Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 225 of 654
  1. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    You're saying that B deserves more and that A deserves less, neither of which are true. What they deserve in terms of pay is between what their employer is willing to pay them and what they agree to work for. Nothing more, nothing less.
    Well then we disagree.
  2. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So everyone gets what they deserve then in your eyes. The guy who makes £300k as a university chancellor deserves 10x as much as the accountant making £30k?
    If that's how much they're getting paid, if that's how the system is working, then yes, it's fair. Or at least, as fair as it can be.

    You and I both know it's ridiculous how much money a footballer gets paid, but it's the way it is. What you going to do? Cry about it? I stopped going to football matches long ago.

    I don't give a fuck how much anyone else earns, or where they live. I care about me. Do I like where I live? No. Am I doing something about it? Yes. Will I like where I'm going to be in two weeks time? Yes. That's my life sorted. Fuck everyone else.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  3. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    natural monopolies
    What are these natural monopolies?

    making profit.
    It is by the potential to make profit that resources are allocated to the thing in the first place. Taking away profits is like taking away the good or service itself (over the long term and if not subsidized).

    If the trains were free, people would travel more, and spend more.
    Sure. One effect of it costing people less to do something is that they do more of it.

    However, what happens to the trains when there is no profit to be had by making a better train good or train service to consumers and potential consumers?
  4. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Fuck everyone else.
    Not to be glib, but that seems to be the difference between capitalism and socialism in a nutshell right there. The capitalist is individualistic and the socialist is group-oriented. The former is Darwinian in their outlook on wealth whereas the latter treats their country as you would a family that shares resources, rather than just a bunch of strangers that all live in one place and hoard their own goodies.
  5. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So basically your argument is that if the lazy ass gets up and does something he will have more wealth and not have to ask the government for it.

    I wouldn't deny this. My point is not that you should reward people for doing nothing, rather that the rewards should fall within certain boundaries and not be limitless (or nearly so) for certain people at the expense of others.

    To take an extreme example: A guy opens a MAGA hat factory. As a confirmed capitalist, he believes that he deserves the lion's share of whatever wealth comes from that factory. He opens it in a depressed area, pays people minimum wage with no benefits, and if they don't like it, fuck 'em he can hire some other poor slob the next day for the same pay. And because MAGA hats sell so well, he barely has to work a six-hour day to make a yuge profit.

    As a result he makes $3m a year working a six-hour day while all his workers make $30k a year on eight hours a day.
    So far, this is good stuff. Everybody is gaining from their actions and all their actions are by choice. In fact, everybody is gaining THE MOST by these choices that they can according to their constraints and their knowledge of their preferences.

    And in twenty years the workers all get cancer from the dye used in the caps because Trump cut the regulations and the employer can also not be sued for any of it.

    This seems proper to you?
    Nah that's bad. I have always argued for systems that deter this sort of thing.

    Protection of property is of the utmost importance and it is one of the important pieces of the puzzle to solve the problem you laid out. Currently, the government protects property, at least that's the legal incidence instead of the social or economic incidence; lots of property the government is legally supposed to protect goes unprotected. I believe (for good reason) that individuals freely choosing in markets protects property more effectively than the government does.
  6. #156
    What are these natural monopolies?
    Dude cmon. Energy, water, rails... when I need to get the train to my Mother's, I have exactly one company to choose from. They can charge whatever they can get away with.

    It is by the potential to make profit that resources are allocated to the thing in the first place.
    The govenrment's profit comes from increaed tax revenue caused by a stimulated economy.

    However, what happens to the trains when there is no profit to be had by making a better train good or train service to consumers and potential consumers?
    There's always profit. Someone has to build the new trains, or refurb them, or provide the imroved service.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  7. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Not to be glib, but that seems to be the difference between capitalism and socialism in a nutshell right there.
    Yep. One is based on cold, hard, natural fact, while the other is based on naive delusion.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  8. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Dude cmon. Energy, water, rails... when I need to get the train to my Mother's, I have exactly one company to choose from. They can charge whatever they can get away with.
    Why do you think you don't have much option in these things?

