|
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 22:35 Yurebis wrote:No. You're cherry picking evidence to correlate with the great depression. Simply asserting it to be casually related won't do. And not being able to see how people would manage risk, absent the socialized watchguards that always fail, is an argument from ignorance. If you want me to explain how, I could, but I'm not going to for someone who just proclaims that it's impossible and apparently has no interest to know. Ask me properly and I may oblige. Compare to today, economy during 1880-1920 was unrestrictive. In fact, the government feared that all mid and small sized companies will eventually fall because Trust firms were dominating the market by using its sheer size. Anti-trust law was introduced, but state didnt really enforce this and eventually by the great depression, the top 200 firms became bigger than rest of America. Without a government, n a completely unrestricted market, these monopolies will grow so large (no anti-trust laws to keep them in check) that they will essentially act like a government organization. One difference being these monopolies are out for more profit, not consumer interest.
Are you saying the cause of the great depressions was corporations turning into governments?
Please elaborate what happens exactly - what does it mean to "act like a government organization". As far as I know, only the state can act like the state, because it has a monopoly on state functions. Anyone who tries to compete with the state either has to be on par with its goals, or will be effectively crushed. Isn't that the whole point of having a state?
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote:
Consumers would not have any choice. Microsoft is famous for being unethically aggressive. Nowadays even if you hate them, there is no way to avoid windows if you are going into the business world. Essential goods dominated by monopoly will create extreme inefficiency and there will be nothing consumer can do against it.
What is "unethically aggressive"? Does Microsoft coerce people into buying windows? Does Microsoft steal money from people?
I don't think so. I will go ahead and claim everything evil that Microsoft does is through the state.
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote:Show nested quote +Who controls the supply of shoes in ancap? Whoever makes shoes, obviously; why is it an issue to start with? Are you entitled to having things and services? I hope you don't think that.
Free, noncoercive institutions, profit off realized demand. If a bank is found to be corrupt, it loses reputation and goes bankrupt, instead of you know, persisting no matter what in case the state supports it.
Will a shoe seller become a hegemony and exploit everyone with their terrible, overpriced shoes? I don't know, but I would think not, and the market incentives to prevent that are more responsive than political ones. In fact, political interests would tell you that the tendency to centralize beyond return is something that the state does more often, and incentivizes with every regulation.
The banks are already a monopoly, and already use the state. You seem to have the causation chain inverted. Banks don't emerge out of proportion first, then raise their own private armies to coerce the population. That is economically unfeasible. Banks would have to overcharge their customers in order to not only provide the usual banking services, but to stockpile weapons and militias until the day they're able to gamble it all. A much easier way to massively coerce - and the way it has been done so far - is to use the legitimized statist apparatus that already exists, and pay some ten thousand dollars in lobby, leaving the police force and federal agents to be paid by the slaves themselves...
You don't get to make the population pay for it's own slavemasters UNLESS the population doesn't see it as coercion. You, the outlaw institution, would just go bankrupt in ancap. I hope this was enough of a briefing. There is a fundamental difference between shoes and money. Money is mode of exchange, as in, it can be ANY kind of goods, where as shoes are....shoes. A firm with power to print money essentially controls the entire economy of that region. You can't protest this by stop using money. Again I ask, who gets to have this kind of power? surely someone will decide to rule that region with money printing?
Uh. Money is only a mode of exchange if people intersubjectively agree to it. That is no different today, just because the state imposes its use through legal tender and shutting down competing currencies from being formed. If the government were to inflate the dollar so much as to depreciate in value by 1000000x, then people would abandon it immediately, as it no longer serves a function anymore. Then, just as easily it was for a bank to issue dollars, it will try to issue a new currency to serve the increased demand for such (unless the state again, forces them not to).
You seem to be under the twisted impression that capitalism is business-ruled. It's not, that's just a popular myth with no basis in economics (of any school tbh). Since every transaction is voluntary, it is just as much consumer-ruled as it is business-ruled.
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote:
Again, take a look at what happened in the beginning of the 20th century. People like J.P. Morgan and August Belmont essentially took over Wallstreet using sheer size of their capital, rather than having superb service to the customer. People choose large banks because they are more safe, not because they have better service. Also, banks have no reason to overcharge depositors because thats not how they make money.
Are you a conspiracy theorist? Government does not control major banks in America, at least until very recently. Large banks will not go bankrupt in ancap. In fact, they will thrive under no regulation of the financial market, and moeny they have will speak for themselves. In an ancap, it is likely that few large banks will form an organization to print money, which is what happened in the USA. The government was actually the one stopping this from happening, but with onset of financial panic in the 1910s, they had to approve the Federal reserve.
Uh... I have news for you. The federal reserve was founded and acts on congress' approval. You think any institution would have the power to overrule the congress, and coin money itself without paying their lobbyist dues? No sir. It required a lot of work by the part of national and international bankers to set this baby up. See "The Creature From Jekyll Island".
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote:
Also it is poor argument to say that private entities will somehow not coerce its populace like a government. You heard of Wal-Mart?
How does Walmart coerce the population?...
And how is that not a weak argument? You just say "Walmart", like it has violent private militias and is bombing third world nations... lol, what the heck.
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 19:12 scion wrote:
Firms exist to make profit. Who is going to pay these investigators for what reasons? Let's say there was a demand for fraud investigators. Under current system, it is the representative of the public interest, aka the state, that is paying the investigators.
Without such entity, who is supposed to pay these guys? NYSE? the Investors?
Fraud firms have no incentive to pay for obvious reasons.
Honest firms have no incentive because they wouldn't use/need the service.
Investors would pay for auditing a firm they would like to invest but for fraud investigation? why should they pay when it wasn't their fault? Show nested quote +It could be managed by the stock exchange organization, yeah. They can charge a minimal, <1% fee on every transaction that occurs. Maybe they already do that, I don't know, stock market is not my forte, but it's hardly difficult to charge a service for people voluntarily and publically joined in a certain market environment.
Honest firms and investors don't have an incentive to catch the cheating opposition? Are you really saying that? Certainly they do, and certainly everyone in the stock market would be willing to ingress to certain rules and fees that make the market possible. Dishonest firms that don't simply wouldn't be able to enter. And guess what, if it's something that no one can agree to, then too bad, everyone misses out on the opportunity of having a stock market period. No rules, no game, but at least no one will be cheated. Though of course, I believe that they will agree on some viable model. It's too much money to be missing. Honest firms maybe, but investors don't have incentive to pay for fraud investigation. Afterall, its not investor's fault that the firm committed fraud after all. If the stock market organizations are to control this, there will be conflict of interest when the organization itself face fraud charges.
If the stock market organization becomes corrupt, then honest firms will leave it and create a new one, just as easy as the old one was made. How's that for a brilliant plan? The organization has little to gain from doing that, and everything to lose. Plus if it really is an issue, then the firms can contractually require the organization to have third parties audit them once in a while. Yes, imagine that, the buyer side of a transaction requiring a contract clause for the exchange to be made.
