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 22:34 brique wrote: > Constantinople <constantinopoli(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1167325863.433947.254970(a)s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > 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. > > What post are you replying to Constance? Yours. > > > It is quite possible for Standard to have increased its profitability > whilst > > > decreasing its prices as it's cost base fell. > > > > Mere speculation. > > Really? Pretty basic stuff, the economic justification for mass production, > standardisation of parts, etc. I know it's standard stuff. When I say you are speculating about what might have happened in this particular case, I am not saying that it's not standard stuff. I am saying that any number of stories are equally standard stuff, and you are just speculating that this particular one is what might have occurred. That's speculation. I'm reduced to teaching you English. > > > 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. > > Right, so, the question 'why, if standard had a monopoly did prices fall' is > of no interest to you....., can't think why you bother to join the > conversation..... And yet again, you seem to be oblivious to the point I made, to the point that the only answer would be to teach you some more English, which seems rather a waste of my time.
From: james g. keegan jr. on 28 Dec 2006 22:49 In article <45948c01$0$80051$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > James A. Donald <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote: > > >It drove countless people into bankruptcy by repeated > >and radically reducing the price of petroleum products. > > Where's your cites? Where's your evidence? You don't have a > reputation for honesty. neither do you. "Ray, why do you figure it's a good thing to lie on the net? Lots of people read here. It makes you look bad." --Adrienne Regard <reg...(a)hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> [nora peal to liar ray] "You know, your seemingly obsessive hatred of keegan is rather pathetic. Is this what has caused you to become t.a.'s most dishonest poster?" --n-p...(a)ux1.cso.uiuc.edu <34cp1c$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
From: Constantinople on 28 Dec 2006 22:53 brique wrote: > Constantinople <constantinopoli(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1167326839.263398.67540(a)73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... > > 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. > > You are simple-minded, aren't you? Ah yes, the pre-emptive insult, a crude attempt at poisoning the well, should I have the rudeness to respond to your latest argument. > 'Locking in' your market is probably the > most basic business move you can make. Once you have a customer, you > endevaour to make sure that them leaving is more expensive than them > staying. Study IBM's business model, or Microsofts. Of course you would like to do that. Once again, you totally miss the point. There are two glaringly obvious points. First point is that the desire to lock people in does not amount to the capacity to lock people in, and the latter is rather limited, especially in the long term. If you want to argue that farmers are trapped by lock-in into using 21st century methods rather than the supposedly superior 19th century methods, you need to do a lot more arguing than you have done. Second point is that it is simply absurd to believe that most farmers would opt for the arduous Amish methods of agriculture if only they had a do-over. If farmers woke up tomorrow with all the 19th century horse-powered-agriculture infrastructure and knowledge restored, it would probably be a matter of weeks before they had sold the horses and bought powered machinery. There is simply on the face of it no credible reason to imagine that they are somehow trapped by circumstances.
From: David Harmon on 29 Dec 2006 04:54 On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 01:11:33 -0000 in alt.anarchism, "brique" <briquenoir(a)freeuk.c0m> wrote, >David Harmon <source(a)netcom.com> wrote in message >news:45caec9b.206972843(a)news.west.earthlink.net... >> 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. >> > >I did answer it, in my response, the question is irrelevant.... Calling it irrelevant is not answering the question. But whether or not you answered it is irrelevant; you have probably been stalking James for long enough to know those answers. The question was to Ray. > being a >bigot is not defined by what race, creed, colour, height, weight, residence, >career or education one might be ascribed. It can be defined as fearing and >despising those who can be ascribed a different race, creed, colour, Bingo, "different". Since Ray has only his own fantasies as to what James's "race, creed" are, he cannot really know which race or creed are _different than his. That makes his judgement founded purely in his own prejudice and bigotry, especially since, as you probably remember, James's background doesn't much match what Ray is assuming about him. That is what makes it relevant. >James's question would hold as much relevance to that matter if he had asked > >'And what are the colour of my eyes and hair?' No, you yourself say "race, creed", and that is what the question was about. "religion, race, and nation" are relevant. "color of eyes and hair" are your pitiful strawman.
From: Sancho Panza on 29 Dec 2006 10:49
"Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1167275214.288811.32070(a)79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > brique wrote: >> Sancho Panza <otterpower(a)xhotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:HHnkh.50$F15.5(a)newsfe08.lga... >> > >> > "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote in message >> > news:rep3p2567fa472qsr431vc5opcf3051ssb(a)4ax.com... >> > > "brique" >> > >> It is an interesting notion that james seems to >> > >> hold... that non-christians celebrating christmas are >> > >> being 'american' whilst those who have no interest in >> > >> celebrating a different religions festival are fearful >> > >> that to do so will make them 'american'. How this fear >> > >> of being 'american' affects those who are not even >> > >> resident in the USA, such as the Shintoist in Japan, >> > >> the Jews in Europe, the Muslims in Indonesia or the >> > >> Bhuddists in Australia who do not celebrate christmas >> > > >> > > But Buddhists in Australia, like Buddhists in America, >> > > *do* celebrate Christmas. >> >> And? Is that bhuddist policy ? Or the personal choice of _some_ >> bhuddists? >> And just how do they 'celebrate' christmas? They take the day off work, >> visit family and friends, have a party..well, so what..... or are you >> suggesting they only do that on Christmas day and not any other day-off >> they >> might have, like at a weekend or whenever? Really, James, you are >> clutching >> at straws, next you will contend that the mere fact of waking up and >> getting >> out of bed on 25th december constitutes 'celebration'...... > > They put up decorations, exchange gifts, send Christmas cards, kids go > see Santa at the mall, etc. > > It's a personal choice of some Buddhists, just like it's a personal > choice of some Jews, some Muslims, some Atheists, and (yes!) some > Christians. It figures that this simple question wouldn't be answered: > But Buddhists in Australia, like Buddhists in America, > *do* celebrate Christmas. Got the citation? |