Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 11:08:46 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Is it true that the Fed is privately owned  (Read 9184 times)
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 01, 2013, 12:24:31 AM
 #141

In a free market, I think monopoly's in general will almost certainly develop over things that are scarce. (Car's, food, computers, etc.) This is not a good thing, because it centralizes power.
This is patently and provably false. The computer market is one of the least regulated on the planet. Cars have only safety and emissions regulations to contend with (and many companies voluntarily exceed those regulations). Food, similarly, has only health and safety regulations, and a few labeling requirements. You chose the worst possible examples for natural monopolies, since all of those industries show robust competition, in a largely unregulated (free) market.

Actually I was not talking about natural monopoly's. I was talking about monopoly's from integration - why did you choose to let that one out?
Sigh.
"Monopolies can be established by a government, form naturally, or form by integration." I'd say the latter two are just versions of the same thing: Market forces make it more efficient for one company to provide that commodity. In a free market, the former one would not be possible. So we're just left with "natural" monopolies to worry about.
It doesn't matter if the monopoly is formed via competition or merger, a natural monopoly is still a natural monopoly.

Plus, I'm pretty sure that all of these markets are regulated, since monopoly's are illegal in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
That outlaws cartels, not monopolies (please take note, that is the proper pluralization). And "pretty sure" is a poor basis for argument. Monopolies are anything but illegal in the US. You just have to go through proper channels to establish one.

Also, it is illegal to kill your opponent, so that's another regulation. Sounds silly? The drug market is truly unregulated. The free market turns out not to work very well there. Violence works.
The reason violence is the dispute resolution method of choice in the drug market is because of the regulations making participation in that market illegal. They have no legal means of resolving disputes.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
1513595326
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513595326

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513595326
Reply with quote  #2

1513595326
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513595326
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513595326

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513595326
Reply with quote  #2

1513595326
Report to moderator
1513595326
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513595326

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513595326
Reply with quote  #2

1513595326
Report to moderator
1513595326
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513595326

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513595326
Reply with quote  #2

1513595326
Report to moderator
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
June 01, 2013, 12:48:49 AM
 #142

Adrian-x: Yeah you could say that some meme's are a problem. However, there is absolutely no way to be sure that your meme is better than any other meme, since that thought itself would be (part of) the meme. Therefore, you should not able to force memes on anyone nor remove them. Neither do I really think you could be able to do so; a totalitarian society would be the closest thing to accomplishing such a thing. I'd say that shitty meme's are just something we need to deal with as best as we can.

I was just saying you can't argue with evolution, and if you trace our current economic system back through the millennia, you will come to a point where 2 single cell organisms start cooperating for a benefit that is greater than each is capable on their own.  

Play the whole evolution tape from primordial soup through to today and it will result in the same outcome, why? Where did natural selection go wrong, (Free-market anarchism has a built in safety mechanism that prevents parasitic relationships form forming, so how is it that the parasitic relationship with the planet is allowed to persist and to add insult to injury it is fed and propagated by the very pour people who are being impoverished by it?)  

Well when you try and see where we deviated from the natural laws of physics, (or Gods plan) we see it was at some point where a very destructive meme took hold. As an atheist I love the bible, so I will draw an analogy I think the meme occurs the moment Adam and eve get thrown out of the Garden of Eden.  

so yes I think people will wake up soon, but the problem is not easy to see.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
June 01, 2013, 12:59:08 AM
 #143

Actually, the "government as legitimate monopoly on force" meme is only as old as Machiavelli.
https://mises.org/document/1092/Myth-of-National-Defense-The-Essays-on-the-Theory-and-History-of-Security-Production

Now, as to monopolies, I think the definition provided (A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity) is a good one. The article further points out: "Monopolies can be established by a government, form naturally, or form by integration." I'd say the latter two are just versions of the same thing: Market forces make it more efficient for one company to provide that commodity. In a free market, the former one would not be possible. So we're just left with "natural" monopolies to worry about.

