|
basically id like him to source these
On September 20 2010 03:17 L wrote:
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.
I think #2 is particularly alarming because I searched all the court papers I could find for price figures and found none.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 20 2010 21:54 Yurebis wrote:
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).
I don't see it. I started with a post about how anti-trust legislation weakens competition in the markets.
Now, I'm getting a history lesson on how competition was messy, cut-throat, and occasionally involved some corruption. I know that already. Or I'm getting some posts about anti-trust laws promoting FAIRNESS - meaning poor performing firms could stay in the businesses - the definition of weak competitive behavior. Or it's about firms raising their prices to be less competitive and avoid litigation under anti-trust laws, and then extolling the virtues of those laws when breaking up the firms under anti-trust legislation lowered the very high prices that it induced.
On predatory pricing (hyper-competitive behavior now being branded as anti-competitive behavior), L is poo-pooing the entire body of work by economists. Strangely he followed that up with great disapproval of your dismissal of work by most economists. LOL
|
I've only read a dozen pages of this thread, so I'm sorry if these questions have already been answered.
In unrestrained capitalism, what prevents slavery? If one company becomes large enough, and wealthy enough, couldn't they simply waltz into a town with a private army and force every man, woman, and child to work for them at gunpoint? Slavery is by far the most economical model of production; without intervention, wouldn't corporations naturally trend towards it?
Also, didn't we see this (anarcho-capitalist) model in action during the 1800s to early 1900s? I don't recall reading that the concept of the "company town" was a particularly positive one, especially the idea of company mercenaries shooting workers who went on strike (not to mention dangerous and unsanitary living and working conditions for the sake of maximizing profit.) Without intervention, what prevents the "company town" scenario from occurring on a more massive, and more socially devastating, scale? http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyd.company.town Clearly, the risk of worker uprising did not deter the companies in these cases from flagrantly mistreating people.
|
Hate to bump this thread, but thank you for posting that, accaris. Most an-cap proponents ignore history in favor of pure theory, and ignore reality in general, for that matter, as demonstrated in the last 50 pages of posts.
|
On September 21 2010 03:49 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 21:54 Yurebis wrote:
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). I don't see it. I started with a post about how anti-trust legislation weakens competition in the markets. Now, I'm getting a history lesson on how competition was messy, cut-throat, and occasionally involved some corruption. I know that already. Or I'm getting some posts about anti-trust laws promoting FAIRNESS - meaning poor performing firms could stay in the businesses - the definition of weak competitive behavior. Or it's about firms raising their prices to be less competitive and avoid litigation under anti-trust laws, and then extolling the virtues of those laws when breaking up the firms under anti-trust legislation lowered the very high prices that it induced. On predatory pricing (hyper-competitive behavior now being branded as anti-competitive behavior), L is poo-pooing the entire body of work by economists. Strangely he followed that up with great disapproval of your dismissal of work by most economists. LOL
I agree with you on theory but L doesn't want to debate theory, he wants to expose what he thinks is a concrete instance where not only did the market utterly fail, but the government improved the situation thereof. We know a-priori that it can't be the case, but L is sure of it, so, nothing will change his mind until this is refuted.
Also it is very common for mainstream economists today to contradict their micro with macro and vice versa, so I don't think you should blame him for that either. Mainstream micro does tend to agree that antitrust is BS, but modern macro says that the state can lend a hand and make up for market error with some central planning...
|
On September 21 2010 04:36 accaris wrote:
In unrestrained capitalism, what prevents slavery? If one company becomes large enough, and wealthy enough, couldn't they simply waltz into a town with a private army and force every man, woman, and child to work for them at gunpoint? Slavery is by far the most economical model of production; without intervention, wouldn't corporations naturally trend towards it?
It's not the most economical model of production... it is far more efficient to have willing slaves, the type which does not revolt, does not suffer in efficiency, takes care of himself, and comes back for more.
It would not be feasible for a company to try and coerce a whole population that sees it for the thugs they are. The population would resist, retaliate, not allowing the thugs to get everything for free. Retaliation accrues huge costs for the aggressor, and the more he does it, the more likely he is to get fully retaliated upon. Even if he's able to subjulgate the population, and bear the huge costs from keeping the guns pointed day after day, year after year, the slaves will be underperforming and limited in their market actions, as compared to a statist system; they'll earn and accumulate much less capital. So the thugs would have even less to earn as compared to a legitimized state...
And talking about states, the state is already such a company. It is able to split a whole countries' GDP in half for itself, with less than one cop or tax collector per 100 heads. So yeah. They're the pros at doing what you proposed.
On September 21 2010 04:36 accaris wrote:Also, didn't we see this (anarcho-capitalist) model in action during the 1800s to early 1900s? I don't recall reading that the concept of the "company town" was a particularly positive one, especially the idea of company mercenaries shooting workers who went on strike (not to mention dangerous and unsanitary living and working conditions for the sake of maximizing profit.) Without intervention, what prevents the "company town" scenario from occurring on a more massive, and more socially devastating, scale? http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyd.company.town Clearly, the risk of worker uprising did not deter the companies in these cases from flagrantly mistreating people.