Like, you're telling me a restaurant owner will have a shitty chef and lousy waiters, and people will be doomed to go into that restaurant no matter what. That doesn't make any sense. Consumer demand goes beyond the money that is spent. It can include anything, things like transparency, honesty, reputation, are incredibly precious, and the best businesses will HAVE to answer for those demands as well, not just the price of its products.
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote:
Government has seperate entities keeping in check of one another. FBI and SEC are two seperate entity that cannot really influence one another. In a such decentralized system like Ancap, no one organization has the incentive to pay for something like FBI. And if they do, it will be out of their own interest.
Separate government agencies... good luck with that one. As separate as republicans and democrats I bet?
Please elaborate why honest firms won't have enough joint interest in funding an investigative firm to crush the unfair competition. Makes as much sense as saying firms won't have the interest to sue outlaw firms... really now. Especially in a more efficient law system, where it would cost so much less to sue.
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 19:12 scion wrote:On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote:
That is a ridiculous argument, I'm sorry but it makes 0 sense. It can be applied to anything. Even government itself. It's an argument of risk, right? Because the seller can assess risks better, it means he has an "unfair" advantage. Of course he does, he also has the "advantage" of being able to set prices, of producing or servicing only what he wants, and many other "advantages". But the market doesn't rely on honesty or angels. It relies on free market entry, aka what I call competition (you have a twisted version thereof most likely), meaning that if someone's getting away with selling horrible garbage, it not only sends a bad message about that seller's inefficient servicing for customers all around eventually, but it sends a positive message to potential entrepreneurs to enter that market, outperform that ass, and profit themselves with delivering a more efficient and honest product.
If I'm not mistaken, it also seems Akerlof's arguments are most used in regulated environments, where most people are FORCED to buy the same shit, well then, obviously there's going to be a problem there, but it's not because of limited information or some other lame excuse, it's because the market aka consumers and businesses aren't allowed to adapt. Whenever the government intervenes with it's own idea of what "competition" is, it stifles it with the government's own limited knowledge, not fixing the problem at all and possibly creating new external ones.
And speaking of government, it should be regarded as the institution filled with the most lemons in history anyways. The socialized choice of representatives will always give the advantage to those politically connected to sell the public out on empty promises and excuses. I don't think you understood the lemon argument. Let me lay the argument out, using Health insurance industry as an example. Let's say there are 2 types of people, the healthy and the unhealthy. The unhealthy people want health insurance because they know they will have to go see a doctor often. (bad family history, smoker, bad life style, ect...) Where as healthy people sort of want health insurance if its cheap. They won't be needing it much after all. Basic coverage plans will be good deal for the sickly people. The result is people who are confident about their needs will purchase health insurance. Meaning they WILL have to use the insurance at some point. As you probably know, insurance cannot thrive with most of the customers making a claim. Insurers are forced to cut benefits and raise the premium to cover its cost, causing people in the middle (sort of healthy) to cancel because its too expensive. This forces insurance companies to raise the premiums even higher in order to stay in business. In the end, only the most sickly and the rich will be able to afford health insurance. Sure, the health insurance company can attempt to make more thorough background check in order to make better estimate, but the nature of this business dictates that they will NEVER be able to accurately guess a person's medical cost. If insurance companies cannot estimate the cost better than its consumer, it will simply go out of business under the burden of claims. Sickly consumers also have plenty of incentive to lie about their history. Insurance industry can only thrive under "mutual ignorance". That's why theft/fire/automobile insurance sort of work. where as for health, you KNOW your own health. You KNOW your family history. Insurance companies dont. Show nested quote +Sigh. I *have* addressed the issue. Your insurance example just reverses the knowledge advantage. In that, customers can assess risks better than the business, and they can kind of rip off the insurance companies and other honest customers. So insurances become more expensive, and/or honest customers are driven out. Okay, what is wrong with that? You yourself have answered how to better deal with risks - you raise costs because the risks increased. Big whoop-dee-doo. That's what insurance companies do. Believe me, they know how to best allocate their resources, because if they did not, they would go broke either to their own faults, or to better competing actuaries.
What the STATE does however.. does NOT solve such an issue. What can they do, if not merely enforce their own limited knowledge, their arbitrary risk assessment onto everyone? How can they know that's ideal? How can you know it's ideal? I say you cannot, the only way you could, is if you let consumers and business adapt to the best of EVERYONE's knowledge. Any deviation from that, is necessarily subpar. Either too much insurance will be bought, and the market gets further inflated, further overpriced, or too little, which well, also increases costs overall because people are unprotected from risk. The STATE does not have the necessary market signals to know what to do, they only have their inefficient bureaucrats who could care less what happens to the economy, as long as they stay in power, and get elected for "saving" the poor elderly who can't afford health insurance (even though they're indirectly paying for it anyway, now even more inflated than before) I don't think you understand how medical cares work in other countries. Medical care is something everyone will need some point in our life. What's wrong with some people not getting it? Because large medical bills are forcing people into bankruptcy and becoming a big worry in their life.
I don't think you understand how food work in other countries. Food is something everyone will need some point in our life. What's wrong with some people not getting it? Because food bills are forcing people into bankruptcy and becoming a big worry in their life.
And how do you solve that issue? By stealing from everyone to inefficiently pay for it, making everyone even poorer?
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote:
See in Canada, we pay our health insurance premium by our income. The government has no need to check on its populace's medical history. The government addresses medical cost as it comes. There is no reason for predictions in an universal health care system. Hell remember H1N1? The government paid for everyone's (yes every citizens) Vaccine, while US suffer from the panic.
You mean, the government is a pretty bad actuary, and will either eventually bankrupt or inflate the system by funding it too litte/too much?
How many US citizens died from H1N1? How much was it spent on vaccines? How much would have been the ideal investment into it? How much should it have stolen? The government can't answer those questions. It's not an economical action, It's a politically biased one, similar to your "it's ok to steal from everyone to pay for healthcare", even if you don't know how much should be stolen, paid, and on what.
The government can't solve your problems better than yourself...
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote:
Insurance companies know how to allocate resources using the information they have. You can't blindly tell me and other economist they know how to do it! trust me! We're not doubting that. I'm saying information they have is limited at best and no matter what they do, they will not be able to predict what is going to happen (important factor in insurance industry) due to the lemon argument.
Even more limited is the state's information...
Nirvana fallacy again? Nothing will ever be perfect, so we need to use these more inefficient means, because I say so? Makes no sense...
I've already answered the lemon argument. Please demonstrate how can a central planner assess risk better than a market employed actuary. Compare the incentives and mechanisms, or drop your empty assertions.
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 19:12 scion wrote:
This is why people keep saying Healthcare in USA is failing. This is why the USA is spending 12% of its GDP on health care. (as of 2002) compared to Canada (9%) , UK (6%) and Japan (6%) This is why 47 million+ Americans are uninsured.
