yeh yeah, but you know what I am refering too, the usual suspects.JohnG@lt wrote:
Please put 'liberals' in quotes. There's nothing liberal about most of their viewpoints.Nic wrote:
Really, with lowing, it always seemed to me that anytime a heated thread he was involved in was dying out, he would concede ever so slightly, and all the hardcore liberals would rush back in and the thread would get hot again. I always took it as a stratigic move to troll.
Complete opposite actually. A monopoly can not exist without government intervention and protection. Now, a company can eat up a large chunk of market share, yes, but that is generally short lived. Companies get too big and they become unwieldy and non-competitive.Dilbert_X wrote:
Governments generally work very hard to prevent monopolies occurring, otherwise they are the inevitable result of the 'free' market.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
This is true. Lay off him and he became more reasonable. And he was cool to talk to in PM's.burnzz wrote:
lowing was consistent, and even though he refused to concede anything to civility, you knew where he stood.http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 7#p3294397Macbeth wrote:
Lowing wasn't as far right as people probably think he was. Some of his views were fairly moderate.
i realized he could tone down the rhetoric if he thought there was a chance you would see his point of view. the funny thing is, in a way 11 Bravo is right - i bashed lowing for being 'thick-headed', and after we agreed to be civil personally, i found that his conservatism was not as extreme as his presentation of it.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
But, like dictatorships, it can take decades for monopolies to collapse under their own weight.JohnG@lt wrote:
Complete opposite actually. A monopoly can not exist without government intervention and protection. Now, a company can eat up a large chunk of market share, yes, but that is generally short lived. Companies get too big and they become unwieldy and non-competitive.Dilbert_X wrote:
Governments generally work very hard to prevent monopolies occurring, otherwise they are the inevitable result of the 'free' market.
Should we allow dictatorships and monopolies to periodically form and collapse solely to prove hands-off is the best way to steer a ship?
Fuck Israel
All the laws in the world won't stop human nature Dil...
meh
meh
The world is far too large and integrated now for a company to even approach monopoly status before collapsing.Dilbert_X wrote:
But, like dictatorships, it can take decades for monopolies to collapse under their own weight.JohnG@lt wrote:
Complete opposite actually. A monopoly can not exist without government intervention and protection. Now, a company can eat up a large chunk of market share, yes, but that is generally short lived. Companies get too big and they become unwieldy and non-competitive.Dilbert_X wrote:
Governments generally work very hard to prevent monopolies occurring, otherwise they are the inevitable result of the 'free' market.
Should we allow dictatorships and monopolies to periodically form and collapse solely to prove hands-off is the best way to steer a ship?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Far from it, Microsoft for example would be a total global monopoly but for govt intervention to prevent it stomping on all its rivals.
Fuck Israel
I don't think so.Dilbert_X wrote:
Far from it, Microsoft for example would be a total global monopoly but for govt intervention to prevent it stomping on all its rivals.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
watDilbert_X wrote:
Far from it, Microsoft for example would be a total global monopoly but for govt intervention to prevent it stomping on all its rivals.
Maybe the larger fact that they produced the biggest piece of shit version of Windows that helped that along. (Windows Vista).Dilbert_X wrote:
Far from it, Microsoft for example would be a total global monopoly but for govt intervention to prevent it stomping on all its rivals.
And if we've learned anything from politics, governments can be bought off.
Which is why monopolies tend to be self-sustaining once they reach critical mass.Harmor wrote:
And if we've learned anything from politics, governments can be bought off.
Fuck Israel
...Dilbert_X wrote:
Which is why monopolies tend to be self-sustaining once they reach critical mass.Harmor wrote:
And if we've learned anything from politics, governments can be bought off.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Uh... no. Local monopolies are pretty prevalent with or without government involvement.JohnG@lt wrote:
The world is far too large and integrated now for a company to even approach monopoly status before collapsing.Dilbert_X wrote:
But, like dictatorships, it can take decades for monopolies to collapse under their own weight.JohnG@lt wrote:
Complete opposite actually. A monopoly can not exist without government intervention and protection. Now, a company can eat up a large chunk of market share, yes, but that is generally short lived. Companies get too big and they become unwieldy and non-competitive.
Should we allow dictatorships and monopolies to periodically form and collapse solely to prove hands-off is the best way to steer a ship?
It's not a matter of controlling a country's market -- it's about controlling a city's market or a larger local region. Telecoms are pretty bad about it.
