free market economy. is it real?

You should want some government control over the economy and corporations.Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]You should want some government control over the economy and corporations.GuardianGI

the real issue is corporate control of the government. we need to put in place some strict lobbying laws along the lines of just flat out not allowing corporations to do it.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]You should want some government control over the economy and corporations.GuardianGI

Yes you do. :|

Yes, it's real.jointed

it is not. read basic economics. the government controls both the lowest pice and the highest price you can sell a product .

You should want some government control over the economy and corporations.Engrish_Major

Yar I don't think people would like an economy with no restrictions.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]You should want some government control over the economy and corporations.GuardianGI

We've learned since the Industrial Revolution that some government controls are necessary. You don't want the corporations making all the rules.

[QUOTE="jointed"]Yes, it's real.Iron_gator

it is not. read basic economics. the government controls both the lowest pice and the highest price you can sell a product .

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

[QUOTE="GuardianGI"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]You should want some government control over the economy and corporations.H8sMikeMoore

the real issue is corporate control of the government. we need to put in place some strict lobbying laws along the lines of just flat out not allowing corporations to do it.

This too. We disagree on where some of the power should be, but he still knows what he's talking about. Too much power on one side or the other is a bad thing.

[QUOTE="jointed"]Yes, it's real.Iron_gator

it is not. read basic economics. the government controls both the lowest pice and the highest price you can sell a product .

I've already read "basic economics" thank you very much. Do you know what economic equilibrium is? Government regulations are in most cases put in place to strengthen the competitiveness, fairness and effectiveness of the market. Any market which operates under capitalistic principles is free, it's just a question of how much or how little government regulations affects it.

[QUOTE="Iron_gator"]

[QUOTE="jointed"]Yes, it's real.xscrapzx

it is not. read basic economics. the government controls both the lowest pice and the highest price you can sell a product .

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

[/QUOTE

OK then. there is more than one corporation making the same product. if one corporation starts to screw you out of your money that same product is available from somewhere else.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Iron_gator"]

[QUOTE="jointed"]Yes, it's real.Iron_gator

it is not. read basic economics. the government controls both the lowest pice and the highest price you can sell a product .

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

[/QUOTE

OK then. there is more than one corporation making the same product. if one corporation starts to screw you out of your money that same product is available from somewhere else.

Ya but see here is the issue that would be called a monoply, which a monoply is legal, but there are standards and regulations that they have to follow in order for that situation that you just mentioned not to happen.

There is currently no free market economy of note in the world.

Government intervention on pricing is made null and void as long as competition is kept reasonably healthy. The government intervention that we currently have does just as much to hinder helpful market trends as it does to promote the wellbeing of it's constituants.

Public school is a great example. In order for a private school to effectively compete with public education they have to charge much more per capita and offer more. In order to survive, a private school HAS to take on a business model of a premium product. Essentially this is a barrier to entry and more or less guarantees public school will have the great majority of the market share. Since public schooling attendence is widely dictated by lack of competition and manditory attendence, their product (education) quality suffers.

To put so much blame on business is a bit misleading too. Union Lobbyests do just as much to sway the political landscape as Corporate Lobbyests. It would be assinine to think that consumers aren't paying for the wages and benefits that have been won over the years. It's also often the case that the "protection" that a union member gets is more from the union than from the execs. Union tactics are quite similiar to the tactics used by the mob. Rightly so, since the mobs taught the unions how to produce results.

I've rambled enough. Let the flaming begin.

[QUOTE="Iron_gator"]

[QUOTE="jointed"]Yes, it's real.xscrapzx

it is not. read basic economics. the government controls both the lowest pice and the highest price you can sell a product .

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

[QUOTE="GuardianGI"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]You should want some government control over the economy and corporations.Engrish_Major

We've learned since the Industrial Revolution that some government controls are necessary. You don't want the corporations making all the rules.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

GuardianGI

It has nothing to do with an Eeevil corporation as you say, which I didn't even imply in my previous post, but thats ok. :roll: I simply stated that you don't have some regulation then competition will fall apart, and the products you buy will lack the quality that it would have if it was regulated. Meaning corporations would be able to jack up prices, kill the competition with a better quality lower priced product.

