Rising gas prices are due to free market forces...

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Twisting your words? So, you are not claiming that tribalism was the free market system that led to feudalism. Dude seriously, sober up.

No I am saying that before laws and governments were established men traded
in a free market manner. But I am saying that the competitive principle eventually
evolved into consolidation of power through centuries of competition.

Your statement is literally true but more was at work than a free market.

You need a free market to be free and concurrently, you need freedom to have a free market.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Twisting your words? So, you are not claiming that tribalism was the free market system that led to feudalism. Dude seriously, sober up.

Oh ya, I am so drunk you are beating me senseless with your ad hominem skills
master.

I am saying that economic free market systems are competitive and will end up in
a consolidation of power eventually. Have you ever play monopoly? Does everyone win?
Hell they all started out free didn't they, gee, what happened???

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Twisting your words? So, you are not claiming that tribalism was the free market system that led to feudalism. Dude seriously, sober up.

Oh ya, I am so drunk you are beating me senseless with your ad hominem skills
master.

I am saying that economic free market systems are competitive and will end up in
a consolidation of power eventually. Have you ever play monopoly? Does everyone win?
Hell they all started out free didn't they, gee, what happened???

Monopoly (registered trademark) is a game that is designed to have a winner.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Twisting your words? So, you are not claiming that tribalism was the free market system that led to feudalism. Dude seriously, sober up.

No I am saying that before laws and governments were established men traded
in a free market manner. But I am saying that the competitive principle eventually
evolved into consolidation of power through centuries of competition.

Your statement is literally true but more was at work than a free market.

You need a free market to be free and concurrently, you need freedom to have a free market.

So what happens when the market players have out competed all the other players
and they start dictating your choices?

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Twisting your words? So, you are not claiming that tribalism was the free market system that led to feudalism. Dude seriously, sober up.

Oh ya, I am so drunk you are beating me senseless with your ad hominem skills
master.

I am saying that economic free market systems are competitive and will end up in
a consolidation of power eventually. Have you ever play monopoly? Does everyone win?
Hell they all started out free didn't they, gee, what happened???

Monopoly (registered trademark) is a game that is designed to have a winner.

It has a winner because it mimics the force multiplying effects of money, which is
exactly why one king could control millions of people. A kings power was not literal,
it was economic and that power was first conferred to the blood line by a person
who won the great competition of competing forces.

reply to post by mastahunta


Submit, fight or go elsewhere.

Actually a monopoly means that the consumers were asleep at the switch. Which implies that education is the most important single cultural requirement.

reply to post by mastahunta


The game has a winner because the requirements for success are limited to one player.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Submit, fight or go elsewhere.

Actually a monopoly means that the consumers were asleep at the switch. Which implies that education is the most important single cultural requirement.

But as the game demonstrates, there is a point where the act of competition become a futile
endeavor

I certainly know the state can grant monopolies, but the same state could also determine
that one company is only allowed to hold 3% of the market place.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by mastahunta

 

The game has a winner because the requirements for success are limited to one player.

edit on 26-2-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

everyone has success in the game. Everyone loses when the financial demands of one person
overwhelms the financial output of the other players. Also, they are free to win because the game
does not regulate the financial demands the one player places on the rest. If it did, nobody would
win, but everyone would own houses and hotels.

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Twisting your words? So, you are not claiming that tribalism was the free market system that led to feudalism. Dude seriously, sober up.

Oh ya, I am so drunk you are beating me senseless with your ad hominem skills
master.

I am saying that economic free market systems are competitive and will end up in
a consolidation of power eventually. Have you ever play monopoly? Does everyone win?
Hell they all started out free didn't they, gee, what happened???

Dude seriously this is very telling of your lack of understanding. Are you seriously claiming a game called MONOPOLY with lots of restrictive rules is akin to a free market? There is a reason it was named monopoly and not FREE MARKET.

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Submit, fight or go elsewhere.

Actually a monopoly means that the consumers were asleep at the switch. Which implies that education is the most important single cultural requirement.

But as the game demonstrates, there is a point where the act of competition become a futile
endeavor

I certainly know the state can grant monopolies, but the same state could also determine
that one company is only allowed to hold 3% of the market place.

4'11'' people are never professional basketball players. In a free market, each person should find out what they can do successfully and do it.

The state can't make decisions locally (at the level of your life) as astutely as you, because it can't percieve and evaluate all of the data that you can, because it's not you.

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by LErickson



There is no competition between drug dealers because you personally do not see them on every corner? How the hell does anyone come up with that?