    The govenrment's profit comes from increaed tax revenue caused by a stimulated economy.
    Can we make everything free and stimulate the economy even more?

    There's always profit. Someone has to build the new trains, or refurb them, or provide the imroved service.
    You said there should be no profit, and one of your elements implies no profit (free).
  9. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yep. One is based on cold, hard, natural fact, while the other is based on naive delusion.
    So then I assume you classify Scandinavia, Japan, UK, etc., as capitalist and not socialist countries?
  10. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So then I assume you classify Scandinavia, Japan, UK, etc., as capitalist and not socialist countries?
    Well ask yourself a question... can you set up a business-for-profit, and employ people to work for you, in these countries? If so, there's a healthy dose of capitalism going on there which means any "socialism" going on is the kind that is actually of benefit to business, such as free health and education.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  11. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well ask yourself a question... can you set up a business-for-profit, and employ people to work for you, in these countries? If so, there's a healthy dose of capitalism going on there which means any "socialism" going on is the kind that is actually of benefit to business, such as free health and education.
    Where does the funding for the healthcare and education come from?
  12. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Where does the funding for the healthcare and education come from?
    According to Ong, it comes from the delusional sky fairy.
  13. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Why do you think you don't have much option in these things?
    Well, I have precisely one company delivering water to my taps. If I want to use a different company, then I need to move to their region.
    Energy, well there's usually a handful of different companies, all providing you with the same energy at different complicated prices.
    Rails, the other options are bus or car. Not really competition, is it? It's like saying Pepsi is competing with bottled water. Well not really, you want one or the other, you're not like hmm um which one hmm...

    Can we make everything free and stimulate the economy even more?
    Free is probably taking it too far, I was being extreme. But cheaper, certainly, especially off peak. And no you obviously can't make everything free, but if you can get people moving cheaply, then it's reasonable to assume consuming increases. It's like reducing business tax... it stimulates investment and ultimately increases tax revenue, while increasing business tax does the opposite.

    You said there should be no profit, and one of your elements implies no profit (free).
    Well there's plenty of bsuinesses that are capable of fitting out a train, for example. Maintenence will probably have to be outsourced to private interests, too. We'll never rid the system totally of profit, and that's probably not a bad thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  14. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Where does the funding for the healthcare and education come from?
    Tax. Yes yes, I can see where you're going. Ask Norway how they do it. But a healthy, educated population is better for business than a dumb, unhealthy population, right? Unless you just want drones doing monotomous jobs before dying shortly after retirement.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  15. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    free health and education.
    I just paid £.30 for a box of aspirin the other day. Don't talk to me about your free health, pinky.

    And anyways these are unmistakably socialist ideas. Try going to the US and buying nicotine gum - it costs more than same amount of nicotine's worth of cigarettes do.
  16. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    And anyways these are unmistakably socialist ideas.
    Sure they are. Does that make you wanna go the full hog with socialism?

    Nah, thought not.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Sure they are. Does that make you wanna go the full hog with socialism?

    Nah, thought not.
    You mean all the way to communism? No, cause that would no longer be socialism.

    Maybe I have a different understanding of socialism than you do. I assume it's a hybrid of capitalism and communism, at least in terms of how wealth is distributed.
  18. #168
    Yeah yeah google definitions etc

    socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole
    If we're talking true socialism, there's no room for capitalism. Means of production owned by the community? How can I create a business-for-profit and employ someone in such a system?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  19. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Tax. Yes yes, I can see where you're going.
    Where am I going with this?

    Ask Norway how they do it.
    Do you mean how Norway subsidizes law-created monopolies by using the successes of its competitive markets in other sectors?

    But a healthy, educated population is better for business than a dumb, unhealthy population, right?
    Depends on how much it costs compared to the benefits and compared to what would happen otherwise.
  20. #170
    Where am I going with this?
    That it isn't free.