[QUOTE="Iron_gator"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Iron_gator"]

[QUOTE="jointed"]Yes, it's real.xscrapzx

it is not. read basic economics. the government controls both the lowest pice and the highest price you can sell a product .

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

[/QUOTE

OK then. there is more than one corporation making the same product. if one corporation starts to screw you out of your money that same product is available from somewhere else.

Ya but see here is the issue that would be called a monoply, which a monoply is legal, but there are standards and regulations that they have to follow in order for that situation that you just mentioned not to happen.

government services are monopolies.

also to make a point on what the other guy said about going somewhere else for the same product. its important to note that we need to make sure patents arent legal.

[QUOTE="Iron_gator"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Iron_gator"]

[QUOTE="jointed"]Yes, it's real.xscrapzx

it is not. read basic economics. the government controls both the lowest pice and the highest price you can sell a product .

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

[/QUOTE

OK then. there is more than one corporation making the same product. if one corporation starts to screw you out of your money that same product is available from somewhere else.

Ya but see here is the issue that would be called a monoply, which a monoply is legal, but there are standards and regulations that they have to follow in order for that situation that you just mentioned not to happen.

government services are monopolies.

also to make a point on what the other guy said about going somewhere else for the same product. its important to note that we need to make sure patents arent legal.

There is currently no free market economy of note in the world.

Government intervention on pricing is made null and void as long as competition is kept reasonably healthy. The government intervention that we currently have does just as much to hinder helpful market trends as it does to promote the wellbeing of it's constituants.

Public school is a great example. In order for a private school to effectively compete with public education they have to charge much more per capita and offer more. In order to survive, a private school HAS to take on a business model of a premium product. Essentially this is a barrier to entry and more or less guarantees public school will have the great majority of the market share. Since public schooling attendence is widely dictated by lack of competition and manditory attendence, their product (education) quality suffers.

To put so much blame on business is a bit misleading too. Union Lobbyests do just as much to sway the political landscape as Corporate Lobbyests. It would be assinine to think that consumers aren't paying for the wages and benefits that have been won over the years. It's also often the case that the "protection" that a union member gets is more from the union than from the execs. Union tactics are quite similiar to the tactics used by the mob. Rightly so, since the mobs taught the unions how to produce results.

I've rambled enough. Let the flaming begin.

effthat

youre definitely right on unions.

I think people should have the right to unionize but i dont think they should get special treatment and i definitely think if the employer wants to say screw the union and just get a whole new workforce than that should be allowed too.

but no employer would do that because that would just be suicide trying to retrain all those people and then the ensueing boycott.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Iron_gator"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Iron_gator"]

[QUOTE="jointed"]Yes, it's real.H8sMikeMoore

it is not. read basic economics. the government controls both the lowest pice and the highest price you can sell a product .

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

[/QUOTE

OK then. there is more than one corporation making the same product. if one corporation starts to screw you out of your money that same product is available from somewhere else.

Ya but see here is the issue that would be called a monoply, which a monoply is legal, but there are standards and regulations that they have to follow in order for that situation that you just mentioned not to happen.

government services are monopolies.

also to make a point on what the other guy said about going somewhere else for the same product. its important to note that we need to make sure patents arent legal.

Not just government services are monopolies, if that was what you were trying to imply.

[QUOTE="GuardianGI"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

xscrapzx

It has nothing to do with an Eeevil corporation as you say, which I didn't even imply in my previous post, but thats ok. :roll: I simply stated that you don't have some regulation then competition will fall apart, and the products you buy will lack the quality that it would have if it was regulated. Meaning corporations would be able to jack up prices, kill the competition with a better quality lower priced product.

Can we call self owned yet?

The only piece of legislature that is continuously promoting a healthy economy is the anti-trust act. Every other piece does more to hinder the market from working effectively.

[QUOTE="GuardianGI"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

xscrapzx

It has nothing to do with an Eeevil corporation as you say, which I didn't even imply in my previous post, but thats ok. :roll: I simply stated that you don't have some regulation then competition will fall apart, and the products you buy will lack the quality that it would have if it was regulated. Meaning corporations would be able to jack up prices, kill the competition with a better quality lower priced product.

the internet is a pretty good example of few regulations.

