A corporation that reaches monopoly status becomes top heavy with
management, responds slowly to changing technologies and markets, and
gets beaten in the end by smaller businesses that take their place.
Here's a test of your claims: name one single monopoly that is a
monopoly now that was a monopoly for the past 100 years without the aid
of government regulations guarranteeing that monopoly status. You can't.
The closest possiblity I can see is Kellog Cereal in battle Creek,
Michigan, and I don't see much technological change in breakfast cereal.
>
> > > (I see that in Portugal every time, small shops complaining about
> > > big commercial centers and supermarkets)
> >
> > Yes, but which do the customers complain about? Businesses
> > exist to serve consumers, not the other way around.
>
> But if small shops go broke, the supermarkets will be able to put the
> prices they want and therefore harming everybody.
Small shops that survive do so because they sell specialty products,
like gourmet coffee, cheeses, ethnic foods, etc. that large supermarkets
can't sell economically. The masses that have no interest in bread and
meat at gourmet prices save large amounts of money, there by raising
their real disposable income and standard of living, by shopping at
large discount stores for staple foods.
>
> > > Since unselfish reasons rarely incentives anyone to do anything,
> > > let me ask you something, do you think that the poorer classes
> > > generated by free-markets will stand still? My bet is that they'll
> > > riot and that is what I fear.
> >
> > The poorer clases are not generated by free markets, the poorer
> > classes are generated by oppressive taxation and regulation
> > which hinders the market from providing them with goods, jobs,
> > and services.
>
> The rules and regulations prevent the market from employing people? I
> can't believe that.
Its like this: If I've got a yard that needs to be mowed twice a month
to keep it in compliance with community regulations, but the fine for
not doing it is only $5 a month, then I've got to pay somebody less than
or equal to $5 to keep my yard mowed, or pay the fine every month. Since
it would cost me an amortized rate of $2 a month to own a lawn mower, I
can economically only pay $3 or less to a laborer to keep the yard
mowed. Since labor laws say I have to pay at least $5.25 an hour, but it
takes at least 2 hours to mow the lawn, its not economical for me to
employ somebody, so I don't. The lawn doesn't get mowed, the community
morale goes down the tubes, crime goes up, and the kid I could have
hired (and my neigbors could have hired for a full work week) is now
mugging and killing people in the streets because laws prevented me from
hiring a yard boy. ;)
>
> Michael Lorrey wrote:
> > Its funny, people from other countries are dumbfounded when they hear
> > that US citizens are the most generous of their time and money of
> > anybody in the world. THis is because when an individual pays less of
> > their income to government theives, they tend to see charity as an
> > individual responsibility that comes with greater economic freedom.
>
> US citizens are the most generous of their time? I'm sorry to be
> skeptical but can you prove it?
I don't have sources here, but any study of voluntary charitable giving
and volunteerism has shown that Americans are more generous than any
other people, as individuals. Hell, look at your newspaper, Ted Turner
(owner of CNN) just donated $1 billion to UN programs. So much for your
claim of rich people being greedy robber barons.
Its pretty logical, if the government were taxing the hell out of you
and running a huge welfare state, how motivated would you be as an
individual to give what little income remains to you to somebody on the
street? The poor are being taken care of already, right? They don't need
any more help from me, right? If you were free of such huge tax burdens
that you never had to worry about money, wouldn't you begin to feel
guilty at your good fortune when you see less fortunate people every
day? Charity and generosity is contagious. Once you do it once, you feel
good about it and want to do it some more. You also are an example and
encourage freinds and relatives to do the same. The difference between
you taking an active role in helping others and letting big brother
government do it for you, is that when you do it your self, you can make
the choices as to how, where and when you are going to give, and you
also have a first hand experience as to what the needs of your community
are, much better than some monolithic government bureaucracy hundreds or
thousands of miles away.
>
> > So it was the threat to their very lives? I dunno, we in the US have
> > done some pretty good positive environmental things via market pressure.
