It's 12:00. Do you know where John Kerry is?

[SirNitram]

It controlled less than 70% of the merket, it did not have a monopoly, Not only that, but the government stepped in broke union strikes. So it did not become a monopoly on its own.

No, it didn't. That doesn't mean that unregulated monopolies are good, however.

So, despite the fact they were able to price-set as they pleased and people were stuck buying, you are going to simply plug fingers into your ears and declare them 'not a monopoly'. I bet you'd even claim deBeers isn't a monopoly, or that they don't inflate prices...

In the face of such a wall of ignorance, I won't bother.

Dude, even if they price fixed, the prices were lower than what cnsumers would get from any other company. Even if they had a monoply(they had competitors, so they werent one) it STILL would have harmed noone.

Prove the above statements.

[Symmetry]

whta exactly are the libertarians?

The libertarians are a political party that beleives in limited government. By limited, I mean keeping government restricted to its powers that are specifically spelled out in the constitution.

http://www.lp.org/

If you want to get precise, thats the Libertarians, not the libertarians. Lowercase "l" libertarian just refers to someone with the outlooks of being significantly socially liberal and significantly fiscally conservative.

Or maybe not, the terminology is pretty confused actually, so I just call myself a classical liberal - the wikipedia entry has a pretty good description.

[Master of Ossus]

Oh-ho, so stating exactly what was quoted is 'strawmanning'? You should try learning what these words mean.

You were right. I didn't know what the Libertarian "Party Line" was, and now that I know what it is I think it's retarded.

I'd love to see proof of this bald assertion about monopolies, by the by. I have at very least provided examples.

Which one? The one about how most monopolies provide services for cheaper than two or more companies could do it? You mean like how the US Postal Service provides almost all of the letter-delivery in the US at extraordinarily competitive rates?

[HemlockGrey]

Um, wouldn't pursuing totally free-market policies lead us right back to the Industrial Revolution, where children work 12 hous a day for seven cents an hour?

[kojikun]

So, despite the fact they were able to price-set as they pleased and people were stuck buying, you are going to simply plug fingers into your ears and declare them 'not a monopoly'. I bet you'd even claim deBeers isn't a monopoly, or that they don't inflate prices...

Isn't deBeers a genuine monopoly? Or so damn near to it that it makes no difference? Also, they utilise tactics that are more suited to the mafia rather than a business. Tho I never quite understood what it really matters. Diamonds for jewelry aren't really something that monopolies matter with. It's not anywhere near being an essential for life or liberty. And industrial diamonds can be manufactured and actually are, tho industry can afford to pay deBeers pricing, not that it's ridiculous to begin with.

[Master of Ossus]

Um, wouldn't pursuing totally free-market policies lead us right back to the Industrial Revolution, where children work 12 hous a day for seven cents an hour?

Probably not, since almost all commercial activity requires significant training, but potentially some fields could degenerate that far.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Um, wouldn't pursuing totally free-market policies lead us right back to the Industrial Revolution, where children work 12 hous a day for seven cents an hour?

Nope, becausse no child would work those hours. Back thenm a dollar a day was damn good pay, and it was either that, or starve.

However, as business increased, companies could afford to raise dads pay, and the kids could get to school.

Hell, child labor in Thailand prevents child prostitution...

[kojikun]

Um, wouldn't pursuing totally free-market policies lead us right back to the Industrial Revolution, where children work 12 hous a day for seven cents an hour?

No, because during the Industrial Revolution there was a seriously huge demand for hard physical labour. Now theres hardly any demand at all for that kind of physical labour. Besides, we already do pay children that much, in thirdworld countries. And damn good that we do, otherwise they'd be starving because they'd get zero dollars and hour AND they'd be wasting their time getting into trouble, or doing other labour for cheaper because they'd be working for locals. But here, in America? No, I doubt that we'd return to Industrial Revolution methods.

[SirNitram]

Oh-ho, so stating exactly what was quoted is 'strawmanning'? You should try learning what these words mean.

You were right. I didn't know what the Libertarian "Party Line" was, and now that I know what it is I think it's retarded.

Good, we both agree on that much then.

I'd love to see proof of this bald assertion about monopolies, by the by. I have at very least provided examples.

Which one? The one about how most monopolies provide services for cheaper than two or more companies could do it? You mean like how the US Postal Service provides almost all of the letter-delivery in the US at extraordinarily competitive rates?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the US Postal Service a government agency? Controlled by the government? Funded by the government? Or at least subsidized?

[Master of Ossus]

Um, wouldn't pursuing totally free-market policies lead us right back to the Industrial Revolution, where children work 12 hous a day for seven cents an hour?

Nope, becausse no child would work those hours. Back thenm a dollar a day was damn good pay, and it was either that, or starve.

