Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

James A. Donald
The real motivation of all the hate that has been
spewed in this thread was revealed in the
conversation between Nathan Folkert and Flavia:
: : wrote:
: : Christianity is not *inherent* in these
: : traditions, nor could it be, as these
: : traditions pre-date Christianity,
: : probably by millenia.
: :
: : wrote:
: : Which still means Jews have no business
: : using them.

Paul Ransom Erickson
My understanding is that Flavia is a Jew.

Precisely.

--
----------------------
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

wrote:

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.


Why was it not due to increased demand?
Demand increased substantially during that time.

Anarcissie wrote:
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 26 Dec 2006 18:47:51 -0800, wrote:
The central govt should
transfer all power to the smaller entities and act solely as
representative for foreign representatives.
That'll never happen in the US. But, if it did, we'd have civil war
with a lot more than 2 sides.
Why is this believe so widespread?
There's the U.S.'s own history, and there's also the history
of the 20th century breakups of the Ottoman Empire, Austria-
Hungary, the Russian Empire / Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia,
where decline or disapparance of the central authority led to
wars between the successor states and sometimes within them.

All these examples of violence during secession were the product of the
aggressive policies of the neo-prussian militarists in Washington.
Without Lincoln no civil war, without Wilson no violent breakup of the
Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and Austria-Hungary and hence no
Yugoslavia and Soviet Union. Without Roosevelt no WW2 and Cold War. If
there were no federal governments in Washington, all these wars would
not have happened.

Perhaps Iraq is becoming yet another example of the genre.

Because of the stupid arrogant warpromoting policies of the United
States.

In the contemporary world, there is also the question
of how small entities can deal with great powers,

All great powers should be ended, including USA, Russia, China, India,
Pakistan, Iran, Saudi-Arabia, you name it. The most dangerous great
power in the world is the US. Therefore this state should be ended
first.

including multi-national corporations.

Multi-national corporations are not dangerous when they are not
supported by governments. Unfortunately they get much support from
governments, therefore they are that big. Big corporations lose against
a multitude of smaller competitors.

These are not conclusive arguments, of course, but they
might be of concern to many people.

The reasons you gave make it more clear why this belief is so
widespread. Yet the reasons are all flawed. Luckily we have the
internet to debunk those faux reasons

Paul Ransom Erickson wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 05:26:50 +1000, James A. Donald
wrote:

The real motivation of all the hate that has been spewed in this
thread was revealed in the conversation between Nathan Folkert and
Flavia:
: : wrote:
: : Christianity is not *inherent* in these
: : traditions, nor could it be, as these traditions pre-date
: : Christianity, probably by millenia.
: :
: : wrote:
: : Which still means Jews have no business using them.

My understanding is that Flavia is a Jew.

She is a woman from New England with Irish-Scottish heritage and Jewish
faith. And she is a troll. You can ignore her.

Ray Fischer wrote:
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?

Why are you defending it if you are supposedly against monopolies? You
cannot be against monopolies and defending the state. You can't have it
both ways.

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.

Look in the mirror and you will see a stupid dumb****.

wrote:
Anarcissie wrote:
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 26 Dec 2006 18:47:51 -0800, wrote:
The central govt should
transfer all power to the smaller entities and act solely as
representative for foreign representatives.
That'll never happen in the US. But, if it did, we'd have civil war
with a lot more than 2 sides.
Why is this belief so widespread?
There's the U.S.'s own history, and there's also the history
of the 20th century breakups of the Ottoman Empire, Austria-
Hungary, the Russian Empire / Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia,
where decline or disapparance of the central authority led to
wars between the successor states and sometimes within them.

All these examples of violence during secession were the product of the
aggressive policies of the neo-prussian militarists in Washington.
Without Lincoln no civil war, without Wilson no violent breakup of the
Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and Austria-Hungary and hence no
Yugoslavia and Soviet Union. Without Roosevelt no WW2 and Cold War. If
there were no federal governments in Washington, all these wars would
not have happened.