> > EXAMPLES: Recycling, Dolphin Safe Tuna, BGH free milk (which is opposed
> > by big argri-corps and governments).
>
> Market pressure or public relations. A corporation makes a positive
> environmental thing, gives it a lot of publicity and then goes on
> destroying the environment but since it did a good thing, it can argue
> with that to continue the destruction of the environment.
> That's not market preassure, that's cheating on the citizens (I'm
> generally speaking).
Any examples? The residents of Seattle would have to disagree with you.
Not counting businesses, individuals in Seattle recycle over 50% of
their garbage (as do businesses). There is nobody holding a gun to their
head to do it, no law, etc. people are free to recycle as much or as
little as they wish.
>
> > > You talk about how the market will control big corporations and the
> > > millions of consumers will lead the market into the best path, let me
> > > ask you something, why is government so corrupt? People theoretically
> > > control government (by voting) and still government is corrupt, why is
> > > that? What makes you think that indirect control of economy by persons
> > > is going to improve anything?
> >
> > Because government concentrates power in the hands of the few,
> > corrupting the powerful rapidly, while indirect control dilutes power
> > into digestible, uncorruptible bite sizes for everyone.
>
> Indirect control dilutes the power? Indirect control will make the most
> welthy persons have all the power and do what they want for the harm of
> consummers and general population.
When you leave it to a free economy, as long as the populace is well
informed (even though the conventional media is now mostly in the hands
of multinationals, the internet has nicely sidestepped them, allowing
free communication among the masses), people with power can do little
wrong without the swift opposition of a large number of people.
Political scientists have conlcuded that one of the biggest aids to the
fall of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union was the widespread use of
fax machines for instant communication, sidestepping state owned media.
The Chinese apparently agree, which is why ownership of and access to
fax machines and computers is regulated and licensed there.
Indirect control means that because you have the most power over your
won life, and are protected by what little government there is from
violations of your rights by other people or by the politicians that
other people buy with reelection money, or the laws those politicians
pass on behalf of those people who bribed them, then you can focus on
taking care of your self. People are really pretty good at taking care
of themselves when they are left alone (what about homeless people etc.
you say. Well, you would not beleive the programs there are in this
country for helping homeless people get back on their feet. Those that
remain homeless for extended periods of time are that way because they
want to stay that way. Because most programs require the individual to
give up booze and drugs, those that remain on the streets do so because
they care more about drinking and getting high than in having a life.
And don't say i don't know what I'm talking about, I was once homeless)
>
> > > I read books, I find it, however, much less boring and time consuming to
> > > ask other persons. Or do you read a book every time you have a doubt or
> > > a question?
> >
> > Yes I do, usually 3-6 books a week.
>
> 6 books a week? Can you give me an autograph or let me take a picture
> with you? Pretty amazing.
Nah, just the result of growing up as an introverted geek.
As Einstein said, "Why should I memorize something that I can look up in
a book?"
>
> One last thing, extropy is the opposite of entropy. Our goal is to fight
> entropy or disorder and yet you defend complete disorder in the economy.
>
It only seems like disorder to a person with an authoritarian, linear,
mindset. Seeing an economy as a highly interactive, chaotic system
(chaotic in the sense of chaos mathematics, not in terms of random
disorder) that responds to and generates its own positive and negative
feedback allows one to conclude that control is not needed, that this
"machine" is quite capable of being left alone and taking care of
itself. History has shown that economic dynamism (recessions, booms,
depressions, etc.) is a result of governments trying to monkey around
with that system with too much positive feedback in too short a period.
There is order to a completely free economy. It is just so complex an
order that most people can only see it as anarchy.
-- TANSTAAFL!!! Michael Lorrey ------------------------------------------------------------ mailto:retroman@together.net Inventor of the Lorrey Drive MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering ------------------------------------------------------------ How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?