Political Crossfire Forums

[Atlas Bergeron]

Quote: is an upper level intermediate microecon course enough reading, this was recent as a prerequisite for grad studies, i also took the standard intro to micro and intro to macro econ courses, for bachelors in business (grad in may) have you done more than that? are you some kind of prof in econ, maybe you have a Ph.D?
you don't have to be an econ professor to know that when something is being done inadequately, it creates demand for it to be done adequately.

Quote: the market is a wonderful and efficient thing, but thinking that it is perfect is a bad idea, minimal controls are best but their must be controls, marx expected american capitalism to literally destroy itself, and it could have if controls hadnt been introduced, controls that we take for granted
for instance, when you look at a loan offer, or a credit card, or any similar thing, what interest rate do you see?
monthy?
daily?
hourly?
you see yearly, because regs require them to provide yearly, before that people with minimal education had no idea what they would be paying
im sorry, but this doesn't support your claim at all.
Yearly interest is just plain simpler than any of the others, thus buisnesses will go with that. Hourley interest would be just plain annoying.

Quote: while i am a libertarian myself, i will never understand how they fail to understand how they fail to realize that people need protection from government AND business in modern times
if you believe that, then you are not a libertarian. Just another mixed ecconomy advocates.

[gavnook]

mathurin wrote: while i am a libertarian myself...

Sure you are.

mathurin wrote: , i will never understand how they fail to understand how they fail to realize that people need protection from government AND business in modern times

Some of us lack your level of education.

[mathurin]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: Quote: is an upper level intermediate microecon course enough reading, this was recent as a prerequisite for grad studies, i also took the standard intro to micro and intro to macro econ courses, for bachelors in business (grad in may) have you done more than that? are you some kind of prof in econ, maybe you have a Ph.D?
you don't have to be an econ professor to know that when something is being done inadequately, it creates demand for it to be done adequately.

no but you did imply that i had no understanding of the market and modern business, by your rebuttal can i assume you have no formal classes in the subject at all (hint, a high school econ course doesnt count)

for the past 4 years or so i have been studying modern business practices, a huge part of modern business is covering your ass, because of the large amount of laws on businesses, right now we need 2 major things

1. low cost screenings of suspicious lawsuits
litigation loses its point when it actually costs more to defend oneself than settle
2. a clear definition of what can and cannot be signed away, or at least some clear limits, this is for the benefit of both sides

common law is unclear and confusing in most cases

Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: the market is a wonderful and efficient thing, but thinking that it is perfect is a bad idea, minimal controls are best but their must be controls, marx expected american capitalism to literally destroy itself, and it could have if controls hadnt been introduced, controls that we take for granted
for instance, when you look at a loan offer, or a credit card, or any similar thing, what interest rate do you see?
monthy?
daily?
hourly?
you see yearly, because regs require them to provide yearly, before that people with minimal education had no idea what they would be paying
im sorry, but this doesn't support your claim at all.
Yearly interest is just plain simpler than any of the others, thus buisnesses will go with that. Hourley interest would be just plain annoying.

you would think so, but in the past, and i mean early 1900s, there was no legislation on the subject and unscrupulous lenders could display whatever interest rate they wanted, APR is legislated as required so that different loans can be compared properly

you think it doesnt support my claim because you dont know the history of poor business practices

Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: while i am a libertarian myself, i will never understand how they fail to understand how they fail to realize that people need protection from government AND business in modern times
if you believe that, then you are not a libertarian. Just another mixed ecconomy advocates.
we need less protection from businesses than from gov, but the idea that businesses can do no wrong is at least amusing, and shows a lack of knowledge of business history

i want light regulation
keep in mind that all economies are mixed in some way, the capitalism vs communism thing is just a scale, nobody has every reached the absolutes of

go and find the definition of a true free market if you disagree

[Atlas Bergeron]

mathurin wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: Quote: is an upper level intermediate microecon course enough reading, this was recent as a prerequisite for grad studies, i also took the standard intro to micro and intro to macro econ courses, for bachelors in business (grad in may) have you done more than that? are you some kind of prof in econ, maybe you have a Ph.D?
you don't have to be an econ professor to know that when something is being done inadequately, it creates demand for it to be done adequately.

no but you did imply that i had no understanding of the market and modern business, by your rebuttal can i assume you have no formal classes in the subject at all (hint, a high school econ course doesnt count)

for the past 4 years or so i have been studying modern business practices, a huge part of modern business is covering your ass, because of the large amount of laws on businesses, right now we need 2 major things

1. low cost screenings of suspicious lawsuits
litigation loses its point when it actually costs more to defend oneself than settle
I don't really know what you mean by "low cost screenings". By the government?

