PDA

View Full Version : Let's try Capitalism



Waddie
10-31-2014, 05:28 PM
We pretend we live in a capitalist system but we don't. The system we have is monopoly oligarch control of markets. We never did try real capitalism in the health market. We don't have real capitalism in any other major markets, either. By real capitalism of course I'm referring to medium to small size companies all vying for market share; you know, what we used to call competition.

Today big corporations cut up the market between themselves and manipulate government regulations to preserve the status quo and their share of it. Real competition doesn't exist.

A good example of the oligarchy monopoly is the cable industry. America has a slow and expensive cable system. It is also yet another well shopped up monopoly.


America’s slow and expensive Internet is more than just an annoyance for people trying to watch “Happy Gilmore” on Netflix. Largely a consequence of monopoly providers, the sluggish service could have long-term economic consequences for American competitiveness.

Downloading a high-definition movie takes about seven seconds in Seoul, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Zurich, Bucharest and Paris, and people pay as little as $30 a month for that connection. In Los Angeles, New York and Washington, downloading the same movie takes 1.4 minutes for people with the fastest Internet available, and they pay $300 a month for the privilege, according to The Cost of Connectivity, a report (http://www.newamerica.org/oti/the-cost-of-connectivity-2014/) published Thursday by the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute.
The report compares Internet access (https://data.opentechinstitute.org/dataset/2014-cost-of-connectivity) in big American cities with access in Europe and Asia. Some surprising smaller American cities — Chattanooga, Tenn.; Kansas City (in both Kansas and Missouri); Lafayette, La.; and Bristol, Va. — tied for speed with the biggest cities abroad. In each, the high-speed Internet provider is not one of the big cable or phone companies that provide Internet to most of the United States, but a city-run network or start-up service.



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/upshot/why-the-us-has-fallen-behind-in-internet-speed-and-affordability.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

regards,
Waddie

Norman Bernstein
10-31-2014, 06:07 PM
Today big corporations cut up the market between themselves and manipulate government regulations to preserve the status quo and their share of it. Real competition doesn't exist.

I never knew you were a radical leftist :)

You're right, of course.

Capitalism is the best economic system ever invented.

UNREGULATED capitalism is the worst economic system ever invented.

Waddie
10-31-2014, 06:22 PM
I never knew you were a radical leftist :)
You're right, of course.
Capitalism is the best economic system ever invented.
UNREGULATED capitalism is the worst economic system ever invented.

I'm not advocating unregulated capitalism; but I am in favor actually trying capitalism for a change.

regards,
Waddie

Bubba L.
10-31-2014, 06:22 PM
We might just be arguing semantics but I think the problem is that we have unregulated capitalism. Capitalism is powerful and therefore should be controlled vigorously.

Gene

Norman Bernstein
10-31-2014, 06:23 PM
I'm not advocating unregulated capitalism....

Maybe not, but the cable companies you're talking about sure do

Too Little Time
10-31-2014, 06:57 PM
We pretend we live in a capitalist system but we don't. The system we have is monopoly oligarch control of markets. We never did try real capitalism in the health market. We don't have real capitalism in any other major markets, either. By real capitalism of course I'm referring to medium to small size companies all vying for market share; you know, what we used to call competition.

In true competion prices (and wages) are pushed down until there is no profit. Monoplies are what gives a company the ability to make money.

David G
10-31-2014, 07:20 PM
We pretend we live in a capitalist system but we don't. The system we have is monopoly oligarch control of markets. We never did try real capitalism in the health market. We don't have real capitalism in any other major markets, either. By real capitalism of course I'm referring to medium to small size companies all vying for market share; you know, what we used to call competition.

Today big corporations cut up the market between themselves and manipulate government regulations to preserve the status quo and their share of it. Real competition doesn't exist.

A good example of the oligarchy monopoly is the cable industry. America has a slow and expensive cable system. It is also yet another well shopped up monopoly.



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/upshot/why-the-us-has-fallen-behind-in-internet-speed-and-affordability.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

regards,
Waddie

Well... your opening statement is so hyperbolic as to be nonsensical. But there is truth to some of what you've said. We've swung far away from the sort of market socialism that the Scandinavians have developed. We've passed thru the sort of 50's capitalism you describe, and we're at the far reaches of laissez-faire capitalism. And, though it's not the optimum place for an economy, and it opens us up to the sort of oligarchic concentrations you and I both seem to reject... it's still capitalism. One fringe of capitalism. As mentioned above... increasingly unregulated capitalism. And yes, we are way overdue for a correction. I've been saying this for almost a decade now, including post # 71 in this WBF thread: http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?76079-Liberal-VS-Conservative-%28-defined-%29/page2

Oh... and when we finally DO make a correction... it won't look like the Main Street, Leave it to Beaver, picture of your formative years.