Show nested quote +See the mises healthcare portal at http://mises.org/daily/3737. Healthcare was a non-issue until the AMA started to get government backing and propped up their salaries by raising barriers of entry for uncertified doctors. Surely the cost of healthcare is going to go up when in order to practice it, you have to be a member of their gang. Less doctors, less healthcare. Duh. After that scam, everything else just aggravated the issue. Further and further making healthcare an artificially scarce resource. Government had to intervene because AMA could not sustain itself insuring everyone. They also have to answer to the rich who want better medical care. They must retain best doctor and get the best equipment to support this demand. This pushes the poor out because it raises the premium. again, 12% of the GDP spent on medical care, and 47 million people aren't even insured.
No, it doesn't even help the rich, they too are suffering from inflated costs due to artificially lower supply. It only helps the certified doctors, and only them, at the cost of everyone else, and predominantly, the uncertified doctors now out of a job. At any rate, you don't seem to notice that you're agreeing with me that it was government action that "pushes the poor out because it raises the premium".
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote:
If your claim of insurance companies making things efficient and cheap for the people were true, insurance cost in USA should be cheaper than that of UK, Canada, Japan, and ect. This is clearly not the case.
Uh, despite you agreeing with me above that the government propped it up? WTH.
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote:
In fact, bureaucratic cost in USA under private system costs MORE than public system under Canada. Researches done at Harvard medical school found that on average, US spends $1000 per person on bureaucratic cost, compared to $307 in Canada.
So? I'm not defending the US. You're saying the US wastes more money and has worse healthcare? Whoop-dee-doo lol.
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote:
You still have not addressed my equality post (2nd) maybe you are working on it.
Quote it again please. Ctrl+f finds nothing on this page or the previous. Perhaps you're talking about the misquoted post that responded to tan geng and not me, that you still have to edit correctly?
At any rate, what government does cannot be said to be neither moral nor efficient at equalizing anything. It steals from Mike to give it to John and keeps some for itself. How's that equalizing anything? It's just stealing. If you were to pickpocket $100 from your richest acquaintance, and give $50 to your poorest one, you'd be rightfully put in jail. The state does it, and it's put on a pedestal. What the hell.
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote:
I'm arguing from economics perspective, you cannot just tell me the free market knows how to do it. You need to explain HOW they would do it, because modern economics would not agree with statement like "health insurance companies know the best"
If they don't know the best, then who does? They have the most incentives to - they're getting paid. They have the fullest interest in managing prices and innovating - they profit from it.
What does a bureaucrat do or know that is so much better than everyone else? He's just a man. A man with less incentives and market signals at that.
|
On September 19 2010 11:55 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 11:46 scion wrote:
You don't think they fixed prices when they had 90% market share? The law declared them an unreasonable monopoly. Dropping prices by factor of 10 is fair competition?
I don't know if you are just getting these from Wikipedia, but Standard oil was symbol of corporate "evil" and Greedy monopoly during its time.
Companies like these hired guys like Pinkerton Detective Agency to coerce labour unions to break up.
Standard Oil presided over a steady downward decline of kerosene prices. That was its competitive advantage. This was before the anti-trust laws were applied. Standard Oil had a bad name because they were making "too much money." I'd call it envy. The best industrialists of the age got reviled one way or another, and it wasn't for "trust" like activities. Labor practices are largely unrelated to anti-trust. You can go after these industrialists for labor practices. ====== Some of the less well know trusts were actually anti-competitive. But it's not like anti-trust did anything. It got broken up and the parties went into stable oligopolistic competitive arrangement. It wasn't as anti-competitive, but the arrangement under anti-trust laws made it far more stable arrangement.
Standard Oil actually increased their kerosene prices by 46% between 1895 and 1906. Prior to that, Standard did indeed lower prices. Why? Because they were selling the stuff under the cost of producing and shipping it, even with preferential rail deals made in secret.
Once they choked out their opponents, they got all the railways onboard to prevent opponents from coming back into the market. They did this either by buying them out, or by way of secret agreements with kickbacks. They then figured that wasn't enough because someone could build pipelines or new railroads, so they bought up the majority of the steel production market too, and a nice chunk of land for their railyards to prevent pipelines from being built. Railways or steel companies that weren't bought out had a choice; Play it Standard Oil's way, or have all their workers go on strike (and potentially vandalize their facilities) using the teamsters, had their train carts jacked during the night, or simply have Standard Oil affiliated companies charge them exorbitant fees. Didn't like it? Try building a railway without steel or running trains without oil.
Outrage over Standard oil wasn't 'artificial'. Rage against the robber barons became a cultural movement which influenced the vast majority of legal developments from 1880 to 1920. Intellectual property itself is described in terms of property and not monopolistic rights (which would be far more accurate) because it needed Mill's philosophical backing to overcome the force of the cultural backlash. The numbers you've quoted are also without merit, given that you've forgotten all context behind them. In 1911, Standard was losing ground? Well, no shit. A decade after the passing of the Sherman laws, Standard stopped actively trying to starve their opposition by undercutting them. Their goal? To avoid litigation. It might have worked too if a massive insider history of the organization hadn't been published midway through the decade. Attempting to claim that the free market self-regulated in the case of Standard Oil without government intervention is without historical merit. Period.
Moreover, your earlier statement to the effect that 'the breakup was good for them, and the managers would have done it' flies in the face of what actually happened. The company was mandated to be broken up after the passing of anti-monopoly laws. In response, the company was cut into pieces that had the autonomy you asked for, and then put into a trust scheme so that the company effectively was a single entity owned by the previous owners. Legally, however, it was a bunch of divided entities all held by separate trustees. What's more, much like in the fallout after the breakup of Ma Bell, certain divisions of Standard oil re-joined post breakup. The most famous likely being Exxon and Mobil forming ExxonMobil.
But okay, I see your point. Rah Rah Free Market!
|
Oh okay this is the post I missed then?
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote:
Who pays the schools today, and why can't those same people afford education without the state? It's the people themselves; schools are paid through property taxes of the region... the idea that the poor couldn't wipe their own butts without the state is a joke. It's actually the opposite, the state education makes people more impoverished. $10k/year/student, when private schools do it for $2.5k? That's ideal for you?
State roads, with 300k deaths a year, gas tax with 50 cents per every gallon? All drivers already pay abusive prices to the monopolized street owner aka state...
I don't know about firefighters but I hear most of them are funded voluntarily. Please provide evidence that 1- they aren't and cannot be paid voluntarily, and 2- it would be more efficient to pay them through taxes, before you pull out the gunverment. The rich already has better education under current system. MUCH better in fact. Under current system, private schools are not necessarily meant to make profit, but rather for prestige and higher quality education. Even amongst public schools, there are significant gaps between richer area and poorer areas. The great equalizer here is the state. The state collects tax from its populace, and redistributes to public schools in a way so that poorer area that can't afford a school gets as much funding as richer areas's public school.
This is not true at all. You're saying the state robs from rich areas to pay for the school in poor areas? This is a complete lie, it does not happen. The localities only pay for the schools they can ingress into. Never will you see a rich town miles away funding some ghetto. As bad as the government is, it doesn't do that. Give me a concrete example of where this happens.
