Sarah Palin goes off the deep end

[Jude]

Speculations are that she is getting ready to run for president, but as anyone who listened to her press conference can tell, she has finally completely severed her ties with reality. None of the **** she said even meant anything or made any sense.

Discuss how close this bitch was to being the POTUS.

[Der Übermensch]

Wow... just wow...

[Iskandar]

I'm pretty sure she was always off the deep end.

Conclusion: She's trying to get revenge at the Republican political machine by making herself even more of a laughingstock than she would normally be.

[Raayl]

yeah she had over 18 complaints filed against her office just this last year

which i guess is a lot and so shes crying about it

[Raayl]

ok so i just turned on the TV and listened to her speech

she is literally making absolutely no sense at all and there is no hyperbole

"i choose not to tear down but to build up. We can't just go with the flow like dead fish go with the flow. I tried to build up. I fight for my country and my state. I will not run for re-election."

what the ****?

[Raayl]

now shes talking about basketball

this woman has completely lost her mind

[1338 h4x0r]

She talks like one who has only very recently learned English

[robertsona]

she's shooting for president of the world

[Hep Kat]

Yeah, she's definitely not playing with a full deck anymore.

Good thing the GOP doesn't want her. I doubt they'd survive ol' moosey emerging as one of their definitve leaders.

[gregulus]

That speech was terrible. It's hilarious that she was essentially trolled out of office, though.

[Frankie-C!]

How did the Republicans ever fool her into thinking that they actually respect women?

Oh wait.. she's Sarah Palin, that's right.

But aren't all speeches in America essentially charmless, without character and full of clumsy metaphors? Or is that just the NASCAR commentary..

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Can someone link me to this? I want to hear how much of a moron she had to sound like for people to say she got worse.

[1338 h4x0r]

That speech was terrible. It's hilarious that she was essentially trolled out of office, though.

:lol:

[Tillius]

It's terrifying to see how many people would have wanted her to be in office.

[rasputin]

Can someone link me to this? I want to hear how much of a moron she had to sound like for people to say she got worse.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OyjXE7OhSk

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

hahahaha sweet holy mother of jesus that was bad. At least she somehow realizes that she's a waste of taxpayer dollars. I still have absolutely no idea what her actual reason to resign was.

[McP3000]

why are you people surprised her omnibus has great ambitions

[mph4ever]

definitely presidential material

[Light Flantastic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OyjXE7OhSk

McCain's speech writer was just holding her back.

[rasputin]

At least she somehow realizes that she's a waste of taxpayer dollars
no i don't think she actually realises, that's the thing :lol:
McCain's speech writer was just holding her back.
pretty much, she's really come into her own now as an articulate stateswoman

[sweboy]

she definitely does not have all the horses in the stable

[deathscreamingsheep]

Simpsons geekery here, but was nobody else reminded of

"Onwards not upwards, back wards not forwards, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards the future"

[JohnXDoe3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OyjXE7OhSk
i clicked. trouble is i couldn't stand it for more then 10 sec

"so i started thinking well what do lame ducks do....maybe they travel the world...." blah blah

and that voice. the woman is awful

[beso negro]

idk i thought this was pretty cool:

A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket... and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN. And I'm doing that - keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities - smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it's time to pass the ball - for victory.

[Raayl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFdcSu4UyxI&feature=popular

rumored that she is under criminal investigation and this is merely damage control for bad news thats coming on the way

[gregulus]

idk i thought this was pretty cool:

Maybe it would be cool on opposite day.

[Light Flantastic]

so you dont like small government

you dont like energy independence

you dont like national security

and you dont like freedom

[StreetlightRock]

freedom is slavery

[Light Flantastic]

property is theft

[TerranYouApart]

i heard she bought a house with taxpayer money and she's about to be indicted on it

[Light Flantastic]

well obama bought some companies and nobody cares i think thats pretty unfair

[StreetlightRock]

you forget obama can do no wrong and if he did it would be right this is what everyone tells me

[gregulus]

It was more the full court press thing. That's ****ing cheesy.

[TerranYouApart]

well obama bought some companies and nobody cares i think thats pretty unfair

the government isn't obama's, he represents the people. chad i don't think you understand how democracy works.

[Light Flantastic]

the government isn't obama's, he represents the people. chad i don't think you understand how democracy works.

the people were against the bailout i believe

silly obama

[Ulthwe]

property is theft

everything is property

[Jude]

A huge scandal of some kind is going to emerge in the next day or so.

[Stig Caraveo]

I still have absolutely no idea what her actual reason to resign was.

you only don't understand because this isn't politics as usual.

[Raayl]

wait why is light flantastic defending sarah palin's idiotic speech and why is he talking about obama im confused

[Light Flantastic]

because people need reminding that obama is just as terrible if not moreso

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

because people need reminding that obama is just as terrible if not moreso

rofl

Sarah Palin thinks reading the newspaper is elitist.

[Light Flantastic]

it is pretty pretentious

we have internet news why would you buy a physical paper unless you are being a dick i agree 100%

[Light Flantastic]

obama thinks people who like freedom are bitter though thats pretty much worse

[Light Flantastic]

plus like

he's black

[McP3000]

half black

[Light Flantastic]

half white

all socialist

[Radiobass81]

it is pretty pretentious

we have internet news why would you buy a physical paper unless you are being a dick i agree 100%

It's like cybering. It's just not the same.

[Light Flantastic]

idk newspapers are pretty cumbersome

especially the really pretentious ones which are huge

[TerranYouApart]

i think using a computer and saying newspaper readers are pretentious is pretentious

chad: i should clarify that i meant a "representative" democracy, you know, like the one that exists in our reality, you know, reality?

[Light Flantastic]

using a computer is utilitarian its the opposite of pretentiousness you pretentious jerk

[TerranYouApart]

i'm surprised you don't have a mac you're so pretentious pretentious.

[Chaindrive]

Good, out with her.

Ugh.

[TerranYouApart]

some people really like her. (she probably reminds them of themselves).

i am more qualified to run a country than any of them.

and i will never be anywhere close to being qualified to run a country.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Palin 2012

[Stig Caraveo]

Palin-Keyes '12

[Frankie-C!]

Seth Rogan - Presidential candidate with hilarious consequences!

[Against Miik!]

You know how they say you are only as strong as your weakest link? Read this to get some perspective on that.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjaJOLdlUJZGUh5g4SgSneilDH1G;_ylv=3?qid =20090704151045AAkFz7p

[fingers mccoy]

idk newspapers are pretty cumbersome

especially the really pretentious ones which are huge

some people have lifestyles where they spend most of their time on the train and shi rather than getting to use the internet plus they're more familiar with the newspaper format they know which pages are where

newspapers are less and less popular tho

[Light Flantastic]

you can use a laptop on a train but yeah i read the metro sometimes because thats hip

[TerranYouApart]

you're so bitterly unfunny when you pick apart such trivial pursuits so often as you do

[Light Flantastic]

what

[guitarded_chuck]

she's ****ed

and it's funny cause americans might actually make her their leader in a few years

[McP3000]

no we wont dont say that

[Stig Caraveo]

she's ****ed

and it's funny cause americans might actually make her their leader in a few years

haha no this is extremely unlikely.