Well because drug dealers usually wear signs and giant pink track suits

This is nonsense. There is no competition in the black market drug trade? OK BUDDY! I guess they murder each other out of good sportsmanship.

No competition what so ever, if fact they usually buy each other roses.

LMAO.

I guess my problem is being involved with all the wrong types of drugs and or dealers of them. I need to move where JP is from where the drug cartels and individual dealers all work together as part of a community outreach program to help promote each other's wears at the lowest possible prices.

That sounds fantastic! Here I am stuck in reality with you.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Monopoly (registered trademark) is a game that is designed to have a winner.

The free market is not?

reply to post by mastahunta


Everyone has success in the sense that they are entertained, fun being the reason to play it. But the game is designed to have a winner.

I assume that your point is that monopolies always happen in free trade, and my first response is that free trade has never exsisted, becasue you must be free to have free trade and you can't be free without free trade.

People havn't been free as a rule, thoughout history. The closest to freedom for the common (European) man was pre civil war America. At that time freedom was determined by local conditions.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by LErickson

 

That's right, sport let's pretend like the pretentious "Tea Party" is just like the actual Boston Tea Party which was a direct action against a tax.

It is like you are a damaged toy that keeps almost saying the right lines. I never mentioned the modern Tea party, homes so whatever you are about to be upset about my comparing them to is just retarded. The only Tea Party I referenced was that quaint lil one in Boston some tome ago. It is like you had a prepped defense all ready to go but sorry, not what my post said.

Let's pretend like the poser "Tea Party" fought the 2nd Revolution for Independence. Let's pretend like you really are interested in being taught anything at all.

How about we pretend you understand English, have a clue, and can make a little sense. I never said one thing about the teabaggers.

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Monopoly (registered trademark) is a game that is designed to have a winner.

The free market is not?

The free market is a way to trade a surplus for something else.

A farmer grows food. If he grows more than he wants to eat he can trade that surplus for whatever he can get for it.

That's a free market.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Dude, first of all you quoted me for saying one thing and then speak to something else entirely.

Great grasp of observing the obvious. Now tell me what you think it means.

Secondly, I never said there was "no competition" among "illegal" drug dealers. My point was that because of drug prohibition laws most people do not enter that market to compete, thus the cartelization of illicit drugs.

Let me help you.

You come on now. Neither the "legal" drug market and certainly not the black drug market are "highly competitive". If you are pointing to "illegal" drugs and claiming this market is "highly competitive" it may be for you on your street corner where several other drug dealers hang out competing with you, but on most street corners you will not find a drug dealer...certainly not as easily as you will find a liquor store or a bank.

There is your entire reasoning right there. You say it is not highly competitive. No one in my company has ever been beheaded in the street over competition and I work in a highly competitive field. You go on to reason this out because YOU do not see one on every street corner.

Huh?

My Vietnamese friend knows where every Vietnamese restaurant and store in the city is. There are apparently lots of them. I NEVER SEE THEM. I also never see drug dealers standing on corners but if my Vietnamese friend gets a hankering for something illicit, I sure as hell know where to find it. Thanks to competition, I also know how to get the best deal.

So like I said. Your statement came from your backside.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Monopoly (registered trademark) is a game that is designed to have a winner.

The free market is not?

The free market is a way to trade a surplus for something else.

A farmer grows food. If he grows more than he wants to eat he can trade that surplus for whatever he can get for it.

That's a free market.

You did not answer my question.
Care to try again?

Come on already. This is childish. The DERIVATIVES market is used to control prices. There is no classic supply and demand in effect. It is all controlled by the derivative trading. You are fooling yourself if you think it works like your college professor professed.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Twisting your words? So, you are not claiming that tribalism was the free market system that led to feudalism. Dude seriously, sober up.

Oh ya, I am so drunk you are beating me senseless with your ad hominem skills
master.

I am saying that economic free market systems are competitive and will end up in
a consolidation of power eventually. Have you ever play monopoly? Does everyone win?
Hell they all started out free didn't they, gee, what happened???

Dude seriously this is very telling of your lack of understanding. Are you seriously claiming a game called MONOPOLY with lots of restrictive rules is akin to a free market? There is a reason it was named monopoly and not FREE MARKET.

No, again, I am saying economic competition ends up with one person dominating the rest
because that is the nature of money when it is used as a competitive implement.

I am saying that a free market without rules will create an oligarchy eventually. I think
an oligarchy will always find a way to exist. It is funny though, here in America when a
politician says free market they are usually trying to slash wages, justify corporate fraud
or pollution. So really, if you want the full truth, I think free market is just a term people
use to screw over citizens by confusing them with a warm and fuzzy term.