EVEN if it did however, again, it would hardly be called charity, and equalization. The word equalization presupposes that resources ought to be reorganized in a different way, for the way it currently is has been organized unfairly. This is not the case in capitalism. As long as people act legally and don't use the government, their capital has been fairly obtained. Reallocating that which is not fairly due isn't "equalizing", it is stealing, plain and simple.
Please elaborate why do you think such instance of theft is fair. Lay down your property theory axioms and exchange laws. Be elaborate in every step of the way in proving that the rich owe anything to the poor, in a way that is not contradictory nor too arbitrary ("because I say so", or "because I'm jealous").
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote: The differences between 2 area even amongst public school occur because as you mentioned, portion of the property tax goes to fund portion of the public school system. If this were to be replaced by a private system, firms have no incentive to provide decent education to poorer areas that can't afford it. (the base funding from State/province government is gone)
1- You don't know exactly what people would do with the extra, say, 10k/year they have.
2- I've already said that they could easily spend 1/4 of that money into private education and not only have a better education but be 7.5k/year richer. Do you or do you not agree on these figures?
3- Even if they did not want education, it would be their (the parents) choice. They know what to do better to give their children a better future than any bureaucrat can. To say otherwise, is perhaps contradictory, as
A- people quo parents are inefficient at raising their own children, yet
B- people quo voters are efficient at raising everyone's children.
The second and first instances are very unlikely to be true. B is also less likely in that it requires more information and incentives than the first. So I would rather say that
A- people quo parents are the most efficient at raising their own children, and
B- people quo voters are inefficient at... doing anything for that matter.
This generality easier to demonstrate and to believe, and it is praxeologically valid as well of course.
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote:
Road and the firefighter I said sarcastically. However about the road, Japan is a great example of this. Lot of roads are tolled and the prices are absurdly high because there is no regulation on it.
Please source this. I don't believe for a second that japan's roads are 1-private, 2- overpriced because they're private.
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote: Unless you are gona claim firms will build multiple freeway between LA and San Francisco to compete, which would be completely absurd waste of space and create economic inefficiency through opportunity cost of the land.
This is like what people say to be "midstream theorizing". You have completely neglected how the capital structure came about, what were people's incentives and actions that constructed them, and simply asserts that what exists now can't be maintained by the market.
First of all, that the state has been able to at least provide a mediocre service to enable cities to thrive, is agreeable. However, that is done through coercion - it forced people to pay for a service that they may or may not have completely agreed with. The state assures the people that it won't exploit them with overtaxation or overtolling on an empty promise, yet it does so anyway. I fear you should, with intellectual honesty, first admit that the state provides a crappy service, and that it can't, to the best of anyone else's ability, administer roads properly. It does mediocre, at best. Terrible and untransportable at worst. If you fear a monopoly on roads, cheers, you have one already.
Second of all, no city would rise in the free market without contractual assurances by the part of the infrastructure owners, enforcable by law (not to the will of a coercive legislator), just as much as no one would move to a house with a serial killer next door. The road owners of any densely populated area would be under a contractual obligation of at least 1- the road owner can only change toll prices with an advance notice of at least 1 year to all regular drivers 2- allow people to move out once, without charge, if they so wished to leave the vicinity permanently. 3- not hold non-outlaws captive in their own houses or apartments. No contract would set a price, of course, but certain things are obviously borderline criminal. There needs to be breathing room for people to at least be able to move out.
Thirdly, a road owner who overprices or breaks such basic contract agreements, is not only going to be sued, but he's going to lose business before he's ever able to profit off it. With the contractual obligation of noticing price changes for example, anyone who would be stupid enough to say he's going to be charging drivers 1 million dollars will see their roads to be avoided, and his revenue to sink. It doesn't pay to be a stupid jackass, the market rewards cooperation and efficiency. A road owner will be much better off providing a fair price and decent service, for the prospect of future revenue increases when he's not a douche. If he's a douche, then people will avoid him, he'll go bankrupt, and maybe even contractually obligated to sell his roads, who knows.
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote:
It wouldn't be more expensive, nor would it necessarily be more localized. Competing entrepreneurs would determine what model is most efficient to provide a service, and that can be either small or international depending on the demand and the service. It would definitely be more expensive for the less wealthy areas. I said before, State act as the equalizer. State collects money from the wealthy and redistributes it so that everyone gets equal funding. If the wealthy suddenly only pays for his own police, school, and other public service, it would in fact not become any more expensive than it is now for the wealthy. but for the less wealthy, they've suddenly lost Federal, state, provincial funding and likely to give up on certain services.
Please demonstrate with real figures how this is the case. Also demonstrate how the rich, when taxed higher, are not offsetting those taxes into lower wages/higher prices.
Because they do. Show me how any single town undoubtedly is being subsidized by the rich, without any externalities making them poorer otherwise.
This is just not what happens. The rich are in fact the best able to avoid or offset taxation, and avoid paying their part to the system, either by corruption, or by simply raising prices accordingly. Taxing the rich is the most retarded way to pay for anything. You're taxing the poor by proxy.
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote:
Biased comparison. Both systems seek to fulfill demand. A fair examination would be to compare the incentives and mechanisms of a representative v. entrepreneur.
Also, the greatest monopoly is the state, so if you're against an entity forcibly putting people out of business, how about looking at the Leviathan itself? Businesses can only put one another out of business by better supplying demand, hardly a perversion of the NAP or private property, and hardly something undesirable either. If it wasn't representative of consumer demand, then people can simply stop buying. Business can put one another by aggressively lowering its price below its cost, which is by no means having better knowledge of supply and demand. By lowering the revenue below its cost, firm will suffer, but so will the competitor. If your firm is bigger, it can outlast their firm. After your competition starves out, you can then set the price to whatever you want.
Competition never fully starves out, because competition is free market entry. Your mainstream notion of competition is flawed, there needs not to be constant competition for efficiency to stay high, there only needs to be the means of competition. For no artificial barriers of entry to be raised, for no taxation and bureaucracy impending newcomers. The threat of competition alone keeps companies honest.
In your example, if the leading company is to operate at a loss, then 1- how is that a bad thing if it's delivering cheaper products 2- why can't companies emerge once again, once the leader raises prices? What matters is the profit opportunity after all. Elaborate on why no one can seize such margin at any time.
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote:
Also, Who do you think has better incentive to provide better public welfare structure to the less wealthy? The government, who treats these people as potential voters or Firms, who are out to make more profit? Firms have no reason to provide less wealthy areas with anything more than what they can pay, which is going to be FAR less than what they are getting now.
You mean firms will forfeit providing to the poor because the profit opportunity is too small?
This is wrong, why do international corporations are crowding to third world countries then? It's not small. Wherever there's demand, there's a profit opportunity, and while every poor person may only have $10 to pay for, like, telephones, it's still a million dollars to be made in a population area with a hundred thousand people. I mean, even Somalia has telecommunication and internet now, heh.
And I'm glad you're getting there, comparing voters with consumers. Surely soon you will realize that democracy is a subpar emulation of the market system. Voters don't all count. Voters are fewer than the whole population. Politicians only have to appease a majority of them election time, every 4 years, and just enough to suppress revolution otherwise. Congress approval ratings at 11% with small fries please? That's what you call delivering satisfaction huh.