Given the particular commodity that we're talking about (money), a natural monopoly is possible, but not something to worry about. For the only way that a provider of money, in the free market, can become the sole provider of money, is to provide the best, most stable, most reliable money. The moment it stops doing that, it opens itself up for competition, and that competition will be fierce.

I agree with everything, you said, but I have a hard time reconciling how money controlled by a Protocol and Maths, could be considered anyone's monopoly.  

> ...The moment it stops doing that, it opens itself up for competition.
I would argue "it" doesn't have a monopoly if it is not in control of the Money, IE the monopoly only exists if it relinquish controlee to some higher principal, and if they deviate from that principal then there monopoly is lost.

I have got to run but look forward to reading the above and about these exciting ideas over the weekend.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 01, 2013, 01:08:50 AM
 #144

I agree with everything, you said, but I have a hard time reconciling how money controlled by a Protocol and Maths, could be considered anyone's monopoly.
Well, "bitcoin" could be considered the bitcoin developer's "monopoly" if it gained all of the market in digital currency. That's really unlikely, considering the amount of competition it already has.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
BTCBuyer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 177



View Profile WWW
June 01, 2013, 07:13:21 AM
 #145

and that the bail out money goes to these private people, who then charge interest on it?

Hi Darren,

The Federal Reserve System has a dual mandate. Its monetary policy largely targets the federal funds rate. This rate is determined by the market and is not explicitly set or mandated by the Fed. Therefore, the fed tries to set the effective federal funds rate with the targeted rate set up by the market by adding (or subtracting) from the money supply through the open market operations. Usually, therefore the Federal Reserve System adjusts the federal funds rate by 0.25% at a time (or even 0.50%). The open market operations allow the Fed to decrease or increase the money supply in the banking system to balance the dual Federal Reserve's mandates, which is to (1) maximize employment and (2) stablize pricing in the market place.
Alpaca John
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42



View Profile
June 01, 2013, 09:30:53 AM
 #146

That outlaws cartels, not monopolies (please take note, that is the proper pluralization).

Monopolies. Not monopoly's. Got it. (English is not my first language.) For the rest, I'd argue that cartels are from a consumers perspective the exact same problem. As long as prices are fixed, I don't care if it is one corporation doing the job, or several that are colluding. Same difference. Centralization of power.

Quote
And "pretty sure" is a poor basis for argument.


Actually, I'd wish you would question your own dogma's from time to time. The fact that you are only here to prove other people wrong, instead of trying to actually progress your way of thinking, is exactly why I do not like to argue with you at all; there is not really a point in doing so.

Also, I'm not American so excuse me for not knowing what the exact laws of that country are.

Quote
Monopolies are anything but illegal in the US. You just have to go through proper channels to establish one.

"The law's treatment of monopolies is potentially the strongest in the field of antitrust law. Judicial remedies can force large organizations to be broken up, be run subject to positive obligations, or massive penalties may be imposed the people involved can be sentenced to jail."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Monopoly_and_power

Quote
The reason violence is the dispute resolution method of choice in the drug market is because of the regulations making participation in that market illegal. They have no legal means of resolving disputes.

Wait, so we dó need a state in order to legally resolve disputes then?

Also, the drug gangs are not really "resolving disputes", are they? They are killing their competitors in order to monopolize their trade. And they are doing so in area's where the state has lost all it's power to do something anything about it. No policeman dares to get involved in large parts of northern Mexico, and new majors are being killed the same day they get appointed.

It's not because there are states that such violence happens, but because of the failure of states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Failed-states-index-2012.png

(I'm lucky enough to happen to live in one of the sustainable states by the way, which is probably why I think we need them.)
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 01, 2013, 04:07:44 PM
 #147

As long as prices are fixed, I don't care if it is one corporation doing the job, or several that are colluding. Same difference. Centralization of power.
This is a valid point, but in a free market, the same things that would topple a natural monopoly would topple or disintegrate a cartel. In addition, there is the possibility of internal strife. A cartel is less of an issue than a monopoly.

Quote
Monopolies are anything but illegal in the US. You just have to go through proper channels to establish one.

