Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, you don't support the state? I'm confused now.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the state supports me, or rather we, the People.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taking my quotes out of context for the purposes of trolling. How original.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How do we prevent someone from ending up "with all the chips" so that the truly great ideas that increase everyone's slice of the pie come to the forefront? This is what keeps me from being AC.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the analogy to "chips" is false. In AC, and with capitalism in general, when someone accumulates "chips", they do not come from someone else, they are newly created chips. Sure, you could say that the rich get a larger share of the newly created chips than others, but they are still new chips, not just the same chips changing hands like with poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this misses the point. Yes, everyone is better off in regards to material possessions but that does not mean that the level of relative economic freedom is any better. In fact, it could be much worse. You could, in fact, have much more and much less at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]
My reply was to a concern about someone accumulating "chips". That, in itself does not equal reduced economic freedom. Of course someone could use their wealth to oppress others. A government (or institution) theoretically can exist only to protect freedom by outlawing the initiation of force and fraud, without ever engaging in the initiation of force itself.

I can't speak for ACists, but I believe they are not opposed to a private institution existing for this purpose, in which case this institution would be equivalent to a libertarian government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Herein lies the problem. If we want to give everyone the most economic and social freedom possible, does AC accomplish that task in a feasible manner.

If, in the end, we end up with a "private version" of government, have we gotten anywhere? If there is a high probability of the acquisition (by some future unknown persons) of immense power that could be used to oppress others, then have we gotten anywhere (whether we call this oppressive entity a "government" or by another name).

Is the maximization of freedoms even our goal? Or would maximum efficiencies be our goal. Or would it be something else?

Further, can a market ever be truly free?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure of your point here. My point was that laws restricting the "accumulation of chips" reduce economic freedom and reduce the standard of living for everyone. And I have no interest in "giving" anyone any freedom whatsoever. The freedom people are already endowed with is enough as long as its not infringed upon.

As an interesting note, the US government was sort of envisioned by the framers like a "private" form of government, in that it had no power other than the power delegated to it, and could not legally ever expand its own power. This is why they chose the title "President" like of a company, instead of a title that implied that the government had the same kind of power as other "governments" that existed at the time.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, you don't support the state? I'm confused now.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the state supports me, or rather we, the People.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? I have to assume this doesn't mean what it sounds like it means.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mempho, you seem to be confusing natural barriers to entry (ie. sufficient financial backing) to unnatural barriers (ie. government-placed barriers).

And your use of the terms "predatory pricing" indicate a misunderstanding of how markets work. Here's an article about why this type of strategy is irrational. I really wish I could find John McGee's article on Standard Oil that put to rest the myth of predatory pricing in Standard's case, but all I find are cites to it. I did find it in my college library so a library might have more luck there. Dominick Armentano also has a book called Antitrust and Monopoly that may be worth checking out. You'll see that a lot of your fears about monopolies and collusion just don't bear out in the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you give me the general concept of it? The oil companies in general are often targets and especially Standard...not to mention that the Rockefellers are one of the central names in those conspiracy theories that cite subversion of the government through consolidated power.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you read the article? He lays it out point by point.

"In the first place, such practices are very costly for the large firm, which is always assumed to be the predator. If price is set below average cost, the largest firm will incur the largest losses by virtue of having the largest volume of sales. Losing a dollar on each of 1,000 widgets sold per month is more costly than losing a dollar on each of 100 widgets.

Second, there is great uncertainty about how long a price war would last. The prospect of incurring losses indefinitely in the hope of someday being able to charge monopolistic prices will give any business person pause. A price war is an extremely risky venture.

Third, there is nothing stopping the competition (or "prey") from temporarily shutting down and waiting for the price to return to profitable levels. If that strategy is employed, price competition will render the predatory pricing strategy unprofitable--all loss and no compensatory benefit. Alternatively, even if the preyed-upon firms went bankrupt, other firms could purchase their facilities and compete with the alleged predator. Such competition is virtually guaranteed if the predator is charging monopolistic prices and earning above-normal profits.

Fourth, there is the danger that the price war will spread to surrounding markets and cause the alleged predator to incur losses in those markets as well
.

Fifth, the theory of predatory pricing assumes the prior existence of a "war chest of monopoly profits" that the predator can use to subsidize its practice of pricing below average cost. But how does that war chest come into being if the firm has not yet become a monopoly? That part of the theory is simply a non sequitur.

