Privatizing state resources to save money?

[PLAYER57832]

A true free market ALWAYS leads to a monopoly. You want to pretend it leads to some utopia, but cannot point to even one single example where it has truly worked. Constraint is always required.

haha, if your 'reasoning' has been as 'clear' and 'valid' as before, then I'm sure we must take your additional claims seriously!

Like I said, you cannot provide one example of an unconstrained free market that has not either destroyed itself or lead to a monopoly.

[Night Strike]

A true free market ALWAYS leads to a monopoly. You want to pretend it leads to some utopia, but cannot point to even one single example where it has truly worked. Constraint is always required.

haha, if your 'reasoning' has been as 'clear' and 'valid' as before, then I'm sure we must take your additional claims seriously!

Like I said, you cannot provide one example of an unconstrained free market that has not either destroyed itself or lead to a monopoly.

You do realize that governmental regulations lead to monopolies right?

[BigBallinStalin]

@PLAYER I know I've already addressed that issue and your response is not even relevant since it doesn't improve the problems of your previous posts, but I digress. It's time for me to reap those cost-savings. If you have nothing relevant to say, and continue to refuse to address your problems, then I'll politely ignore you. Good day!


Oh good, NS is here. Have at it, y'all.

[thegreekdog]

A true free market ALWAYS leads to a monopoly. You want to pretend it leads to some utopia, but cannot point to even one single example where it has truly worked. Constraint is always required.

haha, if your 'reasoning' has been as 'clear' and 'valid' as before, then I'm sure we must take your additional claims seriously!

Like I said, you cannot provide one example of an unconstrained free market that has not either destroyed itself or lead to a monopoly.

You do realize that governmental regulations lead to monopolies right?

No, because the government IS people.

Or, if you're getting the other Player, then the answer is yes because companies have too much control over Congress.

I guess the answer is it depends on which Player you get.

[PLAYER57832]

A true free market ALWAYS leads to a monopoly. You want to pretend it leads to some utopia, but cannot point to even one single example where it has truly worked. Constraint is always required.

haha, if your 'reasoning' has been as 'clear' and 'valid' as before, then I'm sure we must take your additional claims seriously!

Like I said, you cannot provide one example of an unconstrained free market that has not either destroyed itself or lead to a monopoly.

You do realize that governmental regulations lead to monopolies right?

You have it backwards. Some industries, functions are inherently monopolies, do not respond to competition well. Those are arenas where the government, with legal/voting checks is more responsible than pretending that finances and competition will have value.

Government also has a role when it comes to externalities.. things which actually are caused by/impacted by business, but which business can avoid accounting. Trash is a key example. Once trash is out the door, put in a hole, it is "gone". Yet... society winds up having to pay for the leaks, not to mention loss of resources because disposal is considered so much cheaper than reuse.

I brought up an example of paper versus plastic garbage bags a while back. The real answer is "neither". We avoid that becuase both plastic and paper are so very cheap and disposal is almost a "non" cost. Europe pays more dearly for disposal and that is likely part of why they never adopted the "disposal" economy that we have here.

[PLAYER57832]

A true free market ALWAYS leads to a monopoly. You want to pretend it leads to some utopia, but cannot point to even one single example where it has truly worked. Constraint is always required.

haha, if your 'reasoning' has been as 'clear' and 'valid' as before, then I'm sure we must take your additional claims seriously!

Like I said, you cannot provide one example of an unconstrained free market that has not either destroyed itself or lead to a monopoly.

You do realize that governmental regulations lead to monopolies right?

No, because the government IS people.

Or, if you're getting the other Player, then the answer is yes because companies have too much control over Congress.

I guess the answer is it depends on which Player you get.

Nice twisting of what I say, again.

Right now, congress is controlled by large companies. Or more precisely, by people who benefit hugely from having those corporations and a few other specific interests in power .

HOWEVER, they are allowed to do that mostly because so many people have either stepped out or more or less go along with what they hear. As people's attitudes change, the government is changed.

[Night Strike]

A true free market ALWAYS leads to a monopoly. You want to pretend it leads to some utopia, but cannot point to even one single example where it has truly worked. Constraint is always required.

haha, if your 'reasoning' has been as 'clear' and 'valid' as before, then I'm sure we must take your additional claims seriously!