David G
10-31-2014, 07:24 PM
In true competion prices (and wages) are pushed down until there is no profit. Monoplies are what gives a company the ability to make money.

Your ignorance of how monopolies work, and of economics in general, has always been a bit startling. Your willingness to speak up as if you did understand is impressive.

WszystekPoTrochu
10-31-2014, 07:31 PM
In true competion prices (and wages) are pushed down until there is no profit. Monoplies are what gives a company the ability to make money.

In true free market prices are pushed up until competition hampers it - the customer looks for certain price/quality ratio. Price wars are expensive and destructive, small to big companies focus on maintaining satisfactory market presence and advertising.

Wages follow the same rule - employee tries to push up the price of his time until competition from other potential employees hampers it.

WszystekPoTrochu
10-31-2014, 07:39 PM
If You want to think of "real competition", You would have to defy effect of scale somehow. Also, tear down the malls and emphasize promenades - streets are where small and medium companies prosper, not these huge chunks of concrete.

But in the end, expect to pay more for similar quality. Monopolists rip us off, true. It is possible to do better and/or cheaper on small-scale, false.

Too Little Time
10-31-2014, 08:10 PM
Your ignorance of how monopolies work, and of economics in general, has always been a bit startling. Your willingness to speak up as if you did understand is impressive.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536


You are right. I know nothing. But I read stuff by people who do.

David G
10-31-2014, 08:18 PM
https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/559524_10152514288271275_3753265120265137522_n.png ?oh=00e531e6c0617d3163dd829d3b56b09f&oe=54DD963F

David G
10-31-2014, 08:28 PM
http://online.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536


In true competion prices (and wages) are pushed down until there is no profit. Monoplies are what gives a company the ability to make money.

Yes, I understand the difference between monopoly and a theoretical perfect competition. And I understand how any firm might aspire to the sort of independence than a monopoly market position - if unregulated - would confer. I understand that windfall profits accrue.

What I took issue with is your blithe assertion, bolded above. If it were true, there would be damned few firms making money, because there are very few monopolies. If you're going to insist on opening your yap... skip the opinion pieces for now - as you seem as yet ill-equipped to digest them, and go read some basic economics. Even reading the following wiki article would put you leagues further than you appear to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

johnw
10-31-2014, 08:51 PM
Yes, I understand the difference between monopoly and a theoretical perfect competition. And I understand how any firm might aspire to the sort of independence than a monopoly market position - if unregulated - would confer. I understand that windfall profits accrue.

What I took issue with is your blithe assertion, bolded above. If it were true, there would be damned few firms making money, because there are very few monopolies. If you're going to insist on opening your yap... skip the opinion pieces for now - as you seem as yet ill-equipped to digest them, and go read some basic economics. Even reading the following wiki article would put you leagues further than you appear to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

The zero profit scenario only happens when there are no bars to entry, like needing expertise or equipment. It's one of those "perfect" market scenarios that seldom happen in real life. If it did happen, you would get only wages for value delivered, not profits in the sense of a surplus for non-working owners.

However, if you take a cossetted industry like the airlines used to be, and deregulate at President Carter did, you create a situation where the industry is structured around oligopoly profits and must suddenly survive in a competitive environment. That's quite different from a situation in which an industry has been competitive all along.

There are natural monopolies where the bars to entry are nearly insurmountable. In those situations, it's often the case that public ownership is preferable. An example would be internet cable.


http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/K_jeQGxMmbHEc1NFuXEMPrNYekg=/700x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2411298/speed.0.png
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/31/7137457/broadband-speed-chattanooga-kansas-city-lafayette
This achievement is really impressive when you consider that Chattanooga, Kansas City, and Lafayette aren't even remotely as dense as Seoul or Hong Kong or Tokyo, which get similar speeds. When we put our minds to it in this country, we can do great things. And what works for Chattanooga could work even better in bigger cities like Chicago or Miami.


But there's a catch. The American cities that are delivering best-in-the-world speeds at bargain prices are precisely the cities that aren't relying on Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Time-Warner, etc. to run their infrastructure. In Kansas City, Google built a state-of-the-art fiber optic network largely just to prove a point. In Chattanooga and Lafayette, the government did it.

Too Little Time
10-31-2014, 09:05 PM
Yes, I understand the difference between monopoly and a theoretical perfect competition. And I understand how any firm might aspire to the sort of independence than a monopoly market position - if unregulated - would confer. I understand that windfall profits accrue.

What I took issue with is your blithe assertion, bolded above. If it were true, there would be damned few firms making money, because there are very few monopolies. If you're going to insist on opening your yap... skip the opinion pieces for now - as you seem as yet ill-equipped to digest them, and go read some basic economics. Even reading the following wiki article would put you leagues further than you appear to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

My assertions are no more blithe than any other persons. We both agree I know nothing about economics. But ...

