|
|
#101
06-18-2006, 10:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The case for government
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 1. The Kingsbury Commitment was the first anti-trust action, the 1980s breakup the second major one, but there was a long line of anti-trust actions by the government in between. Attempts to cast the KC as somehow intending to create or perpetuate a monopoly until the 80s, [/ QUOTE ] I didn't say anything about the *intent* of Kingsbury. It's entirely possible that the people behind Kingsbury had good intentions, and wanted to prevent monopoly. However, that seems unlikely, given the fact that Bell's marketshare was already in decline, and competition was thriving. Regardless of the intent, the *results* were that AT&T gained marketshare as a direct result. <font color="red"> There is certainly the implication in yours and tolbiny's posts that there was intent to create, support and perpetuate an ATT monopoly, resulting in the break up being the only anti-trust action every taken. Also ATT did not "gain market share as a direct result". They would have gained more dominance without the KC and without any government interference. What the KC did was buy time before more onerous anti-trust actions would be taken. There is a big difference between allowing a company to operate (albeit with some interference) and promoting that company's market position. </font> [ QUOTE ] when in fact it required ATT to give access to its infrastructure and to divest Western Union are horsesh!t lies. You are correct that attempts to break up a monopoly dont reveal anything about the creation of the monopoly. Unfortunately nothing that has been posted has shown any complicity of the "government" in creating that monopoly [/ QUOTE ] Nationalization in 1918 doesn't show complicity? Local regulators giving monopolies doesn't show complicity in creating monopoly??? <font color="red"> above you claim that results dont indicate intent, now you want to claim that results show complicity. lets be consistent </font> [ QUOTE ] or demonstrated that it was anything other than what it was: prohibitive capital requirements to compete once ATT had wired the country, and good old market share thanks to the Bell patents. Capitalism at its best..with no need for anarchy. [/ QUOTE ] Again, why did Bell's marketshare drop from 100% to 50% after patents expired? <font color="red"> for the same reason that any company's market share can be attacked when its technology is no longer proprietary, eg when drugs go generic. If there was government complicity in the ATT monopoly do you think it would have been difficult to extend existing patents or grant patents on relatively minor changes in technology that would have perpetuated the market share at the prior level? Or are you trying to argue against patent system in general here? I glanced at some ACer threads about intellectual property that were so intellectually bankrupt they werent worth reading in detail. </font> [ QUOTE ] 2. Nobody has contended that government interference (in this case BREAKING UP a near monopoly) doesnt increase costs. The impact of that on PRICES is different. whenever the government raises costs it has reimbursed for those costs, at least in all of the cases I am familiar with. That results in no impact on prices or profit margins, although there is an indirect cost through the tax system. [/ QUOTE ] You're arguing that one can increase costs without increasing prices??? Oh, but through increasing taxes. Ah. That's not a price? Subsidizing cost increases isn't "complicity"??? <font color="red"> I already said the taxes were an indirect price. Subsidizing cost increases THAT YOU CAUSED isnt complicity to do anything. Its recognition that regulation complicates the business process and the government cant interfere in a private companies business without reimbursement for those costs.</font> [ QUOTE ] The government adds costs whenever it interferes with the markets. Whether or not those costs are justified and in the public interest is a different matter. The utility industry deregulation experience is plenty of fuel for that fire. [/ QUOTE ] You're not sure if increased costs are in the "public interest"??? Regulation adds cost. End of discussion. <font color="red"> Im sure you understood the meaning of what I said even if it wasnt precisely worded. Ive already said regulation adds cost, and that those costs have to be compensated for. The REGULATION can still be in the public interest despite the added costs. If your attention span is so low that you couldnt read that from my words then yes, the discussion is over. </font> [ QUOTE ] Wrong, the RBOCs went into compeition on both regional and national bases, including long distance service and local service. [/ QUOTE ] Not immediately. RBOCs were specifically prohibited from competing in long distance service *until* they gave up their local monopolies (1996 Telecom Act). And even that wasn't really deregulation, it just forced RBOCs (or ILECs, more specifically) to give CLECs access to their network. <font color="red"> basically correct with regard to long distance services. But the RBOCs still competed with each other and outsiders for network, computer and related businesses . And the break up of ATT was essentially a quid pro quo to allow ATT to enter the computer business without the regulatory hurdles of their telecom business. Again, evidence that there was no complicity to enhance ATT, since regulation of a computer subsidiary should never