If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1341
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
Constantinople wrote: 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. Oh, wait a second, when you (brique) said "lock in" I took you to mean somehow prevent their customers from buying oil from competitors. But that's not what you meant at all. What you meant was prevent their customers from going back to horse power! That is too funny. So the reason farmers aren't all farming the Amish way is that Big Oil tricked them into abandoning their horse skills. Snip yet more speculation. |
#1342
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
|
#1343
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
|
#1344
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
|
#1345
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
Al Klein wrote: On 28 Dec 2006 04:56:19 -0800, wrote: 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 And no freedom for slaves until the industrial revolution, which made them unnecessary. Better slavery than war (which is an even bigger slavery). without Wilson no violent breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and Austria-Hungary and hence no Yugoslavia and Soviet Union. Maybe. The Russian revolution wasn't due solely to the breakup of the Empire. Without Roosevelt no WW2 Hitler started the war for expansion - it had nothing to do with Roosevelt. Hitler did not start the war. PL, F, and UK did because they wanted a regime change in Germany. Originally PL/F/UK valued peace more than regime change until Roosevelt convinced them otherwise by spreading mistrust. Roosevelt's goal was to save the Soviet Union from the Anti-Comintern Pact. Japan attacked the US because we cut off their oil - most people who would have risen to the presidency of the US would have done the same. This does not speak favourably about the US. The foreign policy of the US is the greatest danger on Earth. They are always looking for enemies. If there are none they make them, just to have something as justification for yet another unnecessary military equipment. and Cold War. If there were no federal governments in Washington, all these wars would not have happened. If there were no governments we wouldn't have had wars. If there were no people there would have been no wars. I was speaking about the "evil empire" aka USA. No other state is that aggressive and dangerous. States should be small and neutral, like Switzerland. 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. Except out there in the real world, where many things - other than government support - favor the larger corporations. Only until an optimal size is achieved. If they become larger they become inefficient. |
#1346
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
Al Klein wrote: On 27 Dec 2006 14:31:24 -0800, wrote: You think there are not enough fundies to get the majority in a county assembly? That would depend on the county but, in most counties, probably not. The "Silent Majority" organizations don't have the money for a get out the vote push in every county in the country. They would probably move away from the more liberal counties to the more conservative counties. That way both groups would have an advantage from more autonomy. Ever heard of the (libertarian) Free-State-Project which chose New Hampshire? If peaceful coexistence and noninterference is commonly accepted It may be by some species - it's not by humans, and hasn't been since we became "civilized". I don't see that California is attacking Nevada, or Sweden attacking Finland, or Chile attacking Argentina. It is possible if the agreements are good enough. It's possible if the matters of contention aren't large enough. California may not be attempting to militarily invade Nevada, but Nevada IS trying to get federal money that other states are also trying to get. A Congressperson who says "that other state should get the money, not my state" is an ex-Congressperson. No one wants to pay taxes to support something he'll never benefit from - whether it's the local school tax, federal income tax or the "tax" we pay on goods imported from another country. The current centralistic system is wrong, oppressive, inefficient, and contrary to human nature. And very few human beings are so altruistic that they'll deprive themselves for the benefit of some unknown and unnamed stranger. What has this to do with the current political system? For that purpose the autonomous political entities have to be as small as counties to get more choices. I live in a county with a population of a couple of million. It stretches from a cosmopolitan area to a completely rural area. The various towns are completely different in character, and the county legislature often can't agree on things. Before the rise of nationalism in the 18th and 19th century Germany was only an umbrella organization of independent political units. And couldn't agree on a lot of things. Such as? 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? Because some of us know about evolution and about how human nature evolved. Altruism outside the group is usually exhibited by extinct species. I fail to see why this should have anything to do with the issue of selfgovernment. |
#1347
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
Constantinople wrote in message oups.com... 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. What post are you replying to Constance? It is quite possible for Standard to have increased its profitability whilst decreasing its prices as it's cost base fell. Mere speculation. Really? Pretty basic stuff, the economic justification for mass production, standardisation of parts, etc. 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. Right, so, the question 'why, if standard had a monopoly did prices fall' is of no interest to you....., can't think why you bother to join the conversation..... |
#1348
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
Constantinople wrote in message ps.com... Constantinople wrote: 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. Oh, wait a second, when you (brique) said "lock in" I took you to mean somehow prevent their customers from buying oil from competitors. But that's not what you meant at all. What you meant was prevent their customers from going back to horse power! That is too funny. So the reason farmers aren't all farming the Amish way is that Big Oil tricked them into abandoning their horse skills. You are simple-minded, aren't you? 'Locking in' your market is probably the most basic business move you can make. Once you have a customer, you endevaour to make sure that them leaving is more expensive than them staying. Study IBM's business model, or Microsofts. |
#1349
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
wrote in message ups.com... Sancho Panza wrote: wrote in message ups.com... [...] According to a survey of Jewish families of interfaith couples -- which account for one-third of Jewish families total and over half of Jewish families formed in the last decade -- about 90% will celebrate Christmas, though the overwhelming majority of these will be secular celebrations. (http://pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=7123) That is sure authoritative. Thanks. The methodology was especially impressive. More informative than just making **** up. Sarcasm alert The point was that there wasn't any methodology to speak of. I have not found a statistical source for the percentage of entirely Jewish families, though in my personal experience it is not that usual to see entirely Jewish families participating in some secular traditions associated with Christmas. Probably someone has done a survey. As a matter of fact, that would be an excellent suggestion for those folks at PNN, InterfaithFamily.com. Maybe they should also ask about the reciprocal, except that might be too hard to understand. PNN is a news source for non-profits that just happened to carry this story, and interfaithfamily.com is an organization founded for families in which one partner is Jewish and one is not, with the intention of encouraging the preservation of Jewish traditions in mixed families. Not that they would necessarily be uninterested in also having an idea of secular Christmas practices by Jews, or for that matter secular adoption of any religious traditions by adherents of other religions or by the non-religious, it is not really a question in either organizations' scope. - Nate |
#1350
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
David Harmon wrote in message ... 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. I did answer it, in my response, the question is irrelevant.... being a bigot is not defined by what race, creed, colour, height, weight, residence, career or education one might be ascribed. It can be defined as fearing and despising those who can be ascribed a different race, creed, colour, height, weight, residence, career, educational attainment or whatever feature one holds an irrational hatred of. James's question would hold as much relevance to that matter if he had asked : 'And what are the colour of my eyes and hair?' |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Seattle Hotel/airport | 0 O | Cruises | 0 | April 4th, 2004 03:28 PM |
SEATTLE AIRPORT HOTEL | 0 O | Cruises | 1 | April 3rd, 2004 10:42 PM |
Best travel method from Seattle Airport to Seattle or Vancover cruise port | Adelphia News | Cruises | 4 | March 31st, 2004 05:14 PM |
Many persons strive for high ideals. | La Site | Australia & New Zealand | 0 | January 26th, 2004 04:05 AM |
Seattle Airport Shuttles | WolfpackFan | Cruises | 4 | December 20th, 2003 01:32 PM |