[Against Miik!]

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php

Just read the first few paragraphs of this.

Somebody with the writing and comprehension skills of a 12 year old shouldn't be allowed to run for mayor much less governor or president.

[Light Flantastic]

i like how people think obama is any better than palin

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

i like how desperate chad seems to bait someone

[Raayl]

is this chad the chad

like the famous spammer chad

[Light Flantastic]

i like how people are actually so involved in the obama personality cult that they cant accept that someone actually thinks hes terrible

[guitarded_chuck]

well you have to explain yourself

why do you think obama is "terrible", and in what way is he no better than sarah palin

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

because obama is black hates freedom and is a socialist dont you get it

[guitarded_chuck]

oh yea i forgot he's a ****in commie

[Light Flantastic]

how about that he ran his entire campaign on change and transparency and now appears to be doing to exact opposite

he's creating more regulation

he publicly derides things that are the consequence of bills that he supported in the first place

he tries to manipulate the press and screens his public town hall meetings so that he doesnt have to answer any difficult questions, and when he does encounter one he's evasive and dismissive, as if he has some masterplan that the general public are just too stupid to understand and he shouldnt have to explain himself

he refuses to release important materials in the public interest, e.g. torture images, memos, etc

hes such an everyman that he takes his wife on merry jaunts where he has large parts of manhattan closed on the public dime while whining about how real americans are starving and losing their jobs due to big business


thats not even touching upon his retarded political views

[DBoons Ghost]

she's ****ed

and it's funny cause americans might actually make her their leader in a few years

Lol, no no. Silly canuck. Palin has no chance to run as a Republican. The party is done with her. If she runs as anything else, no one will notice, and no one will care. The Republicans have plenty of potentials, as long as no one else runs off to the Adirondacks for a "hike".

All the old conservatives I know, ages 50 and up do love Sarah Palin, but not to run the free world. I think people see her as a hard working woman with some balls that takes no BS and loves Jesus, raises tard kids.. Embraces her screwed up kid.. There's a lot of simple minded people in the country. Sometimes that's all they need. Jesus, a gun rack, a nice set of tits to look at when she gives speeches, some tasty blow job lips.. Oh right.. and Jesu.. and retarded kids. Because God loves them, and Jesus does to.

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

how about that he ran his entire campaign on change and transparency and now appears to be doing to exact opposite

he's creating more regulation

he publicly derides things that are the consequence of bills that he supported in the first place

he tries to manipulate the press and screens his public town hall meetings so that he doesnt have to answer any difficult questions, and when he does encounter one he's evasive and dismissive, as if he has some masterplan that the general public are just too stupid to understand and he shouldnt have to explain himself

he refuses to release important materials in the public interest, e.g. torture images, memos, etc

hes such an everyman that he takes his wife on merry jaunts where he has large parts of manhattan closed on the public dime while whining about how real americans are starving and losing their jobs due to big business


thats not even touching upon his retarded political views

not in every case

well ya he said he would bring further market regulation, but less regulation =/= freedom

i agree with the torture images point, actually, I don't understand his reasoning there

the criticism he faced for releasing them in the first place was mostly of the conservative brood though, so it's interesting that republicans are critical of his nondisclosure now

not that i'm calling you a republican or anything

[DBoons Ghost]

The way I see it on Obama, we've been doing it the crotchety old white man's way for a long time and things clearly haven't worked. I mean, they work for me. But they don't seem to work for everyone.

I despise Obama's policies and his politics. His Congress is the most corrupt I have ever seen it in all my years. His pwn of the media is aboslutely scary. But, with all that said, I love the man. I enjoy watching him speak, and I like the way he carries himself. He's an outright coward, but maybe that's what is needed right now? I dunno.

That's the problem though. I don't know. I know I don't like his politics, but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing for the country right now, and more importantly the world.

I am selfish. I want a rich white guy back in the White House. It would be nice if everyone can get a taste though.

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

well obama's not exactly poor, is he?

[Light Flantastic]

well ya he said he would bring further market regulation, but less regulation =/= freedomwell ya it does by definition but that wasnt the point

the point was that bush was the biggest increaser of regulatory spending for a long time and further increases arent a platform of change at all

[DBoons Ghost]

well obama's not exactly poor, is he?

No no, he's not wealthy. His money is not his. He hasn't earned it. Don't you see?

I mean, he's a 3 term Senator and before that he was a Community Organizer cuz the fool couldn't get a job in the field he specialized in. He may have a degree but he's never run a business, much less a county, city or state economy. He's got no concept. He's not from old money. He's never earned a hard day's pay. Has he? I mean, look at the facts! He couldn't get a law firm going or get a job in one, so instead he becomes a law professor (lol) and a community organizer.

He's a solid con man, well versed in talking money out of people's pockets and into his. He's chaired more committees and sat in on more boards.. I dunno. I just fail to see how he's anymore qualified then a lot of other people. He's a few moral degrees from a con man, and in any other country that's probably what he'd be.

[Light Flantastic]

obamas policies are pretty much the same as the ones that ****ed up japan in the 90s

hes a crazy negro man

[DBoons Ghost]

He's trying to get everyone on the American Dream train. It's not gonna work.

He's running the country out of a textbook because that's all he knows. I know this forum's gonna accuse me of "academicism" in my hate for over educated pampered lazy leeches who would rather get another 30 credits as opposed to get a real job like the one you'll have serving guys like me coffee. Most of the poeple I know who love him are worthless sloths who I would feed to Lions were I in charge. All of the people my age who love him are still in school, and probably will be until the end of their days, where they will die alone and poor living off the state.

I realize Academicism isn't a word.

[Light Flantastic]

i know you're all already subscribed to reason but

http://reason.com/news/show/133862.html

[DBoons Ghost]

I've not yet seen this article but the theory is well known indeed.

I will take some time to read it. Most say it was the only option which gives him some play.

He can write these 4 years off as "Bush" as well, and the sheeple will most certainly believe him and give him another 4.

There could be that strategy.

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

obamas policies are pretty much the same as the ones that ****ed up japan in the 90s

hes a crazy negro man

well to be fair yours are the same ones that ****ed up america at the turn of the 20th century

[DBoons Ghost]

well to be fair yours are the same ones that ****ed up america at the turn of the 20th century

Now, when you say "****ed up America" could you be a little more specific?

Most working people who aren't living with their heads in the sand are still doing very well indeed sir, and those who did the right thing are paying the price for everyone else's sins.

Let's set public opinion aside, because really, pretending to care what other people think about your life is always lulzy to me, so let's set that aside.

2001 set off a terrible chain of events no? Bush was a terrible fiscal President. He was a terrible man in a lot of ways.

Though, the country is ****ed up for sure, is it really ****ed up for everyone?

