On Aug 29, 12:24 pm, "Tom"
comcast.net> wrote:> "Erwin Hessle"
erwinhessle.com> wrote in message>> Monopolies can't "make everyone pay to get it". A monopoly in a free
>> market
>> depends for its very existence on there being enough people to
>> willingly pay the asking price for a product. Now, monopolies be able
>> to increase the price over and above what it might be in an enforced
>> competitive market, but they can never force people to pay more than
>> they are willing to pay, and if market participants are rational that
>> means that the value they place on that product is at least the asking
>> price, and for the vast majority of the market participants they will
>> actually place a higher value on it than the price they pay because of
>> consumer surplus.
>
> Saying that they pay "willingly" because they have no alternative to paying
> is farcical.
So you admit your statement that you "willingly pay taxes" was
"farcical", then?
Quite apart from the fact that they *do* have an alternative to paying
- they can just avoid consuming that product.
> Of course you don't try to get them to pay more than they can.
> All they'll do is die. But you *can* get them to pay one hell of a lot more
> than is fair or good for them.
Oh, so now you know what is "fair or good" for everyone, do you? So
tell me, what's a "fair and good" price for a barrel of oil today?
>> So, your entire argument boils down to a view that it is fundamentally
>> unfair for people to pay a price for a product which is less than the
>> value they place on that product.
>
> They have made sure that we *must* value their oil more highly than it's
> really worth. Our dependency on oil is another contrivance. Not only have
> oil companies locked up the access to oil, they have also tried their very
> best to suppress any alternative energy source.
Ah yes. You'll be trotting out the old water-powered car anecdotes,
next. Those evil grubby oil companies suppressing all our miracle
technologies, blast their eyes! You sound like a conspiracy theorist.
> It was President Carter's
> plan to reduce our dependency on oil by promoting solar power. To that end,
> he had solar panels installed in the Whitehouse. When Reagan was elected,
> largely financed by the oil industry and other huge Wall Street corporate
> entities, he tore them out and that was the last anybody heard of solar
> power in our energy policies for the next twenty years,
Oh, and of course if the government doesn't have a policy for
developing new technology, it'll never get developed, right? I guess I
must have just dreamed the industrial revolution.
> keeping us all in
> the thrall of the oil oligopoly.
Ooooh, those naughty little oil barons! Let them eat cake! Etc etc.
Do you have even the tiniest bit of evidence for any of this claptrap?
>> That's what the alternative energy movement is up to.
>
> What the alternative energy advocates are up to is breaking through the
> phony facade that oil is our only viable energy source.
What utter gibberish. How many oil fueled power stations are there in
this country? What proportion of homes use oil for their heating? How
many people cook on oil stoves?
The only reason almost anybody gives a shit about oil prices or
"dependency on oil" is simple: higher gas prices. This entire hoohah
has nothing whatsoever to do with "viable alternative energy sources"
- it's all about wanting cheaper driving, that's all. Most "energy" in
this country, right now, comes from sources other than oil. You've
simply been deluded by all this socialist propaganda into inventing a
problem that doesn't exist.
> Of course, that is
> something that oil companies don't want and they have a lot of money to hire
> the very best hucksters to convince rubes like you that they love you like
> your mommy does. So they telle you to go back to sleep, children and by no
> means should you ever look behind the curtain.
See? Alarmist socialist propaganda. "Elect Obama or we're all going to
die!" Yeah. OK. Sure.
>>> It is *not* necessary to let those thieves keep robbing you in order to
>>> get
>>> the energy you need to keep you from being at the mercy of the dark and
>>> the
>>> cold. Their profits will evaporate when you no longer need what they own.
>
>> No, their profits will evaporate when the market presents a way to
>> acquire a good substitute for that valued product at a lower price.
>> This is just regular old market competition, but it's competition in
>> substitute products, rather than identical products.
>
> Not "substitutes", Erwin. Alternatives.
Substitutes is the correct economic term. Don't blame me if you aren't
familiar with the correct terminology for the arguments you want to
ill-advisedly make.