even have been an issue</font> [QUOTE]You are mixing up different issues here, there is no contradiction. The cost increases are a comparison between the cost of central administation of ATT versus the duplicated administration required for the RBOCs. It has nothing to do with capital, infrastructure or technology and the adminstrative cost increases were miniscule compared to the c, i and t cost barriers OUTSIDERS faced. [/ QUOTE ] Every other industry in the known universe has to deal with this same issue of "duplicated administration", yet competition always leads to lower prices, not higher. Why is phone service special? <font color="red">Who said phone service was different as a business model? The real difference, which should be obvious, is that in this case the duplicated administration wasnt voluntary, it was forced. Second, while competition generally lowers prices, the inverse isnt also necessarily true...consolidation can also lower prices through economies of scale. </font> [ QUOTE ] OUTSIDE companies still (though for a relatively short time) had those barriers. [/ QUOTE ] So? <font color="red">So this was impicitly denied by you or tolbiny (you sound so much alike, have you ever been seen in different places at the same time) </font> [ QUOTE ] The beginning of the end was actually before the 80s breakup of AT&T, and was technology break-throughs and government action that once again lessened ATTs monopoly power. In the 60s MCI communications made great strides in wireless (microwave) transmission of phone signals, but was only a regional player since it still had difficulty raising the capital to compete with Ma Bell because of inter-connect issues. [/ QUOTE ] And what, pray tell, were the "inter-connect issues"? Regulations that allowed AT&T <font color="red">what were the issues? they werent allowed to until ATT was forced to , that was the issue. </font> [ QUOTE ] In the late 60s the FCC forced ATT to allow those interconnections with non-ATT equipment. It was microwave and later satellite technology, along with the government mandate to further open up their infrastucture to outsiders, that gave would be competitors the business plan needed to raise the capital needed to expand and compete for long distance service. By combining more than a dozen regional microwave carriers MCI was able to create the critical mass to take ATT on, both in the market and the courts. [/ QUOTE ] Wait, I thought AT&T's central administration gave them a competitive advantage. Now you're telling me that a competitor was able to compete in the market even though they duplicated all of that corporate governance? And they did it without government subsidy? <font color="red"> Where was it said that all businesses wind up with a monopoly player without significant competition, which would be the result of your weak attempt at irony here. </font> Why did they need to take AT&T on in the courts? What possible reason could there be? <font color="red"> you are missing the point, as usual. Im not going to regurgitate the claims and rebuttals that got to this point just because you dont have the attention span to remember them. Go back, take notes and come back when you have something new to say that is on point, to wit :you havent yet demonstrated that it was the government and not the nature of capital and technology intensive business that led to the monopoly DESPITE the government attempts to curtail the mnoopoly </font> [ QUOTE ] 4. I brought up the loss of great R&D, I never brought up anything about the costs of that R&D or the benefits of their discoveries. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly! You just want to use the results to justify the project, while ignoring the resources consumed by it, and what could have been done with those resources elsewhere. <font color="red"> they were private resources, what the ACers claim SHOULD be used for R&D. It was government interference that led to the loss of that private R&D. The costs and benefits are irrelevant to this discussion even though Ive already said I think the benefits far outweighed those costs. You appear to want to be contrary for the sake of being contrary here. It doesnt help your credibility at all.</font> [ QUOTE ] In fact if you want to maintain that the costs of that R&D were too high, you are arguing against the standard ACer line that the markets are sufficient to ensure the efficient development of technologies in the private sector. Whether it was research by a monopoly or not, it was PRIVATELY funded research. Nobody forced ATT to spend that money, they expected it to be profitable...again, capitalism at its finest..without anarchy. [/ QUOTE ] And they funded it all with a government-granted monopoly. Mercantilism at its finest, without capitalism. <font color="red">you havent yet demonstrated that it was the government and not the nature of capital and technology intensive business that led to the monopoly DESPITE the government attempts to curtail the mnoopoly. </font> [ QUOTE ] The NASA example was PUBLICLY funded research. They are two different discussions. If you want to argue that the costs didnt justify the results in either case, I think you have a losing position (especially in the Bell Labs case), but in a different thread. [/ QUOTE ] Monopolies are monopolies. Bell Labs, while "privately" funded, were protected by government regulation and legislation. <font color="red"> you havent yet demonstrated that it was the government and not the nature of capital and technology intensive business