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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (41471)	10/30/2008 10:17:43 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

>>Folks who hate government for get the very real importance of the benefits they bring. Free markets aren't as simple as you make them out to be.<< Exactly mindmeld. You often phrase things so clearly. It is a pleasure to read your possts.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (41471)	10/30/2008 11:17:01 PM
From: LLCF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

He's amusing. I knew we should have gone to the metric system... I think teensy weansy is 2/3 of a micron. -ggg- dAK

To: RetiredNow who wrote (41471)	10/31/2008 11:12:31 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Re: "Dan, this statement exposes you for lack of knowledge in the area of economics." Funny that, and its my unfinished major! You are simply incorrect. There is little point in pretending the introduction of government interference, i.e. socialism, in the marketplace provides for free markets. You are a card. Re: "Any economist will tell you that sometimes free markets simply cannot even get off the ground without government intervention." Any Economist? Every Economist then? Would you provide an example of that? Remember please, that the definition of free markets requires something...um...what was that? Sorry, my economics is rusty...Oh yeah, the utter lack of government intervention. You are a card. But anyway, seriously, if some "free market" enterprise gets off the ground with government backing, this implies the government left it alone after "getting it off the ground." Here, government involvement prevents its initial existence from being a product of free markets. This might hamper its chances of survival in the free market! However, if this enterprise then is denied the benefit of further government assistance, it may succeed and become a free enterprise in a free market, if accepted by customers. The minute this now free market enterprise might later "need" to obtain, and GET government help, it begins operating outside of what the free market allowed, and is no longer a free market enterprise, even if free market companies exist all around it. This outfit is now best described as a socialist enterprise. Of course then, if this socialist enterprise has an effect on the formerly free market enterprises operating all around it, then these other enterprises no longer are operating in a free market, for the subsidized enterprise changed the game board for them, and their bookeeping entries, if they survive at all. Re: "Sometimes, the natural competition in free markets creates natural monopolies, which by their very existence squeeze out all competition, until the markets are anything by free." In the first place, oddly enough, it would be incorrect to say the natural monopoly is the product of anything but a free market system, and the above "anything but free" is a characterization which may be misleading. From Wikipedia(1st): "An industry is said to be a natural monopoly if one firm can produce a desired output at a lower social cost than two or more firms— that is, there are economies of scale in social costs.[1][2] Unlike in the ordinary understanding of a monopoly, a natural monopoly situation does not mean that only one firm is providing a particular kind of good or service. Rather it is the assertion about an industry, that multiple firms providing a good or service is less efficient (more costly to a nation or economy) than would be the case if a single firm provided a good or service. There may, or may not be, a single supplier in such an industry. This is a normative claim which is used to justify the creation of statutory monopolies, where government prohibits competition by law. Examples of claimed natural monopolies include railways, telecommunications, water services, electricity, mail delivery and computer software. Some claim that the theory is a flawed rationale for state prohibition of competition.[3][4]" From Wikipedia(2nd): "An industry is said to be a natural monopoly (also called technical monopoly) if only one firm is able to survive in the long run, even in the absence of legal regulations or "predatory" measures by the monopolist.[2] It is said that this is the result of high fixed costs of entering an industry which causes long run average costs to decline as output expands (i.e. economies of scale in private costs)." Doesn't sound so bad to me, this "anything but free" which certainly resulted from free markets. We have debatable issues here. For you to suggest Free Markets aren't simple is fine, but to accuse me of pretending they are when you yourself argue against them by saying "If you put a lion in a cage with several antelopes, then come back a week later, how many antelopes will there be? Economics is like that," is rather hypocritical I should think. Dan B.