> 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?
I explained that I have a choice as to what services I want my government to
provide and how much I will be charged for it. I do this by exercising my
right to vote. I have virtually no choice at all about what fuel my car
uses because the oil companies and car makers have colluded to prevent me
from doing so and I don't get any say in their decision. That's why I'm
willing to pay my taxes and unwilling to put up with oil company fraud.
> Quite apart from the fact that they *do* have an alternative to paying
> - they can just avoid consuming that product.
That's not a viable alternative. They've seen to that, too.
>> 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?
A good and fair price for a barrel of oil is zero. It's a non-renewable
fossil fuel whose profligate use is poisoning the planet. We shouldn't be
using it at all, let alone depending on it for our main power source.
Besides that, the supplies are already dwindling, which means the unfair
prices are only going to get higher and higher until the supply gives out
entirely. We should stop buying and selling oil altogether as soon as
possible.
>> 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.
I'm trotting out wind power, solar power, and geothermal power. You, on the
other hand, are trotting out nonsense and trying to attribute it to me in
another of your transparent straw man arguments.
>> 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.
Are you really sure you want to argue that technological advances always
happen without government support and encouragement or even that they happen
more often without government support and encouragement? You're wandering
into a mine field there.
> Do you have even the tiniest bit of evidence for any of this claptrap?
There's plenty and it's very easy to find, but you've chosen to ignore it
and pretend it isn't there. You're turning into Archie before my very eyes.
Reagan stopped the move towards solar power. In his first term, he
eliminated tax credits for homeowners who wanted to go solar, knowing full
well that without tax credits the tiny industry could not compete with
fossil-based products. For example, in 1985 American Solar King reported
$30 million in sales of solar water heaters. After the tax credits were
abolished in 1986, they went out of business.
The Carter Administration had an energy plan called "A New Prosperity"
(available at your local library, if you don't believe me) which proposed to
convert 28%% of America's power generation from fossil fuels to solar by
2010. Reagan shelved it. He turned over most of the duties of the
Department of Energy to the Department of Commerce. They promptly lifted
controls on natural gas and crude oil prices and began the farcical
"America's Commitment to Clean Coal", in which gave the coal industry $2.5
billion dollars to do some research into cleaning up their filth, without
any appreciable success, and spent another $1.6 billion trying to salvage
the nuclear industry. He did this after he cut the $700 million funding for
solar energy research claiming that it was a waste of money and that "the
market" would fix everything. This is all a matter of record.
http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-8799:1
>>> 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 tell 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.
Another hyperbolic misrepresentation of my statements. It seems you can't
resist the urge to build straw men to attack. That's what happens every
time you haven't got a rational reply. So I'll consider them to be your
charming way of conceding the point.
>>> 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.
According to whom? Let's see the evidence.
>>> 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.
That's the most idiotic claim you've made yet. You don't *have* to improve
your product if you don't have any competition. So, instead of risking your
money on research, you can ensure your domonance of the market by simpy
nipping would-be competitors in the bud. It's actually a lot cheaper to do
it that way instead of assuming that you're always going to be the one with
the best new ideas. Research is riskier than cutthroat politics.
> See, that's the problem with conspiracy theories like yours -
The operation of monopolies and oliopolies is not conspircay theory but
mainstream economic theory. This is just another of your straw men erected
in lieu of a rational argument, so this is another point you've conceded by
default.
>>>>> 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.
Indeed. You were talking off the point, which you have done quite often in
this thread. That';s the problem with all those straw men you keep
erecting. They have nothing to do with anything I've actually said.
>> 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.
There you go again. I said nothing of the sort. Another straw man erected
due to a lack of rational argument, and thus another concession from you.
> I doubt if any Western government in the last one hundred years has
> received more than 50%% of the vote,
Well, you'd be wrong again. Just in the elections I've seen myself, Lyndon
Johnson got 69%% of the popular vote in 1964 and Richard Nixon got 60%% in
1972. If you want to count by electoral college votes, presidents within
the last 100 years that garnered over 50%% include Eisenhower, Roosevelt,
Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush (GW), Truman, Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, and
Coolidge.
> therefore the majority of people
> do not get the government they choose. So much for your democracy.
There has been only one election in the last hundred years in which the
popular vote for the winning candidate was lower than that of the losing
candidate. That was the highly disputed election of George W. Bush in 2000,
which was decided not by votes but by an act of the Supreme Court before the
final total of the badly-run Florida election could be properly tabulated.
As it turns out, Gore actually did win the state, but that information came
too late to prevent the neocon take-over of the U S A. So much for your
knowledge of the facts.
>>> *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".
