Hey Mump

I hear what you're saying, but it would be far more straight forward if you
just stated your bias i.e. 'I, da Mump, isa graduate of the Libertarian
spin', rather than expend all that computing power on trying to force the
world to fit a theology we're all familiar with.

> b wrote:
>       What aspect of the claim cited by Bill is nonsense?
>
> That Capitalism (an economic system void of Government intervention
> which has never existed) 'trends' toward monopoly.

Now only Lib. ideologues define the Big C as a system that has never
existed, and in the next breath, dispense with the mythical status and
insist that it is the best of all possible systems. On what is such a claim
based? The same basis that insists that there is a God - the leap of faith?
How does objectivism reconcile this contradiction?

>  Take the much
> maligned oil industry and Rockefeller ... when he was crucified by the
> Government, there were 147 independent refineries snipping away
> at the market share Rockefeller attained by the efficiencies of economies
> of scale and vertical integration ... causing the prices of
> refined petroleum
> to fall from over 30 cents a gallon in 1869 to 10 cents by 1874 and to 5.9
> cents by 1897.  During the same period, Rockefeller reduced his average
> costs from 3 cents to 0.29 cents per gallon.

Thanks for that - twas interesting - but shouldn't Rockefeller have been
'crucified' for exploiting resources that he could not have any possible
title to - being that the expropriation of Indian lands violated the
principle of non-initiation of force? So, was his Empire not built on theft?

> Because of intense competition the company's oil production as a
> percentage
> of total market supply had declined to a mere 11 percent in 1911,
> down from
> 34 percent in 1898 ... but then you prefer chanting nonsense to reality.

You gotta certain familiar rhythm going yourself, Mump.

> Apparently it does not fit your goal.

No, crapitalism doesn't - nor does artificially cheap oil for that matter.

> b wrote:
> What aspect of it is any more of a nonsense than the
> 'natural' monopoly that 'has never existed'?
>
> Noting you failed to provide one example ... but then there has never been
> such an animal.

Didn't provide an example because the initial assertion was yours and I was
seeking enlightenment.

> b wrote:
> And why, assuming such a thing to be possible, is a 'natural
> monopoly' particularly desirable?
>
> What is the goal?
> The BEST product at a price approaching zero.

Is this an inevitable consequence of 'free capitalism'? Sounds like the sort
of thing only anarchism could deliver, minus the consolidation in a solitary
board room of power over society, of course.

> Mumpsimus prior
>       Bullshit.
>       Learn some reality and get back to us.
>       Microsoft is no more a monopoly than McDonalds.
> b wrote:
> Bullshit? - I guess it depends on what one considers to be
> sufficient in terms of market domination - is it 100%? is it 95%, but
> with the other 5% having no hope of improving?
>
> 'Market domination' is not a 'monopoly'.

Yes, you're quite right.

> b wrote:
>       And what's with the McDonalds thing? McD's, offensive as it is,
>       competes with countless other restaurants and outlets owned by
>       countless other individuals and organisations. The situation with
>       Microsoft, regardless of whether or not M is to be adjudged a
>       monopoly, is obviously very different.
>
> Nope.

That's not very helpful, Mump, because it sure looks different to me and I
need you to explain why the 'market reality' doesn't merit the conclusion I
drew... help me out, bud.

Regards - I'm off to atone with a 1000 'Hail Ayns'.

b

bruce sandford
Hamilton 2001
Aotearoa - New Zealand

ICQ: 20816964