People can't move out? People moved IN knowing that could happen? What were the alternatives? What could the state have done to help them that they couldn't do it themselves? The state could rob them money to pay for cops, okay, but then, can't they just pay cops themselves too? (edit: maybe they're not allowed to hire other cops there...)
I will read more about that. But I don't take anything at face value.
Edit: Dude your own website says
What can be said about the company town is that it does not appear to have risen to the level of exploitation many commentators have assumed. As Fishback concludes coal miners were able to protect themselves from exploitation through the use of both "voice and exit." They could engage in collective action through strikes, and joining a union, or through individual actions such as quitting and moving to a better location. Thus the functioning of a competitive labor market could blunt the worst aspects of the company town.
So gee, exactly that which I said, if they can leave, how can they be that exploitative? They can't, it's just a matter of market choice. People who moved in to those cities probably had no where else better to go, in which case, it is still a good thing, yes, it is a good thing that there was such a better place to which they could choose to go in the first place.
That they vanished in popularity doesn't mean the market doesn't work. It just means it wasn't made into a successful business model. It can still be a good idea in other circumstances, or it needs a little bit of improvement, who knows. I certainly don't because I haven't studied enough of the subject yet.
I think managing a whole town is too big of a business for one company alone. Maybe thats one of the reasons.
|
On September 21 2010 04:49 Tuneful wrote:
Hate to bump this thread, but thank you for posting that, accaris. Most an-cap proponents ignore history in favor of pure theory, and ignore reality in general, for that matter, as demonstrated in the last 50 pages of posts.
The study of history too, depends on a theory to analyze it. A historian without a theory is a boat without a compass.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 21 2010 04:36 accaris wrote:I've only read a dozen pages of this thread, so I'm sorry if these questions have already been answered. In unrestrained capitalism, what prevents slavery? If one company becomes large enough, and wealthy enough, couldn't they simply waltz into a town with a private army and force every man, woman, and child to work for them at gunpoint? Slavery is by far the most economical model of production; without intervention, wouldn't corporations naturally trend towards it? Also, didn't we see this (anarcho-capitalist) model in action during the 1800s to early 1900s? I don't recall reading that the concept of the "company town" was a particularly positive one, especially the idea of company mercenaries shooting workers who went on strike (not to mention dangerous and unsanitary living and working conditions for the sake of maximizing profit.) Without intervention, what prevents the "company town" scenario from occurring on a more massive, and more socially devastating, scale? http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyd.company.town Clearly, the risk of worker uprising did not deter the companies in these cases from flagrantly mistreating people.
Slavery is the best source of manual labor. If any amount of skill or creativity is involved slavery fails hard. The more skill or creativity is involved, the harder it will fail.
Otherwise, you are right. Anarchy places people at the mercy of the prevailing moral code. If enough people believe might make right, that is what will happen.
|
Hello guys, I haven't been part of this discussion yet, and it feels like I'm intruding.
However, I'm a firm believer in Occam's razor. Admittedly I haven't read all 50 pages (only the first few and the last few), and some people have said somewhat similar things, but I don't know if anyone shares my viewpoint exactly.
Anyway, short and sweet, here's why anarcho-capitalism doesn't occur in the world (I know that's not the question posed by the title, but it's the de facto question that is a prerequisite for the more amorphous one posed):
Capitalists have "invested" in democracy. That is, in societies where capitalism comes along with other freedoms, including the freedom to govern themselves, people will prefer a centralized government that has the power to legislate and enforce laws for the protection of society.
It's not that anarchy doesn't work, it's that people do not prefer it to democracy for the protection of their fundamental rights.
|
On September 21 2010 05:39 MannerMan wrote:
Hello guys, I haven't been part of this discussion yet, and it feels like I'm intruding.
However, I'm a firm believer in Occam's razor. Admittedly I haven't read all 50 pages (only the first few and the last few), and some people have said somewhat similar things, but I don't know if anyone shares my viewpoint exactly.
Anyway, short and sweet, here's why anarcho-capitalism doesn't occur in the world (I know that's not the question posed by the title, but it's the de facto question that is a prerequisite for the more amorphous one posed):
Capitalists have "invested" in democracy. That is, in societies where capitalism comes along with other freedoms, including the freedom to govern themselves, people will prefer a centralized government that has the power to legislate and enforce laws for the protection of society.
It's not that anarchy doesn't work, it's that people do not prefer it to democracy for the protection of their fundamental rights.
Ok, and slave apologists "invested" in slavery in the past, monarchists "invested" in monarchy, despots in despotism etc. etc.
That's not occam's razor, that's just a tautology, what is, is. I don't think you can answer a question of human organization that easily.
On September 21 2010 05:36 TanGeng wrote:
Otherwise, you are right. Anarchy places people at the mercy of the prevailing moral code. If enough people believe might make right, that is what will happen.
Yes, but at that, so is any other system, fancy constitutional democracies included.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
The company town seems like the vertical integration of the labor force, providing everything from rooming and boarding and recreation. I believe the Lowell Mills used to run under such a model. Japanese corporations used to run under such a model.
It can work to a certain degree and definitely has its own cultural ramifications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
