You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Attacks On (Dystopian) Amazon Are Un-American?
What allows monopolies to exist is government. Don't like monopolies? Downsize governments.
Many are falling for this "money making mantra", and this is pretty sad.
How much money are you going to make, posting this crap? Such a fucking hypocrite.
The biggest idiocy is balling up governments as one uniform thing, such that "it allows monopolies" to exist, and to logic from that that downsizing government will make monopolies go away, somehow, even though there's no way in hell to demonstrate any of the stupid insinuations such thoughts brought up. You've been harassing this account for over a year now, commenting nothing but hostile remarks and sentiments, trolling them religiously and each time I've confronted you about it there wasn't any remorse let alone hint of sensibility for your actions. I don't agree with everything they say but I will match your dedication and use all my SP to bury your account, no hard feelings K.
Agree... they wont go away even if the gov is downsized because they control the government regardless of the size the latter. This is a 2 headed hydra. Corporations have always had their political straw men. High level politicians aware of the issue do not last long if they refuse to play the puppets.
ps It is easy to harass people when one does not have any website with an email address. On top of that he does not bring up any arguments since he always defends corporations, from pesticides to unlimited nuclear waste and slave labor. I gave him 2 months to explain himself and now i am done. He is a troll
Monopolies that are not outright government controlled, such as utilities, are usually granted to certain corporations as political favors.
There are no other type of monopolies.
https://www.investopedia.com/insights/history-of-us-monopolies/
Your own words betray your conclusion, because if there aren't any other type of monopolies then you wouldn't say "are usually " which leaves open the "unusual", which you leave no room for when you concluded with your usual idiotic nonsense. (FYI, idiotic nonsense is Bullshit squared)
The conclusion is sound. I mentioned two types of monopolies. They fall into one or the other category. I said "usually granted as political favors" because the government may grant them for other reasons. Derpaderp, my name is Baah...let me try to lie about what was written in the previous post
Why can't you woo woo promoters read?
The woo woo police claims I lied, how cute. Tell me again how Amazon isn't a monopoly, or that
LeSs GoVeRnAmEnT iS hOw YoU sToP mOnOpOlIes.
That's cute, so tell me what category MS falls in or Standard Oil, or in this case Amazon. Obviously monopoly outside government can't exist to you and the natural formation of a monopoly doesn't factor into your absurd conclusion, nor the fact that antitrust laws and governments have been the most direct form of breaking up monopolies.
Microsoft is a monopoly of special grants of government called copyrights. And amazon, how is that a monopoly? In retail sales? They make up only maybe 2-3% of non big ticket items. Walmart sales is like 3 times as big.
Standard oil was an interesting story. It makes me consider that there is indeed a third kind of monopoly, a free market efficiency monopoly. It efficiently brought good to market, so that its declining prices compared to competitors gained it its market share. At the peak of this monopoly, kerosene prices were at their lowest. Consumers were helped, not harmed by this action. Soon afterwards, Standard's market share steadily dropped from competition and changing market conditions, and then finally was carved up. I always considered Rockefeller's deals with the government subsidized railroads as a government favor. And for this reason I considered it a government aided monopoly. But is seemed all oil refiners made deals with railroads. It was just that Rockefeller was more shrewd.
Yes, I can see there being a third type of efficient free market monopoly, not made by coercion, but by bringing better products efficiently to market. This is pretty much true of every large successful business not leaning on government subsidies. They never seem to last long as competitors overtake them, or government subsidized businesses can out-spend them.
Thanks for expanding my thought process.
Microsoft is a state aided monopoly because of copyright and patents? As if there's not more efficient, secure and FREE alternative, yet who will develop software for Linux or let alone video games, despite that their monopoly has absofuckinlutely nothing to do with copyrights or patents.
Who controls the pricing of books?
aMaZoN. Check mate
Standard Oil was broken up by government, the point wasn't that they undercut the competition or that it was beneficial to consumers.
As for other examples of natural monopoly look into The Vend.
Yes, if microsoft didn't hold government guarantees that their software can't be competed against, they would not hold such a large market share. And indeed Linux, with its open source protocol, has taken over the server markets. It is a much more efficient model. Microsoft wouldn't stand a chance.
The consumer. Sorry Charlie.
