Milton Friedman on Labor Unions

[DearSummer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tefm8wxCQdg

Unions are a monopoly. They exist for the sole benefit of their members at the expense of everybody else. The only way to truly and equitably improve worker compensation is through the free market.

[Syne]

Can you please stop posting this crap already?

We don't need a new thread every time you find a new Youtube video you agree with.

[kasianman]

The "race to the bottom" free market?

[DearSummer]

Can you please stop posting this crap already?

We don't need a new thread every time you find a new Youtube video you agree with.

Feel free to put me on your ignore list or simply not read/respond to my posts.

[Syne]

Here's the union thread (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/merged-unions-outdated-1156594/) - last post timestamped yesterday

Last week I posted my views on unions and a Mod (correctly) moved my thread to that one. Video or no video, let's keep talk about unions in one thread.

[squagles]

Labour is not a commodity. There is no such thing as a "Free Market" in labour.

[DearSummer]

Labour is not a commodity. There is no such thing as a "Free Market" in labour.

Why not? Companies "buy" employees like they buy anything else they use for their business (machinery, commodities, etc.).

[squagles]

Why not? Companies "buy" employees like they buy anything else they use for their business (machinery, commodities, etc.).

Machinery doesn't need to be coerced to work. Humans do.

[DearSummer]

Machinery doesn't need to be coerced to work. Humans do.

Employees are not coerced to work. That would be slavery. Employers offer incentives and employees CHOOSE to work.

[squagles]

Employees are not coerced to work. That would be slavery. Employers offer incentives and employees CHOOSE to work.

Incentive is a nice euphemism for it, but yeah, people work so they won't be thrown out of their homes by armed men.

If you can't opt out, how do you call it a choice?

[Takami]

Let's just put it this way, if unionized organizations and the government sector can run their operations as efficiently as other "benchmark" countries, then they should continue what they are doing. If not, another party should take over.

[DearSummer]

Incentive is a nice euphemism for it, but yeah, people work so they won't be thrown out of their homes by armed men.

If you can't opt out, how do you call it a choice?

Of course you can opt out. Nobody is forcing you to work in Canada. Go ahead and don't work a day in your life if you want. Owning or even living in a home is not a right.

[squagles]

Of course you can opt out. Nobody is forcing you to work in Canada. Go ahead and don't work a day in your life if you want. Owning or even living in a home is not a right.

First of all vagrancy is against the law everywhere in Canada.

But that's the amazing choice? Either generate profit or be a vagrant? Be exploited or possibly die from exposure?

And why should anyone who chooses option B respect the property of those trying to force them into option A? Other than, you guessed it, violent coercion.

[DearSummer]

First of all vagrancy is against the law everywhere in Canada.

But that's the amazing choice? Either generate profit or be a vagrant? Be exploited or possibly die from exposure?

And why should anyone who chooses option B respect the property of those trying to force them into option A? Other than, you guessed it, violent coercion.

So where should these houses magically appear from if you don't need to work to live in one?

[squagles]

So where should these houses magically appear from if you don't need to work to live in one?

Capitalism did not invent shelter.

[DearSummer]

Capitalism did not invent shelter.

So somebody is just going to build you a house out of the kindness of their heart? :facepalm:

[Syne]

So where should these houses magically appear from if you don't need to work to live in one?

You're asking the wrong questions.

You should be asking, "if vagrancy is a crime, then should people have a right to housing?" or at the very least a right to work for a living - and not just the right to apply for work, but the right to actually put their boots on the ground and work, rather than get passed around and rejected.

It's interesting that you hear people say that you're not entitled to a job, when what they're really saying is that you're not entitled to not be a criminal.

[Shaner]

Yes, unions exist for the sole benefit of their members. They do exactly what you do, try to get as much money as possible, except they do it for multiple people and you only do it for one person. No difference.

By the way, you must be a lot of fun to be around, all you do is complain about everything.

[BornRuff]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tefm8wxCQdg

Unions are a monopoly. They exist for the sole benefit of their members at the expense of everybody else. The only way to truly and equitably improve worker compensation is through the free market.

This is way to simplistic. Competition for workers does not make everybody better off. That money does come out of the money that employers/business owners make.

Competition for workers dose work to make some workers better off, but certain minimum standards would not be enforced by a free market, so the government certainly has a role in ensuring minimum standards.

The idea that unions are self interested is obvious to everyone, but everyone is self interested. Self interest is the basis of free market ideology, and is it really the place of the government to step in to restrict how people are able to pursue their best interests. If people band together to bargain as a group, and they believe that is the best way to pursue their self interest, on what grounds should the government prevent that?

[BornRuff]

Yes, unions exist for the sole benefit of their members. They do exactly what you do, try to get as much money as possible, except they do it for multiple people and you only do it for one person. No difference.

By the way, you must be a lot of fun to be around, all you do is complain about everything.

+1.

[squagles]

So somebody is just going to build you a house out of the kindness of their heart? :facepalm:

No, but people deserve something of the natural inheritance of the earth.

Instead, they are coerced by violence into making a profit. Not just paying their own way, but paying in more than that so that profit can be generated.

[Syne]

^ ****ing exactly!

This squagles guy is alright :)

[ishfish]

So this thread is more about what is a basic right vs a priviledge? That would make it more interesting than just another union one.

[Bskll]

public-funding is very good at ensuring access at the cost of pricing.

free market is very good at ensuring low prices but not access.

we must pick and choose which one do we want for government services. we can have a private police force that is much much cheaper than a government-run one, but that just means that not everyone will get access to it in a timely fashion.

i don't know about you but i would rather pay more in taxes to ensure that everyone has access to essential services. unions are a part of that and i'm fine with that. Milton Friedman is very good economist but his free market theory cannot be applied to everything.

[neutral]

No, but people deserve something of the natural inheritance of the earth.

Instead, they are coerced by violence into making a profit. Not just paying their own way, but paying in more than that so that profit can be generated.

Just wanted to acknowledge you putting DearSummer back into his hole. Thank you.

[DearSummer]

You're asking the wrong questions.

You should be asking, "if vagrancy is a crime, then should people have a right to housing?" or at the very least a right to work for a living - and not just the right to apply for work, but the right to actually put their boots on the ground and work, rather than get passed around and rejected.

It's interesting that you hear people say that you're not entitled to a job, when what they're really saying is that you're not entitled to not be a criminal.

If you're defining vagrancy as being homeless, then it is not a crime in Canada or most free, democratic countries. When is the last time somebody was prosecuted for being a vagrant?

For Canada:

In Canada, the Criminal Code, s. 179 now limits the crime of vagrancy to encompass only such conduct were a person "supports himself in whole or in part by gaming or crime and has no lawful profession or calling by which to maintain himself" or in regards to a convicted sexual offender "found loitering in or near a school ground, playground, public park or bathing area".
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/V/Vagrancy.aspx

Everybody does have the right to work for a living. If nobody will hire you, you can be self-employed.

How would we entitle everybody to a job? How would such a system work?

[DearSummer]

Yes, unions exist for the sole benefit of their members. They do exactly what you do, try to get as much money as possible, except they do it for multiple people and you only do it for one person. No difference.

Do you think it would be fair for the government to regulate an industry so you could only buy shoes from one company? Do you think that company would abuse consumers and provide a low quality product for a high price?

That is precisely what a union does. I would have no problems with unions if membership was voluntary and businesses were free to hire/fire anybody, whether they are in the union or not.

[Toukolou]

As a citizen of the world "I'm entitled to my entitlements!!!"

[Marcanadian]

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/6/66385/1429754-1253930_this_thread_again_super_super.jpg

[DearSummer]

This is way to simplistic. Competition for workers does not make everybody better off. That money does come out of the money that employers/business owners make.

Competition for workers dose work to make some workers better off, but certain minimum standards would not be enforced by a free market, so the government certainly has a role in ensuring minimum standards.

Who exactly does minimum standards help? All a minimum wage does it prevent a portion of the population who is not productive at the minimum wage from ever being employed and upgrading their skills through on-the-job training. It forced a portion of the population, generally a disadvantaged portion, to be on welfare their entire lives. That isn't good for anybody.


The idea that unions are self interested is obvious to everyone, but everyone is self interested. Self interest is the basis of free market ideology, and is it really the place of the government to step in to restrict how people are able to pursue their best interests. If people band together to bargain as a group, and they believe that is the best way to pursue their self interest, on what grounds should the government prevent that?

Unions would be fine if the government didn't make them a monopoly. Some businesses can only hire union members and every employee must join the union. That in a monopoly and creates a market imbalance.

[DearSummer]

public-funding is very good at ensuring access at the cost of pricing.

free market is very good at ensuring low prices but not access.

we must pick and choose which one do we want for government services. we can have a private police force that is much much cheaper than a government-run one, but that just means that not everyone will get access to it in a timely fashion.

i don't know about you but i would rather pay more in taxes to ensure that everyone has access to essential services. unions are a part of that and i'm fine with that. Milton Friedman is very good economist but his free market theory cannot be applied to everything.

Why do we need unions to provide public services? Public services can run without unions.

[BornRuff]

Who exactly does minimum standards help? All a minimum wage does it prevent a portion of the population who is not productive at the minimum wage from ever being employed and upgrading their skills through on-the-job training. It forced a portion of the population, generally a disadvantaged portion, to be on welfare their entire lives. That isn't good for anybody.

This is not the case. Businesses don't pay people exactly what their marginal productivity is. When minimum wage was 9.50, it was not the case that everyone earning 9.50 was only worth 9.50 per hour to the companies. This is evident by the fact that when the minimum was raised to 10.25, we didn't see fast food and retail companies firing their entire workforce. They paid their workers the new higher wages. They did this because the workers are worth some amount more than 9.50 per hour to the employer, the employer simply wasn't paying them that.