Quote: 2. a clear definition of what can and cannot be signed away, or at least some clear limits, this is for the benefit of both sides

common law is unclear and confusing in most cases
It is your life, please expalin why you can't sign whatever you want?

Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: the market is a wonderful and efficient thing, but thinking that it is perfect is a bad idea, minimal controls are best but their must be controls, marx expected american capitalism to literally destroy itself, and it could have if controls hadnt been introduced, controls that we take for granted
for instance, when you look at a loan offer, or a credit card, or any similar thing, what interest rate do you see?
monthy?
daily?
hourly?
you see yearly, because regs require them to provide yearly, before that people with minimal education had no idea what they would be paying
im sorry, but this doesn't support your claim at all.
Yearly interest is just plain simpler than any of the others, thus buisnesses will go with that. Hourley interest would be just plain annoying.

you would think so, but in the past, and i mean early 1900s, there was no legislation on the subject and unscrupulous lenders could display whatever interest rate they wanted, APR is legislated as required so that different loans can be compared properly

you think it doesnt support my claim because you dont know the history of poor business practices
I know some of the history, and I can tell you that when you morally justify any government control for the 'common good' it is a slippery slope. At that point, almost any removal of rights can be justified.

Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: while i am a libertarian myself, i will never understand how they fail to understand how they fail to realize that people need protection from government AND business in modern times
if you believe that, then you are not a libertarian. Just another mixed ecconomy advocates.
we need less protection from businesses than from gov, but the idea that businesses can do no wrong is at least amusing, and shows a lack of knowledge of business history I never said buisness can do no wrong, I said the market would correct for inadequacy.

Quote: i want light regulation
keep in mind that all economies are mixed in some way, the capitalism vs communism thing is just a scale, nobody has every reached the absolutes of

go and find the definition of a true free market if you disagree
A true free market is one which the police force are paid by an LVT tax. The governments only duty (only rightful duty) would be to protect people's rights against force and fraud--and fraud is a correlary of force. So it is the governments duty to protect its citizens against force.
I have read about it, what other free market was there? Maybe you could elaborate.

[mathurin]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: mathurin wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: Quote: is an upper level intermediate microecon course enough reading, this was recent as a prerequisite for grad studies, i also took the standard intro to micro and intro to macro econ courses, for bachelors in business (grad in may) have you done more than that? are you some kind of prof in econ, maybe you have a Ph.D?
you don't have to be an econ professor to know that when something is being done inadequately, it creates demand for it to be done adequately.

no but you did imply that i had no understanding of the market and modern business, by your rebuttal can i assume you have no formal classes in the subject at all (hint, a high school econ course doesnt count)

for the past 4 years or so i have been studying modern business practices, a huge part of modern business is covering your ass, because of the large amount of laws on businesses, right now we need 2 major things

1. low cost screenings of suspicious lawsuits
litigation loses its point when it actually costs more to defend oneself than settle
I don't really know what you mean by "low cost screenings". By the government?

exactly what is unclear, however i figured it would be done by the judiciary, which you might call the gov, but most greivances fall on the civil courts anyway, so why not

what i want is a way to reduce frivolous lawsuits and massive payoffs, the prescreening would reduce lawsuits
for an example, not long ago gun makers were being atttacked, sued by the families of people killed by criminals, nothing was wrong with the product, just the user, however the plaintiffs were receiving city funds to do this, the whole point being to shutdown the gun makers through legal fees, the trend was quashed by legislature, none of the suits won, but it brings up the question, what to do when the cost of defense is higher than the cost of settlement

people can sue over something reasonably small, and often the business will settle instead of spending more money on defense, making lawsuits pointless
this prescreening process would have to be low cost to avoid this

this and massive payoffs are basically what caused arbitration clauses
Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: 2. a clear definition of what can and cannot be signed away, or at least some clear limits, this is for the benefit of both sides

common law is unclear and confusing in most cases
It is your life, please expalin why you can't sign whatever you want?

because people are stupid and businesses are canning and can be exploitive (omg, i sound like a freaking WTO protester) you arent allowed to sign yourself into slavery, why not?


Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: the market is a wonderful and efficient thing, but thinking that it is perfect is a bad idea, minimal controls are best but their must be controls, marx expected american capitalism to literally destroy itself, and it could have if controls hadnt been introduced, controls that we take for granted
for instance, when you look at a loan offer, or a credit card, or any similar thing, what interest rate do you see?
monthy?
daily?
hourly?
you see yearly, because regs require them to provide yearly, before that people with minimal education had no idea what they would be paying
im sorry, but this doesn't support your claim at all.
Yearly interest is just plain simpler than any of the others, thus buisnesses will go with that. Hourley interest would be just plain annoying.

you would think so, but in the past, and i mean early 1900s, there was no legislation on the subject and unscrupulous lenders could display whatever interest rate they wanted, APR is legislated as required so that different loans can be compared properly

you think it doesnt support my claim because you dont know the history of poor business practices
I know some of the history, and I can tell you that when you morally justify any government control for the 'common good' it is a slippery slope. At that point, almost any removal of rights can be justified.


really, so tell me, how many people sued the companies that knowingly provided poor products?

i dont think you quite understand yourself, murder and rape are illegal for common good, because it is immoral and allowing to go unpunished would be very bad for the common good

everything in the world is about maintaining a balance between 2 extremes

Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: while i am a libertarian myself, i will never understand how they fail to understand how they fail to realize that people need protection from government AND business in modern times
if you believe that, then you are not a libertarian. Just another mixed ecconomy advocates.
we need less protection from businesses than from gov, but the idea that businesses can do no wrong is at least amusing, and shows a lack of knowledge of business history I never said buisness can do no wrong, I said the market would correct for inadequacy.

it is implied in the many things you have written, basically that govs are the devil and businesses are generally good

businesses are efficient, not always good, and in modern times there isnt enough competition for such compensation, it is called a niche market and it usually gets left by the wayside

we are in an oligopoly, dont let anyone tell you different

Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: i want light regulation
keep in mind that all economies are mixed in some way, the capitalism vs communism thing is just a scale, nobody has every reached the absolutes of

go and find the definition of a true free market if you disagree
A true free market is one which the police force are paid by an LVT tax. The governments only duty (only rightful duty) would be to protect people's rights against force and fraud--and fraud is a correlary of force. So it is the governments duty to protect its citizens against force.
I have read about it, what other free market was there? Maybe you could elaborate.

free markets ignore gov, the gov is no part of the market other than a buyer and a seller, it is not a political system, merely an economic system

it is also an extreme on the end of a scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

basically a free market has pure competition, pure competition requires a handful of things that are impossible in the real world
such as,
free entry and exit from the market, this is not possible
homogenous products, one digital camera is the same as another
large number of competitors, as i already said, we typically see oligopolies emerge, when 3 large competitors control most of the market

along with others i cant recall right now

when you study this stuff you understand it is all theoretical, a true free market is just as possible as a true command economy, or rather, just as impossible. it is based on assumptions the economists have made to simplify a concept, the concept is generally sound but must be tempered

for example, some consider patents to be a bad idea, they are a limit on businesses by gov, however patents drastically increase research because they almost garuntee that a company will be able to profit from their research (there is no garuntee that a competitor wont release a new tech 3 days after you discover it) which increases the incentive to innovate, without it we probably wouldnt have the computers we have now
we would have computers, because govs spent the money to make them in research and war projects (look up DARPAnet if you dont believe me, the internet began with the US defense department) but they wouldnt be as advanced, if a company didnt have patent protection then as soon as you make a new component or innovation then your competitor can buy 5, reverse engineer them and put them on the market within months, having never taken on the cost of development they can beat you in price easily




btw, your name, is it supposed to be like harrison bergeron?