I understand my wife's business is profitable because we have a monopoly on certain work and we are price makers.

Whereas people without a college degree are in competition and as far as their labor is concerned they are price takers.

hanleyclifford
10-31-2014, 09:15 PM
It's a little late for "Capitalism". There is no "capital formation" anymore. We are a "creditalist" economy.

David G
10-31-2014, 09:23 PM
My assertions are no more blithe than any other persons. We both agree I know nothing about economics. But ...

I understand my wife's business is profitable because we have a monopoly on certain work and we are price makers.

Whereas people without a college degree are in competition and as far as their labor is concerned they are price takers.

Keep reading. Keep thinking. And keep writing... just more carefully.

David G
10-31-2014, 10:01 PM
It's a little late for "Capitalism". There is no "capital formation" anymore. We are a "creditalist" economy.

More silliness... would you like to rephrase and elaborate so that this turns into something both coherent and defensible?

hanleyclifford
10-31-2014, 10:07 PM
More silliness... would you like to rephrase and elaborate so that this turns into something both coherent and defensible? Absent insult and invective, David - you would scarcely exist here.

John Smith
10-31-2014, 10:29 PM
We might just be arguing semantics but I think the problem is that we have unregulated capitalism. Capitalism is powerful and therefore should be controlled vigorously.

Gene

We've seen Capitalism without regulation: Ohio river caught fire. Savings and loans needed bail-out. Wall Street needed bail out. Etc.

Phil Y
10-31-2014, 10:31 PM
I'd have thought capitalism inevitably leads to monopolies wherever possible. The question becomes just how tightly to control monopolies in order to maintain some competition.

John Smith
10-31-2014, 10:34 PM
In true competion prices (and wages) are pushed down until there is no profit. Monoplies are what gives a company the ability to make money.

Until they collude with one another to fix prices.

David G
10-31-2014, 10:44 PM
It's a little late for "Capitalism". There is no "capital formation" anymore. We are a "creditalist" economy.


Hanley has a good point here(wash my mouth out with soap;)
Credit used to be called "indentured servitude".

Yes... there is almost certainly a kernal of truth buried in there. Which is why I invited him to rephrase & elaborate, instead of telling him he's full of bs... as I am sometimes forced to do. As he phrased it, it is overburdened with hyperbole. No capital formation?

David G
10-31-2014, 10:48 PM
Absent insult and invective, David - you would scarcely exist here.

More hyperbole. If you don't like my critiques of your assertions... rebut them. More rigorously, please.

Too Little Time
11-01-2014, 08:03 AM
Until they collude with one another to fix prices.

Collusion is one way to form a monopoly. Unions are another. (I don't have problems with either. Everything in moderation.)

Bubba L.
11-01-2014, 08:48 AM
In true competion prices (and wages) are pushed down until there is no profit. Monoplies are what gives a company the ability to make money.

A new contender for stupid post of the month. Competition only pushes prices down if a competitor with a lot of capital starts a price war to destroy his competition. Competition keeps prices reasonable.

Gene

Bubba L.
11-01-2014, 09:34 AM
It's a little late for "Capitalism". There is no "capital formation" anymore. We are a "creditalist" economy.

I wouldn't go that far but we do have a problem with the way credit is used in our economy. What would our economy look like if companies and individuals didn't spend so much of their effort servicing debt? Is anyone here familiar with the way Waffle House works? Cash for everything including cash for employes every Sunday. They keep on growing yet whenever a new store opens for business it is free and clear of debt. On a personal level I've trained myself to save for what I want because I don't like paying the middle man for my toys in the form of interest. Our financial industry seems to need some serious checks.


Gene

Dannybb55
11-01-2014, 10:12 AM
Yes,let's burn up all of the plant'senergy reserves so that no intelligent life can do this again.

slug
11-01-2014, 12:15 PM
Negative interest rates have not stirred capitalism back to life .

QE has not stirred capitalism back to life

The future is creditism . All problems will be solved with credit...not the competitive production of goods and services.

Bubba L.
11-01-2014, 02:16 PM
Yes,let's burn up all of the plant'senergy reserves so that no intelligent life can do this again.

You call this "intelligent life"?


Negative interest rates have not stirred capitalism back to life .

QE has not stirred capitalism back to life

The future is creditism . All problems will be solved with credit...not the competitive production of goods and services.

With the Republican love of borrow and spend it sure seems that some agree with that statement.

Gene

johnw
11-01-2014, 03:00 PM
Hanley has a good point here(wash my mouth out with soap;)
Credit used to be called "indentured servitude".

I have a couple indentured servants in my ancestry, and I can assure you it is not the same as credit. In fact, about half the white immigrants before the American revolution were indentured servants. Some, like an ancestor of mine who was kidnapped from the streets of Glasgow and sold as an indentured servant in New England, were not even voluntary indentured servants.