While a minimum wage does make some jobs less viable, the gains received by all of the people who were being paid less than their marginal productivity outweighs those losses(as long as the minimum wage is reasonable). The number of people out there who are truly not productive enough to warrant our current minimum wage are few. If we want them to be trained, it is much more efficient for the government to just provide them with the training directly rather than huge numbers of workers earning sub poverty wages and hope that the employer that is paying them 5 bucks an hour is also providing them with some sort of meaningful training for some reason.

Many of the people who are not productive enough to warrant the minimum would likely be physically or mentally disabled, so the degree to which retraining would improve their productivity is minimal.


Unions would be fine if the government didn't make them a monopoly. Some businesses can only hire union members and every employee must join the union. That in a monopoly and creates a market imbalance.

There are many many distortions in every real life market. Just eliminating one distortion doesn't necessarily make things better. The distortion of unions compensates for other distortions moving things in the opposite direction. You can't just look at this one piece of the puzzle and expect that to improve things.

[Syne]

How would we entitle everybody to a job? How would such a system work?

Good point. Maybe if we can't entitle people to a job, you should stop telling them if they don't have one that they're worthless.

[DearSummer]

Good point. Maybe if we can't entitle people to a job, you should stop telling them if they don't have one that they're worthless.

When did I say that somebody who is unemployed is worthless? :confused: People are free to choose how they live.

[Syne]

Unions would be fine if the government didn't make them a monopoly. Some businesses can only hire union members and every employee must join the union. That in a monopoly and creates a market imbalance.

How does the government make unions a monopoly? Hiring restrictions are set out in the collective bargaining agreement and signed by both parties. Nobody makes anyone do anything.

If Equifax bought out Trans Union tomorrow, would you blame the government for letting it happen? The truth is, most likely they wouldn't allow it to happen and you'd chide the government for not allowing the free market to be free.

[Syne]

When did I say that somebody who is unemployed is worthless? :confused: People are free to choose how they live.

Your team implies this when they say things like, "Occupy a jerrb!" or "Stop being leeches!". It's tantamount to saying that if you're unemployed, then you should probably just die because in my ideal world, you would get zero access to public assistance.

Then when they come back and say, "OK, we'll have a job please" then you point them to a private employer who may or may not hire them. While we're at it, we should just start handing out Darwin awards and loading the recipients up on to conveyer belts to be throw off a cliff into giant heaping piles of epic failure.

[DearSummer]

How does the government make unions a monopoly? Hiring restrictions are set out in the collective bargaining agreement and signed by both parties. Nobody makes anyone do anything.

You should do more research on unions in Canada as you don't seem to understand how they work.


If Equifax bought out Trans Union tomorrow, would you blame the government for letting it happen? The truth is, most likely they wouldn't allow it to happen and you'd chide the government for not allowing the free market to be free.

Government is essentially the only source of monopolies. What monopolies exist without government intervention?

[DearSummer]

Your team implies this when they say things like, "Occupy a jerrb!" or "Stop being leeches!".

What team?


It's tantamount to saying that if you're unemployed, then you should probably just die because in my ideal world, you would get zero access to public assistance.

Never have I suggested that.


Then when they come back and say, "OK, we'll have a job please" then you point them to a private employer who may or may not hire them. While we're at it, we should just start handing out Darwin awards and loading the recipients up on to conveyer belts to be throw off a cliff into giant heaping piles of epic failure.

You are free to work for any company or start your own business. What more do you want? What else could be done?

[Syne]

You should do more research on unions in Canada as you don't seem to understand how they work.

Is that your idea of telling me I'm wrong? That I should do more research?

Now see here, DearSummer.. I contend that it is in fact you, sir who needs to conduct more research because it is you, not I, who does not understand!

Mwha yes.. This discussion is going swimmingly.



Government is essentially the only source of monopolies. What monopolies exist without government intervention?

Oh I don't know.. OPEC does a pretty good job at locking in private interests. The guy who owns the bridge from Windsor to Detroit seems to have a nice little monopoly on an entire geographical trade route and I'm pretty sure that they aren't handing out permits to build adjacent bridges. Look around you. Sometimes simply being established and in an aggressive position is holding a de facto monopoly.

It seems to me that any market that is reaching maturity in its life cycle, depending on certain factors such as whether it's a vital service or not, should be monopolies. It makes sense, for example, to have a single power provider in a city or a single entity coordinating trash pickup and basic mail delivery. It makes sense to have a central school board and a single entity ensuring people don't dump their garbage in the Thames river. Normally it makes sense to have one toll bridge instead of three. I don't see the need for more than one credit reporting agency either, do you? In fact lots of things work perfectly fine as monopolies and I'm happy to have them.

The thing I disagree with, is that these various monoplies should be run by some Monopoly guy and his crony investors - and before you tell me that I'm free to get in on the ground floor of this racket, I'd like to stop you. I'm not interested. In fact, I'm vehemently idealistically opposed.

[Metagame]

Why do we need unions to provide public services? Public services can run without unions.

Why do we need public services? Why not privatize everything except the military and police, which should be the only function of the public sector? Milton Friedman is a smart man, and he along with a few others know that this truly the only way forward out of economic turmoil. But, of course, you only take certain principles of his that you agree with and seem to ignore the rest.

[Syne]

Why do we need public services? Why not privatize everything except the military and police, which should be the only function of the public sector? Milton Friedman is a smart man, and he along with a few others know that this truly the only way forward out of economic turmoil. But, of course, you only take certain principles of his that you agree with and seem to ignore the rest.

I say you and DearSummer have a cage match. It wouldn't matter who lost, everyone would win.

[BornRuff]

Government is essentially the only source of monopolies. What monopolies exist without government intervention?

Natural monopolies.

[DearSummer]

Is that your idea of telling me I'm wrong? That I should do more research?

Now see here, DearSummer.. I contend that it is in fact you, sir who needs to conduct more research because it is you, not I, who does not understand!

Mwha yes.. This discussion is going swimmingly.

If unions were easy to get rid of, why wouldn't all businesses get rid of them? Again, unions are protected legislatively. Many workplaces require all employees be in the union and only union employees can be hired. Are you disputing that? If Air Canada could, I'm sure they would get rid of the union.



Oh I don't know.. OPEC does a pretty good job at locking in private interests. The guy who owns the bridge from Windsor to Detroit seems to have a nice little monopoly on an entire geographical trade route and I'm pretty sure that they aren't handing out permits to build adjacent bridges. Look around you. Sometimes simply being established and in an aggressive position is holding a de facto monopoly.

Haha those examples are terrible. OPEC is governments. The government not handing out permits = government intervention.


It seems to me that any market that is reaching maturity in its life cycle, depending on certain factors such as whether it's a vital service or not, should be monopolies. It makes sense, for example, to have a single power provider in a city or a single entity coordinating trash pickup and basic mail delivery. It makes sense to have a central school board and a single entity ensuring people don't dump their garbage in the Thames river. I don't see the need for more than one credit reporting agency either, do you? In fact lots of things work perfectly fine as monopolies and I'm happy to have them.

What incentive does a business have to provide a quality good at a low cost without competition? Why not just gouge the consumers?


The thing I disagree with, is that these various monoplies should be run by some Monopoly guy and his crony investors - and before you tell me that I'm free to get in on the ground floor of this racket, I'd like to stop you. I'm not interested. In fact, I'm vehemently idealistically opposed.

Monopolies would not exist without government intervention, as I've demonstrated. Governments cause more harm than good in this regard.

[DearSummer]

Why do we need public services? Why not privatize everything except the military and police, which should be the only function of the public sector? Milton Friedman is a smart man, and he along with a few others know that this truly the only way forward out of economic turmoil. But, of course, you only take certain principles of his that you agree with and seem to ignore the rest.

Milton Friedman has never advocated for getting rid of all government except for military and police to my knowledge. He advocated for less government, not no government. Even if he did, why would I need to agree with 100% of what somebody says?

[DearSummer]

Natural monopolies.

Like what for example?

[BornRuff]

Like what for example?

Arguably google, most utilities. Having firms compete to supply water to your house doesn't really work for practical reasons.

[DearSummer]

Arguably google, most utilities. Having firms compete to supply water to your house doesn't really work for practical reasons.

Google? Are you kidding me? What do they have a monopoly in? Search? Microsoft plus many more compete in that space.

What utilities have a monopoly that is not created by the government?

Water is supplied by the government. Again, a government-created monopoly.

[Syne]

If unions were easy to get rid of, why wouldn't all businesses get rid of them? Again, unions are protected legislatively. Many workplaces require all employees be in the union and only union employees can be hired. Are you disputing that? If Air Canada could, I'm sure they would get rid of the union.

Is everything black & white with you? I never said that they'd be easy to get rid of. I said that both sides have collective bargaining rights. It might surprise you to know that certain unions have been rendered essentially toothless. You often don't hear about them because they are drama-free zones, but many private branches of unions have little rights or representation. I worked at one. They did nothing for the workers.



Haha those examples are terrible. OPEC is governments. The government not handing out permits = government intervention.

No, one of those is a terrible example. Please tell me how a toll bridge owner operates in a free market with competition.



What incentive does a business have to provide a quality good at a low cost without competition? Why not just gouge the consumers?

Bad press.. Bad PR.. There is also something called corporate responsibility. Geez, for someone who worships the free market, you sure don't have much faith in their values.


Monopolies would not exist without government intervention, as I've demonstrated. Governments cause more harm than good in this regard.

I'll let BornRuff explain to you exactly why you're wrong.

[Syne]

Google? Are you kidding me? What do they have a monopoly in? Search? Microsoft plus many more compete in that space.

What utilities have a monopoly that is not created by the government?

Water is supplied by the government. Again, a government-created monopoly.

Fine, let's play your game.

How would you privatize hydro and water in such a way that makes things fair and competitive?