"The law's treatment of monopolies is potentially the strongest in the field of antitrust law. Judicial remedies can force large organizations to be broken up, be run subject to positive obligations, or massive penalties may be imposed the people involved can be sentenced to jail."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Monopoly_and_power
As I said, you have to go through proper channels to get a monopoly in the US.  If you don't, the penalties are harsh. But if you do, the benefits are enormous. And just like you can't go into a smoke shop and ask for a bong (it has to be called a "water pipe"), you can't call it a monopoly. It's a "government contract."

Quote
The reason violence is the dispute resolution method of choice in the drug market is because of the regulations making participation in that market illegal. They have no legal means of resolving disputes.

Wait, so we do need a state in order to legally resolve disputes then?
No. They need peaceful means of dispute resolution. Such as arbitration. But since any participation in that market is illegal, and punished by the government, it's difficult for them to get it. My point was that the drug market is anything but "unregulated." It's been regulated to death, in fact.

Now, a side note:
Quote
The fact that you are only here to prove other people wrong, instead of trying to actually progress your way of thinking, is exactly why I do not like to argue with you at all; there is not really a point in doing so.
I am not here to "prove people wrong." I am in fact here to see if my ideas can be knocked down by anyone else's. If you can prove my logic faulty, I will discard it, and take up the superior point. The plain fact is that nobody has been able to prove me wrong yet, and I don't see much hope in you doing so. But I wish you the best of luck in trying.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Alpaca John
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42



View Profile
June 01, 2013, 04:39:04 PM
 #148

This is a valid point, but in a free market, the same things that would topple a natural monopoly would topple or disintegrate a cartel.

Such as?

Quote
As I said, you have to go through proper channels to get a monopoly in the US.  If you don't, the penalties are harsh. But if you do, the benefits are enormous.

So we agree that the market is currently regulated to avoid monopolies then? (And yes, it is regulated to enforce certain monopolies as well.)

Quote
They need peaceful means of dispute resolution. Such as arbitration.

By whom? How would this work? Elaborate please...

Quote
My point was that the drug market is anything but "unregulated." It's been regulated to death, in fact.

Yeah? Who is doing the regulating in Northern Mexico?

The answer is: nobody. That's the whole point. It's a failed state (in that region).
MicroGuy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


www.MicroGuy.com


View Profile WWW
June 01, 2013, 04:43:24 PM
 #149

I am not here to "prove people wrong." I am in fact here to see if my ideas can be knocked down by anyone else's. If you can prove my logic faulty, I will discard it, and take up the superior point. The plain fact is that nobody has been able to prove me wrong yet, and I don't see much hope in you doing so. But I wish you the best of luck in trying.

^^^ just great.  Smiley

"The Internet unshackled information, Satoshi Nakamoto unshackled money. And money makes the world go round."
btceic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


♫ A wave came crashing like a fist to the jaw ♫


View Profile WWW
June 01, 2013, 04:44:50 PM
 #150

No.

Its not a Jewish conspiracy either just in case that's your follow up. 

Same answer for New World Order, Trilateral Commission, Communist Party, Bilderbergs and umpteen other people who do not own the Fed.

You forgot the all seeing Illuminati  Shocked

♫ This situation, which side are you on? Are you getting out? Are you dropping bombs? Have you heard of diplomatic resolve? ♫ How To Run A Cheap Full Bitcoin Node For $19 A Year ♫ If I knew where it was, I would take you there. There’s much more than this. ♫ Track Your Bitcoins Value
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
June 01, 2013, 04:51:57 PM
 #151

This is a valid point, but in a free market, the same things that would topple a natural monopoly would topple or disintegrate a cartel.

Such as?

Quote
As I said, you have to go through proper channels to get a monopoly in the US.  If you don't, the penalties are harsh. But if you do, the benefits are enormous.

So we agree that the market is currently regulated to avoid monopolies then? (And yes, it is regulated to enforce certain monopolies as well.)

Quote
They need peaceful means of dispute resolution. Such as arbitration.

