Anarchy =~ Communism

[myrkul]

I never fail to find something relevant by hitting up XKCD.

http://xkcd.com/706/

Ha ha, nice. Perhaps that's what I should do next time?

"But in an anarchy what--"

WHAM

"Well, what stopped me in the current society?"

Lol

Exactly. I've been making that point pretty much every time I turn around.

[1713980310]

1713980310

[1713980310]

1713980310

[JA37]

We rely on basic human greed to ensure that at least one will always undercut the others, and the NAP to ensure that the others don't beat him up for it. That's a distinct oversimplification, but, there it is.

But if that doesn't happen today, why would it happen in an AnCap society? Oligopolys are broken up regularly.
It seems that basic human greed is what creates an oligopoly, not breaks up one.

[myrkul]

We rely on basic human greed to ensure that at least one will always undercut the others, and the NAP to ensure that the others don't beat him up for it. That's a distinct oversimplification, but, there it is.

But if that doesn't happen today, why would it happen in an AnCap society? Oligopolys are broken up regularly.
It seems that basic human greed is what creates an oligopoly, not breaks up one.

Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.

[JA37]

Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.

I wasn't talking about the example. I was talking about the real world, today, outside your window.

[The Script]

Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.

I wasn't talking about the example. I was talking about the real world, today, outside your window.

I don't understand. Are you saying something exists....outside of the Internet?! Lies.

P.S. What is this..."window"?

[myrkul]

Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.

I wasn't talking about the example. I was talking about the real world, today, outside your window.

I have occasionally visited this "outside" you speak of. And I found that most oligarchies that got broke up were replaced by monopolies. It's funny, really. If they'd just left it alone, when the profit margin got high enough, someone would have stepped in and made a good profit breaking up that cartel. Instead, they made a monopoly, and regulated the heck out of it, to keep any competition from coming in.

[JA37]

I have occasionally visited this "outside" you speak of. And I found that most oligarchies that got broke up were replaced by monopolies. It's funny, really. If they'd just left it alone, when the profit margin got high enough, someone would have stepped in and made a good profit breaking up that cartel. Instead, they made a monopoly, and regulated the heck out of it, to keep any competition from coming in.

THEY made a monopoly? How do you make a monopoly by fining the companies who broke the law, put those responsible behind bars and tell everyone to follow the rules? That's how we handle oligopolies where I come from. How do you do it? Companies can still continue to operate, just within the rules.
Perhaps you just have a crappy government that needs to be replaced? Start campaigning.

[AyeYo]

Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.

I wasn't talking about the example. I was talking about the real world, today, outside your window.

I have occasionally visited this "outside" you speak of. And I found that most oligarchies that got broke up were replaced by monopolies.

Citation needed.

[J180]

THEY made a monopoly? How do you make a monopoly by fining the companies who broke the law, put those responsible behind bars and tell everyone to follow the rules? That's how we handle oligopolies where I come from. How do you do it? Companies can still continue to operate, just within the rules.
Perhaps you just have a crappy government that needs to be replaced? Start campaigning.

Because once you set those laws up, businesses often lobby to change them to their favor. Here's a chunk of text from Machinery of Freedom:

   The difficulties facing private cartels are nicely stated in Rockefeller's description, cited by McGee, of an unsuccessful
   attempt (in 1872) to control the production of crude oil and to drive up its price:

                     . . . the high price for the crude oil resulted, as it had always done before and will always do so long as oil
                     comes out of the ground, in increasing the production, and they got too much oil. We could not find a market
                     for it.

                     ... of course, any who were not in this association were undertaking to produce all they possibly could; and as to
                     those who were in the association, many of them men of honor and high standing, the temptation was very great
                     to get a little more oil than they had promised their associates or us would come. It seemed very difficult to
                     prevent the oil coming at that price ....

   Rockefeller's prediction was overly pessimistic. Today, although oil still comes out of the ground, federal and state
   governments have succeeded where the oil producers of 1872 failed. Through federal oil import quotas and state
   restrictions on production, they keep the price of oil high and the production low. Progress.

   It is widely believed that railroads in the late nineteenth century wielded almost unlimited monopoly power. Actually,
   as Kolko shows, long distance transportation was highly competitive, freight rates were declining, and the number of
   railroads was increasing until after the turn of the century. One line might have a monopoly for short distances along
   its route, but a shipper operating between two major cities had a choice of many alternative routes—twenty existed
   between St. Louis and Atlanta, for instance. Railroad rebates, frequently cited as evidence of monopoly, were actually
   the opposite; they were discounts that major shippers were able to get from one railroad by threatening to ship via a
   competitor.

   Rail executives often got together to try to fix rates, but most of these conspiracies broke down, often in a few months,
   for the reasons Rockefeller cites in his analysis of the attempt to control crude oil production. Either the parties to the
   agreement surreptitiously cut rates (often by misclassifying freight or by offering secret rebates) in order to steal
   customers from each other, or some outside railroad took advantage of the high rates and moved in. J. P. Morgan
   committed his enormous resources of money and reputation to cartelizing the industry, but he met with almost
   unmitigated failure. In the beginning of 1889, for example, he formed the Interstate Commerce Railway Association to
   control rates among the western railroads. By March a rate war was going, and by June the situation was back to where
   it had been before he intervened.