Like I said, you cannot provide one example of an unconstrained free market that has not either destroyed itself or lead to a monopoly.

You do realize that governmental regulations lead to monopolies right?

You have it backwards. Some industries, functions are inherently monopolies, do not respond to competition well. Those are arenas where the government, with legal/voting checks is more responsible than pretending that finances and competition will have value.

Government also has a role when it comes to externalities.. things which actually are caused by/impacted by business, but which business can avoid accounting. Trash is a key example. Once trash is out the door, put in a hole, it is "gone". Yet... society winds up having to pay for the leaks, not to mention loss of resources because disposal is considered so much cheaper than reuse.

I brought up an example of paper versus plastic garbage bags a while back. The real answer is "neither". We avoid that becuase both plastic and paper are so very cheap and disposal is almost a "non" cost. Europe pays more dearly for disposal and that is likely part of why they never adopted the "disposal" economy that we have here.

Did you know that businesses DO account for externalities such as trash? Did you know that businesses actually pay other companies to take away their trash, AND they pay fees if they throw away the wrong things?

By the way, I wasn't only referring to monopolies that are directly sponsored by the government. The government also indirectly (or sometimes directly) helps create monopolies with the thousands of new regulations they create.

[PLAYER57832]

A true free market ALWAYS leads to a monopoly. You want to pretend it leads to some utopia, but cannot point to even one single example where it has truly worked. Constraint is always required.

haha, if your 'reasoning' has been as 'clear' and 'valid' as before, then I'm sure we must take your additional claims seriously!

Like I said, you cannot provide one example of an unconstrained free market that has not either destroyed itself or lead to a monopoly.

You do realize that governmental regulations lead to monopolies right?

You have it backwards. Some industries, functions are inherently monopolies, do not respond to competition well. Those are arenas where the government, with legal/voting checks is more responsible than pretending that finances and competition will have value.

Government also has a role when it comes to externalities.. things which actually are caused by/impacted by business, but which business can avoid accounting. Trash is a key example. Once trash is out the door, put in a hole, it is "gone". Yet... society winds up having to pay for the leaks, not to mention loss of resources because disposal is considered so much cheaper than reuse.

I brought up an example of paper versus plastic garbage bags a while back. The real answer is "neither". We avoid that becuase both plastic and paper are so very cheap and disposal is almost a "non" cost. Europe pays more dearly for disposal and that is likely part of why they never adopted the "disposal" economy that we have here.

Did you know that businesses DO account for externalities such as trash? Did you know that businesses actually pay other companies to take away their trash, AND they pay fees if they throw away the wrong things?

Trash to some extent (and only to some extent), but who is it that imposes those fees, hmm? Who is it that declares they cannot just dump stuff in the nearest river or bury it on their property? Government regulations.

I am not going to nickle and dime every regulation. The term "externality" is essentially a definition of things that are not part of a companies' direct product/production/service stream. Trash is an example of an externality that has been made to be less of one because the impact is so immediate to people around.

By the way, I wasn't only referring to monopolies that are directly sponsored by the government. The government also indirectly (or sometimes directly) helps create monopolies with the thousands of new regulations they create.

Pick an example.

[BigBallinStalin]

A true free market ALWAYS leads to a monopoly. You want to pretend it leads to some utopia, but cannot point to even one single example where it has truly worked. Constraint is always required.

haha, if your 'reasoning' has been as 'clear' and 'valid' as before, then I'm sure we must take your additional claims seriously!

Like I said, you cannot provide one example of an unconstrained free market that has not either destroyed itself or lead to a monopoly.

You do realize that governmental regulations lead to monopolies right?

You have it backwards. Some industries, functions are inherently monopolies, do not respond to competition well. Those are arenas where the government, with legal/voting checks is more responsible than pretending that finances and competition will have value.

Government also has a role when it comes to externalities.. things which actually are caused by/impacted by business, but which business can avoid accounting. Trash is a key example. Once trash is out the door, put in a hole, it is "gone". Yet... society winds up having to pay for the leaks, not to mention loss of resources because disposal is considered so much cheaper than reuse.

