Best Thread Keynes Vs. Hayek

[Martinghoul]

Indeed. It has already happened. It is called government.

duc, seriously, I have asked you a couple of simple "yes" or "no" questions and they're not about the current arrangement, but rather referring to your proposed alternative (i.e. the fully private judiciary). Is there any particular reason why you're seemingly unable or unwilling to answer them?

Property rights are a self-evident axiom. To invalidate that argument you have to avoid self-contradiction.

You seem to be claiming that "A" and "B" both possessing property rights, simply offset one another, and it comes down to a vote, or exercise of some power of one over another.

I am saying that both "A" and "B" are subject to property rights. One of the necessary conditions of property rights is the principal of non-violation of any competing property rights.

jog on
duc

Right, I understand this... Yet again I am not questioning the principle itself, but rather the procedure by which this principle is applied in practice. The reason for this is simple. A society may be based on the most profoundly fair, just and self-evident principles in all of history. However, if these same principles cannot be implemented in practice, they are largely irrelevant and the society in question won't be long-term viable. Again, there are countless examples of this occurring. In light of that, I believe my example is meaningful.

 

[Atilla]

Duc,



Why do you consider it ridiculous? Applying monopoly single buyer or seller scenario to government/politics etc. I can see the laboured point you are trying to make but do not share your enthusiasm for the similarities.





I shall.

Simply your argument, in relation to UK government monopoly, is that there is no monopoly. That the different parties, individuals, etc. provide, or qualify as competition. Assuming I have stated your position correctly, obviates the first definition that I provided, which is consistent with our argument.

Ok.

Therefore you need to provide evidence, a priori argument, or empirical evidence [the weaker argument] that there is in point of fact, price elasticity, in government services due to competition.

So for example, in an area you would consider several local councils to be delivering competing refuse collection, planning laws and regulations and transport and education services lets say - at differing prices so you can choose which one you wish to purchase right?

Incase I have understood you incorrectly - treating government as not a monopoly but an institution are we to expect the existence of several governments competing with each other providing different foreign policies and manifestos for me to purchase with my tax so they can deliver?

This is what you would expect if there was no monopoly. Because we do not have these scenarios you conclude we have a monopoly entity in a government?

The absence of competition in pricing services giving the consumer tax payer choice to opt out is is anti-competitive behaviour and thus is a monopolistic practice by government.








I've also seen some of your other posts The a priori of monopoly « ducati998 and your views are very specific to further your agenda.



Really? How? Why has Samsung priced their phones on par with Apple but not undercut them in a significant way? Price war will damage both so they compete on product differentiation. Competition do not compete on price. There are also significant barriers to entry in many areas. Don't wish to argue this point as your assumption about Free Market this and that clearly has no substance.



All easily rebutted. However the issue for the moment is not for me to rebut the fallacies contained in Wikipedia's list; rather it is for you to rebut my already presented argument. That is why for the moment I have excluded them.



Through history the theory of monopoly can be seen to drive the ever shrinking number of ‘States’ into ever larger territorial areas that are exploited by monopoly government. There have been stunning reversals, the Soviet Empire imploded of course, but the historical dialectic has been towards consolidation through war and aggression. The inelastic demand curve is inelastic as of course it is 100% coerced. The revenues generated are called ‘tax’.

Well considering many government budget defecits the monopoly is making substantial losses. Revenues do not match costs.

You refer to the policies of redistribution? No I'm refering to monopoly profits if you are referring to tax as revenue.






Monopoly through coercion has a logical conclusion: one world government. Steps have of course been underway for a long time towards this ‘ideal’ using the fiat currency as the primary weapon. Bretton Woods saw the hegemony of the US. drive the implementation of the US dollar as the ‘world reserve’ currency, much as prior to WWI Britain held the unofficial world reserve currency.



Remove all choice. Where at the moment, you have to relocate geographically to escape a particularly despotic government for one less despotic, you would remove even that limited choice?

What if you like government?


Let me try to dumb it down for you.

Thank you that has helped a little but still fail to see your argument.

Can you get dumber please.

jog on
duc

So where are the monopoly profits. Considering we are running the best single monopoly practice one can hope for. Show me the money?

 

[ducati998]

duc, seriously, I have asked you a couple of simple "yes" or "no" questions and they're not about the current arrangement, but rather referring to your proposed alternative (i.e. the fully private judiciary). Is there any particular reason why you're seemingly unable or unwilling to answer them?

I have answered them. Let me spell it out. Yes the private law system could be taken over if certain conditions prevailed. Those conditions have prevailed in the past, giving us the current monopoly of government over the Law.

To see how it happened, you need only look back in history. It was not the ability of individuals or institutions to overcome the free market.

Right, I understand this... Yet again I am not questioning the principle itself, but rather the procedure by which this principle is applied in practice. The reason for this is simple. A society may be based on the most profoundly fair, just and self-evident principles in all of history.

Fine. The axiom of property rights you accept.

However, if these same principles cannot be implemented in practice, they are largely irrelevant and the society in question won't be long-term viable. Again, there are countless examples of this occurring. In light of that, I believe my example is meaningful.

Property rights can of course be subverted. Government has subverted so many one loses count.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati998]

Atilla,

So for example, in an area you would consider several local councils to be delivering competing refuse collection, planning laws and regulations and transport and education services lets say - at differing prices so you can choose which one you wish to purchase right?