Finally, the opportunity cost of the funds allegedly used to try to bankrupt rivals must be taken into account. For predatory pricing to seem rational, the rate of return on predation must be higher than the market rate of inter- est; in fact, it must be higher than the expected rate of return on any other investment the predator might make, including "investment" in lobbying for protectionism, monop- oly franchises, and the like. Predation is unlikely, given the great uncertainties about whether it would have any positive return at all."

For more info on the Standard Oil case, you can check out Dominick Armentano's book or John McGee's article "Predatory Price Cutting: The Standard Oil (N.J.) Case" for a full description.

And here's an example of how predatory pricing could backfire: The case of Herbert Dow

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your thoughts on this. This topic is quite interesting to me. The very fact that predation does still occur in practice and does cause bankruptcies makes it more difficult to secure the necessary financing. As was pointed out, adequacy of financing is a key element of being able to withstand the onslaught.

The problem is that the majors that serve the routes seem quite happy losing money to the low-cost carriers on a route-by-route basis. You can see this by looking at the airline's cost per available seat mile for the airline. Southwest had an average cost per available seat mile of 8.3 cents a few short years ago. This is truly astounding.

Southwest, of course, is being hampered by the government. Southwest is one example of an airline that withstood the initial onslaught because their ideas were so much better than the ones of the legacy carriers. Without the government, I believe that Southwest would be the largest carrier in the world now.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The very fact that predation does still occur in practice and does cause bankruptcies...

[/ QUOTE ]
Where? Examples?

[ QUOTE ]
As was pointed out, adequacy of financing is a key element of being able to withstand the onslaught.

[/ QUOTE ]
If your idea really was as good as you claim, investors would be lining up at your door.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure of your point here. My point was that laws restricting the "accumulation of chips" reduce economic freedom and reduce the standard of living for everyone. And I have no interest in "giving" anyone any freedom whatsoever. The freedom people are already endowed with is enough as long as its not infringed upon.

As an interesting note, the US government was sort of envisioned by the framers like a "private" form of government, in that it had no power other than the power delegated to it, and could not legally ever expand its own power. This is why they chose the title "President" like of a company, instead of a title that implied that the government had the same kind of power as other "governments" that existed at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

In AC, what stops the ten richest people in the United States from buying up all of the law enforcement and all of the military and using it for the oppression of others?

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]

If your idea really was as good as you claim, investors would be lining up at your door.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't I have to know an investor or a VC in order to express the idea to them? Further, I don't think I've actually explained the idea to anyone because I don't know of a single person that would find it interesting. For them, talk of ASM and route management would be appallingly boring.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure of your point here. My point was that laws restricting the "accumulation of chips" reduce economic freedom and reduce the standard of living for everyone. And I have no interest in "giving" anyone any freedom whatsoever. The freedom people are already endowed with is enough as long as its not infringed upon.

As an interesting note, the US government was sort of envisioned by the framers like a "private" form of government, in that it had no power other than the power delegated to it, and could not legally ever expand its own power. This is why they chose the title "President" like of a company, instead of a title that implied that the government had the same kind of power as other "governments" that existed at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

In AC, what stops the ten richest people in the United States from buying up all of the law enforcement and all of the military and using it for the oppression of others?

[/ QUOTE ]

The same thing that stops Bill Gates from murdering homeless people in AC-land.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure of your point here. My point was that laws restricting the "accumulation of chips" reduce economic freedom and reduce the standard of living for everyone. And I have no interest in "giving" anyone any freedom whatsoever. The freedom people are already endowed with is enough as long as its not infringed upon.

As an interesting note, the US government was sort of envisioned by the framers like a "private" form of government, in that it had no power other than the power delegated to it, and could not legally ever expand its own power. This is why they chose the title "President" like of a company, instead of a title that implied that the government had the same kind of power as other "governments" that existed at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

In AC, what stops the ten richest people in the United States from buying up all of the law enforcement and all of the military and using it for the oppression of others?

[/ QUOTE ]

The same thing that stops Bill Gates from murdering homeless people in AC-land.

[/ QUOTE ]

His conscience.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If your idea really was as good as you claim, investors would be lining up at your door.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't I have to know an investor or a VC in order to express the idea to them? Further, I don't think I've actually explained the idea to anyone because I don't know of a single person that would find it interesting. For them, talk of ASM and route management would be appallingly boring.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you would actually have to talk to potential investors because they can't read your mind. This is true of anything and so is useless as a criticism of the free market. This is why people were earlier asking what your point was.