Government as a coercive monopoly has way, way more space to fuck up, to be lousy, to be inefficient, and still keep it's "revenue" growing. I hope you can be honest with yourself and see this. Please see the Calculation problem.
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote:
This brings us to the great "equal opportunity" argument. This is a fundamental policy for any developed nation's education policy. To provide everyone with equal opportunity. The reason why less wealthy areas receive funding from federal/provincial/state government. (However, I do not mean they have equal chance now)
How does one measure "equal opportunity", and how does one know how to arbitrarily reallocate capital as to provide eveyone with "equal opportunity"? Is it any easier than selling shoes? Because selling shoes is a tough job, I'll tell you. You have to serve every customer with the right sizes, brands, colors and models. You have to manage your employees, balance the stock, look for market trends... does the state do any of that in its search for "equal opportunity"? Can it even do those things?
How far are you willing to go to emptily assert that the government can even begin to know what "equal opportunity" even means?
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote:
When firms control education, kids unlucky enough to be born of a poor parents will have far less opportunity than they do now. In fact, it may become like 19th century where there were no middle class, but rich employers and the labourers.
Again, completely empty assertion, I'm sorry but I can't be answering them all. I'll be spending all night and you'll just be throwing more of them at me.
You ignore the fact that the poor already do pay for their own education, and claim that it's the rich that do.
You ignore the fact that they pay an overpriced education that is 4x the cost that it should be otherwise, and say that they wouldn't be able to afford it.
And still insist that they are somehow better off, when you have nothing to compare it against (it is a coercively monopolized service after all)
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote:
The Great Depression already taught us that government intervention only makes it worse. Certainly wages are sticky upward when president Hoover calls for every businesses to keep them up (along with other things), when they should go down, and then, certainly unemployment is going to go 20% because of that.
Again, I invite you to look at the material in the OP. Now that i've read this, I think you are mixing up what I said. What I meant was, era BEFORE the great depression was unrestrictive free market. We had firms doing whatever they want up until that point. It is when the Great Depression hit, people realized government needs to control certain aspects in the market in order to maintain stability and fairness.
You're just getting yourself into an even greater causation chain of events, placing yourself in an even greater burden of proof. Please demonstrate why, which, and how "firms doing whatever they want until that point" caused the great depression.
Also provide evidence of people calling for government intervention. Was it any similar to people calling for bailouts in 2008? With 99% of the letters sent to representatives being against it? I like how the government rewrites history.
Also, why do I now have to trust you on this assertion, if you seem to have backed off from the last? Will you not be merely dodging and dodging forever, perpetually asserting that the government did something good in light of X event? "Well, if not X, then it's Y!".. then Z, then W...
(In history, you will always have something to blame. Historical interpretation is not an exact science, you need a theory first to analyze it. That is a reason why I'd rather not argue empirically at all.)
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote:
Hoover is a terrible example. Hoover did not think The great depression was a big problem and believed free market would fix itself. It did not, so he made some terrible efforts to restore the economy (that didn't work) in order to win the election.
I'm sorry but you and the mainstream are wrong. Here's a hoover quote.
+ Show Spoiler +We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action.... No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times.... For the first time in the history of depression, dividends, profits, and the cost of living, have been reduced before wages have suffered.... They were maintained until the cost of living had decreased and the profits had practically vanished. They are now the highest real wages in the world.
Creating new jobs and giving to the whole system a new breath of life; nothing has ever been devised in our history which has done more for ... "the common run of men and women." Some of the reactionary economists urged that we should allow the liquidation to take its course until we had found bottom.... We determined that we would not follow the advice of the bitter-end liquidationists and see the whole body of debtors of the United States brought to bankruptcy and the savings of our people brought to destruction.
Hoover did all he could. The laissez-faire characterization of Hoover is a complete fraud. If he was laissez-faire, so is Obama. And Bush for that matter. They're all interventionists. At the very least all presidents from the 20th century on, if not all presidents, were.
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote:
The whole point of talk of government intervention is NOT, I repeat, NOT to get an economy out from a slum. The point is, the regulations set in place will prevent economy from going down that road in the first place. Subprime crisis is good example. It is no where near the level of the Great depression, nor will it get to that level. We got into a recession because of it, not a depression.
Again, what I meant was events leading upto the great depression was a lesson about unrestricted economy, NOT the depression itself.
And again, what you seem to appeal to is always some informational fallacy, where you, with the historical advantage of retrospection, assumes that central planning could have prevented any mistakes ever. But it could not, and it only makes things worse, yet it won't stop central planning advocates from claiming to know what to do better than everyone else, forcibly so.
The housing bubble can hardly be blamed on the free market, when the Fed has been blowing up and bursting bubbles for so long now, they're practically experts at it. The federal reserve started this bubble in 2004 after the www bubble, it just blew kind of fast. Obviously, when you pump easy money into a market, people are going to "irrationally" invest in it, buy houses without living in them, because of the ever increasing easy mortgages propping up prices everywhere. See the "Austrian business cycle theory", and http://mises.org/daily/2936. Search for other articles on the mises site on the housing bubble...
|
On September 19 2010 17:05 L wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 11:55 TanGeng wrote:On September 19 2010 11:46 scion wrote:
You don't think they fixed prices when they had 90% market share? The law declared them an unreasonable monopoly. Dropping prices by factor of 10 is fair competition?
I don't know if you are just getting these from Wikipedia, but Standard oil was symbol of corporate "evil" and Greedy monopoly during its time.
Companies like these hired guys like Pinkerton Detective Agency to coerce labour unions to break up.
Standard Oil presided over a steady downward decline of kerosene prices. That was its competitive advantage. This was before the anti-trust laws were applied. Standard Oil had a bad name because they were making "too much money." I'd call it envy. The best industrialists of the age got reviled one way or another, and it wasn't for "trust" like activities. Labor practices are largely unrelated to anti-trust. You can go after these industrialists for labor practices. ====== Some of the less well know trusts were actually anti-competitive. But it's not like anti-trust did anything. It got broken up and the parties went into stable oligopolistic competitive arrangement. It wasn't as anti-competitive, but the arrangement under anti-trust laws made it far more stable arrangement. Standard Oil[...]
Long story short, the government intervened and forced prices to go up.
Is that it?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Still as pretentious as usual, L?
==========
On September 19 2010 17:05 L wrote:
Standard Oil actually increased their kerosene prices by 46% between 1895 and 1906. Prior to that, Standard did indeed lower prices. Why? Because they were selling the stuff under the cost of producing and shipping it, even with preferential rail deals made in secret.
Yep, Rockerfeller squeezed everyone to sell for really low. Consumers benefited. So in this case, he doesn't get credit for severely lowering the price of heating oil? Going to just take the severe price cuts for granted and moan about the negatives?
His real offenses were in the bribery of government officials (those thugs) and their
use of violence, but they never prosecute for those things. Signing exclusivity contracts with railway companies and steel companies and negotiating kickback is natural in vertical integration, squeezing a vendor, and taking advantage of economies of scale.