Incase I have understood you incorrectly - treating government as not a monopoly but an institution are we to expect the existence of several governments competing with each other providing different foreign policies and manifestos for me to purchase with my tax so they can deliver?

This is what you would expect if there was no monopoly. Because we do not have these scenarios you conclude we have a monopoly entity in a government?

The absence of competition in pricing services giving the consumer tax payer choice to opt out is is anti-competitive behaviour and thus is a monopolistic practice by government.

Yes.

Why has Samsung priced their phones on par with Apple but not undercut them in a significant way?

Price war will damage both so they compete on product differentiation. Competition do not compete on price.

There are also significant barriers to entry in many areas.

Don't wish to argue this point as your assumption about Free Market this and that clearly has no substance.

I have broken your paragraph into sentences. The reason being that somewhere in there you are trying to create a coherent argument. How does this mishmash actually address your initial assertion?

I've also seen some of your other posts The a priori of monopoly « ducati998 and your views are very specific to further your agenda.

To which I responded: How?

Well considering many government budget defecits the monopoly is making substantial losses. Revenues do not match costs.

Which was your response to my assertion: The inelastic demand curve is inelastic as of course it is 100% coerced. The revenues generated are called ‘tax’.

The specific area of definition of monopoly you are searching for is:

"Defining ‘monopoly’ as an institution that can as a producer of goods and services [within its market] raise revenues through the restriction of supply: this is and must be due to an inelastic demand curve".

Makes no mention of "profit". It makes reference to the raising of "revenues". The revenue can be raised, even in a restriction of supply, viz. reductions in public expenditure, because the the demand curve is inelastic, viz. coerced.

What if you like government?

Which of course many do. Every recipient of a handout, every government employee, is an ardent supporter of government.

So where are the monopoly profits. Considering we are running the best single monopoly practice one can hope for. Show me the money?

The "profits" are redistributed. Every single recipient of government spending is an example of monopoly profits. No matter the "losses" they will continue to gain their "profits" courtesy of the producers of wealth.

jog on
duc

 

[Atilla]

Atilla,



Yes. Well this also begs a cost benefit analysis as to whether it is a viable proposition to try and provide natural monopolistic sectors in a competititve economy. eg: Having multiple foreign policies. How is this service going to work? Yes indeed. Saying yes is sufficient in your opinion I guess. Let's play along.



I have broken your paragraph into sentences. The reason being that somewhere in there you are trying to create a coherent argument. How does this mishmash actually address your initial assertion?



To which I responded: How? I'm sorry but I don't get this priori business. Need to brake it down erm dumb it down for me please.



Which was your response to my assertion: The inelastic demand curve is inelastic as of course it is 100% "coerced". The revenues generated are called ‘tax’. How can demand be coerced? somebody spreads a virus to which they have a cure I guess.

How can a monopoly not have profits? Or why would they re-distribute it?

Not the attribute of a monopoly practice is it?

The specific area of definition of monopoly you are searching for is:

"Defining ‘monopoly’ as an institution that can as a producer of goods and services [within its market] raise revenues through the restriction of supply: this is and must be due to an inelastic demand curve".

Why does it do this? It can raise revenue at many supply points. Why does it restrict supply? To maximise profits which it subsequently redistributes???

Makes no mention of "profit". It makes reference to the raising of "revenues". The revenue can be raised, even in a restriction of supply, viz. reductions in public expenditure, because the the demand curve is inelastic, viz. coerced. Well this is nonsense is it not. Selection to suit your agurement to make your case. Monopolies are there to cream off as much profit as possible.

So how is government operation in any way resembling monopoly practice if there are no profits?



Which of course many do. Every recipient of a handout, every government employee, is an ardent supporter of government. Nonsesne and another one of your assumptions / statements which have no foundation.



The "profits" are redistributed. Every single recipient of government spending is an example of monopoly profits. No matter the "losses" they will continue to gain their "profits" courtesy of the producers of wealth.

This is not a monopoly. Please tell me one monopolistic practice that redistributes all it's profits or revenue.

jog on
duc

Duc,

What other attributes of a monopoly are you missing here? Single seller many buyers. (no single seller + house of lords for passing decisions)

Maximising profits? No profits as they are all distributed to revenue givers one way or another. Is this not a cooperative?


What is the point of arguing if you going to tell me there are no profits. What is the point of marginal revenue and marginal cost if that is irrelevant to profits. No profits. I don't get it.


Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. ~ Albert Einstein

Keep it simple please!

 

[ducati998]

Atilla,

Well this also begs a cost benefit analysis as to whether it is a viable proposition to try and provide natural monopolistic sectors in a competititve economy. eg: Having multiple foreign policies. How is this service going to work? Yes indeed. Saying yes is sufficient in your opinion I guess. Let's play along.

The "State" ceases to exist. National boundaries cease to exist. Far smaller monopolies are created, which offer choice through competing with each other. So London competes with Birmingham, Liverpool, Southampton, Brighton, New York, Moscow, San Francisco etc. The "power" held by these monopolies is held in check by their competitors.

I'm sorry but I don't get this priori business. Need to brake it down erm dumb it down for me please.

Break it down further?

You essentially state that you don't even understand the argument that you have taken on. How can anyone seriously expect to be taken seriously after that?