[DearSummer]

Is everything black & white with you? I never said that they'd be easy to get rid of. I said that both sides have collective bargaining rights. It might surprise you to know that certain unions have been rendered essentially toothless. You often don't hear about them because they are drama-free zones, but many private branches of unions have little rights or representation. I worked

If an employer can choose whether to hire union members or not and employees can choose to join the union or not, I have no problems with unions. However, that is not the case in Canada.


No, one of those is a terrible example. Please tell me how a toll bridge owner operates in a free market with competition.

Anybody could build a competing bridge? People could use other bridges elsewhere? People could fly or take a ferry? If it's the government not allowing more bridges to be constructed, it is a government-created monopoly.


Bad press.. Bad PR.. There is also something called corporate responsibility. Geez, for someone who worships the free market, you sure don't have much faith in their values.

How would we even know if we are getting a good deal or not if there is no competition? Businesses' primary responsibility is to maximize shareholder value. If you are a monopoly, you don't have any incentive to lower prices. It's the exact reason that governments are wasteful. They don't have the incentive to be efficient like the private sector. People respond to incentives and that is what the free market is based on.

[DearSummer]

Fine, let's play your game.

How would you privatize hydro and water in such a way that makes things fair and competitive?

The same way any free market works? The government IS the monopoly in both those industries. If they opened it up to the free market many companies would want a piece of the pie.

[BornRuff]

Google? Are you kidding me? What do they have a monopoly in? Search? Microsoft plus many more compete in that space.

What utilities have a monopoly that is not created by the government?

Water is supplied by the government. Again, a government-created monopoly.

Nobody comes close to competing with Google in internet search. They clearly dominate that market, with no government interference.

The existence of only one supplier of water to your house has nothing to do with government intervention. The creation of more than one water system is way to costly, so there is no way for other companies to compete. There is no real competition in natural gas or electricity either, because of the sheer cost of the infrastructure.

[DearSummer]

Nobody comes close to competing with Google in internet search. They clearly dominate that market, with no government interference.

Google has a 66% market share. That is not even close to a monopoly. There are plenty of players in that market.


The existence of only one supplier of water to your house has nothing to do with government intervention. The creation of more than one water system is way to costly, so there is no way for other companies to compete. There is no real competition in natural gas or electricity either, because of the sheer cost of the infrastructure.

Look at how high fixed costs are for telecom yet we still have competition (despite the government's intervention). High fixed costs do not necessarily create a monopoly. Also, even the threat of another competitor entering a market creates an incentive for businesses to provide a high-quality products for cheap.

[BornRuff]

Google has a 66% market share. That is not even close to a monopoly. There are plenty of players in that market.



Look at how high fixed costs are for telecom yet we still have competition (despite the government's intervention). High fixed costs do not necessarily create a monopoly. Also, even the threat of another competitor entering a market creates an incentive for businesses to provide a high-quality products for cheap.

Remember, I said arguably. That much market power compared to their closest "competitor", they are one firm and they control the market.

There is very little competition in the telecom industry, but their fixed costs are relatively low compared to other utilities. Building a cell tower to serve and area is much cheaper than building water pipes to each customer.

Rogers only got into the home phone and internet market because they were able to utilize their existing cable network. Virtually all other competitors in the home phone/internet category are only able to operate because the government forces them to let the competitors piggyback on the established physical network.

[MrKap]

Nobody comes close to competing with Google in internet search. They clearly dominate that market, with no government interference.

Are you sure? I am fairly sure Germany had issues with some of their services. They simply cannot get into the Chinese market. There is something about China and USA companies which never seems to work out. Companies are typically eaten alive inside China, and yes Google has retreated from China. Yandex, Baidu, Bing, Yahoo, ect... they are all major competitors, although some regionally dominate and some are smaller.

Sure it's better when there are more competitors in a field, because if 50% the world was advertising through Google and the other half Bing, they would have to compete on pricing, but the free model means they can perpetually low ball each other out of business, then raise prices. Hence Youtube, slowing dominating the market and introducing TV ads. Youtube is Basically Google. Google couldn't even compete against Youtube with their own video product GoogleVideo, right?

As far as labor unions go though. Google, Yahoo, Bing or just about any tech industry doesn't have anywhere near enough people at low skilled positions to require a labor union. Google is tapped for talent though. They will hire 12 year olds if they have the right background/attitude.

[DearSummer]

Remember, I said arguably. That much market power compared to their closest "competitor", they are one firm and they control the market.

If you think a firm with 66% market share is a monopoly you could classify hundreds of competitive businesses as monopolies. Nobody who understands business would say that internet search is not a competitive market. Is Apple an MP3 player monopoly because they sell a ton more iPods than anybody else? Of course not.

Look at how much money Microsoft has invested in this market recently. It's only a matter of time until Google is dethroned by somebody. Remember when MySpace dominated the social network scene?


There is very little competition in the telecom industry, but their fixed costs are relatively low compared to other utilities. Building a cell tower to serve and area is much cheaper than building water pipes to each customer.

Rogers only got into the home phone and internet market because they were able to utilize their existing cable network. Virtually all other competitors in the home phone/internet category are only able to operate because the government forces them to let the competitors piggyback on the established physical network.

The free market, to my knowledge, rarely creates long-term monopolies. I would not bet it against it in the utility sector or any other sector. The free market certainly has a better track record than government.

[BornRuff]

Are you sure? I am fairly sure Germany had issues with some of their services. They simply cannot get into the Chinese market. There is something about China and USA companies which never seems to work out. Companies are typically eaten alive inside China, and yes Google has retreated from China. Yandex, Baidu, Bing, Yahoo, ect... they are all major competitors, although some regionally dominate and some are smaller.

Sure it's better when there are more competitors in a field, because if 50% the world was advertising through Google and the other half Bing, they would have to compete on pricing, but the free model means they can perpetually low ball each other out of business, then raise prices. Hence Youtube, slowing dominating the market and introducing TV ads. Youtube is Basically Google. Google couldn't even compete against Youtube with their own video product GoogleVideo, right?

I am talking about the Canadian and US markets here.

Google owns Youtube.

[Bskll]

Why do we need unions to provide public services? Public services can run without unions.

we don't need unions to provide public services, but it is prone to having unions as it tends towards a monopoly. that being said, i'm trying to say that in case of government services, i'd rather they stay public, cost more money, and be accessible to everyone instead of being privatized, cost less, but not become accessible to a portion of the population.

[MrKap]

If you think a firm with 66% market share is a monopoly you could classify hundreds of competitive businesses as monopolies.

What makes you believe that is an accurate number?



Why do we need unions to provide public services? Public services can run without unions.

It is pretty safe to say that once a public service is privatized, you won't necessarily get the service, unless you have money and pay for it directly.

Things like Police, Fire, 911. Ect...

[DearSummer]

What makes you believe that is an accurate number?

The same reasons I believe statistics that show the market shares of any other industries?


It is pretty safe to say that once a public service is privatized, you won't necessarily get the service, unless you have money and pay for it directly.

Things like Police, Fire, 911. Ect...

Again, what does this have to do with unions? We could have public hospitals without unions. If unions were illegal, it wouldn't effect what public services we can and can't have.

[MrKap]

Again, what does this have to do with unions? We could have public hospitals without unions. If unions were illegal, it wouldn't effect what public services we can and can't have.

It has everything to do with everything.

If 99% of the population doesn't make any use of a service, why shouldn't it be privatized?

If a large majority of the population does make use of the service however, then it should remain public.

Unions are something entirely different and irrelevant. They are essential for the working person. It's nobody else's business if someone wants to earn a living or not.





Of course, if the service is critical, it might be better to keep it public so it remains open, if it can't survive on it's own two feet. I would guess fire departments might be like that.

Something like a Hospital, that might serve a huge portion of the population, might be best if some aspects were privatized, so long as critical services remained open. The demand is certainly there to keep them up and running.

[DearSummer]

It has everything to do with everything.

If 99% of the population doesn't make any use of a service, why shouldn't it be privatized?

If a large majority of the population does make use of the service however, then it should remain public.

Unions are something entirely different and irrelevant. They are essential for the working person. It's nobody else's business if someone wants to earn a living or not.

Haha OK now I remember why I stopped responding to you. Although I disagree with other posters on many issues, at least their posts are coherent for the most part. :|

[MrKap]

It's absolutely true.

It's nobody else's business if someone wants to join a labor union. This is exactly why I am not sold on Obama abolishing the private ballot system in the USA.


Labor Unions work on your side, unless you are in a position where you are upper management in a corporation and have a significant stake in the company. I mean living, not cheap and easily tradable stocks.


In a free market you can go with any service you want, a unionized one or a non unionized one. Labor Unions are not your problem. They are the essential counter balance which opens the market for up and coming competitors.

Every man behind a company, or everyman against it. Entirely democratic.

[Syne]

If an employer can choose whether to hire union members or not and employees can choose to join the union or not, I have no problems with unions. However, that is not the case in Canada.

If an employer could choose whether to hire union members or not, there would be no unions. It's as simple as that. You seem to be working under the assumption that employees exist on a level playing field with employers. Even as a group this isn't true, especially in an economy with high unemployment. If China has taught us anything, it's that unregulated markets create an underclass of citizens who make barely enough to subsist. Canadians are already at a standard of living commensurate with our evolution as a society, which includes a robust public sector to ensure our happiness and well-being. The reason I frame questions at you the way I do, is because I'm challenging how your ideas are going provide a net increase to the quality of life to Canadians, over and above what we already enjoy.

Consistently you fail to demonstrate how deregulated free markets will do this. You are only interested in framing the discussion around your ideals, but you won't explore the position of anyone else. How do you ever expect to make any headway in a discussion when you just cross-talk points?


Anybody could build a competing bridge? People could use other bridges elsewhere? People could fly or take a ferry? If it's the government not allowing more bridges to be constructed, it is a government-created monopoly.

