[Dr House]

That is not "capitalism," that is the scenario that Puerto Rico would be in if it were not for regulations.

did you not read a word I said? Puerto Rico is in shambles. 1 in every ten people looking for a job can't find one, and two-thids aren't even looking for one. The economy is stagflating, which happens in every welfare state if the money supply isn't kept tight. We used to be the 5th Tiger, you know what happened? the welfare State, that's what happened. If Puerto Rico is made independent and welfare payments are cut off, you'll see GDP growth of 10% a year, and you'll se the employment rates double.

Remember the Great Depression that you cited, did you think FDR a fool during that time period?

Yes.

I'll reply to everything else later, I can't type and talk at the same time.

[Zyx]

did you not read a word I said? Puerto Rico is in shambles.

Bad can get worse.

Besides, again, this is highly selective.

Yes.

And what are your opinions on his predecessor?

[Dr House]

Bad can get worse.

Bad can also get better, and it's getting better on three-quarters of the world since the borders of the rich world were opened to trade. It's not getting better in Puerto Rico despite the fact we have unfettered access to the largest, most diverse economy in the World. Why? because investing in PR is too expensive.

If the water is privately owned, then it cannot be used for public use. Once the water cannot be used for public use, those who depend on it suffer.

We haven't gotten water on the rivers for decades. All the water we in the developed world use is either pipe water or bottled water. If all water is privately owned, then it will just be sold for profit, and since water is a natural resource competition will keep its price very low.

To gain a monopoly. Do you not know anything about strategy?

Yeah, but if they try too hard to gain a monopoly they will go out of business. It all falls into balance eventually.

Only easy in your world, actually.

Okay, then we can treat contamination as a crime and prosecute company bosses like we do regular criminals. Oversight agencies, on the other hand, are a waste of taxpayer money and an encroachment to companies that comply with standards and still have to go through the whole bureaucratic process.

Do enlighten why.

Monpolies cannot be maintained if costs of entry to an industry are low, because if a company has full market share and tries to charge their customers excessively, another company will enter the market and charge their customers a lower price.

[Zyx]

We haven't gotten water on the rivers for decades. All the water we in the developed world use is either pipe water or bottled water. If all water is privately owned, then it will just be sold for profit, and since water is a natural resource competition will keep its price very low.

We in the developed world, maybe.

But who is to say that water would continue to be sold in a privatized world?

You should look at the Documentary by Mark Thomas on Coke.

Yeah, but if they try too hard to gain a monopoly they will go out of business. It all falls into balance eventually.

What in the world are you talking about?

A monopoly can easily be maintained, even the bloke you worshipped earlier, Bill Gates, is managing a quasi-monopoly.

Okay, then we can treat contamination as a crime and prosecute company bosses like we do regular criminals.

This is absolutely silly. Who is going to helm the cause against contamination? The poor who suffer from it?

Monpolies cannot be maintained if costs of entry to an industry are low, because if a company has full market share and tries to charge their customers excessively, another company will enter the market and charge their customers a lower price.

A monopoly involves gaining full access to the resource.

What if, I had an oil company and had an exclusive deal with the Middle East and owned all the properties in Alaska?

How can someone infiltrate the business?

What about if I owned a honey company, if I owned all of the Honey Combs . . . you get the point?

If I own the Amazon Forest, not only can I decimate it but I also own the most Wood . . . someone can cut their trees in their backyard and get a few sales under me, but they would not be able to buy the Forests under my nose.

[Dr House]

But who is to say that water would continue to be sold in a privatized world?

If a buck can be made off selling water, somebody will try to make it. Trust me.

A monopoly can easily be maintained, even the bloke you worshipped earlier, Bill Gates, is managing a quasi-monopoly.

No he's not, not a full monopoly.

This is absolutely silly. Who is going to helm the cause against contamination? The poor who suffer from it?

The state, just like they fight crime now.

A monopoly involves gaining full access to the resource.

What if, I had an oil company and had an exclusive deal with the Middle East and owned all the properties in Alaska?

You're forgetting Mexico, Indonesia, Venezuela, Norway, Russia et al. It's just too expensive for any individual to feasibly do without government help.

If I own the Amazon Forest, not only can I decimate it but I also own the most Wood . . . someone can cut their trees in their backyard and get a few sales under me, but they would not be able to buy the Forests under my nose.

The Amazon is not the only rainforest in the World, just the biggest. And it's still too big for anyone to own the entire thing.

[Zyx]

You do not know capitalism . . .

You seem to think Monopolies are impossible . . . if someone is rich enough, and they can become rich enough through a Monopoly, then that someone can gain a monopoly.

Why do you seem to think that a person, or even say a group, cannot organize to own everything?

Besides, even if someone else can sell water, it has nothing to do with the person who owns the ocean.

Ask yourself this, how much water can you sell RIGHT NOW?

If all the convenient waterways are purchased, you just can't win.