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

nono I was referring to the beginning of the 20th century, I guess "turn of" was the wrong way to put it

[DBoons Ghost]

Not really, when you go that far back. One could make a solid case for the fact that old rich white men have been ripping the world off since the Great Depression. But, that would encompass more then just America. Goldman Sachs has an interesting and very rich history. ONe could find a lot of answers from learning how their company operates. It doesn't take a genius to see how many Fed chairmen and experts in economy have emerged from that one investment bank. Eventually you have to wonder.

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

I don't totally understand, I'm reading this, anything else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs

[DBoons Ghost]

Wiki cannot help you.

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine

[Raayl]

i like how people are actually so involved in the obama personality cult that they cant accept that someone actually thinks hes terrible

i dont like obama either. in fact, i'm very displeased with him so far.

[Frankie-C!]

Yeah but when was there ever a good President, when you think about it. If nothing else he's at least slightly less annoying than the usual sexually depraved dirty old man that runs the country.

[Raayl]

oh i dont care about politics if thats what you're implying it is absolutely pointless to debate such nonsense as politics it's like debating what the best color is or jello flavor

i myself like strawberry btw

[Frankie-C!]

I don't see how you managed to infer that but ok

btw it's called jelly and the best flavour is blueberry.

[Raayl]

see i disagree

plz cite relevant info proving blueberry is the superior flavor.

[Light Flantastic]

well to be fair yours are the same ones that ****ed up america at the turn of the 20th century

not really no

[DBoons Ghost]

not really no

Dude you have to admit there are some gaping flaws. I can account for a bunch since 2000 at least, that have caused catastrophe in the global market.

I mean, the dot com bust, the sub prime debacle, are two obvious ones. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. So cliche it's sickening.

Lucky me I was on the upside but obviously the country wasn't so lucky. For every average American who lost money on a CDO or an asset swap, some dingbat trader made a ton of money. I'm not talking about the schmuck on the street who bought a house they couldn't afford, I'm talking about swinging dick morons who thought they knew what they were doing when they bought millions in CDOs only to lose billions. Every single event was carefully planned and executed.

[Frankie-C!]

dear god you talk **** sometimes

[DBoons Ghost]

dear god you talk **** sometimes

Me?

By all means, elaborate!

[Frankie-C!]

you take a **** and then pick up the **** and put the **** in your mouth and then you start talking and **** comes out of your mouth

[McP3000]

you take a **** and then pick up the **** and put the **** in your mouth and then you start talking and **** comes out of your mouth
how astute of you

[DBoons Ghost]

That explains it.

Thanks! I'm glad we could have this discussion.

[TerranYouApart]

nono I was referring to the beginning of the 20th century, I guess "turn of" was the wrong way to put it

I got it. Then again... I am in college.

[gregulus]

I know this forum's gonna accuse me of "academicism" in my hate for over educated pampered lazy leeches who would rather get another 30 credits as opposed to get a real job like the one you'll have serving guys like me coffee.
I still don't know why you think that most college graduates work at Starbucks.

[DBoons Ghost]

I still don't know why you think that most college graduates work at Starbucks.

Dude at this point if you don't think it's just a joke (to me) I have to question your badge of internets.

It was a generalization. Then I noticed it seemed to get on people's nerves.

So of course I'm gonna keep at it.

Though, it must be said that every Starbucks I go into, the folks who work there are the neverending student types. I know this doesn't account for every single college grad the last 8 years have produced. It's just funnier that way. I do have 2 years of college under my belt. I know I suck because I never finished. I really wanted to, but work got in the way.

[TerranYouApart]

yeah dude, those are the people who work while they are in college, imagine the kids that don't. you're criticizing people for having a job.

[DBoons Ghost]

yeah dude, those are the people who work while they are in college, imagine the kids that don't. you're criticizing people for having a job.

Now, now, let's not take it there. It's worthy troll, to be sure, but you're missing the point. Most of them already graduated with a degree in some liberal arts area. They just are unable to put it good use. The most common themes among them seem to be those who chose to major in Religious Studies. A lot of them didn't stop to think how they could sell their degrees to earn a living. So they go back, and keep going back, until they are in their late 20s. It seems to be a growing trend is all. A lot of my very good friends are neverending students. Some my age, still working a menial job trying to get their education sorted out. I know it's not all of them. That's what makes it funny to me. I know it pisses people off too, and that can also be funny.

[beso negro]

i had multiple job offers coming out of college and all of them offered at least 50K

[Iskandar]

That's because you're just a better person than the rest of us.

[Light Flantastic]

someone sounds mad they didnt do a real degree

Dude you have to admit there are some gaping flaws. I can account for a bunch since 2000 at least, that have caused catastrophe in the global market.
i dont think america has implemented 'my' views in modern history since that would involve the idea that recessions only happen when government messes with the market, ie when they encourage investment in certain areas/sectors so that they develop without real market demand

like if we take the dot com bubble as an example the fed was busy adding money money to the system and lowering rates all over the place at the time, which allowed people to invest in trendy stuff that there was no real consumer demand for yet, making it pretty much destined to failure from the outset

recessions arent really as much of a nose dive as they are a sharp return to what the natural market wants. that doesnt mean the people who are wealthy independently of the current bubble arent in a better position to **** other people over though, because they are, but the bubbles are unnecessary in the first place.

[Light Flantastic]

oh and the reason they were throwing money at the economy before 2000 was because, of all things, the y2k 'problem'

which is plain retarded

then when the dot com bubble burst they started cutting rates again which caused the housing bubble

and so we continue

[TerranYouApart]

Now, now, let's not take it there. It's worthy troll, to be sure, but you're missing the point. Most of them already graduated with a degree in some liberal arts area. They just are unable to put it good use. The most common themes among them seem to be those who chose to major in Religious Studies. A lot of them didn't stop to think how they could sell their degrees to earn a living. So they go back, and keep going back, until they are in their late 20s. It seems to be a growing trend is all. A lot of my very good friends are neverending students. Some my age, still working a menial job trying to get their education sorted out. I know it's not all of them. That's what makes it funny to me. I know it pisses people off too, and that can also be funny.

they must be good with people, and the fact that your a grouchy dickhead who doesn't like them leads me to believe they got a degree in hospitality and they're paid to get you to come back every day, even though they think you're a real douchebag deep down.

that's a skill

[Light Flantastic]

university is pretty much a waste of time unless its a real science you are studying

[TerranYouApart]

i don't mind being in college. it's going to take me 5 years i think or more.

hardly a waste of time, life is good.