    Do you mean how Norway subsidizes law-created monopolies by using the successes of its competitive markets in other sectors?
    Um I was thinking how they provide whatever it is they provide that makes people think they're somehow not capitalist. idfk to be honest, so yeah, exactly what you just said.

    Depends on how much it costs compared to the benefits and compared to what would happen otherwise.
    Well I'm kind of assuming that healthy smart people can earn more money for longer (and therefore pay more tax) than dumb people who die sooner. Maybe I'm wrong, the pension bill is a beast.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well, I have precisely one company delivering water to my taps. If I want to use a different company, then I need to move to their region.
    Energy, well there's usually a handful of different companies, all providing you with the same energy at different complicated prices.
    Rails, the other options are bus or car. Not really competition, is it? It's like saying Pepsi is competing with bottled water. Well not really, you want one or the other, you're not like hmm um which one hmm...
    Do you suppose there would be monopolies in other industries if the law made them that way?

    Free is probably taking it too far, I was being extreme. But cheaper
    You're not proposing to make things cheaper by instituting a negative demand shock or a positive supply shock. So then the mechanism to make things cheaper is through increasing efficiency of allocation of resources. Do you have other ideas for how we could make things cheaper?
  22. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That it isn't free.
    I'm getting at how you said government provided healthcare and education is benefit to private businesses. Since it is producers and consumers of the businesses paying the taxes that fund the healthcare and education, it can't be said that those benefit the those people with that information alone. To find out if those benefit the people we need to find out how efficiently government allocates those resources and how efficiently the markets would if allowed to do it themselves.

    Well I'm kind of assuming that healthy smart people can earn more money for longer (and therefore pay more tax) than dumb people who die sooner.
    You're not wrong. Still, it depends on how much it costs. If a government education system costs 100 per head and results in 90 value per head, it's not worth it. We have to also account for what a private education system costs and benefits.
  23. #173
    Do you suppose there would be monopolies in other industries if the law made them that way?
    Well sure, if you create a law that says only the government can make bread. But why? We're not talking about bread, we're talking about energy and water, which come from specific power plants and resevoirs. You don't have a choice in that. You don't have a choice which train you get to Brimingham, or which motorway to use for London.

    Do you have other ideas for how we could make things cheaper?
    Yeah. Free energy.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #174
    You're not wrong. Still, it depends on how much it costs. If a government education system costs 100 per head and results in 90 value per head, it's not worth it. We have to also account for what a private education system costs and benefits.
    Well I guess Norway found a way to make it $90 per head and they get $100 per head back.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If we're talking true socialism, there's no room for capitalism. Means of production owned by the community? How can I create a business-for-profit and employ someone in such a system?
    The cool thing about free market capitalism is that it allows people to freely choose to run socially owned enterprise. If it was true that socialism is better for people, we'd probably see it play out in a free market capitalist society.
  26. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The cool thing about free market capitalism is that it allows people to freely choose to run socially owned enterprise. If it was true that socialism is better for people, we'd probably see it play out in a free market capitalist society.
    Capitalism is a choice.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  27. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well sure, if you create a law that says only the government can make bread. But why? We're not talking about bread, we're talking about energy and water, which come from specific power plants and resevoirs. You don't have a choice in that. You don't have a choice which train you get to Brimingham, or which motorway to use for London.
    First off, you do have choices. And I'm getting at how to improve or disintegrate those choices. A lack of choice in the markets you discuss are often caused by government intervention. In fact, it isn't even evident that any lack of choices in a free market has the effect monopolies behaving like monopolies.



    Yeah. Free energy.
    What do you mean?
  28. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well I guess Norway found a way to make it $90 per head and they get $100 per head back.
    We don't know that since they're subsidized.

