Why do you support the right?

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun
What do you mean?? I thought both of us are more likely to be anti-corporate than pro-corporate.

Unless you're pro-corporate??

I think you're confusing me with someone else.

I didn't know there was such a thing as pro-corporate. I think that people have a right to form corporations and as long as they abide by the laws set forth by the government there shouldn't be any problems.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Asher
It's a shame you're so economically misguided, MrFun.

I think the same about anybody in the economic left.

[red_jon]

I believe that corporate monopolies are not part of a free-market system. Have you ever seen a marketplace with only one, huge stall?

[Asher]

Originally posted by red_jon
I believe that corporate monopolies are not part of a free-market system. Have you ever seen a marketplace with only one, huge stall?

That's right, and I believe in monopoly regulation.

The problem is a lot of people don't realize what constitutes a monopoly these days.

Take MS, for example: I fully support and endorse government action which would restrict MS from making deals with people like Dell to only ship Windows on the computer, and I fully suport getting the government to force MS to allow for all of the default programs to be replaced completely by third party programs (winXP SP1 adds this feature).

But MS isn't a true monopoly, if those above restrictions and the like are enacted, because there are always choices. You can get Linux with WineX and emulate Windows apps, you can use SoftWindows on the Mac to run Windows, and nobody should be forcing you to buy Windows.



In short, I believe in the fair market. It's not totally free, but it's fair.

A lot of people don't seem to realize that the reason MS is where it is today is because they make better products for their target audience than most other people. The arguments like charging MS for releasing IE for free infuriate me.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by red_jon
I believe that corporate monopolies are not part of a free-market system. Have you ever seen a marketplace with only one, huge stall?

Monopolies are technically not any aide to capitalism. (That is why I am bitterly opposed to any state monopoly, private monopolies occur very rarely). 100% competition is capitalism.

The only private monopolies that exist are that in electricity, water and gas so horrendous prices are not charged. And the Government offers these monopolies subsidies so rates do not go through the roof.

Try to even name another monopoly. Microsoft is not a monopoly, Intel is not a monopoly...

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Asher

That's right, and I believe in monopoly regulation.

The problem is a lot of people don't realize what constitutes a monopoly these days.

I never mentioned Microsoft

The way things are going it seems we'll have nothing but corporate monopolies before too long.

[Asher]

Originally posted by red_jon
I never mentioned Microsoft

The way things are going it seems we'll have nothing but corporate monopolies before too long.

I really don't see where you're going with that. At least here on the sane side of the pond, competition is alive and well in all areas except government monopolies (damn lefties )

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Fez


Monopolies are technically not any aide to capitalism. (That is why I am bitterly opposed to any state monopoly, private monopolies occur very rarely). 100% competition is capitalism.

The only private monopolies that exist are that in electricity, water and gas so horrendous prices are not charged. And the Government offers these monopolies subsidies so rates do not go through the roof.

Try to even name another monopoly. Microsoft is not a monopoly, Intel is not a monopoly...

Oh, so the government getting involved is a good idea?

It doesn't even matter if a corporation is a monopoly really - if they instantly destroy new competitors then it isn't in the spirit of capitalism.

I am socialist - I also believe that people who are not able to provide for themselves should be provided with a decent standard of living by the government.

[Asher]

It doesn't even matter if a corporation is a monopoly really - if they instantly destroy new competitors then it isn't in the spirit of capitalism.

Capitalism is about survival of the fittest in an economic sense.

Many companies go under because they can't compete, and that's The Nature Of Things^TM.

It's when the laws are broken and they are muscled out of business when the government should come in and spank the people.

[Giancarlo]

Oh, so the government getting involved is a good idea?

No, infact that would lead to an eventual downfall to the economy.

Reddy, you are incorrect. A monopoly does not exist in capitalism, it can't because a monopoly is pathetically inefficient.

I also believe that people who are not able to provide for themselves should be provided with a decent standard of living by the government.

I believe that too but want to attain those goals by not violating the laws of economics.

I will provide this information scanned from my economics book I bought last year:

http://glomar.net/photos/businesses.jpg (large, 900k - sorry)

It ought to end the misconceptions on what a monopoly really is.

So technically capitalism usually consist of perfectly and monopolistically competitive markets. Oligopolies and monopolies are very rare in the private sector.

[Asher]

Oligopolies aren't so rare. I think the government should bust a few caps at RIAA and MPAA.

[Giancarlo]

Okay, they aren't as rare as monopolies... but are seldom occuring when compared to perfectly and monopolistic competitive markets.

[Ned]

Originally posted by red_jon


Oh, so the government getting involved is a good idea?

It doesn't even matter if a corporation is a monopoly really - if they instantly destroy new competitors then it isn't in the spirit of capitalism.

I am socialist - I also believe that people who are not able to provide for themselves should be provided with a decent standard of living by the government.

red_jon, One can provide for the indigent without socialism - which I understand to state control of the means of production. But, state control actually means monopoly control - but of the worst kind. Without any competition whatsoever, inefficiencies and featherbedding are rampant.

We all know that competition is the best enviroment to bring the best products at the lowest possible prices. This benefits society far more than state monopolies - especially, as I said, because there are other ways to provide for the indigent.

The real secret agenda of the socialists is to run the state monopolies and make themselves "privileged," while everyone else is "equal," albeit, less privileged.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Asher

Capitalism is about survival of the fittest in an economic sense.

Many companies go under because they can't compete, and that's The Nature Of Things^TM.

It's when the laws are broken and they are muscled out of business when the government should come in and spank the people.

But firmly established mulitnational corporations are going to destroy smaller businesses every time. How can new companies be created in areas where there are corporations already in place?

Fez - you said that government subsidies in utilities helps keep prices low for the consumer.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Ned


red_jon, One can provide for the indigent without socialism - which I understand to state control of the means of production. But, state control actually means monopoly control - but of the worst kind. Without any competition whatsoever, inefficiencies and featherbedding are rampant.

We all know that competition is the best enviroment to bring the best products at the lowest possible prices. This benefits society far more than state monopolies - especially, as I said, because there are other ways to provide for the indigent.

The real secret agenda of the socialists is to run the state monopolies and make themselves "privileged," while everyone else is "equal," albeit, less privileged.

I am not for state monopolies - nor am I for private monopolies.

I am for capitalism, but relying on charities to help the poor is an incredibly bad idea, unless we're returning to the 19th century.