Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (3098)	3/11/2004 3:42:43 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

SI is littered with dead straw.

To: TimF who wrote (3098)	3/11/2004 6:04:42 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

I see......according to you, there is no benefit gained from having margin accounts or insuring bank accounts No Ted I didn't say anything about "having margin accounts" or insuring bank accounts. I said the crash was primarily caused by government action. I also said some of the government action in response to the crash and the depression was counterproductive. Neither of those statements is the same as saying that none of the government action after the crash was beneficial. Again you are attacking a straw man. Lately it seems to be one of your favorite pastimes. Straw man? Hardly. You said that "the intersection of stupidity and greed would exist even with gov't regulation". Now you may not have intended it but that statement suggests that gov't regulation can not stop market crashes, and thus, making gov't superfluous in a capitalist economy........which, of course, runs exactly counter to the argument I initially made. If you meant something else, then you are off on a tangent and confusing it with the argument being discussed on this board. Overt greed usually results in over the top speculation Overt greed exists in even totalitarian countries. Yes, but it doesn't topple markets because there are none to speak of in a total. country I can see this as a flaw but monopolies are far more likely to form because of government action then because of its absence. Yes, and did you know the sky was black? Seriously, all the years in school......I guess they were feeding me propaganda. I should have called you for the straight scoop. Name a true monopoly (not just a dominant competitor but a monopoly) that exists without government assistance in getting that monopoly. Try to make it one that isn't a monopoly in a very tightly defined market segment. You ignore a hundred years of history and many cases of monopolies that were not caused by gov't but rather were broken up by gov't, but instead, dwell on any that exist right now. We are wasting each other's time. Microsoft has a monopoly on the Windows operating systems because of copyright laws. It has a dominant position in desktop computer operating systems but it doesn't have a monopoly. Local cable companies are often given exclusive licenses, this gives them a narrow monopoly (in cable TV service to a particular area) but they have competition in providing video from over the air and satellite broadcasts. Intel is by far the strongest company in the CPU market but it is not a monopoly (unless you define the market as narrow as "the market for CPU's in computers sold by Dell). The same could be said for Tyson in the Chicken market and other companies. The real monopolies are those that get that monopoly from the government. I'm not saying its impossible for a business to get a monopoly in a broadly defined or other wise important market without government help but its a rare exception. See my comments above. know capitalism is a sacred cow with you but it is flawed. It's not as much that capitalism is flawed but that capitalists are, and probably always will be, flawed. One can not exist without the other. ted