    Probably what is happening is something like the government system costs 90 per head and benefits 100 per head while a private system would cost 75 per head and gain 110 per head.
  29. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What do you mean?
    It means he wants the government to make utilities free so he can grow herbs on an industrial scale without all the overhead is my guess.
  30. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Capitalism is a choice.
    It's probably not a good idea to conflate something that once took choice to adopt with something that within its structure involves am amount of choice.
  31. #181
    The thing with the trains is there's only one track going from A to B usually, so you can't really have companies competing over customers in a free markety kind of way. Are they going to build another track next to it and say 'come on our track, it's cheaper?' And how can they do that if they just spend £40m or whatever to build the second track? Or, are they supposed to have two companies using one track and constantly getting in each other's way?

    Same thing with highways. The gov't builds it, owns it, and it's paid for with taxes. So if you did the same with trains that would keep one company from having a monopoly and bilking the shit out of everyone the way they do now.
  32. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Same thing with highways. The gov't builds it, owns it, and it's paid for with taxes. So if you did the same with trains that would keep one company from having a monopoly and bilking the shit out of everyone the way they do now.
    This is reflexive liberalism. Just because there is a monopoly, doesn't mean you're getting bilked.

    I actually don't know the pricing structure of the train, but in general, public stuff run by private companies is subject to heavy government regulation, mostly to prevent the public from being bilked.

    For example, I know of an electric company. They don't just charge whatever people are willing to pay for electricity. that's a fucking dangerous game. Instead, they have to show the government how much capital they have invested in the enterprise of delivering electricity. Then they say, a fair return on that capital investment, given our level of risk, etc etc etc., is X%.

    Then the government has to approve that %. Sometimes they change it. At the company I'm thinking of, they went a little extravagant with the capital investments and the government said "whoa, people don't need that shit, you're not earning a return on that frivolous spending"

    Anyway once the % is set, they multiply it by qualifying capital investments, and that is their return for the year. Then they add their annual operating expenses, and that's the revenue. Then they divide that revenue by the number of Kilowatt hours they expect to sell, and boom, there's your price for electricity.
  33. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The thing with the trains is there's only one track going from A to B usually, so you can't really have companies competing over customers in a free markety kind of way. Are they going to build another track next to it and say 'come on our track, it's cheaper?' And how can they do that if they just spend £40m or whatever to build the second track? Or, are they supposed to have two companies using one track and constantly getting in each other's way?
    The answer is I don't know yet in general the specifics for how these things get dealt with. The high fixed cost (and economies of scale) you describe are the theoretical reasons for how monopolies can develop in a free market. Markets continually evolve and over time they tend to allocate resources the way that works best for all those who engage in the market on average.

    Same thing with highways. The gov't builds it, owns it, and it's paid for with taxes. So if you did the same with trains that would keep one company from having a monopoly and bilking the shit out of everyone the way they do now.
    We don't even know that monopolies bilk people. We know that in theory they can. However, two things on this:

    (1) I once asked a professor which companies are setting quantity where marginal cost meets marginal revenue instead of where marginal cost meets demand (that's the way monopolies can theoretically bilk consumers), and his response was "nobody knows".

    (2) The best examples of natural monopolies I know of don't seem to behave like the negative way monopolies can in theory.



    A side point that might explain why monopolies don't seem to behave like "monopolies" is because of play between markets. Each decision a person makes is associated with a cost and an opportunity cost, and each person has marginal preferences. So, when the cost of something in one market changes, other markets that act as either substitutes or complements experience a change in demand. So, the idea that there is "no choice" but to take the train to see Grandma isn't quite true. Sure, you, at this specific point in time, when adjusting for your costs and your preferences, if you will go to see Grandma you take the train, but the state of the market is not created by that type of "no choice". Instead it is created by all the people who make marginal decisions about whether or not to use the train to do something, to use something else to do that something, or to do something else entirely. If we combine with this the fact that public relations are VERY important to even the most monopolistic company, we can possibly explain why natural monopolies don't seem to behave like the theoretically negative ways monopolies can.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 01-20-2018 at 10:10 PM.
  34. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    First off, you do have choices.
    How do I have choice? I have the choice to not consume water? I have the choice to use a different company to deliver my water? Perhaps a different resevoir?

