PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Ideas: Utopia vs Reality.




RonpaulSupporter7777
10-06-2008, 04:46 PM
Hi.

First off, I started this thread in hopes that an open and intelligent dialogue between the supporters of Ron Paul's political philosophy could be born. While I am an ardent supporter of Conservative Libertarian values, especially in regards to foreign policy measures, I am not at all convinced that our society will greatly benifit from hard-line "Milton Friedman" stlye economics.

Now I do realize that Ron Paul is more of a Ludwig Von Mises, Austrian school of economics type of guy. I am not out to criticize Conservative Libertarian economic philosophies, but only to examine the potential consequences these particular ideologies could have in regards to the Liberty Movement that is alive and well in America.

Could we as a movement be blinding ourselves by only seeing through the lense of theoretical utopia rather than experience and reality? What about the potential consequences that leftist utopian movements have been plagued with such as communism and socialism.

Could this Ron Paul inspired American Revolution really be the root of all reform or simply another enthusiastic idea whose time will bring us some good, but also lots of the bad?

Certain aspects of this movement rest on the assumption that democracy is a constantly moving entity that must be upheld and defended by a largely apathetic/distracted American people; just as socialism is reliant on a government with strict checks and balances carried out by a majority of corrupted politicians/beauracrats.

My main point is that sometimes a great idea is worth fighting for, but when enacted it could potentially lead to another set of disasters. How are we so sure that deregulated markets in the American Economy will not lead to corruption and further consolidation of wealth among the already rich elitists of this world?

Maybe Economics is just as alive and changing as a democratic republic? If so, we will have to be on gaurd to potential pitfalls of Conservative Libertarian Economic Policies. We may even have to let the government step in to regulate in certain situations. If we hold true to a dogmatic belief of "infallibility" within our economic outlook and blame everything but our own belief system we will be just as doomed as communism and socialism.

dannno
10-06-2008, 04:50 PM
How are we so sure that deregulated markets in the American Economy will not lead to corruption and further consolidation of wealth among the already rich elitists of this world?


Because it is the rich elitists who currently use our government regulate the markets in their favor.

The End.

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 04:52 PM
Hi.

First off, I started this thread in hopes that an open and intelligent dialogue between the supporters of Ron Paul's political philosophy could be born. While I am an ardent supporter of Conservative Libertarian values, especially in regards to foreign policy measures, I am not at all convinced that our society will greatly benifit from hard-line "Milton Friedman" stlye economics.

Now I do realize that Ron Paul is more of a Ludwig Von Mises, Austrian school of economics type of guy. I am not out to criticize Conservative Libertarian economic philosophies, but only to examine the potential consequences these particular ideologies could have in regards to the Liberty Movement that is alive and well in America.

Could we as a movement be blinding ourselves by only seeing through the lense of theoretical utopia rather than experience and reality? What about the potential consequences that leftist utopian movements have been plagued with such as communism and socialism.

Could this Ron Paul inspired American Revolution really be the root of all reform or simply another enthusiastic idea whose time will bring us some good, but also lots of the bad?

Certain aspects of this movement rest on the assumption that democracy is a constantly moving entity that must be upheld and defended by a largely apathetic/distracted American people; just as socialism is reliant on a government with strict checks and balances carried out by a majority of corrupted politicians/beauracrats.

My main point is that sometimes a great idea is worth fighting for, but when enacted it could potentially lead to another set of disasters. How are we so sure that deregulated markets in the American Economy will not lead to corruption and further consolidation of wealth among the already rich elitists of this world?

Maybe Economics is just as alive and changing as a democratic republic? If so, we will have to be on gaurd to potential pitfalls of Conservative Libertarian Economic Policies. We may even have to let the government step in to regulate in certain situations. If we hold true to a dogmatic belief of "infallibility" within our economic outlook and blame everything but our own belief system we will be just as doomed as communism and socialism.

I would suggest doing some reading. Check out mises.org. They have a lot of free reading material. Visit their forums and ask questions there. Also, you need to keep in mind that many regulations that we have help not hurt large corporations. I may do a more in-depth response later, I'm busy atm.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 04:53 PM
Hi.

First off, I started this thread in hopes that an open and intelligent dialogue between the supporters of Ron Paul's political philosophy could be born. While I am an ardent supporter of Conservative Libertarian values, especially in regards to foreign policy measures, I am not at all convinced that our society will greatly benifit from hard-line "Milton Friedman" stlye economics.

Now I do realize that Ron Paul is more of a Ludwig Von Mises, Austrian school of economics type of guy. I am not out to criticize Conservative Libertarian economic philosophies, but only to examine the potential consequences these particular ideologies could have in regards to the Liberty Movement that is alive and well in America.

Could we as a movement be blinding ourselves by only seeing through the lense of theoretical utopia rather than experience and reality? What about the potential consequences that leftist utopian movements have been plagued with such as communism and socialism.

Could this Ron Paul inspired American Revolution really be the root of all reform or simply another enthusiastic idea whose time will bring us some good, but also lots of the bad?

Certain aspects of this movement rest on the assumption that democracy is a constantly moving entity that must be upheld and defended by a largely apathetic/distracted American people; just as socialism is reliant on a government with strict checks and balances carried out by a majority of corrupted politicians/beauracrats.

My main point is that sometimes a great idea is worth fighting for, but when enacted it could potentially lead to another set of disasters. How are we so sure that deregulated markets in the American Economy will not lead to corruption and further consolidation of wealth among the already rich elitists of this world?

Maybe Economics is just as alive and changing as a democratic republic? If so, we will have to be on gaurd to potential pitfalls of Conservative Libertarian Economic Policies. We may even have to let the government step in to regulate in certain situations. If we hold true to a dogmatic belief of "infallibility" within our economic outlook and blame everything but our own belief system we will be just as doomed as communism and socialism.

Thank you for doing something no one dares on this forum. Challenging our own status quo. If we hate the current status quo so much we should not emulate that on this forum. We should be open to new ideas.

And a utopia is NOT possible. Zeitgeist doesn't advocate it.

Please watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTQXgVb8V9M

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 04:55 PM
Because it is the rich elitists who currently use our government regulate the markets in their favor.

The End.

In a free market society, some will win and some will lose. The winners will try to maintain the competitive edge. As time goes on, things like the fed, lobbyists will show up to MAINTAIN that edge and keep the profits rolling in. These people, then, will be considered elites. This current state in America is effectively what Capitalism creates: greed, self interest, no accountability, etc.

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 04:58 PM
short article on regulation: http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=485

Anti Federalist
10-06-2008, 04:59 PM
Hi.

First off, I started this thread in hopes that an open and intelligent dialogue between the supporters of Ron Paul's political philosophy could be born. While I am an ardent supporter of Conservative Libertarian values, especially in regards to foreign policy measures, I am not at all convinced that our society will greatly benifit from hard-line "Milton Friedman" stlye economics.

Now I do realize that Ron Paul is more of a Ludwig Von Mises, Austrian school of economics type of guy. I am not out to criticize Conservative Libertarian economic philosophies, but only to examine the potential consequences these particular ideologies could have in regards to the Liberty Movement that is alive and well in America.

Could we as a movement be blinding ourselves by only seeing through the lense of theoretical utopia rather than experience and reality? What about the potential consequences that leftist utopian movements have been plagued with such as communism and socialism.

Could this Ron Paul inspired American Revolution really be the root of all reform or simply another enthusiastic idea whose time will bring us some good, but also lots of the bad?

Certain aspects of this movement rest on the assumption that democracy is a constantly moving entity that must be upheld and defended by a largely apathetic/distracted American people; just as socialism is reliant on a government with strict checks and balances carried out by a majority of corrupted politicians/beauracrats.

My main point is that sometimes a great idea is worth fighting for, but when enacted it could potentially lead to another set of disasters. How are we so sure that deregulated markets in the American Economy will not lead to corruption and further consolidation of wealth among the already rich elitists of this world?

Maybe Economics is just as alive and changing as a democratic republic? If so, we will have to be on gaurd to potential pitfalls of Conservative Libertarian Economic Policies. We may even have to let the government step in to regulate in certain situations. If we hold true to a dogmatic belief of "infallibility" within our economic outlook and blame everything but our own belief system we will be just as doomed as communism and socialism.

There are many pratfalls within a pure free market economy.

The "cure" for these "downsides" are worse than the disease. Any form of a government "managed" economy must, by it's very definition, become, or start out as being authoritarian.

Put another way:

In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war* and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms*, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!

me3
10-06-2008, 05:01 PM
First off, I started this thread in hopes that an open and intelligent dialogue between the supporters of Ron Paul's political philosophy could be born. While I am an ardent supporter of Conservative Libertarian values, especially in regards to foreign policy measures, I am not at all convinced that our society will greatly benifit from hard-line "Milton Friedman" stlye economics.
Libertarianism is not conservatism. Milton Friedman was not a libertarian.


Now I do realize that Ron Paul is more of a Ludwig Von Mises, Austrian school of economics type of guy. I am not out to criticize Conservative Libertarian economic philosophies, but only to examine the potential consequences these particular ideologies could have in regards to the Liberty Movement that is alive and well in America.
He's not "more of a", "he is a" LvM Austrian School guy. Consequences? Life is filled with consequences. Ron Paul's philosophy is not consequentialist or utilitarian. Theft and murder are wrong. All of the time.


Could we as a movement be blinding ourselves by only seeing through the lense of theoretical utopia rather than experience and reality? What about the potential consequences that leftist utopian movements have been plagued with such as communism and socialism.
"We as a movement"? There is nothing theoretical about liberty. And we're not a movement. I don't know you. You don't sound like a Ron Paul supporter.

If you don't know the difference between Austrian economics and communism/socialism then you need to go do some research.


Certain aspects of this movement rest on the assumption that democracy is a constantly moving entity that must be upheld and defended by a largely apathetic/distracted American people; just as socialism is reliant on a government with strict checks and balances carried out by a majority of corrupted politicians/beauracrats.
What movement? There are lefties, righties and independents. Anarchists, libertarians and minarchists. You got old, young, male, female, black, white and other. The "movement" is only concerned with the ideology of liberty. Not democracy. Liberty.


My main point is that sometimes a great idea is worth fighting for, but when enacted it could potentially lead to another set of disasters. How are we so sure that deregulated markets in the American Economy will not lead to corruption and further consolidation of wealth among the already rich elitists of this world?
Because if the market is deregulated, you will always have alternatives. And thus, there can be no corrupt monopolies because as soon as they provided a bad product, poor service or price gouged, a competitor would come and take away their customers.

The rich don't consolidate their wealth through deregulation. They consolidate their wealth through regulation that limits competition and institutionalizes their market position.


Maybe Economics is just as alive and changing as a democratic republic?
No. The truth is the truth. There are economic truths and economic fallacies.


If so, we will have to be on gaurd to potential pitfalls of Conservative Libertarian Economic Policies.
Why don't you do some research instead of constructing strawmen about "conservative libertarianism" which doesn't even exist!


We may even have to let the government step in to regulate in certain situations. If we hold true to a dogmatic belief of "infallibility" within our economic outlook and blame everything but our own belief system we will be just as doomed as communism and socialism.
This is just nonsense. Please learn something, anything about Austrian Economics. Please.

brandon
10-06-2008, 05:01 PM
Hi.

First off, I started this thread in hopes that an open and intelligent dialogue between the supporters of Ron Paul's political philosophy could be born. While I am an ardent supporter of Conservative Libertarian values, especially in regards to foreign policy measures, I am not at all convinced that our society will greatly benifit from hard-line "Milton Friedman" stlye economics.

Now I do realize that Ron Paul is more of a Ludwig Von Mises, Austrian school of economics type of guy. I am not out to criticize Conservative Libertarian economic philosophies, but only to examine the potential consequences these particular ideologies could have in regards to the Liberty Movement that is alive and well in America.

Could we as a movement be blinding ourselves by only seeing through the lense of theoretical utopia rather than experience and reality? What about the potential consequences that leftist utopian movements have been plagued with such as communism and socialism.

Could this Ron Paul inspired American Revolution really be the root of all reform or simply another enthusiastic idea whose time will bring us some good, but also lots of the bad?

Certain aspects of this movement rest on the assumption that democracy is a constantly moving entity that must be upheld and defended by a largely apathetic/distracted American people; just as socialism is reliant on a government with strict checks and balances carried out by a majority of corrupted politicians/beauracrats.

My main point is that sometimes a great idea is worth fighting for, but when enacted it could potentially lead to another set of disasters. How are we so sure that deregulated markets in the American Economy will not lead to corruption and further consolidation of wealth among the already rich elitists of this world?

Maybe Economics is just as alive and changing as a democratic republic? If so, we will have to be on gaurd to potential pitfalls of Conservative Libertarian Economic Policies. We may even have to let the government step in to regulate in certain situations. If we hold true to a dogmatic belief of "infallibility" within our economic outlook and blame everything but our own belief system we will be just as doomed as communism and socialism.

I welcome the debate, and it is always good to challenge your own beliefs. However, no where in your post did you make any specific criticisms of austrian economics other then the vague "it may lead to corruption." Can you be a little more specific?

Also, Friedman was a monetarist. He believed that a central banking system is vital to a healthy economy. That is the opposite of what Paul and the Austrians believe.

RonpaulSupporter7777
10-06-2008, 05:01 PM
Exactly TeenforPaul.

I am also trying to state that the Ron Paul movement will become another high-minded know it all movement if we think that our ideas, and ours alone, will provide the answer to all our ills as a society.

There are many many factors at play in this economy. Liberals do have some credibility when they critcize certain aspects of a free economy. Free Market Capitalism does have its downsides and those downsides can be potentially debilitating to the middle class and impoverished.

Liberal economic policies try to make our society more equal and fair through collectivism. Free Market, conservative economic policies try to make society more equal and fair as well. I am still fairly new to differentiating between the similar aspects of liberal and conservative economic outcomes.

One thing I do know is that conservative economists and liberal economists for years have debated that each side holds the better idea when both sides rest on unstable variables such as government respectablility and an informed and active American public.

me3
10-06-2008, 05:02 PM
In a free market society, some will win and some will lose. The winners will try to maintain the competitive edge. As time goes on, things like the fed, lobbyists will show up to MAINTAIN that edge and keep the profits rolling in. These people, then, will be considered elites. This current state in America is effectively what Capitalism creates: greed, self interest, no accountability, etc.
Nonsense. Seriously, where do you get this stuff?

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 05:05 PM
In a free market society, some will win and some will lose. The winners will try to maintain the competitive edge. As time goes on, things like the fed, lobbyists will show up to MAINTAIN that edge and keep the profits rolling in. These people, then, will be considered elites. This current state in America is effectively what Capitalism creates: greed, self interest, no accountability, etc.

...however, if the federal government is not permitted to interfere in markets whatsoever, lobbyists will not be able to use government force to kill off competition.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:05 PM
There are many pratfalls within a pure free market economy.

The "cure" for these "downsides" are worse than the disease. Any form of a government "managed" economy must, by it's very definition, become, or start out as being authoritarian.

Put another way:

In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war* and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms*, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!

That quote is invalid because at no point in history has a people (all of them) experienced a life of wealth, luxury and tranquility. This notion that we won't have an incentive if free-market is overthrown is a fallacy.

The fact is, in a pure free market society, some will win, other will lose. The winners will do whatever they can to hang on to that lead, will they not? Things like corruption will be acted upon to maintain that "competitive edge." Face the facts. Our nation's history is our witness.

me3
10-06-2008, 05:06 PM
Liberals do have some credibility when they critcize certain aspects of a free economy.
Such as?


Free Market Capitalism does have its downsides and those downsides can be potentially debilitating to the middle class and impoverished.
What downsides? How is it "potentially" debilitating?


One thing I do know is that conservative economists and liberal economists for years have debated that each side holds the better idea when both sides rest on unstable variables such as government respectablility and an informed and active American public.
Austrian Economics is not conservative! Stop saying conservative! There is nothing conservative about Austrian Economics!!!!!!!!!!!

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 05:07 PM
That quote is invalid because at no point in history has a people (all of them) experienced a life of wealth, luxury and tranquility. This notion that we won't have an incentive if free-market is overthrown is a fallacy.

The fact is, in a pure free market society, some will win, other will lose. The winners will do whatever they can to hang on to that lead, will they not? Things like corruption will be acted upon to maintain that "competitive edge." Face the facts. Our nation's history is our witness.

The fact is, the market is not a zero-sum game. You're right that corruption has screwed up the market, but if we actually had an enforceable Constitution and a way to prevent the government from interfering whatsoever, that would no longer be the case.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:08 PM
...however, if the federal government is not permitted to interfere in markets whatsoever, lobbyists will not be able to use government force to kill competition.

Ok then, if the governments don't interfere, Microsoft would be the only software company. GE would be our only energy company. And exxon would be our only oil company.

When a company gets that edge, they will do what's neccesary to keep it. Standard oil did it by controlling prices. Just think about it. Monetary based systems of any kind (socialism, capitalism, communism) doesn't work anymore.

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 05:09 PM
That quote is invalid because at no point in history has a people (all of them) experienced a life of wealth, luxury and tranquility. This notion that we won't have an incentive if free-market is overthrown is a fallacy.

The fact is, in a pure free market society, some will win, other will lose. The winners will do whatever they can to hang on to that lead, will they not? Things like corruption will be acted upon to maintain that "competitive edge." Face the facts. Our nation's history is our witness.

You really need to be specific.

me3
10-06-2008, 05:09 PM
That quote is invalid because at no point in history has a people (all of them) experienced a life of wealth, luxury and tranquility. This notion that we won't have an incentive if free-market is overthrown is a fallacy.
Why should all people have wealth, luxury and tranquility? When you are born, is wealth a right? Is luxury a right? Who owes it to you if you cannot provide it yourself?