How can demand be coerced? somebody spreads a virus to which they have a cure I guess.

Good grief.

If government requires you to purchase goods & services that you do not require, nor want, they have coerced your demand. For example, individuals who have no children: why would they wish to purchase [fund via tax] education?

How can a monopoly not have profits? Or why would they re-distribute it?
Not the attribute of a monopoly practice is it?

Re-read the definition. Think about it.

Why does it do this? It can raise revenue at many supply points. Why does it restrict supply? To maximise profits which it subsequently redistributes???

This answer is more technical. It relates to Average Physical Production [APP] Marginal Physical Production [MPP] When APP is rising, MPP rises, and rises at a faster rate. When APP falls, MPP falls, again at a faster rate.

A competitive firm, will seek to produce only until MPP remains positive. A monopoly will, or rather can, restrict production when MPP is higher, as there is no competition which would require increased production to a zero rate of MPP where all economies of scale are exhausted.

The monopoly will see lower total revenues. It may very well expect to see a higher ROIC, or profit. Can you relate that to government?

Well this is nonsense is it not. Selection to suit your agurement to make your case. Monopolies are there to cream off as much profit as possible.

See above.

So how is government operation in any way resembling monopoly practice if there are no profits?

All government revenues flow to government employees. They are 100% profit.

Which of course many do. Every recipient of a handout, every government employee, is an ardent supporter of government.

Nonsesne and another one of your assumptions / statements which have no foundation.

Really?

For someone with so little knowledge you are extremely opinionated.

This is not a monopoly. Please tell me one monopolistic practice that redistributes all it's profits or revenue.

There simply are not that many true monopolies in the world. All private enterprise operates under some form of competition. True the larger corporates certainly cultivate government to aid them in limiting competition, but, it is not fully successful.

jog on
duc

 

[Atilla]

Atilla,



The "State" ceases to exist. National boundaries cease to exist. Far smaller monopolies are created, which offer choice through competing with each other. So London competes with Birmingham, Liverpool, Southampton, Brighton, New York, Moscow, San Francisco etc. The "power" held by these monopolies is held in check by their competitors.

Still doesn't answer natural monopolies. ie gas pipes coming into ones house etc... Or rules/laws of the land. What happens to commercial disputes conducted between business residing in two counties...


Break it down further? Too much mumbo jumbo to me...

You essentially state that you don't even understand the argument that you have taken on. How can anyone seriously expect to be taken seriously after that?

I didn't say that all. Obviously what you prefer to think. I simply don't understand how you can arrive at your conclusions making fuddy duddy assumptions and statements which you justify in your own little world. Prove this to disprove that etc... When I don't understand something I say so. Can't prove things especially in economics which is not a science. Goes to show how much you know??? I reckon you just fancy your self and like to think you do.



Good grief.

If government requires you to purchase goods & services that you do not require, nor want, they have coerced your demand. For example, individuals who have no children: why would they wish to purchase [fund via tax] education?

So who paid for your education when you were a kid? No doubt you receive benefits in someway contributed by others. So you saying you receive no goods and services from big G?



Re-read the definition. Think about it. No you read the definition of monopoly, you think about it and you provide an answer regarding profits.

What is the point of carrying out Marginal calculations to maximise profits or restrict supply only to dismiss profits?

Which services does government restrict? NHS is available to everyone!

Where do profits go? Your reply is nonsense! All profits do not go in wages to employees. What about people delivering Education, Health and the Police. You saying these are all simply wages and produce or return nothing?






This answer is more technical. It relates to Average Physical Production [APP] Marginal Physical Production [MPP] When APP is rising, MPP rises, and rises at a faster rate. When APP falls, MPP falls, again at a faster rate.

A competitive firm, will seek to produce only until MPP remains positive. A monopoly will, or rather can, restrict production when MPP is higher, as there is no competition which would require increased production to a zero rate of MPP where all economies of scale are exhausted.

The monopoly will see lower total revenues. It may very well expect to see a higher ROIC, or profit. Can you relate that to government? Let's keep it simple and focus.



See above.



All government revenues flow to government employees. They are 100% profit. Well this is rubbish as pointed out above and you are yet to explain how profits are maximised and who gets them. Paying measly wages to employees in delivering goods and services in no way constitutes reaping monopoly profits. Which planet you from? Do you know what nurses get and how hard they work?

Which of course many do. Every recipient of a handout, every government employee, is an ardent supporter of government. Rubbish. I support government and always favour raising taxes and a more normal distribution of the income rather than skewed. I am in full time employment too thanks.



Really?

For someone with so little knowledge you are extremely opinionated. What you mean like when I declare I don't understand or know something and ask some questions?


There simply are not that many true monopolies in the world. All private enterprise operates under some form of competition. True the larger corporates certainly cultivate government to aid them in limiting competition, but, it is not fully successful.

So is Governments a real monopoly or not? Where has this come from?

jog on
duc

Duc,

You are happy to compare features of a competitive economy ie absence of many buyers and sellers in confirming we have a monopoly but quite openly state absence of profits does not constitute a competitive environment.