[Atlas Bergeron]

mathurin wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: mathurin wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: Quote: is an upper level intermediate microecon course enough reading, this was recent as a prerequisite for grad studies, i also took the standard intro to micro and intro to macro econ courses, for bachelors in business (grad in may) have you done more than that? are you some kind of prof in econ, maybe you have a Ph.D?
you don't have to be an econ professor to know that when something is being done inadequately, it creates demand for it to be done adequately.

no but you did imply that i had no understanding of the market and modern business, by your rebuttal can i assume you have no formal classes in the subject at all (hint, a high school econ course doesnt count)

for the past 4 years or so i have been studying modern business practices, a huge part of modern business is covering your ass, because of the large amount of laws on businesses, right now we need 2 major things

1. low cost screenings of suspicious lawsuits
litigation loses its point when it actually costs more to defend oneself than settle
I don't really know what you mean by "low cost screenings". By the government?

exactly what is unclear, however i figured it would be done by the judiciary, which you might call the gov, but most greivances fall on the civil courts anyway, so why not

what i want is a way to reduce frivolous lawsuits and massive payoffs, the prescreening would reduce lawsuits
for an example, not long ago gun makers were being atttacked, sued by the families of people killed by criminals, nothing was wrong with the product, just the user, however the plaintiffs were receiving city funds to do this, the whole point being to shutdown the gun makers through legal fees, the trend was quashed by legislature, none of the suits won, but it brings up the question, what to do when the cost of defense is higher than the cost of settlement

people can sue over something reasonably small, and often the business will settle instead of spending more money on defense, making lawsuits pointless
this prescreening process would have to be low cost to avoid this

this and massive payoffs are basically what caused arbitration clauses
ok, you have a point. The primary role of government is the judiciary. I haven't really looked into the pro's and con's of differnt ones. You have to keep in mind alot of variables for these kind of things. Your proposal may have some merit, in the least.

Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: 2. a clear definition of what can and cannot be signed away, or at least some clear limits, this is for the benefit of both sides

common law is unclear and confusing in most cases
It is your life, please expalin why you can't sign whatever you want?

because people are stupid and businesses are canning and can be exploitive (omg, i sound like a freaking WTO protester) you arent allowed to sign yourself into slavery, why not?
because the law says you can't

Quote:
Quote: [quote="Atlas Bergeron"]
Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: the market is a wonderful and efficient thing, but thinking that it is perfect is a bad idea, minimal controls are best but their must be controls, marx expected american capitalism to literally destroy itself, and it could have if controls hadnt been introduced, controls that we take for granted
for instance, when you look at a loan offer, or a credit card, or any similar thing, what interest rate do you see?
monthy?
daily?
hourly?
you see yearly, because regs require them to provide yearly, before that people with minimal education had no idea what they would be paying
im sorry, but this doesn't support your claim at all.
Yearly interest is just plain simpler than any of the others, thus buisnesses will go with that. Hourley interest would be just plain annoying.

you would think so, but in the past, and i mean early 1900s, there was no legislation on the subject and unscrupulous lenders could display whatever interest rate they wanted, APR is legislated as required so that different loans can be compared properly

you think it doesnt support my claim because you dont know the history of poor business practices
I know some of the history, and I can tell you that when you morally justify any government control for the 'common good' it is a slippery slope. At that point, almost any removal of rights can be justified.


really, so tell me, how many people sued the companies that knowingly provided poor products?

i dont think you quite understand yourself, murder and rape are illegal for common good, because it is immoral and allowing to go unpunished would be very bad for the common good
I don't think you quite understand yourself. Under ethics, initiation of force is wrong. Legality is supposed to be based off ethics. Therefore murder and rape are illegal.

Quote: everything in the world is about maintaining a balance between 2 extremes
so you want somewhere in between good and evil instead of all good? interesting...
Quote:
Quote: [quote="Atlas Bergeron"]
Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: while i am a libertarian myself, i will never understand how they fail to understand how they fail to realize that people need protection from government AND business in modern times
if you believe that, then you are not a libertarian. Just another mixed ecconomy advocates.
we need less protection from businesses than from gov, but the idea that businesses can do no wrong is at least amusing, and shows a lack of knowledge of business history wrong, I said the market would correct for inadequacy. I never said buisness can do no evil. it is implied in the many things you have written, basically that govs are the devil and businesses are generally good

no. When people go for their selfish desires, and if they are banned from using force, they must provide a good which others desire. In a free ecconomy, and if the government prevents them from fraud, then they will provide a good that others desire, at the cost which they are willing to pay. If they do not, they won't make a profit and nobody will buy it. If the governmetn does not intervene, they must either renovate thier product, or go out of buisness.