The fact is, in a pure free market society, some will win, other will lose. The winners will do whatever they can to hang on to that lead, will they not? Things like corruption will be acted upon to maintain that "competitive edge." Face the facts. Our nation's history is our witness.
There has never been a pure free market society. A free market society would have a political free market as well. Corruption would be limited, because courts would have an incentive to be just, and fulfill contract law, or they would go out of business and be susceptible to prosecution themselves (no monopoly on justice)

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 05:10 PM
Ok then, if the governments don't interfere, Microsoft would be the only software company. GE would be our only energy company. And exxon would be our only oil company.

When a company gets that edge, they will do what's neccesary to keep it. Standard oil did it by controlling prices. Just think about it. Monetary based systems of any kind (socialism, capitalism, communism) doesn't work anymore.

Do you really think that?

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:10 PM
The fact is, the market is not a zero-sum game. You're right that corruption has screwed up the market, but if we actually had an enforceable Constitution and a way to prevent the government from interfering whatsoever, that would no longer be the case.

Ok, if the government doesn't interfere then RIGHT NOW, standard oil would be the world's only supplier of oil. THINK ABOUT IT. they, as a company will do what it takes to control market share (and they can because they would have the resources to do so). They would just lower prices until everyone is out of business and jack them up when they are all alone.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:12 PM
Do you really think that?

When a runner has a lead, and has more energy than the guy in second place, would he win? Of course. Microsoft has the lead and has more resource, so without regulation they would only extend the lead until oracle goes out of business. Just think man.

That's free market for you.

nate895
10-06-2008, 05:12 PM
Ok then, if the governments don't interfere, Microsoft would be the only software company. GE would be our only energy company. And exxon would be our only oil company.

When a company gets that edge, they will do what's neccesary to keep it. Standard oil did it by controlling prices. Just think about it. Monetary based systems of any kind (socialism, capitalism, communism) doesn't work anymore.

No they wouldn't. Standard Oil was only able to maintain a monopoly in most markets by lowering the price to below FMV, and they had to absorb those costs in other markets, where there wasn't a monopoly. A monopoly is only natural in utilities and first-class postage.

me3
10-06-2008, 05:13 PM
Ok then, if the governments don't interfere, Microsoft would be the only software company. GE would be our only energy company. And exxon would be our only oil company.
Are you unaware of Linux? Do you think the government made Apple or Linux? Do you think that Sony only made the PS3 because government told them to compete with Xbox 360?

Gimme a break. You're not even being logically coherent.


When a company gets that edge, they will do what's neccesary to keep it. Standard oil did it by controlling prices. Just think about it. Monetary based systems of any kind (socialism, capitalism, communism) doesn't work anymore.And pray tell, what is the solution to the money based system?

me3
10-06-2008, 05:15 PM
When a runner has a lead, and has more energy than the guy in second place, would he win? Of course. Microsoft has the lead and has more resource, so without regulation they would only extend the lead until oracle goes out of business. Just think man.

That's free market for you.
There is no free market. You're trolling.

Also, based upon your horrible logic, Google should have never overtaken Ask, or Yahoo, or MSN, or Alta Vista, or Excite.

But they did. They overtook the big dogs who had years on them, and loads more money. And they did it on the internet, which is the closest thing to a free market that humanity has ever seen.

nbhadja
10-06-2008, 05:16 PM
...however, if the federal government is not permitted to interfere in markets whatsoever, lobbyists will not be able to use government force to kill off competition.

BINGO!

You guys who think the free market has screwed up are clueless! We do NOT have a free market!

If we have a free market and a constitutionally restricted government it is a guarentee we will have a great economy.

And to the person who said liberals are correct when criticizing the free market, you really need to do some research. They are not because we do NOT have a free market. We have a government controlled market.


Many of you guys were brainwashed to think if it is not 100% government controlled, it is free market. That could not be farther from the truth. Our health care industry is like 80% government controlled, sure as hell is not free market.

ClockwiseSpark
10-06-2008, 05:17 PM
And pray tell, what is the solution to the money based system?

Oh oh I know this one! A Resource based system?

:rolleyes:

This has been going on since he finished Zeitgeist: Addendum. He now has all the answers to the worlds problems.

"Money is evil and if you disagree you're stupid!"

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 05:17 PM
There is no free market. You're trolling.

Also, based upon your horrible logic, Google should have never overtaken Ask, or Yahoo, or MSN, or Alta Vista, or Excite.

But they did. They overtook the big dogs who had years on them, and loads more money. And they did it on the internet, which is the closest thing to a free market that humanity has ever seen.

qft.

Sorry OP, you're wrong on all counts. You have fundamental misunderstndings on how prices function, who regulation really helps, and why there are not monopolies in a free market economy. Like I said, GO READ.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:17 PM
Are you unaware of Linux? Do you think the government made Apple or Linux? Do you think that Sony only made the PS3 because government told them to compete with Xbox 360?

Gimme a break. You're not even being logically coherent.

And pray tell, what is the solution to the money based system?

Dude, WOW. If there weren't any anti trust laws, microsoft would make sure everyone loves their windows and sell it at $10 a piece.

Standard oil would have up every gas station in america if the GOVERNMENT didn't force them to break up.

A good solution would be a resourced-based econ:
here:

http://www.thevenusproject.com/resource_eco.htm

nbhadja
10-06-2008, 05:19 PM
When a runner has a lead, and has more energy than the guy in second place, would he win? Of course. Microsoft has the lead and has more resource, so without regulation they would only extend the lead until oracle goes out of business. Just think man.

That's free market for you.

Umm you are clueless.

The only reason companies get such a huge lead is because they go to the BIG GOVERNMENT, throw millions of dollars at them and the politicians make laws killing the competition in that industry to the benefits of the giant corporations.
That is the complete opposite of a free market.

That is called a government controlled economy and it has a 100% failure rate.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:19 PM
There is no free market. You're trolling.

Also, based upon your horrible logic, Google should have never overtaken Ask, or Yahoo, or MSN, or Alta Vista, or Excite.

But they did. They overtook the big dogs who had years on them, and loads more money. And they did it on the internet, which is the closest thing to a free market that humanity has ever seen.

Omg, are you stupid? Google did this in a regulated market. If it's a free-market. Other companies would not let google rise as they did.

nate895
10-06-2008, 05:21 PM
Omg, are you stupid? Google did this in a regulated market. If it's a free-market. Other companies would not let google rise as they did.

What would they do to stop them? Send out mercs to Google's servers?

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 05:21 PM
A resource based economy LOLOLOL theres utopian socialist nonsense if I've ever seen it.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:21 PM
Umm you are clueless.

The only reason companies get such a huge lead is because they go to the BIG GOVERNMENT, throw millions of dollars at them and the politicians make laws killing the competition in that industry to the benefits of the giant corporations.
That is the complete opposite of a free market.

That is called a government controlled economy and it has a 100% failure rate.

Dude, wow man. THINK!

say there's a track race. Will all the runners get first place? NO

Some companies will get the edge, in a free market, sooner or later. Then, with the more resources they have, they will make sure they stay ahead, eventually buying out everyone else.

If that runner in first place had more energy (resources) than the guy in second place, his margin of lead would widen.

RonpaulSupporter7777
10-06-2008, 05:22 PM
"ME3" I am enjoying your critique of my seamingly "baseless arguements."
I admit that I have not offered up credible examples to back up my assertions. So here are a few examples to play with:

*We are currently suffering through an economic crisis that was not only predicted by the likes of Ralph Nader and Ron Paul, but encouraged by the policies of the Federal Government.

When policies of deregulation, touted by the likes of Phil Gramm, are enacted within a thoroughly corrupted climate as is Washington these days, we can only hope for the worst. This is reality. This has been a reality for a very very long time in this country.

Utopian beliefs that somehow an economic platform based on the noble principles of Austrian economic theory will thrive amongst an uncorrupted group of politicians is just that, Utopian.
When has a democratic republic ever been truely represented by the people? Never. Democratic Republics are flawed to the extent that they always rest on ideological doctrine rather than progressive balance and restraint.

We are living in an age of non-progress. Ron Paul advocates some ideas that will stifle practical progressive environmental ideas that would allow us to become reliant on renewable resources. How does he expect to pull a 360 in some areas of policy when he does not advocate compromised ideas that would allow a bridge to be started between the left and the right?

brandon
10-06-2008, 05:22 PM
Omg, are you stupid? Google did this in a regulated market. If it's a free-market. Other companies would not let google rise as they did.

Oh yea, how would the other companies stop google? Please be specific.

What specific regulations allowed google to gain market share?

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:23 PM
What would they do to stop them? Send out mercs to Google's servers?

OMG. Think man.

Google could not afford servers. Bigger companies would make sure they don't see the light of day.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:23 PM
Oh yea, how would the other comapnies stop google? Please be specific.

What specific regulations allowed google to gain market share?

No monopoly. Google would not exist if they let microsoft own everything. Sergey brin would be working for microsoft now.

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 05:25 PM
Ok, if the government doesn't interfere then RIGHT NOW, standard oil would be the world's only supplier of oil. THINK ABOUT IT. they, as a company will do what it takes to control market share (and they can because they would have the resources to do so). They would just lower prices until everyone is out of business and jack them up when they are all alone.

First of all, read nate's post here. Second, these kind of monopolies can indeed come about occasionally in the free market, and they are actually the ONLY type that I know of that do, but they do not last forever unless they're propped up by the government. People are not truly so stupid that they would repeatedly fall for the price-lowering trick. Furthermore, from what I remember, Rockefeller used tactics that would be illegal under common "don't kill your neighbor law." I could've sworn I read something about sabotaging competitors, as well as bomb threats or something of that nature...

In terms of Microsoft: Microsoft built their near-monopoly on copyright laws, which are in fact government constructs, not elements of a free market. If you're the government, do you want to know the easiest way to take Microsoft down? Just stop forbidding everyone else to copy Microsoft software. :rolleyes: Also, operating systems and similar "framework" products that other products are built on top of are in a unique position in the market, and the dominant company tends to be much harder to displace than in other market sectors. That said, I use Linux anyway (usually), and it's a perfectly viable alternative.

As a matter of fact, corporate personhood in and of itself is a government construct...and one which should not exist.

I know a lot of us here use a very exasperated tone when we discuss this stuff...and it's mostly because we've written essay after essay on it already, and we're just tired of repeating ourselves when new posters could easily read hundreds of pages of past discussions before bringing the same tired arguments to the table. For instance, here are two of my longer essays on economic topics:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1630316&postcount=23
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1633111&postcount=47

brandon
10-06-2008, 05:25 PM
Dude, wow man. THINK!

say there's a track race. Will all the runners get first place? NO

Some companies will get the edge, in a free market, sooner or later. Then, with the more resources they have, they will make sure they stay ahead, eventually buying out everyone else.

First of all, your logic is wrong. But assuming it is right, what would be the problem with one company buying out every other company? [quote]

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:26 PM
"ME3" I am enjoying your critique of my seamingly "baseless arguements."
I admit that I have not offered up credible examples to back up my assertions. So here are a few examples to play with:

*We are currently suffering through an economic crisis that was not only predicted by the likes of Ralph Nader and Ron Paul, but encouraged by the policies of the Federal Government.

When policies of deregulation, touted by the likes of Phil Gramm, are enacted within a thoroughly corrupted climate as is Washington these days, we can only hope for the worst. This is reality. This has been a reality for a very very long time in this country.

Utopian beliefs that somehow an economic platform based on the noble principles of Austrian economic theory will thrive amongst an uncorrupted group of politicians is just that, Utopian.
When has a democratic republic ever been truely represented by the people? Never. Democratic Republics are flawed to the extent that they always rest on ideological doctrine rather than progressive balance and restraint.

We are living in an age of non-progress. Ron Paul advocates some ideas that will stifle practical progressive environmental ideas that would allow us to become reliant on renewable resources. How does he expect to pull a 360 in some areas of policy when he does not advocate compromised ideas that would allow a bridge to be started between the left and the right?

Hey do you know about the venus project? There are more, efficient and better alternatives to the free-market. Free-market doesn't work anymore.

nate895
10-06-2008, 05:26 PM
OMG. Think man.

Google could not afford servers. Bigger companies would make sure they don't see the light of day.

So, it would all be a massive conspiracy? You can't conspire between a group so large, it would be impossible.

nbhadja
10-06-2008, 05:27 PM
Dude, wow man. THINK!

say there's a track race. Will all the runners get first place? NO

Some companies will get the edge, in a free market, sooner or later. Then, with the more resources they have, they will make sure they stay ahead, eventually buying out everyone else.

If that runner in first place had more energy (resources) than the guy in second place, his margin of lead would widen.

In a free market economy it is extremely hard for a company to stay on top for long. Competition will knock them off.

But in a gov controlled economy it is very easy for a company to be #1. They simply just have to bribe the politicians and the politicians will slaughter all competition for them.

A perfect example is the pharmaceutical industry.

US drug companies were charging extremely high prices for their drugs so the free market took over and people started buying their medicine from places like Canada for much cheaper. Instead of letting the free market work forcing the US companies to lower their prices to match the Canadian prices (actually with shipping cost difference, they even could have had their prices a little higher than the Canadian prices and still won) they went to the politicians in Washington, threw millions of dollars at them and the US politicians made it illegal to import most drugs from other countries.

That was your government controlled economy and it failed for the MILLIONTH TIME!

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:27 PM
First of all, your logic is wrong. But assuming it is right, what would be the problem with one company buying out every other company? [quote]

That easy huh? You can just say my logic is wrong and it's wrong. ROFL.

brandon
10-06-2008, 05:27 PM
No monopoly. Google would not exist if they let microsoft own everything. Sergey brin would be working for microsoft now.

You have failed to answer my question at all. What regulation enabled google to enter the market?

In a free market, any company can enter the market. Get it?

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 05:28 PM
OMG. Think man.

Google could not afford servers. Bigger companies would make sure they don't see the light of day.

Umm WTF did you just say???

brandon
10-06-2008, 05:29 PM
[QUOTE=brandonyates;1743206]First of all, your logic is wrong. But assuming it is right, what would be the problem with one company buying out every other company?

That easy huh? You can just say my logic is wrong and it's wrong. ROFL.

Yes, I didn't want to debate the logic you used to reach your conclusion. I was just saying that I don't agree with it.

I want to know what the problem would be with a company having a monopoly.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:30 PM
In a free market economy it is extremely hard for a company to stay on top for long. Competition will knock them off.

But in a gov controlled economy it is very easy for a company to be #1. They simply just have to bribe the politicians and the politicians will slaughter all competition for them.

A perfect example is the pharmaceutical industry.

US drug companies were charging extremely high prices for their drugs so the free market took over and people started buying their medicine from places like Canada for much cheaper. Instead of letting the free market work forcing the US companies to lower their prices to match the Canadian prices (actually with shipping cost difference, they even could have had their prices a little higher than the Canadian prices and still won) they went to the politicians in Washington, threw millions of dollars at them and the US politicians made it illegal to import most drugs from other countries.

That was your government controlled economy and it failed for the MILLIONTH TIME!

U guys are not thinking. THIS example HAPPENED IN A REGULATED MARKET! NOT A FREE MARKET!

If it was truely free, the biggest pharmacuetical company would make sure people don't exposed to outside goods. Plus, ron paul doesn't support free trade so it would cost more to import.

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 05:32 PM
if it was truely free, the biggest pharmacuetical company would make sure people don't exposed to outside goods.

...


How?

RonpaulSupporter7777
10-06-2008, 05:32 PM
You all make a great point that monopolies are sustained through corrupt government regulations. The only thing I think that is left out is that some regulations, such as anti-trust laws, have kept certain aspects of monopolies in check that would not be so in a truely free market economy.

Lets face it. The rich will still be rich if we convert over to a truely free market, hands off economy in America. How would further deregulation in areas where regulation has provided substantial benefits really benefit the poor and middle class citizens of our country?

brandon
10-06-2008, 05:32 PM
U guys are not thinking. THIS example HAPPENED IN A REGULATED MARKET! NOT A FREE MARKET!

If it was truely free, the biggest pharmacuetical company would make sure people don't exposed to outside goods. Plus, ron paul doesn't support free trade so it would cost more to import.

Actually, Ron Paul does support free trade.

You're in way over your head kid. Do some research.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:32 PM
[QUOTE=Teenforpaul08;1743212]

Yes, I didn't want to debate the logic you used to reach your conclusion. I was just saying that I don't agree with it.

I want to know what the problem would be with a company having a monopoly.

Easy. If they control every part of the industry with no regulations, they change prices as they see fit. Which can be a lot or A LOT!!!

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 05:32 PM
U guys are not thinking. THIS example HAPPENED IN A REGULATED MARKET! NOT A FREE MARKET!

If it was truely free, the biggest pharmacuetical company would make sure people don't exposed to outside goods. Plus, ron paul doesn't support free trade so it would cost more to import.

Actually, Ron Paul does support unilateral free trade - i.e. no government restrictions on trade. He does NOT support "free trade agreements" like NAFTA, which are really just managed trade for the benefit of multinational corporations. There's a difference.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:33 PM
Actually, Ron Paul does support free trade.

You're in way over your head kid. Do some research.

No he doesn't. He has always been against NAFTA and other agreements. Kid, who have you been supporting? I think you're supposed to be in Obama's forums.

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 05:34 PM
[QUOTE=brandonyates;1743219]

Easy. If they control every part of the industry with no regulations, they change prices as they see fit. Which can be a lot or A LOT!!!

You cannot control an entire industry unless you are able to provide a superior product at a superior price forever. Supposing this is possible, why would that be bad?