On September 19 2010 17:05 L wrote:
In 1911, Standard was losing ground? Well, no shit. A decade after the passing of the Sherman laws, Standard stopped actively trying to starve their opposition by undercutting them. Their goal? To avoid litigation. It might have worked too if a massive insider history of the organization hadn't been published midway through the decade.
So Standard Oil stopped being so cut-throat competitive in response to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and consumers saw steadily higher prices? That's why Standard Oil's prices rose? Oh, consumers must have loved to benefit from Anti-Trust legislation like that.
Besides, Rockerfeller retired from management in 1897 removing his influence from the day-to-day operations. The conglomerate wasn't as vigorous as it was under a youthful Rockerfeller, and everyone else copied Standard Oil's vertical integration. It's like Blizzard's perceived decline under Activision.
==========
How does this prove that consumers benefit from Anti-Trust legislation? If anything it shows that the anti-trust legislations reigns in they competitive spirits of large corporations. If they're too cut-throat, if they're too successful, if they are too dominate, they get rewarded with an investigation from the DoJ.
==========
As for the muck-raking era, journalists sold sensationalism and made their careers on criticizing how filthy rich these industrialists were, shortchanging their management skills, and whipping up envy among the masses. They promoted breaking up large conglomerates mostly because of their gigantic size. The stench of Schaudenfreude is nasty.
As for the break-up of the Standard Oil, it was a federal government power grab and it was to make an example out of Standard Oil. The Supreme Court decision was an horrifying example of judicial activism that actually weakened the Sherman Anti-Trust act.
On September 19 2010 17:49 Yurebis wrote:
Long story short, the government intervened and forced prices to go up.
Is that it?
I wish I was so concise.
|
This may be of use to mr. L if he wants some empirical objection to his perspective
http://mises.org/daily/2317
I don't know how good is it however because I didn't not am going to read it.
To me it's pretty clear that the only victims of "predatory pricing" (if it existed at all) is the more inefficient competition; and post intervention, the consumers bearing higher prices. If anything, intervening and regulating only raises barriers and solidifies a 'colluding' higher price.
|
Shut up arguing about abstract economic theory and work more so you can have enough money to fulfill your obligation to your economic overlords, by buying their glorious shit.
|
On September 19 2010 19:01 McFoo wrote:
Shut up arguing about abstract economic theory and work more so you can have enough money to fulfill your obligation to your economic overlords, by buying their glorious shit.
:D
|
On September 19 2010 19:01 McFoo wrote:
Shut up arguing about abstract economic theory and work more so you can have enough money to fulfill your obligation to your economic overlords, by buying their glorious shit.
|
On September 19 2010 17:49 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 17:05 L wrote:On September 19 2010 11:55 TanGeng wrote:On September 19 2010 11:46 scion wrote:
You don't think they fixed prices when they had 90% market share? The law declared them an unreasonable monopoly. Dropping prices by factor of 10 is fair competition?
I don't know if you are just getting these from Wikipedia, but Standard oil was symbol of corporate "evil" and Greedy monopoly during its time.
Companies like these hired guys like Pinkerton Detective Agency to coerce labour unions to break up.
Standard Oil presided over a steady downward decline of kerosene prices. That was its competitive advantage. This was before the anti-trust laws were applied. Standard Oil had a bad name because they were making "too much money." I'd call it envy. The best industrialists of the age got reviled one way or another, and it wasn't for "trust" like activities. Labor practices are largely unrelated to anti-trust. You can go after these industrialists for labor practices. ====== Some of the less well know trusts were actually anti-competitive. But it's not like anti-trust did anything. It got broken up and the parties went into stable oligopolistic competitive arrangement. It wasn't as anti-competitive, but the arrangement under anti-trust laws made it far more stable arrangement. Standard Oil[...] Long story short, the government intervened and forced prices to go up. Is that it?
Actually its like this:
Standard choked out competition, prices were driven down.
Standard achieved a monopoly in most areas, prices skyrocketed upwards, re-investment in standard stopped while the owners just pulled as much cash out of the company as possible.
Government broke up the anti-competitive behavior, prices dropped by nearly half. The value of the broken up companies nearly doubled.
As for the mises article linked, it isn't empirical at all. Its a mostly emotional and rather intentionally charged description of what Standard Oil's history was. Not a single example of Standard's anti-competitive practices were mentioned until after Rockefeller was set up as a saint who could do no harm. Then the conclusion comes that the government 'crippled' standard oil by splitting it up, when all economic criteria show that Standard's spinoffs became more successful than they would have in the monopoly because they had to continue innovating due to the presence of others in the market.
I mean, its got such quality lines as this:
As happens in so many federal antitrust lawsuits, a number of novel theories were invented to rationalize the lawsuit. One of them was so-called predatory pricing. According to this theory, a "predatory firm" that possesses a "war chest" of profits will cut its prices so low as to drive all competitors from the market. Then, when it faces no competition, it will charge monopolistic prices.
It is assumed that at that point no other competition will emerge, despite the large profits being made in the industry. Journalist Ida Tarbell did as much as anyone to popularize this theory in her book on Standard Oil, in a chapter entitled "Cutting to Kill." To economists, however, predatory pricing is theoretical nonsense and has no empirical validity, either. It has never been demonstrated that a monopoly has ever been created in this way. Certainly predatory pricing was not a tactic used by Standard Oil, which was never a monopoly anyway. See, paragraphs like this are cute:
1) Standard Oil WAS a monopoly in a number of regions
2) Standard Oil empirically DID cut to kill, and the evidence adduced in the anti-trust trial proves it.
3) Areas where Standard Oil had a monopoly had obscene price increases, which is the main aspect of predatory pricing that economists believe couldn't possibly happen.
4) It was perfectly able to occur because Standard's prices weren't the sole barriers to entry; transport costs, teamsters strikes and a number of other factors maintained huge barriers to entry above and beyond Standard's pricing.
We also get cute things like this:
Because of Standard Oil's superior efficiency (and lower prices), the company's share of the refined petroleum market rose from 4 percent in 1870 to 25 percent in 1874 and to about 85 percent in 1880. No, it wasn't because of Standard Oil's superior efficiency. No one, even if your margins are fantastic because of your efficiency, puts every other Oil company in your state out of business less than 2 months after creation because you're making extra cash on the side refining your waste product. Go look at what Standard was doing. As 'horrendous' as muckraking, going out and doing actual investigative journalism was part of the job at the time. Go read the articles and look at the evidence adduced at trial.
TanGeng, I'd reply but I've got a feeling Tellytubby's going to ban me if I continue in the thread. Suffice it to say, you should look over a number of your statements, because some of them contain glaring contradictions, inferred or explicit, sometimes in the same sentence.
Toodles.
Edit: fixed dem quotes.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
I think we can be civil.
But we tend to argue past each other like ships passing in the night. And the same is probably true for scion.