However, as business increased, companies could afford to raise dads pay, and the kids could get to school.

It doesn't really have anything to do with that. The nature of the market has fundamentally changed, with more jobs realistically available today than qualified applicants to work them. Moreover, most jobs today require significant training to do properly, which children are simply incapable of having in their short lives.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The USPS is a government agency, but it still competes with UPS and FedEx for some mail and package delivery, certainly.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the US Postal Service a government agency? Controlled by the government? Funded by the government? Or at least subsidized?

It could als be considered a monopoly

[HemlockGrey]

Isn't deBeers a genuine monopoly? Or so damn near to it that it makes no difference? Also, they utilise tactics that are more suited to the mafia rather than a business. Tho I never quite understood what it really matters. Diamonds for jewelry aren't really something that monopolies matter with. It's not anywhere near being an essential for life or liberty. And industrial diamonds can be manufactured and actually are, tho industry can afford to pay deBeers pricing, not that it's ridiculous to begin with.

I'm hardly a reliable source but if IIRC, diamonds are rather plentiful and are held almost entirely by the deBeers company, which is why the emerging threat of man-made diamonds is taken so seriously by them. Also, IIRC, the deBeers family is prohibited from entering the United States on pain of arrest, and their corporation employs rather largish mercenary armies to guard their mines (although how much of that is fact and how much is urban legend, I don't know).

Probably not, since almost all commercial activity requires significant training, but potentially some fields could degenerate that far.

I meant that commercial activity would broadly degenerate into exploited, overworked, underpaid labor...which, incidentally, is exactly what happens in 3rd world shitholes with little to no regulation.

Nope, becausse no child would work those hours. Back thenm a dollar a day was damn good pay, and it was either that, or starve.

However, as business increased, companies could afford to raise dads pay, and the kids could get to school.

And the businesses are motivated to raise pay...why? I'm not talking about white collar jobs here; factories and blue-collar labor positions. Take a look at the lot of illegal immigrants if you want to know what happens when the minimum wage and federally mandated working standards disappear.

[Symmetry]

Perhaps the Libertarian supporters should look to where it says 'Any government attempt'. Not just those that, according to MoO, would be overregulating. There is no division made between those regulations that would help or hurt; all are flatly opposed that that statement.

Ah, but with that objection you assume your ability to distinguish between regulations which hurt and regulations which help. I doubt anyone ever proposes a regulation which they say will hurt, yet regulations which hurt are passed all the time.

Of course, I myself think that the LP is going overboard, but I hope you can see that there could be some logic behind this, even if it is flawed. Its similar in principal to how the army prohibits the officers from sleeping with the enlisted, even though many of such cases won't result in anything bad.

[kojikun]

Nope, becausse no child would work those hours. Back thenm a dollar a day was damn good pay, and it was either that, or starve.

Good point, yeah. A dollar back then is worth about.. 55 dollars today, if interest rates were constant. Thats damn fucking good per day for a kid to be making. Thats 20k a year. Cmon, a kid making that, back then.. as long as the kid isn't being abused, mistreated, or endangered, and as long as the kid does get an education, working for seven cents an hour, then, or 4 dollars an hour today, really isn't that bad at all. It's almost minimum wage, which is a dollar fifty more. Kids like working, besides. Look at all the lemonade stands. Just don't abuse them, and let them seek their own. A paren't shouldn't force their kid to work, but if the kid says "Hey, I could get some money" why not. Certain age limits are understandable for certain jobs, ofcourse, but things that are traditionally/easilly apprenticable could very easilly be opened to kids. It would be more than just work, it would be learning as well.

[SirNitram]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the US Postal Service a government agency? Controlled by the government? Funded by the government? Or at least subsidized?

It could als be considered a monopoly

It would be nice if you answered the questions you quoted instead of parroting MoO.

[SirNitram]

Perhaps the Libertarian supporters should look to where it says 'Any government attempt'. Not just those that, according to MoO, would be overregulating. There is no division made between those regulations that would help or hurt; all are flatly opposed that that statement.

Ah, but with that objection you assume your ability to distinguish between regulations which hurt and regulations which help. I doubt anyone ever proposes a regulation which they say will hurt, yet regulations which hurt are passed all the time.

Of course, I myself think that the LP is going overboard, but I hope you can see that there could be some logic behind this, even if it is flawed. Its similar in principal to how the army prohibits the officers from sleeping with the enlisted, even though many of such cases won't result in anything bad.

I can see logic in wanting to keep regulations watched carefully for going overboard. I can see only blind stupidity and allegiance to big businesses in their stated goals, however.

[Master of Ossus]

The USPS is a government agency,

Not anymore, but even if it was the point would still stand. Lots of monopolies are now run by the government, or tightly controlled by them, specifically because they were monopolies. For example, the military is clearly a natural monopoly. It is easier for one Air Force to provide air-defense for the United States because of networking externalities. It's a government agency, but the point is the same.

but it still competes with UPS and FedEx for some mail and package delivery, certainly.