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:34 PM
Actually, Ron Paul does support unilateral free trade - i.e. no government restrictions on trade. He does NOT support "free trade agreements" like NAFTA, which are really just managed trade for the benefit of multinational corporations. There's a difference.

HE supports things like taxes on trade and tariffs. This would make imports cost more than making it yourself.

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 05:35 PM
Easy. If they control every part of the industry with no regulations, they change prices as they see fit. Which can be a lot or A LOT!!!

...and why, may I ask, would no upstarts come to challenge their dominance? Also, why would no other established companies branch out into this market sector, forcing the monopoly to lower their prices or lose customers?

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 05:35 PM
No he doesn't. He has always been against NAFTA and other agreements. Kid, who have you been supporting? I think you're supposed to be in Obama's forums.

NAFTA is not free trade you fucking retard

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 05:35 PM
HE supports things like taxes on trade and tariffs. This would make imports cost more than making it yourself.

Ron Paul is NOT a protectionist. Go kill yourself immediately.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:36 PM
[QUOTE=Teenforpaul08;1743231]

You cannot control an entire industry unless you are able to provide a superior product at a superior price forever. Supposing this is possible, why would that be bad?

If you control the industry, you can make sure there are no competitors by blocking it out (censoring, destroying) and if one entity controls everything, you're fucked.

nbhadja
10-06-2008, 05:36 PM
No he doesn't. He has always been against NAFTA and other agreements. Kid, who have you been supporting? I think you're supposed to be in Obama's forums.

You are a idiot. Nafta is NOT free trade, it is the complete opposite. I think you are trolling.

me3
10-06-2008, 05:37 PM
Dude, WOW. If there weren't any anti trust laws, microsoft would make sure everyone loves their windows and sell it at $10 a piece.
What?


Standard oil would have up every gas station in america if the GOVERNMENT didn't force them to break up.
Uhm not they wouldn't. Because people would compete with them.


Omg, are you stupid? Google did this in a regulated market. If it's a free-market. Other companies would not let google rise as they did.
How was the online search market regulated?


No he doesn't. He has always been against NAFTA and other agreements. Kid, who have you been supporting? I think you're supposed to be in Obama's forums.
God, you're such a troll. Go away.

ClockwiseSpark
10-06-2008, 05:37 PM
HE supports things like taxes on trade and tariffs. This would make imports cost more than making it yourself.

You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.

nbhadja
10-06-2008, 05:37 PM
U guys are not thinking. THIS example HAPPENED IN A REGULATED MARKET! NOT A FREE MARKET!

If it was truely free, the biggest pharmacuetical company would make sure people don't exposed to outside goods. Plus, ron paul doesn't support free trade so it would cost more to import.

Ron Paul voted no against the ban on imports, you uneducated moron. He supports free trade.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:37 PM
Ron Paul is NOT a protectionist. Go kill yourself immediately.

He has said it! OMFG do you do your homework? When tim russert asked him how he would pay for the federal government, that's what he said.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:38 PM
Ron Paul voted no against the ban on imports, you uneducated moron. He supports free trade.

So stupid. Lol. NAFTA is a free trade, why is he against it then?

He doesn't ban imports but he TAXES imports idiot.

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 05:38 PM
He has said it! OMFG do you do your homework? When tim russert asked him how he would pay for the federal government, that's what he said.

t-r-o-l-l

nbhadja
10-06-2008, 05:38 PM
EVERYONE PUT Teenforpaul08 ON YOUR IGNORE LIST

He is trolling, as he does not have a clue about anything.

EVERYONE PUT Teenforpaul08 ON YOUR IGNORE LIST
EVERYONE PUT Teenforpaul08 ON YOUR IGNORE LIST
EVERYONE PUT Teenforpaul08 ON YOUR IGNORE LIST
EVERYONE PUT Teenforpaul08 ON YOUR IGNORE LIST

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 05:39 PM
HE supports things like taxes on trade and tariffs. This would make imports cost more than making it yourself.

Actually, imports already DO cost a lot anyway, because of logistics. It costs a lot of money to ship products around the world and sell them in a market you don't make them in. The only reason dirt cheap labor makes up for this and it's profitable for companies to outsource now, for instance, is because our high taxes and expensive regulations make it absurdly expensive to produce in the US. Also, our monetary policy plays a role as well. Even now though, under our current situation, I've heard about companies scaling back on outsourcing, since the benefits do not always add up.

nbhadja
10-06-2008, 05:39 PM
So stupid. Lol. NAFTA is a free trade, why is he against it then?

bye bye you uneducated moron/troll

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 05:39 PM
So stupid. Lol. NAFTA is a free trade, why is he against it then?

Repeat after me, slowly.

NAFTA is not free trade.

NAFTA is not free trade.

NAFTA is not free trade.

NAFTA is not free trade.

NAFTA is not free trade.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:39 PM
It's funny when a whole group of people just attack me because they can't offer any logical argument against me. LOL.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:40 PM
repeat after me, slowly.

Nafta is not free trade.

Nafta is not free trade.

Nafta is not free trade.

Nafta is not free trade.

Nafta is not free trade.

north american free trade agreement

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 05:40 PM
It's funny when a whole group of people just attack me because they can't offer any logical argument against me. LOL.

Yes, I must confess your socialist utopia is indeed superior to freedom.

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 05:42 PM
north american free trade agreement

A free trade agreement that is hundreds of pages long is MANAGED TRADE, not FREE TRADE.

ClockwiseSpark
10-06-2008, 05:43 PM
north american free trade agreement

You are a complete freaking idiot. Government Regulation does not = Free trade and NAFTA is regulation. Educate yourself.

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 05:43 PM
north american free trade agreement

Are you really that fooled by the names of things? Is the PATRIOT Act patriotic? The name means nothing. NAFTA is a managed trade agreement, which is why it's thousands of pages long. A real free trade agreement should be less than a page.

me3
10-06-2008, 05:44 PM
"ME3" I am enjoying your critique of my seamingly "baseless arguements."
They were not seemingly. They were baseless.


I admit that I have not offered up credible examples to back up my assertions. So here are a few examples to play with:
Why don't you go play at mises.org and learn something, instead of wasting all of our time with your irrational interpretations and ideas?


*We are currently suffering through an economic crisis that was not only predicted by the likes of Ralph Nader and Ron Paul, but encouraged by the policies of the Federal Government.

When policies of deregulation, touted by the likes of Phil Gramm, are enacted within a thoroughly corrupted climate as is Washington these days, we can only hope for the worst. This is reality. This has been a reality for a very very long time in this country.
Pointless, irrelevant. Ridiculous.

Austrian Economics allows people to see mass market movements, because it is the only school of economic thought that can rationally and consistently explain the business cycle.

Nader is a socialist, who probably thought the CRA and other housing for people who can't afford housing programs were good ideas at the time. Nader has no problem stealing from the rest of the citizens to fund his little regulatory and egalitarian adventures, but when it comes time for the market to be accountable, he walks away from the culpability of encouraging a nanny state to interfere in free markets. Nader is the ultimate hypocrite on the economy.


Utopian beliefs that somehow an economic platform based on the noble principles of Austrian economic theory will thrive amongst an uncorrupted group of politicians is just that, Utopian.
If you think any policy will thrive amongst politicians, I have some bridges in Alaska for sale.


When has a democratic republic ever been truely represented by the people? Never. Democratic Republics are flawed to the extent that they always rest on ideological doctrine rather than progressive balance and restraint.
I agree. The only solution is anarchy.


We are living in an age of non-progress.
That's your fault.


Ron Paul advocates some ideas that will stifle practical progressive environmental ideas that would allow us to become reliant on renewable resources.
Such as?


How does he expect to pull a 360 in some areas of policy when he does not advocate compromised ideas that would allow a bridge to be started between the left and the right?
You don't compromise the truth. That is what politicians do. It is not what honest, fair and free men do. There is no compromise on what is fair, just as there is no compromise on liberty. If you want compromises, you came to the wrong forum.

And a 360, is a complete turnaround back to the original orientation. I think you mean a 180.

F*** the left and the right.

dannno
10-06-2008, 05:45 PM
Omg, are you stupid? Google did this in a regulated market. If it's a free-market. Other companies would not let google rise as they did.

Uhh, why not?! There were government ops in google from the beginning, they are TRYING to make google big so they can take it over and control all the info on the net.

Look, even Zeitgeist/Addendum is very clear that governments are taken over by elitist bankers and regulated as such, and this is the cause of inequality, wars, etc.

Zeitgeist/Addendum doesn't want to regulate, they want to get rid of the state entirely. The Venus Project will need to be done in a free society, because that is what it is based on. How they will keep people from hoarding resources and protecting them with guns, I don't know.. but I do know that they are opposed to government regulation of the market as that is what is responsible for banking... Government should be there to regulate itself.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:45 PM
Are you really that fooled by the names of things? Is the PATRIOT Act patriotic? The name means nothing. NAFTA is a managed trade agreement, which is why it's thousands of pages long. A real free trade agreement should be less than a page.

You guys are really dense. I'm trying to say that a monetary-based economy, which includes :

free market
regulated market
capitalism
socialism
communism

is inferior to a resourced based economy.

dannno
10-06-2008, 05:45 PM
north american free trade agreement

Wow, you need to read 1984. It's called doublespeak.

Do you really think the Patriot Act is patriotic?!

NAFTA is government managed trade.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:48 PM
Uhh, why not?! There were government ops in google from the beginning, they are TRYING to make google big so they can take it over and control all the info on the net.

Look, even Zeitgeist/Addendum is very clear that governments are taken over by elitist bankers and regulated as such, and this is the cause of inequality, wars, etc.

Zeitgeist/Addendum doesn't want to regulate, they want to get rid of the state entirely. The Venus Project will need to be done in a free society, because that is what it is based on. How they will keep people from hoarding resources and protecting them with guns, I don't know.. but I do know that they are opposed to government regulation of the market as that is what is responsible for banking... Government should be there to regulate itself.

Google got big because government made sure companies like Microsoft didn't shut them up. So google got big in a regulated market, Not a free market. If it was a free market, microsoft would make sure google didn't benefit from their technology, and who would stop them?

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 05:49 PM
You guys are really dense. I'm trying to say that a monetary-based economy, which includes :

free market
regulated market
capitalism
socialism
communism

is inferior to a resourced based economy.

I'm dense? You completely ignored my entire comment, where I chastised you for relying so heavily on the misleading name of legislation, and now you're completely changing the subject to save face.

In any case, a monetary-based economy IS a resource-based economy. Money is merely a way of pricing resources to reflect their scarcity. There's no such thing as unlimited abundance...everything always has a price. Even if machines make all the food in the world, it is still not unlimited.

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 05:49 PM
You guys are really dense. I'm trying to say that a monetary-based economy, which includes :

free market
regulated market
capitalism
socialism
communism

is inferior to a resourced based economy.

false.

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 05:49 PM
Google got big because government made sure companies like Microsoft didn't shut them up. So google got big in a regulated market, Not a free market. If it was a free market, microsoft would make sure google didn't benefit from their technology, and who would stop them?

false.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:49 PM
Wow, you need to read 1984. It's called doublespeak.

Do you really think the Patriot Act is patriotic?!

NAFTA is government managed trade.

Yeah but sending goods up and down is free.

Imports would be taxed in a free market, by ron paul, HE HAS SAID IT!

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:50 PM
false.

Where did you get this power all-knowing oracle?

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 05:50 PM
Google got big because government made sure companies like Microsoft didn't shut them up. So google got big in a regulated market, Not a free market. If it was a free market, microsoft would make sure google didn't benefit from their technology, and who would stop them?

Okay: What exactly did the government do that enabled Google's rise? I want specifics, please, since you seem so intent on talking right out of your ass. How would "Microsoft make sure Google didn't benefit from their technology" in a FREE MARKET? Nobody can use coercion in a free market.

I used to be a half-assed socialist, and I used to agree with much of what you're saying about big companies just getting bigger and bigger and destroying other companies until they have unassailable monopolies...but even then, I never would have said anything as asinine as what you're posting right now.

ClockwiseSpark
10-06-2008, 05:51 PM
Yeah but sending goods up and down is free.

Imports would be taxed in a free market, by ron paul, HE HAS SAID IT!

You have stopped even pretending to respond to the statements and questions. Ban this fool.

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 05:51 PM
Where did you get this power all-knowing oracle?

its called "thinking"

me3
10-06-2008, 05:51 PM
You have stopped even pretending to respond to the statements and questions. Ban this fool.
It's obvious he's just trolling.

dannno
10-06-2008, 05:52 PM
You guys are really dense. I'm trying to say that a monetary-based economy, which includes :

free market
regulated market
capitalism
socialism
communism

is inferior to a resourced based economy.

That's your opinion, and that is fine.. BUT.. you should not be arguing against the free market for many reasons. First of all, when a market is managed by the government, there is too much money interest that will use government resources to make the laws the way they want them so that they can become a monopoly. Think of the government simply as hired thugs for big corporations.

Also, a free market eocnomy is the only way the Venus Project will be able to come about.

It's also superior to all of the other tested economies that you listed.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:52 PM
I'm dense? You completely ignored my entire comment, where I chastised you for relying so heavily on the misleading name of legislation, and now you're completely changing the subject to save face.

In any case, a monetary-based economy IS a resource-based economy. Money is merely a way of pricing resources to reflect their scarcity. There's no such thing as unlimited abundance...everything always has a price. Even if machines make all the food in the world, it is still not unlimited.

It doesn't need a price. Automation can make products so fast that everyone would have what they need. And more. Without fighting for it (in today's term: competition)

me3
10-06-2008, 05:53 PM
Okay: What exactly did the government do that enabled Google's rise? I want specifics, please, since you seem so intent on talking right out of your ass. How would "Microsoft make sure Google didn't benefit from their technology" in a FREE MARKET? Nobody can use coercion in a free market.
Or better yet what government regs stopped Microsoft from blocking google?

He can't answer the question, because the government doesn't regulate search engines or the internet.

powerofreason
10-06-2008, 05:54 PM
im out

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:54 PM
That's your opinion, and that is fine.. BUT.. you should not be arguing against the free market for many reasons. First of all, when a market is managed by the government, there is too much money interest that will use government resources to make the laws the way they want them so that they can become a monopoly. Think of the government simply as hired thugs for big corporations.

Also, a free market eocnomy is the only way the Venus Project will be able to come about.

It's also superior to all of the other tested economies that you listed.

It's not opinion, it's logic.

Government manage the market because if they don't, the big guys pounce the little guys. Both are bad, that's what I'm advocating.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:56 PM
Or better yet what government regs stopped Microsoft from blocking google?

He can't answer the question, because the government doesn't regulate search engines or the internet.

It's just a stupid example guys. OMG. WOW.

In a regulated market, small companies can rise because the government says a the big guys can't have the whole cake. So it gives small companies a chance, like google.

In a free market, government says "play fair, have fun" The big guys will make sure little guys never stand up. Think about it. It happens all the time.

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 05:56 PM
It doesn't need a price. Automation can make products so fast that everyone would have what they need. And more. Without fighting for it (in today's term: competition)

Bullshit. Automation can't make food grow infinitely fast. Automation cannot create an infinite amount of arable land for a more limitless amount of food to grow. No resource and no physical product is unlimited in supply. Every physical product will always be limited in supply, no matter how abundant, and the price reflects where demand meets that supply.

heavenlyboy34
10-06-2008, 05:57 PM
Ok then, if the governments don't interfere, Microsoft would be the only software company. GE would be our only energy company. And exxon would be our only oil company.


Au contraire. I suggest you read about laissez faire capitalism.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 05:58 PM
Bullshit. Automation can't make food grow infinitely fast. Automation cannot create an infinite amount of arable land for a more limitless amount of food to grow. No resource and no physical product is unlimited in supply. Every physical product will always be limited in supply, no matter how abundant, and the price reflects where demand meets that supply.

Automation is TECHNOLOGY. THE VENUS PROJECT avocates using techology LIKE automation to make life easier for PEOPLE. THAT IS THE SOLE PURPOSE OF TECHNOLOGY: TO MAKE LIFE EASIER FOR PEOPLE. WHICH WILL EVENTAULLY MEAN: NO WORKING! THink about this logic please.

me3
10-06-2008, 05:59 PM
It's just a stupid example guys. OMG. WOW.
It is a stupid example, because it is false.


In a regulated market, small companies can rise because the government says a the big guys can't have the whole cake. So it gives small companies a chance, like google.
How is the internet regulated? By what laws?

You prior argument, was that under the current system, the guy who gets ahead always stays ahead. Now you are arguing that the government keeps people from getting and staying ahead. Which is it?


In a free market, government says "play fair, have fun" The big guys will make sure little guys never stand up. Think about it. It happens all the time.
In a free market, big companies can't limit competition unless they provide the best service, with the best product at the best price. Anything less than the best in all 3 categories, invites competition from a new firm, or an existing large firm looking to play in a new market.

Your argument against the free market is totally false, because (1) there has never been a properly free market, and (2) your own examples don't even happen under what you call a free market.

You're not just wrong, you're irrationally inconsistent.

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 06:01 PM
It's just a stupid example guys. OMG. WOW.

In a regulated market, small companies can rise because the government says a the big guys can't have the whole cake. So it gives small companies a chance, like google.

In a free market, government says "play fair, have fun" The big guys will make sure little guys never stand up. Think about it. It happens all the time.

There is only ONE KIND OF REGULATION that does ANYTHING LIKE what you're talking about, and that's antitrust regulation. The vast majority of regulations are entirely unrelated...although they all have one thing in common: They raise the price of market entry significantly...not just because small companies have to comply, but because they have to do all of the legal work and prove they're complying to the government. Regulation is in fact the most significant coercive tool that large corporations use to bar out competition.

