Best Sensitive, Caring New Social Program To Help World's Middle And Low Class:

You mean when Microsoft was deemed a Monopoly in 2001?? kind of paved a path of google to compete?? and all of your points have no point because outside of Microsoft & IBM none of your examples were monopolies, you are just describing how a well regulated competitive free market acts. Which is literally what i'm advocating for, i'm also saying it is silly of you to state "Laisseze Fair Economics" idea's when history has shown that its not a good idea. Then you proceed to call me a Nazi because i articulated the point that some regulations are good even if they technically punish success.

 

James, you are a sad man, you are blinded by your ideology so much that you can't even see the argument i am trying to make, and that we agree on most things. I'm done talking because it serves no more use with you, i suppose ill go hang out with Hitler and 3rd Reich maybe they will understand me.

 

well regulated??? there was only capitalist regulation that drove innovation from RCA to Google. there was never a significant monopoly along the way. Imagine how stupid it is for govt to identify monopolies when the companies themselves have no idea what the future holds. When govt identified Microsoft as a monopoly they had no idea , nor did Microsoft, that Apple, Google, Facebook, Dell, Samsung Amazon etc were about to explode all around Microsoft while Microsoft had no idea what was happening.

 

yes they would like the idea of you directing parents to love their children as you see fit

 

James, What is bigger than the family??

 

Some of that might be true if it were not for the interference by government regulations. We do not have an unfettered market.

 

There's no rationality in 'an unfettered market' mind you...

 

a bread box?? Do you have any idea why you asked that question?

 

yes process works much better without govt. I'll never forgot how Sun Microsystems sat around for years hoping liberals would declare Microsoft a monopoly because they could not compete fairly against it. And the whole time Microsoft was dying of its own weight as was IBM when the soviet bureacrats were working to have both declared to be monopolies!!

 

millions of participants are being rational during every transaction in an unfettered free market with information no soviet bureaucrat could to gather, let alone understand, and least of all act upon rationally.

 

if so why so afraid to present your best example of this so we all can agree with you?

 

So you're going to deny the existence of market failure? Wow, that's an extreme approach.

 

because it is a waste of time, because you are an ideolog that only thinks in binary terms. If i give you an example you will just some how reason it was a Soviet, Nazi, Bureaucrats fault, and i already told you examples, you conveniently ignored to continue your belligerent talking. I personally believe in a well regulated free market. I gave you an example of Monopoly and Anti Trust laws are in place solely because the unfettered market place did not "Regulate its self". However you will just take that example and say something ignorant like liberal, nazi, commi, bureaucrats are the reason those laws were created and it had nothing to do with, the consolidation of the railroads in the late 19th century that triggered the Sherman Anti Trust act, or the consolidation of telephone service (AT&T) in the late 20th century.

As i have said before any company's main motive is profit and growth of profits (i am not saying that is a bad thing). In order to grow one of two things need to happen, demand for there product has to increase, or they must expand into new market places. Some company's grow organically, others through acquisitions, either way there goal is the same, beat out their competitors. Ideally this is done by a company creating a better product at a cheaper price, some do this through technological innovation and better manufacturing, or by becoming a more efficient company therefor reducing overhead. All of these ways are great, they are what make a free market great, and i believe makes america a great economy.

The problems come in when you have a company start to use a different tactic. When a company grows largely through acquisition's it can be problematic. Instead of beating out competition by making a better product, company's with deep pockets can simple do a "temporary" price reduction. Under cutting the profits of competitors until they go bankrupt, then simply buy them out and dissolve. Then that company can raise price's with out concern because there is no competition, giving them control of that market place. A current example would be ISP (Internet Service Providers). 63% of American Household have zero to 1 choice of hard line ISP, and no it isnt because some commi bureaucrat made a regulations making it difficult to start an local ISP. It is because much larger ISP bought out most of the local ISPs. These tactics are not good for the end consumer, today in america millions of household pay a premium for internet service that is comparatively poor by today's standards because those households only have 1 company in there area even offering them service. Your "Laisseze Fair Economics" ideals cause these types of situations, without government checks on these dirty tactics all end consumers will suffer, and i believe that is not american.

http://www.sacatech.com/blog-history-of-isps.php

 

is that was the libcommies in the old world tell you? Its a given the free markets failure but can be set right by big men with guns!!

 

The reference to market failure comes from orthodox economics, obviously.

 

Marxists, in contrast, would say that markets have inefficient and democratically unwanted outcomes – viewing market failure as an inherent feature of any capitalist economy – and typically omit it from discussion, preferring to ration finite goods not exclusively through a price mechanism, but based upon need as determined by society expressed through the community.

 

What Marxists are they then? Please refer to the source, the analysis and the conclusions?

A sensible person would know, mind you, that market failure analysis originates from neoclassical economics....

 

but thats the way Plato and Aristotle thought. One was fora huge govt and the other was for freedom. A voting booth is binary too. You again pick Plato( liberal) or Aristotle( freedom). Now do you understand?

 

this is 100% wrong of course. If you get an MBA first thing they teach you is that if one company is for profits and its competitor is for loving or serving its customers the loving and serving company will win and the other will go bankrupt! Now you understand capitalism!! Try to figure out who tricked you into the Marxist POV!

 

totally silly since both sides believe in anti trust. It was settled 100 years ago yet you act like you discovered it and you are fighting for it today????

 

nobody is talking about where the concept originates. Trying to change subject again and don't even know it?? Its hardly a surprise that you have yet another thing in common with your Marxist friends!!

 

That you'd confuse neoclassical economics with Marxism shows you have no argument.

 

my argument is that socialist govt failure has killed 200 million and yet you are a socialist worried about market failure

 

Why do you think the socialist Orwell was against the dictatorships you pretend to be socialist?

 

who cares???? That's like asking why did Hitler think Stalin was evil. The point of America is that big govt is evil in any form!!

Here are some founders quotes to introduce you to America mostly Jefferson and Madison)

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

-20)History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.

-21)I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

-22)I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

-23)My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.

-24)Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

-25)Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

-26)The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.

-27)Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

-2Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.