By whom? How would this work? Elaborate please...

Quote
My point was that the drug market is anything but "unregulated." It's been regulated to death, in fact.

Yeah? Who is doing the regulating in Northern Mexico?

The answer is: nobody. That's the whole point. It's a failed state (in that region).

You can't look at one area in isolate.  The profit margins for the cartels are massive becomes the US with it regulation on illegal drugs is the largest importer of said illegal drugs.  Billions of dollars worth of drugs flow inward and billions of dollars flow outward to drug states like Mexico, Columbia, etc.   The higher purchashing power of Americans becomes a multiplier effect.  Americans (on average) have more disposable income thus prices are higher so the cartels gain a massive economic advantage over the state trying to control them.   Now if the cartels were legal businesses they likely would use that economic advantage in different ways (supporting candidates, lobbying, making smaller competitors uneconomical, etc) much like major corporations do in the US.  However cartels are criminal enterprises.  They leaders are already facing life sentances for hundreds of violations of the law.  At that point the more efficient use of power is direct ... violence, death, terror.   

If the US (for good or bad) legalized drugs do you think Americans would still be buying product on the street corner shipped in from criminal enterprises in Mexico?  Hardly.  Much like 99.9999999% of Americans don't buy illegal alcohol or tobacco either.  It would be mass produced by major corporations, the supply would go up, prices would go down and the economic power of the cartels would be greatly diminished. 
Alpaca John
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42



View Profile
June 01, 2013, 05:17:19 PM
 #152

DeathAndTaxes: what you are saying seems to be besides the point, to me.

This is my question. If there would be no state monopoly on violence (=regulation), what would stop me from killing my competitor instead of improving my product? A bullet is surely cheaper than investing in actual innovation is.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
June 01, 2013, 05:29:39 PM
 #153

This is my question. If there would be no state monopoly on violence (=regulation), what would stop me from killing my competitor instead of improving my product? A bullet is surely cheaper than investing in actual innovation is.

Well there never has been a stateless (post-state) society so there are only theoretical answers.  If most of your customers are law abiding they may choose to not support your unlawful (in natural law sense) actions against another.   The question also becomes IS killing a competitor lower cost and lower risk then arbitration, licensing, marketing, or other non-violent means.  I mean trying to have your competitor killed could get you (or someone you care about) killed.  Once again all theory but if private security forces replaced police states then you could find your security contract revoked per a condition in the contract.

Still I wasn't really talking about the lack of a state. We have never had a post state society so it is all theoretical and any theory is just that.  I was just pointing out the power of the cartels is a direct result of regulation, namely the prohibition on certain substances, not a lack of regulation as you seem to claim. 

The US government through ineffective regulation created the cartels and the criminal violence problem in Mexico.  The cartels and the power they have simply couldn't exist without the massive profit margins and massive barriers to entry created by the actions of governments.  If governments wanted to they could end the cartels tomorrow.  As an unnatural market they simply can't exist without the continued support of governments. 
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 01, 2013, 05:51:49 PM
 #154

This is a valid point, but in a free market, the same things that would topple a natural monopoly would topple or disintegrate a cartel.

Such as?
Well, let's start with the things that a natural monopoly must worry about as much as the cartel does:
Competition. If the monopoly/cartel raises prices enough that a new competitor can undercut them and still make a profit, then that new competitor will appear to take advantage of that situation.
Customer dissatisfaction. If the monopoly/cartel provides a poor enough product or service that the customers are willing to pay more for a superior one, then a new competitor will appear to take advantage of that situation.
Alternatives/new technology. This is somewhat of a subset of the first point, but it's separate enough to warrant being it's own point. The monopoly/cartel need not only worry about someone coming along to provide the same product or service at lower prices or better quality, they must also worry about someone coming along and providing a competing product or service. For example, let's say one company managed to get a monopoly on fast-food hamburgers. They bought up or out-competed every other burger joint in town. They would still be competing with fast-food tacos, pizza, and chicken. Additionally, one of their out-competed rivals might switch gears, and sell frozen hamburgers, that the consumer could microwave at home.