    The only choice I have is tap water or bottled water. That's great when I want to drink it, but when it comes to washing, I think it's gonna get expensive pouring evian into the bath.

    The free energy comment was a little bit trollish, but if you can bring down the price of energy (perhaps by nationalising it and removing profit), then there might be a knock on effect making goods and services cheaper.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #185
    I dunno if your idea of choice is to get four or five different companies to do exactly the same thing on the government's behalf, such as provide electricity. I have chocie here, but each company I can choose from is actually doing exactly the same thing... acting as a middle man between me (the consumer) and the government (the provider). Whether I use company A or company B, I get the same energy from the same plant. The only difference is the person I talk to on the phone and maybe the amount of money I pay.

    So what's the point of this choice? To fool me into thinking there is competition? I can't think of any other reason.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  36. #186
    Looking at our energy companies, I can't figure out what the fuck is going on.

    British Gas - owned by Centrica, the same company who own Direct Energy in USA. British based mulitnational company.

    EDF - French state-owned.

    Scottish Power - owned by a private Spanish company.

    SSE - Scottish, private.

    npower - German, private.

    E.ON - also private German company.

    So the only state-owned power company we have are French.

    Turns out my water supplier is UK state-owned, although I can't even begin to figure out the company structure, and it appears to be the only state-owned supplier in the UK.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    This is reflexive liberalism.
    Stopped reading here.
  38. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    St...
    Stopped reading here.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  39. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    .
    Didn't even read.

    Checkmate, bitch.
  40. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Stopped reading here.
    of course....you snowflakes always shit your pants whenever someone challenges your false libtard dogma.
  41. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Didn't even read.

    Checkmate, bitch.
    Fuck, you said checkmate before I did.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    of course....you snowflakes always shit your pants whenever someone challenges your false libtard dogma.
    Or maybe it's that you're just so boring and predictable.
  43. #193
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    but if you can bring down the price of energy (perhaps by nationalising it and removing profit)

    The profit motive is what drives competition, which drives down the price of energy.
  44. #194
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    of course....you snowflakes always shit your pants whenever someone challenges your false libtard dogma.
    True and false are concepts that elude those infected.
  45. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    How do I have choice? I have the choice to not consume water? I have the choice to use a different company to deliver my water? Perhaps a different resevoir?

    The only choice I have is tap water or bottled water. That's great when I want to drink it, but when it comes to washing, I think it's gonna get expensive pouring evian into the bath.
    In the first paragraph you implied you don't have choice then in the second paragraph you stated you have choice.

    I explained the paragraph immediately above your post the type of thing that is going on here, where how even companies that are monopolies don't seem to behave the way monopolies can.

    For nearly all things, people do operate with a small degree of choice, and that choice has a very positive impact. Typically, when there is a "lack" of choice, it comes by government laws creating that lack (this is VERY common) or by one/couple company(s) meeting demand.

    The free energy comment was a little bit trollish, but if you can bring down the price of energy (perhaps by nationalising it and removing profit), then there might be a knock on effect making goods and services cheaper.
    How would that make energy cheaper?
  46. #196
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    How would that make energy cheaper?
    Because they wouldn't have to turn a profit. The money for research and development and the upward pressure from competition is all free.
  47. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I dunno if your idea of choice is to get four or five different companies to do exactly the same thing on the government's behalf, such as provide electricity. I have chocie here, but each company I can choose from is actually doing exactly the same thing... acting as a middle man between me (the consumer) and the government (the provider). Whether I use company A or company B, I get the same energy from the same plant. The only difference is the person I talk to on the phone and maybe the amount of money I pay.