Even debt peonage is not the same as credit. If I can't pay my debts, I can declare bankruptcy rather than go into debt peonage, unless, of course, the debts are student loans.

This country was built on debt. We went into debt to pay for the revolutionary war, and after the war Hamilton realized that by funding the debt, he could create a stable market for debt, which would aid in capital formation.

johnw
11-01-2014, 03:01 PM
Negative interest rates have not stirred capitalism back to life .

QE has not stirred capitalism back to life

The future is creditism . All problems will be solved with credit...not the competitive production of goods and services.

I can't borrow for negative interest rates, can you? Almost all credit is affected by the zero lower bound.

Too Little Time
11-01-2014, 05:48 PM
A new contender for stupid post of the month. Competition only pushes prices down if a competitor with a lot of capital starts a price war to destroy his competition. Competition keeps prices reasonable.

Gene

I don't pay much attention to supermarket prices, but when I did staples like milk were loss leaders. Competition drove the price of those goods to losses.

Wages are another example of competition driving down costs. Without minimum wage laws wages would fall for those at the bottem. True competition.


I don't claim to be smart.

David G
11-01-2014, 08:27 PM
I don't pay much attention to supermarket prices, but when I did staples like milk were loss leaders. Competition drove the price of those goods to losses.

Wages are another example of competition driving down costs. Without minimum wage laws wages would fall for those at the bottem. True competition.


I don't claim to be smart.

Sooo... hanleyclifford... would you like to comment on this pithy contribution?

Bubba L.
11-02-2014, 10:55 AM
Sooo... hanleyclifford... would you like to comment on this pithy contribution?

I thought about commenting on it my self but couldn't decide where to begin and ultimately gave it up as pointless.

Gene

hanleyclifford
11-02-2014, 11:22 AM
I don't pay much attention to supermarket prices, but when I did staples like milk were loss leaders. Competition drove the price of those goods to losses.

Wages are another example of competition driving down costs. Without minimum wage laws wages would fall for those at the bottem. True competition.


I don't claim to be smart. I do agree that without minimum wage laws the wages for the least skilled would fall. I'm not so sure that would be a healthy form of "competition". While I don't like the idea of the government telling companies how to pay workers, because the corporations have acquired such enormous and pernicious power, minimum wage laws are necessary to protect the livlihood of many, in the short term. All this will change once we have dismantled the plutocracy, redefined and restricted the corporations and replaced the Fed with a national bank.

David G
11-02-2014, 11:34 AM
hc - nicely done. Now... if you want to take over the task of correcting his 'misconceptions' about economics... I'll forego pointing out that he should read more and talk less.

hanleyclifford
11-02-2014, 11:44 AM
I don't pay much attention to supermarket prices, but when I did staples like milk were loss leaders. Competition drove the price of those goods to losses.

Wages are another example of competition driving down costs. Without minimum wage laws wages would fall for those at the bottem. True competition.


I don't claim to be smart. One of the smartest claims a person can make. That said, there is a lot to be learned on this Forum, even from disagreeable members. Oznabrag rightly said there is a lot of brainpower here, notwithstanding the name calling and other extra curricular activities

Waddie
11-02-2014, 11:45 AM
I'll elaborate on the problem as I see it. Economic systems morph over time. Ous is no longer by any stretch of the imagination "capitalist". A few corporations control all of the food offered on the store shelf. Fewer still control all of the world's grain distribution. In almost every industry the market is divided up between a very few major players. None of these players has an outright "monopoly". They are concerned not with total control of the market, but control of their market share, which they have divided up between themselves. But taken together, they do control the market, and more importantly, they control access to the market. They do this by pricing, and they do it by lobby efforts. They use regulations, which their lobbyists write, to prevent entry into their market. They can crush any start-up by predatory pricing. They can lower prices below cost in one area in order to destroy a start-up and make it up in the other areas they control.

So what often happens is the start-up has a choice; either sell out to one of the dominant players, be content with a miniscule market share, or fight until they get buried. Microsoft utilized this acquisition tactic to buy up dozens of small start-up software companies.

The big guys can also tie-up a patent in court for years or even work around a patent they can't manipulate, and instead put in place an often inferior, though highly marketed product. Or they just buy the patent, even if only to protect an inferior product they've invested millions in. The barriers to competition, competition being the essence of "capitalism", have grown so formidable in recent decades that we no longer have any semblance of a "capitalistic system". We have an oligarchy of huge corporations that have divided up the market and work together to maintain their status quo.

regards,
Waddie

BTW; debt wouldn't be such an issue, either with private industry or government, if that debt was incurred for the right reasons. Corporations aren't borrowing in order to invest in new equipment, research or marketing; they are using it to buy back stock. VERY shortsighted. Government is borrowing to meet daily expenses, which is never stimulus, nor is it wise.

varadero
11-03-2014, 09:39 AM
http://www.tickld.com/cdn_image_article/a_1005_20141029125515.jpg

David G
11-03-2014, 10:44 AM
You see varadero... if the rest of us had the same level of deep understanding, acute fairness, and intellectural precision that is evidenced by your contribution... we'd be in great shape! <G>

Too Little Time
11-03-2014, 12:37 PM
One of the smartest claims a person can make. That said, there is a lot to be learned on this Forum, even from disagreeable members. Oznabrag rightly said there is a lot of brainpower here, notwithstanding the name calling and other extra curricular activities

I am not so sure about what you say. Most discussions here are "If you knew all I knew, you would agree with me."