Now, tell me: How often have companies actually been broken apart or significantly hindered by antitrust regulation? You won't be able to find many examples, I'll tell you that...however, there are in fact some books (http://www.mises.org/store/Antitrust-and-Monopoly-Anatomy-of-a-Policy-Failure-P296.aspx) about how antitrust actually hinders competititon (http://www.mises.org/store/Antitrust-The-Case-for-Repeal--P10.aspx).

brandon
10-06-2008, 06:02 PM
In a free market, government says "play fair, have fun" The big guys will make sure little guys never stand up. Think about it. It happens all the time.

Please specifically answer these questions:

1. since we don't have a free market, how does this happen all the time?
2. Please tell me specifically how a 'big guy' can make sure a 'little guy' never stands up. How will they do this without the ability to use coercion?

ClockwiseSpark
10-06-2008, 06:03 PM
Bow down to your new robot overlords!

http://records.viu.ca/~soules/medi402/walker/borg1.GIF

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 06:04 PM
It is a stupid example, because it is false.


How is the internet regulated? By what laws?

You prior argument, was that under the current system, the guy who gets ahead always stays ahead. Now you are arguing that the government keeps people from getting and staying ahead. Which is it?


In a free market, big companies can't limit competition unless they provide the best service, with the best product at the best price. Anything less than the best in all 3 categories, invites competition from a new firm, or an existing large firm looking to play in a new market.

Your argument against the free market is totally false, because (1) there has never been a properly free market, and (2) your own examples don't even happen under what you call a free market.

You're not just wrong, you're irrationally inconsistent.

It's not about the internet! Google, as a company would not exist in a free market. Microsoft would use something that google developed and make it better, make sure google is never known. They can do this because they have the resources

Big companies can do what they want in a free market. They can even sabotage if they want to (secretly of course). It is immpossible for a person to start a business competing against a large corperation.

You need logic.

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 06:04 PM
Automation is TECHNOLOGY. THE VENUS PROJECT avocates using techology LIKE automation to make life easier for PEOPLE. THAT IS THE SOLE PURPOSE OF TECHNOLOGY: TO MAKE LIFE EASIER FOR PEOPLE. WHICH WILL EVENTAULLY MEAN: NO WORKING! THink about this logic please.

Ah, no working. How much food will I be rationed, then? How much energy, water, etc. will I be rationed? What, there's a limit to this? There is always a limit, which is why there is always a price. Automation may someday make the price extraordinarily low. In fact, certain things may be given away freely up to a certain number of units per time. However, there will never be a point of infinite abundance.

In any case, automated production of necessities is in no way incompatible with the free market.

ClockwiseSpark
10-06-2008, 06:05 PM
It's not about the internet! Google, as a company would not exist in a free market. Microsoft would use something that google developed and make it better, make sure google is never known. They can do this because they have the resources

Big companies can do what they want in a free market. They can even sabotage if they want to (secretly of course). It is immpossible for a person to start a business competing against a large corperation.

You need logic.

This is not logic. It is assumption.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 06:06 PM
Please specifically answer these questions:

1. since we don't have a free market, how does this happen all the time?
2. Please tell me specifically how a 'big guy' can make sure a 'little guy' never stands up. How will they do this without the ability to use coercion?

Well, we don't have a free market, but it's still capitalism. Walmart, for example, has put countless local businesses out of business by just setting up their store in that area.

2. Well, for example, Standard oil did things such as sabotage small business, lowered prices so small businesses can't compete, sent goons to threaten them etc.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 06:09 PM
Ah, no working. How much food will I be rationed, then? How much energy, water, etc. will I be rationed? What, there's a limit to this? There is always a limit, which is why there is always a price. Automation may someday make the price extraordinarily low. In fact, certain things may be given away freely up to a certain number of units per time. However, there will never be a point of infinite abundance.

In any case, automated production of necessities is in no way incompatible with the free market.

There is enough resources to meet our needs many times over.

In a resourced-base economy, there is no such thing as price, or value. People recieve get what they need and what they want. Learn more about it here please. Thanks for trying to learn instead of the other guys just attacking me:

http://www.thevenusproject.com/resource_eco.htm
http://www.thevenusproject.com/index.html

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 06:09 PM
Well, we don't have a free market, but it's still capitalism. Walmart, for example, has put countless local businesses out of business by just setting up their store in that area.

2. Well, for example, Standard oil did things such as sabotage small business, lowered prices so small businesses can't compete, sent goons to threaten them etc.

#2 is not allowed in a free market. Laws against such violence are not regulations, but rather, they're common "don't kill your neighbor law," which is absolutely necessary.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 06:10 PM
#2 is not allowed in a free market. Laws against such violence are not regulations, but rather, they're common "don't kill your neighbor law," which is absolutely necessary.

Again, think. Lowering prices alone can put other small businesses out of business. You shouldn't even need me telling you this.

literatim
10-06-2008, 06:12 PM
Well, we don't have a free market, but it's still capitalism. Walmart, for example, has put countless local businesses out of business by just setting up their store in that area.

Anytime there is capital involved, it is a form of capitalism. Communist China has capital, thus being a form of capitalism. What is generally known as Capitalism is free market capitalism which we do not have.

Walmart has used government lobbying and regulations obtained from that to put other businesses out of business.


2. Well, for example, Standard oil did things such as sabotage small business, lowered prices so small businesses can't compete, sent goons to threaten them etc.

Walmart is able to produce and obtain products produced outside of the country at extremely low prices. Regulations have forced companies to go to these measures due to the added costs. Small businesses are faced with these extra costs as they don't have the resources to buy in bulk to make it worthwhile to order from overseas and the added costs from US manufactured goods.

ClockwiseSpark
10-06-2008, 06:12 PM
In a resourced-base economy, there is no such thing as price, or value. People recieve get what they need and what they want.


From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

brandon
10-06-2008, 06:13 PM
It's not about the internet! Google, as a company would not exist in a free market. Microsoft would use something that google developed and make it better, make sure google is never known. They can do this because they have the resources

Big companies can do what they want in a free market. They can even sabotage if they want to (secretly of course). It is immpossible for a person to start a business competing against a large corperation.

You need logic.

I have logic, and you are totally wrong.

A free market can still have patents protecting ones work. Google's pagerank algorithm is private property of google, and microsoft would not be allowed to use it in a free market. Private property laws still exist in a free market.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 06:15 PM
Anytime there is capital involved, it is a form of capitalism. Communist China has capital, thus being a form of capitalism. What is generally known as Capitalism is free market capitalism which we do not have.

Walmart has used government lobbying and regulations obtained from that to put other businesses out of business.



Walmart is able to produce and obtain products produced outside of the country at extremely low prices. Regulations have forced companies to go to these measures due to the added costs. Small businesses are faced with these extra costs as they don't have the resources to buy in bulk to make it worthwhile to order from overseas and the added costs from US manufactured goods.

Are you for free market? Cause you just explained why it's flawed.

brandon
10-06-2008, 06:15 PM
In a resourced-base economy, there is no such thing as price, or value.
There is also no such thing as motivation to work


People recieve get what they need and what they want.

Unless one person takes too much and there isn't enough left for another person. But regardless, no processed good will exist since no one has any motivation to work in the first place.

literatim
10-06-2008, 06:16 PM
Are you for free market? Cause you just explained why it's flawed.

How is explaining the hurtful effects of regulation anti-free market? A free market doesn't have regulations that kill small businesses.

brandon
10-06-2008, 06:17 PM
Are you for free market? Cause you just explained why it's flawed.

jesus, did you even read what he wrote? He just explained how regulations are the cause of it.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 06:17 PM
I have logic, and you are totally wrong.

A free market can still have patents protecting ones work. Google's pagerank algorithm is private property of google, and microsoft would not be allowed to use it in a free market. Private property laws still exist in a free market.

First, patents are regulations

But that's not the point. The point is Microsoft can easily trump Google during it's early stages. Anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't know free market business.

brandon
10-06-2008, 06:19 PM
First, patents are regulations

But that's not the point. The point is Microsoft can easily trump Google during it's early stages. Anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't know free market business.

How could microsoft trump a company with a superior search algorithm? Please explain, and give specifics.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 06:20 PM
Anytime there is capital involved, it is a form of capitalism. Communist China has capital, thus being a form of capitalism. What is generally known as Capitalism is free market capitalism which we do not have.

Walmart has used government lobbying and regulations obtained from that to put other businesses out of business.



Walmart is able to produce and obtain products produced outside of the country at extremely low prices. Regulations have forced companies to go to these measures due to the added costs. Small businesses are faced with these extra costs as they don't have the resources to buy in bulk to make it worthwhile to order from overseas and the added costs from US manufactured goods.

It's like a cycle. Every time someone new comes into the discussion, they want me to type everything over again.

In a free market system, as ron paul stated, imports would be taxed so jobs stay here. A company, sooner or later, gets the edge (because of many variables). Now, this bigger company can lower prices so that small businesses go out of business. THey can do this because they have the resources to withstand it. When they own the whole industry, they control the industry: prices, supply etc.

me3
10-06-2008, 06:21 PM
Big companies can do what they want in a free market. They can even sabotage if they want to (secretly of course). It is immpossible for a person to start a business competing against a large corperation.
And consumers can do what they want in a free market. And if a company sucks, consumers will shop elsewhere. And then the big company, won't be so big anymore, because someone else has entered their market.

A "free market" means the consumer has all of the power. In a regulated market, the corporations have all of the power. Corporations lobby Congress to make laws and regulations, to hand out contracts and subsidies that absolutely crush and limit competition.

In a free market, the government has no such resources or power to share with business. In a free market, the consumer is the one who decides which businesses survive and fail, based upon how satisfied they are with service, quality and price.

brandon
10-06-2008, 06:21 PM
Again, think. Lowering prices alone can put other small businesses out of business. You shouldn't even need me telling you this.

Aren't lower prices a good thing? I mean, you're trying to reduce prices to $0 with the venus project....so how could you possibly be against lower prices?

me3
10-06-2008, 06:22 PM
aren't lower prices a good thing? I mean, you're trying to reduce prices to $0 with the venus project....so how could you possibly be against lower prices?
ding ding ding!!!!

SeanEdwards
10-06-2008, 06:24 PM
I think there's a lot of confusion about the difference between laws and regulations.

Laws are necessary in any group human activity to specify the acceptable boundaries of behavior. That includes a free market. Laws against fraud, conspiracy to manipulate the market, theft, are all important for maintaining a free market.

On the other hand, regulations that tilt the economic playing field to favor certain connected special interests are the exact opposite of what is needed for a free market.

We would have a good economic system, if the government just focused on maintaining the courts and justice system, keeping the value of the money stable, and nothing else. If the government stopped pretending that they were overseeing all the crap, then consumers would spend the effort to properly evaluate businesses. We wouldn't need an FDIC, because people would cease doing business at bad banks. We wouldn't need insurance commissioners because people would demand solvency from their insurance providers. The only desirable role for government is to punish those who break the law, fraud in particular.

The basic premise, and it's supported by scientific evidence, is that crowds are smarter than individuals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

So, the economic system should try to maximize the freedom and power of individual human actors within the marketplace in order to get the most economic productivity on the macro scale.

dannno
10-06-2008, 06:24 PM
TeenforRonPaul.. How on earth is the Venus Project going to regulate without there being a government??

You seem to be FOR regulation.. and while I understand that you are against currency, you also have to understand that the idea that we could completely do away with bartering and trade is not provable.. It's an interesting idea, but realistically people will start trading things if there is no money.. even if there is an abundance of food, people will still be trading other things. Who is going to decide what people need in the Venus project? How much? Where do we store this excess and abundance of perishable items? These are solutions that the free market and ONLY the free market provide.

Money is simply a means of exchange. It is dishonest to devalue an exchange mechanism because that is stealing... and you can't provide one good example of a good government regulation that goes beyond the government protecting our currency and our property. Even pollution is a property rights issue.

The founders were very smart people. They had a lot of experience dealing with tyranny, and the conclusion they came to was that the government needed to have limited power on the markets so the elite could not rule over it, it needed to be of the people and protect the people.. that's it.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 06:24 PM
How could microsoft trump a company with a superior search algorithm? Please explain, and give specifics.

So you have left huh? All you want is for me to keep replying to these insignificant things.

one way: A guy invested $100,000 in google. Microsoft sees that google has good technology. They invest 1,000,000,00 in google so they have majority shares.

another way: They give the investor a million dollars (that's a very good return on investment) so he won't invest or so they get his shares. Microsoft effectively owns google.

ewizacft
10-06-2008, 06:25 PM
He has said it! OMFG do you do your homework? When tim russert asked him how he would pay for the federal government, that's what he said.

Ron Paul said to fund the government they would need to cut spending.


Yeah but sending goods up and down is free.

Imports would be taxed in a free market, by ron paul, HE HAS SAID IT!

Then Paul says there are other revenues such as tariffs, excise tax, user fees, and highway fees. He never said he agrees with tariffs or that tariffs equal free trade.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 06:25 PM
TeenforRonPaul.. How on earth is the Venus Project going to regulate without there being a government??

You seem to be FOR regulation.. and while I understand that you are against currency, you also have to understand that the idea that we could completely do away with bartering and trade is not provable.. It's an interesting idea, but realistically people will start trading things if there is no money.. even if there is an abundance of food, people will still be trading other things. Money is simply a means of exchange. It is dishonest to devalue an exchange mechanism because that is stealing... and you can't provide one good example of a good government regulation that goes beyond the government protecting our currency and our property. Even pollution is a property rights issue.


CYBERNATION

These are new concepts that many people don't understand. You have to read it and do research like I did. I didn't understand it before.

Read this please. everything you ask is answered:
http://www.thevenusproject.com/intro_main/essay.htm

literatim
10-06-2008, 06:28 PM
In a free market system, as ron paul stated, imports would be taxed so jobs stay here. A company, sooner or later, gets the edge (because of many variables). Now, this bigger company can lower prices so that small businesses go out of business. THey can do this because they have the resources to withstand it. When they own the whole industry, they control the industry: prices, supply etc.

In a laissez-faire capitalist society, there would be no tariffs.

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 06:33 PM
There is enough resources to meet our needs many times over.

In a resourced-base economy, there is no such thing as price, or value. People recieve get what they need and what they want. Learn more about it here please. Thanks for trying to learn instead of the other guys just attacking me:

http://www.thevenusproject.com/resource_eco.htm
http://www.thevenusproject.com/index.html

If I said I wanted a million bajillion cheeseburgers, though (for instance), they would have to turn me down, because resources are limited. Obviously that's a ridiculous number and way past what I'd ever realistically ask for, but the point is that limited resources mean a market price will always exist. Of course, a charitable company running automated labor could make the price of goods free for everyone (up to a certain quantity), so long as every single other stop along the supply chain was also organized in the same exact way (robot truck drivers, etc.). However, in the larger all-encompassing market, one people might decide that they'd rather have something else than their full food ration (say, a guitar), one person might decide they want a different guitar, another person might decide they want a different kind of food, and some more people might decide that they'd be willing to trade away something for even more auto-made food beyond their ration. These people may want to organize fair trades with each other in which they each benefit (in their own mind).

In reality, money is just a generalized medium of exchange that allows people to trade something they have with someone else who might not have exactly what they want, but who wants what they have. It avoids the mess of having to get everyone together who would ordinarily be involved in a barter trade, and the going price of any good or service is determined by how many people want it and what they're willing to give up for it. Even with fully automated production of practically everything, there will still be a use for money.

Furthermore, there's something more important going on: It would take a loooooooong time to automate the production of every single possible good that anyone would ever want. What do you automate first? How do you determine what resources to spend on automating the production of cheeseburgers vs. automating the production of veggie pizzas? How do you determine what resources to spend on automating the production of food vs. musical instruments vs. basketballs? How do you determine what resources to even spend on automating the production of goods, rather than automating the supply chain? All resources are limited, and so is time. The free market and its pricing mechanism provides the best and fairest way of determining what needs the most people need to be better met, and it's the best way of allocating resources (natural resources, labor, etc.) to meet those needs. Prices give people the knowledge they need to determine what is most needed in the market and what they should therefore be producing.

I agree that we will someday get to the point where we can exploit our natural resources to the level where pretty much everyone can have whatever they want, within reason. As we approach that day, our economy will grow and grow to the point where we have to work less and less to pay for what we need and want. Eventually, everything may very well be automated, which is the pinnacle of efficiency, and many previously for-profit companies will just turn into charitable organizations, since practical scarcity will be such a small issue. Eventually, we probably won't have to work at all to meet our basic needs. Of course, there will still be a market for other luxuries that are currently not being made automatically, though...

The very best and fastest way to achieve this state, however...is through competition between companies. Competition is what forces companies to be more efficient, and this incentive to be more efficient is also what drives new technology. You can bet that as soon as fuller automation is truly viable, every company and their mother will jump on the opportunity to become more efficient in the long run than all of their competitors. I know you seem to have a very biased view against free markets, because I've seen you repeat some popular misconceptions multiple times. I've seen you equate capitalism with coercion and violence, as you did when you talked about Standard Oil and its sabotaging and threatening of other companies. That is not the free market - it's the failure of government to uphold basic common law and smite initiators of violence. The very most important thing to remember about free markets is the free part: Under a free market, every transaction is 100% voluntary. A fair government devoted only to protecting peoples basic rights - life, liberty, and property - is meant to ensure this and prevent violence and coercion. In fact, a free market even allows for people to band together voluntarily and live in communes. No other system allows such basic human freedom.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 06:35 PM
Ron Paul said to fund the government they would need to cut spending.



Then Paul says there are other revenues such as tariffs, excise tax, user fees, and highway fees. He never said he agrees with tariffs or that tariffs equal free trade.

