Lib Dems prove once again they are not fit to govern

[sasguru]

You are insulting my intelligence by putting words in my mouth and then laughing at me.

I'm asking you questions to which an affirmative answer is implied by your previous statements.
I'm sorry if this demonstrates your stupidity.

[sasguru]

There was no monopolistic influence in this case though.

You seem to have decided that with all the certainty you seem unaccountably to possess.

[Robinho]

I'm asking you questions to which an affirmative answer is implied by your previous statements.
I'm sorry if this demonstrates your stupidity.

Ok let's take this example...

So you don't believe monopolies can distort the free market and cause inefficiencies?

Perhaps your verbal reasoning is poorer than your manners but i have not said anything that affirms this statement. What i did allude to was that i believe monopolies are harder to come into existence and to maintain than many people suggest and that i believe that governments probably cause more monopolies than they prevent.

Though i will add that whilst i do believe that monopolies can cause inefficiencies, they certainly don't distort the free market if they come into existence via the free market, by virtue.

[Robinho]

You seem to have decided that with all the certainty you seem unaccountably to possess.

Where was the monopolistic influence then?

[doodab]

Sorry but what is so hard to understand that a business disappeared because it was no longer economically viable?

Why are you finding this so hard to accept?

It was only 'no longer economically viable' if you assume that the property market was initially distorted so that rent was artificially low and has now corrected itself. Given that rents are artificially high due to the monopolistic nature of the market mich describes the reverse would seem to be the case i.e. the business was economically viable in the long run but failed to make it over a hurdle caused by a distorted property market.

So it failed due to market failure in another sector of the economy. Why are you finding this so hard to accept?

[sasguru]

Ok let's take this example...



Perhaps your verbal reasoning is poorer than your manners but i have not said anything that affirms this statement. What i did allude to was that i believe monopolies are harder to come into existence and to maintain than many people suggest and that i believe that governments probably cause more monopolies than they prevent.

Though i will add that whilst i do believe that monopolies can cause inefficiencies, they certainly don't distort the free market if they come into existence via the free market, by virtue.

I apologise for my manners. I don't suffer fools gladly. It's a failing.
As for monopolies one could easily mention Microsoft (which has been selling inefficient office bloatware for years) or Tesco which has ruined several English towns, in the way Micth describes and usually by predatory pricing.
I also struggle to understand why you think something created by a system cannot change the system for the worse.

[sasguru]

So it failed due to market failure in another sector of the economy. Why are you finding this so hard to accept?

Probably because ideologues take a position and defend it against all evidence, whereas the intelligent man will change his mind on the basis of evidence.

As Bertrand Russell said: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt"

[Robinho]

It was only 'no longer economically viable' if you assume that the property market was initially distorted so that rent was artificially low and has now corrected itself. Given that rents are artificially high due to the monopolistic nature of the market mich describes the reverse would seem to be the case i.e. the business was economically viable in the long run but failed to make it over a hurdle caused by a distorted property market.

That is my assumption. Given that the property market is so inelastic (supply) there is little scope for price gouging even with a monopoly. Landlords will always charge at the extreme of what the market will bear. It doesn't sound like whoever owned the property at first was doing that because the market was able to bear residents in place of the shop.

[Robinho]

I apologise for my manners. I don't suffer fools gladly. It's a failing.
As for monopolies one could easily mention Microsoft (which has been selling inefficient office bloatware for years) or Tesco which has ruined several English towns, in the way Micth describes and usually by predatory pricing.
I also struggle to understand why you think something created by a system cannot change the system for the worse.

Microsoft is in an oligopoly really with apple.

Tesco's certainly doesn't have a monopoly, they are simply the market leader.

As for your latter comment, presumably you are alluding to corruption?

[DodgyAgent]

Rob, do you even know what "Free market" capitalism is?

You agree that everything should be sold with no state intervention ?

So you condone the sale of heroin , crack, uncensored porn and film, knock off goods and forgeries, etc etc?

Free market is NOT what I want... It's also not even possible in my view (perhaps Thailand is the closest I've personally seen, but its drug laws beat it.).

The moment that a government buys 1 thing from a free market, its no longer free is it??

Why is it that when someone supports something that actually works (free market capitalism) that the lefties jump out of the closet and spin it into a "worse possible scenario" in order to trash the concept.
Free market capitalism is the most effective way for human beings to live without fighting wars or living in abject poverty (socialism does that)
Why dont the left (most of who are direct beneficiaries of free market capitalism) accept that capitalism is good but the challenge is to make it work for everyone.