Your critique of Standard Oil is about its unfair business practices and how it manipulates producers, competitors, and consumers. My critique of anti-trust legislation at the federal level is that it's anti-competitive. It institutionalizes oligopolistic price collusion because market leaders stop trying to be more competitive, more dominant in the market to avoid that anti-trust visit from the DoJ. This is the effect of anti-trust legislation, intended or not.
The central case for the anti-trust suit was that railroads gave discriminatory rates in favor of Standard against its competitors. Clearly you see that as "unfair," but I see that as legitimate vertical integration, volume discounts, and preferential treatment for a reliable customer. These kinds of deals are very common for the modern businesses. IMO, the violence and bribery are better examples of "unfair" business practices, yet those activities were not the basis of the anti-trust case. (Prosecution of such activities would not have fallen under federal jurisdiction, which is why I consider anti-trust cases to be more of a power grab by the federal government than for consumer benefit.)
The stability of oligopolies under anti-trust legislation replaces the messier unstable dynamic of price wars and monopolies, and there's plenty of messiness in free market competition and in some cases government-assisted competition. It's not going to be clean, sterile, or nice, and I will accept that in stride. The value judgment being made is that messy price wars followed by temporary monopoly is better than a perpetual anti-competitive arrangement between oligopolies.
I wonder if the breakup of Standard Oil helped consumers at all. They broke up into 34 independent regional operators sometimes maintaining their geographical monopolies. A few years later, the openly collusive American Petroleum Institute graced the US to replace Standard Oil's anti-competitive antics without any of its competitive antics. Moral of the story is that the DoJ, Supreme Court, and federal government is at best a really unreliable representative for consumer interests.
|
Well there's a few other things in the article... I have read some of it but I agree that 1/2 of it is morally biased.
1- How do you answer the claim that John D. Rockefeller started with 0 capital of his own? Because if he had capital to 'kill' the competition over with on a deficit run, then it necessarily had to be due to efficient, plain price cutting before he had money to burn...
2- The article author says the antitrust case had 0 references to predatory pricing. It didnt even "attempt" to make that case. The antitrust was plainly appealing against standard oil's vertical integration's practice, that if it wasnt for that, the market would have greater competition. Either you or him is lying. Before going to look for more sources myself.. I want to ask you. Who is the liar?
3- The antitrust case against Standard Oil also seems absurd because its share of the petroleum products market had actually dropped significantly over the years. From a high of 88 percent in 1890, Standard Oil's market share had fallen to 64 percent by 1911, the year in which the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court finding that Standard Oil was guilty of monopolizing the petroleum products industry.
is also a lie?
4- Even if it's all true, regardless, you still haven't answered why delivering lower prices is bad. Why are lower prices evil?
Edit: sry I didn't see you claiming that standard oil skyrocketed prices. The article makes no mention of it indeed. Then I have to ask again before I try to verify. Do you think Thomas DiLorenzo is lying when he says there is no evidence of such a thing happening?
And I say lying on these instances because, for someone claiming to be educated on the issue, you/him must have seen the evidence on both sides, and since the claims are so opposite (0 claims of predatory pricing v. many claims of predatory pricing on the court case; 0 evidence of price hikes v. lots of evidence of price hikes), either you or him necessarily has to be intellectually dishonest to say such a thing.
I hold little attachment to DiLorenzo, enough so I prefer to trust him rather than you, yes, but also not so much that I won't listen to you and look for more sources if you say he's lying.
|
1- How do you answer the claim that John D. Rockefeller started with 0 capital of his own? Because if he had capital to 'kill' the competition over with on a deficit run, then it necessarily had to be due to efficient, plain price cutting before he had money to burn... Here's a reverse question: Starting with 0 capital, how do you run an entire state out of business in two months?
Are you telling me every company in the region had less than 2 months operating funds and went to 0% marketshare immediately?
Go look up the history of what Standard Oil did to create its initial monopoly.
2- The article author says the antitrust case had 0 references to predatory pricing. It didnt even "attempt" to make that case. The antitrust was plainly appealing against standard oil's vertical integration's practice, that if it wasnt for that, the market would have greater competition. Either you or him is lying. Before going to look for more sources myself.. I want to ask you. Who is the liar? No, the author says far more than that. He says there's never been and never will be an instance of predatory pricing and that the idea itself is absurd. Standard Oil is the first 'big' example of the phenomenon occuring, which is why it wasn't argued in the case. Common law can't argue when there haven't been similar cases in the past, and most of the monopolies up until that point had been crown issued in common law jurisdictions for certain developmental purposes. Think Hudson's Bay Company, The EIC, and things of that sort. One couldn't bring an organization like that to court because they were, by law, supposed to be the way they were.
So who's the liar? I'm not lying, but you've misconstrued his position and tried to state something his article and the facts don't support.
3-
The antitrust case against Standard Oil also seems absurd because its share of the petroleum products market had actually dropped significantly over the years. From a high of 88 percent in 1890, Standard Oil's market share had fallen to 64 percent by 1911, the year in which the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court finding that Standard Oil was guilty of monopolizing the petroleum products industry.
is also a lie? Yes.
That the case would seem absurd is an incredible bit of revisionist history. Standard Oil developed near or at 100% marketshare in the majority of the US leading up to 1900. In 1890, Sherman was put into law. Faced with increased fear of litigation because they knew they were in flagrant contravention of the law, the 9 mains stakeholders in Standard almost ceased expansion and decided to cash out before they could get hammered. They paid themselves 65% dividend yields. Go look at the dividend chart for the company.
In 1900, Standard backed off its anti competitive practices because of sherman. It took a decade for the legislation to have an effect on the company as public outrage grew, then another decade for any competitors to make inroads against a company that was funneling all of its money to its owners instead of attempting to keep its position as the market leader.
Do you see how the article's position is in direct and flagrant contradiction with what actually happened?
4- Even if it's all true, regardless, you still haven't answered why delivering lower prices is bad. Why are lower prices evil? Lower prices are awesome, but are they as low as they would have been in a system with proper competition? There's the question.
Rockefeller had many innovations which were fantastic. His efficiency and waste usage was brilliant. Does that mean he also gets a free ride when he has teamsters strike at his opposition's plants? Or that starving out his competition to raise prices later under monopoly conditions is good? No. Do you advocate charging people a 50% monopoly premium and colluding with rail lines to push others out of the market? Do you think that's a good thing? Do you think those things lower prices?
Here's some follow up questions to yours: Why did no economists advocate the re-amalgamation of Standard after it had been diced up? Why did the value of the baby standards nearly double? Why has the majority of analysis on the post break-up Standard indicate that consumers benefited from lower prices afterwards?
|
Well regarding my opinion on what should be legal or not, you probably know what I think already. If those teamsters coerced people, then whoever's responsible should be tried of course, not due to monopoly or fierce competition, but for organized crime... any other reason is bs.
Any ex-post reason is also bs to me, but I don't think it's relevant for me to elaborate atm. I will however look deeper on the issue, because you seem to be educated and I respect that. (even if I don't give a fuck to its conclusions)
Answering the questions:
1- No economists advocate against something they were for in the past, because they don't want to be seen as inconsistent...? They are paid off? They like government intervention?
