patrick.net

Dan8267 says

An empirically false statement does not become true no matter how many times you repeat it.

There are no examples of a monopoly without government:

International Harvester and American Tobacco

Standard Oil, I already showed that their market share went from 88% to 64% by the time Roosevelt "regulated" them.

U.S. Steel, went from 67% in 1901 to 50% in 1911

Microsoft, went from 95% in 2000 to 20% today

Hudson’s Bay Company, After 1821, a group of independent free traders among the Métis population at the Red River Colony opposed the company's monopoly rights, which had been renewed by Parliament for another 20 years in 1838. Read more at the Wiki

Luxottica they have 29% of the market, not a monopoly

Monsanto, they have about 30% of the market, not a monopoly

NO, Once again The ONLY time there is a monopoly is with the help of government, fucking period

So the only argument you can make in defense of capitalism is that eventually the parasitic monopolies it creates are crushed under their own weight. That's a pretty weak defense and offers no reason to object to developing alternative economic systems.

Why do I bother.

No, GFD. The standard of living of their customers is raised otherwise the customer would NOT shop there, is that so hard to understand???

And when they no longer are competitive they get thrown to the scrap heap.

indigenous says

Standard Oil, I already showed that their market share went from 88% to 64% by the time Roosevelt "regulated" them.

You're wrong, and we've been over this ground in another thread. SCOTUS broke up Standard Oil in 1911, after more than two decades of attempts to trust bust it.
learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/may-15-1911-supreme-court-orders-standard-oil-to-be-broken-up/

Monopolies arise in the unregulated free market - as Standard Oil did in the 19th Century, the golden age of unregulated capitalism so celebrated by Austrians and Glibertarians.

thunderlips11 says

You're wrong

No you are, we have been over this before and you're still wrong. There market share went down because of competition.

thunderlips11 says

indigenous says

Standard Oil, I already showed that their market share went from 88% to 64% by the time Roosevelt "regulated" them.

You're wrong, and we've been over this ground in another thread.

Of course, no facts or evidence will convince an idiot that he's wrong. However, presenting them does convince everyone else that he's an idiot, and that's the point really.

There is no way indigenous is man enough to admit he's wrong. So he just repeats his dogma as if repetition trumps evidence and historical records.

Dan8267 says

Of course, no facts or evidence will convince an idiot that he's wrong. However, presenting them does convince everyone else that he's an idiot, and that's the point really.

There is no way indigenous is man enough to admit he's wrong. So he just repeats his dogma as if repetition trumps evidence and historical records.

I challenge you to overturn any one of the facts that I posted. Of course you are all about conjecture...

indigenous says

I challenge you to overturn any one of the facts that I posted.

www.youtube.com/embed/jiGh4ui7CxI

The ONLY time there is a monopoly is with the help of government, fucking period.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Tell that to De Beers.

They had the monopoly through cronyism in the GOVERNMENT

indigenous says

No if you read up on it De Beers built their monopoly by holding a monopoly on the mines through the local governments.

OK, let's go with that false assertion. You claim De Beers was created by government.

From the documentary Crystallization Of Corruption

www.youtube.com/embed/wZFQR4Fyprg

This documentary says the same things as the following sources. I know your too damn lazy to watch the documentary since you have the attention span of a five-year-old, so...

Business Insider: The History of De Beers and Diamonds

The story of De Beers starts with English-born businessman Cecil Rhodes, who broke into the diamond business in South Africa by renting water pumps to miners before buying diamond fields of his own

Rhodes, sensing he had ventured into an untapped market, bought up diamond fields, including one owned by two brothers named "de Beer." In 1880, he bought the claims of fellow entrepreneur and rival Barney Barnato to create the De Beers Mining Company.

The tendency in diamond mining is to combine with smaller groups to form larger ones. Individuals needing common infrastructure form diggers committees, and small claim holders wanting more land merge into large claimholders. Thus, it only took a few years for De Beers to become the owner of virtually all South African diamond mines.

By the time Rhodes died in 1902, De Beers controlled 90% of the world's rough-diamond production and distribution, but it was Ernest Oppenheimer who made the company an empire

Oppenheimer, a rival diamond producer with his own production company (Anglo American Corporation, which will reappear later in the story) essentially bought his way onto the board of directors over the years. By 1927, he was chairman of the board.

Under Oppenheimer, De Beers and its Central Selling Organization established exclusive contracts with suppliers and buyers, making it impossible to deal with diamonds outside of De Beers.

The structure of the business remained the same for much of the 20th century: A De Beers subsidiary would buy the diamonds. De Beers would determine the amount of diamonds they wanted to sell, and at what price, for the whole year. Each producer would then get a cut of the total output, and buyers would take their diamonds to be resold in places like Antwerp and New York.