Now for the additional worry that a cartel has:
Infighting. A cartel is, as I mentioned in another thread, somewhat like a wolf-pack made entirely of alphas. At any time, one of those members could turn on the others, and by utilizing one of those methods that I mentioned earlier could bring down a monopoly, squeeze out some extra profits at the expense of the other cartel members. For example, if Burger King, White Castle, McDonalds, and Hardee's/Carl's Jr were the members of a cartel which set hamburger prices, one could cut prices and "steal" business from the others, or refocus on service or product quality, and likewise "steal" business from the others. Or they could start selling frozen burgers (White Castle already does this, Harold and Kumar could have just gone to Wal-mart, instead), or branch out into Pizza (KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, for instance, are all part of one company, Yum! Brands.)

As I said, you have to go through proper channels to get a monopoly in the US.  If you don't, the penalties are harsh. But if you do, the benefits are enormous.

So we agree that the market is currently regulated to avoid monopolies then? (And yes, it is regulated to enforce certain monopolies as well.)
No, not to "avoid" monopolies. To ensure that only the right people get monopolies, and to protect those who do.

They need peaceful means of dispute resolution. Such as arbitration.

By whom? How would this work? Elaborate please...
Well, Let's say you were a drug dealer. You had your "turf" staked out, your favorite corner where people came to you to buy their drugs. Now, let's say another dealer "muscled in" on your turf, and one morning, you walk out to "your" corner, to find him and two big tough guys standing where you usually do. You go up to him, and you say, "Yo, this my turf, man, go get yer own corner." He replies, "It's my turf, now, punk. Piss off."

At this point you have several options: You could try for a peaceful solution, you could shoot him yourself, or you could go to the cops. Let's assume that you're a more enlightened drug dealer than is average, and you know that shooting him yourself will only start a war between his gang and yours, and going to the cops will, at best, still mean you need to get a new corner, because the cops will be watching that one for a while, and at worst, land you in jail right next to your rival and his buddies. So you opt for a peaceful solution.

Let's further say that I am an arbitrator (I am, by the way) and offer services to the drug dealers in the area (I don't, but only because I don't know any). You come to me, and ask for my assistance in resolving this turf dispute between you and the new guy. I accept, and proceed to offer my service as an arbitrator to the new gentleman, offering a peaceful solution, one that does not end up with him dead or behind bars. Now, we're starting to strain credulity, but let's assume that the other drug dealer is also wiser than average, and sees the benefit of my proposal. He agrees to arbitrate the dispute, rather than deal with the issue in the typical violent manner.

We then go to a room, and discuss the problems. It is discovered that the new guy was pushed out of his turf by yet another dealer, and just needed a place to conduct his business, and that's why he's taken over your spot. I suggest that the particular intersection where you do business has four corners, and he can simply take the opposite one, which is closer to his home anyway. He accepts, and you get your corner back, and he has a shorter "commute." Everybody happy, nobody dead. This is just off the top of my head, understand, and may not be entirely accurate, it's certainly grossly simplified. But it gets the gist across.

My point was that the drug market is anything but "unregulated." It's been regulated to death, in fact.
Yeah? Who is doing the regulating in Northern Mexico?

The answer is: nobody. That's the whole point. It's a failed state (in that region).
I'd say the Sinaloa Cartel is doing a pretty good job of "regulating" the drug economy in Mexico.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
pazor
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966



View Profile
June 01, 2013, 05:53:06 PM
 #155

...same as ripple of opencoin !

watch out!

treuhand-Dienst gewünscht? - frag per PM an
BTC 174X17nR7vEQBQo4GXKRGMGaTmB49Gf1yT
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 01, 2013, 06:17:06 PM
 #156

This is my question. If there would be no state monopoly on violence (=regulation), what would stop me from killing my competitor instead of improving my product? A bullet is surely cheaper than investing in actual innovation is.