Why do you seem to believe that someone will have access to an untapped resource? Why do you believe that there will be a convenient untapped resource?

Yes, someone may be able to fly all the way out to the middle of nowhere to make a contract, but what makes you think this person would not already be working for the monopoly builder.

I do not understand you at all . . . you know there are anti-trust laws for the sole purpose that Monopolies are very possible and yet you seem to disbelieve that Monopolies are!

Know how Rockefeller got his wealth?

By selling oil REALLY cheaply until he bought out everyone and then sold oil REALLY expensively.

After he bought out all of the Oil resources, no one could enter the market!

If there was a new spring discovered, he offered the most, cause he could, and got it.

You just don't understand capitalism . . . the rich win if its a competition regarding money.

[Dr House]

You just don't understand capitalism . . . the rich win if its a competition regarding money.

Not if all the rich compete against each other.

If all the convenient waterways are purchased, you just can't win.

It would take several trillion dollars to buy all of them... who has a trillion dollars (other than the State)?

Know how Rockefeller got his wealth?

By selling oil REALLY cheaply until he bought out everyone and then sold oil REALLY expensively.

Every market he bought into was closed, so buying out the competition was REAL easy. What's more, he created a monopoly in a swathe of land called the United States. There is no way his success could be reproduced all across the World if the world is an open market. It is just too big.

Ask yourself this, how much water can you sell RIGHT NOW?

Well, I can't, I haven't bought any to sell.

But even if somebody bought every lake and river in the USA, I could go and buy a piece of Lake Erie, or buy a river in Europe or Africa. There are just too many resources for any particular group to own all of them. And even if every owner of a resource forms a cartel, one or more of them could still break off and take advantage of the monopoly price to sell more of his product by selling it cheaper.

[Zyx]

Not if all the rich compete against each other.

Maybe not, but recall Rockefeller once more, perhaps you did not understand his story.

It would take several trillion dollars to buy all of them... who has a trillion dollars (other than the State)?

Probably the group that replaces the state.

Every market he bought into was closed, so buying out the competition was REAL easy.

You seem to think that every market was closed arbitrarily.

Here's how it is, and I can simplify it for you later on.

Rockefeller owns an oil company and sells oil very cheaply so that only his commodity is purchased. Because of this, other oil companies are not profiting as much as they should and as such, he offers to relieve them of their debt. When all of the oil companies are under his control, as only he is able to sell oil, no other company can sell as low as he . . . he was losing money when he was doing this, he hiked the prices up to a higher amount than it ever was.

The same can happen with any commodity.

Here is a simplified version:

You and I are in the beef market; I am rich however, and so while you sell Beef profitably at 30 dollars a lb, I sell it for 2 cents a lb. Now, you can drive your prices down to my prices and suffer, or you can rarely ever sell a lb of beef.

Eventually, your market is going down because I also sell quality beef and so, when I offer you good money for your farm, you do not decline, rather you thank me and walk away with some good pocket change. You and your friends the same, until eventually, I own all of the farms, and then I sell my beef at huge prices.

Sure, you too can sell Cows if you wanted to, but where would you get the Cows from if I own them all? Will you wait for evolution or so?

There is no way his success could be reproduced all across the World if the world is an open market. It is just too big

What are you from the 20th century? The Earth is small my friend.

But even if somebody bought every lake and river in the USA, I could go and buy a piece of Lake Erie, or buy a river in Europe or Africa.

I miss why you can afford the lake in Africa and this person, who owns all of the water in the US, cannot. Explain why they cannot . . . do not they own the water in the US profitably?

You have the income to afford a lake in Africa but they do not? I does not compute.

And even if every owner of a resource forms a cartel, one or more of them could still break off and take advantage of the monopoly price to sell more of his product by selling it cheaper.

Yeah, but why? And even so, this does not make for you to enter the market.

Rockefeller, is the reason why there is a minimum charge for products actually . . . if you get rid of that, Senator Rockefeller could re-do his father's legacy.

BTW, Rockefeller was the Richest Person ever.

[Dr House]

You seem to think that every market was closed arbitrarily.

No I don't. Closed market means the regulatory climate makes it very difficult, if not impossible for a firm in one market to sell or own products in another market.

What are you from the 20th century? The Earth is small my friend.

It seems that way, because there are very little barriers to entry everywhere, but the earth is enormous. It produces $65 trillion dollars a year, and that amount is growing faster than ever. There is just no way for a single individual, or a group of less than 100,000 people to own all of it.

Explain why they cannot . . . do not they own the water in the US profitably?

Yes, but it takes them time and money to buy up the US water market, time other firms can use to buy up water in other markets and sell them in the US cheaper. You would have to sell at a loss of billions and billions of dollars before you get a monopoly of the world. It just cannot be done.

BTW, Rockefeller was the Richest Person ever.

Psh. He wasn't even the first billionaire. That honor belongs to Howard Hughes.

