Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
in [Airline Travel]
|
Prev: AF IAH - CDG
Next: BA overbooking - a bad experience
From: Constantinople on 28 Dec 2006 12:27 Constantinople wrote: > 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. Oh, wait a second, when you (brique) said "lock in" I took you to mean somehow prevent their customers from buying oil from competitors. But that's not what you meant at all. What you meant was prevent their customers from going back to horse power! That is too funny. So the reason farmers aren't all farming the Amish way is that Big Oil tricked them into abandoning their horse skills. > Snip yet more speculation.
From: Al Klein on 28 Dec 2006 16:21 On 27 Dec 2006 14:31:24 -0800, usenet_trash(a)yahoo.de wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >You think there are not enough fundies to get the majority in a county >assembly? That would depend on the county but, in most counties, probably not. The "Silent Majority" organizations don't have the money for a get out the vote push in every county in the country. >> > If the autonomous political areas are small, then each will get a >> > different character and will attract people who like this or that flavour. >> But not in the United States, since "autonomous political areas" is a >> totally illegal concept. >Not quite. The states have some autonomy. There should be more of them, >and they should be smaller. West Virginia seceded from Virginia as >well, so it is not that impossible if the will is there. There have been many secession movements over the past 100 years - none of them have been more than a joke. >> >If peaceful coexistence and noninterference is commonly accepted >> It may be by some species - it's not by humans, and hasn't been since >> we became "civilized". >I don't see that California is attacking Nevada, or Sweden attacking >Finland, or Chile attacking Argentina. It is possible if the agreements >are good enough. It's possible if the matters of contention aren't large enough. California may not be attempting to militarily invade Nevada, but Nevada IS trying to get federal money that other states are also trying to get. A Congressperson who says "that other state should get the money, not my state" is an ex-Congressperson. No one wants to pay taxes to support something he'll never benefit from - whether it's the local school tax, federal income tax or the "tax" we pay on goods imported from another country. And very few human beings are so altruistic that they'll deprive themselves for the benefit of some unknown and unnamed stranger. >> >For that purpose the autonomous political entities have >> >to be as small as counties to get more choices. >> I live in a county with a population of a couple of million. It >> stretches from a cosmopolitan area to a completely rural area. The >> various towns are completely different in character, and the county >> legislature often can't agree on things. >Before the rise of nationalism in the 18th and 19th century Germany was >only an umbrella organization of independent political units. And couldn't agree on a lot of things. >> > 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 believe so widespread? Because some of us know about evolution and about how human nature evolved. Altruism outside the group is usually exhibited by extinct species.
From: Al Klein on 28 Dec 2006 16:32 On 28 Dec 2006 04:56:19 -0800, usenet_trash2(a)yahoo.de wrote: >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 And no freedom for slaves until the industrial revolution, which made them unnecessary. >without Wilson no violent breakup of the >Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and Austria-Hungary and hence no >Yugoslavia and Soviet Union. Maybe. The Russian revolution wasn't due solely to the breakup of the Empire. > Without Roosevelt no WW2 Hitler started the war for expansion - it had nothing to do with Roosevelt. Japan attacked the US because we cut off their oil - most people who would have risen to the presidency of the US would have done the same. >and Cold War. If >there were no federal governments in Washington, all these wars would >not have happened. If there were no governments we wouldn't have had wars. If there were no people there would have been no wars. >> In the contemporary world, there is also the question >> of how small entities can deal with great powers, >All great powers should be ended All that would take is a nuclear holocaust. Do you have any *practical* suggestions? >> including multi-national corporations. >Multi-national corporations are not dangerous when they are not >supported by governments. Unfortunately they get much support from >governments, therefore they are that big. Big corporations lose against >a multitude of smaller competitors. Except out there in the real world, where many things - other than government support - favor the larger corporations. >The reasons you gave make it more clear why this belief is so >widespread. Yet the reasons are all flawed. As are your utopian "solutions". > Luckily we have the internet to debunk those faux reasons And the faux "solutions" that would cause more problems then they'd solve. (Nuclear war is never the best solution, unless the problem is how to commit mass suicide.)
From: Al Klein on 28 Dec 2006 16:33 On 28 Dec 2006 05:15:14 -0800, usenet_trash2(a)yahoo.de wrote: >Clarification: WW1 started without US involvement, but the intervention >of the US prevented a ceasefire and negotiations. You forgot to blame the fall of the Roman Empire on the US.
From: usenet_trash on 28 Dec 2006 17:09
Al Klein wrote: > On 28 Dec 2006 04:56:19 -0800, usenet_trash2(a)yahoo.de wrote: > >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 > And no freedom for slaves until the industrial revolution, which made > them unnecessary. Better slavery than war (which is an even bigger slavery). > >without Wilson no violent breakup of the > >Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and Austria-Hungary and hence no > >Yugoslavia and Soviet Union. > Maybe. The Russian revolution wasn't due solely to the breakup of the Empire. > > > Without Roosevelt no WW2 > Hitler started the war for expansion - it had nothing to do with Roosevelt. Hitler did not start the war. PL, F, and UK did because they wanted a regime change in Germany. Originally PL/F/UK valued peace more than regime change until Roosevelt convinced them otherwise by spreading mistrust. Roosevelt's goal was to save the Soviet Union from the Anti-Comintern Pact. > Japan attacked the US because we cut off their oil - most > people who would have risen to the presidency of the US would have > done the same. This does not speak favourably about the US. The foreign policy of the US is the greatest danger on Earth. They are always looking for enemies. If there are none they make them, just to have something as justification for yet another unnecessary military equipment. > >and Cold War. If > >there were no federal governments in Washington, all these wars would > >not have happened. > If there were no governments we wouldn't have had wars. If there were > no people there would have been no wars. I was speaking about the "evil empire" aka USA. No other state is that aggressive and dangerous. States should be small and neutral, like Switzerland. > >Multi-national corporations are not dangerous when they are not > >supported by governments. Unfortunately they get much support from > >governments, therefore they are that big. Big corporations lose against > >a multitude of smaller competitors. > Except out there in the real world, where many things - other than > government support - favor the larger corporations. Only until an optimal size is achieved. If they become larger they become inefficient. |