Google dominates. But Google can be brought down so they still innovate. This is why Google is still awesome and hasnt given a worse product like real monopolies do.

[QUOTE="GuardianGI"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

xscrapzx

It has nothing to do with an Eeevil corporation as you say, which I didn't even imply in my previous post, but thats ok. :roll: I simply stated that you don't have some regulation then competition will fall apart, and the products you buy will lack the quality that it would have if it was regulated. Meaning corporations would be able to jack up prices, kill the competition with a better quality lower priced product.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Iron_gator"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Iron_gator"]

[QUOTE="jointed"]Yes, it's real.xscrapzx

it is not. read basic economics. the government controls both the lowest pice and the highest price you can sell a product .

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

[/QUOTE

OK then. there is more than one corporation making the same product. if one corporation starts to screw you out of your money that same product is available from somewhere else.

Ya but see here is the issue that would be called a monoply, which a monoply is legal, but there are standards and regulations that they have to follow in order for that situation that you just mentioned not to happen.

government services are monopolies.

also to make a point on what the other guy said about going somewhere else for the same product. its important to note that we need to make sure patents arent legal.

Not just government services are monopolies, if that was what you were trying to imply.

no, not just government services.

but a lot of monopolies are helped out by governments. i would say microsoft has a monopoly but they get subsidies for selling their product cheaper where people cant afford as much.

is that noble? No. but it sure sounds like it is.

If someone cant afford an operating system they should just get one of the free ones. theyre better anyway

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="GuardianGI"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

effthat

It has nothing to do with an Eeevil corporation as you say, which I didn't even imply in my previous post, but thats ok. :roll: I simply stated that you don't have some regulation then competition will fall apart, and the products you buy will lack the quality that it would have if it was regulated. Meaning corporations would be able to jack up prices, kill the competition with a better quality lower priced product.

Can we call self owned yet?

The only piece of legislature that is continuously promoting a healthy economy is the anti-trust act. Every other piece does more to hinder the market from working effectively.

How am I self owned? You need some regulationg and what you bolded is a perfect example, so I have no idea where you are coming from.

government services are monopolies.

also to make a point on what the other guy said about going somewhere else for the same product. its important to note that we need to make sure patents arent legal.

H8sMikeMoore

Just because something is a government service does not mean it is a monopoly.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

government services are monopolies.

also to make a point on what the other guy said about going somewhere else for the same product. its important to note that we need to make sure patents arent legal.

Engrish_Major

Just because something is a government service does not mean it is a monopoly.

it is if they dont allow competition for it. which is usually the case. phone company, post office for a long time etc

luckily both of those things arent anymore. but theres other things they offer such as social security which i think can be done better in a private sector. i mean youd be hard pressed to find someone that says social security isnt mismanaged.

[QUOTE="effthat"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="GuardianGI"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

xscrapzx

It has nothing to do with an Eeevil corporation as you say, which I didn't even imply in my previous post, but thats ok. :roll: I simply stated that you don't have some regulation then competition will fall apart, and the products you buy will lack the quality that it would have if it was regulated. Meaning corporations would be able to jack up prices, kill the competition with a better quality lower priced product.

Can we call self owned yet?

The only piece of legislature that is continuously promoting a healthy economy is the anti-trust act. Every other piece does more to hinder the market from working effectively.

How am I self owned? You need some regulationg and what you bolded is a perfect example, so I have no idea where you are coming from.

hes referring to the fact that you said the product will lack quality that it would have if it were regulated then you went and said corporations would offer better products for cheaper.

it is if they dont allow competition for it. which is usually the case. phone company, post office for a long time etc

luckily both of those things arent anymore. but theres other things they offer such as social security which i think can be done better in a private sector. i mean youd be hard pressed to find someone that says social security isnt mismanaged.