All government revenues flow to government employees. They are 100% profit.
Your reply is wholly inadequate. Totally ignores goods and services rendered back to revenue payers. Or more importantly that public sector workers get very little in comparison to private sector. Show me the profits! Lot's of fancy lines and graphs and acronyms all wasted maximising profits - where the monopoly is constantly sinking into debt. Numbers don't add up.

You can't have it both ways. A half-truth is a whole lie.

 

[ducati998]

Atilla,

Still doesn't answer natural monopolies. ie gas pipes coming into ones house etc... Or rules/laws of the land. What happens to commercial disputes conducted between business residing in two counties...

Of course it does. Which is exactly the topic MG and I are arguing.

I didn't say that all. Obviously what you prefer to think. I simply don't understand how you can arrive at your conclusions making fuddy duddy assumptions and statements which you justify in your own little world. Prove this to disprove that etc... When I don't understand something I say so. Can't prove things especially in economics which is not a science. Goes to show how much you know??? I reckon you just fancy your self and like to think you do.

Which is exactly the argument Shak and I were pursuing, viz. the a priori that results in the entire corpus of economics being deducible from an axiom. This results in economics being a science based on universally true statements.

So who paid for your education when you were a kid? No doubt you receive benefits in someway contributed by others. So you saying you receive no goods and services from big G?

Who cares. It is an example illustrating the fallacy of your assertion.

No you read the definition of monopoly, you think about it and you provide an answer regarding profits.

What is the point of carrying out Marginal calculations to maximise profits or restrict supply only to dismiss profits?

Which was provided to you. That you have no understanding is not exactly my fault is it?

Which services does government restrict? NHS is available to everyone!

How long are the waiting lists?

What does that tell you about supply and demand?

Where do profits go? Your reply is nonsense! All profits do not go in wages to employees. What about people delivering Education, Health and the Police. You saying these are all simply wages and produce or return nothing?

My reply is spot on. It is your total confusion that betrays you.

Well this is rubbish as pointed out above and you are yet to explain how profits are maximised and who gets them. Paying measly wages to employees in delivering goods and services in no way constitutes reaping monopoly profits. Which planet you from? Do you know what nurses get and how hard they work?

This answer is more technical. It relates to Average Physical Production [APP] Marginal Physical Production [MPP] When APP is rising, MPP rises, and rises at a faster rate. When APP falls, MPP falls, again at a faster rate.

A competitive firm, will seek to produce only until MPP remains positive above zero. A monopoly will, or rather can, restrict production when MPP is higher, as there is no competition which would require increased production to a zero rate of MPP where all economies of scale are exhausted.

The monopoly will see lower total revenues. It may very well expect to see a higher ROIC, or profit.

Rubbish. I support government and always favour raising taxes and a more normal distribution of the income rather than skewed. I am in full time employment too thanks.

Classic.

What you mean like when I declare I don't understand or know something and ask some questions?

No. When you pontificate away, offering your opinions, directly contrary to economic fact and become all hurt when they are summarily dismissed.

jog on
duc

 

[Atilla]

Atilla,




Of course it does. Which is exactly the topic MG and I are arguing. I understood that to be within common boundaries. If that is your case then try multiplying your arguments against multiple boundaries and time zones - to reflect say money laundering global enterprises to see where you end up. Crazy fool just doesn't say it...




Which is exactly the argument Shak and I were pursuing, viz. the a priori that results in the entire corpus of economics being deducible from an axiom. This results in economics being a science based on universally true statements.
Only in your creative world. I'm still waiting for the true universal statement? Do enlighten me. You are spieling lots of goble-de-gook with no foundation. Self indulgence knows no bounds. Economics is not a science!

Shakone also bowed out gracefully as he could not get reasonable answers to question raised along with Martin. Now I'm having the same response. The Duc way or the highway!!! I think the highway looks sunny and bright. Duc way looks awfully down cast and grey.



Who cares. It is an example illustrating the fallacy of your assertion.

I care. I'm sure you would too if some people objected to contributing to your upbringing. This is similar to large organisations designating cost centres and appropriating budgets to spend. Much wastage and time in calculating how much pen & paper used - which I'm sure costs more to calculate then actual costs if one pencils in labour cost. One can get take this to the point of stupidity. I've been there. Try doing that across the globe, 7 sites with upto 55 satellites in each site for support contracts.

You may well argue - let them purchase their own support contracts. Well they then do not get the discounts obtained in global purchase coupled with a mish mash technologies that don't easily talk to each other when running a global business.

You can take this to the nth level in your no government free market world of individuals who are stuck up to the hilt and I'm sure on paper it works a treat for you in your mind but in practice it's much headache where without central control system becomes unworkable and you do not get the benefits.



Which was provided to you. That you have no understanding is not exactly my fault is it?
I haven't provided anything but my opinion. You saying I provided definition of Monopoly? Where? I've been going along with your speel and only rejected the priori theoretical stuff as I don't have the time.

I am trying to understand your words you but brain is raising objections???? That is my fault too I guess



How long are the waiting lists?

Haha that's funny. So if I were to ask if you are unhappy with the service you can pay the fair market price (rather than the revenue contributed subsidised price) and buy private health service what will you respond? Does this not prove that the government is not a monopoly allowing private operators in the same market delivering identical goods and services?

Prove this to disprove that, shoot your self in the foot.



What does that tell you about supply and demand?
Well as every nut wants to live forever NHS is a losing battle with infinite demand for health service but life supply is obviously limited to a few years.