[Light Flantastic]

its a waste of time like watching tv is a waste of time that doesnt mean you dont enjoy it

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

someone sounds mad they didnt do a real degree


i dont think america has implemented 'my' views in modern history since that would involve the idea that recessions only happen when government messes with the market, ie when they encourage investment in certain areas/sectors so that they develop without real market demand

like if we take the dot com bubble as an example the fed was busy adding money money to the system and lowering rates all over the place at the time, which allowed people to invest in trendy stuff that there was no real consumer demand for yet, making it pretty much destined to failure from the outset

recessions arent really as much of a nose dive as they are a sharp return to what the natural market wants. that doesnt mean the people who are wealthy independently of the current bubble arent in a better position to **** other people over though, because they are, but the bubbles are unnecessary in the first place.

america was pretty regulation-free at the transition of the 19th to 20th century

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

university is pretty much a waste of time unless its a real science you are studying

in terms of practical knowledge, I kind of agree but it makes you more qualified insofar as getting into grad school or getting a job

[Light Flantastic]

america was pretty regulation-free at the transition of the 19th to 20th century

explain what you think regulation-free means and how it caused problems

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

in this period, the glaring fault was anti-monopolization legislation

and uh

http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/FacultyPages/PamMack/lec122sts/child.jpg

[Light Flantastic]

saying it doesnt prove it

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

wait, you think that there was a significantly enforced piece of anti-trust legislation at the end of the 19th century?

[Light Flantastic]

prove that monopolies are bad prove that child labour is bad or an unnecessary part of societal development etc

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

well I'm working from the premise that "it is good for as many people as possible to live comfortably"

i understand you probably don't agree but being a nihilist about everything isn't functional for me

monopolies are bad because they have historically created an environment which makes that premise difficult

societies have developed without episodes of child labor, so that should at least refute that it's necessary

[Light Flantastic]

natural monopolies provide the most efficient and valuable service to the consumer so that would be entirely in line with providing the most comfortable way of living for the most people

and name a modern society that hasnt gone through a child labor

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

natural monopolies provide the most efficient and valuable service to the consumer so that would be entirely in line with providing the most comfortable way of living for the most people


so you really consider the living conditions of the working class in the United under presidents Harrison, Cleveland, and McKinley comfortable?

because that's when monopolies had free reign to "provide the most efficient and valuable service to the consumer"

[Light Flantastic]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/64uqp.jpg

name a modern society that hasnt gone through a child labor

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/64uqp.jpg


the point you're missing is that even though correlation does not imply causation, what you're arguing entails that a total lack of correlation implies causation

[Light Flantastic]

you're the one making a positive statement you have to prove it

and name a modern society that hasnt gone through a child labor period

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

Intuitively, causation seems to require not just a correlation, but a counterfactual dependence. Suppose that a student performed poorly on a test and guesses that the cause was his not studying. To prove this, one thinks of the counterfactual - the same student writing the same test under the same circumstances but having studied the night before. If one could rewind history, and change only one small thing (making the student study for the exam), then causation could be observed (by comparing version 1 to version 2). Because one cannot rewind history and replay events after making small controlled changes, causation can only be inferred, never exactly known. This is referred to as the Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference - it is impossible to directly observe causal effects.

you're telling me to prove things that aren't provable in that sense, any more than your own beliefs

[Light Flantastic]

im telling you to prove that natural monopolies are responsible for poor living conditions, which is entirely provable

well, it would be entirely provable if it were true

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

out of curiosity, then, what did cause the poor living conditions in that time period?

[Smokey D]

natural monopolies provide the most efficient and valuable service to the consumer so that would be entirely in line with providing the most comfortable way of living for the most people

and name a modern society that hasnt gone through a child labor

By definition a natural monopoly does not provide the most efficient service to the consumer because it doesn't maximise consumer surplus.

[Light Flantastic]

out of curiosity, then, what did cause the poor living conditions in that time period?
so you've given up answering both of the points


By definition a natural monopoly does not provide the most efficient service to the consumer because it doesn't maximise consumer surplus.
if you assume a truly free market with no barriers to entry a natural monopoly is one that provides the greatest consumer surplus, or it wouldnt hold a monopoly in the first place

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

so you've given up answering both of the points



that's an interesting way of putting it

[Light Flantastic]

you still havent named a society that didnt at one point depend on child labour

you still havent shown your claim that monopolies caused a poor standard of living to be true

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

prove that monopolies are good prove that child labour is good or a necessary part of societal development etc

[Light Flantastic]

fasdas im not the one making positive statements

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

[Light Flantastic]

i just linked to that before i edited

i already presented a logical argument for why natural monopolies are fine based on your own criteria stop dodging the point silly

[McP3000]

well technically it was like in the early early 1900's but same diff

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

what is "no barriers to entry" and how have they stopped "real" natural monopolies from developing in the past

[Light Flantastic]

if there is open competition and one business charges a better price or offers a better service and therefore everyone chooses to use it for those reasons it becomes a natural monopoly

if we use an example of a pharmacy or something idk, dick's pharmacy provides the best service in all the land and his prices are rock bottom, so everyone shops there and he becomes the only pharmacy simply because he is better than the others

but one day dick gets greedy and says hey im the only dude around selling drugs why dont i put my prices up and make more cash

him doing that provides the opportunity for another competitor to enter the market and undercut him, forcing dick to lower his prices or lose custom

but, if the new competitor has to get a pharmacy license due to government regulations, and thats going to cost him a few thousand dollars, thats what we call a barrier to entry because it might deter him from entering the market and undercutting dick, so dick would get to keep his prices high

tl;dr: dick

[Smokey D]

so you've given up answering both of the points



if you assume a truly free market with no barriers to entry a natural monopoly is one that provides the greatest consumer surplus, or it wouldnt hold a monopoly in the first place

No, a natural monopoly exists because entry costs are very high (which excludes your assumption of 'no barriers to entry' )and running costs are very low so the monopoly is able to exclude competition. Because companies are charged with maximising value for their shareholders, natural monopolies operate at a profit maximising point which is not the same as the consumer surplus maximising point. This generates dead weight loss, which means there is a loss of efficiency to the market.

Economics 101. I can show you a diagram if you like.

[Light Flantastic]

thats only true when the monopoly owns something valuable or scarce

natural monopoly in the sense it comes from the market, not a monopoly that comes naturally from circumstance

[Smokey D]

thats only true when the monopoly owns something valuable or scarce

Yes. If the commodity being traded is not scarce, then it would basically be impossible to establish a monopoly around it.


natural monopoly in the sense it comes from the market, not a monopoly that comes naturally from circumstance

What?

Natural monopoly is an established term with an established meaning. It means a monopoly that exists because entry costs are exceptionally high and marginal costs are low. If you're talking about a monopoly that comes into existence for any other reason, you aren't talking about a natural monopoly.

[Light Flantastic]

yeah but i am because its a monopoly that arises naturally you know thats generally what we call a homonym

[Smokey D]

yeah but i am because its a monopoly that arises naturally you know thats generally what we call a homonym

First of all, it's pretty dumb to use an established term to mean anything other than what the term normally refers to. Second, how does a monopoly 'naturally arise' in any way except where TC is high but MC is low?

[Aaron]

:lol:

The only other option is due to population constraints, ie. only shop in a town syndrome.

[Light Flantastic]

First of all, it's pretty dumb to use an established term to mean anything other than what the term normally refers to.
not really when the context is clear in a thread where i had been talking about regulations and free markets and etc in a continuing conversation

Second, how does a monopoly 'naturally arise' in any way except where TC is high but MC is low?
monopolies naturally arise where competition fails to provide a comparable service or product

[Smokey D]

Don't oppress me, Alex.


not really when the context is clear in a thread where i had been talking about regulations and free markets and etc in a continuing conversation

Um, so? Those are unnatural monopolies.


monopolies naturally arise where competition fails to provide a comparable service or product

Perhaps. I don't want to go into the whys and wherefores of all monopolies. But that's not a natural monopoly.