I suspect JG would argue that that is a result of govt intervention in the telecommunications market thoughTurquoise wrote:
Uh... no. Local monopolies are pretty prevalent with or without government involvement.JohnG@lt wrote:
The world is far too large and integrated now for a company to even approach monopoly status before collapsing.Dilbert_X wrote:
But, like dictatorships, it can take decades for monopolies to collapse under their own weight.
Should we allow dictatorships and monopolies to periodically form and collapse solely to prove hands-off is the best way to steer a ship?
It's not a matter of controlling a country's market -- it's about controlling a city's market or a larger local region. Telecoms are pretty bad about it.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Correct. In the name of 'stability' local governments often grant monopoly rights. Stability of course comes with its cut provided to the city's coffers (or the politician's pocket).Spark wrote:
I suspect JG would argue that that is a result of govt intervention in the telecommunications market thoughTurquoise wrote:
Uh... no. Local monopolies are pretty prevalent with or without government involvement.JohnG@lt wrote:
The world is far too large and integrated now for a company to even approach monopoly status before collapsing.
It's not a matter of controlling a country's market -- it's about controlling a city's market or a larger local region. Telecoms are pretty bad about it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Doesn't sound like you have much of a free market in the US at all.JohnG@lt wrote:
Correct. In the name of 'stability' local governments often grant monopoly rights. Stability of course comes with its cut provided to the city's coffers (or the politician's pocket).
Are you sure you're not in Russia?local governments often grant monopoly rights
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-09-22 05:53:47)
Fuck Israel
This is true to an extent... However, even without that, the barriers to entry for the telecom market would create a lot of monopolies and oligopolies all on their own.JohnG@lt wrote:
Correct. In the name of 'stability' local governments often grant monopoly rights. Stability of course comes with its cut provided to the city's coffers (or the politician's pocket).Spark wrote:
I suspect JG would argue that that is a result of govt intervention in the telecommunications market thoughTurquoise wrote:
Uh... no. Local monopolies are pretty prevalent with or without government involvement.
It's not a matter of controlling a country's market -- it's about controlling a city's market or a larger local region. Telecoms are pretty bad about it.
Sure, maybe if you're talking about direct competition on land lines. Competition spurs creation. If there was a static monopoly based market here in the US telecom industry the mobile phone would've never been invented. There would've been no need. Now we have things like MagicJack, internet phone services, Vonage, googles phone etc. And we have cell phones as well with multiple providers covering every area. Even satellite phones!Turquoise wrote:
This is true to an extent... However, even without that, the barriers to entry for the telecom market would create a lot of monopolies and oligopolies all on their own.JohnG@lt wrote:
Correct. In the name of 'stability' local governments often grant monopoly rights. Stability of course comes with its cut provided to the city's coffers (or the politician's pocket).Spark wrote:
I suspect JG would argue that that is a result of govt intervention in the telecommunications market though
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-22 05:57:01)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Let me put it this way... The infrastructure needed for most telecoms is extremely expensive. The Telecommunications Bill of 1996 would have opened up competition on this infrastructure, which would have helped the market, but.... even if it had passed, there's nothing keeping a handful of companies from buying up the infrastructure.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sure, maybe if you're talking about direct competition on land lines. Competition spurs creation. If there was a static monopoly based market here in the US telecom industry the mobile phone would've never been invented. There would've been no need. Now we have things like MagicJack, internet phone services, Vonage, googles phone etc. And we have cell phones as well with multiple providers covering every area.Turquoise wrote:
This is true to an extent... However, even without that, the barriers to entry for the telecom market would create a lot of monopolies and oligopolies all on their own.JohnG@lt wrote:
Correct. In the name of 'stability' local governments often grant monopoly rights. Stability of course comes with its cut provided to the city's coffers (or the politician's pocket).
For example, plenty of local governments allow companies to buy up all the cell towers in an area. Once that's done, competition is much slimmer.
Ideally, infrastructure such as towers would be publicly owned and open to all companies for use. Then, you'd have much more competition.
Turquoise, you're completely missing the point. Direct competition against a large, well established industry is futile. You can't fight apples with apples. Innovation comes along that makes previous technology obsolete and the new company has the chance to capitalize on it far faster than an older company can ever maneuver.Turquoise wrote:
Let me put it this way... The infrastructure needed for most telecoms is extremely expensive. The Telecommunications Bill of 1996 would have opened up competition on this infrastructure, which would have helped the market, but.... even if it had passed, there's nothing keeping a handful of companies from buying up the infrastructure.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sure, maybe if you're talking about direct competition on land lines. Competition spurs creation. If there was a static monopoly based market here in the US telecom industry the mobile phone would've never been invented. There would've been no need. Now we have things like MagicJack, internet phone services, Vonage, googles phone etc. And we have cell phones as well with multiple providers covering every area.Turquoise wrote:
This is true to an extent... However, even without that, the barriers to entry for the telecom market would create a lot of monopolies and oligopolies all on their own.