Quote: businesses are efficient, not always good, and in modern times there isnt enough competition for such compensation, it is called a niche market and it usually gets left by the wayside what are you talking about, competition is ininite, it is competence that is not.
In a free ecconomy, it is generally the competent that become a monopoly or oligopoly. they utilize the resources best and raise the standard of living by bringing price down.

Quote: we are in an oligopoly, dont let anyone tell you different
oligopolyies or monopolies are not inherently evil. Only when they are held up by force (i.e. government favors)

Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: i want light regulation
keep in mind that all economies are mixed in some way, the capitalism vs communism thing is just a scale, nobody has every reached the absolutes of

go and find the definition of a true free market if you disagree
A true free market is one which the police force are paid by an LVT tax. The governments only duty (only rightful duty) would be to protect people's rights against force and fraud--and fraud is a correlary of force. So it is the governments duty to protect its citizens against force.
I have read about it, what other free market was there? Maybe you could elaborate.

free markets ignore gov, the gov is no part of the market other than a buyer and a seller, it is not a political system, merely an economic system you might be talking about anarchism. Maybe you should check your definitions.

Quote: it is also an extreme on the end of a scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

basically a free market has pure competition, pure competition requires a handful of things that are impossible in the real world
such as,
free entry and exit from the market, this is not possible
no.

Quote: homogenous products, one digital camera is the same as another
large number of competitors, as i already said, we typically see oligopolies emerge, when 3 large competitors control most of the market
no

Quote: along with others i cant recall right now
you are not talking about a "free market", you are talking about a market where there is perfect elasticity--such as crops. There is a gigantic difference. A free market, i.e. a capitalist market, is one in which the initiation of force is prohibited.

Quote: when you study this stuff you understand it is all theoretical, a true free market is just as possible as a true command economy, or rather, just as impossible. it is based on assumptions the economists have made to simplify a concept, the concept is generally sound but must be tempered
The rest of your statements have been confused. This one is as well.

Quote: for example, some consider patents to be a bad idea, they are a limit on businesses by gov, however patents drastically increase research because they almost garuntee that a company will be able to profit from their research (there is no garuntee that a competitor wont release a new tech 3 days after you discover it) which increases the incentive to innovate, without it we probably wouldnt have the computers we have now
we would have computers, because govs spent the money to make them in research and war projects (look up DARPAnet if you dont believe me, the internet began with the US defense department) but they wouldnt be as advanced, if a company didnt have patent protection then as soon as you make a new component or innovation then your competitor can buy 5, reverse engineer them and put them on the market within months, having never taken on the cost of development they can beat you in price easily
patents are ethically justified becuase the design which you created is the product of your labor, and therefore belongs to you. Nothing can be ethically justified becuase of the "common good" (i.e., not rationally justified)

Quote: btw, your name, is it supposed to be like harrison bergeron?
The last name is based off harrison bergeron. The first is based off the novel Atlas Shrugged, and I like greek mythology and the titans in general--so it fits.

[mathurin]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: mathurin wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: mathurin wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: Quote: is an upper level intermediate microecon course enough reading, this was recent as a prerequisite for grad studies, i also took the standard intro to micro and intro to macro econ courses, for bachelors in business (grad in may) have you done more than that? are you some kind of prof in econ, maybe you have a Ph.D?
you don't have to be an econ professor to know that when something is being done inadequately, it creates demand for it to be done adequately.

no but you did imply that i had no understanding of the market and modern business, by your rebuttal can i assume you have no formal classes in the subject at all (hint, a high school econ course doesnt count)

for the past 4 years or so i have been studying modern business practices, a huge part of modern business is covering your ass, because of the large amount of laws on businesses, right now we need 2 major things

1. low cost screenings of suspicious lawsuits
litigation loses its point when it actually costs more to defend oneself than settle
I don't really know what you mean by "low cost screenings". By the government?