I brought up an example of paper versus plastic garbage bags a while back. The real answer is "neither". We avoid that becuase both plastic and paper are so very cheap and disposal is almost a "non" cost. Europe pays more dearly for disposal and that is likely part of why they never adopted the "disposal" economy that we have here.

Oh, you're talking about Public Goods. Anyway,

Can you expand on how "governmental regulations lead to monopolies" is backwards? As in, monopolies lead to governmental regulations, right?

[Night Strike]

By the way, I wasn't only referring to monopolies that are directly sponsored by the government. The government also indirectly (or sometimes directly) helps create monopolies with the thousands of new regulations they create.

Pick an example.

Big businesses can weather out new regulations, not only because they tend to help write them, but because they tend to have more cash on hand or quickly available. The small business can't afford the new regulations, so they have to close. The new regulations raises the barriers of entry for new players in the market, so no one new is able to join to provide competition. The big business that weathered the regulation now controls the market.....a monopoly.

[PLAYER57832]

A true free market ALWAYS leads to a monopoly. You want to pretend it leads to some utopia, but cannot point to even one single example where it has truly worked. Constraint is always required.

haha, if your 'reasoning' has been as 'clear' and 'valid' as before, then I'm sure we must take your additional claims seriously!

Like I said, you cannot provide one example of an unconstrained free market that has not either destroyed itself or lead to a monopoly.

You do realize that governmental regulations lead to monopolies right?

You have it backwards. Some industries, functions are inherently monopolies, do not respond to competition well. Those are arenas where the government, with legal/voting checks is more responsible than pretending that finances and competition will have value.

Government also has a role when it comes to externalities.. things which actually are caused by/impacted by business, but which business can avoid accounting. Trash is a key example. Once trash is out the door, put in a hole, it is "gone". Yet... society winds up having to pay for the leaks, not to mention loss of resources because disposal is considered so much cheaper than reuse.

I brought up an example of paper versus plastic garbage bags a while back. The real answer is "neither". We avoid that becuase both plastic and paper are so very cheap and disposal is almost a "non" cost. Europe pays more dearly for disposal and that is likely part of why they never adopted the "disposal" economy that we have here.

Oh, you're talking about Public Goods. Anyway,

Can you expand on how "governmental regulations lead to monopolies" is backwards? As in, monopolies lead to governmental regulations, right?

No, that is not what I meant, though it is sort of true also. We have rules against monopolies because they caused harm. The market itself did not fix that problem, could not, it took government intervention to do so.

For what I really meant, you might go back to the original interview. They explained in terms you might prefer. Certain things are most appropriately governmental functions because they are inherent monopolies. The military is a classic example, but roads are as well. Attempts to not make them monopolies fail, wind up harming people because it means putting artificial constraints to success, such as when those running the toll road require that other roads are flat out not maintained so they can ensure a profit. That is not an overal public benefit.

[PLAYER57832]

By the way, I wasn't only referring to monopolies that are directly sponsored by the government. The government also indirectly (or sometimes directly) helps create monopolies with the thousands of new regulations they create.

Pick an example.

Big businesses can weather out new regulations, not only because they tend to help write them, but because they tend to have more cash on hand or quickly available. The small business can't afford the new regulations, so they have to close. The new regulations raises the barriers of entry for new players in the market, so no one new is able to join to provide competition. The big business that weathered the regulation now controls the market.....a monopoly.

Try again.
That is what happens when big business is allowed to so heavily influence government, not anything inherent in government.

Also, you start with the assumption that no rules are legitimate or made with reason. I agree that happens in some cases... particularly of late, when the big business is so heavily vested, but it is not why we have all the rules we have. A good many are actually based on correcting or trying to correct real problems, be it dumping poison into streams and lakes, a bar that keeps the neighborhood awake to all hours, or loan officers that lie to people trying to buy houses.

Also, you are still being way to general. Be specific.

[BigBallinStalin]

Can you expand on how "governmental regulations lead to monopolies" is backwards? As in, monopolies lead to governmental regulations, right?

Yeah, but you might go back to the original interview. They explained in terms you might prefer... though of course then you don't get to claim I just don't know what I am talking about. [/quote]

Hmm... any specific time?

Maybe a quick summary (few sentences) instead?