[Light Flantastic]

its not a natural monopoly if you use the economic term meaning a monopoly resulting from specific circumstances but i was speaking in general terms about monopolies that arise from (natural) market forces

you're nitpicking, the context was clear enough

[Iskandar]

Don't oppress me, Alex.Don't drag me into things I have nothing to do with.

[TerranYouApart]

its a waste of time like watching tv is a waste of time that doesnt mean you dont enjoy it

man i want to live in your fantasy world where watching tv is hard and increases your social and economic standing. why aren't we all libertarians?

(your comparisons suck on a pretty consistent basis, that's what i'm getting at)(stop doing them and then argue your point oh wait that might be hard reality is a bitch)

[Light Flantastic]

non-science degrees are hard?

well maybe a few of them

[Aaron]

I'm the battleship, you can be the thimble.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

There reaches a point where it's not viable for there to be any other providers servicing the market, but that isn't a natural monopoly. I'd argue that it'd be oligopoly, with certain market players just choosing not to trade.

[Smokey D]

Don't drag me into things I have nothing to do with.

I was using you as an example which I know he would understand.

its not a natural monopoly if you use the economic term meaning a monopoly resulting from specific circumstances but i was speaking in general terms about monopolies that arise from (natural) market forces

Right so it's not a natural monopoly at all.

Also, when we say monopoly we generally mean something which has market power to exclude competition not something which exists because of an unstable consumer preference. Presumably even if monopolies could form by operation of market forces because of consumer preference, the moment they began to operate at the profit maximising point and not the consumer surplus maximising point, there would be an incentive for entry which would disrupt the monopoly. If the monopoly only existed because of market preference then it could not stop entry, but this doesn't seem to be what we mean when we say monopoly.

[Light Flantastic]

I'm the battleship, you can be the thimble.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

There reaches a point where it's not viable for there to be any other providers servicing the market, but that isn't a natural monopoly. I'd argue that it'd be oligopoly, with certain market players just choosing not to trade.

that is what smokey is talking about when he says natural monopoly thats not what i am or was talking about

[TerranYouApart]

non-science degrees are hard?

well maybe a few of them

does the world even need musicians?

maybe not, but it has them, and some even have the means to go to college imagine that.

[Aaron]

Nope. The distinction is the previous service providers being there.

Situation A) Three providers are in a competitive market, one slips out due to external factors [ie bought out by other party or stops production as it's not a core-centre for profit] and the second determines that it's not in its long term interest to complete with the third [likely most successful] provider, and also follows suit and stops production, leaving the third provider with 100% market share

Situation B) Market factors mean that only one provider is viable from the start, ie only doctor in town qualified to practice

Situation B is a natural monopoly, A is not. Situation A is a Duopoly, with one of the market player deciding to ALLOW the other market player to take 100% profit share.

[Smokey D]

Well, presumably a single operator is a monopoly in some sense and if local market conditions conspire to ensure that only one supplier is viable then he/she/it will be operating monopolistically.

The important bit is that Chad's argument presumes the existence of no barriers to entry but high barriers to entry are a characteristic of monopolies. Monopolies exist either because there are high barriers, such as high entry costs, or because the monopoly itself can exert market power to create barriers.

[Light Flantastic]

Right so it's not a natural monopoly at all.but it is because its a monopoly that arises naturally. that that two-word phrase just so happens to also be in use as a specific but distinct term is irrelevant, especially when the context is clear, which it was

Presumably even if monopolies could form by operation of market forces because of consumer preference, the moment they began to operate at the profit maximising point and not the consumer surplus maximising point, there would be an incentive for entry which would disrupt the monopoly.
well its a monopoly under constant threat of competition but id still call it a monopoly based on the fact that it is, for the moment, exclusively providing the product or service

[Iskandar]

Think there's some confusion about what a natural monopoly is.

A natural monopoly is a good or service which can be best provided by a single distributor, and thus there is no need for competition.

[Light Flantastic]

Situation B) Market factors mean that only one provider is viable from the start, ie only doctor in town qualified to practice

did you just call government regulations market factors

[Aaron]

Well yeah, it's a factor that affects the market. 'scuse the bad english. I am a convict after all.

[Smokey D]

A natural monopoly is a good or service which can be best provided by a single distributor, and thus there is no need for competition.

That's part of what it means although it is important to remember that natural monopolies do not maximise benefit to the consumer.


well its a monopoly under constant threat of competition but id still call it a monopoly based on the fact that it is, for the moment, exclusively providing the product or service

Well, simplifying assumptions regarding market rationality and intelligibility aside, I don't think that sort of monopoly (one which must continue to maximise consumer benefit in order to retain its monopoly) is the one contemplated by anti-trust legislation or other economic regulation, and it is therefore irrelevant to the discussion you were having with andyneverstoppingmachine.

Incidentally, it does not appear that you were using natural monopoly then in the way you are now but whatevs.

[Light Flantastic]

The important bit is that Chad's argument presumes the existence of no barriers to entry but high barriers to entry are a characteristic of monopolies. Monopolies exist either because there are high barriers, such as high entry costs, or because the monopoly itself can exert market power to create barriers.

depends whether you consider ability to compete with the existing monopoly to be a barrier to entry or not

surely if the potential competition cant offer consumers a better or more efficient service or product its right that the monopoly maintains its hold on the market

[Aaron]

Why would you introduce something into the market that's inefficient?

[Smokey D]

depends if you consider ability to compete with the existing monopoly to be a barrier to entry or not

Of course it's a barrier.

surely if the potential competition cant offer consumers a better or more efficient service or product its right that the monopoly maintains its hold on the market

I dunno. If competition induces the erstwhile monopoly to operate at market (rather than monopolistic) equilibrium, then competition is better than no competition, even if the competitor can't actually provide equivalent quality.

[Light Flantastic]

I don't think that sort of monopoly (one which must continue to maximise consumer benefit in order to retain its monopoly) is the one contemplated by anti-trust legislation or other economic regulation, and it is therefore irrelevant to the discussion you were having with andyneverstoppingmachine.i dont agree with that, there are plenty of businesses targeted by regulators for simply providing a better product or at a better price point

e.g. the huge microsoft antitrust case

[Smokey D]

i dont agree with that, there are plenty of businesses targeted by regulators for simply providing a better product or at a better price point

e.g. the huge microsoft antitrust case

Better product/price at what point? If a market is dominated by a monopoly, then presumably it will be able to offer a better product/price than any other competitor at that particular time. But it's another thing entirely to say that if competition couldn't produce better prices/products in the future if the monopoly was broken up.

