|
|
#51
06-17-2006, 02:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The case for government
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] While we're at it... what about preventing monopolies and mergers? [/ QUOTE ] Good point. Getting rid of government would 100% prevent monopolies. All monopolies exist only through government coercion. Government, of course, being the biggest monopoly of all. [/ QUOTE ] Drastic, sweeping generalizations like this are wrong 100% of the time. [/ QUOTE ] OK, provide a counterexample. Name one monopoly that formed without government coercion. One will do. [/ QUOTE ] Again, ATT's monopoly came despite the best efforts of the government to curtail it, and the 1983 breakup finally did destroy her....and we are probably far worse for the forced breakup. The inefficiencies in the market arising from administration of the RBOCs raised prices, reduced service and stifled development until the point where competing technologies were developed that didnt require tapping into the landline infrastructure. And perhaps the longest lasting impact will be the loss of Bell Lab's research. The ACers will gladly claim Bell Labs innovations (arguably the greatest private research facility of the 20th century) as proof of capitalisms ability to develop technology, while at the same time decrying the governments supposed role in forcing the monopoly that funded that innovation. Wrong about the role of the government and guilty of wanting to have the cake they eat, as well. tsk tsk 
|
|
#52
06-17-2006, 02:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for government
[ QUOTE ]
Again, ATT's monopoly came despite the best efforts of the government to curtail it, [/ QUOTE ] You're making the mistake of assuming that "government" is one large, monolithic entity. Government, of course, is made up of people. And while there were certainly people in government that wanted to see AT&T broken up, there were others that continued to give it exclusive monopolies. Most of AT&T's explicit monopolies were at the local level [ QUOTE ] and the 1983 breakup finally did destroy her....and we are probably far worse for the forced breakup. The inefficiencies in the market arising from administration of the RBOCs raised prices, [/ QUOTE ] Initially, RBOC prices did go up - because they were still monopolies at the local level! They all lobbied their regulators for rate hikes to "compensate" for costs associated with divestiture - and in almost every case, got them. [ QUOTE ] reduced service and stifled development until the point where competing technologies were developed that didnt require tapping into the landline infrastructure. [/ QUOTE ] More monopoly behavior - because the monopolies weren't removed, they were just distributed among a larger number of companies. [ QUOTE ] And perhaps the longest lasting impact will be the loss of Bell Lab's research. The ACers will gladly claim Bell Labs innovations (arguably the greatest private research facility of the 20th century) as proof of capitalisms ability to develop technology, while at the same time decrying the governments supposed role in forcing the monopoly that funded that innovation. Wrong about the role of the government and guilty of wanting to have the cake they eat, as well. tsk tsk [/ QUOTE ] Putting words into people's mouths, are you? Sure, some great things came out of bell labs. But you ignore that which is unseen. The costs paid for those developments was high. Tang and velcro were great by-products of the space program, but were they really worth the $100 billion that was poured into the effort to put a guy on a rock and bring him back (oh, and develop some great ICBMs along the way - don't forget to account for that as a negative development)?
|
|
#53
06-17-2006, 02:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Better off with armies?
Since you continue to throw up the same (irrelevant) argument everytime, will you answer this question. Can you name 2 examples of a standing army being the main factor in repulsing an invasion within the last 200 years?
|
|
#54
06-17-2006, 03:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Better off with armies?
[ QUOTE ]
"You need armies because if you don't have armies other people kill you" [/ QUOTE ] I don't have an army -- never have -- and nobody has quite yet killed me. Seriously, what you're failing to consider is that if no one has an army, no one needs an army. You need any army only if the other guy has one, which is tantamount to saying we need armies because they exist. That we necessarily need what exists simply because it exists is a non-sequitur.
|
|
#55
06-17-2006, 04:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Better off with armies?
