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 |
#1351
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
|
#1353
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
On 28 Dec 2006 14:10:29 -0800, wrote:
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. Not unless the companies they worked for moved. People don't move away from their jobs. The current centralistic system is wrong, oppressive, inefficient, and contrary to human nature. For you. We prefer it. If you don't like it, stay in Germany, don't come here. 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? Everything. You're asking people to go against what they see as their best interests. They won't. 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. Usenet's not the place to get 10 years of education in 5 minutes. When you understand how anthropoids work you may have a bit more understanding of the problem. |
#1354
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
wrote:
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. It wasn't competitive, idiot. 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" No it is not. -- Ray Fischer |
#1355
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
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. 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. Where's your cites? Where's your evidence? You don't have a reputation for honesty. -- Ray Fischer |
#1356
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
wrote:
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? Because anarchy is stupidity. You cannot be against monopolies and defending the state. Sure can. 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****. Grow up, loser. -- Ray Fischer |
#1357
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
James A. Donald wrote:
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. Unless you're lying. -- Ray Fischer |
#1358
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
brique wrote: Constantinople wrote in message oups.com... 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? Yours. 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. I know it's standard stuff. When I say you are speculating about what might have happened in this particular case, I am not saying that it's not standard stuff. I am saying that any number of stories are equally standard stuff, and you are just speculating that this particular one is what might have occurred. That's speculation. I'm reduced to teaching you English. 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..... And yet again, you seem to be oblivious to the point I made, to the point that the only answer would be to teach you some more English, which seems rather a waste of my time. |
#1359
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
brique wrote: Constantinople wrote in message ps.com... 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? Ah yes, the pre-emptive insult, a crude attempt at poisoning the well, should I have the rudeness to respond to your latest argument. '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. Of course you would like to do that. Once again, you totally miss the point. There are two glaringly obvious points. First point is that the desire to lock people in does not amount to the capacity to lock people in, and the latter is rather limited, especially in the long term. If you want to argue that farmers are trapped by lock-in into using 21st century methods rather than the supposedly superior 19th century methods, you need to do a lot more arguing than you have done. Second point is that it is simply absurd to believe that most farmers would opt for the arduous Amish methods of agriculture if only they had a do-over. If farmers woke up tomorrow with all the 19th century horse-powered-agriculture infrastructure and knowledge restored, it would probably be a matter of weeks before they had sold the horses and bought powered machinery. There is simply on the face of it no credible reason to imagine that they are somehow trapped by circumstances. |
#1360
|
|||
|
|||
Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 01:11:33 -0000 in alt.anarchism, "brique"
wrote, 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.... Calling it irrelevant is not answering the question. But whether or not you answered it is irrelevant; you have probably been stalking James for long enough to know those answers. The question was to Ray. 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, Bingo, "different". Since Ray has only his own fantasies as to what James's "race, creed" are, he cannot really know which race or creed are _different than his. That makes his judgement founded purely in his own prejudice and bigotry, especially since, as you probably remember, James's background doesn't much match what Ray is assuming about him. That is what makes it relevant. 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?' No, you yourself say "race, creed", and that is what the question was about. "religion, race, and nation" are relevant. "color of eyes and hair" are your pitiful strawman. |
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 |