>> That's the inherent danger in monopoly; you think it's secure and that
>> you've cornered the market, but if someone comes along with an
>> alternative product you're screwed.
>
> So you use your ill-gotten wealth to keep your would-be competition from
> ever having a level playing field.
Which leaves you with less wealth to develop your existing products
with, resulting in an even greater likelihood that someone will
develop a better substitute in the near future.
See, that's the problem with conspiracy theories like yours - they're
all bullshit. You might as well argue that the "rich" can suspend the
law of gravity if they have enough nasty obscene cash.
>>>> Did you have a point to make that is in any way relevant to what I
>>>> said?
>
>>> That would depend on whether or not anything you said had anything to do
>>> with my point. My point stands. Is anything you said relevant to it?
>
>> That's pretty weak.
>
> It was pretty weak of you to try to pretend I had no point to make,
"A point to make that is in any way relevant to what I said" were my
exact words, as you know perfectly well. Now you're just trying to
distract attention from your weak response, because you're embarrassed
by it.
>>>> you're the one who
>>>> admits wanting the government to steal your money and waste it.
>
>>> *You* assume it's all stolen and wasted. Not me. I pay my taxes
>>> willingly,
>>> so it's not stolen,
>
>> But you pay your oil prices willing, so it is stolen, right?
>
> I choose my government. Democracy, remember? I don't choose my oil
> company. They are *not* a democracy.
And by choosing "your" government, you deny everybody who would vote
differently from you the opportunity to choose *their* government. I
doubt if any Western government in the last one hundred years has
received more than 50%% of the vote, therefore the majority of people
do not get the government they choose. So much for your democracy.
And you certainly *do* choose your oil company. Go through any town in
the country, and you'll see gas stations owned by at least four
different oil companies on the same street. You are free to choose any
of them that you wish. Nobody gets this level of choice for their
government.
I don't think you've really thought any of this through.
>> *A* trick, which has largely proved unattainable. Another, better,
>> trick is to restrict the things that the government is allowed to
>> spend money on.
>
> That's exactly what happens, actually, but the fly in the ointment is the
> influence of big money interests on where that money is spent.
You've yet to demonstrate why any other interests would either be more
effective, or more "fair". You're just demonising "big money" because
that's what your socialist overlords tell you to think.
If we're talking about economic policy, "big money interests" have a
far greater stake in that economy than people like you do. It's just
as easy to argue that they should have a far greater say in economic
policy for that reason. Your position has no rational basis
whatsoever.
> Insurance
> companies make sure that government doesn't spend money on health care
> because if it did, they wouldn't get rich bleeding that system by putting a
> bizarrely complicated and profit-oriented bureaucracy between doctor and
> patient. Oil companies make sure the government doesn't make the switch to
> solar or subsidize solar industries they way oil companies as subsidized
> because if it did, oil companies wouldn't get rich bleeding *that* system.
>
> We currently have an opportunity to improve that situation.
If you think any politician is going to have anything other than a
very superficial effect on the country then you are dreaming.
> The Obama
> campaign has discovered a way to use the internet to let grassroots
> financing fund their efforts at a level which can actually compete with big
> money funded campaigns. Thus the influence of big corporations and their
> lobbyists has been significantly reduced and Obama is not beholden to the
> same corporate pirates that have effectively shackled every political party
> up to now. It's not perfect, by any means, but it's a damn sight further
> down the road toward a truly representative government than any previous
> election has been able to manage.
Utter tripe. That's exactly what they want you to think. Politicians
are competing for votes, and they'll use their pernicious efforts to
hoodwink the public just as much as "big money interests" will.
You claim to dislike "big business", but government is the worst big
business of them all, but they've managed to get you at least to
willingly submit to their control.
> I'm not willing to accept whatever lousy system happens to be in place just
> because an initial change doesn't result in immediate perfection. The
> answer to the question of what to do when the situation is bad is not to
> give up and bear the suffering stoically, but to change it. If the change
> doesn't give you the result you hoped for, you change it again. Repeat
> until you get success.