My reply is spot on. It is your total confusion that betrays you. Your reply is off the monopoly richter scale.



This answer is more technical. It relates to Average Physical Production [APP] Marginal Physical Production [MPP] When APP is rising, MPP rises, and rises at a faster rate. When APP falls, MPP falls, again at a faster rate.

A competitive firm, will seek to produce only until MPP remains positive above zero. A monopoly will, or rather can, restrict production when MPP is higher, as there is no competition which would require increased production to a zero rate of MPP where all economies of scale are exhausted.

The monopoly will see lower total revenues. It may very well expect to see a higher ROIC, or profit.
Still waiting to see the profit or where it goes?

Government employees are charging monopoly wages earning monopoly profits. So how do you rate the private market wages and profits as normal????

You say I'm confused? I'd appreciate an explanation.



Classic.



No. When you pontificate away, offering your opinions, directly contrary to economic fact and become all hurt when they are summarily dismissed.


jog on
duc

Dear Duc, I've been on these threads long enough and said many bad things and received just as much and believe me I am not hurt in the slightest. I do not bear grudges and always like to keep an open mind.

I am always ready to change my mind and change is my motto.

However, your arguments simply do not add up and I am yet to see anything resembling plausible. You are regurgitating the stuff I was tought back in the 80s which with the benefit of hind-sight and 20-20 vision turned out to be one big mess.


If you can not come up with a reasonable explanation to why the best and biggest monopolies do not maximise profits or where they go then there really is no point in restricting supply and setting price is there? Draw all the marginal curves and lines as you like.


Explain what is observed. Don't obfuscate!

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. ~ Albert Einstein


I hope that makes it clearer for you. Dumb it down further please.

 

[Martinghoul]

I have answered them. Let me spell it out. Yes the private law system could be taken over if certain conditions prevailed. Those conditions have prevailed in the past, giving us the current monopoly of government over the Law.

To see how it happened, you need only look back in history. It was not the ability of individuals or institutions to overcome the free market.

Right, so we must therefore conclude that the particular system of "private justice" you're proposing is, even purely theoretically, no better than what we have at the moment. This is the point I have been trying to make all along.

Fine. The axiom of property rights you accept.

Of course, but that is truly neither here nor there.

Property rights can of course be subverted. Government has subverted so many one loses count.

Well, you see, there's the rub, so to speak. If we agree that the application of the "axiom" is difficult and controversial business, there's always going to be someone who will be unhappy and will claim that their property rights have been subverted (like I would, if I got told to dismantle my nuclear plant).

In general, on the fundamental issue that we're discussing, I would say this. Social cohesion and individual liberty have been in conflict throughout all of human history, as evidenced by the writings of pretty much every philosopher from 600BC to the present. To me it's quite obvious that either extreme is wrong.

 

[neil]

Right, so we must therefore conclude that the particular system of "private justice" you're proposing is, even purely theoretically, no better than what we have at the moment. This is the point I have been trying to make all along.

Of course, but that is truly neither here nor there.

Well, you see, there's the rub, so to speak. If we agree that the application of the "axiom" is difficult and controversial business, there's always going to be someone who will be unhappy and will claim that their property rights have been subverted (like I would, if I got told to dismantle my nuclear plant).

In general, on the fundamental issue that we're discussing, I would say this. Social cohesion and individual liberty have been in conflict throughout all of human history, as evidenced by the writings of pretty much every philosopher from 600BC to the present. To me it's quite obvious that either extreme is wrong.[/QUOTE]

Excellent summary

 

[ducati998]

Atilla,

I understood that to be within common boundaries. If that is your case then try multiplying your arguments against multiple boundaries and time zones - to reflect say money laundering global enterprises to see where you end up. Crazy fool just doesn't say it...

You have entirely missed the point.

MG and I are arguing the difference between a monopoly provider of Law, and a competitive market providing Law. Same argument. Boundaries/timezones are irrelevant to the argument.

Only in your creative world. I'm still waiting for the true universal statement? Do enlighten me.

I have already posted three. Shak attempted to rebut them, but couldn't. The level that he needed to descend to was micro-seconds and semantics.

You are spieling lots of goble-de-gook with no foundation.

How would you know, you can't even keep up to speed with a definition and application of a monopoly.

Self indulgence knows no bounds.

I was responding to Shak which necessitated going down a rather obscure path to be sure.

Economics is not a science!

In your opinion, which as we have discovered hardly merits much weight.

Shakone also bowed out gracefully as he could not get reasonable answers to question raised along with Martin. Now I'm having the same response. The Duc way or the highway!!! I think the highway looks sunny and bright. Duc way looks awfully down cast and grey.

Shak bowed out because apart from arguing semantics and micro-seconds, he had nothing substantive.

I care. I'm sure you would too if some people objected to contributing to your upbringing. This is similar to large organisations designating cost centres and appropriating budgets to spend. Much wastage and time in calculating how much pen & paper used - which I'm sure costs more to calculate then actual costs if one pencils in labour cost. One can get take this to the point of stupidity. I've been there. Try doing that across the globe, 7 sites with upto 55 satellites in each site for support contracts.

Again, you entirely misconstrue the argument. You asked for an example of a coerced payment. You got it. That you don't like it is irrelevant.

I haven't provided anything but my opinion.