Clarification: WW1 started without US involvement, but the intervention
of the US prevented a ceasefire and negotiations.

Mike Hunt postmaster@localhost wrote in message
. ..
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.

It does tend to ignore the cost benefits of scale of production and
distribution too. In 1870, petroleum was a niche market with a limited range
of products. As petrochemicals developed and with the introduction of
petrol-powered engines and vehicles, that changed.

It is quite possible for Standard to have increased its profitability whilst
decreasing its prices as it's cost base fell. Making, for example, products
aimed at agriculture, cheaper would increase its market in that area, thus
feeding through into increase economies of scale. It would also 'lock' that
market into the sytem. Once farmers switched from horse-power to petrol
power and the structure which had so long supplied those horses and the
skills and knowledge of how to use them was lost, then the farmers had
little choice but to go with petrol power at whatever cost. Standard now had
a bigger market, could enlarge its production capability and maximise its
distribution network, all feeding into lower costs per unit sold.

That Standard and it subsequent 'competitors' were successful at creating
and 'locking in' these markets is plainly obvious today.

There is another aspect to 'monopolies' which Microsoft embodies so well.
That is the 'virtual' monopoly. It doesn't actually have a 'physical'
monopoly but its very ubiquity crowds out the competitors in the publics
mind. Go into any major outlet and try buying a computer without MS
built-in. True, you cna go to a smaller outlet and have one built for you
without it, or they may wipe MS off and install an alternative for you or
you can do it yourself ( but you will still have paid for the MS software in
the purchase price), . But for the majority of purchasers, MS is just
'there', same way the keyboard has that funny layout and the mouse has those
buttons and little wheel arrangement under it. Ubiquity.

On 27 Dec 2006 06:42:21 GMT in alt.anarchism, (Ray
Fischer) wrote,
And which religion, race, and nation would I belong to?

The point of his remark was to evade the fact of his bigotry by
dragging in a red herring.

If James was actually a bigot, and you knew enough to say so,
you would have known the answer to his question.

Mike Hunt wrote:
wrote:

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.


Why was it not due to increased demand?

It might have been.

Demand increased substantially during that time.

But that doesn't match the timing of the price change James was
describing. If you want to question James's conclusion, you also need
to question his statement about the timing. James wrote:

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.

The timing this suggests is that price did not rise substantially in
the intervening six years, but then rose a great deal six years later.

But had demand been increasing in the intervening six years, then the
effect on prices would have been a price rise throughout the six year
period, rather than a relatively flat price followed by a bump at the
end coinciding with the new regulations.

Furthermore, your description of the demand is incomplete. It is not
enough to say that it rose rapidly between 1906 and 1912 - you also
need to show that it *did not* rise rapidly before 1906.

brique wrote:
Mike Hunt postmaster@localhost wrote in message
. ..
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.

It does tend to ignore the cost benefits of scale of production and
distribution too. In 1870, petroleum was a niche market with a limited range
of products. As petrochemicals developed and with the introduction of
petrol-powered engines and vehicles, that changed.

Speculation is cheap and easy but means little. It is not enough to
speculate that Standard Oil *might have* in some way been a monopoly or
might have soon *become* a monopoly.

It is quite possible for Standard to have increased its profitability whilst
decreasing its prices as it's cost base fell.

Mere speculation.

Making, for example, products
aimed at agriculture, cheaper would increase its market in that area, thus
feeding through into increase economies of scale. It would also 'lock' that
market into the sytem. Once farmers switched from horse-power to petrol
power and the structure which had so long supplied those horses and the
skills and knowledge of how to use them was lost, then the farmers had
little choice but to go with petrol power at whatever cost. Standard now had
a bigger market, could enlarge its production capability and maximise its
distribution network, all feeding into lower costs per unit sold.

That Standard and it subsequent 'competitors' were successful at creating
and 'locking in' these markets is plainly obvious today.

But today is *after* government introduced new regulations.

Snip yet more speculation.