Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald
AT&T was a government created and enforced monopoly.

And REGULATED.

Which is precisely what made it bad, and Standard Oil
good.

As opposed to the unregulated railraod monopolies which forced peopel
across the coutry to pay higher fees?

Government regulation is in practice always to
suppress competition and raise prices.

You're a liar. Microsoft's illegal business practices drove a lot of
companies out of business and forced millions of people to pay higher
prices. The government ended those practices.

--
Ray Fischer

James A. Donald wrote:
Ray Fischer
You're an idiot and a liar. Those laws ended
several monopolies and created competition in
several businesses

Yet oddly, during the whole period of evil Standard
Oil's evil "monopoly", petrol prices were falling
and falling radically,

When was that?

The Standard Oil "monopoly" was from about 1870 to 1906,
during which it reduced the price of petrol products to
about a quarter their previous price.

It drove countless people into bankruptcy, and whether the price of
gas fell has nothing at all to do with whether people had to pay more
because of the monopoly.

When it was
broken up this had no immediate effect on the price of
petroleum products,

Cite?

--
Ray Fischer

wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Don't start lying, moron. Until the anti-monopoly
loaws of the 1930s there was little competition.
The anti monopoly laws were to discourage, rathe than
produce, competition.
You're an idiot and a liar. Those laws ended several monopolies and
created competition in several businesses.
Bull****. Dangerous monopolies only exist because of the state.
A claim which you keep making but haven't the brains to support.
It's pretty obvious that all you do is parrot right-wing propaganda.
Tell me the name of one monopoly which is/was dangerous and
exists/existed without the state.
Your question is stupid

No, the question is not stupid, because it directed you
to make a valid point:
because any monopoly that exists without the
state becomes the state. Thus, your argument reduces to whining about
all government and wishing for anarchy.

Any state can be called a forced monopoly.

By definition, a government is a government monopoly. So what?

And vice versa any forced
monopoly can be called a state. Why are you defending the state then?
Without force no lasting monopoly is possible.

Your wish for anarchy only shows what a stupid dumb**** you are.

--
Ray Fischer

wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
Monopolies can only thrive with force. Without force there will always
be competition.
And monopolies can impose their own force.
If monopolies are not forced by the state they are limited in their
ability to impose force. For instance the only shop in a small village
can charge higher prices, but if these prices are to high the customers
would seek alternatives.
When there is a monopoly customers CANNOT shop elsewhere because there
is only the one business.
But only temporary (without state enforcement).
So you claim, again without any justification.

You are to ideologically blinded to see it, apparently.

I don't blindly believe every idiot who posts bull**** propaganda.

--
Ray Fischer

James A. Donald wrote:

The Standard Oil "monopoly" was from about 1870 to 1906,
during which it reduced the price of petrol products to
about a quarter their previous price.

Were they falling because of lack of competition?
Nah. They were falling because the supply increased due to technology
making it easier, and because demand wasn't as great.

When it was
broken up this had no immediate effect on the price of
petroleum products, but six years after the breakup, the
government proceeded to regulate the industry,
forbidding competition by means more effective than
merely breaking up the company that had kept cutting
prices, wherupon prices rose a great deal.


6 years after the breakup would have been 1912.
Do you think the increase was due to the breakup or due to the increased
demand for the products?

The price of a commodity tends to rise and fall based on the supply and
demand of the commodity.

Ray Fischer wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
Ray Fischer
You're an idiot and a liar. Those laws ended
several monopolies and created competition in
several businesses

Yet oddly, during the whole period of evil Standard
Oil's evil "monopoly", petrol prices were falling
and falling radically,

When was that?

The Standard Oil "monopoly" was from about 1870 to 1906,
during which it reduced the price of petrol products to
about a quarter their previous price.

It drove countless people into bankruptcy,

That is no evil. That is what happens in a fiercely competitive market.

and whether the price of
gas fell has nothing at all to do with whether people had to pay more
because of the monopoly.

It is prima facie evidence that the so-called Standard Oil "monopoly"
was highly competitive rather than a monopoly exercising monopoly
power.

When it was
broken up this had no immediate effect on the price of
petroleum products,

Cite?

--
Ray Fischer

On 27 Dec 2006 03:26:07 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
You don't knwo what a monopoly is, you don't know
economics, and you don't even know how businesses are
run.

When there is a monopoly customers CANNOT shop
elsewhere because there is only the one business.

Yet according to you Standard Oil was monopoly, and
there were hundreds of alternative suppliers. According
to you Microsoft is a monopoly, not withstanding linux.

Standard Oil was a "monopoly" because it was able to
make kerosene considerably more cheaply than its
competitors, because it was advancing refining
technology more rapidly than its competitors. The
customers *could* shop elsewhere - but unsurprisingly
most of them did not. Similarly with Intel's
"monopoly".

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

Mike Hunt wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:

The Standard Oil "monopoly" was from about 1870 to 1906,
during which it reduced the price of petrol products to
about a quarter their previous price.

Were they falling because of lack of competition?

No, they were falling because Standard Oil lowered their costs and
passed on the savings to their customers because they *were not* a
monopoly but rather a business in a competitive market.

Nah. They were falling because the supply increased due to technology
making it easier,

Exactly. Standard Oil were able to lower their prices by lowering their
costs, and they lowered their costs by improving their technology. The
reason they did not keep their prices up was that they *were not* a
monopoly. Had they been a monopoly, they would have been able to lower
their costs without lowering their price, and enjoy monopoly profits.

and because demand wasn't as great.

When it was
broken up this had no immediate effect on the price of
petroleum products, but six years after the breakup, the
government proceeded to regulate the industry,
forbidding competition by means more effective than
merely breaking up the company that had kept cutting
prices, wherupon prices rose a great deal.


6 years after the breakup would have been 1912.
Do you think the increase was due to the breakup or due to the increased
demand for the products?

Due to regulation, apparently.

The price of a commodity tends to rise and fall based on the supply and
demand of the commodity.

PTravel wrote:
I'll just let you pat each other on the back and
congratulate yourselves on how stiff-necked Jews
are, and how anyone who doesn't celebrate
Christmas is anti-Christian.

Nathan Folkert:
When you condescend others in public about how much
better educated you are than they, and then someone
produces proof that you really don't know what the
hell you're talking about, the mature response is to
apologize to them for bull****ting. If you prefer
to spit on them and call them racist for no apparent
reason, though, I guess that's your right, though
you should consider how this might affect your
public reputation.

"Sancho Panza"
Such bitterness. Such anger. Some prayerful reflection
might help.

You keep thinking that you are talking to Christians, a
delusion analogous to that suffered by someone who sees
Jews everywhere.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald
The Standard Oil "monopoly" was from about 1870 to
1906, during which it reduced the price of petrol
products to about a quarter their previous price.

Ray Fischer
It drove countless people into bankruptcy, and whether
the price of gas fell has nothing at all to do with
whether people had to pay more because of the
monopoly.

It drove countless people into bankruptcy by repeated
and radically reducing the price of petroleum products.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald