So now you say you are okay with people forming a cartel to increase the price of their services? You do realize that unions are just a form of a cartel, don't you? I thought you were indicating that you were against this type of behavior in your posts above? So companies "implicitly" colluding to fix prices, with no apparent use of FORCE whatsoever, is very bad, but workers "explicitly" colluding to fix prices, while absolutely benefiting from the use of FORCE (sometimes incredibly BRUTAL FORCE by union thugs bashing in the skulls of dissenters), is just wonderful and pure holy goodness? Do you really not see your insane levels of hypocrisy here???
Again, this is only true if 1.) no new entrants come along and 2.) no one cheats. For any new company or any existing company that decides to cheat, it is absolutely better for that party, at least until everyone else abandons the cartel as well and thus stops them from reaping all the rewards for themselves. For example, how do you explain the problems with rampant cheating among OPEC members, if NOT doing this is supposedly better for all parties?Also, I feel like there are 2 fundamental points we differ on. 1) simply the understanding that NOT competing is better for both parties is the only thing needed for implicit collusion.
Since when is it "simple" to illegally sabotage or buy out a potentially endless line of new businesses popping up to steal your massive, unjustified profits? Lol...If upstarts try to compete with any of you then simply sabotage or buy out their business.
So why wasn't your own example from above- Amazon - bought out when they "became competitive" with all the other retailers?This is what we see in the us economy...anyone who becomes competitive is bought out.
So how does this seemingly irrelevant story supposedly causes models of capitalism to collapse as you posted above?2) corporations do not always follow some profit incentive. They sometimes can simply be seeking power. Consider this example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company
In 1901, the government of Guatemala hired the United Fruit Company to manage the country's postal service, and in 1913 the United Fruit Company created the Tropical Radio and Telegraph Company. By 1930, it had absorbed more than 20 rival firms, acquiring a capital of $215 million and becoming the largest employer in Central America. In 1930, Sam Zemurray (nicknamed "Sam the Banana Man") sold his Cuyamel Fruit Company to United Fruit and retired from the fruit business. By then, the company held a major role in the national economies of several countries and eventually became a symbol of the exploitative export economy. This led to serious labor disputes by the Costa Rican peasants, involving more than 30 separate unions and 100,000 workers, in the 1934 Great Banana Strike, one of the most significant actions of the era by trade unions in Costa Rica.
The granting of land ownership in exchange for the railroad concession started the first official competitive market for bananas and giving birth to the banana republic. Cuyamel Fruit Company and the Vaccaro Bros. and Co. would become known as being multinational enterprises. Bringing western modernization and industrialization to the welcoming Honduran nation. All the while Honduran bureaucrats would continue to take away the indigenous communal lands to trade for capital investment contracts as well as neglect the fair rights of Honduran laborers. After the peak of the banana republic era, resistance eventually began to grown on the part of small-scale producers and production laborers, due to the exponential rate in growth of the wealth gap as well as the collusion between the profiting Honduran government officials and the U.S. fruit companies (United Fruit Co., Standard Fruit Co., Cuyamel Fruit Co.) versus the Honduran working and poor classes.
Then instead of just blindly claiming it, just as you usually do, let's see you give an actual logical argument for a change as to how the colluding companies supposedly could stop other companies from doing what I posted other than by the use of FORCE.SJConspirator » 30 Apr 2021, 4:55 pm » wrote: ↑
1. Your example of widget companies being unable to collude and become a monopoly, flies in the face of history and economics. It presupposes that some company COULD come in and suddenly challenge major international corporations and take market share. They cannot.
No **** duh. I never once posted that monopolies, oligopolies, cartels, etc.., even those not benefiting from the use of FORCE, do not exist at all. I just said they were rare and could only slightly fix prices. Since you didn't read it the first time, here it is again for you-Monopolies exist,
Then the obvious solution to this problem is to eliminate the ability of the cartel members, or some entity on their behalf, to use that FORCE to squash competition, dullard. Viola, problem solved.high barriers to market entry exists, and FORCE as you like to put it is used to squash competition and protect the profits of the biggest players. Your pretense that these things don’t exist just makes you seem naive.
I do this because I get great enjoyment and fun out of utterly demolishing and humiliating you idiot libs with ease, and just wish I had more free time to do it more often. You obviously wouldn't know what this is like, seeing as how you like to wallow in ignorance and abject stupidity based on the brainwashing you have received from your liberal masters...2. man, you really want to be right.
even if you “win” the argument , somewhere other than in your own mind, it doesn’t even matter? This isn’t a court case, minimum wage is not on trial and the stakes here couldn’t be lower, I think you invest too much in trying to be right on a irrelevant msg board
Well if it is happening "implicitly", then it is even LESS likely to be successful in the long term and everything I posted above is MORE likely to happen to cause it to collapse, assuming it is not some obscure niche industry and the fixed price is more than just slightly different than fair market value. At least if it is "explicit", then the other members of the cartel can exert some level of peer pressure against any firm that chooses to cheat on the agreement. If there is absolutely no agreement in the first place, and there is a very large difference in price from fair market value, then what is there to stop some company from cheating to their heart's content, to the detriment of all the other competitors???FOS » 30 Apr 2021, 1:21 pm » wrote: ↑https://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav ... 0collusion
it need not be a 'cartel'. There need not be any communication between the various people imposing this system...just an ability to look one move ahead and realize that competing with other companies for efficiency is bad for the salary of both CEOs
So why did you dodge the simple question I asked above? Here it is again for you-and no, it does not only involve unskilled labor. It does indeed screw high skilled workers as well...
Don't you see that highly paid CEO's, assuming they are not themselves the sole or majority owner of the company, completely destroys your dumb little theory? Why the hell would the supposedly "greedy" owners of the company vastly overpay these particular employees when they supposedly could "COLLABORATE" and fix their wages to screw them like all the other workers??? And the same thing could be asked for other highly paid workers, like movie stars.and this is why a CEO often makes hundreds of times more money than people who objectively have a more difficult job in their own company.
Again, don't you see how the examples in your own post are completely destroying your fairy tale theories? Amazon cut its prices down to the bone, even selling things at a loss in many cases, to undercut all its competitors and gain market share, which you have been telling us would not happen because it would supposedly "ultimately be bad" for them and they would supposedly be in an "implicit" cartel to keep their prices high. , there goes that dumb little theory...now sometimes you might get a john mackey (of whole foods)...who for some reason felt an ethical duty to treat his workers well...so he created an environment that was very good for his workers and paid them very well. He obviously didnt have to...and john mackey himself is absurdly poor for being the CEO of a major grocery chain. The guy drives a honda civic, ffs.
so what happened to whole foods? well it was bought out by amazon, which is of course **** to its workers.
and amazon is an interesting case study itself...because it basically operated in the red in order to drive other companies out of business until it finally had a strong monopoly on various services. How did it do this? how did it not simply run out of money in its early stages...and why didnt anyone in the state bother suggesting a trust-busting sort of thing...
Ma Bell had a monopoly that could be abusive because it was protected by government FORCE, which I very, very clearly stated above was pretty much the only way this could occur in the real world- Link.as they did for phone companies...
The show trials against Microsoft were an example of what I clearly posted above-and kinda sorta did with microsoft?
WTF are you babbling about? How do these "other motivations" supposedly cause models of capitalism to collapse?Well...nobody in our lifetimes is gonna know how that was possible unless they are close with power.
one would expect that amazon was only possible with explicit collusion between amazon, top political donors, and the people with the power to investigate fraud etc. And i would go further...they colluded not because of mutual monetary profit...but rather because of tribal solidarity. (This is one of the fundamental flaws of 'capitalists'...the assumption everyone will seek money and have no other motivations. It is untrue. people can have other motivations, and cheat, and then all your models collapse)
How is a moronic MW law supposedly a "check against oppression" if the greedy employers are not the ones that pay the increased wages to the workers lucky enough to stay employed? If you want me to repost the evidence that most employers of large amounts of unskilled labor could not afford to pay the beloved $15/hr being called for out of their profits even if they wanted to do so, just let me know.anyway if we live in an environment were such a thing is possible...then it is pointless even to dream about minimum wage. but it does prove the point that minimum wage is desirable...and a sort of check against oppression from corporate oligarchs...as the 2nd amendment is supposed to be a check against political oppression
Well that is almost as bad.
It doesn't matter how "greedy" they are or what they "decide", because as long as they (or some other entity on their behalf) are not using FORCE or FRAUD in some matter (i.e a free market), they will only be able to make more money by better serving their customers. Period.Because you have created a society fueled by greed, employers might easily decide they just want more money. This means they can **** more 17 year old hoes, after all.
No, why the hell would I agree to something that is economically illiterate nonsense?Meanwhile I am sure you agree that employers...if they simply decide to COLLECTIVELY screw workers, they can.
No, besides economic illiteracy, the reason that there are laws against these kinds of things is because it is generally much easier for weaker companies to get help from the government to cripple the superior companies than it is to actually improve their own companies to compete against them fairly.This is why collusion is such taboo under capitalism. Yes?
No, they can't. You apparently don't understand basic cartel theory. The only possible way for members of a cartel to successfully alter the prices of goods or services significantly apart from fair market value in the long term (whether buying or selling them) is with the use of FORCE, either by themselves or from the government or another entity using it on their behalf. This is because without using FORCE, there is no way that the cartel can stop new entrants from swooping in, or from existing cartel members from cheating on the agreement, to steal their excess profits for themselves. Take the following simple example-'fair competition' after all just works on an honor system. Anyone can decide to COLLABORATE, and totally cheat the system.
That is great if there are only two of us employing people in some region, but that is not the case for about 99.999+ percent of people living in the US. For most everywhere in the US, even if you don't compete with me on wages, there is a list of other "greedy" competitors about a mile long that will be very happy to do so in a nano second if I am significantly underpaying them.Guess what? Collaboration need not be explicit. It can be totally implicit. 'i realize that if I compete for you on wages, you will compete with me. This is ultimately bad for the two of us.'
Again, examples where this can actually happen in the real world are extremely rare, especially for unskilled labor. For almost all unskilled laborers, the "mechanism" that will "fix" this problem is just a simple free market, free from the use of FORCE. Problem solved.And supposing business owners just decide to do that? What 'self organizing' mechanism will fix that, especially when barriers to competition with markets is too high?
So the state steps in. Minimum wage. **** your collaboration. You are STILL making a positive profit per worker, but not paying them enough.
So I am supposedly the jerk here, huh?
I have plenty of comments on them, I just don't have the time to spend all night and day on forums like you loser liberal welfare queens. Some people have these things called jobs, families, hobbies, responsibilities, etc..., *******. That is why I limit my posts most of the time to very easy topics like this. Hell, if you pitifully stupid cretins can't even grasp a simple subject, that based on basic economic theories and extremely simple logic, is so straightforward and cut-and-dried as the harm from moronic MW laws, what **** chance would you have to comprehend more complex topics?
How the hell does causing many of the working poor (that you are pretending to be so concerned about) to become unemployed completely because of moronic MW laws supposed to prevent them from staying poor, nimrod?cuz NOTHING could compare to the importance of making sure working poor stay poor lol
Lol... you really think it is that easy to be the very first idiot lib to ever prove me wrong? Just blindly claim that I somehow "lost this one", without actually refuting any of my arguments and then call it a day while you cowardly run away, moron? Sorry, but if you believe that load of rancid ****, you are only lying to yourself, chump. It will be a very cold day in hell before I "lose" a debate to a **** retarded imbecile such as yourself. But feel free to give it a shot, if you like to continue getting humiliated.
So in the deleted post, he wasn't actually making an actual argument to advance the debate, like he is pretending above? Why am I not surprised?Vegas » 19 Apr 2021, 12:22 pm » wrote: ↑
You are right, it is probably not very nice to trash and humiliate these pitifully stupid little retards like I routinely do, but I just don't suffer fools lightly. This is especially the case when they are advocating policies like moronic MW laws that cause so much needless harm to some of the most vulnerable people in society, all because they are too damn lazy to educate themselves for once in their lives or to at least stop allowing their liberal masters to brainwash the ever-living **** out of them so damn easily. When I consider this, I tend to lose all sympathy for these ******* cretins and just unload on them...And yes, you are kicking his ***. However, I wouldn't brag. It's not nice to beat up kids with down syndrome.
Where are the details on the peanut gallery? I don't see anything in the FAQ.
Lol... you are one to talk. How many **** times have you falsely accused me of lying throughout this thread, retard? I have lost count, and you never did apologize for doing so when I proved your claims were false every single time.before you call me a liar ****
Who can do this? Vegas?
Again, who the hell is stopping you from posting???
I can tell you one thing for certain- you idiot libs are nothing if you are not predictable. I knew that you were eventually going to post what you just did a long time ago. Here is one post from 2019 where I magically foresaw the future - Link.
Well considering that I am not gay and thus I don't have a boyfriend, you are not really answering my question, *******. Lol...
Sorry, I don't live all night and day on message boards like you welfare queen libs. Some people actually have these things called jobs, families, hobbies, responsibilities, etc.. Who is removing your posts?
I never "denied" anything of the sort, you damn idiot. I absolutely do have a plan, but as I very, very clearly posted above-
So simple logic is apparently not something you understand, huh? I guess we can add that to the very, very long list of simple things that you just don't see capable of understanding. Lol...