that led to the monopoly DESPITE the government attempts to curtail the mnoopoly</font> [ QUOTE ] Edit: In rereading this it would seem that I am maintining that ALL of the governments actions were in the nature of anti-trust. That isnt my intent or my position. There were other actions taken that favor the growth of ATTs market position. [/ QUOTE ] Doink. Thread over. <font color="red">hopefully it is, because you are stuck in the mode of repeating the claims youve been unable to support with the desperate stench of sarcasm that ACer threads always end in. </font> [ QUOTE ] The point is that there was no great conspiracy to do either. The government was doing what it felt was best to ensure efficient communications, one of the backbones of our economic vitality. [/ QUOTE ] The fact that "government" (as if government were a single actor) didn't "intend" to create a monopoly, even if it were true, does not absolve "government" from the fact that "governments" (plural) created and maintained the monopoly. <font color="red">you havent yet demonstrated that it was the government and not the nature of capital and technology intensive business that led to the monopoly DESPITE the government attempts to curtail the mnoopoly</font> [ QUOTE ] Thats what regulating critical industries is all about. Most of the time they get it right. Sometimes despite themselves. Im not an expert in regulated industries in other countries, but my guess is that there is far less government interference in business here than most other major economies. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, there is less here than in most countries. So what? That excuses it? [/ QUOTE ] <font color="red">it doesnt need an "excuse" when it benefits the consumer or economy. </font> 
|
|
#103
06-18-2006, 03:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for government
[ QUOTE ]
There is certainly the implication in yours and tolbiny's posts that there was intent to create, support and perpetuate an ATT monopoly, resulting in the break up being the only anti-trust action every taken. [/ QUOTE ] There may have been intent. In fact, I will now argue there was intent. But I hadn't at that time. And, yes, I'll allow that there was also some intent to curtail the power of the monopoly after it was created, but that does not negate the fact that the monopoly was created. If I slash your tires, then give you a new set of tires, I've still slashed your tires. [ QUOTE ] Also ATT did not "gain market share as a direct result". They would have gained more dominance without the KC and without any government interference. [/ QUOTE ] Competition had been steadily increasing before KC. It decreased (sharply) after. [ QUOTE ] Nationalization in 1918 doesn't show complicity? Local regulators giving monopolies doesn't show complicity in creating monopoly??? <font color="red"> above you claim that results dont indicate intent, now you want to claim that results show complicity. lets be consistent </font> [/ QUOTE ] What else could the intent of nationalization be??? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] or demonstrated that it was anything other than what it was: prohibitive capital requirements to compete once ATT had wired the country, and good old market share thanks to the Bell patents. Capitalism at its best..with no need for anarchy. [/ QUOTE ] Again, why did Bell's marketshare drop from 100% to 50% after patents expired? <font color="red"> for the same reason that any company's market share can be attacked when its technology is no longer proprietary, eg when drugs go generic.</font> [/ QUOTE ] OK, so where do the "prohibitive capital requirements" fit in here? Regardless of patent protection, the "prohibitive capital requirements" should have kept all of these guys out of the market. And "prohibitive capital requirements" should have kept these guys from lowering prices, too. But prices dropped. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Wrong, the RBOCs went into compeition on both regional and national bases, including long distance service and local service. [/ QUOTE ] Not immediately. RBOCs were specifically prohibited from competing in long distance service *until* they gave up their local monopolies (1996 Telecom Act). And even that wasn't really deregulation, it just forced RBOCs (or ILECs, more specifically) to give CLECs access to their network. <font color="red"> basically correct with regard to long distance services. But the RBOCs still competed with each other and outsiders for network, computer and related businesses .</font> [/ QUOTE ] "Basically"??? But we were talking about phone service, not this other stuff. You're trying to sneak something in here, and got caught red handed. [ QUOTE ] And the break up of ATT was essentially a quid pro quo to allow ATT to enter the computer business without the regulatory hurdles of their telecom business. [/ QUOTE ] And why were they prohibited from participating in the computer industry? It was another quid pro quo - they were kept out of that market as a condition of being allowed to keep the phone monopoly! If you're faced with a monopoly, and you want to stop it, do you simply restrict their operation in other tangentally related fields, or do you break up the monopoly right then? If there was nothing but intent on stopping monopoly in the government from day one, why did it take until 1984 (and ultimately, a case brought by an outside competitor, not initiated by government) to bring about the end of the monopoly? What was the government