Well there never has been a stateless (post-state) society so there are only theoretical answers. 
Uhm. No. There, you're wrong. Somalia is post-state, and if it's a bad place to live, that's mostly because of how awful the State was before it collapsed. They have a functioning polycentric law system, which pre-existed the state, and picked up right where the state left off when it collapsed, and life has greatly improved since the collapse of the State.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Alpaca John
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42



View Profile
June 01, 2013, 11:38:31 PM
 #157


Well, let's start with the things that a natural monopoly must worry about as much as the cartel does:
Competition. If the monopoly/cartel raises prices enough that a new competitor can undercut them and still make a profit, then that new competitor will appear to take advantage of that situation.
Customer dissatisfaction. If the monopoly/cartel provides a poor enough product or service that the customers are willing to pay more for a superior one, then a new competitor will appear to take advantage of that situation.
Alternatives/new technology. This is somewhat of a subset of the first point, but it's separate enough to warrant being it's own point. The monopoly/cartel need not only worry about someone coming along to provide the same product or service at lower prices or better quality, they must also worry about someone coming along and providing a competing product or service. For example, let's say one company managed to get a monopoly on fast-food hamburgers. They bought up or out-competed every other burger joint in town. They would still be competing with fast-food tacos, pizza, and chicken. Additionally, one of their out-competed rivals might switch gears, and sell frozen hamburgers, that the consumer could microwave at home.

If I'd have a monopoly and any of the above would happen, I'd just buy them up and have all of that annoying 'competition' over with it. Either that or I'd buy up their suppliers.

This actually happens all the time.

Quote
Now for the additional worry that a cartel has:
Infighting. A cartel is, as I mentioned in another thread, somewhat like a wolf-pack made entirely of alphas. At any time, one of those members could turn on the others, and by utilizing one of those methods that I mentioned earlier could bring down a monopoly, squeeze out some extra profits at the expense of the other cartel members. For example, if Burger King, White Castle, McDonalds, and Hardee's/Carl's Jr were the members of a cartel which set hamburger prices, one could cut prices and "steal" business from the others, or refocus on service or product quality, and likewise "steal" business from the others. Or they could start selling frozen burgers (White Castle already does this, Harold and Kumar could have just gone to Wal-mart, instead), or branch out into Pizza (KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, for instance, are all part of one company, Yum! Brands.)

You have just explained why infighting would not be a rational thing to do if you'd have a cartel. If you believe that you are able to figure this out a priori, but those who'd own a cartel would not, that strikes me as very naive.


No, not to "avoid" monopolies. To ensure that only the right people get monopolies, and to protect those who do.

That is what I said.



Well, Let's say you were a drug dealer. You had your "turf" staked out, your favorite corner where people came to you to buy their drugs. Now, let's say another dealer "muscled in" on your turf, and one morning, you walk out to "your" corner, to find him and two big tough guys standing where you usually do. You go up to him, and you say, "Yo, this my turf, man, go get yer own corner." He replies, "It's my turf, now, punk. Piss off."

At this point you have several options: You could try for a peaceful solution, you could shoot him yourself, or you could go to the cops. Let's assume that you're a more enlightened drug dealer than is average, and you know that shooting him yourself will only start a war between his gang and yours, and going to the cops will, at best, still mean you need to get a new corner, because the cops will be watching that one for a while, and at worst, land you in jail right next to your rival and his buddies. So you opt for a peaceful solution.

Let's further say that I am an arbitrator (I am, by the way) and offer services to the drug dealers in the area (I don't, but only because I don't know any). You come to me, and ask for my assistance in resolving this turf dispute between you and the new guy. I accept, and proceed to offer my service as an arbitrator to the new gentleman, offering a peaceful solution, one that does not end up with him dead or behind bars. Now, we're starting to strain credulity, but let's assume that the other drug dealer is also wiser than average, and sees the benefit of my proposal. He agrees to arbitrate the dispute, rather than deal with the issue in the typical violent manner.