[Light Flantastic]

but why should it be broken up when the consumer is benefiting from it

unless being poor at something should somehow qualify you for doing it as long as you could somehow potentially improve but not definitely

[Smokey D]

but why should it be broken up when the consumer is benefiting from it

Because you can benefit from something without enjoying the maximal benefit competition would provide.


unless being poor at something should somehow qualify you for doing it as long as you could somehow potentially improve but not definitely

I don't think you can realistically argued the monopoly which Microsoft had was one generated purely by consumer preference.

[Light Flantastic]

Because you can benefit from something without enjoying the maximal benefit competition would provide.
potentially provide, which seems an awfully tenuous justification for use of government power to disrupt something that we know already works

but if the threat of competition is already providing practically the same effect as forced competition i see no problem

I don't think you can realistically argued the monopoly which Microsoft had was one generated purely by consumer preference.they werent charged with being a monopoly, they were charged for the practice of offering their browser for free with their operating system

surely if the browser they were supplying didnt meet consumer needs there'd be an opening for another one, which was actually happening at the time so im not sure what the antitrust regulators cared so much about apart from the chance to take a shot at microsoft

[Smokey D]

potentially provide, which seems an awfully tenuous justification for use of government power to disrupt something that we know already works

There is no doubt that competition stimulates quality improvement.

but if the threat of competition is already providing practically the same effect as forced competition i see no problem

Which means it has to be a realistic threat, which was not the situation with Microsoft.


they werent charged with being a monopoly, they were charged for the practice of offering their browser for free with their operating system


Okay.


surely if the browser they were supplying didnt meet consumer needs there'd be an opening for another one, which was actually happening at the time so im not sure what the antitrust regulators cared so much about apart from the chance to take a shot at microsoft

If I recall, the anti-trust suits led to the break up of Microsoft. So obviously there was more at stake than the inclusion of a browser with hardware

[Mr. Ron]

this move will not hurt her at all

[TerranYouApart]

every time a thread turns into this i quit reading it. can we have 1 thread for arguing with chad?

palin is all like "no government is the best government" so yeah plenty of retards will support her. ^^^^^

[Smokey D]

Apparently a lot of people in the Republican establishment are unhappy with her for it.

[Jude]

or for being a ****ing nutjob

[Iskandar]

palin is all like "no government is the best government" so yeah plenty of retards will support her.Funny thing is she doesn't actually believe that at all and neither does the Republican party.
Apparently a lot of people in the Republican establishment are unhappy with her for it.Mad at her for making them look bad by proxy, more like.

[YDtoad]

Funny thing is she doesn't actually believe that at all and neither does the Republican party.
Mad at her for making them look bad by proxy, more like.

Palin's actions reflect only on Palin. It'd be like saying that Obama trying to intervene to keep an aspiring tyrant in power after not saying a word when Ahmidinejad stole the Iranian elections reflects on all Democrats.

[Smokey D]

Well that wonderful attempt at a thread hijack is worthy of its own thread, but most of the Republican leadership is baffled or pissed by Palin. I don't really know how you could deny this.

[YDtoad]

Well that wonderful attempt at a thread hijack is worthy of its own thread, but most of the Republican leadership is baffled or pissed by Palin. I don't really know how you could deny this.

Those are two entirely different things though. They're mad at her because they saw her as a future national leader, and quitting after 2.5 years as governor severely compromises this future leadership chance. And it comes on the heels of Mark Sanford's trip to Argentina. Nothing to do with her making them look bad. Joe Biden doesn't make all Democrats look bad when he commits his many gaffes, just himself. And maybe Obama for choosing him.

[Smokey D]

It feeds into the idea that the Republican party is spinning out of control. In itself, I don't know how meaningful it would be but because it has followed on the back of so many scandals it acquires additional meaning.

[Mr. Ron]

if anything she'll just become a republican Oprah. She'll probably run again. It doesn't matter if she loses either.

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

Palin's actions reflect only on Palin. It'd be like saying that Obama trying to intervene to keep an aspiring tyrant in power after not saying a word when Ahmidinejad stole the Iranian elections reflects on all Democrats.

yeah it really would have been awesome to get tied up in the middle east

[YDtoad]

It feeds into the idea that the Republican party is spinning out of control. In itself, I don't know how meaningful it would be but because it has followed on the back of so many scandals it acquires additional meaning.

What scandals are you talking about? The scandal is in Jack Murtha and co.'s crooked efforts to reward lobbyists, which make Tom Delay look like a saint. Every ethics violation filed against Palin was resolved; they are all bogus.

[Smokey D]

The various affairs and resignations which have been in the headlines in the last two weeks. Even if Palin has nothing to hide, the fact that she resigned when other major Republicans were resigning because they did have skeletons in their closet is bad press. And, as you say, resigning also indicates that she lacks stomach for a long fight. This doesn't mean the Republican party is in fact poised to go terminal or is controlled by a bunch of seedy and corrupt lechers but it contributes to a bad image. I don't know why you would deny this.

[Aaron]

It feeds into the idea that the Republican party is spinning out of control. In itself, I don't know how meaningful it would be but because it has followed on the back of so many scandals it acquires additional meaning.
It is prety standard for parties to spin out of control for the period directly following losing leadership of a country after a time in power. I see it as natural.

[Light Flantastic]

There is no doubt that competition stimulates quality improvement.
Theoretically, assuming a comparison with the threat of competition and actual competition.

Two firms start out at 50% market share, and all other things equal. Firm A, through better manufacturing investments, lowers the price it produces at and eventually takes over the entire market. Should firm B then be able to go to the government for an artificial boost back into the market because it can't get there on its own? Surely we allowed open competition and the superior firm won out.

Why then should firm C, previously uninvolved, get the benefit of an artificial boost either? The inability to produce at such low prices off the bat isn't a barrier to entry, its part of competition itself.

Which means it has to be a realistic threat, which was not the situation with Microsoft.
Current market share for Microsoft in the browser market is ~50%, so hardly.

If I recall, the anti-trust suits led to the break up of Microsoft. So obviously there was more at stake than the inclusion of a browser with hardware
I don't think that happened. That's what they originally wanted to do but they dropped it.

[Light Flantastic]

every time a thread turns into this i quit reading it. can we have 1 thread for arguing with chad?
you solved your own problem

[TerranYouApart]

Current market share for Microsoft in the browser market is ~50%, so hardly.


what about the operating system market, o ok.

[Light Flantastic]

It is prety standard for parties to spin out of control for the period directly following losing leadership of a country after a time in power. I see it as natural.

They just need a new and visible leader. And they need to go back to the old republican stuff instead of being Democrats 2.0 so that people have a reason to support them.

[Light Flantastic]

what about the operating system market, o ok.

Well that was entirely irrelevant since we're discussing a very specific antitrust case.

[TerranYouApart]

oh well current market share has nothing to do with the market share they had when the lawsuit was filed so your claim is still dumb. why do you want all of the power in the human race consolidated to a select few people? it would be efficient to the needs and wants of those few people, but with no means for everyone else.

[Light Flantastic]

Current market share has everything to do with it since the antitrust suit failed, so ostensibly other browsers always had the ability to upset the market.

why do you want all of the power in the human race consolidated to a select few people? it would be efficient to the needs and wants of those few people, but with no means for everyone else.Read the thread.