H8sMikeMoore

Sure it is mismanaged. And (although you have to pay social security) you can also invest other retirement savings elsewhere. And at least people aren't getting rich off of my social security money.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="GuardianGI"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

GuardianGI

It has nothing to do with an Eeevil corporation as you say, which I didn't even imply in my previous post, but thats ok. :roll: I simply stated that you don't have some regulation then competition will fall apart, and the products you buy will lack the quality that it would have if it was regulated. Meaning corporations would be able to jack up prices, kill the competition with a better quality lower priced product.

No not if the big corporations who have the power put an end to the competition.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

it is if they dont allow competition for it. which is usually the case. phone company, post office for a long time etc

luckily both of those things arent anymore. but theres other things they offer such as social security which i think can be done better in a private sector. i mean youd be hard pressed to find someone that says social security isnt mismanaged.

Engrish_Major

Sure it is mismanaged. And (although you have to pay social security) you can also invest other retirement savings elsewhere. And at least people aren't getting rich off of my social security money.

well you could say politicians are getting rich off of it.

i would love for it to be an average joe from some company. average joe is much more reliable in my opinion. especially considering hes not on a term, hes there until his work suffers.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="effthat"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="GuardianGI"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

H8sMikeMoore

It has nothing to do with an Eeevil corporation as you say, which I didn't even imply in my previous post, but thats ok. :roll: I simply stated that you don't have some regulation then competition will fall apart, and the products you buy will lack the quality that it would have if it was regulated. Meaning corporations would be able to jack up prices, kill the competition that had a better quality lower priced product.

Can we call self owned yet?

The only piece of legislature that is continuously promoting a healthy economy is the anti-trust act. Every other piece does more to hinder the market from working effectively.

How am I self owned? You need some regulationg and what you bolded is a perfect example, so I have no idea where you are coming from.

hes referring to the fact that you said the product will lack quality that it would have if it were regulated then you went and said corporations would offer better products for cheaper.

I made a frigin typo!!!!!!!!

I made a frigin typo!!!!!!!!

xscrapzx

He made a typo.

GET HIM!

[QUOTE="effthat"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="GuardianGI"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

xscrapzx

It has nothing to do with an Eeevil corporation as you say, which I didn't even imply in my previous post, but thats ok. :roll: I simply stated that you don't have some regulation then competition will fall apart, and the products you buy will lack the quality that it would have if it was regulated. Meaning corporations would be able to jack up prices, kill the competition with a better quality lower priced product.

Can we call self owned yet?

The only piece of legislature that is continuously promoting a healthy economy is the anti-trust act. Every other piece does more to hinder the market from working effectively.

How am I self owned? You need some regulationg and what you bolded is a perfect example, so I have no idea where you are coming from.

You're self owned because you're spouting contradicting gibberish.

A company CAN'T jack up it's price unless there is zero competition AND barrier to entry beyond pricing. More importantly a company cannot afford to survive a pricing war unless they're an existing monopoly AND there are enough barriers to entry to allow the firm to gather enough capital to survive the next war.

You are putting FAR too much stock in the dollar and completely avoiding value.

In the end, the quality of a successful product is decided by market forces. So it makes zero sense to regulate product quality when it's already being regulated. The same goes for price.

As long as competition is healthy, everythingn else will take care of itself. If an industry collapses, it's because they is a better value and as that value takes market share, the jobs that were lost are replenished. As far as the basis of wages, the value of the dollar has a lot to do with the average wage. Any purchase is an exchange of value, and as such product pricing and wages are very closely connected. In a sense, the more you make the more you have to pay. The less you make, the less you have to pay.

Now some lilly livered liberal is going to come in and say "but that's not fair! this person is making more than this person!", and they would be almost right!

Just like any other purchase, wage is a trade in value. The same market forces are it work in the workforce. If a custodian is charging $15 a toilet and you get a guy who says he can do it for $12, it's an obvious choice! At some point you don't make enough money to clean toilets.

The skills of a fortune 500 CEO are few and far between. As such, it makes sense to pay bill gates 10 million a year when he manages a company so that it brings in 10 billion in revenue.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="effthat"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="GuardianGI"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

effthat

It has nothing to do with an Eeevil corporation as you say, which I didn't even imply in my previous post, but thats ok. :roll: I simply stated that you don't have some regulation then competition will fall apart, and the products you buy will lack the quality that it would have if it was regulated. Meaning corporations would be able to jack up prices, kill the competition with a better quality lower priced product.