Never a truer word spoken.

You saying I provided definition of Monopoly?

Not at all. I provided the definition, which, you didn't understand.

Where? I've been going along with your speel and only rejected the priori theoretical stuff as I don't have the time.

Then depart, and stop wasting mine.

Haha that's funny. So if I were to ask if you are unhappy with the service you can pay the fair market price (rather than the revenue contributed subsidised price) and buy private health service what will you respond? Does this not prove that the government is not a monopoly allowing private operators in the same market delivering identical goods and services?

Its a shame in a way that you cannot actually address the argument. The argument is this:

Defining ‘monopoly’ as an institution that can as a producer of goods and services [within its market] raise revenues through the restriction of supply: this is and must be due to an inelastic demand curve.

Thus the government can continue to tax [raise revenues]
Restrict the provision of NHS services [restriction of supply]
Producer of goods/services [government]
Inelastic demand curve [demand for free/subsidized health care does not diminish]

Your answer:

Well as every nut wants to live forever NHS is a losing battle with infinite demand for health service but life supply is obviously limited to a few years.

Essentially, just waffle.

Your reply is off the monopoly richter scale.

Very well, let us for the moment entertain you opinion as valid. You now need to rebut, with argument, why you believe my assertions to be as you describe.

This answer is more technical. It relates to Average Physical Production [APP] Marginal Physical Production [MPP] When APP is rising, MPP rises, and rises at a faster rate. When APP falls, MPP falls, again at a faster rate.

A competitive firm, will seek to produce only until MPP remains positive above zero. A monopoly will, or rather can, restrict production when MPP is higher, as there is no competition which would require increased production to a zero rate of MPP where all economies of scale are exhausted.

The monopoly will see lower total revenues. It may very well expect to see a higher ROIC, or profit.

Go to it.

Dear Duc, I've been on these threads long enough and said many bad things and received just as much and believe me I am not hurt in the slightest. I do not bear grudges and always like to keep an open mind.

Well I have yet to see any evidence of your claim.

I am always ready to change my mind and change is my motto.

Really? You had me fooled.

However, your arguments simply do not add up and I am yet to see anything resembling plausible.

And yet, you are incapable of offering a single argument to rebut them. You simply offer opinion, as if that were worth anything.

You are regurgitating the stuff I was tought back in the 80s which with the benefit of hind-sight and 20-20 vision turned out to be one big mess.

Yet, you claim, that you simply don't understand, that its all too difficult, with constant requests to dumb it down. An interesting contradiction.

If you can not come up with a reasonable explanation to why the best and biggest monopolies do not maximise profits or where they go then there really is no point in restricting supply and setting price is there? Draw all the marginal curves and lines as you like.

How many times do I need to put the answer in front of your nose? That you don't understand the answer is hardly my fault.

Explain what is observed. Don't obfuscate!

See above.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. ~ Albert Einstein


I hope that makes it clearer for you. Dumb it down further please.

No.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati998]

Right, so we must therefore conclude that the particular system of "private justice" you're proposing is, even purely theoretically, no better than what we have at the moment. This is the point I have been trying to make all along.

Incorrect.

I am arguing that the free market could provide a better and more just law system than the current monopoly that we have today.

Your argument is that this free entry, competitive system could become corrupted by a monopoly controlling it. To which I agree, as that is precisely what we have seen happen.




Of course, but that is truly neither here nor there.

Well, you see, there's the rub, so to speak. If we agree that the application of the "axiom" is difficult and controversial business, there's always going to be someone who will be unhappy and will claim that their property rights have been subverted (like I would, if I got told to dismantle my nuclear plant).

In any dispute, where it becomes zero sum, there will be a winner and a loser. It is entirely probable that the loser will be unhappy. That however has nothing whatsoever to do with the principal [axiom] being applied.

You, I believe are really arguing this: can with a valid axiom, mistakes occur? The answer is yes, we are dealing with humans with value scales that are entirely subjective.

In general, on the fundamental issue that we're discussing, I would say this. Social cohesion and individual liberty have been in conflict throughout all of human history, as evidenced by the writings of pretty much every philosopher from 600BC to the present. To me it's quite obvious that either extreme is wrong

Agreed.

The question is why?

jog on
duc

 

[Shakone]

I bowed out because you were becoming rude and it would be a waste of time to continue, because problems in your theories you like to swiftly gloss over, or not give a straight answer to and claim they have been shown, when nothing of the sort has been demonstrated. Instead you'd rather hide behind jargon and dodge the issues, while sounding overconfident that you're right.

I rebutted pretty much all of your statements, and none was proven to my satisfaction, nor judging from the comments you've received since, others satisfaction. And the same issues - albeit in a different way - keep returning with your arguments. That is - you are not convincing, ignore gaping holes in the concepts and your argument is not easily understood.

You say I offer nothing substantive. Fine, then you missed the point of our entire dialogue. You claimed you could prove something beyond all doubt with logic. I didn't make any claim of my own, nor was I trying to provide substance to any new argument, I was simply verifying whether your claim stood up. And it didn't. And when you couldn't progress and didn't have immediate agreement, you turned 'pissy'.

Is anyone convinced of your 'proof' beyond you?

 

[Atilla]

Atilla,



You have entirely missed the point.