[Smokey D]

Two firms start out at 50% market share, and all other things equal. Firm A, through better manufacturing investments, lowers the price it produces at and eventually takes over the entire market. Should firm B then be able to go to the government for an artificial boost back into the market because it can't get there on its own? Surely we allowed open competition and the superior firm won out.

I still don't see that as a reason for allowing A to start operating at a profit maximising point not conducive to maximising consumer surplus and simultaneously using its market power to exclude all future competition. That is, there is nothing wrong with a sole trader per se but when it starts acting like a monopoly, then there is grounds to step in.

Why then should firm C, previously uninvolved, get the benefit of an artificial boost either? The inability to produce at such low prices off the bat isn't a barrier to entry, its part of competition itself.

Well, operating at low prices isn't the only anti-competitive measure a monopolistic can take.

Current market share for Microsoft in the browser market is ~50%, so hardly.

Well, the negative effects of anti-competition presumably kick in before the market actually becomes monopolistic.


I don't think that happened. That's what they originally wanted to do but they dropped it.

Ahh.


Well that was entirely irrelevant since we're discussing a very specific antitrust case.

Are we? I thought we were talking about whether anti-trust would ever be justified.

[Light Flantastic]

I still don't see that as a reason for allowing A to start operating at a profit maximising point not conducive to maximising consumer surplus and simultaneously using its market power to exclude all future competition. That is, there is nothing wrong with a sole trader per se but when it starts acting like a monopoly, then there is grounds to step in.
What I'm suggesting is that consumer surplus is maximized solely by the threat of competition even if a business is not in direct and actual competition with another entity. Well, if there are no regulations or government interferences hindering market entry at least.

Well, operating at low prices isn't the only anti-competitive measure a monopolistic can take.
I can't think of any that I wouldn't consider part of competition itself.

Well, the negative effects of anti-competition presumably kick in before the market actually becomes monopolistic.
That's the argument for laissez-faire. You might say Microsoft got complacent in it's position and made a poor product. The market 'fixed' itself without government intervention.

Are we? I thought we were talking about whether anti-trust would ever be justified.
What he was quoting was about that case, though.

[Smokey D]

What I'm suggesting is that consumer surplus is maximized solely by the threat of competition even if a business is not in direct and actual competition with another entity. Well, if there are no regulations or government interferences hindering market entry at least.


And what I'm suggesting is that if the nature of a monopoly enables it to disregard the 'threat of competition' then there should be a way to coerce it to operate in a way which better suits the needs of consumers.


I can't think of any that I wouldn't consider part of competition itself.


Not all modes of competition are created equal.

[Light Flantastic]

And what I'm suggesting is that if the nature of a monopoly enables it to disregard the 'threat of competition' then there should be a way to coerce it to operate in a way which better suits the needs of consumers.
I don't think that can ever happen.

Plus I don't like the idea of forcing a private entity to do what's best for 'the people' - the point at which you stop applying that rule seems to be arbitrary - should I be forced to give up monopolies on things like a specific piece of land that I own, or my secret sauce recipe? Why not? It's not like anybody has a right to software either.

[Smokey D]

I don't think that can ever happen.


Well, I guess if you want to deny the definition of a monopoly.


Plus I don't like the idea of forcing a private entity to do what's best for 'the people' - the point at which you stop applying that rule seems to be arbitrary - should I be forced to give up monopolies on things like a specific piece of land that I own, or my secret sauce recipe? Why not? It's not like anybody has a right to software either.

Um, we force people to do what's best for other people all the time.

[Light Flantastic]

Well, I guess if you want to deny the definition of a monopoly.
A monopoly is just singular control over a certain market, so not really. Name an anti-competitive practice that allows a monopoly to disregard the threat of competition.

Um, we force people to do what's best for other people all the time.
That's irrelevant and a fallacious argument for claiming any one individual form of it to be right.

[Smokey D]

A monopoly is just singular control over a certain market, so not really. Name an anti-competitive practice that allows a monopoly to disregard the threat of competition.

It surely depends on the specific characteristics of the market. In some markets, where barriers are low, a monopoly may behave as if there were more competitive. But if barriers are high, then I don't think you can rely on it.


That's irrelevant and a fallacious argument for claiming any one individual form of it to be right.

I see no reason a monopoly should be able to rely on the accidents of its market's history to dominate a market ever after. Note here I am assuming the market is not contestable, meaning the monopoly is hypothetically in a position to disregard the threat of competition.

[Light Flantastic]

But if barriers are high, then I don't think you can rely on it.
But you claim stuff like economies of scale to be barriers. Even if we don't agree that those are real barriers to competition, they are certainly beneficial to the consumer, and they ostensibly have the same end effect as actual competition does. So what other barriers are there that are detrimental then?

[Smokey D]

Erm, predatory short term pricing would be one.

A shift away from inovation is perhaps another.

Also, I dispute the proposition that economies of scale have the same effect as actual competition, or at least that they will always have the same effect.

[Iskandar]

If they did then government would be the most efficient firm in the market.

[Light Flantastic]

Erm, predatory short term pricing would be one.
Lower prices are detrimental to consumers how?

Do you have any examples of predatory pricing successfully establishing a monopoly? I'm under the impression that it's something of a myth.

Cutting prices is the entire premise of competition anyway I don't understand this position, realistic or not.

A shift away from inovation is perhaps another.Innovation is a tradeoff with cost. Are better prices more valuable to consumers than innovation? Surely we let the consumers themselves decide that.

Also, I dispute the proposition that economies of scale have the same effect as actual competition, or at least that they will always have the same effect.
In the case where a potential competitor is undercut by them it certainly does.

If they did then government would be the most efficient firm in the market.
Maybe if it wasn't so bloated with the problems of being an actual artificial monopoly.

[Smokey D]

Lower prices are detrimental to consumers how?

Presumably the threat of predatory prices discourages entry in the same way the threat of competition discourages monopolistic behaviour. It is a matter of which comes out stronger on the day.

Do you have any examples of predatory pricing successfully establishing a monopoly? I'm under the impression that it's something of a myth.


There are some but it's a contested theory.

Cutting prices is the entire premise of competition anyway I don't understand this position, realistic or not.

It depends if the company can use prices to preclude entry or not.

Innovation is a tradeoff with cost. Are better prices more valuable to consumers than innovation? Surely we let the consumers themselves decide that.


But surely we aren't letting the consumers decide anything if the monopoly is controlling entry.


In the case where a potential competitor is undercut by them it certainly does.

Predatory pricing only occurs when there is a new entrant. It's not a long term phenomenon.

I don't know how much point there is in continuing this conversation since we appear to be assuming different things about monopolies. You are saying monopolies always face potential competition which limits their negative potential. I'm saying it's conceivable that monopolies can exclude competition and act detrimentally to the market's interests. Everything you say depends on a denial of this premise, and everything I say is predicated on a denial of yours. Unless either of us are willing to concede our axiom, there is no point going further.