Maybe do some reading (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/766020--this-secretive-billionaire-family-owns-the-ambassador-bridge) yourself.


How would we even know if we are getting a good deal or not if there is no competition? Businesses' primary responsibility is to maximize shareholder value. If you are a monopoly, you don't have any incentive to lower prices. It's the exact reason that governments are wasteful. They don't have the incentive to be efficient like the private sector. People respond to incentives and that is what the free market is based on.

Like I said, even monopolies want to be good corporate citizens, if only to keep government off their backs. Without the spectre of government interference, many private companies would severely decrease their standards. Sure, the ground beef in your Taco Bell taco might be tastier, but it will more than likely kill you in 10 years flat.

[BornRuff]

If you think a firm with 66% market share is a monopoly you could classify hundreds of competitive businesses as monopolies. Nobody who understands business would say that internet search is not a competitive market. Is Apple an MP3 player monopoly because they sell a ton more iPods than anybody else? Of course not.

Look at how much money Microsoft has invested in this market recently. It's only a matter of time until Google is dethroned by somebody. Remember when MySpace dominated the social network scene?

Apple with their MP3 players is certainly another possible example of a natural monopoly. They hold 78% of the market share of music players. They are one firm that completely controls the market for music players.

Can you really name any other companies that have that kind of market dominance in a free market?

The definition of a monopoly does not require that it be unassailable. Monopolies eventually do fade, especially natural monopolies.


The free market, to my knowledge, rarely creates long-term monopolies. I would not bet it against it in the utility sector or any other sector. The free market certainly has a better track record than government.

This is just meaningless jargon. What do you have to say about my actual points?

[Syne]

The same reasons I believe statistics that show the market shares of any other industries?

I think he's saying if you're going to post a statistic, provide a link. That's pretty standard practice here and on any forum where current events & poltics are debated.

[MrKap]

Can you really name any other companies that have that kind of market dominance in a free market?

Sony Walkman


Not sure if true or accurate, but here it is...

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Sony_(SNE)/Employees


As of March 31, 2009, Sony had approximately 171,300 employees, a decrease of approximately 9,200 employees from March 31, 2008. During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, while employees increased due to the consolidation of SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT (“SONY BMG”), the total number of employees decreased significantly due to restructuring and production adjustment implemented in the second half of the fiscal year, mainly at manufacturing sites in non-Japan Asia. As of March 31, 2009, approximately 63,400 employees were located in Japan and approximately 107,900 employees were located outside Japan. Approximately 24 percent of the total number of employees were members of labor unions.


Now I don't know about Apple, but my guess is they have Unions as well. Here is something about the retail sector considering it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003067/Employee-takes-Apple-fight-setting-company-trade-union.html


It’s an iconic $320billion firm known for a fanatical following, cutting-edge mystique and strong loyalty of employees.
But part-time Apple employee Cory Moll is forming a trade union to fight what he believes are unfair practices in the company’s retail showrooms.
Mr Moll, 30, who works in a San Francisco store, wants to fight for better wages, improved benefits and is encouraging other employees to join him

[DearSummer]

If an employer could choose whether to hire union members or not, there would be no unions. It's as simple as that. You seem to be working under the assumption that employees exist on a level playing field with employers. Even as a group this isn't true, especially in an economy with high unemployment.

The reason for unemployment is because the government has caused labour costs to increase irrespective of the economics.


If China has taught us anything, it's that unregulated markets create an underclass of citizens who make barely enough to subsist.

China is an unregulated market? Are you insane? It's one of the most highly regulated markets in the world. Most of the major companies are just extensions of the government. China's recent economic rise has been on the back of free market principles. To use that an example of a country that has suffered due to "unregulated markets" is laughable because their standard of living has risen exponentially due to capitalism!


Canadians are already at a standard of living commensurate with our evolution as a society, which includes a robust public sector to ensure our happiness and well-being. The reason I frame questions at you the way I do, is because I'm challenging how your ideas are going provide a net increase to the quality of life to Canadians, over and above what we already enjoy.

Consistently you fail to demonstrate how deregulated free markets will do this. You are only interested in framing the discussion around your ideals, but you won't explore the position of anyone else. How do you ever expect to make any headway in a discussion when you just cross-talk points?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A


Maybe do some reading (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/766020--this-secretive-billionaire-family-owns-the-ambassador-bridge) yourself.

This is 100% a government-created monopoly. How do you not get that? If the government allowed anybody to build a bridge, they would do so. Why do you think that family is buying votes? They keep the monopoly through controlling the politicians.


Like I said, even monopolies want to be good corporate citizens, if only to keep government off their backs. Without the spectre of government interference, many private companies would severely decrease their standards. Sure, the ground beef in your Taco Bell taco might be tastier, but it will more than likely kill you in 10 years flat.

How could a company decrease quality or increase price in a competitive market without losing market share? Also, I have never advocated for getting rid of all government regulation.

[DearSummer]

Apple with their MP3 players is certainly another possible example of a natural monopoly. They hold 78% of the market share of music players. They are one firm that completely controls the market for music players.

Can you really name any other companies that have that kind of market dominance in a free market?

The definition of a monopoly does not require that it be unassailable. Monopolies eventually do fade, especially natural monopolies.

It seems to me you don't understand what a monopoly is. Having a 66% market share is not a monopoly. There are plenty of options in internet search if you don't want to use Google. The same goes for Apple and the iPod, iPad, or iPhone. Every competition has a winner. It's when there isn't a competition that it's a monopoly.


This is just meaningless jargon. What do you have to say about my actual points?

How am I going to sit here and tell you exactly how the private sector would compete in any given industry? Nobody knows until it is opened up to the free market. That is when great ideas are born that allows companies to compete with established players or bigger companies.

[MrKap]

I agree with Friedman, Greed is absolutely essential for a healthy economy.

That includes labor unions who want the right to participate in the economy with fair wages.

When labor unions get money, they spend on things like health insurance, automobiles (manufacturing), houses (construction), ect...

[squagles]

Again, what does this have to do with unions? We could have public hospitals without unions. If unions were illegal, it wouldn't effect what public services we can and can't have.

The choice isn't between unions and no unions. It's between legal, recognized unions and radical unions. Unions didn't appear as legal entities, they we're revolutionary organizations that would strike at any time. Companies would hire armies of private thugs to suppress them. Western countries would even use armed forces to break them up. The Americans even used bombers on some striking Virginia coal miners. They didn't take **** from anybody. Try to fire an organizer? You're plant is shut down until they're rehired. Try to bring in scabs? They'll encircle the facility and physically block you. If you ignore the two world wars, and try to describe the history of the western world from 1900-1950, you would describe as a period of open rebellion. There were MASSIVE strikes that would make the odd teachers strike today look like smoke break.

Where we stand now is unions are legal and don't face reprisals or management tactics designed to destroy the union, such as hiring outside the union. This wasn't done out of charity. Outright revolution was possible. Official, or legal, unionism was a remedy for this. It split the conservative unionists from the radicals. It gave them a legal framework to agitate for higher pay. In return, it meant organized labour couldn't disrupt the system as a whole.

If you take away workers rights to organize, you'll just be inviting the radicals (like me) back in. This is already happening. Canada Post and Air Canada unions are seeing discipline broken in the shop with unauthorized actions and strike votes coming back in the +90% region against union management pleas for compromise.

Believe me, you want the nice, stable public service unions just the way they are.

[DearSummer]

The choice isn't between unions and no unions. It's between legal, recognized unions and radical unions. Unions didn't appear as legal entities, they we're revolutionary organizations that would strike at any time. Companies would hire armies of private thugs to suppress them. Western countries would even use armed forces to break them up. The Americans even used bombers on some striking Virginia coal miners. They didn't take **** from anybody. Try to fire an organizer? You're plant is shut down until they're rehired. Try to bring in scabs? They'll encircle the facility and physically block you. If you ignore the two world wars, and try to describe the history of the western world from 1900-1950, you would describe as a period of open rebellion. There were MASSIVE strikes that would make the odd teachers strike today look like smoke break.

Where we stand now is unions are legal and don't face reprisals or management tactics designed to destroy the union, such as hiring outside the union. This wasn't done out of charity. Outright revolution was possible. Official, or legal, unionism was a remedy for this. It split the conservative unionists from the radicals. It gave them a legal framework to agitate for higher pay. In return, it meant organized labour couldn't disrupt the system as a whole.

If you take away workers rights to organize, you'll just be inviting the radicals (like me) back in. This is already happening. Canada Post and Air Canada unions are seeing discipline broken in the shop with unauthorized actions and strike votes coming back in the +90% region against union management pleas for compromise.

Believe me, you want the nice, stable public service unions just the way they are.

If people break the law, they can be dealt with in the justice system. I could care less if the unions of today are "nicer" than they were 100 years ago. It doesn't mean they add anything to society.

[MrKap]

There is probably some civil right movements mixed in with this, but there are police on horses, there are cars from the 50s and 60s. People don't realize just how bad it got back then. jmo...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKYCwtnLj_8


I am not entirely sure, but to my knowledge the riots in Canada might have been more prevalent during the 70s. That's what I was told anyways. First search pulls up something from 1971. But it's not Union related.

http://www.historyofrights.com/events/gastown.html


Prompted by articles in the Georgia Straight, an alternative newspaper in Vancouver, hundreds of youths had converged on Maple Tree Square in the popular area of Gastown in downtown Vancouver in the summer of 1971. For the previous week, writers Kenneth Lester and Eric Sommer had been promoting the gathering to protest drug laws and recent drug raids in the area (Operation Dustpan). Hundreds of young people, many described by the media as hippies, had assembled in the square; some were smoking pot, others playing music or just wandering around


Here is one in 1920 which is Union related.

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


Four eastern European immigrants were also rounded up at this time and eventually two were deported, one voluntarily to the United States and the other to Eastern Europe. This day, which came to be known as “Bloody Saturday”,[8] ended with Winnipeg virtually under military occupation.