Monopoly established with ABSOLUTELY NO government intervention.

And these facts are independently confirmed by Resource Investor

In the late 1800s after a massive diamond discovery in South Africa, a diamond rush was born, and businessman Cecil Rhodes bought as many diamond mining claims as he could, including farmland owned by the De Beer family. By the turn of the century, Rhodes had accumulated enough properties that his company accounted for the majority of the world’s supply of rough diamonds. He called his company De Beers Consolidated Mines Limited.

As De Beers maintained a hold on the worlds rough diamond supply through the first quarter of the 20th century, financer Ernest Oppenheimer began accumulating shares of De Beers whenever available, and reached a controlling stake of the company by the mid-1920s. Under Oppenheimer’s control, De Beers further expanded into every facet of the diamond industry, intent on monopolizing distribution. De Beers successfully influenced just about all of the world’s rough suppliers to sell production through the De Beers channel, gaining control of the global supply not produced by De Beers mines. The cartel was born, giving Oppenheimer the power to influence diamond supply and thus diamond prices.

And again confirmed by Greenwood Economics

There are no real legal barriers to directly enter the diamond industry, although many regions require firms to pay tariffs on the resources the extract. De Beers essentially acts as a cartel over the diamond industry, holding stakes in nearly all of the world’s major diamond mines and controlling the price of diamonds in the market.

De Beers has taken control over their essential resource, in this case rough diamonds. They have control over nearly 60% of the world’s rough uncut diamonds. Most diamonds come at one point or another from De beers, either directly or indirectly. The company is so large that it can actually afford to buy up significant portions of other diamonds similar to those of their competitors and flood markets with them. De beers also has deals with many diamond producing nations allowing them to purchase and produce their rough uncut stones. Since the diamond giant is so powerful in the industry it can choose exactly who it sells its product to and how much they must purchase it for. Because of their control over price and quantity De Beers is able to operate a successful monopoly.

Again, no government.

Care to start apologizing for your ignorance and arrogance?

That was one company on the list, come on lazy ass get them all answered and maybe I will exert more effort to school you.

indigenous says

There are no examples of a monopoly without government:

indigenous says

Once again The ONLY time there is a monopoly is with the help of government, fucking period

indigenous says

The ONLY time there is a monopoly is with the help of government

indigenous says

I challenge you to overturn any one of the facts that I posted. Of course you are all about conjecture...

I think Dan just ate your lunch.

You think?, prove it.

indigenous : All reindeers have an iron skeleton.

Bob: No they don't.

indigenous: Prove it.

Bob: Here's a reindeer. [Shoots reindeer. Cuts open reindeer and extracts its skeleton.] Look, the skeleton is made of calcium, not iron.

indigenous: Prove it.

Bob: Magnets stick to iron. See how this magnet is not sticking to the reindeer's skeleton, but it does stick to that iron stove.

indigenous: ALL REINDEERS have an iron skeleton. Of course you are all about conjecture...

Joe: Bob did just prove that at least this reindeer does not have an iron skeleton. And if we repeat the experiment with other reindeers, we get the same result.

indigenous: Prove it.

Bob: [Kills another reindeer and repeats the process. Does this ten times.] OK, we've shown multiple examples of reindeers having calcium skeletons not iron ones. You are wrong.

indigenous: No you are, we have been over this before and you're still wrong. Reindeers have IRON skeletons. Once again The ONLY skeleton reindeer have is IRON, fucking period.

Joe: Bob just proved you wrong just now right in front of everyone.

indigenous: You think?, prove it.

Conclusion: indigenous is a failed attempt at artificial intelligence that cannot correct false information hardwired in its code.

Wow you are really fucked up!

indigenous says

Wow you are really fucked up!

There was nothing you could possibly have posted that would confirm exactly what I just said more than what you just posted.

You think your asinine analogy is the same zip code of the subject is indicative of your psychosis.

indigenous says

[As RAW general manager, I think] You think your asinine analogy is the same zip code of the subject is indicative of your psychosis.

www.youtube.com/embed/OWn0OCs0h-E

Your opinions mean nothing, and you put the ass in assertions.

apparently you identify with the Rock, sad really...

indigenous says

apparently you identify with the Rock, sad really...

Compared to wimp like you, yes. I'm stronger, better looking, and have a lot more money than you. And chicks will always choose to have sex with me over you.

Like I said you are really fucked up

And since you said it, it must be true. No need for evidence. Typical conservative. Everything is about faith, not proof.

We are at post 82, I have yet to see you post anything but conjecture...

That's your fault, no one else's. The evidence is there. You just are willfully ignorant. And that is why you deserve no respect.

Dan8267 says

That's your fault, no one else's. The evidence is there. You just are willfully ignorant. And that is why you deserve no respect.