[Smokey D]

Lower prices are detrimental to consumers how?

Presumably the threat of predatory prices discourages entry in the same way the threat of competition discourages monopolistic behaviour. It is a matter of which comes out stronger on the day.

Do you have any examples of predatory pricing successfully establishing a monopoly? I'm under the impression that it's something of a myth.


There are some but it's a contested theory.

Cutting prices is the entire premise of competition anyway I don't understand this position, realistic or not.

It depends if the company can use prices to preclude entry or not.

Innovation is a tradeoff with cost. Are better prices more valuable to consumers than innovation? Surely we let the consumers themselves decide that.


But surely we aren't letting the consumers decide anything if the monopoly is controlling entry.


In the case where a potential competitor is undercut by them it certainly does.

Predatory pricing only occurs when there is a new entrant. It's not a long term phenomenon.

I don't know how much point there is in continuing this conversation since we appear to be assuming different things about monopolies. You are saying monopolies always face potential competition which limits their negative potential. I'm saying it's conceivable that monopolies can exclude competition and act detrimentally to the market's interests. Everything you say depends on a denial of this premise, and everything I say is predicated on a denial of yours. Unless either of us are willing to concede our axiom, there is no point going further.

[Light Flantastic]

Presumably the threat of predatory prices discourages entry in the same way the threat of competition discourages monopolistic behaviour. It is a matter of which comes out stronger on the day.
But I'm asking how the results of predatory pricing are detrimental to consumers. Saying it establishes a monopoly is circular, since it'd have to be a monopoly to do it. If it's not a monopoly and it cuts prices then we just call that cutting prices and say it's part of normal competition.

There are some but it's a contested theory.
I don't think there are any successful anti-trust cases based on it in US history at least.

It depends if the company can use prices to preclude entry or not.
I'm not sure how this theory makes sense if, when prices inevitably go back up, they open the market to competition again. They can't under-price forever or they'll go out of business, and during the time they are cutting prices the consumer is benefiting just the same as if there were two competing firms.

But surely we aren't letting the consumers decide anything if the monopoly is controlling entry.
Yeah, if it is, but we know I don't think that it is.

Predatory pricing only occurs when there is a new entrant. It's not a long term phenomenon.
That was economies of scale.

I don't know how much point there is in continuing this conversation since we appear to be assuming different things about monopolies. You are saying monopolies always face potential competition which limits their negative potential. I'm saying it's conceivable that monopolies can exclude competition and act detrimentally to the market's interests. Everything you say depends on a denial of this premise, and everything I say is predicated on a denial of yours. Unless either of us are willing to concede our axiom, there is no point going further.
Well I doubt people change their minds regularly here but I still don't think you've given me any viable anti-competitive practices that wouldn't be part of the essence of competition itself.

You argued from a consumer benefit point of view too, but I don't see what else I can do if you don't give me real world examples of stuff like predatory pricing negatively affecting the market from a basic consumer surplus perspective.

[Smokey D]

But I'm asking how the results of predatory pricing are detrimental to consumers. Saying it establishes a monopoly is circular, since it'd have to be a monopoly to do it. If it's not a monopoly and it cuts prices then we just call that cutting prices and say it's part of normal competition.

If a monopoly is able by the threat of predatory pricing able to disuade new entrants into the market, then it is presumably able to carry out negative monopolistic practices.


I don't think there are any successful anti-trust cases based on it in US history at least.


Okay.

I'm not sure how this theory makes sense if, when prices inevitably go back up, they open the market to competition again. They can't under-price forever or they'll go out of business, and during the time they are cutting prices the consumer is benefiting just the same as if there were two competing firms.

As I've repeated many times, it depends entirely on the particular characteristics of the market.

Conceivably, if entry is difficult and the risks associated with entry are high, a monopoly could operate somewhere between allocative efficiency and its own profit maximising point in the long term.


Yeah, if it is, but we know I don't think that it is.

Well, this comes down to my point about irreconciable axioms.

That was economies of scale.

Explain.

[Light Flantastic]

If a monopoly is able by the threat of predatory pricing able to disuade new entrants into the market, then it is presumably able to carry out negative monopolistic practices.
At which point competing entities can come in and undercut it again.

As I've repeated many times, it depends entirely on the particular characteristics of the market.
You still haven't provided one example of this happening in the real world.
Well, this comes down to my point about irreconciable axioms
I don't think it's axiomatic to claim that specific practices are detrimental to consumers. It either happens or it doesn't.







Also, I dispute the proposition that economies of scale have the same effect as actual competition, or at least that they will always have the same effect.

In the case where a potential competitor is undercut by them it certainly does.


Predatory pricing only occurs when there is a new entrant. It's not a long term phenomenon.


That was economies of scale.


Explain.

[Smokey D]

At which point competing entities can come in and undercut it again.

No. Only if there are no barriers to entry.


You still haven't provided one example of this happening in the real world.

You want an example of a monopoly not operating at allocative efficiency?

I don't think it's axiomatic to claim that specific practices are detrimental to consumers. It either happens or it doesn't.


You appear to be claiming that whenever a monopoly moves away from allocative efficiency, it is always possible for a competitor to enter, no matter the characteristics of the particular market. That's an axiom.

Explain.

I still don't get it.

[Light Flantastic]

No. Only if there are no barriers to entry
The only barriers to entry you state are beneficial to consumers, so how are you justifying government intervention here.

Firm implements predatory pricing to ruin competitors (consumers win!) -> firm gains sole producer control over market and tries to hike prices -> competition attempts to re-enter the market during price gouging -> monopolistic firm goes back to predatory pricing to defeat competition (consumers win!)

[endless cycle]

You want an example of a monopoly not operating at allocative efficiency?
I want an example of predatory pricing giving a business the ability to set market prices. I'd also like to know where the imaginary line between normal price cuts to beat out competition and predatory pricing is.

You appear to be claiming that whenever a monopoly moves away from allocative efficiency, it is always possible for a competitor to enter, no matter the characteristics of the particular market. That's an axiom.
I don't think it's axiomatic to claim that predatory pricing negatively affects consumers. That's something that would require evidence.

I still don't get it.
I was talking about economies of scale and you responded to me as if I was talking about predatory pricing.

[Smokey D]

The only barriers to entry you state are beneficial to consumers, so how are you justifying government intervention here.

So you are suggesting in all markets where there is a monopoly, entry is viable at all prices above allocative efficiency notwithstanding barriers to entry?

I want an example of predatory pricing giving a business the ability to set market prices. I'd also like to know where the imaginary line between normal price cuts to beat out competition and predatory pricing is.


The line is below where MR<MC.

I don't think it's axiomatic to claim that predatory pricing negatively affects consumers. That's something that would require evidence.


No but it is axiomatic to claim that entry is viable at all prices above allocative efficiency notwithstanding barriers to entry.

I was talking about economies of scale and you responded to me as if I was talking about predatory pricing.

Um, i still don't really know where you're going with this but my point regarding economies of scale was that if economies of scale are less than economies of competition, then there is a reason to promote competition in the market.