    So what's the point of this choice? To fool me into thinking there is competition? I can't think of any other reason.
    That situation is a mess. It probably derives from people making decisions based on fear. A heavily government regulated system where the producers are for-profit appears to have the effect of maintaining a stasis in an already stable system while assuaging fears, yet it has no effect or just a very small effect of increasing quality. We've seen this sort of thing in other industries, where there is no improvement at all for a very long time because of government laws, yet "everybody" is happy because they have the same thing today that they did yesterday. Then when that law changes or a new adjacent substitute market opens up where private enterprise operates with little regulation, quality skyrockets.
  48. #198
    "Choice" can be thought of as a cover-all. It's not like ten is 100% increase over five or is even better than five in the first place. There are so many different things at play.

    Look at search engines. What is that, is that a monopoly? A duopoly? Does labeling it based on quantity of production and market share tell us anything about how that quantity of production and market share is impacted by that label? Not really.

    What we want to look at instead is all the related incentives. For example, Bing is a little bitch compared to Google. But Bing isn't a little bitch since Bing is one of the main reasons why Google is so good. After all, if Bing didn't try to compete with Google, it is likely that Google would not have improved so many of its offerings in order to stay numero uno. And what about all the other ones like DuckDuckGo or Yahoo? They're not doing much of anything in the market, right? Wrong. Well, maybe wrong. They're not perfect alternatives to Google, people tend to use them for niche reasons. But if Google upsets people enough or if Google doesn't develop one specific niche enough, then Google loses a proportion of its customer base to those others. And this is very bad for Google, much worse than the "incomes" of any people at Google suggests it is.

    So, while the search engine market can be said to only have a certain amount of "choice", it can be thought of as operating fully with choice since the producers and consumers in the market are all operating voluntarily.
  49. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Because they wouldn't have to turn a profit. The money for research and development and the upward pressure from competition is all free.
    R&D is not profit.

    Profit is the bit that goes to shareholders in the form of dividends, or CEOs in the form of bonuses.

    The profit motive is what drives competition, which drives down the price of energy.
    So tell me, where's the competition when it comes to energy? Do I get to choose a cheaper power plant?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #200
    Bottled water vs tap water is not choice, not when it comes to washing. Drinking, sure, but not everyday household chores.

    Just like energy choice isn't about nuclear power plants vs solar. Most people cannot afford to install stuff like solar panels and turbines.

    For competition to mean anything, choice needs to be comparable in price.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  51. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Bottled water vs tap water is not choice, not when it comes to washing. Drinking, sure, but not everyday household chores.
    It is choice. Just not a very good choice. And it is a type of choice that still has enough marginal impact on businesses that can really impact their decisions.
  52. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It is choice. Just not a very good choice.
    This is rather like saying if you don't like the train service to work, you can always walk 10 miles.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  53. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is rather like saying if you don't like the train service to work, you can always walk 10 miles.
    Yeah. It IS. And it matters. I explained in the post I referenced earlier how just this small amount of choice is possibly responsible for a lot of "keeping the company in line".

    The example you gave is a little extreme; quite a lot happens before a person decides to walk ten miles instead of take the train.

    Government regulation of an industry where the choices are not that great doesn't fix the problem, and it makes the natural function of the market regarding overcoming that problem less effective.
  54. #204
    Yeah, and quite a lot happens before someone decides to fill a bath with bottled water.

    These examples are not extreme by coincidence, it's because they're natural monopolies and there is no reasonable alternative.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  55. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah, and quite a lot happens before someone decides to fill a bath with bottled water.

    These examples are not extreme by coincidence, it's because they're natural monopolies and there is no reasonable alternative.
    Do you know what makes a company a natural monopoly?

    Do you have examples of natural monopolies behaving in such a way that they would not if the market was not a monopoly market?
  56. #206
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    So tell me, where's the competition when it comes to energy? Do I get to choose a cheaper power plant?
    You literally do yes. Regardless though your point seems to be more there isn't enough competition for energy therefore the companies that do provide that competition should be gotten rid of? One of the big issues is too much government control over energy so that companies can't compete because they are not allowed to do anything.