MG and I are arguing the difference between a monopoly provider of Law, and a competitive market providing Law. Same argument. Boundaries/timezones are irrelevant to the argument.



I have already posted three. Shak attempted to rebut them, but couldn't. The level that he needed to descend to was micro-seconds and semantics.





How would you know, you can't even keep up to speed with a definition and application of a monopoly.




I was responding to Shak which necessitated going down a rather obscure path to be sure.




In your opinion, which as we have discovered hardly merits much weight.





Shak bowed out because apart from arguing semantics and micro-seconds, he had nothing substantive.



Again, you entirely misconstrue the argument. You asked for an example of a coerced payment. You got it. That you don't like it is irrelevant.



Never a truer word spoken.





Not at all. I provided the definition, which, you didn't understand.




Then depart, and stop wasting mine.



Its a shame in a way that you cannot actually address the argument. The argument is this:

Defining ‘monopoly’ as an institution that can as a producer of goods and services [within its market] raise revenues through the restriction of supply: this is and must be due to an inelastic demand curve.

Thus the government can continue to tax [raise revenues]
Restrict the provision of NHS services [restriction of supply]
Producer of goods/services [government]
Inelastic demand curve [demand for free/subsidized health care does not diminish]

Your answer:



Essentially, just waffle.



Very well, let us for the moment entertain you opinion as valid. You now need to rebut, with argument, why you believe my assertions to be as you describe.

This answer is more technical. It relates to Average Physical Production [APP] Marginal Physical Production [MPP] When APP is rising, MPP rises, and rises at a faster rate. When APP falls, MPP falls, again at a faster rate.

A competitive firm, will seek to produce only until MPP remains positive above zero. A monopoly will, or rather can, restrict production when MPP is higher, as there is no competition which would require increased production to a zero rate of MPP where all economies of scale are exhausted.

The monopoly will see lower total revenues. It may very well expect to see a higher ROIC, or profit.

Go to it.



Well I have yet to see any evidence of your claim.



Really? You had me fooled.



And yet, you are incapable of offering a single argument to rebut them. You simply offer opinion, as if that were worth anything.



Yet, you claim, that you simply don't understand, that its all too difficult, with constant requests to dumb it down. An interesting contradiction.




How many times do I need to put the answer in front of your nose? That you don't understand the answer is hardly my fault.




See above.



No.

jog on
duc

I may not be eloquent and elaborate as you or other esteemed bodies on these blogs but my opinions are based on what I have been tought, read and observed. They do have foundation.

I haven't seen anything that makes plausible simple sense based on your repeat blurbs.

My points are;

1. Governments do not behave as monopolies, restrict supply or price to maximise profits.

2. Governments do not make abnormal profits (on the contrary they are in debt) or monopolies redistribute profits to employees.

3. Decision making process is totally different to monopoly practices.

4. Economics is not a science.

In summary, I find it difficult to prove anything to you other than debate observations and try and explain the what why how.


Good day to you...

 

[Martinghoul]

Incorrect.

I am arguing that the free market could provide a better and more just law system than the current monopoly that we have today.

Your argument is that this free entry, competitive system could become corrupted by a monopoly controlling it. To which I agree, as that is precisely what we have seen happen.

Of course, but that is truly neither here nor there.

Yes, I understand what you're arguing. However, the two of us have just concluded that the private judiciary framework that you have proposed can be manipulated and subverted just as easily as the public one which we have in place now. Given that this leads to a miscarriage of justice, doesn't this mean that the design you propose would, in practice, be neither "better" nor "more just"?

In any dispute, where it becomes zero sum, there will be a winner and a loser. It is entirely probable that the loser will be unhappy. That however has nothing whatsoever to do with the principal [axiom] being applied.

You, I believe are really arguing this: can with a valid axiom, mistakes occur? The answer is yes, we are dealing with humans with value scales that are entirely subjective

No, you misunderstand somewhat. I am arguing that, even with a valid axiom, there's no way to objectively determine in practice whether an outcome is a "mistake" and a violation of the principle or a fully just application of it. This means that, when we're dealing with humans, a set of principles alone isn't a sufficient basis for a functioning society. This is the point I have been trying to make all along, in response to your statement in post #657.

Agreed.

The question is why?

Well, my view is as follows. Based on the evidence of human history, every community is sooner or later exposed to two extreme dangers: 1) ossification through too much rigidity and adherence to ultimately meaningless tradition; and 2) foreign conquest and/or disintegration due to its members' inability to cooperate which evolves as a side effect of increasing individualism and personal independence. In general, like it happens with many things in life, there's an optimal sweet spot between the two extremes. Unfortunately, also like with many things in life, getting everyone to agree on where that sweet spot lies is very difficult.

 

[ducati998]

Yes, I understand what you're arguing. However, the two of us have just concluded that the private judiciary framework that you have proposed can be manipulated and subverted just as easily as the public one which we have in place now. Given that this leads to a miscarriage of justice, doesn't this mean that the design you propose would, in practice, be neither "better" nor "more just"?

No we have not. We simply agreed that there is nothing to prevent a monopoly takeover, should certain conditions prevail. That is a very far cry from what you assert.