exactly what is unclear, however i figured it would be done by the judiciary, which you might call the gov, but most greivances fall on the civil courts anyway, so why not

what i want is a way to reduce frivolous lawsuits and massive payoffs, the prescreening would reduce lawsuits
for an example, not long ago gun makers were being atttacked, sued by the families of people killed by criminals, nothing was wrong with the product, just the user, however the plaintiffs were receiving city funds to do this, the whole point being to shutdown the gun makers through legal fees, the trend was quashed by legislature, none of the suits won, but it brings up the question, what to do when the cost of defense is higher than the cost of settlement

people can sue over something reasonably small, and often the business will settle instead of spending more money on defense, making lawsuits pointless
this prescreening process would have to be low cost to avoid this

this and massive payoffs are basically what caused arbitration clauses
ok, you have a point. The primary role of government is the judiciary. I haven't really looked into the pro's and con's of differnt ones. You have to keep in mind alot of variables for these kind of things. Your proposal may have some merit, in the least.

gladd we can agree on something


Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: 2. a clear definition of what can and cannot be signed away, or at least some clear limits, this is for the benefit of both sides

common law is unclear and confusing in most cases
It is your life, please expalin why you can't sign whatever you want?

because people are stupid and businesses are canning and can be exploitive (omg, i sound like a freaking WTO protester) you arent allowed to sign yourself into slavery, why not?
because the law says you can't

that is a dodge
why does the law say you cannot

because we believe there are certain rights that cannot be signed away, your freedom is one, and i believe, and apprently the creators of the bill of rights believed, that a jury in civil court matters is one of them



[quote="Atlas Bergeron"]
Quote:
Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: the market is a wonderful and efficient thing, but thinking that it is perfect is a bad idea, minimal controls are best but their must be controls, marx expected american capitalism to literally destroy itself, and it could have if controls hadnt been introduced, controls that we take for granted
for instance, when you look at a loan offer, or a credit card, or any similar thing, what interest rate do you see?
monthy?
daily?
hourly?
you see yearly, because regs require them to provide yearly, before that people with minimal education had no idea what they would be paying
im sorry, but this doesn't support your claim at all.
Yearly interest is just plain simpler than any of the others, thus buisnesses will go with that. Hourley interest would be just plain annoying.

you would think so, but in the past, and i mean early 1900s, there was no legislation on the subject and unscrupulous lenders could display whatever interest rate they wanted, APR is legislated as required so that different loans can be compared properly

you think it doesnt support my claim because you dont know the history of poor business practices
I know some of the history, and I can tell you that when you morally justify any government control for the 'common good' it is a slippery slope. At that point, almost any removal of rights can be justified.


really, so tell me, how many people sued the companies that knowingly provided poor products?

i dont think you quite understand yourself, murder and rape are illegal for common good, because it is immoral and allowing to go unpunished would be very bad for the common good
I don't think you quite understand yourself. Under ethics, initiation of force is wrong. Legality is supposed to be based off ethics. Therefore murder and rape are illegal.


fine, so is it ethical to force someone to take their greivances to a place they have a greater chance of losing before the agreement is even signed


Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: everything in the world is about maintaining a balance between 2 extremes
so you want somewhere in between good and evil instead of all good? interesting...

good and evil are human created ideals made for idealistic environments

however yes, in the real world i want to be a good balance, the all good cannot survive in the real world

[quote="Atlas Bergeron"]
Quote:
Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: while i am a libertarian myself, i will never understand how they fail to understand how they fail to realize that people need protection from government AND business in modern times
if you believe that, then you are not a libertarian. Just another mixed ecconomy advocates.
we need less protection from businesses than from gov, but the idea that businesses can do no wrong is at least amusing, and shows a lack of knowledge of business history wrong, I said the market would correct for inadequacy. I never said buisness can do no evil. it is implied in the many things you have written, basically that govs are the devil and businesses are generally good

no. When people go for their selfish desires, and if they are banned from using force, they must provide a good which others desire. In a free ecconomy, and if the government prevents them from fraud, then they will provide a good that others desire, at the cost which they are willing to pay. If they do not, they won't make a profit and nobody will buy it. If the governmetn does not intervene, they must either renovate thier product, or go out of buisness.


are you talking about the invisible hand?
i think it was adam smith who thought it up
again, another theory with a good general basis, but doesnt apply in every situation
too simplistic in this complicated world


Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: businesses are efficient, not always good, and in modern times there isnt enough competition for such compensation, it is called a niche market and it usually gets left by the wayside what are you talking about, competition is ininite, it is competence that is not.
In a free ecconomy, it is generally the competent that become a monopoly or oligopoly. they utilize the resources best and raise the standard of living by bringing price down.


i dont even know where to start on this one.


Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: we are in an oligopoly, dont let anyone tell you different
oligopolyies or monopolies are not inherently evil. Only when they are held up by force (i.e. government favors)

monopolies destroy innovation and decrease efficency, you are right that it is not inherently evil, but it is generally bad
however since monopolies have complete control on production they typically limit production to the amount which nets them the best profits, hence an inefficient system

generally monopolies are exploitive unless limited by gov controls

oligopolies are not neccesarily all bad, they still must compete, even if the field is limited. the big benefit falls under economies of scale, that large companies can produce at a lower variable cost
as well as increased funds for research

however there must be legislation with aims to prevent the oligopolies from engaging in unfair practices, practices which undermine the market basis of our economy

Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: i want light regulation
keep in mind that all economies are mixed in some way, the capitalism vs communism thing is just a scale, nobody has every reached the absolutes of

go and find the definition of a true free market if you disagree
A true free market is one which the police force are paid by an LVT tax. The governments only duty (only rightful duty) would be to protect people's rights against force and fraud--and fraud is a correlary of force. So it is the governments duty to protect its citizens against force.
I have read about it, what other free market was there? Maybe you could elaborate.

free markets ignore gov, the gov is no part of the market other than a buyer and a seller, it is not a political system, merely an economic system you might be talking about anarchism. Maybe you should check your definitions.


no, no anarchism, under a true free market, laizze faire capitalism, or whatever you want to call it, the gov is not an issue, the gov does not do anything but buy from the market like any consumer, it makes no controls

you are confusing a governmental system with an economic system, from what i have learned about anarchism it falls under a communist system

Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: it is also an extreme on the end of a scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

basically a free market has pure competition, pure competition requires a handful of things that are impossible in the real world
such as,
free entry and exit from the market, this is not possible
no.

Quote: homogenous products, one digital camera is the same as another
large number of competitors, as i already said, we typically see oligopolies emerge, when 3 large competitors control most of the market
no

Quote: along with others i cant recall right now
you are not talking about a "free market", you are talking about a market where there is perfect elasticity--such as crops. There is a gigantic difference. A free market, i.e. a capitalist market, is one in which the initiation of force is prohibited.


perfect elasticity is something else, basically it means that if price goes down by one unit then quantity demanded will go up by one unit, and vice versa

this is not about elasticity, it is about the assumptions economists must make to make their models work, you can try to deny it, but you would be wrong

i can cite sources if you like, im sure i have my old intro books lying around

Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: when you study this stuff you understand it is all theoretical, a true free market is just as possible as a true command economy, or rather, just as impossible. it is based on assumptions the economists have made to simplify a concept, the concept is generally sound but must be tempered
The rest of your statements have been confused. This one is as well.

Quote: for example, some consider patents to be a bad idea, they are a limit on businesses by gov, however patents drastically increase research because they almost garuntee that a company will be able to profit from their research (there is no garuntee that a competitor wont release a new tech 3 days after you discover it) which increases the incentive to innovate, without it we probably wouldnt have the computers we have now
we would have computers, because govs spent the money to make them in research and war projects (look up DARPAnet if you dont believe me, the internet began with the US defense department) but they wouldnt be as advanced, if a company didnt have patent protection then as soon as you make a new component or innovation then your competitor can buy 5, reverse engineer them and put them on the market within months, having never taken on the cost of development they can beat you in price easily
patents are ethically justified becuase the design which you created is the product of your labor, and therefore belongs to you. Nothing can be ethically justified becuase of the "common good" (i.e., not rationally justified)


then if it is theirs why does the patent end?
if the product (or rather, the design) is mine and nonody elses, then why does it suddenly become publicly available without my consent



Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: btw, your name, is it supposed to be like harrison bergeron?
The last name is based off harrison bergeron. The first is based off the novel Atlas Shrugged, and I like greek mythology and the titans in general--so it fits.
have you read anything else from Vonnegut