Here is one in St.John in 1914 which is Union Related. They flipped trollies and stuff

http://www.wfhathewaylabourexhibitcentre.ca/labour-history/the-saint-john-street-railwaymen-s-strike-and-riot-1914/


In July of 1914 a boisterous crowd of perhaps 10,000 people gathered in the wake of a trolley strike. Under cover of darkness they overturned two streetcars, thwarted a cavalry charge, smashed every window in traction company offices, and poured cement on a dynamo, plunging the city into total darkness. “Most Disgraceful Disorder in City’s History” screamed the Saint John Standard headline the next day.


In any event, that stuff doesn't seem to be in the wiki (accutally I found two of them in the wiki). I am aware of a couple strikes in the 70s and the violence that happened as a result, was explained to me as being rather vicious. They might not be large scale enough to be considered a riot. They are probably smaller scale work force riots. What I heard anyways is that people had no problem throwing bricks at peoples heads, over turning cars, burning stuff. It was like nothing to them.

I am all for Unions, I am not necessarily for the violence, Unions however are a completely natural human right. Everybody has a right to earn a living, if the market can bear it, they have a right to it.

The truth is, the market can't always bear it. Should a market which can't even provide enough sustenance for a lower or middle class worker to contribute back to the economy exist?

No... Not always.

So maybe it's a good sign when a company folds due to Union pressure. It might be a sure sign that it would be better replaced by another better company.

[BornRuff]

It seems to me you don't understand what a monopoly is. Having a 66% market share is not a monopoly. There are plenty of options in internet search if you don't want to use Google. The same goes for Apple and the iPod, iPad, or iPhone. Every competition has a winner. It's when there isn't a competition that it's a monopoly.

It is about market power. The first year economics examples of actually having just one firm in the entire market is unrealistic. Having one firm with enough market power to control the market can be considered a monopoly. Again, I said arguably. Many people disagree that google is a natural monopoly, though if a company tried to achieve that kind of market power(or thr 78% that iPods enjoy) through purchasing other companies, it would likely be blocked on anti trust grounds.

That kind of market power is unheard of in normal competitive markets.


How am I going to sit here and tell you exactly how the private sector would compete in any given industry? Nobody knows until it is opened up to the free market. That is when great ideas are born that allows companies to compete with established players or bigger companies.

Do you really not think that the logistics of these things are simple enough to understand?

[squagles]

If people break the law, they can be dealt with in the justice system. I could care less if the unions of today are "nicer" than they were 100 years ago. It doesn't mean they add anything to society.

Capitalism wouldn't have survived this long without reforms like organized labour.

[Syne]

The reason for unemployment is because the government has caused labour costs to increase irrespective of the economics.

We could argue all day about the reason for high unemployment or we could save time and use other countries as models. Look at US unemployment, a more 'free market' society than us, then look at unemployment in countries like Sweden, Denmark or Iceland, which would be considered more economically regulated than us. According to the CIA world factbook, (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2129rank.html) US is just under 10% and the aforementioned countries are all hovering around 7%. Canada is around 7.5%.


China is an unregulated market? Are you insane? It's one of the most highly regulated markets in the world. Most of the major companies are just extensions of the government. China's recent economic rise has been on the back of free market principles. To use that an example of a country that has suffered due to "unregulated markets" is laughable because their standard of living has risen exponentially due to capitalism!

China certainly is unregulated when it comes to workers rights, absolutely. Just because the PRC government has power doesn't mean it exercises it judiciously. China's economic rise is nothing to be proud of, and certainly an indictment of poor human rights legislation. To say that their standard of living (for some) has risen is true, but for others it is still facepalmingly poor.


This is 100% a government-created monopoly. How do you not get that? If the government allowed anybody to build a bridge, they would do so. Why do you think that family is buying votes? They keep the monopoly through controlling the politicians.

Have you heard of this family? The government is the only entity that even stands a chance. You're talking about a literal modern day cloak n' dagger operation. The government is the only entity that even stands a chance here because they are shining a light on how these people do business. I have multiple friends who work for this man.. he is not a nice man and he doesn't play nice either.. and it has nothing to do with the government.


How could a company decrease quality or increase price in a competitive market without losing market share? Also, I have never advocated for getting rid of all government regulation.

No, I suppose that's Metagame and Hitman's song n' dance.

[MrKap]

The reason for unemployment is because the government has caused labour costs to increase irrespective of the economics.

It could also be a change in consumer spending habits. Not much more. Alberta has the lowest unemployment rate out there at 4.5%. They are also paid the most compared to other places. They have a labour shortage.

Everywhere else, kids are living longer with their parents. United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, Japan, everywhere. Everywhere. I'll argue it's a wealth mobility issue, rather than a cultural change in family values.

So, does a labor shortage decrease the unemployment rate? Or do high wages?


Corporations holding onto money, and spending less. What's that a signal of? A lack of innovation? Or perhaps something more real? A change in consumer spending habits.


A healthy economy has nothing to do with wealth. It has everything to do with demand, production and the flow of money.


Too much production lowers the cost of everything to the point where nobody can make money off it.

Not enough demand, nobody is going to spend anything.

Not enough money flowing, then you need unions to get money into the hands of the people who arguably spend the most. Unions are a natural part of the demand in any healthy economy. It's really that simple.

[patpond]

Do you really want the level of service in gov't to rival that of Walmart or McDonalds?

I guess then you can come on here and post how terrible the roads are, and how the gov't can't find anybody to work to teach your kids, or pick up your trash. Why would they do these jobs, when you can work at a mindless job at Walmart gathering carts for the same pay?

[DearSummer]

Do you really want the level of service in gov't to rival that of Walmart or McDonalds?

I guess then you can come on here and post how terrible the roads are, and how the gov't can't find anybody to work to teach your kids, or pick up your trash. Why would they do these jobs, when you can work at a mindless job at Walmart gathering carts for the same pay?

McDonalds has exceptional service in my experience. Walmart is actually pretty good as well.

Who said anything about paying public servants (i.e. teachers) minimum wage? That is not the argument I'm making.

[patpond]

McDonalds has exceptional service in my experience. Walmart is actually pretty good as well.

Who said anything about paying public servants (i.e. teachers) minimum wage? That is not the argument I'm making.

Simplify the argument then. You say let the 'free market' decide. So, no pre-set wage applied to public servant jobs. So, bidding wars to the bottom. I'm pretty sure people won't go below minimum wage.

How low is too low before service suffers? Do you want the lowest bidder teaching your kids, or patrolling your neighbourhood for crime?

[DearSummer]

Simplify the argument then. You say let the 'free market' decide. So, no pre-set wage applied to public servant jobs. So, bidding wars to the bottom. I'm pretty sure people won't go below minimum wage.

How low is too low before service suffers? Do you want the lowest bidder teaching your kids, or patrolling your neighbourhood for crime?

Bidding doesn't go downwards. It goes upwards as employers compete for talent. If the province was hiring unqualified teachers (like they do now), they would need to raise wages to attract more high-end talent.

[Syne]

Bidding doesn't go downwards. It goes upwards as employers compete for talent. If the province was hiring unqualified teachers (like they do now), they would need to raise wages to attract more high-end talent.

The only thing unqualified here is your statement that teachers are unqualified.

[DearSummer]

The only thing unqualified here is your statement that teachers are unqualified.

Some teachers are...is this surpising to you? The same is true for any category of employment. It's no secret that Ontario hires teachers who are incompetent (the same as any business). The difference is unions make it nearly impossible to cut the deadweight who harm our children's future and Canada's competitiveness in the global economy.

[Hitman21]

Some teachers are...is this surpising to you? The same is true for any category of employment. It's no secret that Ontario hires teachers who are incompetent (the same as any business). The difference is unions make it nearly impossible to cut the deadweight who harm our children's future and Canada's competitiveness in the global economy.

Agreed. The teachers union makes it almost impossible to fire bad teachers.

[CDNPatriot]

Ever hear of Habitat for Humanity? Was yet another union thread necessary?


So somebody is just going to build you a house out of the kindness of their heart? :facepalm:

[CDNPatriot]

Dearsummer can you please comment on this. And no actually read it and don't respond with a two line comment using a McDonald's worker upselling as an analogy. Seems like you always run and start another thread after people post how Friedman is no longer followed and that his ideas caused the 2008 crash.

Did you know that Friedman admitted to beign a totalitarian?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard43.html

THE IMPACT OF FRIEDMAN

And so, as we examine Milton Friedman’s credentials to be the leader of free-market economics, we arrive at the chilling conclusion that it is difficult to consider him a free-market economist at all. Even in the micro sphere, Friedman’s theoretical concessions to the egregious ideal of "perfect competition" would permit a great deal of governmental trust-busting, and his neighborhood-effect concession to a government intervention could permit a virtual totalitarian state, even though Friedman illogically confines its application to a few areas. But even here, Friedman uses this argument to justify the State’s provision of mass education to everyone.

But it is in the macro sphere, unwisely hived off from the micro by economists who remain after sixty years ignorant of Ludwig von Mises’s achievement in integrating them, it is here that Friedman’s influence has been at its most baleful. For we find Friedman bearing heavy responsibility both for the withholding tax system and for the disastrous guaranteed annual income looming on the horizon. At the same time, we find Friedman calling for absolute control by the State over the supply of money – a crucial part of the market economy. Whenever the government has, fitfully and almost by accident, stopped increasing the money supply (as Nixon did for several months in the latter half of 1969), Milton Friedman has been there to raise the banner of inflation once again. And wherever we turn, we find Milton Friedman, proposing not measures on behalf of liberty, not programs to whittle away the Leviathan State, but measures to make the power of that State more efficient, and hence, at bottom, more terrible.