    That "false competition" you talk about still does, and who'd have though, provide competition because they do offer cheaper energy and if they didn't you'd pick the next guy. Yes they are all limited by the price point that they have to pay (bigger businesses negotiate better deals with those single supplies btw) but if they didn't have to lower prices then why would they?
  57. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Bottled water vs tap water is not choice, not when it comes to washing. Drinking, sure, but not everyday household chores.
    Actually what you'd do is wash less. As everyone would be in the same situation washing less would become more normal and therefore prices would drop, especially when people are buying purely bottled water to drink. Well what would actually happen is the government would intervene and ban bottled water but you know.
  58. #208
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    R&D is not profit.

    Profit is the bit that goes to shareholders in the form of dividends, or CEOs in the form of bonuses.

    So tell me, where's the competition when it comes to energy? Do I get to choose a cheaper power plant?
    More profit means more opportunities to invest back in your business. R&D is not a part of doing current business. It's an investment into future business.
  59. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Actually what you'd do is wash less. As everyone would be in the same situation washing less would become more normal and therefore prices would drop, especially when people are buying purely bottled water to drink. Well what would actually happen is the government would intervene and ban bottled water but you know.
    This guy fucks.
  60. #210
    If duckface is women presenting how sex-seeking they are (it is), then cuckface is men presenting how much prepped-bull jizz they can fit in their mouths.

  61. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Actually what you'd do is wash less. As everyone would be in the same situation washing less would become more normal and therefore prices would drop, especially when people are buying purely bottled water to drink. Well what would actually happen is the government would intervene and ban bottled water but you know.
    I should clarify something.

    If the premise is that the tap water company raises its price, then quantity demanded would fall (move left along the demand curve) and the company would decrease supply (shift the supply curve left) if it didn't want to produce a surplus of water. Then in complement markets (like faucets), demand would decrease (shift the demand curve left), and in substitution markets (like bottled water), demand would increase (shift the demand curve right). This would send incentive signals dependent on what happened to expected profits in the respective markets and among the respective firms. Over time this could yield a decline in demand for the tap water from that specific company because the competition over those potential profits would eventually achieve lower prices than before, and this would result in the demand for the original tap water company decreasing.
  62. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The example you gave is a little extreme; quite a lot happens before a person decides to walk ten miles instead of take the train.
    I think expounding on this can exemplify well why private roads/transportation can work quite well.

    What is the "lot that happens" before a person decides to walk ten miles to a job instead of taking a train? Well, most of it I won't mention here because there's so much, but one of them is that for a person to walk ten miles to a job instead of taking a train, that person would likely need a HUGE pay raise. Like maybe ten or twenty more an hour, maybe more. Walking ten miles to work is quite costly, and it is directly on the worker (or potential worker). That worker then puts the cost on his employer (or potential employer). Where then would the employer put that cost? A variety of places, one of which includes the causer of why the worker is deciding to walk ten miles instead of taking the train.

    Since in this scenario, this problem is not just to one person, but to a very large number of people all at once, there would be a lot of employers who have very strong incentive to get the train company to shape up. There are a variety of ways they can do it; one might be to pool together and buy the train company out, and then make the train experience as efficient as possible so that then their workers and potential workers will demand less wage in order to work.

    This is essentially the process by which private roads would likely work. The worse the travel conditions, the worse it is for every damn employee and employer in the area and that is believed to be reflected in wages so well that this concept is covered in labor economics textbooks. Then incentives in a private road system would be towards getting people to and from where they produce and consume as efficiently as possible. Indeed, it could be the case that businesses would operate at a loss on roads just so they can make travel as efficient as possible. Most firms already do this sort of thing, like operating at a loss on printers to get more of them in people's hands then making profits on the ink.
  63. #213
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    So I see that the Women's March was a huge success this year.
  64. #214
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    This is a picture of a nice woman chestfeeding:

    Spoiler:
  65. #215
    is that a dude with srs gyno?
  66. #216
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    is that a dude with srs gyno?
    That is a man chestfeeding his child that came out of his womb. What the fuck is wrong with you, you insensitive fuck?
  67. #217
    how dare you assume that your offense doesn't offend me.
  68. #218
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    how dare you assume that your offense doesn't offend me.
    Note that it's called chestfeeding as well. I didn't make that up.
  69. #219
    well if you have that much fucking gyno you probably cry yourself to sleep knowing that your manwomb is actually a cock and balls
  70. #220
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Do you know what makes a company a natural monopoly?

