly published? Like I said Government involvement is the problem child, not the market. Just watch this to get an idea of the way the Government operates. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRhtmcxDSIs Sigh. You're just not reading. The mobile phone operators are competitive within their own countries. That's how they established their market position. But when someone on their network wishes to use their phone abroad the operator does not expand their network to cover the whole of abroad. Rather they come to an arrangement with their foreign counterparts. Having come to a set of these arrangements they companies find themselves able to charge anything they like because a competitor would need a European wide network to compete. There is no money to be made by being their native rival because they are competitive within their own countries. There is no money to be made by being their rival on roaming because the sheer scale of the service required is outside the reach of anyone but an established operator who can support the costs of providing the network through their native market share. In short, to exist in the roaming market you already need to have a large part of the domestic market share. The companies in the cartel offer competitive prices in the domestic market share where they have rivals. They price gouge on roaming where they do not. A rival cannot appear in the roaming market alone because maintaining a huge network without the income from the domestic markets is just unfeasible. Furthermore they cannot rent domestic networks because of the cartel. You've just not read what I said at all. My entire point was about roaming charges, not about mobile phones in general. That was very clear. Stop ignoring other peoples posts and posting irrelevant youtube videos. | ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
| ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 18 2009 23:19 Kwark wrote: Sigh. You're just not reading. The mobile phone operators are competitive within their own countries. That's how they established their market position. But when someone on their network wishes to use their phone abroad the operator does not expand their network to cover the whole of abroad. Rather they come to an arrangement with their foreign counterparts. Having come to a set of these arrangements they companies find themselves able to charge anything they like because a competitor would need a European wide network to compete. There is no money to be made by being their native rival because they are competitive within their own countries. There is no money to be made by being their rival on roaming because the sheer scale of the service required is outside the reach of anyone but an established operator who can support the costs of providing the network through their native market share. In short, to exist in the roaming market you already need to have a large part of the domestic market share. The companies in the cartel offer competitive prices in the domestic market share where they have rivals. They price gouge on roaming where they do not. A rival cannot appear in the roaming market alone because maintaining a huge network without the income from the domestic markets is just unfeasible. Furthermore they cannot rent domestic networks because of the cartel. You've just not read what I said at all. My entire point was about roaming charges, not about mobile phones in general. That was very clear. Stop ignoring other peoples posts and posting irrelevant youtube videos. I bet the EU much like the US has a Government policy and law that says that each company has to pubicly provide their prices, right? One company cannot secretly charge a lower price, correct? This is how cartels are naturally broken, but because the Government has essentially made it illegal to do so, its Government allowing this to happen not the marketplace. Do you honestly think that a company would voluntarily give up market share and profit so everyone makes less money? For example, say a German company secretly lets their customers know that they are going to charge their customers less than their supposed cartel member. Now, word of mouth gets out and everyone switches to the new lower cost provider. The other cartel members find out and get angry and boot him out, and the cycle repeats itself. This is why GREED, is a natural barrier to any cartel or monopoly. They naturally dissolve themselves. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42694 Posts
On August 18 2009 23:25 Aegraen wrote: I bet the EU much like the US has a Government policy and law that says that each company has to pubicly provide their prices, right? One company cannot secretly charge a lower price, correct? This is how cartels are naturally broken, but because the Government has essentially made it illegal to do so, its Government allowing this to happen not the marketplace. Do you honestly think that a company would voluntarily give up market share and profit so everyone makes less money? For example, say a German company secretly lets their customers know that they are going to charge their customers less than their supposed cartel member. Now, word of mouth gets out and everyone switches to the new lower cost provider. The other cartel members find out and get angry and boot him out, and the cycle repeats itself. This is why GREED, is a natural barrier to any cartel or monopoly. They naturally dissolve themselves. The cartel members are not in competition with each other. If you are an Englishman going on holiday in Germany you will be on an English mobile phone company who will have an arrangement with a German mobile phone company whereby the English company rents access to the German network. If the German company announced it had lowered it's roaming charges I wouldn't care because I don't read German. Whereas if an English company offered lower roaming charges than the one I was on it wouldn't help because my phone wouldn't get any signal in Germany because they have no network there. Are you beginning to understand yet? | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 18 2009 23:22 EchOne wrote: Aegraen you might want to clarify further on why monopolies are self defeating. You assert that they will fail to competition when there are no Government barriers to entry, but this is unconvincing since you haven't addressed the multitude of barriers to entry that are inherent to a market, nor have you addressed monopolies' deadweight loss problems. The only barrier to market entry (Without Government involvement) is start up costs. This isn't even much of a problem due to how investments work. How do you think every single company as ever started up? A Monopoly is not inherently a bad thing. Predatory pricing is cowed by the mainstream as bad, and hurts the people. This is false. Having goods and services cheaper allows more people to purchase which is a good thing. People then go on to say well, once all their competition is wiped out they'll simply raise prices and extort from people. Once they raise prices however, it allows competitors to come in undercut and make profit and have a successful business. I seriously want you to look and try to find any historical data that shows where a company comes in, destroys competition by predatory pricing and then jacks the price back up and actually survives in any longevity. If you can find even one example I'll cede my point. However, I am backed by such giants as Friedman, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and the like and there have been no historical documents of this ever suceeding. I'm eager to hear your reply and which company succeeded in doing so. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 18 2009 23:30 Kwark wrote: The cartel members are not in competition with each other. If you are an Englishman going on holiday in Germany you will be on an English mobile phone company who will have an arrangement with a German mobile phone company whereby the English company rents access to the German network. If the German company announced it had lowered it's roaming charges I wouldn't care because I don't read German. Whereas if an English company offered lower roaming charges than the one I was on it wouldn't help because my phone wouldn't get any signal in Germany because they have no network there. Are you beginning to understand yet? So your contention is that every single German carrier is in cohoots with one English service? So, instead of one German carrier getting a larger market share, they share amongst themselves? This is exactly what I said about cartels naturally destroying themselves. One of the German carriers would secretly create an arrangement with the English carrier to charge lower prices than the others, thereby creating a larger market share and increasing his profits. However, I am certain that EU law prohibits that from happening, much like the US law has. When you have Government involvement it distorts the marketplace so much. There literally is no free-market anywhere in the world. Every market really is controlled by Government through regulations and other hoodwinks. If you want examples how what you say is false, look at America in the 1870s to 1900. There is documentation after documentation about monopolies being naturally broken by the market the same with cartels. These people in competition then went to the Government and basically cried that the other companies were charging less and couldn't compete so the Government intervened and created the problem in the first place where there was none. Are you honestly saying there is no incentive for one company to try and corner the vast majority of market share? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42694 Posts
English phone plan covers England. English phone plan competitive in England. English man goes to France. French company covers France. French company is competitive in France. English company doesn't cover France. This is because French people don't go on English plans and there aren't many English people in France. English company rents the French network because there are too few customers to justify setting up their own. English company charges a lot for this because the French company says they can in exchange for a mutual agreement. New company wants to break into this market and offer low cost roaming. English people in France approve, but there are not many of them in France. French people in France don't care because the French company is already offering them good prices. Company builds a network that covers all England and France. English people in France join the company. French people in France don't join the company. English people in England don't join the company. Company has to maintain a network the same size as its rivals but without access to the same huge domestic market cannot sustain it. Company goes bust. Investors wonder why they were stupid enough to think this was a good idea. Then they wake up and realise it was all a bad dream. It's really very simple. It's a case where an additional market is created without any additional costs provided you already have an established market share. Whereas if you are not established access to that market is hugely expensive. Once you reach a certain size, free. Before a certain size, expensive. All the companies of that size are in that cartel. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 18 2009 23:38 Kwark wrote: English man on English phone plan. English phone plan covers England. English phone plan competitive in England. English man goes to France. French company covers France. French company is competitive in France. English company doesn't cover France. This is because French people don't go on English plans and there aren't many English people in France. English company rents the French network because there are too few customers to justify setting up their own. English company charges a lot for this because the French company says they can in exchange for a mutual agreement. New company wants to break into this market and offer low cost roaming. English people in France approve, but there are not many of them in France. French people in France don't care because the French company is already offering them good prices. Company builds a network that covers all England and France. English people in France join the company. French people in France don't join the company. English people in England don't join the company. Company has to maintain a network the same size as its rivals but without access to the same huge domestic market cannot sustain it. Company goes bust. Investors wonder why they were stupid enough to think this was a good idea. Then they wake up and realise it was all a bad dream. It's really very simple. It's a case where an additional market is created without any additional costs provided you already have an established market share. Whereas if you are not established access to that market is hugely expensive. Once you reach a certain size, free. Before a certain size, expensive. All the companies of that size are in that cartel. Your not understanding what I am saying. There will be a company in France no matter what you think because there is a thing called human greed, and will secretly form an arrangement with another English service to provide lower cost roaming charges; in secret. They will then corner the whole market and not have to share any with "their cartel friends". This benefits the company much more than being in a cartel and is why cartels naturally destroy themselves. I'll break this down. All french companies agree to rent to one English company in exchange for high prices. This means that all French companies have to share amongst themselves thereby creating lower profits for each company. There will naturally be a dissenter due to human greed that wants to corner the whole market and betray his "cartel friends" by providing his all ready established cell phone signal and infrastructure which covers france to either that company or another English company at a lower cost thereby cornering the market to himself. This is how cartels naturally dissolve. Of course there is a brief time where "price gouging" occurs, but it can never happen for any period of time that one might think as "a period of longevity". In any event, no one is forcing the people into the voluntary arrangements and contracts with the cell phone providers. You can opt out at anytime. If you are unhappy with service then make your voice heard with the power of your money. You don't need Government to get involved in any way whatsoever to effect this to happen. Once Government gets involved you'll never get it uninvolved and the "unintended" consequences are enormous. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7233 Posts
On August 18 2009 23:47 Aegraen wrote: Your not understanding what I am saying. There will be a company in France no matter what you think because there is a thing called human greed, and will secretly form an arrangement with another English service to provide lower cost roaming charges; in secret. They will then corner the whole market and not have to share any with "their cartel friends". This benefits the company much more than being in a cartel and is why cartels naturally destroy themselves. I'll break this down. All french companies agree to rent to one English company in exchange for high prices. This means that all French companies have to share amongst themselves thereby creating lower profits for each company. There will naturally be a dissenter due to human greed that wants to corner the whole market and betray his "cartel friends" by providing his all ready established cell phone signal and infrastructure which covers france to either that company or another English company at a lower cost thereby cornering the market to himself. This is how cartels naturally dissolve. Of course there is a brief time where "price gouging" occurs, but it can never happen for any period of time that one might think as "a period of longevity". In any event, no one is forcing the people into the voluntary arrangements and contracts with the cell phone providers. You can opt out at anytime. If you are unhappy with service then make your voice heard with the power of your money. You don't need Government to get involved in any way whatsoever to effect this to happen. Once Government gets involved you'll never get it uninvolved and the "unintended" consequences are enormous. lol @ opting out of a contract. You act as if you can do that for free. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42694 Posts
Does it ever occur to you that they might be both greedy and intelligent? Also it's all big providers in all countries in on it and they rent the networks to each other for virtually nothing, instead taking the reward from the quid pro quo income from the access they recieve. | ||
| ||