The libertarian movement has coasted far too long on the intellectually lazy path of failing to make distinctions, or failing to discriminate, of failing to make a rigorous search to distinguish truth from error in the views of those who claim to be its members or allies. It is almost as if any passing joker who mumbles a few words about "freedom" is automatically clasped to our bosom as a member of the one, big, libertarian family. As our movement grows in influence, we can no longer afford the luxury of this intellectual sloth. It is high time to identify Milton Friedman for what he really is. It is high time to call a spade a spade, and a statist a statist.

[Hitman21]

Ever hear of Habitat for Humanity? Was yet another union thread necessary?

Habitat for Humanity is a great example of a private charity that does a better job than the government. The government needs to stay out of housing.

[CDNPatriot]

Habitat for Humanity is a great example of a private charity that does a better job than the government. The government needs to stay out of housing.

Any references? Or are you simply declaring yourself a god like guru whose word we take as gospel.

[Hitman21]

Any references? Or are you simply declaring yourself a god like guru whose word we take as gospel.

Habit For Humanity is a great charity though. I am always right

[stuntman]

Agreed. The teachers union makes it almost impossible to fire bad teachers.

That is it keep the troll going.

[Hitman21]

That is it keep the troll going.

So you think that the teachers union will be ok with firing teachers :facepalm:

The teachers union is the reason why bad teachers aren't fired

[stuntman]

So you think that the teachers union will be ok with firing teachers :facepalm:

The teachers union is the reason why bad teachers aren't fired

That is right. Keep the troll going.

[Hitman21]

That is right. Keep the troll going.

:facepalm:

[CDNPatriot]

Hitmandearsummer can you please make up your mind? On one thread you argue union workers do not deserve a wage but a wage cut because the private sector has had freezes for the last decade. On another thread you argue that there is no wage stagnation amongst the private sector.

I don't think you possess a sound mind. Tell me it ain't so.


So you think that the teachers union will be ok with firing teachers :facepalm:

The teachers union is the reason why bad teachers aren't fired

[Hitman21]

Hitmandearsummer can you please make up your mind? On one thread you argue union workers do not deserve a wage but a wage cut because the private sector has had freezes for the last decade. On another thread you argue that there is no wage stagnation amongst the private sector.

I don't think you possess a sound mind. Tell me it ain't so.

I didnt know we were the same person, you keep mixing our posts :facepalm:

[stuntman]

I didnt know we were the same person, you keep mixing our posts :facepalm:

You have the same interest.
Same train of thought.
Same derailing of thought.
Appear to troll.

you may as well be the same person.

[Hitman21]

You have the same interest.
Same train of thought. No
Same derailing of thought.I never derail someone else derails the thread :facepalm:
Appear to troll. No. I just defend freedom and am very Politically Incorrect

you may as well be the same person.

The only thing we have in common is the same interest

[stuntman]

It is your own thought that is derailed.....a train crash if it were a train.

Defending freedom? Is that what you call it? Before the internet did you wear a sign around your body and hang out on the corner yelling things? I ask because you sound crazed. (please don't respond "crazed for freedom!").

[Hitman21]

It is your own thought that is derailed.....a train crash if it were a train. :facepalm:

Defending freedom? Is that what you call it? Before the internet did you wear a sign around your body and hang out on the corner yelling things? I ask because you sound crazed. (please don't respond "crazed for freedom!").

Capitalism = Freedom

When I defend freedom I am defending Capitalism which is why so many of my posts relate to conservative/Capitalism views. I have benefited from Capitalism along with everyone else

You have to accept this or else

[CDNPatriot]

I really think you are misusing RFD to push your political agenda. I think you should be banned.


Capitalism = Freedom

When I defend freedom I am defending Capitalism which is why so many of my posts relate to conservative/Capitalism views. I have benefited from Capitalism along with everyone else

You have to accept this or else

[a-tree]

Extinguishing teacher's unions like the vermin they are will improve education quality, allowing certain members of RFD realize from personal experience just how ineffective unions are.

[Syne]

I really think you are misusing RFD to push your political agenda. I think you should be banned.

+1

[Hitman21]

I really think you are misusing RFD to push your political agenda. I think you should be banned.

There is no agenda :facepalm:

[Hitman21]

+1

You admitted to trolling and want me banned http://forums.redflagdeals.com/osap-coming-soon-need-help-picking-my-goose-1127655/9/#post14583360

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/do-you-care-cbc-being-destroyed-1161550/22/

[CDNPatriot]

You admitted to trolling and want me banned http://forums.redflagdeals.com/osap-coming-soon-need-help-picking-my-goose-1127655/9/#post14583360

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/do-you-care-cbc-being-destroyed-1161550/22/

So hitmandearsummer you start a Friedman thread and then you talk nothing about him. Even when people post articles negating what you are saying and proving you wrong. Nobody follows Friedman anymore and he has no influence in any country as his ideas were proven to disastorously wrong.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=a3GVhIHGyWRM&pid=newsarchive

“When Friedman’s Platonic ideas of free-market virtues are put into practice, they have too often generated a systemic orgy of competitive greed -- whose remedies, ironically, entail countermeasures of nationalization,” Marshall Sahlins, an emeritus professor of anthropology, said during the debate, speaking in a room adorned with murals of female students parading through the campus in medieval gowns.

Sahlins, 77, noted a few weeks later socialist and capitalist countries alike are regulating or nationalizing financial institutions in a rebuff to Friedman.

Off campus, the global meltdown is stirring anti-Chicago economists, who were voices in the wilderness during decades of lax government oversight of markets.

Joseph Stiglitz, who won one of Columbia’s economics Nobels, says the approach of Friedman and his followers helped cause today’s turmoil.

[Hitman21]

So hitmandearsummer you start a Friedman thread and then you talk nothing about him. Even when people post articles negating what you are saying and proving you wrong. Nobody follows Friedman anymore and he has no influence in any country as his ideas were proven to disastorously wrong.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=a3GVhIHGyWRM&pid=newsarchive

“When Friedman’s Platonic ideas of free-market virtues are put into practice, they have too often generated a systemic orgy of competitive greed -- whose remedies, ironically, entail countermeasures of nationalization,” Marshall Sahlins, an emeritus professor of anthropology, said during the debate, speaking in a room adorned with murals of female students parading through the campus in medieval gowns.

Sahlins, 77, noted a few weeks later socialist and capitalist countries alike are regulating or nationalizing financial institutions in a rebuff to Friedman.

Off campus, the global meltdown is stirring anti-Chicago economists, who were voices in the wilderness during decades of lax government oversight of markets.

Joseph Stiglitz, who won one of Columbia’s economics Nobels, says the approach of Friedman and his followers helped cause today’s turmoil.

That is so false. Milton Friedman was in favour of Capitalism which has no bailouts or subsidies. If there was a FREE MARKET, this wouldn't have happened.

What you forget is that the government was responsible for the crisis so stop attacking Friedman and Capitalism

[a-tree]

So hitmandearsummer you start a Friedman thread and then you talk nothing about him. Even when people post articles negating what you are saying and proving you wrong. Nobody follows Friedman anymore and he has no influence in any country as his ideas were proven to disastorously wrong.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=a3GVhIHGyWRM&pid=newsarchive

“When Friedman’s Platonic ideas of free-market virtues are put into practice, they have too often generated a systemic orgy of competitive greed -- whose remedies, ironically, entail countermeasures of nationalization,” Marshall Sahlins, an emeritus professor of anthropology, said during the debate, speaking in a room adorned with murals of female students parading through the campus in medieval gowns.

Sahlins, 77, noted a few weeks later socialist and capitalist countries alike are regulating or nationalizing financial institutions in a rebuff to Friedman.

Off campus, the global meltdown is stirring anti-Chicago economists, who were voices in the wilderness during decades of lax government oversight of markets.

Joseph Stiglitz, who won one of Columbia’s economics Nobels, says the approach of Friedman and his followers helped cause today’s turmoil.

It's so easy to blame the dead when he can't defend himself.

[Hitman21]

It's so easy to blame the dead when he can't defend himself.

Exactly. He wouldn't dare say it to his face.

[MrKap]

Unions are a monopoly. They exist for the sole benefit of their members at the expense of everybody else. The only way to truly and equitably improve worker compensation is through the free market.


That's not true. Union money goes to housing projects, charities, scholarships, ect... you name it they do it.

This is what it's like without Unions.

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


Because the managers had locked the doors to the stairwells and exits – a common practice at the time to prevent pilferage and unauthorized breaks[5] – many of the workers who could not escape the burning building jumped from the eighth, ninth, and tenth floors to the streets below. The fire led to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards and helped spur the growth of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, which fought for better working conditions for sweatshop workers.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0F_mdRE7tM




Exactly. He wouldn't dare say it to his face.

Did you get banned? That sucks eh?

[Metagame]

Did you get banned? That sucks eh?

He didn't even last one day after coming back from an already long temp ban. LMAO.

[hagbard]

Friedman is too much of a socialist for my tastes.

[Metagame]

Friedman is too much of a socialist for my tastes.

Any exact reason why you think that? He may not be the ideal libertarian, but he's more in favor of removing almost all restrictions on the free-market, unlike most die-hard, self-proclaimed conservatives.

[D-Roc]

He didn't even last one day after coming back from an already long temp ban. LMAO.


lol. Maybe he can take care of that headache he seems to have since he was constantly holding his hand over his face.

[hagbard]

Any exact reason why you think that? He may not be the ideal libertarian, but he's more in favor of removing almost all restrictions on the free-market, unlike most die-hard, self-proclaimed conservatives.

1. He created the withholding tax in the US
2. he was a Monetarist. Hence, he believed in centrally controlled currency.

I prefer his son David and his grandson Patri.

[CDNPatriot]

It's so easy to blame the dead when he can't defend himself.

I only responded after hitmandearsummer posted about 50 youtube short videos on him and after they keep misunderstanding and misquoting him.