Can we call self owned yet?

The only piece of legislature that is continuously promoting a healthy economy is the anti-trust act. Every other piece does more to hinder the market from working effectively.

How am I self owned? You need some regulationg and what you bolded is a perfect example, so I have no idea where you are coming from.

You're self owned because you're spouting contradicting gibberish.

A company CAN'T jack up it's price unless there is zero competition AND barrier to entry beyond pricing. More importantly a company cannot afford to survive a pricing war unless they're an existing monopoly AND there are enough barriers to entry to allow the firm to gather enough capital to survive the next war.

You are putting FAR too much stock in the dollar and completely avoiding value.

In the end, the quality of a successful product is decided by market forces. So it makes zero sense to regulate product quality when it's already being regulated. The same goes for price.

As long as competition is healthy, everythingn else will take care of itself. If an industry collapses, it's because they is a better value and as that value takes market share, the jobs that were lost are replenished. As far as the basis of wages, the value of the dollar has a lot to do with the average wage. Any purchase is an exchange of value, and as such product pricing and wages are very closely connected. In a sense, the more you make the more you have to pay. The less you make, the less you have to pay.

Now some lilly livered liberal is going to come in and say "but that's not fair! this person is making more than this person!", and they would be almost right!

Just like any other purchase, wage is a trade in value. The same market forces are it work in the workforce. If a custodian is charging $15 a toilet and you get a guy who says he can do it for $12, it's an obvious choice! At some point you don't make enough money to clean toilets.

The skills of a fortune 500 CEO are few and far between. As such, it makes sense to pay bill gates 10 million a year when he manages a company so that it brings in 10 billion in revenue.

Hey I made a typo, so you just wasted your whole time typing out that rediculously long post. Please scroll up a tad to see where I messed up. Thank you

[QUOTE="effthat"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="effthat"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="GuardianGI"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

Ok then take that way and let the corporations screw you even more out of your money then they can now. Makes sense :roll:

xscrapzx

It has nothing to do with an Eeevil corporation as you say, which I didn't even imply in my previous post, but thats ok. :roll: I simply stated that you don't have some regulation then competition will fall apart, and the products you buy will lack the quality that it would have if it was regulated. Meaning corporations would be able to jack up prices, kill the competition with a better quality lower priced product.

Can we call self owned yet?

The only piece of legislature that is continuously promoting a healthy economy is the anti-trust act. Every other piece does more to hinder the market from working effectively.

How am I self owned? You need some regulationg and what you bolded is a perfect example, so I have no idea where you are coming from.

You're self owned because you're spouting contradicting gibberish.

A company CAN'T jack up it's price unless there is zero competition AND barrier to entry beyond pricing. More importantly a company cannot afford to survive a pricing war unless they're an existing monopoly AND there are enough barriers to entry to allow the firm to gather enough capital to survive the next war.

You are putting FAR too much stock in the dollar and completely avoiding value.

In the end, the quality of a successful product is decided by market forces. So it makes zero sense to regulate product quality when it's already being regulated. The same goes for price.

As long as competition is healthy, everythingn else will take care of itself. If an industry collapses, it's because they is a better value and as that value takes market share, the jobs that were lost are replenished. As far as the basis of wages, the value of the dollar has a lot to do with the average wage. Any purchase is an exchange of value, and as such product pricing and wages are very closely connected. In a sense, the more you make the more you have to pay. The less you make, the less you have to pay.

Now some lilly livered liberal is going to come in and say "but that's not fair! this person is making more than this person!", and they would be almost right!

Just like any other purchase, wage is a trade in value. The same market forces are it work in the workforce. If a custodian is charging $15 a toilet and you get a guy who says he can do it for $12, it's an obvious choice! At some point you don't make enough money to clean toilets.

The skills of a fortune 500 CEO are few and far between. As such, it makes sense to pay bill gates 10 million a year when he manages a company so that it brings in 10 billion in revenue.

Hey I made a typo, so you just wasted your whole time typing out that rediculously long post. Please scroll up a tad to see where I messed up. Thank you

I dont think he wasted his time, I think he made some very excellent points.