My thought process ging thorugh this-Who says we need government provided miltiary anyway? Someone could create a private company that provides mercenaries that can defend you in the event of needing protection. You could have some type of sign or something that got accross te idea that "your property is protected by defense company X. or you could have communites or nieborhoods where buying/renting property there would include gettng full coverage defense from outside defense. But is that kinda like a state? Yes, but in ACland theres likely to bequite a big choice all across america so you could probably choose between that and a nieborhood without provided defense so that it's a litttle cheaper.
Hell, many innovative and cost-effective ways of protecting private property could be devised with out the government. Just look at, I don't know, what capitalism even with a state has done? And yeah i got some spelling errors what are you gonna do about it nits!?
|
|
#56
06-17-2006, 05:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Better off with armies?
[ QUOTE ]
Since you continue to throw up the same (irrelevant) argument everytime, will you answer this question. Can you name 2 examples of a standing army being the main factor in repulsing an invasion within the last 200 years? [/ QUOTE ] You are twisting the issue to revolve solely around actual physical incidents of "repulsion", while completely ignoring the ever more important aspect of prevention. This is the equivelant of judging the value of an electric fence based on the amount of charred corpses strewn about the property. *scratches head* "...uhh..take it down, I guess it's not working." [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
|
|
#57
06-17-2006, 10:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Better off with armies?
[ QUOTE ]
Since you continue to throw up the same (irrelevant) argument everytime, will you answer this question. Can you name 2 examples of a standing army being the main factor in repulsing an invasion within the last 200 years? [/ QUOTE ] Not till you answer mine.
|
|
#58
06-17-2006, 10:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Better off with armies?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "You need armies because if you don't have armies other people kill you" [/ QUOTE ] I don't have an army -- never have -- and nobody has quite yet killed me. Seriously, what you're failing to consider is that if no one has an army, no one needs an army. You need any army only if the other guy has one, which is tantamount to saying we need armies because they exist. That we necessarily need what exists simply because it exists is a non-sequitur. [/ QUOTE ] You do have an army. At the individual level an army is your own ability to defend yourself.
|
|
#59
06-17-2006, 10:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for government
You really need to stop rewriting history to fit your theories.
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Again, ATT's monopoly came despite the best efforts of the government to curtail it, [/ QUOTE ] You're making the mistake of assuming that "government" is one large, monolithic entity. Government, of course, is made up of people. And while there were certainly people in government that wanted to see AT&T broken up, there were others that continued to give it exclusive monopolies. <font color="red">What different people wanted or didnt want, and whether the actions those on one side or another took were effective, the intent of the actual legislation that got passed was to break up the monopoly. If you want to argue that government sucks at breaking up monopolys, fine, but that doesnt mean they are supporting them </font> Most of AT&T's explicit monopolies were at the local level [ QUOTE ] and the 1983 breakup finally did destroy her....and we are probably far worse for the forced breakup. The inefficiencies in the market arising from administration of the RBOCs raised prices, [/ QUOTE ] Initially, RBOC prices did go up - because they were still monopolies at the local level! They all lobbied their regulators for rate hikes to "compensate" for costs associated with divestiture - and in almost every case, got them. <font color="red">A company that has been forced into a certain operating mode by the government that increases its costs are entitled to compensation for those costs. It doesnt create more profits or more monopoly power. The governments anti-trust stance raised costs. period. </font> [ QUOTE ] reduced service and stifled development until the point where competing technologies were developed that didnt require tapping into the landline infrastructure. [/ QUOTE ] More monopoly behavior - because the monopolies weren't removed, they were just distributed among a larger number of companies. <font color="red"> wrong again. the RBOCs almost immediately went into competition with each other because there was little capital cost to do so. They had the same technologies and access to the competitors landlines. It was a battle of cost reductions and marketing</font> [ QUOTE ] And perhaps the longest lasting impact will be the loss of Bell Lab's research. The ACers will gladly claim Bell Labs innovations (arguably the greatest private research facility of the 20th century) as proof of capitalisms ability to develop technology, while at the same time decrying the governments supposed role in forcing the monopoly that funded that innovation. Wrong about the role of the government and guilty of wanting to have the cake they eat, as well. tsk tsk [/ QUOTE ] Putting words into people's mouths, are you? Sure, some great things came out of bell labs. But you ignore that which is unseen. The costs paid for those developments was high. <font color="red">oh? what were the costs and the benefits? got some numbers to support your contention that they were high? </font> Tang and velcro were great by-products of the space program, but were they really worth the $100 billion that was poured into the effort to put a guy on a rock and bring him back (oh, and develop some great ICBMs along the way - don't forget to account for that as a negative development)? <font color="red">a straw man that is totally irrelevant to this thread. If you want to argue about NASA take it elsewhere </font> [/ QUOTE ] Like most ACers you have no clue about basic economics and a distorted version of history. I worked for an ATT department that we spun off to a subsidiary, LBO'd, and flipped. I consulted to 4 of the RBOCs. You arent even close on your "facts".