Interesting how Marx gets his grave urinated on everyday by the likes of you and hitmandearsummer.

[CDNPatriot]

This is what the free market does. It will exploit and exploit and exploit until people get angry and then unions start. That video pretty much sums up what starts unions. What feed unions is the same system that Friedman proposed. Friedman's system is a temporary system. It goes from extreme freedom but then when things like 2008 happen it takes on a path towards a totalitarian state.


That's not true. Union money goes to housing projects, charities, scholarships, ect... you name it they do it.

This is what it's like without Unions.

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





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0F_mdRE7tM





Did you get banned? That sucks eh?

[a-tree]

I only responded after hitmandearsummer posted about 50 youtube short videos on him and after they keep misunderstanding and misquoting him.

Interesting how Marx gets his grave urinated on everyday by the likes of you and hitmandearsummer.

When did I say a thing about Marx? My point is that free markets is simply the most efficient.

[MrKap]

This is what the free market does. It will exploit and exploit and exploit until people get angry and then unions start. That video pretty much sums up what starts unions. What feed unions is the same system that Friedman proposed. Friedman's system is a temporary system. It goes from extreme freedom but then when things like 2008 happen it takes on a path towards a totalitarian state.

I'm not saying Unions are flawless, because they have their downsides, but I agree, for the most part the free market is just another power structure all the same. Or a breeding ground for new monopolies.

Everyone who argues that governments, and unions are monopolies, hasn't considered that without these essential counter balances, everything would quickly deteriorate into a Banana Republic. When it's a race to the top, there can only be one winner at the end.

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


Alot of people on RFD seem to be in favor of corporate marshal law, so let them believe what they want.

[Rfd10202]

That is so false. Milton Friedman was in favour of Capitalism which has no bailouts or subsidies. If there was a FREE MARKET, this wouldn't have happened.

What you forget is that the government was responsible for the crisis so stop attacking Friedman and Capitalism

I know it's probably a lost cause to reply but...

The government was only responsible for the aftermath of the crisis. The crisis itself was caused by the financial industry running amok in an environment without needed regulations. The government was responsible for... bailing out... these entities before they caused even more harm to those around them.

I'm not well read on Friedman, but letting capitalism regulate itself is like letting prisoners run their own prison.

[hagbard]

I know it's probably a lost cause to reply but...

The government was only responsible for the aftermath of the crisis. The crisis itself was caused by the financial industry running amok in an environment without needed regulations. The government was responsible for... bailing out... these entities before they caused even more harm to those around them.

I'm not well read on Friedman, but letting capitalism regulate itself is like letting prisoners run their own prison.

The financial industry is headily regulated. They work for the financial industry both figuratively and in fact. The regulation is a facade to make you think its under some sort of govt control, it isn't, never was and never will be. The "cure" is to let the market work and put these bad actors out of business, and if there was fraud, face the full extent of the law.

[CDNPatriot]

I'm not saying Unions are flawless, because they have their downsides, but I agree, for the most part the free market is just another power structure all the same. Or a breeding ground for new monopolies.

Everyone who argues that governments, and unions are monopolies, hasn't considered that without these essential counter balances, everything would quickly deteriorate into a Banana Republic. When it's a race to the top, there can only be one winner at the end.

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


Alot of people on RFD seem to be in favor of corporate marshal law, so let them believe what they want.

You are right... corporations can also be "monopolies" and have much more power and political might than the unions will ever have.

[DearSummer]

You are right... corporations can also be "monopolies" and have much more power and political might than the unions will ever have.

What are some examples of monopolies that have persisted over the long-term that are not supported by the government?

[CDNPatriot]

What are some examples of monopolies that have persisted over the long-term that are not supported by the government?

Lot's of examples. First please respond to my Milton Friedman posts.

[MrKap]

What are some examples of monopolies that have persisted over the long-term that are not supported by the government?

Personally I think this list is incomplete. However it is a short list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Examples_of_monopolies


The salt commission, a legal monopoly in China formed in 758.
The British Honourable East India Company; created as a legal trading monopoly in 1600.
Netherlands East India Company; created as a legal trading monopoly in 1602.
Western Union was criticized as a "price gouging" monopoly in the late 19th century.[89]
Standard Oil; broken up in 1911, two of its surviving "child" companies are ExxonMobil and the Chevron Corporation.
U.S. Steel; anti-trust prosecution failed in 1911.
Major League Baseball; survived U.S. anti-trust litigation in 1922, though its special status is still in dispute as of 2009.
United Aircraft and Transport Corporation; aircraft manufacturer holding company forced to divest itself of airlines in 1934.
National Football League; survived anti-trust lawsuit in the 1960s, convicted of being an illegal monopoly in the 1980s.
American Telephone & Telegraph; telecommunications giant broken up in 1984.
De Beers; settled charges of price fixing in the diamond trade in the 2000s.
Microsoft; settled anti-trust litigation in the U.S. in 2001; fined by the European Commission in 2004 for 497 million euros.[90] which was upheld for the most part by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in 2007. The fine was 1.35 Billion USD in 2008 for noncompliance with the 2004 rule.[91][92]
Iarnród Éireann; The Irish Railway authority is a monopoly as Ireland does not have the size for more companies.
Joint Commission; has a monopoly over whether or not US hospitals are able to participate with the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Telecom New Zealand; local loop unbundling enforced by central government.
Deutsche Telekom; former state monopoly, still partially state owned, currently monopolizes high-speed VDSL broadband network.[93]
Monsanto has been sued by competitors for anti-trust and monopolistic practices. They have between 70% and 100% of the commercial seed market.
AAFES has a monopoly on retail sales at overseas military installations.
State stores in certain United States states, e.g. for liquor.
Long Island Power Authority (LIPA).
Long Island Rail Road (LIRR).

I think it's kind of funny that US Steel was considered a monopoly way back in 1911. I don't know enough about it, but they have one of the strongest unions in existence, do they not? The United Steelworkers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Steelworkers_of_America



What are some examples of monopolies that have persisted over the long-term that are not supported by the government?

If it helps, the wiki mentions something about Truman and John F Kennedy trying to take over the steel mills during their presidency. It seems to be something to do with resolving union issues rather than dissolving a monopoly, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Steel

[CDNPatriot]

Personally I think this list is incomplete. However it is a short list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Examples_of_monopolies



I think it's kind of funny that US Steel was considered a monopoly way back in 1911. I don't know enough about it, but they have one of the strongest unions in existence, do they not? The United Steelworkers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Steelworkers_of_America




If it helps, the wiki mentions something about Truman and John F Kennedy trying to take over the steel mills during their presidency. It seems to be something to do with resolving union issues rather than dissolving a monopoly, though.

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

Great research Mr. Kap. Interesting to see where Dearsummer is going to take this discussion considering this information.

My guess is that he will ignore it and ask more questions, or make one of his generic "unions are monopolies" quotes, or best yet post a link to a 30 second Friedman quote.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[MrKap]

Well, the interesting thing about the Steel Producers, is the largest one in the world along with 16 others were recently charged with price fixing.

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


On 30 June 2010, the European Commission fined 17 steel producers a total of €518M for running a price-fixing cartel, with ArcelorMittal being hit the hardest.



What are some examples of monopolies that have persisted over the long-term that are not supported by the government?

Probably doesn't matter, it probably matters, at which point a monopoly is above the law, or internationally out of reach of the law, or when several monopolies act as cartels.

In it's very essence, a union of monopolies is way more dangerous than a "monopoly" of the working class. Are there any international unions which come close to matching the power of an international monopolistic cartel?

It is probably very natural for several industry leaders to get together and price fix and conspire to ensure the long term health or preservation of their companies. Otherwise they would erode each others margins with continual competition, according to your philosophies, right?



This is a more recent issue, where some claim the larger companies are price fixing with the sole intent of putting others out of business.

http://www.brightwire.com/news/164883-judge-denies-sanyo-request-in-metropcs-price-fixing-case

Once someone can put competitors out of business, they can raise prices as they please. That could be the case with Sanyo and the LCD manufacturers. Looks like TechData, they are large distributer, correct? They are apparently suing as well.

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2011/11/02/tech_data_sues_lcd_firms/


The filing claims the panel makers – including Samsung Electronics, LG Display, Sanyo and Sharp – met and communicated to "agree to eliminate competition and fix the prices of LCD panels and LCD products" that were to be sold in the US.



Anyone remember when computer memory was extremely expensive? I am not an expert on computer components, but didn't computer producers eventually move away from DRAM? Towards SIMMs and such? I am not sure...

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


In 2002, armed with the Sherman Antitrust Act, the United States Department of Justice began a probe into the activities of dynamic random access memory (DRAM) manufacturers. US computer makers, including Dell and Gateway, claimed that inflated DRAM pricing was causing lost profits and hindering their effectiveness in the marketplace. To date, five manufacturers have pleaded guilty to their involvement in an international price-fixing conspiracy including Hynix, Infineon, Micron Technology, Samsung, and Elpida. Micron Technology was not fined for its involvement due to co-operation with investigators.

[DearSummer]

It's very interesting that you use U.S. Steel as an example of a monopoly.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pl_FXt0eM

Steel was a monopoly created by government intervention.

[MrKap]

It's very interesting that you use U.S. Steel as an example of a monopoly.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pl_FXt0eM

Steel was a monopoly created by government intervention.

At 3:30 he says Americans are guaranteed to get products cheaper than if they continued to compete in the market. It's not true. Steel cost money to ship, those rolls weigh tons, and as of 2010 there was price fixing to raise the cost of steel by the cartels. Across 17 steel producers.

Let's reference the domestic versus foreign production of oil as an obvious example.

It's weasel talk. That's why he raises his eyebrows and is caught in a perpetual state of, "What is so hard about this that you don't understand silly"


You know what's easy to understand. Germany having the largest Steel producer on the Planet. Those Germans are a different breed. They're almost fully solar too. It's not Russia, it's not China, it's not anyone else. It's Germany.

