Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
in [Airline Travel]
|
Prev: AF IAH - CDG
Next: BA overbooking - a bad experience
From: James A. Donald on 28 Dec 2006 03:25 On 27 Dec 2006 03:26:07 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > You don't knwo what a monopoly is, you don't know > economics, and you don't even know how businesses are > run. > > When there is a monopoly customers CANNOT shop > elsewhere because there is only the one business. Yet according to you Standard Oil was monopoly, and there were hundreds of alternative suppliers. According to you Microsoft is a monopoly, not withstanding linux. Standard Oil was a "monopoly" because it was able to make kerosene considerably more cheaply than its competitors, because it was advancing refining technology more rapidly than its competitors. The customers *could* shop elsewhere - but unsurprisingly most of them did not. Similarly with Intel's "monopoly". -- ---------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
From: constantinopoli on 28 Dec 2006 03:26 Mike Hunt wrote: > 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? No, they were falling because Standard Oil lowered their costs and passed on the savings to their customers because they *were not* a monopoly but rather a business in a competitive market. > Nah. They were falling because the supply increased due to technology > making it easier, Exactly. Standard Oil were able to lower their prices by lowering their costs, and they lowered their costs by improving their technology. The reason they did not keep their prices up was that they *were not* a monopoly. Had they been a monopoly, they would have been able to lower their costs without lowering their price, and enjoy monopoly profits. > 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? Due to regulation, apparently. > The price of a commodity tends to rise and fall based on the supply and > demand of the commodity.
From: James A. Donald on 28 Dec 2006 05:17 PTravel wrote: > > > I'll just let you pat each other on the back and > > > congratulate yourselves on how stiff-necked Jews > > > are, and how anyone who doesn't celebrate > > > Christmas is anti-Christian. Nathan Folkert: > > When you condescend others in public about how much > > better educated you are than they, and then someone > > produces proof that you really don't know what the > > hell you're talking about, the mature response is to > > apologize to them for bullshitting. If you prefer > > to spit on them and call them racist for no apparent > > reason, though, I guess that's your right, though > > you should consider how this might affect your > > public reputation. "Sancho Panza" > Such bitterness. Such anger. Some prayerful reflection > might help. You keep thinking that you are talking to Christians, a delusion analogous to that suffered by someone who sees Jews everywhere. -- ---------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
From: James A. Donald on 28 Dec 2006 05:32 James A. Donald > >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. Ray Fischer > 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. It drove countless people into bankruptcy by repeated and radically reducing the price of petroleum products. -- ---------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
From: Mike Hunt on 28 Dec 2006 06:19
constantinopoli(a)gmail.com wrote: >>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? > > > Due to regulation, apparently. > Why was it not due to increased demand? Demand increased substantially during that time. |