We then go to a room, and discuss the problems. It is discovered that the new guy was pushed out of his turf by yet another dealer, and just needed a place to conduct his business, and that's why he's taken over your spot. I suggest that the particular intersection where you do business has four corners, and he can simply take the opposite one, which is closer to his home anyway. He accepts, and you get your corner back, and he has a shorter "commute." Everybody happy, nobody dead. This is just off the top of my head, understand, and may not be entirely accurate, it's certainly grossly simplified. But it gets the gist across.

It does get the gist across. You don't seem to properly understand scarcity. You can't just make up a new street corner and have a happy end. What if all the corners are taken? Like they probably would be in real life?

Also, what if the dude with the two strong henchman decides that he'd rather not have a competitor across the street at all, and tells you to fuck of?


I'd say the Sinaloa Cartel is doing a pretty good job of "regulating" the drug economy in Mexico.

Right, so you agree that somebody will use force to establish power even in the absence of a state then? In that case we agree.

That is why I prefer a state over the alternative.
Alpaca John
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42



View Profile
June 01, 2013, 11:53:57 PM
 #158

If most of your customers are law abiding they may choose to not support your unlawful (in natural law sense) actions against another.

People still go to BP.

Quote
The question also becomes IS killing a competitor lower cost and lower risk then arbitration, licensing, marketing, or other non-violent means.

I would say so, yes. Ignoring the drug-cartel example I can't think of any way to prove this in any way, so I'll just say it's my opinion, for now. Maybe I can come up with something better if I think a bit more about it. (Or maybe I'll find that I'm wrong.) But for now, I'm gonna go ahead and say that it is probably much cheaper.

Quote
Once again all theory but if private security forces replaced police states then you could find your security contract revoked per a condition in the contract.

What's the point of having a contract if there is no state? (Or: what is the point of having a state if it can't enforce it's law?)

Quote
Still I wasn't really talking about the lack of a state.

Oh? Sorry, that's what I thought. My bad, I guess.

Quote
I was just pointing out the power of the cartels is a direct result of regulation, namely the prohibition on certain substances, not a lack of regulation as you seem to claim.

I think it's both. The regulation made them rich enough to defy the state, resulting in a failure of the state (absence of state power and thus regulation), leading to cartels. 
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 01, 2013, 11:56:31 PM
 #159


Well, let's start with the things that a natural monopoly must worry about as much as the cartel does:
Competition. If the monopoly/cartel raises prices enough that a new competitor can undercut them and still make a profit, then that new competitor will appear to take advantage of that situation.
Customer dissatisfaction. If the monopoly/cartel provides a poor enough product or service that the customers are willing to pay more for a superior one, then a new competitor will appear to take advantage of that situation.
Alternatives/new technology. This is somewhat of a subset of the first point, but it's separate enough to warrant being it's own point. The monopoly/cartel need not only worry about someone coming along to provide the same product or service at lower prices or better quality, they must also worry about someone coming along and providing a competing product or service. For example, let's say one company managed to get a monopoly on fast-food hamburgers. They bought up or out-competed every other burger joint in town. They would still be competing with fast-food tacos, pizza, and chicken. Additionally, one of their out-competed rivals might switch gears, and sell frozen hamburgers, that the consumer could microwave at home.

If I'd have a monopoly and any of the above would happen, I'd just buy them up and have all of that annoying 'competition' over with it. Either that or I'd buy up their suppliers.

This actually happens all the time.

Buying up competition just provides incentive for new competition to spring up... specifically to be bought out. Rinse, repeat.
Quote
Now for the additional worry that a cartel has:
Infighting. A cartel is, as I mentioned in another thread, somewhat like a wolf-pack made entirely of alphas. At any time, one of those members could turn on the others, and by utilizing one of those methods that I mentioned earlier could bring down a monopoly, squeeze out some extra profits at the expense of the other cartel members. For example, if Burger King, White Castle, McDonalds, and Hardee's/Carl's Jr were the members of a cartel which set hamburger prices, one could cut prices and "steal" business from the others, or refocus on service or product quality, and likewise "steal" business from the others. Or they could start selling frozen burgers (White Castle already does this, Harold and Kumar could have just gone to Wal-mart, instead), or branch out into Pizza (KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, for instance, are all part of one company, Yum! Brands.)