A democracy is a government run by the people all together. A government
run by the rich alone is not a democracy but an oligarchy. Thus, if one
wishes to be fair, the interests of all the people must be considered
equally. Under the present system of lobbyists and campaign financing, this
sort of fairness has been unattainable in practice.
> You're just demonising "big money" because
> that's what your socialist overlords tell you to think.
A "socialist overlord" is a self-contradictory term. And again, you resort
ot a straw man. I am not a socialist and have not been espousing socialism
at all. Yet again, by your demonstrated dearth of rational argument, you've
conceded the point.
>> 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.
"They?" Who are "they", Erwin? Are you touting a conspiracy theory here?
Where's your evidence of a vast conspiracy of "they" who wants to force
socialism on poor liittle you by financing elections in some way other than
through big-money lobbyists?
> Politicians are competing for votes, and they'll use their pernicious
> efforts to
> hoodwink the public just as much as "big money interests" will.
Hilarious. Everybody running for a public office is a "politician", you
silly bugger. This includes those representing the big money interests.
It's appallingly stupid of you to characterize the political tools of big
business as something other than politicians. Even if your sweeping
generalization is true and all politicians are, by definition hoodwinkers,
politicians who depend on big money interests are hoodwinking you on behalf
of those big money interests. Since, under the current system of campaign
financing, any national level politician who wants to have enough money to
buy the kind and amount of advertising to get his or her message across
without being completely drowned out, only big-money-supported candidates
can compete with any real hope of success, that means that the "politicians"
you refer to are all representing the interests of big money donors. Except
for Obama, who found a way to fund his campaign with vast numbers of small
donations instead of being forced to surround himself with lobbyists the way
McCain is forced to do.
> You claim to dislike "big business",
I claim no such thing. I think big business is a good thing in many ways.
However, I dislike certain big businesses exerting an unfair and deletory
influence over American government.
Your accusation is just another straw man, which means it's just another of
your concessions that you don't have a rational argument to propose.
> Changing one group of politicians for another is hardly a radical
> solution.
I'm not proposing any "radical solutions". That's another straw man you've
erected. I am proposing some reasonable reforms.
> 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.
It's not unlikely at all, according to most folks who aren't erecting acre
after acre of straw men to attack. As for disappointment, one cannot
reasonably expect instant and painless solutions to the problems we face.
Anybody who does is as delusional as you are to think they can't be solved
at all.
>> 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.
What experience is that? Let's examine your evidence.
>> 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.
Who, exactly? Stop waving vaguely at "many socialists" and show me some
particulars. Are you claiming that Obama is saying that rich people will
not be allowed any medical care over that which he wants to provide to the
poor? If so, let's see the evidence. You can probably find it right up
there with the evidence that he's a "registered Muslim".
>> 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. 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.
But I *have* done so. There have been times in my life where I didn't have
health insurance and thus could not afford any health care. So I say from
my own experience that, compared to no health care at all, some health care
is better.
> That's the problem with Obama and his
> nonsensical plans -
I think it's extremely likely that you don't know what Obama's plan is. It
probably hasn't occurred to you to examine it, since you seem to believe you
already know all about it by divine revelation or something. He's not some
libertarian free-market ranter, so you're sure he must be a socialist. The
narrowness of your dualistic worldview is simply amazing. Educate yourself.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
>>>>> 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. First, you make the
>> completely unsupported claim that everyone will have to wait eighteen
>> months to get cancer treatment, which simply isn't true.
>
> Where did I ever say that it was for "everyone"?
Ah, then who is it who dies before he gets treatment? Is it the guy who
would have died anyway from having no access to treatment at all because he
was unable to afford it? Have you asked anyone who can't afford health
insurance if he'd prefer a flat "no" to "wait a while unless it's an
emergency"?
> 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.
How may is "some", Erwin? Almost 47 million Americans have no health
insurance today and health insurance premiums are going up four times faster
than wages. That means the number is going to continue to grow. That's
sounds like "lots" to me.
In addition, an increasing number of group healthcare plans offered by
employers (through which most Americans get that "good" care you're talking
about) have been steadily curtailing their coverage, denying claims where
there might possibly be a "pre-existing condition" and otherwise interfering
with doctor-patient relationships and limiting access needed services. So
that "good" care is getting worse all the time.
> You assume the latter is better and more "equitable". To date, only
> your empty assertions stand to support this assumption.
And the facts, of course. Let's not forget them.
>> 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,
And we're not going to with an Obama administation. Only a foam-spitting,
paranoid, right-wing ranter would suggest otherwise.
>>> 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. Nobody
>> claims
>> that markets are "opposed to the common man".
>
> You do.
An baseless accusation. I've said no such thing. Another of your straw
men, another concession that you have no rational argument to offer.
