Which is more important to the US?

[David Floyd]

Some military training would have been a good growing up experience for you.

Well I was doing it for fitness and money, and to get a step up in terms of being a lawyer.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by GP
just replying as I read.

BTW, little Eastie, there was an article in the WSJ about junkers returning to their old East estates...

good for you

[Akka]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"Well Keynes knew nothing about economics neither, ok."

He didn't seem to know a whole lot. Most of his work has been pretty thouroughly discredited, not that politicians let a little thing like that keep them from basing their policies on his work.

Yes, that's right. It's why USA get out of the Great Depression by using his ideas.
Well, ok, you're just the true caricature of the free market fans : anybody that does not think like you "don't know anything about economics".

--"If you recognize that there is time where doing what you want is infringing other's rights, then you agree that laws are needed ?"

It's called "minarchism". The only just purpose of government is to protect its citizens' rights. Period. This can be acomplished perfectly well without interfering in the economy. All they have to do is enforce contracts and protect rights. No protectionims, no welfare (corporate or otherwise), no monopoly grants, etc.

Well, what's really depressing is that you actually BELIEVE in this pile of nonsense.

Economics is a force like politic, and hence it can be as oppressive as politics. If you can accept the idea of a political suppression of freedom, then you can accept the idea of an economical suppression of freedom.
Just plain logic.

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Well I was doing it for fitness and money, and to get a step up in terms of being a lawyer.

Yeah, I remember those comments. Your reasons for doing it are suspect. But the team environment and exposure to others would be good for you, regardless. Read A Sense of Honor by James Webb.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, that's right. It's why USA get out of the Great Depression by using his ideas.

Actually we got out of the Depression because of WW2.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil



Yes, that's right. It's why USA get out of the Great Depression by using his ideas.

It took 9 years. Not exactly a stunning victory.

[David Floyd]

Yes, that's right. It's why USA get out of the Great Depression by using his ideas.

The New Deal didn't end the Depression. Although government intervention certainly caused it.

If you can accept the idea of a political suppression of freedom, then you can accept the idea of an economical suppression of freedom.

I disagree. The only measure of freedom is the protection of individual rights. A free market system is the natural extension of protecting individual rights.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Would that be what you have there then?

So are you being sarcastic or what? I have never seen an American saying his country was not democratic before.

[David Floyd]

Yeah, I remember those comments. Your reasons for doing it are suspect.

They certainly aren't patriotic in nature

As to that book, maybe I'll pick it up, need something new to read anyway.

[kolpo]

Originally posted by GP
Actually you are a little confused. Go re-read a freshman econ text. The society is better off if there is free competion. Only the cartel members are better off with monopolistic pricing. You can graphically prove that there is a "deadweight loss" to the society if a cartel exists.

I'm talking here about virtual cartels, this means : no agreements or negation between the companies they simply all use there common sense.

Imagine you a very simple economy: Making cola costs 1 dollar, the maxium price buyers will pay if there is no lower price elsewhere is 6 dollar. There are 2 cola companies who's only goal is to make profit, company A and B, they both control 50% of the market.

Currently sell they both cola for 3 dollar.

A is thinking:
-What would happen if I lower my price by 1 dollar? In the beginning will my market share raise, until B his market share is lowered so much that his only way to survive is lowering his price also with 1 dollar, result: still have both 50% of market but 1 dollar less profit on cola.

-What would happen if I don't do anything? Nothing most likely but I want more money! money! money!

-Now get's he an evil smile: What will happen if I raise my price with 1 dollar if I consider the fact that B wants money just as I want it? 2 possibilities:
-B is smart and follows me: we both have more profit on cola and still same market share!
-B is stupid and doesn't follow me, then do I simply lower my price again after some time will that be forgotten and will we both again control 50%!

But given the fact that B is most likely smart(he has set up a whole cola company) and given that fact that he just like A wants money will he most likely follow A.

After a time: both are selling cola at 6 dollar and making maxium profit! They have done nothing illegal, there where no agreements, no official negogations, no official cartel! They have both followed the base of Adam Smith his theory(wish to make as much profit as possible) but have yet leaded to the fact that consumers have to pay lot's for there cola. In this case would the consumer be better of if the government forced a maxium price for cola! In this case are the consumers better of with government interferance!

[Imran Siddiqui]

-What would happen if I don't do anything? Nothing most likely but I want more money! money! money!

-Now get's he an evil smile: What will happen if I raise my price with 1 dollar if I consider the fact that B wants money just as I want it? 2 possibilities:
-B is smart and follows me: we both have more profit on cola and still same market share!
-B is stupid and doesn't follw me, then do I simply lower my price again after some time will that be forgotten and will we both again control 50%!

But given the fact that B is most likely smart(he has set up a whole cola company) and given that fact that he just like A wants money will he most likley follow A.

Um... like GP said, go re-read a frosh econ textbook. If the guy from B is smart, he will continue to sell at his price, because people will buy more from him. By increasing the price, A is being stupid. It will make LESS money because demand will then fall below the supply. B makes a killing and A loses a ton.

[TCO]

Agreed, kolpo.

However you earlier said that the society was better off if a cartel functioned.

BTW, you can draw the supply/demand curves and examine the case you mentioned. It is a dead-weight loss. and involves monopoly behavior. As long as the comopanies collude, it is irrelevant (from a supply/demand persepective) if they are following an agreement, if they merege, if they just signal each other, if the read game theory books, etc.

Basically all you are saying is that society (and especially consumers) are better off with free competition than with cartels/monopolies. And you are making a slight argument for trust busting. You might want to also think about how many companies can effectively collude. The thumbrule that I've heard is 4. Anything above that and it gets pretty tough...

[kolpo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

-What would happen if I don't do anything? Nothing most likely but I want more money! money! money!

-Now get's he an evil smile: What will happen if I raise my price with 1 dollar if I consider the fact that B wants money just as I want it? 2 possibilities:
-B is smart and follows me: we both have more profit on cola and still same market share!
-B is stupid and doesn't follw me, then do I simply lower my price again after some time will that be forgotten and will we both again control 50%!

But given the fact that B is most likely smart(he has set up a whole cola company) and given that fact that he just like A wants money will he most likley follow A.

Um... like GP said, go re-read a frosh econ textbook. If the guy from B is smart, he will continue to sell at his price, because people will buy more from him. By increasing the price, A is being stupid. It will make LESS money because demand will then fall below the supply. B makes a killing and A loses a ton.

NO! like I said won't A losses a ton because he is smart, so if B doesn't follow will A simply lower his price again and after a time will they then still be both equal. So B his advantage is in that case only very temporial. On the other hand if B follows A will he gain a lasting increase in profit! B is not stupid like adam smith assumed so B follows A. I find it strange that people keeping believing in economic theories who have been proved wrong by mathematic proof where nobody found a flaw in(forgot name of that proof but will look it up if you want)

[TCO]

korpo, and you should realize that Adam Smith DID discuss the incentives for collusion.

[kolpo]

A perfect example of that in action are the Belgian banks. If one raises it's intrests on loans does often suddenly all banks start to do that within a few days(no I'm not talking about intrest raises cause by drastic sudden events).