    Do you have examples of natural monopolies behaving in such a way that they would not if the market was not a monopoly market?
    Yo Ong I really wanted to hear your thoughts on this.
  71. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Yo Ong I really wanted to hear your thoughts on this.
    Sorry been busy preparing to move house, plus work.

    The second question, I'll answer that quickly... no.

    The first one... what makes a natural monopoly? In my opinion (I'm not pretending to be an economist) it's a service that is both essential and comes from a single source, where the consumer has very little (not necessarily zero) choice but to use.

    A natural monopoly is a business model where direct competition doesn't exist, and profit is essentially guaranteed by the need of the people to use the service.

    I understand your point about bottled water and tap water being in competition with one another, but it's indirect and the tap water company needs to be performing particularly badly before a significant shift of custom moves to bottled water. So ok tap water companies can't literally charge what they like, but they can still overcharge while being "competetive" enough so people don't start bathing with bottled water.

    So tap water is a natural monopoly, at least I believe so. People need it, and there is only one source.

    Energy is another. I know savy seems to think that you can literally choose to use a different power plant, but you don't phone the plant and ask them for quotes. The "competition" here is an illusion... you're buying the same power from different middle men who charge different prices. What's the need for this competition? So the consumer has to figure out which one is taking the piss the least?

    The only real competition enegery companies have is people investing in renewables, but for most people it's prohibitively expensive and therefore the energy companies are providing an essential service that the consumer has very little real choice on. Another natural monopoly.

    You can't not make these things a monopoly. That's why they're natural.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  72. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    So ok tap water companies can't literally charge what they like, but they can still overcharge .
    Myth.

    I though I had explained this quite thoroughly. There is a regulatory body within the government that oversees that tap water company and verifies that their return on invested capital is fair and consistent with the rest of the market.

    They really don't have the ability to raise prices, or 'overcharge', in a way that would exploit their status as a monopoly.
  73. #223
    Ok well I'm going to admit something that hurts my argument somewhat, but it only applies to water and certainly not energy.

    Water isn't too expensive here. They don't overcharge, probably because of exactly what you just said... government regulations. Personally, I'm against regulations when it comes to the majority of things, but not when it comes to things like natural monopolies, even if I'm the only one who accepts that term. The regulations you speak of are anti-capitalist measures, they are anti-competetive policies, it is essentially doing exactly what I'm asking for... government control of critical infrastructure.

    But energy is definitely too expensive, although that might well be an effort to force people to use less. Still, energy companies are making an absolute fucking fortune thanks to people's need for electricity. Is that being invested in research and development for renewable energy sources? Of course not. We can probably already do that, but there's just too much money in fossil fuels. Renewable energy remains out of reach for most people.

    Trains are too expensive too. There should be an effort to get people off the roads, but in most cases it's cheaper to drive somewhere than get the train. That results in more pollution and heavier traffic. Did the trains work better when they were state owned? No, not in the 80's when I can remember, but they were Thatcher days and they were probably deliberately running the state owned service into the ground so the public weren't outraged when it was privatised, that's standard privatisation tactics.

    The problem with state owned services is always the state itself, its incompetence or corruption, not the fact it is state owned. That incompetence and corruption can exist in a private company too. The difference is that an incompetent business goes bust, while an incompetent government loses power (or at least they should). Both have incentive.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  74. #224
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    "the government"?

    You and ong live in different countries.

    Other governments are available.
  75. #225
    Yeah but these government regulations exist in both countries, it was an applicable argument even if we have different regulations.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •