Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
in [Airline Travel]
|
Prev: AF IAH - CDG
Next: BA overbooking - a bad experience
From: Ray Fischer on 27 Dec 2006 23:08 James A. Donald <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote: >James A. Donald >> > AT&T was a government created and enforced monopoly. > >> And REGULATED. > >Which is precisely what made it bad, and Standard Oil >good. As opposed to the unregulated railraod monopolies which forced peopel across the coutry to pay higher fees? > Government regulation is in practice always to >suppress competition and raise prices. You're a liar. Microsoft's illegal business practices drove a lot of companies out of business and forced millions of people to pay higher prices. The government ended those practices. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 27 Dec 2006 23:12 James A. Donald <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote: >Ray Fischer >> > > You're an idiot and a liar. Those laws ended >> > > several monopolies and created competition in >> > > several businesses > >> > Yet oddly, during the whole period of evil Standard >> > Oil's evil "monopoly", petrol prices were falling >> > and falling radically, > >> When was that? > >The Standard Oil "monopoly" was from about 1870 to 1906, >during which it reduced the price of petrol products to >about a quarter their previous price. It drove countless people into bankruptcy, and whether the price of gas fell has nothing at all to do with whether people had to pay more because of the monopoly. > When it was >broken up this had no immediate effect on the price of >petroleum products, Cite? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 27 Dec 2006 23:13 <usenet_trash2(a)yahoo.de> wrote: > >Ray Fischer wrote: >> <usenet_trash2(a)yahoo.de> wrote: >> >> >> >Monopolies can only thrive with force. Without force there will always >> >> >> >be competition. >> >> >> And monopolies can impose their own force. >> >> >If monopolies are not forced by the state they are limited in their >> >> >ability to impose force. For instance the only shop in a small village >> >> >can charge higher prices, but if these prices are to high the customers >> >> >would seek alternatives. >> >> When there is a monopoly customers CANNOT shop elsewhere because there >> >> is only the one business. >> >But only temporary (without state enforcement). >> So you claim, again without any justification. > >You are to ideologically blinded to see it, apparently. I don't blindly believe every idiot who posts bullshit propaganda. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Mike Hunt on 27 Dec 2006 23:33 James A. Donald wrote: > > The Standard Oil "monopoly" was from about 1870 to 1906, > during which it reduced the price of petrol products to > about a quarter their previous price. Were they falling because of lack of competition? Nah. They were falling because the supply increased due to technology making it easier, and because demand wasn't as great. When it was > broken up this had no immediate effect on the price of > petroleum products, but six years after the breakup, the > government proceeded to regulate the industry, > forbidding competition by means more effective than > merely breaking up the company that had kept cutting > prices, wherupon prices rose a great deal. > 6 years after the breakup would have been 1912. Do you think the increase was due to the breakup or due to the increased demand for the products? The price of a commodity tends to rise and fall based on the supply and demand of the commodity.
From: constantinopoli on 28 Dec 2006 03:08
Ray Fischer wrote: > James A. Donald <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote: > >Ray Fischer > >> > > You're an idiot and a liar. Those laws ended > >> > > several monopolies and created competition in > >> > > several businesses > > > >> > Yet oddly, during the whole period of evil Standard > >> > Oil's evil "monopoly", petrol prices were falling > >> > and falling radically, > > > >> When was that? > > > >The Standard Oil "monopoly" was from about 1870 to 1906, > >during which it reduced the price of petrol products to > >about a quarter their previous price. > > It drove countless people into bankruptcy, That is no evil. That is what happens in a fiercely competitive market. > and whether the price of > gas fell has nothing at all to do with whether people had to pay more > because of the monopoly. It is prima facie evidence that the so-called Standard Oil "monopoly" was highly competitive rather than a monopoly exercising monopoly power. > > When it was > >broken up this had no immediate effect on the price of > >petroleum products, > > Cite? > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfischer(a)sonic.net |