You are not even proving a point. What are you trying to prove here? Is it related to the debate?

jjockers
10-06-2008, 06:36 PM
So you have left huh? All you want is for me to keep replying to these insignificant things.

one way: A guy invested $100,000 in google. Microsoft sees that google has good technology. They invest 1,000,000,00 in google so they have majority shares.

another way: They give the investor a million dollars (that's a very good return on investment) so he won't invest or so they get his shares. Microsoft effectively owns google.

Throughout the past few pages, and no doubt the ones earlier (I've not read the entire thread), you continue to refer to what is called "predatory pricing". This practice is completely unsustainable in a free market system. See a discussion we already had : Is this a flaw in the free market? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=158584&highlight=predatory+pricing)

Sorry if that has already been posted.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 06:36 PM
And consumers can do what they want in a free market. And if a company sucks, consumers will shop elsewhere. And then the big company, won't be so big anymore, because someone else has entered their market.

A "free market" means the consumer has all of the power. In a regulated market, the corporations have all of the power. Corporations lobby Congress to make laws and regulations, to hand out contracts and subsidies that absolutely crush and limit competition.

In a free market, the government has no such resources or power to share with business. In a free market, the consumer is the one who decides which businesses survive and fail, based upon how satisfied they are with service, quality and price.

consumers will do what they want LIKE buy something for really cheap? Only big companies offer that, so small companies die out. You don't even know the basics of economics.

Consumers will buy what's best and cheapest. Only big companies can offer that in a free market.

Brassmouth
10-06-2008, 06:37 PM
And consumers can do what they want in a free market. And if a company sucks, consumers will shop elsewhere. And then the big company, won't be so big anymore, because someone else has entered their market.

A "free market" means the consumer has all of the power. In a regulated market, the corporations have all of the power. Corporations lobby Congress to make laws and regulations, to hand out contracts and subsidies that absolutely crush and limit competition.

In a free market, the government has no such resources or power to share with business. In a free market, the consumer is the one who decides which businesses survive and fail, based upon how satisfied they are with service, quality and price.

QFT. Well said. :cool:


consumers will do what they want LIKE buy something for really cheap? Only big companies offer that, so small companies die out. You don't even know the basics of economics.

.....you're an idiot.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 06:38 PM
Throughout the past few pages, and no doubt the ones earlier (I've not read the entire thread), you continue to refer to what is called "predatory pricing". This practice is completely unsustainable in a free market system. See a discussion we already had : Is this a flaw in the free market? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=158584&highlight=predatory+pricing)

Sorry if that has already been posted.

How is it unsustainable? You fix prices until you control the industry then you raise as you like. Other companies can't stop you because they don't exist. Government can't stop you because it's free market.

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 06:39 PM
So you have left huh? All you want is for me to keep replying to these insignificant things.

one way: A guy invested $100,000 in google. Microsoft sees that google has good technology. They invest 1,000,000,00 in google so they have majority shares.

another way: They give the investor a million dollars (that's a very good return on investment) so he won't invest or so they get his shares. Microsoft effectively owns google.

Microsoft can only invest that much money in Google if someone is willing to sell them that much. If they're willing, well - apparently, they decided they got the better end of the deal.
Anyway, I'm done here for now...I'm going to go eat. I'd suggest reading my earlier diatribes that I linked to a few pages back...or better yet, read from someone who really knows what they're talking about, like Hayek, Mises, or Rothbard.

me3
10-06-2008, 06:39 PM
consumers will do what they want LIKE buy something for really cheap? Only big companies offer that, so small companies die out. You don't even know the basics of economics.
Well, if the consumer is getting the best price, the best quality and the best product from a big business, why should that business have higher priced competition that has to survive by law?

That's stupid if you're trying to say that high priced firms have a right to exist in the marketplace. If I got into the car business and made million dollar cars, should Ford and GM have to raise their prices so I can compete with them?

I understand economics quite well thank you. And I can spot that your argument is completely irrational.

jjockers
10-06-2008, 06:43 PM
How is it unsustainable? You fix prices until you control the industry then you raise as you like. Other companies can't stop you because they don't exist. Government can't stop you because it's free market.

I'll pull some quotes from that conversation:


If another company is going to come into my area and undersell me below my cost, I would thank them to death because they just became my new supplier. I would go and buy them out of everything and resell it in my store for normal price, maybe even a little less. I now make more money because my costs are cut and they do nothing but lose money. Win win for me. Read the example in "The Politicaly Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas woods regarding the guy who made bromide.


I cant believe no one has mentioned this yet...

Predatory pricing is absurd for a few reasons....

A company successfully lowers prices and suffers losses for long enough to drive competitors out of business and then they raise prices...Now they are leaving room for competitors to break back into the market, their profits would be very short lived and once again they'd have to resort to putting prices extremely low again....

Now, lets say there is a particularly smart guy, he see's that the retailer is selling products for less than they are actually worth...so he buys up their invetories and Ebays them or waits for them to bring their prices back up and then resell them in his own store...I think you can see how badly that company would fail...

I encourage any company to come and sell goods below the market rate, it's like getting free stuff.

EDIT: Damnit, Noxagol beat me to it, probably some other guy did as well. :P


There's a good debunking of this myth in Thomas Woods "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" (http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-American-History-Guides/dp/0895260476) starting on pg.97 with a section entitled "The myth of 'predetory pricing'" and starts out almost word for word with your friends reply. Appearently there's no 'real world' historical example of a monopoly being able to pull this scenario off. And it is widely debunked in economic literature but then again I'm a little green on economic literature (only have read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" and with my daughter, Maybury's "Whatever Happened to Penny Candy"; next is "The Road to Serfdom" after I finish Bacevich's "The Limits of Power" and Wood's "Who Killed the Constitution")

;)

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 06:49 PM
Why would they sell at a lower price if they aren't bigger than you? They can't afford to.

The big companies come in, they sell lower, consumers go buy from them BECAUSE they're lower, no revenue for the little guy. He dies


When big companies control the market, they can make sure no new competitors come because they have the resources to do so. Profits comes much faster if you own an industry than the losses inflicted to you


Monopolies hasn't been pulled off BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WONT LET IT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There.

me3
10-06-2008, 06:55 PM
Why would they sell at a lower price if they aren't bigger than you? They can't afford to.

The big companies come in, they sell lower, consumers go buy from them BECAUSE they're lower, no revenue for the little guy. He dies
Nonsense, there was an article on LRC about this today. He doesn't die, he goes and reallocates his labor to an industry he can make a difference in.


When big companies control the market, they can make sure no new competitors come because they have the resources to do so. Profits comes much faster if you own an industry than the losses inflicted to you
Yeah, but that's irrelevant. If a big company is doing a good job, they probably deserve to be big, because THEY ARE DOING A GOOD JOB!


Monopolies hasn't been pulled off BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WONT LET IT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The government is the biggest monopoly in the land. Monopoly on law. Monopoly on force. Monopoly on defense. Monopoly on money. Monopoly on justice. Monopoly on property.


There.
First you have to prove something, before saying "There."

The only reason I can refute you so easily, is that I learned some basic economic facts. You can learn them to, then you can make better and more consistent arguments. Right now, you're just arguing off the top of your head, and unfortunately, it's not good enough to make your points.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 06:57 PM
Well, if the consumer is getting the best price, the best quality and the best product from a big business, why should that business have higher priced competition that has to survive by law?

That's stupid if you're trying to say that high priced firms have a right to exist in the marketplace. If I got into the car business and made million dollar cars, should Ford and GM have to raise their prices so I can compete with them?

I understand economics quite well thank you. And I can spot that your argument is completely irrational.

Man, you really don't know the first thing about economics.

low prices are great. The problem is, who's gonna make them stay low? If there;s other businesses, then they stay low, but when an industry is owned by one entity, there is no incentive to keep it low.

thechitowncubs
10-06-2008, 07:00 PM
Can we refrain from personal attacks and instead help people understand things?

What would Ron Paul do?

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 07:00 PM
Nonsense, there was an article on LRC about this today. He doesn't die, he goes and reallocates his labor to an industry he can make a difference in.


Yeah, but that's irrelevant. If a big company is doing a good job, they probably deserve to be big, because THEY ARE DOING A GOOD JOB!


The government is the biggest monopoly in the land. Monopoly on law. Monopoly on force. Monopoly on defense. Monopoly on money. Monopoly on justice. Monopoly on property.


First you have to prove something, before saying "There."

The only reason I can refute you so easily, is that I learned some basic economic facts. You can learn them to, then you can make better and more consistent arguments. Right now, you're just arguing off the top of your head, and unfortunately, it's not good enough to make your points.

You just can't quite understand the basics of economics.

Big companies do a good job so YOU (the sheep) buys from them. All the little guys die out, so now they don't HAVE to do a good job because they are your only choice. UNDERSTAND NOW? I hate repeating myself over and over.

jjockers
10-06-2008, 07:00 PM
Man, you really don't know the first thing about economics.

low prices are great. The problem is, who's gonna make them stay low? If there;s other businesses, then they stay low, but when an industry is owned by one entity, there is no incentive to keep it low.

Free Market = Incentive. Other companies come in and offer lower prices. If predatory pricing occurs, and perhaps small companies quit or move, then maybe the big company will increase prices again .. but as soon as they do that, more upstart companies will see an avenue to enter business. Big companies cannot sustain predatory pricing or they will go bankrupt.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 07:01 PM
Can we refrain from personal attacks and instead help people understand things?

What would Ron Paul do?

I think Ron Paul wants the best for the people, and he sees that since free market worked in the past, it can work again. The problem is, times changed. And there are many, many factors to why it can't work today.

jjockers
10-06-2008, 07:02 PM
The key is to keep it as easy as possible to start a business. Thus the problem with regulations.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 07:05 PM
Free Market = Incentive. Other companies come in and offer lower prices. If predatory pricing occurs, and perhaps small companies quit or move, then maybe the big company will increase prices again .. but as soon as they do that, more upstart companies will see an avenue to enter business. Big companies cannot sustain predatory pricing or they will go bankrupt.

What other companies? Do you know the definition of a monopoly? If one corperation controls an industry, upstart companies can't compete.

What you're thinking of is a environment like NOW. Yes, in a regulated environment, no single company can have the whole cake because it's against the law, BUT in a FREE MARKET, the monopoly eats the WHOLE cake. There is no such thing as a start up company because there is no market share for that company. You can't start off a company with 0% market share and expect to expand.

me3
10-06-2008, 07:07 PM
low prices are great. The problem is, who's gonna make them stay low? If there;s other businesses, then they stay low, but when an industry is owned by one entity, there is no incentive to keep it low.
In a free market, the only way to keep out competitors is to keep prices low. If a single company in a market allows room in their prices for competition, competitors will come into their market.


Big companies do a good job so YOU (the sheep) buys from them. All the little guys die out, so now they don't HAVE to do a good job because they are your only choice. UNDERSTAND NOW? I hate repeating myself over and over.
But they have to continue to do a good job, because there will always be new small guys.

And there will be big guys who cross over if there is a profit to be made as well.

Unless you can understand the profit motive both from a consumer and business standpoint, you can't make a sound argument, no matter how many times you protest and claim that I do not understand economics.

Conza88
10-06-2008, 07:07 PM
Can we refrain from personal attacks and instead help people understand things?

What would Ron Paul do?

You're kidding right. Start from the top of the thread. See who throws the first stone. Not that matters AT ALL... Teen doesn't want to understand, logic is his enemy. Reason is a vice. It is evil, he must not know - for he does not want to..

I'm grateful I enter this after it's so blatantly obvious this guy is a troll of ignorance at a base level and a complete douche who gets kicks out of trying to defend logical fallacies... :)

Rounds of applause go to:

me3, powerofreason, mini-me, brandonyates, nate895, nbhadja, ClockwiseSpark, Anti Federalist, literatim, jjockers, Brassmouth. :D


http://www.mojosonic.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/clap.gif





And to those that are impervious to reason:


TeenforPaul08, RonpaulSupporter7777. Welcome to my ignore list. :p


http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/funny-pictures-cat-greets-dog-at-door.jpg

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 07:10 PM
Conza88, why do your posts always take up half the page? LOL.

jjockers
10-06-2008, 07:20 PM
What other companies? Do you know the definition of a monopoly? If one corperation controls an industry, upstart companies can't compete.

What you're thinking of is a environment like NOW. Yes, in a regulated environment, no single company can have the whole cake because it's against the law, BUT in a FREE MARKET, the monopoly eats the WHOLE cake. There is no such thing as a start up company because there is no market share for that company. You can't start off a company with 0% market share and expect to expand.

Bear with me as a provide a physics analogy.
Consider:
light travels at the speed of light.
light cannot decelerate from the speed of light.
nothing can accelerate to 100% the speed of light.

analogy, as per your statement above:
Monopoly holds 100% market share
Monopoly has no competition and thus cannot "decelerate" from 100% market share
nothing can "accelerate" to 100% market share.

Thus, monopolies only exist if they were preordained (regulated), much like light, to exist as such.

In fact, it is impossible for a company to become a monopoly in a free market, much like it is impossible for an object to accelerate to the speed of light.

A silly analogy for sure, but it is apropos.

Follow the logical process: if one company achieves massive wealth from a particular upstart industry with very little competition, many many more companies will try to improve on their company business model and enter the same new upstart industry because it is lucrative. That's logical. It's also exactly what happens. For example, consider the boom in social networking websites, search based websites, reality TV, etc.. One successful company in a new industry naturally leads to more competition in that industry. Thus, no monopolies.

noxagol
10-06-2008, 07:21 PM
You just can't quite understand the basics of economics.

Big companies do a good job so YOU (the sheep) buys from them. All the little guys die out, so now they don't HAVE to do a good job because they are your only choice. UNDERSTAND NOW? I hate repeating myself over and over.

They have to continue to do a good job and provide low prices or new competition will enter and take business away from them.

Research ALCOA. They got hit with anti-trust legislation for doing too good of a job, despite the fact they were a monopoly, and charging too low of prices that no one else could afford to get in and make money.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 07:29 PM
Bear with me as a provide a physics analogy.
Consider:
light travels at the speed of light.
light cannot decelerate from the speed of light.
nothing can accelerate to 100% the speed of light.

analogy, as per your statement above:
Monopoly holds 100% market share
Monopoly has no competition and cannot "decelerate" from 100% market share
nothing can "accelerate" to 100% market share.

Thus, monopolies only exist if they were preordained (regulated), much like light, to exist as such.

In fact, it is impossible for a company to become a monopoly in a free market, much like it is impossible for an object to accelerate to the speed of light.

A silly analogy for sure, but it is apropos.

Follow the logical process: if one company achieves massive wealth from a particular upstart industry with very little competition, many many more companies will try to improve on their company business model and enter the same new upstart industry because it is lucrative. That's logical. It's also exactly what happens. For one example, consider the boom in social networking websites, search based websites, reality TV, etc.. One successful company in a new industry naturally leads to more competition in that industry. Thus, no monopolies.

Light is constant. Growth of a company is not constant so you logic is extremely distorted.

You don't seem to think things through, ever. You give examples of things that OCCUR IN A REGULATED MARKET. The examples you give are irrelevant because it is not free market.

OMG, get that through your head. I mad because my posts fall on blind eyes.

If there was a free market, a new industry can be created but a monopoly of a existing industry cannot just begin having magical competitors. You can't get growth from 0% market share.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 07:33 PM
They have to continue to do a good job and provide low prices or new competition will enter and take business away from them.

Research ALCOA. They got hit with anti-trust legislation for doing too good of a job, despite the fact they were a monopoly, and charging too low of prices that no one else could afford to get in and make money.

ANTITRUST IS REGULATION

We are debating whether free market is sustainable or not.

They don't have to do a good job because they are your only choice. There;s no new upstarts because these monopolies already have 100% market share. Where are they gonna "upstart?"

Comcast is the only provider in my area. They are shitty but I will still use them because I have no choice. UNDERSTAND?

literatim
10-06-2008, 07:37 PM
Comcast is the only provider in my area. They are shitty but I will still use them because I have no choice. UNDERSTAND?

Your government gave them an exclusive contract.

Even then, for TV you could switch to DirecTV or Dish, and for internet you could use a DSL company.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 07:40 PM
Your government gave them an exclusive contract.

Even then, for TV you could switch to DirecTV or Dish, and for internet you could use a DSL company.

I used that analogy to explain to people what monopoly means. It means having one choice in a certain service or industry.

jjockers
10-06-2008, 07:40 PM
Light is constant. Growth of a company is not constant so you logic is extremely distorted.

You don't seem to think things through, ever. You give examples of things that OCCUR IN A REGULATED MARKET. The examples you give are irrelevant because it is not free market.

OMG, get that through your head. I mad because my posts fall on blind eyes.

If there was a free market, a new industry can be created but a monopoly of a existing industry cannot just begin having magical competitors. You can't get growth from 0% market share.

Your posts don't fall on blind eyes. Most of us have read similar accounts before. Your ideas are not new and have been demonstrated to be logical fallacies. You feel like you are constantly regurgitating the same thoughts on this thread. I and others, I'm sure, feel like we've been constantly disproving similar thoughts over many threads for several years. Still nothing wrong with going down this path again, though.

Your idea of a monopoly assumes a monopoly can develop in a free market. That's not possible -- other companies will quickly grasp the economic viability of an upstart industry. The only way a monopoly can exist is if it was ordained to exist, to setup as a monopoly, i.e. regulated in such a way to have no competition.

You will need to demonstrate how a monopoly of an existing industry can exist in a free market, before claiming how monopolies are the problem with a free market.

ewizacft
10-06-2008, 07:44 PM
You are not even proving a point. What are you trying to prove here? Is it related to the debate?