Changing one group of politicians for another is hardly a radical
solution. Your argument is indistinguishable from "if one roll of
toilet paper is unsuitable for hammering in nails, then keep trying
different brands of toilet paper until you get success." You speak out
against feudalism, and then you state that the entirety of your plan
is to look for the best master that you can find. It's pitiful.
>>> The current US government is especially incompetent. So I mean to change
>>> it. If enough of my compatriots agree, change will be implemented. If the
>>> next batch doesn't get it right, we'll change it again. That's how
>>> democracy
>>> is supposed to work.
>
>> I'm not sure that choosing being one of two different dictators
>> presented to you every four years is worthy of the name "democracy".
>
> Of course you're not "sure". Don't be a coward. Don't run from change just
> because you don't know for sure what's going to happen. Change is coming.
> The only real issue is whether or not you lead it or get dragged along by
> it.
In the unlikely event that Obama does get elected, there's going to be
an awful lot of disappointed Obama supporters in the next few years
when that idiot fails to deliver on his ridiculous pie-in-the-sky
pipedreams.
>>> We can do better.
>
>> Only if you measure things in terms of equity. The US health care
>> system may or may not be the most inequitable of any industrialized
>> nation, but it's certainly one of the most high quality systems.
>
> If you have enough money to afford it. Â Increasingly, we don't. Â Health
> insurance programs are becoming more expensive every day. Â Benefits are
> curtailed. Â Doctors are being told by accountants what drugs are to be
> administered to their patients because the drug companies want to make their
> own record profits, right along with the oil companies. Â The whole system is
> riddled with parasites from top to bottom.
That's not a response. You've just restated your opinion that equity
is the factor of overriding importance.
>> Not everyone will agree that a system where everybody gets the same
>> shockingly poor level of health care is "better", despite how
>> "equitable" it is.
>
> What ever gave you the silly notion that any health care system run by any
> organization that isn't intending to make a profit out of it must deliver
> "shockingly poor care" to everyone?
Evidence derived from experiencing such an arrangement which, I feel
compelled to remind you, you've never done.
> I don't hear anybody saying that rich
> people won't be allowed to pay over and above some minimum level of care.
> Nor does any health care system anywhere make that demand.
But many socialists make that demand. Whether or not anybody has been
stupid enough to fall for it yet is another matter. If, as you say,
"change is coming", you may yet live to see it.
> That sort of
> bugaboo is just another huckster spiel designed to confuse and distract you
> from the real issue that a lot of American people are getting no health care
> at all. Â Even a little would be better for than than none.
Ah, how simple the world looks to an ideologist who has never actually
had to implement his ideas. That's the problem with Obama and his
nonsensical plans - it's easy to say one is going to do something.
You've bought his "huckster spiel" that he's actually going to succeed
in doing it hook, line and sinker. He must have seen you coming from a
long way away. Still, I'm sure you'll feel much better about being
hoodwinked into thralldom to a socialist regime, just so long as it's
not an oil company.
>>>> Try the free health
>>>> "care" in the UK, for instance, and wait eighteen months for your
>>>> first appointment with a specialist to examine your cancerous tumour.
>
>>> Better than waiting forever because you can't afford any at all.
>
>> Not really. In both cases you die before you get any treatment.
>
> That's the most ridiculous claim you've made yet. Â First, you make the
> completely unsupported claim that everyone weill have to wait eighteen
> months to get cancer treatment, which simply isn't true.
Where did I ever say that it was for "everyone"? I might as well state
that you've claimed that *noone* in the US can afford healthcare.
> Then you claim
> that getting some minimum level of care is just as bad as getting no care at
> all, which also is completely unsupported by any factual data outside of
> anecdotal exceptions. Â You've completely abandoned any rational argument
> here.
Nice try, but you aren't smart enough to pull off this kind of tactic.
The correct distinction to make is between lots of people getting good
healthcare and some people getting none, compared to lots of people
getting a minimum level of care and only some getting good healthcare.
You assume the latter is better and more "equitable". To date, only
your empty assertions stand to support this assumption.