doing this whole time? Again, you make the mistake of characterizing "government" as one single, consistent actor, when in reality it is made up of individuals at different levels, with different motivations, different intents. It often contradicts itself. [ QUOTE ] Again, evidence that there was no complicity to enhance ATT, since regulation of a computer subsidiary should never even have been an issue [/ QUOTE ] Agreed - it shouldn't have been an issue. [ QUOTE ] while competition generally lowers prices, the inverse isnt also necessarily true...consolidation can also lower prices through economies of scale. [/ QUOTE ] Possible in some limited cases. However, you will be hard pressed to find an example of an industry that saw lower prices as a result of monopoly. Or an example of an industry where prices increased after competition was introduced. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] OUTSIDE companies still (though for a relatively short time) had those barriers. [/ QUOTE ] So? <font color="red">So this was impicitly denied by you or tolbiny (you sound so much alike, have you ever been seen in different places at the same time) </font> [/ QUOTE ] Where did I deny this? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The beginning of the end was actually before the 80s breakup of AT&T, and was technology break-throughs and government action that once again lessened ATTs monopoly power. In the 60s MCI communications made great strides in wireless (microwave) transmission of phone signals, but was only a regional player since it still had difficulty raising the capital to compete with Ma Bell because of inter-connect issues. [/ QUOTE ] And what, pray tell, were the "inter-connect issues"? Regulations that allowed AT&T <font color="red">what were the issues? they werent allowed to until ATT was forced to , that was the issue. </font> [/ QUOTE ] So what's the problem? AT&T didn't want to allow them access to their network. Big deal. Ford doesn't want to allow GM access to their distribution system. Oh, wait... AT&T had the only network. So why couldn't MCI just build their own? Oh, AT&T had *local monopolies*. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] In the late 60s the FCC forced ATT to allow those interconnections with non-ATT equipment. It was microwave and later satellite technology, along with the government mandate to further open up their infrastucture to outsiders, that gave would be competitors the business plan needed to raise the capital needed to expand and compete for long distance service. By combining more than a dozen regional microwave carriers MCI was able to create the critical mass to take ATT on, both in the market and the courts. [/ QUOTE ] Wait, I thought AT&T's central administration gave them a competitive advantage. Now you're telling me that a competitor was able to compete in the market even though they duplicated all of that corporate governance? And they did it without government subsidy? <font color="red"> Where was it said that all businesses wind up with a monopoly player without significant competition, which would be the result of your weak attempt at irony here. </font> [/ QUOTE ] You keep squaking about "prohibitive capital requirements" that prevent competition. But you then produce examples that contradict your own arguments. [ QUOTE ] Why did they need to take AT&T on in the courts? What possible reason could there be? <font color="red"> you are missing the point, as usual. Im not going to regurgitate the claims and rebuttals that got to this point just because you dont have the attention span to remember them. Go back, take notes and come back when you have something new to say that is on point, to wit :you havent yet demonstrated that it was the government and not the nature of capital and technology intensive business that led to the monopoly DESPITE the government attempts to curtail the mnoopoly </font> [/ QUOTE ] Answer the question. I'll do it for you. MCI needed the courts because even if they built their own nationwide network, they had to get access to phones in people's houses and businesses, which they couldn't do because AT&T had the *local* monopoly on phone service. [R&D discussion snipped, as it's totally ancillary. If a mugger takes a dollar from you and gives you back a nickel, I'm not really interested in hearing about what a fine philanthropist he is.] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The point is that there was no great conspiracy to do either. The government was doing what it felt was best to ensure efficient communications, one of the backbones of our economic vitality. [/ QUOTE ] The fact that "government" (as if government were a single actor) didn't "intend" to create a monopoly, even if it were true, does not absolve "government" from the fact that "governments" (plural) created and maintained the monopoly. <font color="red">you havent yet demonstrated that it was the government and not the nature of capital and technology intensive business that led to the monopoly DESPITE the government attempts to curtail the mnoopoly</font> [/ QUOTE ] Again, why did Bell's marketshare drop from 100% to 50% after patents expired? If the "capital and technology intensive business" led to monopoly, how did they gain foothold (and grow so rapidly) when there already was a dominant provider? What did the telecom act of 1996 force the RBOCs to give up? Surely the fact that RBOCs were kept out of the long distance market wasn't keeping ILECs out of the market for local service.