No I am not proving a point. You claimed Ron Paul said this and that, but you made those things up.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 07:48 PM
Your posts don't fall on blind eyes. Most of us have read similar accounts before. Your ideas are not new and have been demonstrated to be logical fallacies. You feel like you are constantly regurgitating the same thoughts on this thread. I and others, I'm sure, feel like we've been constantly disproving similar thoughts over many threads for several years. Still nothing wrong with going down this path again, though.

Your idea of a monopoly assumes a monopoly can develop in a free market. That's not possible -- other companies will quickly grasp the economic viability of an upstart industry. The only way a monopoly can exist is if it was ordained to exist, to setup as a monopoly, i.e. regulated in such a way to have no competition.

You will need to demonstrate how a monopoly of an existing industry can exist in a free market, before claiming how monopolies are the problem with a free market.

OMG...I wish I could go back and copy paste my posts.


Please.


The reason Monopolies don't exist already is because government won't let to. SO they do the next best thing: duopolies, and others where a handful of companies work together to control prices so the little guys have no chance.

Now, let's start from the begining.

There once was a free market system

it had 30 bussiness selling food

a few of those businesses got ahead of others (because of different variables like location, demand, etc)

now, these few businesses, over time will expand because they can expand. The smaller ones die out (whether it be poor management, bad location etc)

Now with more time, there will be a handful of companies which shared market.

Now, they work together so they all get a good peice of the cake. 3 companies divide the cake up by 3. IF they're were 5 companies, they get smaller pieces so they make sure no more companies rise by working together and price fixing.

Other routes might have been like standard oil where they took almost everything.

jjockers
10-06-2008, 07:58 PM
OMG...I wish I could go back and copy paste my posts.

Please.

The reason Monopolies don't exist already is because government won't let to. SO they do the next best thing: duopolies, and others where a handful of companies work together to control prices so the little guys have no chance.

Now, let's start from the begining.

There once was a free market system

it had 30 bussiness selling food

a few of those businesses got ahead of others (because of different variables like location, demand, etc)

now, these few businesses, over time will expand because they can expand. The smaller ones die out (whether it be poor management, bad location etc)

Now with more time, there will be a handful of companies which shared market.

Now, they work together so they all get a good peice of the cake. 3 companies divide the cake up by 3. IF they're were 5 companies, they get smaller pieces so they make sure no more companies rise by working together and price fixing.

Other routes might have been like standard oil where they took almost everything.

Suppose AOL, MSN, and Yahoo formed a triopoly. How then does Google break through and surpass them? They created a better product.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 08:07 PM
Suppose AOL, MSN, and Yahoo formed a triopoly. How then does Google break through and surpass them? They created a better product.

In the 90's much of the market share for internet was untapped, therefore AOL, MSN, and yahoo wasn't a triopoly.

noxagol
10-06-2008, 08:08 PM
ANTITRUST IS REGULATION

We are debating whether free market is sustainable or not.

They don't have to do a good job because they are your only choice. There;s no new upstarts because these monopolies already have 100% market share. Where are they gonna "upstart?"

Comcast is the only provider in my area. They are shitty but I will still use them because I have no choice. UNDERSTAND?

I was showing a monopoly company doing a good job to discourage competition from entering.

The reason you can only get Comcast is because the local government says it is the only one you can have. My brother can only get verizon for phone, despite the fact he has a cable line connected, gets cable interet, and our local cable company offers cable phone. They can't do it because it is illegal.

Government creates monopolies. If a business does not satisfy their customers, someone else will come and do it because there is money to be made. I don't understand what part you do not get about this.

noxagol
10-06-2008, 08:10 PM
OMG...I wish I could go back and copy paste my posts.


Please.


The reason Monopolies don't exist already is because government won't let to. SO they do the next best thing: duopolies, and others where a handful of companies work together to control prices so the little guys have no chance.

Now, let's start from the begining.

There once was a free market system

it had 30 bussiness selling food

a few of those businesses got ahead of others (because of different variables like location, demand, etc)

now, these few businesses, over time will expand because they can expand. The smaller ones die out (whether it be poor management, bad location etc)

Now with more time, there will be a handful of companies which shared market.

Now, they work together so they all get a good peice of the cake. 3 companies divide the cake up by 3. IF they're were 5 companies, they get smaller pieces so they make sure no more companies rise by working together and price fixing.

Other routes might have been like standard oil where they took almost everything.

And those farm companies came about because of farm subsidies. That is where all those farm subsidies go to, those big ebil farm corporations.

jjockers
10-06-2008, 08:11 PM
In the 90's much of the market share for internet was untapped, therefore AOL, MSN, and yahoo wasn't a triopoly.

If monopolies, duopolies, etc can only defined under certain conditions such as how well an industry is 'tapped', how do we measure how well a market share is tapped? Isn't that the point of innovation? We're always looking for new ways to tap into an industry.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 08:13 PM
And those farm companies came about because of farm subsidies. That is where all those farm subsidies go to, those big ebil farm corporations.

ROFL. Wait so the farm companies I just made up, apparently used farm subsidies? Even though I made them up, hypothetically, to prove a point?

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 08:20 PM
ANTITRUST IS REGULATION

We are debating whether free market is sustainable or not.

They don't have to do a good job because they are your only choice. There;s no new upstarts because these monopolies already have 100% market share. Where are they gonna "upstart?"

Comcast is the only provider in my area. They are shitty but I will still use them because I have no choice. UNDERSTAND?

You were missing the irony of his argument! He was saying that antitrust regulation was leveled against that company because the company kept prices low - in other words, it continued to do what was best for the consumer, yet antitrust legislation was used against it anyway, even though it was completely unnecessary and the free market was succeeding at providing goods and services to consumers for the lowest possible cost.

Furthermore, about Comcast - do you know why Comcast is a monopoly? It's not because the free market failed. Oh, no - ask your local government. Comcast is a monopoly in your area because Comcast wined and dined your local politicians for an EXCLUSIVE MONOPOLY CONTRACT, most likely numbering 15 years in duration as do most, and ALL COMPETITION IS BANNED BY THE GOVERNMENT. In my area, the local monopoly is Time Warner Cable, and the government literally forbids any other company from competing! Cable monopolies are some of the prime examples of how the worst, and possibly only, true monopolies are there because the government literally made them.

Oh, uh...I'm back from dinner...

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 08:24 PM
If monopolies, duopolies, etc can only defined under certain conditions such as how well an industry is 'tapped', how do we measure how well a market share is tapped? Isn't that the point of innovation? We're always looking for new ways to tap into an industry.

Countries! If every town in America offered only comast because is a monopoly, the country is tapped. Comast's next step would be to move try to get market share overseas

For internet, not alot of people had access to the internet (in the 90's), so there was still potential to sway new customers to your service. This means it's untapped.

Danke
10-06-2008, 08:25 PM
Standard oil would have up every gas station in america if the GOVERNMENT didn't force them to break up.


]

I don't have the research handy to link to, but that was a ruse. Rockefeller controlled the other oil companies through various trust after the so-called break up.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 08:26 PM
You were missing the irony of his argument! He was saying that antitrust regulation was leveled against that company because the company kept prices low - in other words, it continued to do what was best for the consumer, yet antitrust legislation was used against it anyway, even though it was completely unnecessary and the free market was succeeding at providing goods and services to consumers for the lowest possible cost.

Furthermore, about Comcast - do you know why Comcast is a monopoly? It's not because the free market failed. Oh, no - ask your local government. Comcast is a monopoly in your area because Comcast wined and dined your local politicians for an EXCLUSIVE MONOPOLY CONTRACT, most likely numbering 15 years in duration as do most, and ALL COMPETITION IS BANNED BY THE GOVERNMENT. In my area, the local monopoly is Time Warner Cable, and the government literally forbids any other company from competing! Cable monopolies are some of the prime examples of how the worst, and possible only, true monopolies are there because the government literally made them.

Oh, uh...I'm back from dinner...

WOw.

Ok, from now on, when I say a specific company, I just mean it as a metaphor, example. Just because I named a company doesn't mean I think they're a monopoly.

Alawn
10-06-2008, 08:27 PM
I am not at all convinced that our society will greatly benifit from hard-line "Milton Friedman" stlye economics.

Well first of all Milton Friedman is not the style Ron Paul suggests at all. This is a huge mistake. Ron Paul is an Austrian Economist. Friedman is a Chicago school economist. They are not the same thing. Contrary to popular belief Friedman's ideas were not actually free market. They were something between Austrian and Keynesian. We haven't a had free market in the US in a hundred years.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 08:27 PM
I don't have the research handy to link to, but that was a ruse. Rockefeller controlled the other oil companies through various trust after the so-called break up.

Hey I'm from Minnesota too!

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 08:28 PM
Countries! If every town in America offered only comast because is a monopoly, the country is tapped. Comast's next step would be to move try to get market share overseas

For internet, not alot of people had access to the internet (in the 90's), so there was still potential to sway new customers to your service. This means it's untapped.

Look at my post above about why Comcast is a monopoly in your area. Please shit your pants in horror at the truth...your local government is quite literally, "at the point of a gun," forbidding all other companies from doing business, using the coercive power of the state.

Danke
10-06-2008, 08:28 PM
I think Ron Paul wants the best for the people, and he sees that since free market worked in the past, it can work again. The problem is, times changed. And there are many, many factors to why it can't work today.

Yeah, and the Constitution is an old, outdated document. :rolleyes:

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 08:30 PM
WOw.

Ok, from now on, when I say a specific company, I just mean it as a metaphor, example. Just because I named a company doesn't mean I think they're a monopoly.

Stop backpedaling. You gave a specific example to back up your assertion that the free market causes uncontrolled monopolies, and I called you out on it and explained why you were wrong. The reason I'm attacking your supporting arguments is because I'm trying to get you to understand that your main point is supported by absolutely nothing of substance. You were wrong about that specific example, and you are wrong about your main idea as well.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 08:32 PM
Look at my post above about why Comcast is a monopoly in your area. Please shit your pants in horror at the truth...your local government is quite literally, "at the point of a gun," forbidding all other companies from doing business, using the coercive power of the state.

I'm using comast as a metaphor idiot. Replace comast with biglotz, sears, target, walmart, or anything you like.

ClockwiseSpark
10-06-2008, 08:36 PM
I'm using comast as a metaphor idiot. Replace comast with biglotz, sears, target, walmart, or anything you like.

http://iqtest.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/idiot-test1.jpg

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 08:41 PM
I'm using comast as a metaphor idiot. Replace comast with biglotz, sears, target, walmart, or anything you like.

How can you consider any of them monopolies when they are all competing against each other in the same consumer retail market? Their prices are pretty damn low, which is exactly what the free market does. Not a single one of these supports your argument that companies form a monopoly, get lazy/greedy, and start gouging the consumer for all of eternity without any competition ever giving them a run for their money again. (...idiot. In any case, by what right are you calling me an idiot? You have spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors in every single post. You repeatedly ignore every point people make in an anti-intellectual attempt to pretend those points simply don't exist. Your economic reasoning is shallower than Paris Hilton, and your arguments are limited to making baseless assertions, skipping important logical steps, and then jumping to conclusions. Whenever you try to support your argument and your supporting argument is ripped to shreds, you hand-wave everything away and say you're still right, and then call us idiots. Furthermore, your petty insults alone aren't very persuasive, and it's going to take a lot more supporting logic to convince me that I'm an idiot even though I've been well into the top ninety-nine point ninth percentile intellectually since I was about eight years old. That said, I really don't even think I'm all that smart...it's just that most people's critical thinking skills are flat-out abysmal.)

By the way, that said...one of the things that gives Wal-Mart that "little extra edge" is corporate welfare, courtesy of government.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 08:45 PM
How can you consider any of them monopolies when they are all competing against each other in the same consumer retail market? Their prices are pretty damn low, which is exactly what the free market does. Not a single one of these supports your argument that companies form a monopoly, get lazy/greedy, and start gouging the consumer for all of eternity without any competition ever giving them a run for their money again. (...idiot. In any case, by what right are you calling me an idiot? You have spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors in every single post. You repeatedly ignore every point people make in an anti-intellectual attempt to pretend those points simply don't exist. Your economic reasoning is shallower than Paris Hilton, and your arguments are limited to making baseless assertions, skipping important logical steps, and then jumping to conclusions. Whenever you try to support your argument and your supporting argument is ripped to shreds, you hand-wave everything away and say you're still right, and then call us idiots. Furthermore, your petty insults alone aren't very persuasive, and it's going to take a lot more supporting logic to convince me that I'm an idiot even though I've been well into the top ninety-nine point ninth percentile intellectually since I was about eight years old.)

Ok, then. When I talk about examples I will make up a fake company so idiots like you won't get mislead.

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 08:48 PM
Ok, then. When I talk about examples I will make up a fake company so idiots like you won't get mislead.

That would be an entirely invalid example, however, because you'd be outright making up the company, the company's current state of dominance, and the very rules of the market that supposedly help that company maintain its dominance. Hypothetical examples carry no weight by themselves, and their only use is to help illustrate logical principles...which seem anathema to your style of thinking.

By the way, it's "misled."

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 09:01 PM
Anyone else think that free-market is superior to superior to a resource-based economy?

PROVE IT.

BarryDonegan
10-06-2008, 09:05 PM
Hi.

First off, I started this thread in hopes that an open and intelligent dialogue between the supporters of Ron Paul's political philosophy could be born. While I am an ardent supporter of Conservative Libertarian values, especially in regards to foreign policy measures, I am not at all convinced that our society will greatly benifit from hard-line "Milton Friedman" stlye economics.

Now I do realize that Ron Paul is more of a Ludwig Von Mises, Austrian school of economics type of guy. I am not out to criticize Conservative Libertarian economic philosophies, but only to examine the potential consequences these particular ideologies could have in regards to the Liberty Movement that is alive and well in America.

Could we as a movement be blinding ourselves by only seeing through the lense of theoretical utopia rather than experience and reality? What about the potential consequences that leftist utopian movements have been plagued with such as communism and socialism.

Could this Ron Paul inspired American Revolution really be the root of all reform or simply another enthusiastic idea whose time will bring us some good, but also lots of the bad?

Certain aspects of this movement rest on the assumption that democracy is a constantly moving entity that must be upheld and defended by a largely apathetic/distracted American people; just as socialism is reliant on a government with strict checks and balances carried out by a majority of corrupted politicians/beauracrats.

My main point is that sometimes a great idea is worth fighting for, but when enacted it could potentially lead to another set of disasters. How are we so sure that deregulated markets in the American Economy will not lead to corruption and further consolidation of wealth among the already rich elitists of this world?

Maybe Economics is just as alive and changing as a democratic republic? If so, we will have to be on gaurd to potential pitfalls of Conservative Libertarian Economic Policies. We may even have to let the government step in to regulate in certain situations. If we hold true to a dogmatic belief of "infallibility" within our economic outlook and blame everything but our own belief system we will be just as doomed as communism and socialism.

whats up with all the guys with under 100 post counts suddenly rushing to the board and infusing collectivist or statist ideas?

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 09:09 PM
whats up with all the guys with under 100 post counts suddenly rushing to the board and infusing collectivist or statist ideas?

Does this give the establishment discomfort?

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 09:11 PM
Anyone else think that free-market is superior to superior to a resource-based economy?

PROVE IT.

The free market IS a resource-based economy, as I've already explained.* You're arguing from such a false premise that you're "not even wrong." (Look that phrase up.)

*By the true definition of what "resource-based" means. The Venus Project seeks to reinvent the term "resource-based" and give it a new definition that is entirely paradoxical and nonsensical. This new definition defies reality as it applies to resources, because it ignores the most obvious, universal, and perpetual truth of all economic theory: Finite resources, or in other words, "scarcity."

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 09:13 PM
Does this give the establishment discomfort?

No, it just annoys people because it's hard to sort out the genuinely confused from trolls who just want to cause a disruption.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 09:15 PM
GOP (RP forum members): damn that ron paul. He caused us so much disruption and so much time. I wish he was just banned from all the debates.


Ron paul (me)l: hehe, I'm getting to them. I know it.

:D


This is how I feel right now.

BarryDonegan
10-06-2008, 09:17 PM
Does this give the establishment discomfort?

says the guy with a 200 post count surge in a day, after having 100 posts for a year prior.

RonPaulR3VOLUTION
10-06-2008, 09:17 PM
Okay, I admit, I stopped reading at like page 12. So, apologies if this was asked already.

Teenforpaul08, if the free market is so beneficial to the 'elite,' why do 'they' put so much effort into killing it? And why didn't 'they' work hard to make Ron Paul the President instead of two very anti-free market candidates? Thanks.

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 09:20 PM
Unlike you, Ron Paul did not intend to cause a disruption due to him being a childish asshole. Ron Paul intended to disrupt a longstanding charade that tries to pass itself off year after year as an honest and open election between intelligent, well-meaning candidates, when it's really just a popularity contest between establishment shills vying to be our next master.

You refuse to seriously address every reasoned argument that every other member has offered you...that sounds very much unlike Ron Paul to me.

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 09:26 PM
Okay, I admit, I stopped reading at like page 12. So, apologies if this was asked already.

Teenforpaul08, if the free market is so beneficial to the 'elite,' why do 'they' put so much effort into killing it? And why didn't 'they' work hard to make Ron Paul the President instead of two very anti-free market candidates? Thanks.

This is a very good point. I actually just brought it up in another argument recently (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1723944&postcount=26), and I've never once seen anybody come up with a coherent rebuttal for this point that does not entirely ignore the media's success at propagandizing people to believe whatever the establishment wants them to believe.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 09:33 PM
Okay, I admit, I stopped reading at like page 12. So, apologies if this was asked already.