[Zyx]

There is just no way for a single individual, or a group of less than 100,000 people to own all of it.

You are avoiding the issue, but nonetheless, a group of 100,000 would initially do the dirty work and until the group becomes smaller and smaller or whatever.

It does not matter, the point is that eventually the invisible hand will stop . . . there is no invisible hand. It's out somewhere petting the invisible pink unicorn, but it is not in our market.

You effort so much to avoid this fact.

You would have to sell at a loss of billions and billions of dollars before you get a monopoly of the world. It just cannot be done.

Bill Gates could afford it, and Rockefeller is worth 305 Billion; according to Forbes 2007.

Your projected "billions and billions" is bullshit but none the less, some can afford it.

You just need to buy our your competition, something easily done by the rich.

[Dr House]

Why would all the competition allow themselves to be bought off? People like power.

I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying it's unfeasibly difficult.

[Zyx]

All that needs to be done is that their is an original group that controls this power; soon there will be an equilibrium point and competition will cease, whether it be when a lot of have power or a few.

The point is, that once competition ends, only the consumer loses.

Whether it is difficult or not is another thing, but as for whether it is likely, it is very.

Some student supposedly asked a cola company Why is it that on Campus it would spend $1.50 to get a bottle sized drink but if it went to the market two blocks down it could spend a dollar for a liter of the drink?" And the company responded on how it was because the students were a non-competitive consumer.

In other words, someone gets screwed by capitalism; one can say that the invisible hand allowed the market to be 2 blocks down if the kid REALLY wanted the cola, but what if the whole city were non-competitive?

The nation?

Would people leave the country for a cheaper commodity?

Some would, maybe, but some would not.

How much do you spend on your medicine? The Canadian price?

[Dr House]

Why would competition cease?

Just because everybody is looking for absolute power doesn't mean anyone will get it. It's not democracy, the 50%+1 rule does not apply.

[Zyx]

You underestimate money.

Oh well, right?

[Dr House]

I was reading a bit more about Rockefeller and Standard Oil. Rockefeller never ever gained a full monopoly (he only ever achieved 92% market share) and he didn't engage in deceptive or anti-competitive practices to gain his monopoly. He simply operated more efficiently than his competitors, dropped prices because he could refine oil more cheaply and bought them out when they went bankrupt. He never sold kerosene for less than what it cost him to produce it, and for the duration of Standard Oil kerosene prices dropped 80%. And if he had ever tried to exploit his monopoly and raise prices beyond what the market could sustain, any of his old competitors (or new ones) could duck into the market from underneath him, as he basically subsidized their high startup costs by charging more than what they needed to in order to cover those costs. The only way for Rockefeller to hold on to his monopoly was to keep prices below that point, which made them cheap for consumers. However, in keeping prices low he had the whole market virtually to himself, so he still made a crapload of money from it. Unless you feel sorry for the people who engaged in practices like dumping gasoline into rivers because they found no use for it, you would agree Rockefeller did a service to humanity by establishing a monopoly. And he was also, by the way, a big philanthropist. I would say he's a hero. He made vast amounts of wealth, gave most of it to the poor and made his fortune by figuring out the cheapest way to produce (and therefore sell) a valuable consumer product. The man was an asset to humanity, not despite but because he was a capitalist.

[Ombrageux]

There is no such thing as a 'self-made' man.

Or are we to believe he emerged full-grown from Zeus' skull?

[Dr House]

"self-made" means he worked his way up. He earned his wealth. He did not inherit it.

[Batko]

"self-made" means he worked his way up. He earned his wealth. He did not inherit it.

The perfect definition of a sucker.

[Dr House]

Yeppers, which is why I don't think we should treat CEO's so bad. They're twice as rich as we are because they worked twice as hard. Like I've said many times, they're not an aristocracy.

[Zyx]

Dr House; part of your tale was fabricated. The portion in which he had not raised prices; supposedly he put the prices to "market" price, and that much I can agree with, but there was no invisible hand that dictated the "market" price but his own.

Perhaps he could not go too high, but he did not remain too low.

How he initially competed was by going below "market" price; and if you agree with this, know that he can "locally" go above "market" price wherever if he owns a monopoly and yet, go way below market price, in a region in which a competitor is rising. That said, some people can get screwed over by these tactics, and this is a very real threat.

I do not much care for Rockefeller and am curious as to why we are talking about him. I imagined it had to do with you disagreeing that a monopoly can be formed and me suggesting that it is very possible. I still believe that it is possible, his tactics can be repeated and, according to you, he made good money so that he could compete with others and afford to expand universally.

But that is a separate issue that I can not do much convincing on as it seems common sensical to me.

I had thought that you said that you disagreed with monopolies? I'd say that Rockefeller was "brilliant" tactically and that I utilize his tactic too when I can, but I do not know much about worshiping humans.

Whatever, good day.