Hey. I don't see a fixed typo that has anything to do with the fact that you're spouting contradicting gibberish and using circular logic.

Corporate takeover, just like Resident evil in a different way.Makemap

Where the zombies have free will and by definition aren't zombies?

Hey. I don't see a fixed typo that has anything to do with the fact that you're spouting contradicting gibberish and using circular logic.

effthat

Listen I used the wrong order of words and you interpeted them as such. I went back and reordered them correctly, I meant say Meaning corporations would be able to jack up prices and kill the competition that had a better quality lower priced product. How is that contradicting what I originally posted? It goes by exactly what I said in the first place. So clearly you are having a trouble reading what I was trying to say.

EDIT: What I meant by my orginal post was that without some regulation such as the anti-trust act, competition would not be around, hence why I said what I said. Its just the way I typed it that makes you believe I contradicted myself which I will agree I did, until I noticed that I didn't type it correctly.

[QUOTE="effthat"]

Hey. I don't see a fixed typo that has anything to do with the fact that you're spouting contradicting gibberish and using circular logic.

xscrapzx

Listen I used the wrong order of words and you interpeted them as such. I went back and reordered them correctly, I meant say Meaning corporations would be able to jack up prices and kill the competition that had a better quality lower priced product. How is that contradicting what I originally posted? It goes by exactly what I said in the first place. So clearly you are having a trouble reading what I was trying to say.

Because a better quality, lower priced product is going to win the competition when it's put head to head against a poor quality product at a higher price point.

In order to topple the competition it would first have to set up a price war to sustain record losses in order to drive the other business out. However, once the company comes back and raises prices, a new competitor comes in to take it's place. The cycle repeats until the corporation loses the price war.

It's contradicting gibberish that assumes that a barrier to entry magically appears. Your magically fairy economy is operating in a vacuum.

[QUOTE="Makemap"]Corporate takeover, just like Resident evil in a different way.effthat

Where the zombies have free will and by definition aren't zombies?

I said, different way.

I admit that the anti-trust act is a powerful tool that helps sustain competition, but that doesn't mean that without it competition didn't exist.

Market forces encourage competition all on their own and barriers to entry are few and far between. When a real monopoly DOES come up, it is often the case that they are the ONLY providers of a brand new product and as such, are doing the public a service regardless of the price.

I admit that the anti-trust act is a powerful tool that helps sustain competition, but that doesn't mean that without it competition didn't exist.

Market forces encourage competition all on their own and barriers to entry are few and far between. When a real monopoly DOES come up, it is often the case that they are the ONLY providers of a brand new product and as such, are doing the public a service regardless of the price.

effthat

Not necessarily. The anti-trust laws were made in reaction to companies such as Carnegie steel and Standard Oil. Companies begin horizontal and vertical integration practices, which create barriers to entry regardless of innovation.

[QUOTE="effthat"]

I admit that the anti-trust act is a powerful tool that helps sustain competition, but that doesn't mean that without it competition didn't exist.

Market forces encourage competition all on their own and barriers to entry are few and far between. When a real monopoly DOES come up, it is often the case that they are the ONLY providers of a brand new product and as such, are doing the public a service regardless of the price.

Engrish_Major

Not necessarily. The anti-trust laws were made in reaction to companies such as Carnegie steel and Standard Oil. Companies begin horizontal and vertical integration practices, which create barriers to entry regardless of innovation.

It's only a barrier to entry after an event horizon. If a company gets TOO far ahead of the competition then there is a restructuring and the industy more or less becomes a conglomerate. However, smart business practice would be to not allow your competition to gain enough market share to bump you out.

I'd also like to point out that both of these examples are concerning a non-renewable product that is difficult to gather. Scarcity of the product is most certainly a barrier to entry and as such has to potential to grow a monopoly. It's these rare cases that an anti-trust company is useful. However, not necessary. In this case, without government intervention, market forces would have pushed for innovation in building supplies and means of creating energy.

In a way, Anti-trust laws are the cause of turmoil in the middle east.

There is currently no free market economy of note in the world.

effthat