Teenforpaul08, if the free market is so beneficial to the 'elite,' why do 'they' put so much effort into killing it? And why didn't 'they' work hard to make Ron Paul the President instead of two very anti-free market candidates? Thanks.

What Ron Paul seeks to do is get of things that are unconstitutional.

Elites have built their way up to this point because it benefits them even more than the free markets.

Essentially, voting in ron paul would make some of them start over. Simple as that.

They are not killing the free market, they are changing its rules to meet their needs better. The free market is good for them, just not good enough for them so they make regulations to make it better for them, so they can keep their "competitve edge."

Profit is an addiction to companies, the more you get, the more you want.

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 09:38 PM
What Ron Paul seeks to do is get of things that are unconstitutional.

Elites have built their way up to this point because it benefits them even more than the free markets.

Essentially, voting in ron paul would make some of them start over. Simple as that.

They are not killing the free market, they are changing its rules to meet their needs better. The free market is good for them, just not good enough for them so they make regulations to make it better for them, so they can keep their "competitve edge."

Profit is an addiction to companies, the more you get, the more you want.

Ron Paul does indeed seek to get rid of things that are unconstitutional, and that includes federal intervention in the market. The government can "regulate interstate commerce," i.e. it can prevent trade wars between states, but it is not authorized to arbitrarily regulate, and stretching its power here is what has undermined our market and made it corporatist-fascist, rather than free. Ultimately, once limited government and the rule of law is restored, we'll have to add "teeth" to the Constitution to make it more easily enforceable to prevent today's situation from occurring again. (There have been threads where we've talked about possible new checks, even some that can come directly from the people.)

In any case, back up your arguments with something of substance. The truth is, under a true free market where coercion is not permitted, it doesn't matter how greedy companies get, because their power is limited by what everyone else wants and whether people are willing to voluntarily do business with them. In a real free market, supply and demand keep the power balance oscillating near equilibrium. If you want a longer post detailing why, look back through my posts where I gave links to more in-depth explanations.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 09:42 PM
So is there anyone else that thinks a Free Market system trumps a resource-based economy?

Link
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
http://www.thevenusproject.com/intro_main/essay.htm
http://www.thevenusproject.com/resource_eco.htm

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 09:43 PM
So is there anyone else that thinks a Free Market system trumps a resource-based economy?

Link
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
http://www.thevenusproject.com/intro_main/essay.htm
http://www.thevenusproject.com/resource_eco.htm

The free market IS a resource-based economy, as I've already explained.* You're arguing from such a false premise that you're "not even wrong." (Look that phrase up.)

*By the true definition of what "resource-based" means. The Venus Project seeks to reinvent the term "resource-based" and give it a new definition that is entirely paradoxical and nonsensical. This new definition defies reality as it applies to resources, because it ignores the most obvious, universal, and perpetual truth of all economic theory: Finite resources, or in other words, "scarcity."

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 09:48 PM
So everyone's done, huh? I bet some are so lost that they don't know what to believe anymore.

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 09:50 PM
So everyone's done, huh? I bet some are so lost that they don't know what to believe anymore.

Yeah, because your arguments were just soooo convincing. :rolleyes:

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 09:53 PM
Yeah, because your arguments were just soooo convincing. :rolleyes:

Listen. I don't debate with someone who, before seeing my post, already thinks in his/her mind "he's going to be wrong, I'm always right" "He socialism, he communism" "Free market is perfect."

It's counter-productive and gets no where. Sorry.

raiha
10-06-2008, 09:56 PM
Lovely thought out question OP. When you get collectivism you get problems. It comes down to lack of individuality basically. We either have individualism or conformity when really what you need is neither. What you need is true individuality. Unfortunately most human beings do not have a clue how to master their own minds. We are just a bundle of automated habits (usually bad ones) loosely tied together with a name and address.

In as much as human beings manifest variations of greed hatred and ignorance, we will always find ourselves in pickles. Reform needs to go hand in hand with self control and even self mastery.
We are decadent, impulsive, spoilt and often vicious as a species.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 10:01 PM
Lovely thought out question OP. When you get collectivism you get problems. It comes down to lack of individuality basically. We either have individualism or conformity when really what you need is neither. What you need is true individuality. Unfortunately most human beings do not have a clue how to master their own minds. We are just a bundle of automated habits (usually bad ones) loosely tied together with a name and address.

In as much as human beings manifest variations of greed hatred and ignorance, we will always find ourselves in pickles. Reform needs to go hand in hand with self control and even self mastery.
We are decadent, impulsive, spoilt and often vicious as a species.

When then you would welcome the venus project because, with this concept, human beings will achieve the most self-fullfillment, individuality, and freedom ever experienced by a human being.

Check it out:
http://www.thevenusproject.com/index.html
http://www.thevenusproject.com/intro_main/essay.htm

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 10:05 PM
Listen. I don't debate with someone who, before seeing my post, already thinks in his/her mind "he's going to be wrong, I'm always right" "He socialism, he communism" "Free market is perfect."

It's counter-productive and gets no where. Sorry.

I've been debating your comments in an entirely rational way, directly rebutting many of your posts piece by piece. You just didn't like hearing disagreement, and so you completely discounted everything everyone else said without offering solid reasons, and you just continued to parrot your same baseless assertions over and over. In other words, while I'm very confident in my views, I'm plenty open-minded and a strong argument can sway me. Keep in mind that I once had very socialist tendencies. The fact is, you just didn't offer any argument that came anywhere close to what I'd call "strong."

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 10:07 PM
When then you would welcome the venus project because, with this concept, human beings will achieve the most self-fullfillment, individuality, and freedom ever experienced by a human being.

Check it out:
http://www.thevenusproject.com/index.html
http://www.thevenusproject.com/intro_main/essay.htm

Yes, Raiha. Join us. Drink the utopian Kool-Aid, Raiha. It beckons. :rolleyes:

jvhspolodx
10-06-2008, 10:09 PM
It's not about the internet! Google, as a company would not exist in a free market. Microsoft would use something that google developed and make it better, make sure google is never known. They can do this because they have the resources

Big companies can do what they want in a free market. They can even sabotage if they want to (secretly of course). It is immpossible for a person to start a business competing against a large corperation.

You need logic.

you cite logic more than anything else. Do you know what non sequitur is? your conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 10:15 PM
you cite logic more than anything else. Do you know what non sequitur is? your conclusion does not follow from the premises.

(I foresee a problem coming, and its root lies in his apparent lack of reading comprehension: It may have been a mistake to say that he cites logic more than anything else, since I can totally imagine him taking that first sentence out of context and considering it praise for his supposed powers of deduction.)

ClockwiseSpark
10-06-2008, 10:21 PM
So everyone's done, huh? I bet some are so lost that they don't know what to believe anymore.

Your idiocy makes me sad. I actually believe you were at one time a RP supporter so it's doubly painful.

All you have convinced us of is that you are incapable of reasonable discussion. That is not something I would brag about.

tremendoustie
10-06-2008, 10:37 PM
Listen. I don't debate with someone who, before seeing my post, already thinks in his/her mind "he's going to be wrong, I'm always right" "He socialism, he communism" "Free market is perfect."

It's counter-productive and gets no where. Sorry.

Don't worry, I only thought that you were wrong after I read your posts. Then, after reading more of your posts, I realized that you also weren't open minded, or well researched, and that you were supremely cocky.

Again:
In a real free market, any company attempting to set prices above their natural level will face competitors offering lower prices. If the large company offers artificially low prices in one area to drive competitors out, they will need to raise prices in another area, and competitors will rise to beat them out there. They cannot hold prices artificially low everywhere indefinitely without going out of business, and whenever and wherever their prices get to high, they will lose sales, and their customers will be better served by someone else.

This is well researched economics, but you may be too beholden to your pet theory to think honestly about this.

If you are not willing to really study economics, however. I hope, at least, that your belief in freedom is strong enough for you to allow people to make their own choices about whom they interact and do business with. I would like to hope that if you think about it honestly, you consider it immoral to threaten violence against people who voluntarily choose to interact in ways of which you do not approve. Perhaps I hope too much.

Consider it, however. Working to let people be free to make their own decisions apart from coercion is a worthy cause. And your ideas about how things should work need not be abandoned -- just try to convince people to adopt behaviors, invest or donate, or promote ideas voluntarily, rather than by force, or any imposed cultural reordering. Perhaps, then, if your ideas are worthy, the "free market" choices people make will lead to something close to your vision (e.g. people will voluntarily choose jobs that are less "dehumanizing"). It is immoral, however, to force those who disagree, or who have a different vision, to obey yours at the point of a gun. Perhaps your enemy, then, is not the free market (which itself is nothing more than freedom) -- but the choices people are voluntarily making within that system. Seek to convince, not impose.

Teenforpaul08
10-06-2008, 10:47 PM
Don't worry, I only though that you were wrong after I read your posts. Then, after reading more of your posts, I realized that you also weren't open minded, or well researched, and that you were supremely cocky.

Again:
In a real free market, any company attempting to set prices above their natural level will face competitors offering lower prices. If the large company offers artificially low prices in one area to drive competitors out, they will need to raise prices in another area, and competitors will rise to beat them out there. They cannot hold prices artificially low everywhere indefinitely without going out of business, and whenever and wherever their prices get to high, they will lose sales, and their customers will be better served by someone else.

This is well researched economics, but you may be too beholden to your pet theory to think honestly about this.

If you are not willing to really study economics, however. I hope, at least, that your belief in freedom is strong enough for you to allow people to make their own choices about whom they interact and do business with. I would like to hope that if you think about it honestly, you consider it immoral to threaten violence against people who voluntarily choose to interact in ways of which you do not approve. Perhaps I hope too much.

Consider it, however. Working to let people be free to make their own decisions apart from coercion is a worthy cause. And your ideas about how things should work need not be abandoned -- just try to convince people to adopt behaviors, invest or donate, or promote ideas voluntarily, rather than by force, or any imposed cultural reordering. Perhaps, then, if your ideas are worthy, the "free market" choices people make will lead to something close to your vision (e.g. people will voluntarily choose jobs that are less "dehumanizing"). It is immoral, however, to force those who disagree, or who have a different vision, to obey yours at the point of a gun. Perhaps your enemy, then, is not the free market (which itself is nothing more than freedom) -- but the choices people are voluntarily making within that system. Seek to convince, not impose.

Sorry if I got condensending late in this thread. I just got really sick of people calling me socialist, telling me that I'm wrong when they don't know what I'm for, keep refering to the venus project as utopian etc. It just got really tiresome. People were being ignorant and I didn't exactly do the right thing either.

I just wanted to expose people to an alternative.

Read this article with an open mind and see what you get out of it. I guess its all I can really ask.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/intro_main/essay.htm

Other than that, I'm done.

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 10:51 PM
Your idiocy makes me sad. I actually believe you were at one time a RP supporter so it's doubly painful.

All you have convinced us of is that you are incapable of reasonable discussion. That is not something I would brag about.

You're right though: I looked through his older posts, and he really was a genuine supporter at one time. That said, a lot of people who supported Ron Paul were still quite skeptical of his economic views, but they were just glad to finally see a politician who was honest and who actually cared about restoring the Bill of Rights and a sensible foreign policy (if not the rest of the Constitution). Paul received a great deal of his support from people like that. At the start, I was even one of them, and I'd still be if I didn't start seriously reexamining my thinking on economics in light of what Paul and others have written.

Anyway, as unreasonable as he's being right now, and as much as his ideas are based on emotion and not intellect, the kid's still only 17-ish. Once he gets over the emotional excitement he has for the Venus Project, his rational faculties will kick back in, and he'll eventually be able to start looking at it from a more critical and reasoned perspective. Nothing we say to him right now will make a difference, but at some point, he'll hopefully come across some reading material that'll make things "click" better. He at least realizes there's a problem with today's economic policies and political climate, and that's a start. The starry-eyed idealists tend to be a lot more open-minded than say, bullheaded neocons, so he may eventually come around once he starts thinking rationally again (even if it takes a few years) and comes across something that really makes him think.

EDIT: Why is this page linking to a $cientology ad all of a sudden? It usually tends to link to ads based on key words in the topic of conversation. I'm using the $ for obvious sarcastic reasons and because I'm hoping it won't actually affect the targeted ad-placing program. Is it possible that the Zeitgeist Addendum or the Venus Project might be somehow connected to $cientology? There's no obvious connection, especially not one that a targeted ad-placing program would know about, but it just seems odd.

danberkeley
10-06-2008, 11:15 PM
Dude, WOW. If there weren't any anti trust laws, microsoft would make sure everyone loves their windows and sell it at $10 a piece.

Standard oil would have up every gas station in america if the GOVERNMENT didn't force them to break up.

A good solution would be a resourced-based econ:
here:

http://www.thevenusproject.com/resource_eco.htm

So you are saying that the reason Microsoft doesnt sell Windows for $10 is because of anti-trust laws? lol. I always figured it was because they had to make a profit.



Dude, wow man. THINK!

say there's a track race. Will all the runners get first place? NO

Some companies will get the edge, in a free market, sooner or later. Then, with the more resources they have, they will make sure they stay ahead, eventually buying out everyone else.

If that runner in first place had more energy (resources) than the guy in second place, his margin of lead would widen.

This must the stupidest explaination for how a company grows I have ever read.



U guys are not thinking. THIS example HAPPENED IN A REGULATED MARKET! NOT A FREE MARKET!

If it was truely free, the biggest pharmacuetical company would make sure people don't exposed to outside goods. Plus, ron paul doesn't support free trade so it would cost more to import.

It is because of a regulated market (FDA intervention) that "people (arnt) exposed to outside goods".



He has said it! OMFG do you do your homework? When tim russert asked him how he would pay for the federal government, that's what he said.

Your are taking what Paul said out of context and drawing the wrong conclusion.


north american free trade agreement

lol. usted es estupido.



Well, we don't have a free market, but it's still capitalism. Walmart, for example, has put countless local businesses out of business by just setting up their store in that area.

2. Well, for example, Standard oil did things such as sabotage small business, lowered prices so small businesses can't compete, sent goons to threaten them etc.

how does one go about "sabotaging" a small business?



Why would they sell at a lower price if they aren't bigger than you? They can't afford to.

The big companies come in, they sell lower, consumers go buy from them BECAUSE they're lower, no revenue for the little guy. He dies


When big companies control the market, they can make sure no new competitors come because they have the resources to do so. Profits comes much faster if you own an industry than the losses inflicted to you


how do "profits come much faster"? and how do you "own an industry"?



Ok then, if the governments don't interfere, Microsoft would be the only software company. GE would be our only energy company. And exxon would be our only oil company.

When a company gets that edge, they will do what's neccesary to keep it. Standard oil did it by controlling prices. Just think about it. Monetary based systems of any kind (socialism, capitalism, communism) doesn't work anymore.

no, no, and definately no. How exactly does one "control prices"?



Ok, if the government doesn't interfere then RIGHT NOW, standard oil would be the world's only supplier of oil. THINK ABOUT IT. they, as a company will do what it takes to control market share (and they can because they would have the resources to do so). They would just lower prices until everyone is out of business and jack them up when they are all alone.

Standard Oil has lost most of its market share by the time it wasw broken up.


BTW, adding "OMG", "think about it," and "wow" to your posts does not make your argument any more convincing.

BarryDonegan
10-06-2008, 11:29 PM
naw, he was just schilling to get up a good post count. there is a call center of these guys, and today is one of their critical days.

they all have 100 or so posts before the past couple of days, and suddenly are posting 24/7

Mini-Me
10-06-2008, 11:49 PM
how does one go about "sabotaging" a small business?

Actually, I think Teen was right about this particular point. Rockefeller used some very shady tactics, and I vaguely remember learning in history class that some of his competitors claimed he literally sabotaged their company's operations with inside agents. Obviously regulations aren't necessary to outlaw this kind of violence (against people or in this case, property), since it's always been illegal with respect to common law anyway. Therefore, it's not a valid argument for supporting Teen's main thesis against the free market...but nevertheless, if someone had no morals, no respect for the law, and no respect for the rights of others, they could indeed sabotage someone else's business.

RonPaulR3VOLUTION
10-06-2008, 11:57 PM
Why don't people use food and water as money?

Well, I don't see people carrying around a coke and a slice of pizza, as a means of exchange, working out too well...

tremendoustie
10-07-2008, 12:51 AM
Why don't people use food and water as money?

Well, I don't see people carrying around a coke and a slice of pizza, as a means of exchange, working out too well...

Good work this week Mr. Johnson, here's 14 dominoes pizzas, a case of mr pibb, 27 boxes of cheerios, and a bag of those weird coffee beans they have animals eat or something. Have a good weekend!

Conza88
10-07-2008, 12:52 AM
Don't worry, I only thought that you were wrong after I read your posts. Then, after reading more of your posts, I realized that you also weren't open minded, or well researched, and that you were supremely cocky.

LMFAO! :D

I think it's time guys...

-> Click (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist); then you know what to do. :cool:

"Titanic: Never Let Go" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5L7lTcy6Iw)

In this scene; "jack" will represent "teen08" ... Enjoy. :p

Edit: Can I just add... wtf is with "08" people being total retards? Sally08 being a prime example... "RonPaulsupporter777777" "teenforpaul08" all just seem so retarded.. like you're on a ron paul supporters forum, why you feel the need to proclaim you're a supporter? :confused: Besides the obvious conclusion... that you want to appear as one.. any other options we got here? lol :D

raiha
10-07-2008, 12:53 AM
Perhaps there is a monumental misunderstanding of Ayn Rand coming through here. She freaked out whenever anyone mentioned Utopia or altruism. People here tend to throw out all sorts of babies with all sorts of bathwater. You gotta look at where she came from..Stalin's Russia.
A friend once said "if you don't dream you become a monster." I reckon we need our visionaries, our mystics, our poetsour utopians,our altruists...DH Lawrence, Shelley, Keats, Blake, Yeats...they weren't socialist ogres.The Buddha taught constant altruism and utopianism and had never read Das Kapital. And yet these great spiritual qualities are denigrated and reduced to the level of some mediocre Russian public servant with a twitch in his cheek.