>>> You don't
>>> have to be perfect to be better than nothing. We can do better.
>
>> And once again, you are assuming that your version of "better" is the
>> right one.
>
> And you're worried that it might not be so you don't have the courage to
> even try.
You Americans have yet to endure a real socialist regime, which is why
you and your pie-eyed socialist idealogues think it would be a really
super and whizzer progressive scheme to "give it a go". I don't have
to be "worried that it might not be so" - I've seen the ill effects of
socialism at first hand, and I've seen how it can destroy a previously
great country. Well, if you and your cohorts succeed in your
imperialist plan for forcing socialism on the American public, don't
say I didn't warn you when the reality turns out to be not quite what
you expected and you've given up your way back.
>>> The "nonsense" is in the way you are conceiving of the situation. People
>>> want stuff. The more stuff they can get, the better. Thus. if we had an
>>> equitable way to get stuff to everybody. we'd all have jobs doing so.
>>> Nobody would be unemployed and everybody would have stuff. The problem is
>>> that "free markets" are based on the idea that you keep stuff from people
>>> in
>>> order to get them to pay more for it.
>
>> See? That's socialist thinking, that markets are somehow opposed to
>> the "common man".
>
> You cannot change a fact by mere name-calling and hyperbole. Â Nobody claims
> that markets are "opposed to the common man".
You do.
> The fact is that the markets
> are not actually "free", and any and all objections to the unprincipled
> manipulations of the marketplace by big corporations is not "socialism".
Here's a better, more truthful statement of your entire position, and
that of your buddy Obama:
Alec Baldwin: My fellow actors. We live in a dark time. The world is
becoming more and more violent, and the idiots in charge are making it
worse. What the world needs is an international advisory committee who
truly understands global politics. Namely, us.
Actors: [pounding their tables with fists] Rah! Rah! Rah! Rah! Rah!
Rah! Rah! Rah! Rah! ...
Helen Hunt: The time has come for us to start using our acting talents
in a different way.
Ethan Hawke: Yes, we can use our powers to change the world.
Actors: [pounding their tables with fists] Rah! Rah! Rah! Rah! Rah!
Rah! Rah! Rah! Rah! ...
Tim Robbins: We will persuade everyone to drive hybrid cars and stop
smoking!
Liv Tyler: If we focus our acting on global politics, we can change
everything and stuff.
Actors: [pounding their tables with fists] Rah! Rah! Rah! Rah! Rah!
Rah! Rah! Rah! Rah! ...
Janeane Garofalo: As actors, it is our responsibility to read the
newspapers, and then say what we read on television like it's our own
opinion.
Matt Damon: Matt Damon.
>> You appear to harbour a fondness for ideas of social evolution.
>
> Whereas you seem to want social stagnation.
Not all of us rely on governmental social policy to give our lives
meaning, Tom.
>>> No it's not because I have the view that doesn't allow the rich to rip
>>> off
>>> the poor merely because the rich have the power to do so.
>
>> So what you propose is forcing the rich to share their wealth with the
>> poor
>
> No, that's not what I propose. Â That's only what you're afraid of. Â It might
> be true if the only way to get rich was to steal, but it's not. Â The goal of
> keeping the rich from taking unfair advantage due to the power of their
> wealth is not the same as the goal of not allowing anyone to be wealthy.
See, you still haven't explained how the wealthy taking advantage of
their wealth to achieve thier ends is "unfair", whereas the socialists
taking advantage of their propaganda to achieve their's is not. To
date, your argument has been no more sophisticated than "Yay the Red
Sox! Fuck the Yankees!" except you use words like "fair" and
"equitable" to take the edge of the appearance of stupidity.
> I propose social responsibility as a cornerstone of a fair and sustainable
> economy.
"Social responsibility" = "everyone should act in the way I want them
to, or face the consequences."
I propose people like you shutting up and letting everyone else live
their lives the way they want to, without you or your oppressive
socialist politicians getting in their way all the time. In other
words, I propose that people mind their own fucking business.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