And yes, Germany has a Steel Workers Union - http://www.steelorbis.com/steel-news/latest-news/german-steelworkers-strike-to-end-today-556731.htm


The IG Metall union said 11,500 of its members were on strike on Thursday, up from 2,000 the day before.

Salary negotiations in Germany's steel industry are often used by unions in other sectors as a benchmark for their salary demands.


Don't blame the Unions, for the cost of things, blame management for not doing it better. Fighting evil Unions, as if they are the Kings on top and the only thing holding them back is a Union.

[CDNPatriot]

It's very interesting that you use U.S. Steel as an example of a monopoly.

Steel was a monopoly created by government intervention.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=a3GVhIHGyWRM&pid=newsarchive


‘Bears the Blame’

“The Chicago School bears the blame for providing a seeming intellectual foundation for the idea that markets are self- adjusting and the best role for government is to do nothing,” says Stiglitz, 65, who received his Nobel in 2001.

University of Texas economist James Galbraith says Friedman’s ideology has run its course. He says hands-off policies were convenient for American capitalists after World War II as they vied with government-favored labor unions at home and Soviet expansion overseas.

“The inability of Friedman’s successors to say anything useful about what’s happening in financial markets today means their influence is finished,” he says.

Instead, Galbraith, 56, says policy-makers are rediscovering the ideas of his father, Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith, and economist John Maynard Keynes of the University of Cambridge.

Keynes, who died in 1946, argued that governments should spend to combat the unemployment that free markets tolerate. Galbraith, who died in 2006, rejected mathematical models and technical analyses as divorced from reality.

[a-tree]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=a3GVhIHGyWRM&pid=newsarchive


‘Bears the Blame’

“The Chicago School bears the blame for providing a seeming intellectual foundation for the idea that markets are self- adjusting and the best role for government is to do nothing,” says Stiglitz, 65, who received his Nobel in 2001.

University of Texas economist James Galbraith says Friedman’s ideology has run its course. He says hands-off policies were convenient for American capitalists after World War II as they vied with government-favored labor unions at home and Soviet expansion overseas.

“The inability of Friedman’s successors to say anything useful about what’s happening in financial markets today means their influence is finished,” he says.

Instead, Galbraith, 56, says policy-makers are rediscovering the ideas of his father, Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith, and economist John Maynard Keynes of the University of Cambridge.

Keynes, who died in 1946, argued that governments should spend to combat the unemployment that free markets tolerate. Galbraith, who died in 2006, rejected mathematical models and technical analyses as divorced from reality.


All this article says is that one economist disagrees from another economist. And you present this as if that concludes the discussion itself, with large fonts and all, getting excited and wetting your pants. I love how the article points out Stiglitz was a Nobel winner but don't mention the same thing for Friedman. Isn't that enough to tell you how incredibly biased this article is to begin with?

[Syne]

Lot's of examples. First please respond to my Milton Friedman posts.


It's very interesting that you use U.S. Steel as an example of a monopoly.

CDNPatriot, don't waste your time. He'll just keep posting from his library of posthumous Friedman videos, like a Tupaq Shakur fan who can't come to grips with reality that their homeboy is dead, and tacitly ignoring any points that might require some analysis and thought; attacking only when he senses there's some low-hanging part of an argument. Any time the discussion gets too real, he slumps away in defeat and comes back as if nothing happened.

I guess that's the great thing about the internet. Nobody forces you to acknowledge defeat. You can just hit the reset button and try again the next day.

[DearSummer]

CDNPatriot, don't waste your time. He'll just keep posting from his library of posthumous Friedman videos, like a Tupaq Shakur fan who can't come to grips with reality that their homeboy is dead, and tacitly ignoring any points that might require some analysis and thought; attacking only when he senses there's some low-hanging part of an argument. Any time the discussion gets too real, he slumps away in defeat and comes back as if nothing happened.

I guess that's the great thing about the internet. Nobody forces you to acknowledge defeat. You can just hit the reset button and try again the next day.

Were you going to make a point to dispute that U.S. Steel was a government-supported monopoly?

[Syne]

Were you going to make a point to dispute that U.S. Steel was a government-supported monopoly?

I can't speak for the US government, but I do know that governments don't have to support monopolies for them to exist. Wealth disparity can create monopolies all on its own. Take away government regulation and the richest will win. It's like pitting a team of armed soldiers against a team of unarmed civilians.

This is the endgame of free market totalitarianism.

[anyasok]

I can't speak for the US government, but I do know that governments don't have to support monopolies for them to exist. Wealth disparity can create monopolies all on its own. Take away government regulation and the richest will win. It's like pitting a team of armed soldiers against a team of unarmed civilians.

This is the endgame of free market totalitarianism.
Exactly


CDNPatriot, don't waste your time. He'll just keep posting from his library of posthumous Friedman videos, like a Tupaq Shakur fan who can't come to grips with reality that their homeboy is dead, and tacitly ignoring any points that might require some analysis and thought; attacking only when he senses there's some low-hanging part of an argument. Any time the discussion gets too real, he slumps away in defeat and comes back as if nothing happened.

I guess that's the great thing about the internet. Nobody forces you to acknowledge defeat. You can just hit the reset button and try again the next day.
+1

[DearSummer]

I can't speak for the US government, but I do know that governments don't have to support monopolies for them to exist. Wealth disparity can create monopolies all on its own. Take away government regulation and the richest will win. It's like pitting a team of armed soldiers against a team of unarmed civilians.

This is the endgame of free market totalitarianism.

Again, give some examples of monopolies that existed over the long-term without government support. This should be easy if what you're claiming is true. The reality is that every monopoly that exists is a result of government policy.

[MrKap]

Again, give some examples of monopolies that existed over the long-term without government support. This should be easy if what you're claiming is true. The reality is that every monopoly that exists is a result of government policy.

Well that is really interesting, because it's hard not to believe.

Sure, for national monopolies, you might be right.

What about international monopolies? Companies which have expanded far across the globe and put themselves out of reach of national governments.

[DearSummer]

Well that is really interesting, because it's hard not to believe.

Sure, for national monopolies, you might be right.

What about international monopolies? Companies which have expanded far across the globe and put themselves out of reach of national governments.

Like what companies for example? DeBeers lasted awhile. That's the only one I can think of.

[MrKap]

Like what companies for example? DeBeers lasted awhile. That's the only one I can think of.

Any company where if one major geographical area of it's operations collapsed which was influenced primarily by a single regulatory governing body, it would continue on as normal.


Would any international Oil Company fall into that bracket? I mean considering there is competition, it's not exactly a monopoly. So what about cartels?

[DearSummer]

Any company where if one major geographical area of it's operations collapsed which was influenced primarily by a single regulatory governing body, it would continue on as normal.


Would any international Oil Company fall into that bracket? I mean considering there is competition, it's not exactly a monopoly. So what about cartels?

Cartels are government-supported, i.e. OPEC.

[MrKap]

Cartels are government-supported, i.e. OPEC.

"Cartels" can also be professional "associations".

http://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=international+associations


I am not well versed on the Coffee industry, but what about something like this? http://www.ico.org/

I am not saying that link is some sort of cartel, I am just trying to suggest that any organization with or without government support could influence a market. This claims the Coffee Cartels have an equivalent to OPEC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1608356.stm


The coffee bean cartel, the Association of Coffee Producing Countries, whose members produce 70% of the global supply, will shut down in January after failing to control international prices.

[Syne]

Again, give some examples of monopolies that existed over the long-term without government support. This should be easy if what you're claiming is true. The reality is that every monopoly that exists is a result of government policy.

You have it twisted. The reason we don't have more monopolies is thanks to government anti-trust policies.

[DearSummer]

You have it twisted. The reason we don't have more monopolies is thanks to government anti-trust policies.

Again, let's hear some examples of monopolies that exist without government protection?

[Syne]

When since the advent of the corporate business model has there not been government protection?

[DearSummer]

When since the advent of the corporate business model has there not been government protection?

Is this you admitting that monopolies are caused by government protection and are eliminated in the free market?

[Syne]

Is this you admitting that monopolies are caused by government protection and are eliminated in the free market?

I will answer your question: No.

Now answer mine.

[CDNPatriot]

So true Syne and you are right on with what you are saying. Looks like he did just as you predicted by starting another anti union thread.


CDNPatriot, don't waste your time. He'll just keep posting from his library of posthumous Friedman videos, like a Tupaq Shakur fan who can't come to grips with reality that their homeboy is dead, and tacitly ignoring any points that might require some analysis and thought; attacking only when he senses there's some low-hanging part of an argument. Any time the discussion gets too real, he slumps away in defeat and comes back as if nothing happened.

I guess that's the great thing about the internet. Nobody forces you to acknowledge defeat. You can just hit the reset button and try again the next day.

[squagles]

Is this you admitting that monopolies are caused by government protection and are eliminated in the free market?

Your premise is invalid. Let's say that monopolies only exist with government intervention, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is the free market that is preventing them from occurring. It could just as easily be fear of government intervention that prevents monopolies from forming.

[Syne]

Squagles is correct. See #2.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/527430_404395449588444_205876559440335_1433042_367 036269_n.jpg

You subscribe to a version of the "Faulty Cause" logical fallacy when you say that there are no monopolies without some form of government intervention, therefore to prevent monopolies, we should eliminate all government intervention.

In this way, you're taking the association (government with monopolies) and making it the causation: Governments create monopolies.

[MrKap]

Is this you admitting that monopolies are caused by government protection and are eliminated in the free market?

OKay, I didn't want to resort to this.

But Drug cartels. They are not protected by government, in the traditional sense.


Other than that, the Government touches everything it can get it's hands on, to my knowledge. Doesn't mean they are protecting anyone.