No your conjecture dumb ass

indigenous says

conjecture

www.youtube.com/embed/G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Yea you should look it up.

So, according to indigenous, an hour and a half documentary detailing all the intricacies of the rise of De Beers is "conjecture". Multiple sources stating the same exact history of the company becoming a monopoly are "conjecture".

Yes people, this is how stupid conservatives are. Do you really want to join their club?

No I'm not going to sit through an 1.5 hours of your crap. Give me the readers digest FACTS.

indigenous says

No I'm not going to sit through an 1.5 hours of your crap. Give me the readers digest FACTS.

That's what the three articles from reputable magazines that you didn't read were for.

By the way, if you're too god-damn lazy to watch a documentary and learn something, nothing you say on this subject matter counts for shit.

A democratic society places an extraordinary intellectual responsibility on ordinary men and women because we are govern by what we think. Our laws and policies are govern by public opinion. So the content and quality of our opinions and the thought processes that are responsible for the formation of our opinions determines the character of our society. As such it is critically important that the opinions of every citizen are based on facts and the truth and a deep understanding of the world rather than misinformation and foolishness.

A thoughtless citizen in a democracy or a republic is a delinquent citizen. He causes more harm than any criminal or terrorist could, and he spreads his ignorance and stupidity like a virus. Such a person is not only unpatriotic, he is the very embodiment of treason. Stupidity and ignorance undermine democracy.

And that is why I have no respect for you or your opinions. You revel in your ignorance, laziness, and unwillingness to learn. The Internet is a village, and you are its fool.

Fuck off, I don't have time or interest to sit though 1.5 hr of your "related material"

Link the articles

indigenous says

There are no examples of a monopoly without government:

indigenous says

That was one company on the list,

The proper phrase to be uttered at this point is "I was wrong".

bob2356 says

The proper phrase to be uttered at this point is "I was wrong".

Not hardly, you come up with one dubious example...

Property rights are a government thang?

BTW Rand has NOTHING to do with Austrian Economics you mutt

indigenous says

Property rights are a government thang?

You bet your ass.

Dan8267 says

Just look at land. How the fuck can any person make a legitimate claim to own land except that the government says he does?

Locke argued that an original owner is one who mixes his or her
labor with a thing and, by commingling that labor with the thing,
establishes ownership of it.'

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2829&context=fss_papers

Dan8267 says

In actuality, oligopolies are preferred by capitalists. They act like monopolies but with the illusion of choice that keeps the commoners quiet.

More conjecture... Without government they change in and out of the upper quintile, so to speak, with more regularity than anyone at the lowest quintile.

indigenous says

Locke argued that an original owner is one who mixes his or her

labor with a thing and, by commingling that labor with the thing,

establishes ownership of it.'

Locke was wrong. The original labor does not appreciate as the land does when people settle around it and build roads, infrastructure, and jobs.

indigenous says

More conjecture... Without government they change in and out of the upper quintile, so to speak, with more regularity than anyone at the lowest quintile.

Yes, your statement is more conjecture.

Dan8267 says

Locke was wrong. The original labor does not appreciate as the land does when people settle around it and build roads, infrastructure, and jobs.

So you are smarter than Locke? Did you read through the link? It is from Yale University, surely they have some respect?

Dan8267 says

Yes, your statement is more conjecture.

You nor the Wogster have refuted anything, you just like to chase your tails I guess.

indigenous says

So you are smarter than Locke?

Yes. I'm a 21st century engineer with knowledge of how the universe began, operates, and will end. I know quantum mechanics, fractal geometry, practical computing, atomic theory, and many other subjects that a 17th century philosopher and physician could not even imagine. If you want to know what kinds of leeches to use on someone suffering from consumption, ask Locke.

By the way, Locke sucks. The only philosopher from 500 c.e. to 1800 c.e. you should be reading is Immanuel Kant. He and I independently wrote on many subjects and we agree 99% of the time. Kant beats Locke hands down.

And quite frankly, anyone living in the 21st century who isn't more knowledgeable and doesn't have a better understanding of economics, science, and math than Locke, is an embarrassing idiot. Four centuries of progress means a lot. Hell, there was more advancement in the 20th century alone than in all centuries that preceded it back to the Stone Age. Before the 20th century, people couldn't even fly.

And yet you still do not understand who owns the property, go figure, an engineer, not hardly.

indigenous says

And yet you still do not understand who owns the property, go figure, an engineer, not hardly.

Like I said, your opinion carries no weight. And since you are willfully ignorant and unwilling to learn, there is no way to improve your thought processes so that your opinion is based on anything but ignorance.

Dan8267 says

Like I said, your opinion carries no weight. And since you are willfully ignorant and unwilling to learn, there is no way to improve your thought processes so that your opinion is based on anything but ignorance.

My thoughts exactly...