|
|
#104
06-18-2006, 04:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for government
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] There is certainly the implication in yours and tolbiny's posts that there was intent to create, support and perpetuate an ATT monopoly, resulting in the break up being the only anti-trust action every taken. [/ QUOTE ] There may have been intent. In fact, I will now argue there was intent. But I hadn't at that time. And, yes, I'll allow that there was also some intent to curtail the power of the monopoly after it was created, but that does not negate the fact that the monopoly was created. If I slash your tires, then give you a new set of tires, I've still slashed your tires. [ QUOTE ] Also ATT did not "gain market share as a direct result". They would have gained more dominance without the KC and without any government interference. [/ QUOTE ] Competition had been steadily increasing before KC. It decreased (sharply) after. [ QUOTE ] Nationalization in 1918 doesn't show complicity? Local regulators giving monopolies doesn't show complicity in creating monopoly??? <font color="red"> above you claim that results dont indicate intent, now you want to claim that results show complicity. lets be consistent </font> [/ QUOTE ] What else could the intent of nationalization be??? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] or demonstrated that it was anything other than what it was: prohibitive capital requirements to compete once ATT had wired the country, and good old market share thanks to the Bell patents. Capitalism at its best..with no need for anarchy. [/ QUOTE ] Again, why did Bell's marketshare drop from 100% to 50% after patents expired? <font color="red"> for the same reason that any company's market share can be attacked when its technology is no longer proprietary, eg when drugs go generic.</font> [/ QUOTE ] OK, so where do the "prohibitive capital requirements" fit in here? Regardless of patent protection, the "prohibitive capital requirements" should have kept all of these guys out of the market. And "prohibitive capital requirements" should have kept these guys from lowering prices, too. But prices dropped. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Wrong, the RBOCs went into compeition on both regional and national bases, including long distance service and local service. [/ QUOTE ] Not immediately. RBOCs were specifically prohibited from competing in long distance service *until* they gave up their local monopolies (1996 Telecom Act). And even that wasn't really deregulation, it just forced RBOCs (or ILECs, more specifically) to give CLECs access to their network. <font color="red"> basically correct with regard to long distance services. But the RBOCs still competed with each other and outsiders for network, computer and related businesses .</font> [/ QUOTE ] "Basically"??? But we were talking about phone service, not this other stuff. You're trying to sneak something in here, and got caught red handed. [ QUOTE ] And the break up of ATT was essentially a quid pro quo to allow ATT to enter the computer business without the regulatory hurdles of their telecom business. [/ QUOTE ] And why were they prohibited from participating in the computer industry? It was another quid pro quo - they were kept out of that market as a condition of being allowed to keep the phone monopoly! If you're faced with a monopoly, and you want to stop it, do you simply restrict their operation in other tangentally related fields, or do you break up the monopoly right then? If there was nothing but intent on stopping monopoly in the government from day one, why did it take until 1984 (and ultimately, a case brought by an outside competitor, not initiated by government) to bring about the end of the monopoly? What was the government doing this whole time? Again, you make the mistake of characterizing "government" as one single, consistent actor, when in reality it is made up of individuals at different levels, with different motivations, different intents. It often contradicts itself. [ QUOTE ] Again, evidence that there was no complicity to enhance ATT, since regulation of a computer subsidiary should never even have been an issue [/ QUOTE ] Agreed - it shouldn't have been an issue. [ QUOTE ] while competition generally lowers prices, the inverse isnt also necessarily true...consolidation can also lower prices through economies of scale. [/ QUOTE ] Possible in some limited cases. However, you will be hard pressed to find an example of an industry that saw lower prices as a result of monopoly. Or an example of an industry where prices increased after competition was introduced. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] OUTSIDE companies still (though for a relatively short time) had those barriers. [/ QUOTE ] So? <font color="red">So this was impicitly denied by you or tolbiny (you sound so much alike, have you ever been seen in different places at the same time) </font> [/ QUOTE ] Where did I deny this? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The beginning of the end was actually before the 80s breakup of AT&T, and was technology break-throughs and government action that once again lessened ATTs monopoly power. In the 60s MCI communications made great strides in wireless (microwave) transmission of phone signals, but was only a regional player since it still had difficulty raising the capital to compete with Ma Bell because of inter-connect issues. [/ QUOTE ] And what, pray tell, were the "inter-connect issues"? Regulations that allowed AT&T <font color="red">what were the issues? they werent allowed to until ATT was forced to , that was the issue. </font> [/ QUOTE ] So what's the problem? AT&T didn't want to allow them access to their network. Big deal. Ford doesn't want to allow GM access to their distribution system. Oh, wait... AT&T had the only network. So why couldn't MCI just build their own? Oh, AT&T had *local monopolies*. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] In the late 60s the FCC forced ATT to allow those interconnections with non-ATT equipment. It was microwave and later satellite technology, along with the government mandate to further open up their infrastucture to outsiders, that gave would be competitors the business plan needed to raise the capital needed to expand and compete for long distance service. By combining more than a dozen regional microwave carriers MCI was able to create the critical mass to take ATT on, both in the market and the courts. [/ QUOTE ] Wait, I thought AT&T's central administration gave them a competitive advantage. Now you're telling me that a competitor was able to compete in the market even though they duplicated all of that corporate governance? And they did it without government subsidy? <font color="red"> Where was it said that all businesses wind up with a monopoly player without significant competition, which would be the result of your weak attempt at irony here. </font> [/ QUOTE ] You keep squaking about "prohibitive capital requirements" that prevent competition. But you then produce examples that contradict your own arguments. [ QUOTE ] Why did they need to take AT&T on in the courts? What possible reason could there be? <font color="red"> you are missing the point, as usual. Im not going to regurgitate the claims and rebuttals that got to this point just because you dont have the attention span to remember them. Go back, take notes and come back when you have something new to say that is on point, to wit :you havent yet demonstrated that it was the government and not the nature of capital and technology intensive business that led to the monopoly DESPITE the government attempts to curtail the mnoopoly </font> [/ QUOTE ] Answer the question. I'll do it for you. MCI needed the courts because even if they built their own nationwide network, they had to get access to phones in people's houses and businesses, which they couldn't do because AT&T had the *local* monopoly on phone service. [R&D discussion snipped, as it's totally ancillary. If a mugger takes a dollar from you and gives you back a nickel, I'm not really interested in hearing about what a fine philanthropist he is.] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The point is that there was no great conspiracy to do either. The government was doing what it felt was best to ensure efficient communications, one of the backbones of our economic vitality. [/ QUOTE ] The fact that "government" (as if government were a single actor) didn't "intend" to create a monopoly, even if it were true, does not absolve "government" from the fact that "governments" (plural) created and maintained the monopoly. <font color="red">you havent yet demonstrated that it was the government and not the nature of capital and technology intensive business that led to the monopoly DESPITE the government attempts to curtail the mnoopoly</font> [/ QUOTE ] Again, why did Bell's marketshare drop from 100% to 50% after patents expired? If the "capital and technology intensive business" led to monopoly, how did they gain foothold (and grow so rapidly) when there already was a dominant provider? What did the telecom act of 1996 force the RBOCs to give up? Surely the fact that RBOCs were kept out of the long distance market wasn't keeping ILECs out of the market for local service. [/ QUOTE ] too many straw men in here to bother wasting my time responding point by point...especially in the middle of writing a 40-45 page report to a telecom company [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].
|
|
#105
06-18-2006, 06:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for government
Dont shoot me for being obvious, tolbiny is the one who made the ridiculous claim that capital formation isnt a barrier to business formation.
I beg your pardon? When did i make this statement?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