Standard oil was broken up by government. But it was well on its way down. It lost its world market share in world market to the Russians, and it lost some of its home market due to the change to gasoline from kerosene due to the booming car industry. But until 1899, Standard oil cut the price to the consumer continually. That is what gave it its advantage.
In 1865, when Rockefeller’s market share was still minuscule, a gallon of kerosene cost 58 cents. In 1870, Standard’s market share was 4%, and a gallon cost 26 cents. By 1880, when Standard’s market share had skyrocketed to 90%, a gallon cost only 9 cents — and a decade later, with Standard’s market share still at 90%, the price was 7 cents. These data point to the real cause of Standard Oil’s success — its ability to charge the lowest prices by producing kerosene with unparalleled efficiency.
And Standard Oil's market share was dropping fast by the time it was broken up. In 1899, Standard held a 90% market share. By 1907, it was down to 68%. Just before it was broken up 4 years later, its market share was down to 64%. This was the result of competitors bringing cheap product to market.
The deluded ideology of "free market always prospers" has been expanded to substantiate itself in the denial that a monopoly by bringing better products to the market more efficiently lends itself to be destroyed by healthy competition, as if competition drops out of the sky and jackboots the monopoly with.. an even more efficient way.. because less government is how you stop monopolies..
It doesn't drop out of the sky. It is the result of other entrepreneurs studying your business plan and finding further tweaks that give them a slight advantage.
It is more difficult for an entrepreneur to overcome the advantages given by government to competitors. You have to watch your costs, they don't. So it is much harder to overcome a government sanctioned monopoly than a free market efficiency monopoly.
Woo woo is the magic of your "monopolies exist because of government and downsizing government makes monopolies go away". Because somehow people haven't cornered the market without the help of government and have bludgeoned the competition simply as @earthcustodians have mentioned, or naturally to secure shareholders quarterly profits.
No, woo woo is the term I use for all the metaphysical nonsense that gets touted as fact. For example, earthcustodian's "Laws of the Universe" or whatever she calls them. Just a bunch of conjectures which are supposed to make you feel good about the universe. And that by getting "in sync" with these nonexistent laws are supposed to get rid of all the problems of the world because ... reasons.
Reasons such as how healthy competition means cornering the market in one sector and that only happens because government, despite that the earliest reference to monopolies had nothing to do with subsidies, the woo woo of "less government means no monopolies". Wrong, monopolies can form from plain greed or first mover advantage and had the same characteristics of controlling an entire sector of the economy.
You can lololol all day at "nonexistent" laws of the universe, after all to you women's intuition is probably coincidental and you can reason away how Bill Meier has made hundreds of predictions.
Here a legal Maxim to give you a leg to stand on.
Citation, please.
Because the earliest "modern" monopolies in the 1500's were literally grants chartered by kings. Going back to the Roman empire, they were charters granted to Senators.
And I'm not really interested in discussing woo woo, its really boring.
The Law Of Vibration... every atom vibrates, emits a frequency... and THUS SOUND.... WORDS RESONATE... and INFLUENCE LIFE...
there is even SOUND THERAPY today... and sonograms...
try to disprove that... atheism is woo woo...
THE LAW OF VIBRATION IS REAL AND PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY... AND SO ARE ALL THE OTHER 6 LAWS... NATURAL LAWS MEANS LAWS THAT MAN DIDNT CREATE BUT CAN UNDERSTAND AS HOW THEY AFFECT LIFE
Every particle does indeed vibrate according to quantum mechanics. So what? They don't emit sound. Sound waves are pressure waves that travel through gas molecules. When you speak, you are exhaling air through your larynx which creates certain pressure waves that we understand as words. This has literally NOTHING to do with subatomic particle vibrations. There is no connection between the two phenomenon except in your mind because you want to believe your woo woo.
Again, sonograms are sound waves caused by pressure. And sound therapy is interesting, as sound (especially rhythm and music) does have effects on human physiology. But again, these are sound waves caused by pressure waves through a gas and have nothing to do with quantum level particle vibrations which you can't hear or sense in any way.
Taking a scientific fact and trying to bend it to some metaphysical claptrap without ANY evidence is dishonest.
The other "laws" you have mentioned are no different. They simply try to take scientific facts and dress them up with metaphysical woo woo.
No, it simply a negative position taken on the question of whether god/gods exist. Nothing more. It goes something like this:
You:"Do you think gods exist?"
Me: "No."