For example, plenty of local governments allow companies to buy up all the cell towers in an area. Once that's done, competition is much slimmer.
Ideally, infrastructure such as towers would be publicly owned and open to all companies for use. Then, you'd have much more competition.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The approach I just mentioned has worked wonders for South Korea's market. It could do the same for us, if we'd only be more practical.JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise, you're completely missing the point. Direct competition against a large, well established industry is futile. You can't fight apples with apples. Innovation comes along that makes previous technology obsolete and the new company has the chance to capitalize on it far faster than an older company can ever maneuver.Turquoise wrote:
Let me put it this way... The infrastructure needed for most telecoms is extremely expensive. The Telecommunications Bill of 1996 would have opened up competition on this infrastructure, which would have helped the market, but.... even if it had passed, there's nothing keeping a handful of companies from buying up the infrastructure.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sure, maybe if you're talking about direct competition on land lines. Competition spurs creation. If there was a static monopoly based market here in the US telecom industry the mobile phone would've never been invented. There would've been no need. Now we have things like MagicJack, internet phone services, Vonage, googles phone etc. And we have cell phones as well with multiple providers covering every area.
For example, plenty of local governments allow companies to buy up all the cell towers in an area. Once that's done, competition is much slimmer.
Ideally, infrastructure such as towers would be publicly owned and open to all companies for use. Then, you'd have much more competition.
When you force competition the consumer ultimately suffers. You end up with a bunch of weak companies always on the verge of bankruptcy like the airline industry.Turquoise wrote:
The approach I just mentioned has worked wonders for South Korea's market. It could do the same for us, if we'd only be more practical.JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise, you're completely missing the point. Direct competition against a large, well established industry is futile. You can't fight apples with apples. Innovation comes along that makes previous technology obsolete and the new company has the chance to capitalize on it far faster than an older company can ever maneuver.Turquoise wrote:
Let me put it this way... The infrastructure needed for most telecoms is extremely expensive. The Telecommunications Bill of 1996 would have opened up competition on this infrastructure, which would have helped the market, but.... even if it had passed, there's nothing keeping a handful of companies from buying up the infrastructure.
For example, plenty of local governments allow companies to buy up all the cell towers in an area. Once that's done, competition is much slimmer.
Ideally, infrastructure such as towers would be publicly owned and open to all companies for use. Then, you'd have much more competition.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-22 06:14:35)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
That hasn't happened in South Korea's telecom market. It's flourished. Also, it offers the fastest broadband available on a mass scale.JohnG@lt wrote:
When you force competition the consumer ultimately suffers. You end up with a bunch of weak companies always on the verge of bankruptcy like the airline industry.Turquoise wrote:
The approach I just mentioned has worked wonders for South Korea's market. It could do the same for us, if we'd only be more practical.JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise, you're completely missing the point. Direct competition against a large, well established industry is futile. You can't fight apples with apples. Innovation comes along that makes previous technology obsolete and the new company has the chance to capitalize on it far faster than an older company can ever maneuver.
Now compare profit margins and employee salaries to the rest of the market.Turquoise wrote:
That hasn't happened in South Korea's telecom market. It's flourished. Also, it offers the fastest broadband available on a mass scale.JohnG@lt wrote:
When you force competition the consumer ultimately suffers. You end up with a bunch of weak companies always on the verge of bankruptcy like the airline industry.Turquoise wrote:
The approach I just mentioned has worked wonders for South Korea's market. It could do the same for us, if we'd only be more practical.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
best example is taiwan. the no.1 telco is state owned and our internet has been stuck at 10meg up/2meg down (no bandwidth limit though) and has been that way for about 3 years... need moar companies to gimme better internets.JohnG@lt wrote:
Now compare profit margins and employee salaries to the rest of the market.Turquoise wrote:
That hasn't happened in South Korea's telecom market. It's flourished. Also, it offers the fastest broadband available on a mass scale.JohnG@lt wrote:
When you force competition the consumer ultimately suffers. You end up with a bunch of weak companies always on the verge of bankruptcy like the airline industry.
Turquois: S Korea works so well because their whole economy is based on star craft.