David G
11-03-2014, 01:24 PM
I am not so sure about what you say. Most discussions here are "If you knew all I knew, you would agree with me."

Well... in some (many?) cases... this is probably true. If you were better informed, you'd have better opinions. To the extent that your comment is meant to describe me... I don't care whether the conclusions you reach agree with mine. Marshall your facts. Apply sound logic. If you can do that, you might be able to teach people something. As far as our interactions, though... think back. When you first started your Bilge presence... I'm pretty sure you'll find me responding to your comments with the same level of respect and willingness to engage in informed debate that I offer to most new folks. But when you offered 'iffy' comments and opinions... when you were unable to back those utterances up with good logic and/or good data... I concluded that you were just another in a string of gasbags who come here to vent their excess. That's not to say I've given up hope. I urge to to Up Your Game... and join us in fact-based discourse. Where we all can learn something. So far, though, I have to agree with the comment someone made above... that anything out of your keyboard is perforce... suspect. Marshall your facts. Apply sound logic.

hanleyclifford
11-03-2014, 02:00 PM
Well... in some (many?) cases... this is probably true. If you were better informed, you'd have better opinions. To the extent that your comment is meant to describe me... I don't care whether the conclusions you reach agree with mine. Marshall your facts. Apply sound logic. If you can do that, you might be able to teach people something. As far as our interactions, though... think back. When you first started your Bilge presence... I'm pretty sure you'll find me responding to your comments with the same level of respect and willingness to engage in informed debate that I offer to most new folks. But when you offered 'iffy' comments and opinions... when you were unable to back those utterances up with good logic and/or good data... I concluded that you were just another in a string of gasbags who come here to vent their excess. That's not to say I've given up hope. I urge to to Up Your Game... and join us in fact-based discourse. Where we all can learn something. So far, though, I have to agree with the comment someone made above... that anything out of your keyboard is perforce... suspect. Marshall your facts. Apply sound logic. Also sprach Professor <G>. For sheer supercilious condescension you have no equal, David. Notwithstanding, one cannot but admire your mastery of moxie, chutzpah and just plain effrontery.

David G
11-03-2014, 02:32 PM
Also sprach Professor <G>. For sheer supercilious condescension you have no equal, David. Notwithstanding, one cannot but admire your mastery of moxie, chutzpah and just plain effrontery.

You are simply too kind.... but thank you. <G> You, yourself, are a good example of the range of my approach. I suspect I treated you courteously enough when you arrived. Then there were times when I blasted some of lamer efforts for excessive... lameness. And I have responded to your better-considered contributions by engaging in serious conversation. And when you've made a cogent point, I acknowledge it. But you toss out bs-bombs often enough still... that I keep my cudgel handy.

I don't expect everyone to know everything. But when one tosses out assertions that are 'iffy', and the flaws are pointed out, I expect them to go into research mode to support their position... not just toss out more unbuttressed assertions, or continue to justify their shaky position with flawed logic. I'm willing to play along, for a while, with new folks. But if they reveal themselves as unwilling or incapable of rational discourse (Thud... could you keep it down? You too, Phillip, and bbbbbys... the adults are trying to talk here. Go out and shoot your BB guns, willya?), I am liable to simply ignore, condescend, or ridicule. That snarky one-liner thing... I learned from Donn. I think I'm better at it, though. <G>

Too Little Time
11-03-2014, 05:49 PM
I don't expect everyone to know everything. But when one tosses out assertions that are 'iffy', and the flaws are pointed out, I expect them to go into research mode to support their position... not just toss out more unbuttressed assertions, or continue to justify their shaky position with flawed logic.

I gave a link to support my view. It seemed to "justify my shaky position." But I am not responsible for your acceptance or rejection of any position. I don't even ask you to judge any position.

If my logic is flawed, so be it. I can live that. I can even live with being wrong.


You might notice that I have taken some effort to defend my position. And I have never asked you to defend yours - at least in this thread.

johnw
11-03-2014, 06:29 PM
I gave a link to support my view. It seemed to "justify my shaky position." But I am not responsible for your acceptance or rejection of any position. I don't even ask you to judge any position.

If my logic is flawed, so be it. I can live that. I can even live with being wrong.


You might notice that I have taken some effort to defend my position. And I have never asked you to defend yours - at least in this thread.

Wouldn't it be better to learn enough to be right more often?

Too Little Time
11-03-2014, 07:23 PM
Wouldn't it be better to learn enough to be right more often?

Your statement seems to indicate that you think I am wrong in this thread.

johnw
11-03-2014, 07:55 PM
Your statement seems to indicate that you think I am wrong in this thread.

See post 14.

Too Little Time
11-04-2014, 10:01 AM
See post 14.

Post 14 indicates you have a different view of the subject. Not that I am wrong.


You might notice the date of the article I referred to - 9/12/14. That date alone might indicate that I have learned something new. That I made reference to it here might indicate that I changed my view.

David G
11-04-2014, 10:59 AM
hc - you wanna take this one? I'm about ready to declare it a pernicious case of Dunning-Kruger...

johnw
11-04-2014, 03:19 PM
Post 14 indicates you have a different view of the subject. Not that I am wrong.


You might notice the date of the article I referred to - 9/12/14. That date alone might indicate that I have learned something new. That I made reference to it here might indicate that I changed my view.

Oh, of course, you're never wrong, no matter what the evidence and logic would tell you.

johnw
11-04-2014, 03:29 PM
hc - you gonna take this one? I'm ready to declare it a case of Dunning-Kruger.

I began to expect that after the "conservatives and national healthcare (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?182845-Conservatives-and-National-Health-Insurance/page6)" thread, where he said I had "a different view" of history when his own quoted source contradicted what he said.

Too Little Time
11-04-2014, 05:34 PM
Oh, of course, you're never wrong, no matter what the evidence and logic would tell you.

You seem to have a very high opion of your comments. I don't share that opinion.

Too Little Time
11-04-2014, 05:36 PM
I began to expect that after the "conservatives and national healthcare (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?182845-Conservatives-and-National-Health-Insurance/page6)" thread, where he said I had "a different view" of history when his own quoted source contradicted what he said.

Your claim of a contradiction does not mean a contradiction exists. In fact I though the several references I provided put that to rest. I even asked what someone there thought was the correct numer. I did not get an answer. (At least not one I saw.)

PeterSibley
11-04-2014, 05:48 PM
http://marketing.tradingadvantage.com/cdnr/43/acton/attachment/6150/f-024c/1/-/-/-/-/image.jpg

johnw
11-04-2014, 06:22 PM
Your claim of a contradiction does not mean a contradiction exists. In fact I though the several references I provided put that to rest. I even asked what someone there thought was the correct numer. I did not get an answer. (At least not one I saw.)

No, the evidence I provided means a contradiction exists, as did the evidence you provided. There really are such things as facts, no matter how postmodern your view of truth may be.

The correct "numer" of what? Your disagreements with me are not about numbers. On the older thread it was about historical fact. On the current one it is about established economic theory. I'm not the expert on it that David G is -- he has a degree in economics and has done graduate work in the field -- but I have done my best to learn the basics.

Waddie
11-05-2014, 12:04 AM
You boys finally find someone you can gang up on successfully........ well, enjoy it while you can.

regards,
Waddie

Waddie
11-05-2014, 12:18 AM
Not interested in Ganging Up. I'm interested in good discourse. In this case... I either want him to up his game... or head back to the farm league.

You, otoh, show frequent flashes of competence. Stick with it. Don't get lazy and sloppy. That's when you drift off track, and waste everyone's time.

I like it lazy and sloppy. You, on the other hand, get so puckered up you can't fart. Maybe it's because you're so twisted up about how other people express themselves.

PS. If you're looking for high brow discourse, you're frequenting the wrong forum. This one is called the Bilge for a reason. But be honest; you love wrasslin' in the mud. You sling enough of it. Oh, wait, that's not mud.......

regards,
Waddie

Too Little Time
11-06-2014, 09:27 AM
No, the evidence I provided means a contradiction exists, as did the evidence you provided. There really are such things as facts, no matter how postmodern your view of truth may be.

The correct "numer" of what? Your disagreements with me are not about numbers. On the older thread it was about historical fact. On the current one it is about established economic theory. I'm not the expert on it that David G is -- he has a degree in economics and has done graduate work in the field -- but I have done my best to learn the basics.

My first comment in the "conservatives and national heath care" thread was that we were millions of people short of the trend line. That is the only point I made in that thread. (at least as I recall.) That is the number I asked for there and I asked for here. Unless your specific comments were about that number in that thread I did not take note of them. (at least as I recall.) Want to tell me your number?

I made 2 statements in this thread:

1) competition drives down profits.
2) That monopolies allow one to make money.

You and others seem to disagree with one or both, but I cannot determine what. I really don't care.

