Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
in [Airline Travel]
|
Prev: AF IAH - CDG
Next: BA overbooking - a bad experience
From: usenet_trash2 on 28 Dec 2006 08:15 usenet_trash2(a)yahoo.de wrote: > Anarcissie wrote: > > usenet_trash(a)yahoo.de wrote: > > > Al Klein wrote: > > > > On 26 Dec 2006 18:47:51 -0800, usenet_trash(a)yahoo.de wrote: > > > > >The central govt should > > > > >transfer all power to the smaller entities and act solely as > > > > >representative for foreign representatives. > > > > That'll never happen in the US. But, if it did, we'd have civil war > > > > with a lot more than 2 sides. > > > Why is this belief so widespread? > > There's the U.S.'s own history, and there's also the history > > of the 20th century breakups of the Ottoman Empire, Austria- > > Hungary, the Russian Empire / Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia, > > where decline or disapparance of the central authority led to > > wars between the successor states and sometimes within them. > > All these examples of violence during secession were the product of the > aggressive policies of the neo-prussian militarists in Washington. > Without Lincoln no civil war, without Wilson no violent breakup of the > Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and Austria-Hungary and hence no > Yugoslavia and Soviet Union. Without Roosevelt no WW2 and Cold War. If > there were no federal governments in Washington, all these wars would > not have happened. Clarification: WW1 started without US involvement, but the intervention of the US prevented a ceasefire and negotiations.
From: brique on 28 Dec 2006 09:28 Mike Hunt <postmaster(a)localhost> wrote in message news:1sydnXR9FYCH1A7YnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > 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. It does tend to ignore the cost benefits of scale of production and distribution too. In 1870, petroleum was a niche market with a limited range of products. As petrochemicals developed and with the introduction of petrol-powered engines and vehicles, that changed. It is quite possible for Standard to have increased its profitability whilst decreasing its prices as it's cost base fell. Making, for example, products aimed at agriculture, cheaper would increase its market in that area, thus feeding through into increase economies of scale. It would also 'lock' that market into the sytem. Once farmers switched from horse-power to petrol power and the structure which had so long supplied those horses and the skills and knowledge of how to use them was lost, then the farmers had little choice but to go with petrol power at whatever cost. Standard now had a bigger market, could enlarge its production capability and maximise its distribution network, all feeding into lower costs per unit sold. That Standard and it subsequent 'competitors' were successful at creating and 'locking in' these markets is plainly obvious today. There is another aspect to 'monopolies' which Microsoft embodies so well. That is the 'virtual' monopoly. It doesn't actually have a 'physical' monopoly but its very ubiquity crowds out the competitors in the publics mind. Go into any major outlet and try buying a computer without MS built-in. True, you cna go to a smaller outlet and have one built for you without it, or they may wipe MS off and install an alternative for you or you can do it yourself ( but you will still have paid for the MS software in the purchase price), . But for the majority of purchasers, MS is just 'there', same way the keyboard has that funny layout and the mouse has those buttons and little wheel arrangement under it. Ubiquity.
From: David Harmon on 28 Dec 2006 11:35 On 27 Dec 2006 06:42:21 GMT in alt.anarchism, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote, >>> > And which religion, race, and nation would I belong to? >The point of his remark was to evade the fact of his bigotry by >dragging in a red herring. If James was actually a bigot, and you knew enough to say so, you would have known the answer to his question.
From: Constantinople on 28 Dec 2006 12:03 Mike Hunt wrote: > 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? It might have been. > Demand increased substantially during that time. But that doesn't match the timing of the price change James was describing. If you want to question James's conclusion, you also need to question his statement about the timing. James wrote: > > 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. The timing this suggests is that price did not rise substantially in the intervening six years, but then rose a great deal six years later. But had demand been increasing in the intervening six years, then the effect on prices would have been a price rise throughout the six year period, rather than a relatively flat price followed by a bump at the end coinciding with the new regulations. Furthermore, your description of the demand is incomplete. It is not enough to say that it rose rapidly between 1906 and 1912 - you also need to show that it *did not* rise rapidly before 1906.
From: Constantinople on 28 Dec 2006 12:11
brique wrote: > Mike Hunt <postmaster(a)localhost> wrote in message > news:1sydnXR9FYCH1A7YnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > > 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. > > It does tend to ignore the cost benefits of scale of production and > distribution too. In 1870, petroleum was a niche market with a limited range > of products. As petrochemicals developed and with the introduction of > petrol-powered engines and vehicles, that changed. Speculation is cheap and easy but means little. It is not enough to speculate that Standard Oil *might have* in some way been a monopoly or might have soon *become* a monopoly. > It is quite possible for Standard to have increased its profitability whilst > decreasing its prices as it's cost base fell. Mere speculation. > Making, for example, products > aimed at agriculture, cheaper would increase its market in that area, thus > feeding through into increase economies of scale. It would also 'lock' that > market into the sytem. Once farmers switched from horse-power to petrol > power and the structure which had so long supplied those horses and the > skills and knowledge of how to use them was lost, then the farmers had > little choice but to go with petrol power at whatever cost. Standard now had > a bigger market, could enlarge its production capability and maximise its > distribution network, all feeding into lower costs per unit sold. > > That Standard and it subsequent 'competitors' were successful at creating > and 'locking in' these markets is plainly obvious today. But today is *after* government introduced new regulations. Snip yet more speculation. |