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
Ugh. Such a long post.Nighthawk » 02 May 2021, 4:27 pm » wrote: ↑
So why did you dodge the simple question I asked above? Here it is again for you-
Why wouldn't we supposedly need big nanny government to set wage levels for every single occupation in existence, lest the evil employers "COLLABORATE" to "screw workers" of all types? Why aren't all the professional or higher-skilled workers such as computer programmers, accountants, engineers, managers, etc.. that are not in a union being "screwed" like you claim would supposedly happen with unskilled laborers? Why are all these supposedly greedy employers paying these professional or higher-skilled non-union workers one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law, if they really have this magical power over wages to which you ascribe them? This is yet another simple question that I have never seen anyone believing this nonsense give a rational answer.
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.
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...
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.
But Ma Bell could adopt such a pricing policy because of the telephone company’s monopoly position, which the government protected. Company officials knew that certain parts of its markets were tempting targets for potential competitors. But both Bell policy and public policy, backed by the police power of government, kept raiders out of these markets.
The show trials against Microsoft were an example of what I clearly posted above-
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.
WTF are you babbling about? How do these "other motivations" supposedly cause models of capitalism to 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.
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.
Nighthawk » 04 May 2021, 3:02 pm » wrote: ↑
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?
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...
So why wasn't your own example from above- Amazon - bought out when they "became competitive" with all the other retailers?
, there goes that silly little ignorant theory...
So how does this seemingly irrelevant story supposedly causes models of capitalism to collapse as you posted above?
bolding minePlaintiffs allege that Settling Defendants violated antitrust laws by entering into an agreement not to compete with each other and to limit competition among themselves in selling health insurance and administrative services for health insurance. Settling Defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing and assert that their conduct results in lower healthcare costs and greater access to care for their customers. The Court has not decided who is right or wrong. Instead, Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants have agreed to a Settlement to avoid the risk and cost of further litigation.
Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], Annoyed Liberall, Arris, Benson13, Bidennextpresident, Bill Gates [Bot], Blutarski, Buffalo, Cannonpointer, ConsRule, Crazytrain, crimsongulf, Famagusta, FOS, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Hank, Ike Bana, Jantje_Smit, nefarious101, neue regel, PaperLi [Bot], Pinterest [Bot], Polar1ty, PoliticalPopUp, SJConspirator, solon, sooted up Cyndi, Steve Jobs [Bot], Taipan, Twitter [Bot], user1620678236, Vegas, Vegas giants, Yahoo [Bot], Zeets2 and 570 guests