You have just explained why infighting would not be a rational thing to do if you'd have a cartel. If you believe that you are able to figure this out a priori, but those who'd own a cartel would not, that strikes me as very naive.
Could you do me a favor and explain exactly how my explanation of why infighting ("stealing" customers) is the rational thing to do is an explanation of why it's not?

No, not to "avoid" monopolies. To ensure that only the right people get monopolies, and to protect those who do.

That is what I said.
That's not in the least what you said.


Well, Let's say you were a drug dealer. You had your "turf" staked out, your favorite corner where people came to you to buy their drugs. Now, let's say another dealer "muscled in" on your turf, and one morning, you walk out to "your" corner, to find him and two big tough guys standing where you usually do. You go up to him, and you say, "Yo, this my turf, man, go get yer own corner." He replies, "It's my turf, now, punk. Piss off."

At this point you have several options: You could try for a peaceful solution, you could shoot him yourself, or you could go to the cops. Let's assume that you're a more enlightened drug dealer than is average, and you know that shooting him yourself will only start a war between his gang and yours, and going to the cops will, at best, still mean you need to get a new corner, because the cops will be watching that one for a while, and at worst, land you in jail right next to your rival and his buddies. So you opt for a peaceful solution.

Let's further say that I am an arbitrator (I am, by the way) and offer services to the drug dealers in the area (I don't, but only because I don't know any). You come to me, and ask for my assistance in resolving this turf dispute between you and the new guy. I accept, and proceed to offer my service as an arbitrator to the new gentleman, offering a peaceful solution, one that does not end up with him dead or behind bars. Now, we're starting to strain credulity, but let's assume that the other drug dealer is also wiser than average, and sees the benefit of my proposal. He agrees to arbitrate the dispute, rather than deal with the issue in the typical violent manner.

We then go to a room, and discuss the problems. It is discovered that the new guy was pushed out of his turf by yet another dealer, and just needed a place to conduct his business, and that's why he's taken over your spot. I suggest that the particular intersection where you do business has four corners, and he can simply take the opposite one, which is closer to his home anyway. He accepts, and you get your corner back, and he has a shorter "commute." Everybody happy, nobody dead. This is just off the top of my head, understand, and may not be entirely accurate, it's certainly grossly simplified. But it gets the gist across.

It does get the gist across. You don't seem to properly understand scarcity. You can't just make up a new street corner and have a happy end. What if all the corners are taken? Like they probably would be in real life?

Also, what if the dude with the two strong henchman decides that he'd rather not have a competitor across the street at all, and tells you to fuck of?
You're telling the capitalist he doesn't understand scarcity? You must have access to the good shit. I told you it was a simplified example. If you don't like that, look up arbitration on the Googles.

I'd say the Sinaloa Cartel is doing a pretty good job of "regulating" the drug economy in Mexico.

Right, so you agree that somebody will use force to establish power even in the absence of a state then? In that case we agree.

That is why I prefer a state over the alternative.
People will certainly try. If not prevented, they may even succeed. And set up another State. Which is why I prefer AnCap over the alternative.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
June 02, 2013, 12:33:05 AM
 #160

As I said, you have to go through proper channels to get a monopoly in the US.  If you don't, the penalties are harsh. But if you do, the benefits are enormous. And just like you can't go into a smoke shop and ask for a bong (it has to be called a "water pipe"), you can't call it a monopoly. It's a "government contract."


Also, legal remedies are typically only taken when there is an abuse of a monopoly. It's not illegal to have a monopoly, it's illegal to use it in ways that gain you an unfair position that you wouldn't otherwise have. Of course, I agree that problematic monopolies typically only arise due to government interference. But the solution to problems created by government being more government is nothing new.

If I am the only maker of gerbil hearses in the market, I have the monopoly. Legally, that doesn't mean anything needs to be done about it unless I use my monopoly position to lock out new entrants or to destroy competitors to my small-mammal-vehicle tire division.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!