I tend to pay more attention to current economic theory and practice rather than "established economic theory." If you don't agree with my statements, I guess we will have to wait until economic theory settles into a future version.

johnw
11-06-2014, 02:23 PM
My first comment in the "conservatives and national heath care" thread was that we were millions of people short of the trend line. That is the only point I made in that thread. (at least as I recall.) That is the number I asked for there and I asked for here. Unless your specific comments were about that number in that thread I did not take note of them. (at least as I recall.) Want to tell me your number?

I made 2 statements in this thread:

1) competition drives down profits.
2) That monopolies allow one to make money.

You and others seem to disagree with one or both, but I cannot determine what. I really don't care.

I tend to pay more attention to current economic theory and practice rather than "established economic theory." If you don't agree with my statements, I guess we will have to wait until economic theory settles into a future version.

Well, since you can't recall the points you actually made in the healthcare thread, I have little confidence in your facts on this one.

Our disagreement on that thread was your claim that the unions had been in favor of employer based health insurance in the post-world war II era. I pointed out that they helped write, and fully supported, Truman's plan for single-payer healthcare, and that union-affiliated groups still support single-payer. You said I simply had a different view of history.

Now you're using the "different view" dodge again. It didn't impress before, and it doesn't impress now.

johnw
11-06-2014, 02:49 PM
My first comment in the "conservatives and national heath care" thread was that we were millions of people short of the trend line. That is the only point I made in that thread. (at least as I recall.) That is the number I asked for there and I asked for here. Unless your specific comments were about that number in that thread I did not take note of them. (at least as I recall.) Want to tell me your number?

I made 2 statements in this thread:

1) competition drives down profits.
2) That monopolies allow one to make money.

You and others seem to disagree with one or both, but I cannot determine what. I really don't care.

I tend to pay more attention to current economic theory and practice rather than "established economic theory." If you don't agree with my statements, I guess we will have to wait until economic theory settles into a future version.

Here's your assertion in its original form:


In true competion prices (and wages) are pushed down until there is no profit. Monoplies are what gives a company the ability to make money.

You supported this by quoting an article titled "competition is for losers," which included this gem:


Americans mythologize competition and credit it with saving us from socialist bread lines. Actually, capitalism and competition are opposites. Capitalism is premised on the accumulation of capital, but under perfect competition, all profits get competed away. The lesson for entrepreneurs is clear: If you want to create and capture lasting value, don't build an undifferentiated commodity business.


http://online.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536


You are right. I know nothing. But I read stuff by people who do.

Clearly, this guy hasn't read Adam Smith. "Competition and capitalism are opposites?" If that were the case, it would be a pretty good argument for getting capitalism out of the marketplace. The benefits touted for the market spring from competition.

And he likes the way the patent office works, when most economists think it is badly in need of reform.

Now, do you see how the views in the source you quoted to support your view differ from the views you claim in post #63 to have put forth?

And you see how the view you claim in #63 that you were advocating differ from the views you expressed in post #6?

The claim that "Monoplies are what gives a company the ability to make money" is far more absolute than the claim that "monopolies allow one to make money." You went from arguing that competition drives profits down to zero to arguing that it merely drives down profits, and from "monopolies are what allow one to make money" merely observing that they do allow one to make money, as if it were not essential to making money but merely an aid to making money. Perhaps trying to change what you actually said is your way of coming to your senses, but to the people you're talking to it looks dishonest.

I've made my living for many years in a highly competitive business. Yes, I could make more money if I had a monopoly, but that's not how capitalism works. I fully expect people to compete with me, and I have to be on my toes to make money.

johnw
11-06-2014, 02:51 PM
OK... I'm curious. What is 'current economic theory and practice' and how is it distinct from "established economic theory." ??

Where does one find the current stuff?

Well, I'm fond of this site, but I doubt TLT would like it, because the current stuff is basically established economic theory in action.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/

Too Little Time
11-06-2014, 03:03 PM
Well, since you can't recall the points you actually made in the healthcare thread, I have little confidence in your facts on this one.

Our disagreement on that thread was your claim that the unions had been in favor of employer based health insurance in the post-world war II era. I pointed out that they helped write, and fully supported, Truman's plan for single-payer healthcare, and that union-affiliated groups still support single-payer. You said I simply had a different view of history.

Now you're using the "different view" dodge again. It didn't impress before, and it doesn't impress now.

I remember that conversation. I did not see any misstatements on either side. You simply made one point. I made another. Then one of us said the other was wrong.

Too Little Time
11-06-2014, 03:48 PM
Now, do you see how the views in the source you quoted to support your view differ from the views you claim in post #63 to have put forth?

And you see how the view you claim in #63 that you were advocating differ from the views you expressed in post #6?

The claim that "Monoplies are what gives a company the ability to make money" is far more absolute than the claim that "monopolies allow one to make money." You went from arguing that competition drives profits down to zero to arguing that it merely drives down profits, and from "monopolies are what allow one to make money" merely observing that they do allow one to make money, as if it were not essential to making money but merely an aid to making money. Perhaps trying to change what you actually said is your way of coming to your senses, but to the people you're talking to it looks dishonest.

I've made my living for many years in a highly competitive business. Yes, I could make more money if I had a monopoly, but that's not how capitalism works. I fully expect people to compete with me, and I have to be on my toes to make money.

I don't agree with all he had to say. I will address several of your issues.

There seem to be two different comparisons here. 1) competition v. capitalism. 2) competition v. monopoly. I find a lot of truth in each.

I was not backing away from anything. I simply did not give the words the significance you seem to. If I believe that true competition drives profits to zero, I need to believe the monopoly portion of any business is what produces profits.

I am pleased you have made money in a competitive business. I expect you tried to differentiate your business from other similar business. That is, you created a monopoly and profited from it. Your competition may have also differentiated themselves from others.


OK... I'm curious. What is 'current economic theory and practice' and how is it distinct from "established economic theory." ??

Where does one find the current stuff?
There is so much fodder for new economic theory.

The top 10% in income/wealth (US) have 80% of the income/wealth. (more or less) My wife, my daughter, my son-in-law are in that 10%. Toward the bottom.

My wife and daughter run a monopoly. They have skills that no one in our area has. My son-in-law has skills that make him a monopoly. But they have enough money that they do work they like rather than what optimizes their profits. They don't even care about profits. They turn away work they do not want to do. Despite turning away a lot of work and having more free time my wife and daughter have tripled their income in 3 years. My son-in-law was approached by Google with job offer that he accepted. None of the three has any intention to compete.

When they spend money, they are in the luxury economy. Supply and demand, price, utility normal terms don't really influence their decisions. If they "want," they "get." My wife used to insist on low cost hotels. Now we get suites. I am in Texas for the week with her. Nice view of the city from what I used to think was a very expensive room.

The top 10% of the participants in the economy (80% of the income/wealth) don't live by "established economic theory."

There was a recent economic article (today) in the Wall Street Journal or New York Times. It mentioned that only 25% of the long term unemployed get employed. (you can correct the terms and whatever) They are in economic trouble until they die. There is need for some economic theory that would provide some solution.

10-20 years of no growth for the bottom 90%. I know why it is happening. But there needs to be some economic theory that lets us determine if that can be corrected.

johnw
11-06-2014, 07:08 PM
I remember that conversation. I did not see any misstatements on either side. You simply made one point. I made another. Then one of us said the other was wrong.

Not what actually happened. You made the point that in post-WW II America, the unions preferred employer-based health insurance. That was factually incorrect.

johnw
11-06-2014, 07:11 PM
I don't agree with all he had to say. I will address several of your issues.

There seem to be two different comparisons here. 1) competition v. capitalism. 2) competition v. monopoly. I find a lot of truth in each.

I was not backing away from anything. I simply did not give the words the significance you seem to. If I believe that true competition drives profits to zero, I need to believe the monopoly portion of any business is what produces profits.

I am pleased you have made money in a competitive business. I expect you tried to differentiate your business from other similar business. That is, you created a monopoly and profited from it. Your competition may have also differentiated themselves from others.


There is so much fodder for new economic theory.

The top 10% in income/wealth (US) have 80% of the income/wealth. (more or less) My wife, my daughter, my son-in-law are in that 10%. Toward the bottom.

My wife and daughter run a monopoly. They have skills that no one in our area has. My son-in-law has skills that make him a monopoly. But they have enough money that they do work they like rather than what optimizes their profits. They don't even care about profits. They turn away work they do not want to do. Despite turning away a lot of work and having more free time my wife and daughter have tripled their income in 3 years. My son-in-law was approached by Google with job offer that he accepted. None of the three has any intention to compete.

When they spend money, they are in the luxury economy. Supply and demand, price, utility normal terms don't really influence their decisions. If they "want," they "get." My wife used to insist on low cost hotels. Now we get suites. I am in Texas for the week with her. Nice view of the city from what I used to think was a very expensive room.

The top 10% of the participants in the economy (80% of the income/wealth) don't live by "established economic theory."

There was a recent economic article (today) in the Wall Street Journal or New York Times. It mentioned that only 25% of the long term unemployed get employed. (you can correct the terms and whatever) They are in economic trouble until they die. There is need for some economic theory that would provide some solution.

10-20 years of no growth for the bottom 90%. I know why it is happening. But there needs to be some economic theory that lets us determine if that can be corrected.

Well, if you didn't mean what you said, perhaps you simply need to work on your writing skills. Keep posting, we'll tell you what the things you said mean, you can tell us what they were supposed to mean:)

Bubba L.
11-06-2014, 07:21 PM
Facts are equal to beliefs with some folks...

Gene