| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Comments:
<0> 'f' is not a valid decimal digit, so it cannot.
<1> wait, let me read what you wrote....just a sec
<2> farhan: the fact that only one road company can monopolize that road means it's a bad idea because they are using it for profit purposes, and will therefore price-gouge, unlike a government. yeah, we could all fly to work on ultra-lites but if you
<3> What about int i = 0; sscanf("foo 9", "%d", &i); ?
<2> want to live in a cohesive society than things like roads must be collectively owned
<4> sscanf stops at f
<1> evilgeek : okay, but that's the freemarket at work. COnsumer's choice. What's the problem with that?
<5> farhan: surely you know from your studies of microeconomics that optimal prices in the presence of competition differ from the optimal prices in its absence?
<1> niv_ : do you know what price gouging is?
<5> farhan: the problem is that you claimed otherwise above.
<1> evilgeek : false
<2> farhan: okay, price increasing
<1> evilgeek : they don't
<2> farhan: yes, price gouging is collusion between 2 or more companies to increase prices.. gouging might not have been the right word
<1> evilgeek : because, companies act as if there is compettition even in the absense of competition to prevent people from coming in in the first place
<5> <+farhan> evilgeek : and the non-racist pizza shop earns more money...
<1> niv_ : that's called colluding
<5> farhan: they do not.
<5> farhan: they are trying to maximise profit, aye?
<1> yes sir
<5> then they would price at the monopoly-optimal prices, aye?
<1> no, not always
<1> evilgeek : let me explain why
<2> farhan what reason would they have not to?
<5> then they're very bad at maximising profit.
<2> yes they would
<2> everything in a capitalist system is done to increase profit, to p*** up an oppourtunity to do so would be very stupid
<1> if they priced at the profit maximizing price, peopel would be like `wow, that company is making a LOT of money, above the regular market interest rate` and with time, investors would start up their own company in that same industry
<1> therefore
<1> they woudl keep the prices reasonably low to prevent that from happening
<5> farhan: and then they can lower their prices to drive said company out of business.
<1> to prevent competition which doesn't even exist
<1> evilgeek : yes, they can
<5> farhan: you are claiming a very interesting theorem.
<1> evilgeek : the moment they raise their prices, another company jumps in and gets in a price war
<2> funny how everything in a capitalist system is being worked out "with time" or "in time" -- seems like the system is in a constant state of flux, "working itself out", but never will actually work itself out
<1> so, they'll just keep their prices low
<5> farhan: jumping in and getting in a price war is not a zero-cost operation.
<5> farhan: therefore, the first welfare theorem doesn't apply. stop trying to apply it.
<1> evilgeek : yeah, but who cears the costs?
<1> bears, sorry
<2> farhan: Do you support the right of workers to organize into unions?
<5> the company that's attempting to jump in and start a price war.
<1> the companies bear the cost, not the consumers.
<1> niv_ : yes, ofcourse
<2> farhan: Okay
<1> evilgeek : yeah, but the consumer is fine. he pays lower prices
<5> let's try this again.
<5> why wouldn't the monopolist set his prices to be some epsilon>0 higher than the optimal prices in a free market?
<1> i don't understand, can you reprhease that?
<1> rephrase
<3> For those not in the know, could you quickly describe in laymen's terms what the first welfare theorem is? Wikipedia mentions Pareto efficiency which has a scary-looking article.
<3> (if possible..)
<5> Sartak: in the presence of free competition, **** is just peachy.
<1> the last cl*** i took in college was devouted to analysis of perto efficiency from 50 different angles
<3> evilgeek: So basically what farhan is saying?
<5> yes, precisely what farhan is saying.
<1> evilgeek : i fail to understand what you don't
<5> farhan: you seem to be claiming that the optimal prices for a monopolist are not, in fact, the optimal prices for a monopolist.
<0> ****. its ****ing politics hour.
<1> evilgeek : yes, unless they can somehow use violence or the government (which are the same thing, pretty much) to keep out competition
<3> I would imagine that "the optimical prices for a monopolist" would include that whole competition thing.
<5> farhan: but that's a contradiction.
<1> evilgeek : which is why industries WANT regulation. it keeps out other rival companies
<1> how?
<6> Wow, farhan and I really started a ****fest here
<1> guys wanna take it to another channel?
<2> farhan: would you describe the laissez-faire economic policies of the 19th century as being ideal? i.e., child labour, 12-15 hour work days, dangerous work environments, low pay
<7> **** children.
<5> farhan: you are claiming that there exists an X such that X is not equal to X. this is false in every logical system of which i am aware.
<1> niv_ : yes. child labor is an act of desperation. if that kid didn't work...he wouldn't eat.
<1> evilgeek : how?
<1> what/
<1> i didn't say that
<2> farhan: Most industries lobby for deregulation, actually.
<8> once they achieve their monopoly then the start wanting to reduce regulations
<5> you did, dude =)
<3> <1> if they priced at the profit maximizing price, peopel would be like `wow, that company is making a LOT of money, above the regular market interest rate` and with time, investors would start up their own company in that same industry therefore they woudl keep the prices reasonably low to prevent that from happening
<1> evilgeek : there is no such thing as a "monopoly price" in a purely competative market.
<8> there is no such thing as a purely competative market
<1> true....okay, mostly competative. competative the way coke and pepsi are competative
<5> sure there is. since all of the companies that survive are equal, you take one, eliminate all others, and compute new optimal prices.