2- The value doubled because after the break up, they're enjoying higher prices.
3- You mean the economical witches cooked up some formulas that showed the alternate universe where Standard Oil dominated the whole world? Well I don't believe it to be true for a second. They can't even know what the market price is even supposed to be, let alone predict how the market would behave without any intervention. Every damn prediction is biased, especially the ex-post rationalizations for state intervention.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Just a bit more about Standard Oil's situation:
After Rockerfeller's retirement in 1897, the US saw large technological and geographic shifts that were to Standard Oil's detriment. Kerosene was the main proficiency of Rockerfeller's Standard Oil, but America shift away from its use into fuel oil number 2. This was the technological shift. New oil fields were being developed in the Southwest in Oklahoma and Texas, away from Standard Oil's power base on the east coast and Ohio River Valley. This was the geographical shift. Both of these developments eroded at Standard Oil's market share. Rockerfeller's organization was being left behind.
My guess is that purpose of Standard Oil above and beyond making money and self-preservation was largely defined by Rockerfeller's competitive spirit, business acumen, and attention to detail. Business organizations need a purpose above and beyond the profit motive to maintain operational excellence and to provide a source of motivation. This purpose can be impressed upon the organization by a single leader of strong personality or by a corporate culture that permeates throughout the organization, top to bottom. Organizations centered around a strong leader, generally start falling apart and living off of its past successes once the leader departs.
Perhaps, Sherman Anti-Trust Act also played a role in the decline of ambitiousness by Standard management and in Rockerfeller's retirement. Whatever the case, the advent of the additional regulatory scrutiny under Sherman and the loss of Rockerfeller severely blunted Standard Oil's competitive spirit to the detriment of consumers. Standard favored profitability. By 1911, the organization needed a shock to get its competitive edge back. That shock was the breakup of the company. It was to be for its own good. Consumers would benefit from the breakup - until the founding of API in 1919.
|
On September 20 2010 05:38 Yurebis wrote:
Well regarding my opinion on what should be legal or not, you probably know what I think already. If those teamsters coerced people, then whoever's responsible should be tried of course, not due to monopoly or fierce competition, but for organized crime... any other reason is bs.
Any ex-post reason is also bs to me, but I don't think it's relevant for me to elaborate atm. I will however look deeper on the issue, because you seem to be educated and I respect that. (even if I don't give a fuck to its conclusions)
Answering the questions:
1- No economists advocate against something they were for in the past, because they don't want to be seen as inconsistent...? They are paid off? They like government intervention?
2- The value doubled because after the break up, they're enjoying higher prices.
3- You mean the economical witches cooked up some formulas that showed the alternate universe where Standard Oil dominated the whole world? Well I don't believe it to be true for a second. They can't even know what the market price is even supposed to be, let alone predict how the market would behave without any intervention. Every damn prediction is biased, especially the ex-post rationalizations for state intervention.
1- That doesn't even make sense. Even economists that were against the breakup itself prior and during the proceedings didn't advocate for a re-amalgamation afterwards.
2- No.
3- Economists are witches with magical formulas when they don't agree with you, but economists when mises likes their positions.
Its interesting to note how your deficit in historical and economic knowledge has influenced your debating style throughout this thread, but this Standard Oil tangent made it strikingly obvious how much you rely on a very narrow set of facts and theorists to make your point.
Oh well. Later.
|
On September 20 2010 06:11 L wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 05:38 Yurebis wrote:
Well regarding my opinion on what should be legal or not, you probably know what I think already. If those teamsters coerced people, then whoever's responsible should be tried of course, not due to monopoly or fierce competition, but for organized crime... any other reason is bs.
Any ex-post reason is also bs to me, but I don't think it's relevant for me to elaborate atm. I will however look deeper on the issue, because you seem to be educated and I respect that. (even if I don't give a fuck to its conclusions)
Answering the questions:
1- No economists advocate against something they were for in the past, because they don't want to be seen as inconsistent...? They are paid off? They like government intervention?
2- The value doubled because after the break up, they're enjoying higher prices.
3- You mean the economical witches cooked up some formulas that showed the alternate universe where Standard Oil dominated the whole world? Well I don't believe it to be true for a second. They can't even know what the market price is even supposed to be, let alone predict how the market would behave without any intervention. Every damn prediction is biased, especially the ex-post rationalizations for state intervention. 1- That doesn't even make sense. Even economists that were against the breakup itself prior and during the proceedings didn't advocate for a re-amalgamation afterwards. 2- No. 3- Economists are witches with magical formulas when they don't agree with you, but economists when mises likes their positions. Its interesting to note how your deficit in historical and economic knowledge has influenced your debating style throughout this thread, but this Standard Oil tangent made it strikingly obvious how much you rely on a very narrow set of facts and theorists to make your point. Oh well. Later.
Not rly, it's just been your word against DiLorenzo. I already said I don't give a shit about empiricism.
And you obviously don't know the difference between econometrics and economics. but its k L, I will try to study more and rescue u! Because I <3 u... 
|
I'm reading this and shit, and it sounds to me that the whole court case was not based on any empirical or economical evaluation on the damages done. It was an ad-nauseum elaboration on why they think SO practiced "undue restraints" of sorts. Disappointing to say the least.
I think that it is "undue" of you L, to use a court ruling which took no economical considerations, to claim that it was economically desirable for SO to be broken up. It wasn't something the courts wanted to know. That it was a 90% monopoly (lol) was only a legal condition for it to be Sherman Act'd. Anti-Trusted up their ass'.
Can you give me econometrics links analyzing how life would have been terrible with SO still alive, so I can have a good laugh?
Also now I understand your claim that the sherman act was the silent inhibitor of SO, but if u look at the penalties, it's only like $5k (which would have been like $500k though ofc, and 1 year of imprisonment max. I think mr. Rockefeller and friends didn't give much of a fuck for that but okay. I mean, the man did come out of the breakage as the richest man in the world... did he even serve jailtime? I doubt lol.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 20 2010 08:46 Yurebis wrote:Not rly, it's just been your word against DiLorenzo. I already said I don't give a shit about empiricism. And you obviously don't know the difference between econometrics and economics. but its k L, I will try to study more and rescue u! Because I <3 u...
You're better off giving up. Clearly state your difference of opinion and move on.
Sometimes, I wonder if he comprehends my arguments at all. Maybe it's all too foreign a PoV.
|
On September 20 2010 21:33 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 08:46 Yurebis wrote:Not rly, it's just been your word against DiLorenzo. I already said I don't give a shit about empiricism. And you obviously don't know the difference between econometrics and economics. but its k L, I will try to study more and rescue u! Because I <3 u... You're better off giving up. Clearly state your difference of opinion and move on. Sometimes, I wonder if he comprehends my arguments at all. Maybe it's all too foreign a PoV.
He does comprehend, how could he not. He obviously spent more time on this subject than you or me so he should be acknowledged for that much; however that doesn't give him supreme authority over what happened - over what caused what, and over what would happen otherwise. Which is why I'm asking for sources and trying to point flaws in his argument (while he does the same to mine).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