No, you misunderstand somewhat. I am arguing that, even with a valid axiom, there's no way to objectively determine in practice whether an outcome is a "mistake" and a violation of the principle or a fully just application of it. This means that, when we're dealing with humans, a set of principles alone isn't a sufficient basis for a functioning society. This is the point I have been trying to make all along, in response to your statement in post #657.

Incorrect.

That is exactly the purpose of an axiom: viz. to objectively identify an error. Whether that error will be, or can be corrected, is of course a different question.

The empirical case that relates precisely to your example originally provided is: "Tipping v St Helen's Smelting Company" [1865].

Well, my view is as follows. Based on the evidence of human history, every community is sooner or later exposed to two extreme dangers: 1) ossification through too much rigidity and adherence to ultimately meaningless tradition;

Excessive regulation?

and 2) foreign conquest and/or disintegration due to its members' inability to cooperate which evolves as a side effect of increasing individualism and personal independence.

Individualism and independence, or the division of labour, does not lead to societal disintegration...quite the opposite.

In general, like it happens with many things in life, there's an optimal sweet spot between the two extremes. Unfortunately, also like with many things in life, getting everyone to agree on where that sweet spot lies is very difficult.

I did ask for an opinion, so my remarks are only meant as that, remarks.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati998]

I bowed out because you were becoming rude and it would be a waste of time to continue,

Based on this...

You see...drivel.

Drivel is drivel. Precisely what you posted.

because problems in your theories you like to swiftly gloss over, or not give a straight answer to and claim they have been shown, when nothing of the sort has been demonstrated. Instead you'd rather hide behind jargon and dodge the issues, while sounding overconfident that you're right.

I rebutted pretty much all of your statements, and none was proven to my satisfaction, nor judging from the comments you've received since, others satisfaction. And the same issues - albeit in a different way - keep returning with your arguments. That is - you are not convincing, ignore gaping holes in the concepts and your argument is not easily understood.

You say I offer nothing substantive. Fine, then you missed the point of our entire dialogue. You claimed you could prove something beyond all doubt with logic. I didn't make any claim of my own, nor was I trying to provide substance to any new argument, I was simply verifying whether your claim stood up. And it didn't. And when you couldn't progress and didn't have immediate agreement, you turned 'pissy'.

Is anyone convinced of your 'proof' beyond you?

Essentially I can simply repeat all of my previous points, as you are simply repeating your same objections.

Which of course means then:




That your objection above is without merit.

You can't have it both ways. You either accept the "dictionary" definition, or, you have to move into the philosophical areas that argue precisely these points, which you were objecting to in your previous post.



So, let me repeat again...



Clearly from the context of my arguments it is clear that I am not talking about your suggested sub-class. I am talking about humans, homo sapiens.



Of course. Which is why we move to this.



Or did you simply forget what you had written previously?

Your problem is that you can't seemingly even remember your own arguments. Initially "humons" were going to constitute a sub-class that were non-actors/choosers/etc. Why would I talk about them? I am seeking to establish a theory that describes reality.

Seemingly, you want to endlessly quibble about a sub-class, that have no further relevance. That is hairsplitting.






As already demonstrated, your questions are irrelevant and a waste of time. The only purpose in pursuing the question further is to enter a philosophical argument over what constitutes "human" which you have already indicated that you do not wish.



You wanted a dictionary based discussion with regard to what is considered to be human. Note that you dictionary based definition is dualistic. This of course suits me perfectly as that is my position.




Any excuse eh?

jog on
duc

 

[ducati998]

I may not be eloquent and elaborate as you or other esteemed bodies on these blogs but my opinions are based on what I have been tought, read and observed. They do have foundation.

Then cease and desist bombarding me with opinionated irrelevancies and provide the economic theory that you have been taught.

I haven't seen anything that makes plausible simple sense based on your repeat blurbs.

Well hardly surprising, you only seem to understand a fraction of it.

My points are;

1. Governments do not behave as monopolies, restrict supply or price to maximise profits.

Starting from the last point. Governments manipulate prices all the time: subsidies, tariffs, exchange controls, capital flows as some examples. As to restriction of supply, we already have your NHS example. Show me an example of secession in the UK? We must, if no example provided, conclude that the UK government is in point of fact...a monopoly.

2. Governments do not make abnormal profits (on the contrary they are in debt) or monopolies redistribute profits to employees.

Incorrect. Until you rebut my argument, you cannot claim any such thing.

3. Decision making process is totally different to monopoly practices.

Really? Your opinion - again, or do you actually have an argument?

4. Economics is not a science.

So you keep stating. Not a positivist science, not a social science, or other?

In summary, I find it difficult to prove anything to you other than debate observations and try and explain the what why how.

All you debate are meaningless opinions. You have yet to actually take on any argument and provide argument against it. You simply provide yet another opinion.

Good day to you...

jog on
duc

 

[ducati998]

Continuing...

Humans, act, displaying intentional behaviour.

Humans act purposefully, constrained by time. The nature of time necessitates that purposefully acting requires a choice be made. Choosing necessitates that one "thing" be preferred over another "thing."

Choosing one "thing" over another "thing" necessitates a valuation. The "thing" more highly valued being chosen over the "thing" less valued.

Which is as far as I got to date.

Assuming that we are talking for a moment about "things" and all these "things" are the same "thing" for example cups of coffee: then each incremental unit on an ordinal valuation scale will display diminishing marginal utility. This is "subjective value".

jog on
duc