   By this time a new factor was entering the situation. In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Commission was created by the
   federal government with (contrary to most history books) the support of much of the railroad industry. The ICC's
   original powers were limited; Morgan attempted to use it to help enforce the 1889 agreement, but without success.

   During the next 31 years its powers were steadily increased, first in the direction of allowing it to prohibit rebates
   (which, Kolko estimates, were costing the railroads 10 percent of their gross income) and finally by giving it the power
   to set rates.

   The people with the greatest interest in what the ICC did were the people in the rail industry. The result was that they
   dominated it, and it rapidly became an instrument for achieving the monopoly prices that they had been unable to get
   on the free market. The pattern was clear as early as 1889, when Aldace Walker, one of the original appointees to the
   ICC, resigned to become head of Morgan's Interstate Commerce Railway Association. He ended up as chairman of the
   board of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe. The ICC has served the railroads as a cartelizing agent up to the present
   day; in addition, it has expanded its authority to cover other forms of transportation and to prevent them, where
   possible, from undercutting the railroads.

He then goes on to describe the process even more effectively done with the Civil Aeronautics Administration.

It's from reading the occasion news article like this RIAA lobbyist becomes federal judge, rules on file-sharing cases which makes me believe the process is still common today.

[myrkul]

Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.

I wasn't talking about the example. I was talking about the real world, today, outside your window.

I have occasionally visited this "outside" you speak of. And I found that most oligarchies that got broke up were replaced by monopolies.

Citation needed.

[1]

[AyeYo]

Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.

I wasn't talking about the example. I was talking about the real world, today, outside your window.

I have occasionally visited this "outside" you speak of. And I found that most oligarchies that got broke up were replaced by monopolies.

Citation needed.

[1]

So AT&T was broken up into a bunch of small companies.  Cool story, I just have a couple questions.


1. How does that prove your point?

2. You said "most" broken up are replaced by monopolies... yet you only give one example.  Where are all the others to prove this "most" statement?

[myrkul]

So AT&T was broken up into a bunch of small companies.  Cool story, I just have a couple questions.


1. How does that prove your point?

2. You said "most" broken up are replaced by monopolies... yet you only give one example.  Where are all the others to prove this "most" statement?

1. A regional monopoly is still a monopoly.

2. Here. [2] It's full of "break up the big monopolies into little, regional monopolies"

[AyeYo]

So AT&T was broken up into a bunch of small companies.  Cool story, I just have a couple questions.


1. How does that prove your point?

2. You said "most" broken up are replaced by monopolies... yet you only give one example.  Where are all the others to prove this "most" statement?

1. A regional monopoly is still a monopoly.

Ah, back to the semantics game.  I guess the McDonald's down the street from me is a monopoly because it is the only dining establishment located on that 100'x100' piece of ground.

2. Here. [2] It's full of "break up the big monopolies into little, regional monopolies"

LOL at little monopoly.  There's no such thing.  They're little because they're not monopolies.


You said MOST oligopolies (not monopolies) are broken up and become a monopoly instead.  You still have not proved this. Show me an OLIGOPOLY (that's a GROUP of companies) that got broken up and turned into ONE BIG monopoly company.

[myrkul]

In order for me to prove anything to you, We'll need to share a language. And while all the words you use are English, I don't think we define most of them the same way.

[AyeYo]

In order for me to prove anything to you, We'll need to share a language. And while all the words you use are English, I don't think we define most of them the same way.

Well of course, because you make them mean whatever you want them to mean to suit your current argument.

I use only the commonly accepted defintions which can easily be found in any English dictionary.

[myrkul]

re·gion/ˈrējən/Noun
1. An area or division, esp. part of a country or the world having definable characteristics but not always fixed boundaries.
2. An administrative district of a city or country.

"100'x100'", huh?

[JA37]

Because once you set those laws up, businesses often lobby to change them to their favor. Here's a chunk of text from Machinery of Freedom:

'Wall-o-text'-deleted.

It's from reading the occasion news article like this RIAA lobbyist becomes federal judge, rules on file-sharing cases which makes me believe the process is still common today.

If it's that easy to change the rules you need a stronger government, not a weaker one. I don't understand your way of thinking. "The companies have a hard time following the rules, so let's just remove the rules". How does that help?

The second sentence is a good example of a bad practice, and something that shouldn't be allowed. I've expressed that view before, although perhaps not in this thread.

[AyeYo]

re·gion/ˈrējən/Noun
1. An area or division, esp. part of a country or the world having definable characteristics but not always fixed boundaries.
2. An administrative district of a city or country.

"100'x100'", huh?

Still waiting for you to provide evidence for your statement that oligopolies are turned into a monopoly through government break up.

I'm not going to let you skip out on this one.

[myrkul]

I'm not going to let you skip out on this one.

'let me' ... you're funny.

As it happens, I couldn't find any oligopolies that were broken up at all. The closest I could come is Standard Oil, which wasn't even a monopoly, really. So, I retract my previous statement, and replace it with this one: The government is completely inept at breaking up oligopolies.

[The Script]

I think the Federal Reserve may be an example of the government "breaking up" an oligopoly and replacing it with a monopoly.  The Federal Reserve Act was written by a bunch of bankers to give themselves a monopoly on the banking system and passed by the government.