Collectivist thinking...shudder...venus project looks great T4P. As does Integral Life..ken Wilber's site...Work that Reconnect...Joanna Macey's site..lots of consciousness raising out there..only hope we all wake up quickly enough.

Try and be civil...surely to goodness you can disagree without becoming all martial...sigh...well i guess this IS America..

raiha
10-07-2008, 12:54 AM
Perhaps there is a monumental misunderstanding of Ayn Rand coming through here. She freaked out whenever anyone mentioned Utopia or altruism. People here tend to throw out all sorts of babies with all sorts of bathwater. You gotta look at where she came from..Stalin's Russia.
A friend once said "if you don't dream you become a monster." I reckon we need our visionaries, our mystics, our poetsour utopians,our altruists...DH Lawrence, Shelley, Keats, Blake, Yeats...they weren't socialist ogres.The Buddha taught constant altruism and utopianism and had never read Das Kapital. And yet these great spiritual qualities are denigrated and reduced to the level of some mediocre Russian public servant with a twitch in his cheek.

Collectivist thinking...shudder...venus project looks great T4P. As does Integral Life..ken Wilber's site...Work that Reconnect...Joanna Macey's site..lots of consciousness raising out there..only hope we all wake up quickly enough.

Try and be civil people...surely to goodness you can disagree without becoming all martial...sigh...well i guess this IS America..

ClockwiseSpark
10-07-2008, 01:47 AM
The Buddha taught constant altruism and utopianism and had never read Das Kapital.

That is not even close to true. You've taken the perceived perception and wrapped it around what you want it to mean.

Mini-Me
10-07-2008, 01:52 AM
Perhaps there is a monumental misunderstanding of Ayn Rand coming through here. She freaked out whenever anyone mentioned Utopia or altruism. People here tend to throw out all sorts of babies with all sorts of bathwater. You gotta look at where she came from..Stalin's Russia.
A friend once said "if you don't dream you become a monster." I reckon we need our visionaries, our mystics, our poetsour utopians,our altruists...DH Lawrence, Shelley, Keats, Blake, Yeats...they weren't socialist ogres.The Buddha taught constant altruism and utopianism and had never read Das Kapital. And yet these great spiritual qualities are denigrated and reduced to the level of some mediocre Russian public servant with a twitch in his cheek.

Collectivist thinking...shudder...venus project looks great T4P. As does Integral Life..ken Wilber's site...Work that Reconnect...Joanna Macey's site..lots of consciousness raising out there..only hope we all wake up quickly enough.

Try and be civil people...surely to goodness you can disagree without becoming all martial...sigh...well i guess this IS America..

You should see what it's like here. I went out to pay for my fix with thirty cans of Dr. Pepper, but I drank my currency on the way to my dealer and he came at me with his Jean-Claude Van Damme routine. It's so martial over here we have moms and kids busting out their Kung Fu in the ice cream parlor! :D It's so martial that the law's joining in, too! :eek:
...sorry, I'm in a silly mood now. It's late.

Seriously though, while I'm not Ayn Rand and I have nothing against altruism (as long as it isn't others forcing me to comply with their own "altruistic" ideas), the word "utopia" has some well-deserved negative connotations of being unrealistic and relying on premises which are patently untrue. The biggest problem I have with keeping my opinions to myself about such pipe dreams is that they're doomed to failure, but it won't stop people from trying their damnedest and dragging as many people in with them as possible - and historically, whenever utopian ideas based on horribly false premises and assumptions about economics or human nature have been tried, they have ended up with a whole lot of people very, very dead. I really am an idealist at heart, but I will not hesitate to point out serious logical flaws with seemingly idealistic ideas. In other words, I dislike the notion that realism and idealism are mutually exclusive. Instead, I believe that the most worthwhile ideals amount to the very best human conditions which can be practically achieved within the confines of reality and the laws of the universe and economics.

RonPaulR3VOLUTION
10-07-2008, 02:00 AM
I find it very amusing that the system being proposed can only be brought about by a moneyed system. Why can't some people just move somewhere and start this society? Oh, right, you need all of the robots and such beforehand to even make an attempt to start it. Does everyone live as communists/socialists/whatever until these robots are available? It seems the only system with any hope of bringing something like this into fruition is the very system they demean.

Mini-Me
10-07-2008, 02:11 AM
I find it very amusing that the system being proposed can only be brought about by a moneyed system. Why can't some people just move somewhere and start this society? Oh, right, you need all of the robots and such beforehand to even make an attempt to start it. Does everyone live as communists/socialists/whatever until these robots are available? It seems the only system with any hope of bringing something like this into fruition is the very system they demean.

Exactly! I told him in either this thread or another that as soon as it's viable, companies really will use as much automation as they can to gain a competitive edge and become more efficient...and that will reduce costs for consumers and increase the wealth circulating around in the economy. As this continues, costs will continue to go down and wealth will be increasingly abundant until hopefully, someday, costs will be close to zero and people will hardly have to work a day in their lives, if at all. Still, cost can never be arbitrarily "eliminated," only mitigated more and more until it's eventually immaterial for most purposes. Certain aspects of the Venus Project idea, like widespread automation, will eventually be realistically achievable (to a gradually increasing degree), but other aspects, like the "elimination of money," are just horribly misguided (at best). Even after everything we buy and sell today is given to us on a silver platter by our robotic underlings (hopefully not overlords ;)), we'll still find use for trade, and so it follows that there will be use for money. In any case, free market competition provides a profit motive for such technological innovation, so it really is the fastest way it can come about anyway...and considering the collectivist alternatives, the free market is the only way it even can come about without us first becoming stuck in something like a North Korean nightmare. :eek:

me3
10-07-2008, 04:49 AM
Costs will never be zero. There will always be competition, because there will always be scarcity. Prices are the natural market condition of rationing.

People forget that in order to have automation, the capital goods have to be designed and manufactured. To have products to sell, someone will have to design them.

Anyone producing something with their scarce (finite) labor will expect compensation for such.

raiha
10-08-2008, 02:13 AM
That is not even close to true. You've taken the perceived perception and wrapped it around what you want it to mean.

True. I wasn't very thorough in my use of the word Utopia...coined by Thomas More so of course the Buddha didn't know about it. However i was speaking metaphorically in the sense of perfected states of being. So excuse me for sloppy use of language. However altruism... definitely.

Mini me....yknow, I reckon we can either wake up and start being less selfish and more other regarding...not in the 'political sense' but in an "aligned with Reality" that we are all interconnected sense.
Maybe we will awaken and be nicer to one another a bit more. Who knowz? Maybe the meltdown is a big opportunity?

Has anyone read "Man's search for Meaning" Victor Frankl...subtext How Auschwitz brings out the monster within and brings out the saint within. We will never know who we really are until we are in a Crucial Situation! We hope we will behave honourably but i reckon we could also become dobbers, lurkers and peepers!

Mini-Me
10-08-2008, 06:22 AM
True. I wasn't very thorough in my use of the word Utopia...coined by Thomas More so of course the Buddha didn't know about it. However i was speaking metaphorically in the sense of perfected states of being. So excuse me for sloppy use of language. However altruism... definitely.

Mini me....yknow, I reckon we can either wake up and start being less selfish and more other regarding...not in the 'political sense' but in an "aligned with Reality" that we are all interconnected sense.
Maybe we will awaken and be nicer to one another a bit more. Who knowz? Maybe the meltdown is a big opportunity?


Interestingly enough, while I'm a strong individualist in just about every sense, my intuition has always told me that there's something to the Buddhist idea of universal consciousness. Despite my uncertainty about a sentient creator and my outright rejection of all scriptures and organized religion, I've still always felt that there's a greater meaning to life and an interconnectedness between people, times, and events, as if everything is meant to be and happens for a reason. I've experienced deja vu and and Jungian synchronicity a staggering number of times, and while I know the first could be my brain acting up and the second could be confirmation bias, I still can't bring myself to ignore those feelings. The universe is a mysterious place. ;)



Has anyone read "Man's search for Meaning" Victor Frankl...subtext How Auschwitz brings out the monster within and brings out the saint within. We will never know who we really are until we are in a Crucial Situation! We hope we will behave honourably but i reckon we could also become dobbers, lurkers and peepers!

Yeah, I read that about six years ago actually. I agree that desperate situations bring out our true nature and put our morality to the test...but I do not believe that we can never know who we are beforehand. I believe that by steeling ourselves and mentally preparing in advance for these things, we can make the choice ahead of time and come to terms with the consequences, and that can give us the courage to follow through and do the right thing if and when the time actually comes. After all, that's what it really is...it's a choice. We can make it ahead of time, but I suppose it's true that actually following through at the crucial moment is the only thing that will cure all doubts. Moving from Frankl to Rowling, I've always loved one of Albus Dumbledore's lines from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."
:)

raiha
10-09-2008, 01:53 AM
Heh. Dumbledore was a wise man!


I'm a strong individualist in just about every sense
Good for you!
BTW there is no Creator God in Buddhism. He wasn't a prophet or a son of God because you can't be the son of something you do not believe in.

I tend to see monotheism as problematic especially given you can't get past the Word of God. Can't go into much debate after that which i find irritating.
He was an ordinary human being who through his own actions moved from the conditioned to the Unconditioned (a state coined to describe something ineffable by wannabe Buddhas!)

Whoops look im on a soapbox...sorry bout that. Interconnectedness had bad press til Bertolanffi came up with Systems Theory which shows how without cooperation and awareness of the whole, you risk atrophying and dying. Much as I love USA, i noticed when i was there the extent to which your country is Americocentric...I thought if i was Dictator of USA Id get all citizens to TRAVEL to other countries. some American citizens have really screwy ideas about other types of people.

Sad! if you talk about altruism and cooperatives you are immediately tarred with a great crimson brush and called a socialist...whereas really, for some people it is more a spiritual perspective.

but I do not believe that we can never know who we are beforehand.

Ever read "Lord Jim?" by Joseph Conrad. The Mate who had fantasies for years about his ship going down and he cast himself as chief hero and saved everyone and basked in glory. Then one stormy day it actually happened and he accidentally saved himself and everyone else drowned and he had to live with himself and revamp his view of himself.
You evidently have more faith in human nature than I do. I think i might stick to dogs and horses. Much more straightforward!

Teenforpaul08
10-09-2008, 02:10 AM
Bury this thread!

We have talked about too much in this thread. If we let the sheeps see this thread, they will rise against the free-market establishment that is very entrenched on this forum. Censor it NOW! :eek:

Mini-Me
10-09-2008, 04:42 PM
Heh. Dumbledore was a wise man!


Good for you!
BTW there is no Creator God in Buddhism. He wasn't a prophet or a son of God because you can't be the son of something you do not believe in.

I just reread what I said and I can see why you misunderstood what I meant...but yes, I know this. :) When I said I was uncertain about the existence of a creator, I wasn't meaning to contrast that with Buddhism at all. Rather, I was just indirectly addressing the general assumption among monotheists that anyone who doesn't necessarily believe in God is automatically some kind of nihilist who believes there's no greater meaning to life whatsoever. ;)



I tend to see monotheism as problematic especially given you can't get past the Word of God. Can't go into much debate after that which i find irritating.
He was an ordinary human being who through his own actions moved from the conditioned to the Unconditioned (a state coined to describe something ineffable by wannabe Buddhas!)

Whoops look im on a soapbox...sorry bout that. Interconnectedness had bad press til Bertolanffi came up with Systems Theory which shows how without cooperation and awareness of the whole, you risk atrophying and dying. Much as I love USA, i noticed when i was there the extent to which your country is Americocentric...I thought if i was Dictator of USA Id get all citizens to TRAVEL to other countries. some American citizens have really screwy ideas about other types of people.


You're right about this. In America, we hardly ever even consider the existence of other countries, languages, etc. I think some of this comes naturally from relative geographical isolation and distance from most other countries, but a lot also comes from the government's arrogant foreign policy and the almost religious "America is number one in everything!" propaganda we've been fed since birth (we meaning everyone born since the 50's or so). Until I started actually interacting with Europeans in online games about ten years ago, I was always very insulated from everyone in the outside world. Everything outside our borders is just this vague amorphous "other," and it can be really hard for us to wrap our heads around the idea that "even in today's day and age," real human beings actually live in other countries, speak other languages, have other cultures, etc. Most of us are just not really exposed to any of that. I believe that as America is humbled, this will eventually change...but for now, you're right that a lot of us have "really screwy ideas about other types of people."



Sad! if you talk about altruism and cooperatives you are immediately tarred with a great crimson brush and called a socialist...whereas really, for some people it is more a spiritual perspective.


I think that's more common on this forum than anywhere else, and I consider it a defense mechanism a lot of us have developed in light of the fact that most people who talk about these things are usually overtly or covertly advocating collectivism, socialism, charity at gunpoint, etc. Whenever I hear people talking about altruism and cooperatives and such, my subconscious tends to put my senses on alert and I start thinking, "Wait...where are you going with this?"

However, defense mechanisms against actual socialists aside, I am not Ayn Rand, and I wholly endorse voluntary altruism, charity, and cooperation. I know I was personally born with many advantages others don't have, and those are simply accidents of birth. I detest the idea of coercion, but ultimately, I have every intention of voluntarily helping the less fortunate, once I get my own bearings in life. (That's not to say I don't already try to help out a bit...it's just that right now, the bulk of my efforts are focused on planning for my own future.)



Ever read "Lord Jim?" by Joseph Conrad. The Mate who had fantasies for years about his ship going down and he cast himself as chief hero and saved everyone and basked in glory. Then one stormy day it actually happened and he accidentally saved himself and everyone else drowned and he had to live with himself and revamp his view of himself.
You evidently have more faith in human nature than I do. I think i might stick to dogs and horses. Much more straightforward!

No, I've never read that! Still, I have this notion that if I ever allowed myself to consider myself a coward, that doubt would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've noticed that as I grew up, I developed along a path laid by the expectations others had for me. My loved ones' high expectations and hopes instilled high personal standards in me...so my hope is that by setting the bar high and forcing myself to be who I want to be, I will in fact become that person. This may just be my own thing or it may be more universal...but I really believe it helps.

tonesforjonesbones
10-09-2008, 04:49 PM
Maybe I posted on here before..free market looks GREAT...to intellectuals on paper. eh..we're dealing with the NEO cons now who put utopian foreign policy on paper , also intellectuals. Didn't work. so...I believe there COULD be free markets in a utopian world where everyone had a moral compass..but reality is...we don't. I like the idea of protectionism. Tarriffs. I think you can be capitalistic but still have some regulations over people who are full of GREED. gotta do it. tones

mediahasyou
10-09-2008, 05:06 PM
My main point is that sometimes a great idea is worth fighting for, but when enacted it could potentially lead to another set of disasters. How are we so sure that deregulated markets in the American Economy will not lead to corruption and further consolidation of wealth among the already rich elitists of this world?

A free market gives equal opportunity for all to climb up the ladder.

tonesforjonesbones
10-09-2008, 05:09 PM
Mediahasyou..show me...where has this occurred. I ain't seein it. tones

Mini-Me
10-09-2008, 05:12 PM
Mediahasyou..show me...where has this occurred. I ain't seein it. tones

That goes without saying, since you haven't seen a free market in the first place. Still, Hong Kong is quite a bit better on the economic side of things than the US is though, and I think that provides a pretty decent example.

raiha
10-11-2008, 02:52 PM
Rather, I was just indirectly addressing the general assumption among monotheists that anyone who doesn't necessarily believe in God is automatically some kind of nihilist who believes there's no greater meaning to life whatsoever.

Also, that without Christian values, no ethics exist. Humph! Odd, I have ethical difficulties with a God who covers people with oozing boils, who withers dear little unsuspecting, fig trees and who condemns unbaptized babies to hell. Yikes!

QUOTE]You're right about this. In America, we hardly ever even consider the existence of other countries, languages, etc. I think some of this comes naturally from relative geographical isolation and distance from most other countries, but a lot also comes from the government's arrogant foreign policy and the almost religious "America is number one in everything!" propaganda we've been fed since birth (we meaning everyone born since the 50's or so). Until I started actually interacting with Europeans in online games about ten years ago, I was always very insulated from everyone in the outside world. Everything outside our borders is just this vague amorphous "other," and it can be really hard for us to wrap our heads around the idea that "even in today's day and age," real human beings actually live in other countries, speak other languages, have other cultures, etc. Most of us are just not really exposed to any of that. I believe that as America is humbled, this will eventually change...but for now, you're right that a lot of us have "really screwy ideas about other types of people."[/QUOTE]

Came from the Puritans thinking they were the Chosen people coming to the Promised Land. Old illusions die hard. I guess it enabled the genocide of native Americans with minimum qualms and the theft of Mexico. And all sorts of other imperialist romps up until today.
I guess the old imperialist chickens are coming home to roost. I have a feeling they are about to be plucked and roasted. I'm really sorry for the suffering about to hit your continent. And America truly is a wonderful nation. Just not the best in the world is all. (We are!;)


I think that's more common on this forum than anywhere else

Nah. I've been on many a WBTS forum where i was too scared to raise my altruisitc, Buddhist head above the ramparts! I can appreciate the suspicion though really. Problem is you are an impetuous lot and make your minds up rapidly about people. The good thing about this is you are a passionate people. The not so good is it can come across as opinionated at times.


I am not Ayn Rand, and I wholly endorse voluntary altruism, charity, and cooperation.

Spoken like a true Ron Paul devotee!