<1> evilgeek : and a new one popups up the moment you raise your prices high
<2> farhan: hey, I have a question for you.. what is the solution to, say, a corporation that spawns a catestrophic environmental problem, which has already done it's damage by the time any market-forces can solve the problem
<5> farhan: does it? there are barriers to entry, a point which you seem to be ignoring.
<2> farhan: what i'm saying is that it's too late for another industry to spring up with the purpose of cleaning up said problem
<5> niv_: monsanto?
<9> yes, just like the 70 other major PC operating system developers that are competing with microsoft, oh wait..
<2> and so what i'm getting to is that there are many problems which can't be worked out by market-forces, but are in fact *caused* by market-forces
<1> evilgeek : yeah, i'll admit there are times when barriers to entry exist in a lot of industries like mining or oil. things with natural resources, but usually its just the issue of high startup costs, which can be acheived. Look at JetBlue in the US. Overcame those barriers to entry
<5> barriers to entry exist in EVERY industry.
<10> Competition in the market place is not nearly as present as you think it is. It's obvious that companies work together to maximize their mutual profit, a price war would harm all parties involved
<5> the first welfare theorem DOES NOT HOLD in their presence. PLEASE stop trying to apply it.
<2> maloeran: heya
<8> the sneaky backroom deals are always happening
<2> smoke-filled boardrooms, croney capitalism
<5> they can be overcome, yes. that is completely irrelevant.
<1> Maloeran : no, because if the market price was $30 but everyone increased their prices to $100, the first one to lower its prices to $99 would get all of the consumers, so members of the colussion would raise to lower their prices. It only works when there are say 5 members in a group. Large industries cannot maintain collusion.
<1> err, race
<1> "not raise to lower their prices" race
<5> farhan: what if everyone is just one entity, though?
<1> what do you mean?
<5> "monopoly".
<1> evilgeek : you have given me argument after argument, and i have destroyed it. Are you willing to accept that it works?
<2> farhan: so what's the solution to problems caused by market entities, such as environmental disasters, which can't be fixed by the market
<2> ?
<5> you haven't destroyed anything.
<5> you've just rambled irrelevant details to each argument.
<5> and, you'll note, every argument i've presented has been the same argument.
<5> debate is not the art of ignoring your opponent.
<1> i can't find that quote of you saying i was raising some interesting theories, but okay :-)
<5> anyway, let me give you a numerical example.
<1> niv_ : privitize those natural lands so that individuals can maintain wildlife and sue anyone who tries to dump toxic waste on it.
<3> <5> farhan: you are claiming a very interesting theorem.
<1> yeah, that's it
<2> farhan: That's before the fact, though. I'm talking about after the fact.
<5> monopolist fred sells hot dogs for $20 apiece. it costs $2222222 to get into the business of selling hot dogs. a hot dog costs $1 to produce, fred has $22222222 in capital, and gary has $2222222. will gary enter the hot dog industry?
<1> niv_ : there's a course offered here called Enviromental Economics where the teacher talks about how organzations hwich try to get the government to control the wildlife reserves are destroyed them. They should be bought up by private organizations who keep them nice and clean and will SUE you if you don't respect that
<5> (***ume $20 is fred's profit-maximising price.)
<1> sounds like an essay question
<5> actually, say gary has $3000000.
<3> Sounds like a yes/no question to me. >_>
<1> evilgeek : even with 222222, he would
<2> farhan: so, everything should be owned by private individuals? that's nutty, man. look at the media-- that's an example of something where private ownership has resulted in m***ive brainwashing and propaganda
<1> even if gary only had 2222222, he would enter the market
<5> farhan: why? fred can sell his hotdogs for $1 apiece, causing gary to make no profit. gary is out $2222222 with nothing to show for it.
<10> Most industried are controlled by only a few entities, farhan, well few enough to work together and maximize profits for everybody involved
<7> I'm going to start ejaculating on people if the topic is not returned to normal.
<10> Working against each other would harm everyone
<1> niv_ : concur, but who watches TV? Consumers. people don't FORCE you to
<2> farhan: "manufactoring consent: the political economy of the m*** media" by noam chomsky actually deals with that issue exclusively
<10> An unrefulated free market just does not work
<2> rather good book
<10> unregulated*
<2> *manufacturing
<5> farhan: it is therefore not in gary's interest to enter the market.
<1> evilgeek : then fred would be losing money too, so he won't do that
<2> maloeran: of course not.. and a regulated free market isn't much better, IMO
<11> fred can afford to
<11> till gary loses the 222222
<5> farhan: why not? he wants to have a monopoly again, so that he can once again charge too much for hot dogs.
<1> wait wait, let me read all you wrote
<2> maloeran: a regulated free market simply puts the gloves onto capitalism, and attempts to make it more humane
<2> maloeran: i'd argue for a replacement of the capitalist system with one that puts needs over profits and cooperation over competition
<10> Yes niv_, it limits the damages a bit... I'm not saying it's the optimal socio-economical model for humanity
<10> Quite
<1> evilgeek : no, because gary would also lower his price to $1
<2> maloeran: brb
<3> So Gary is making no money because the product costs $1 to make.
<1> evilgeek : actually, both would probably charge at $1.01 to cover their initial costs of $222222. neither would charge at EXACTLY the amount they invested
<5> then gary makes no profit, so it was not particularly bright of gary to enter the hotdog market. he is out $2222222.
Return to
#c
or
Go to some related
logs:
#politics
#photoshop
#computers
#politics
mollie thompson us.army.mil
#politics
mulingon
X800 GTO+transform and lighting
#politics
multiX11
|
|