|
|
#60
06-17-2006, 12:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for government
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">What different people wanted or didnt want, and whether the actions those on one side or another took were effective, the intent of the actual legislation that got passed was to break up the monopoly. If you want to argue that government sucks at breaking up monopolys, fine, but that doesnt mean they are supporting them </font> [/ QUOTE ] The intent of ONE SINGLE ACTION was to break up AT&T. That has nothing to do with the string of actions that came before it, from the 1913 Kingsbury committment up to the monoment AT&T was broken up. The fact that "government" acted to end a monopoly in no way disproves that government created the monopoly in the first place. [ QUOTE ] <font color="red">A company that has been forced into a certain operating mode by the government that increases its costs are entitled to compensation for those costs. It doesnt create more profits or more monopoly power. The governments anti-trust stance raised costs. period. </font> [/ QUOTE ] So, then, you agree with me, government intervention increases prices? [ QUOTE ] <font color="red"> wrong again. the RBOCs almost immediately went into competition with each other because there was little capital cost to do so. They had the same technologies and access to the competitors landlines. It was a battle of cost reductions and marketing</font> [/ QUOTE ] RBOCs went into competition in limited, narrow markets. For the average joe, there was still a monopoly phone compnay, the phone bill just had a different name on it. Question: if, as you claim, the new "operating mode" was so expensive, how was there "little capital cost" to compete? If there actually was competition with little to no barrier to entry, why did prices go up? Your own arguments in one paragraph contradict your arguments in the other. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And perhaps the longest lasting impact will be the loss of Bell Lab's research. The ACers will gladly claim Bell Labs innovations (arguably the greatest private research facility of the 20th century) as proof of capitalisms ability to develop technology, while at the same time decrying the governments supposed role in forcing the monopoly that funded that innovation. Wrong about the role of the government and guilty of wanting to have the cake they eat, as well. tsk tsk [/ QUOTE ] Putting words into people's mouths, are you? Sure, some great things came out of bell labs. But you ignore that which is unseen. The costs paid for those developments was high. <font color="red">oh? what were the costs and the benefits? got some numbers to support your contention that they were high? </font> [/ QUOTE ] You brought it up, why not support your original assertion with some numbers? [ QUOTE ] Tang and velcro were great by-products of the space program, but were they really worth the $100 billion that was poured into the effort to put a guy on a rock and bring him back (oh, and develop some great ICBMs along the way - don't forget to account for that as a negative development)? <font color="red">a straw man that is totally irrelevant to this thread. If you want to argue about NASA take it elsewhere </font> [/ QUOTE ] It's not irrelevant. It's the exact same thing. Research funded by monopoly. The research produces one or two neat things, so the research is hailed, but everyone ignores how much they paid for it. [ QUOTE ] Like most ACers you have no clue about basic economics and a distorted version of history. I worked for an ATT department that we spun off to a subsidiary, LBO'd, and flipped. I consulted to 4 of the RBOCs. You arent even close on your "facts". [/ QUOTE ] So you've got a history of spinning, and are accustomed to operating inside regulatory frameworks. Unsurprising.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