Not really. UPS and FedEx transport less than 10% of the total number of letters and parcels shipped in the US. Their hold over the different FOREIGN shipping is greater, but that's clearly a different industry. 90% of a given concern qualifies as a monopoly by almost anyone's definition, and those three package deliverers control virtually the ENTIRE market, with only pathetically small services like in-city bicycle delivery services providing ANY competition whatsoever. Moreover, the USPS has cheaper rates than UPS and FedEx, which really only underscores my original point.

[SirNitram]

The USPS is a government agency,

Not anymore, but even if it was the point would still stand. Lots of monopolies are now run by the government, or tightly controlled by them, specifically because they were monopolies. For example, the military is clearly a natural monopoly. It is easier for one Air Force to provide air-defense for the United States because of networking externalities. It's a government agency, but the point is the same.

However, their government control is the reason why they are not prohibitively expensive, or certainly is for another heavily-subsidized company I know of, Amtrak, and I see no reason not to expect the same restrictions. A restricted monopoly is sometimes a necessity; I recignize that the government can't simply cut Amtrak loose, without causing a shitload more trouble than the mere financial cost they pay now. An unregulated monopoly, the natural outcome of a government with no regulations on companies, is a damned dangerous thing.

[kojikun]

Are you sure that the USPS isn't a government agency/

And aren't non-USPS postal services banned from operating? AFAIK, only the USPS is allowed to deliver mail based on postage stamps and such, in the manner that it does.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And the businesses are motivated to raise pay...why? I'm not talking about white collar jobs here; factories and blue-collar labor positions. Take a look at the lot of illegal immigrants if you want to know what happens when the minimum wage and federally mandated working standards disappear.

Take a look at your history, because that is exactly what happened.

The problem with min wage laws is that they raise the price of labor artificially. Anyone with a job that pays over min wage would be in no danger from the dropping of min wage laws.

Dude.. I live in Arizona, if it werent for the free medical care the beaners get, they would HELP our economy.

I meant that commercial activity would broadly degenerate into exploited, overworked, underpaid labor...which, incidentally, is exactly what happens in 3rd world shitholes with little to no regulation.

If they didnt want those jobs, they would not work them.

[HemlockGrey]

Good point, yeah. A dollar back then is worth about.. 55 dollars today, if interest rates were constant. Thats damn fucking good per day for a kid to be making.

Except the kids made more along the lines of a few cents a day. My "seven cents an hour" comment was wild exaggeration.

[SirNitram]

I meant that commercial activity would broadly degenerate into exploited, overworked, underpaid labor...which, incidentally, is exactly what happens in 3rd world shitholes with little to no regulation.

If they didnt want those jobs, they would not work them.

Wow, you live in a complete fantasy world.

[Master of Ossus]

However, their government control is the reason why they are not prohibitively expensive, or certainly is for another heavily-subsidized company I know of, Amtrak, and I see no reason not to expect the same restrictions.

Sometimes, but more often the difference in prices between a totally unregulated monopoly and a heavily-regulated one are fairly small. Market controls dictate that a monopoly does not have infinite control over the price at which it sells goods. The reason the government USUALLY regulates monopolies is because unregulated monopolies have the POTENTIAL to make economic profit over a very long period of time, and they do not produce at a socially desirable level. In effect, the difference is that a competitive market with product differentiation encourages inefficiency through over-capacity, while an unregulated monopoly promotes inefficiency through under-production.

There are problems, however, with government regulation of monopolies. For example, monopolies tend to be able to cement their power quite easily, preventing potential competitors from entering the market with superior products. These efforts are directly supported by government regulating committees, even if they do not provide all-out mandates to the companies in general.

A restricted monopoly is sometimes a necessity; I recignize that the government can't simply cut Amtrak loose, without causing a shitload more trouble than the mere financial cost they pay now. An unregulated monopoly, the natural outcome of a government with no regulations on companies, is a damned dangerous thing.

Again, potentially, but monopolies still don't have infinite power over their prices.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I meant that commercial activity would broadly degenerate into exploited, overworked, underpaid labor...which, incidentally, is exactly what happens in 3rd world shitholes with little to no regulation.

If they didnt want those jobs, they would not work them.

Wow, you live in a complete fantasy world.

No, take a look at it this way. If we regulated the businesses there, would enough people get jobs to help their economic situation? No.

Even 2 dollars an hour is better than nothing. It is enough to buy food. With that, the people would be able to spend money, with teh spending of money they will be able to open up businesses. These buusinesses will cmpete with each otehr, and employ others.

They may be exploited now, but that condition will not last.