- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Gee on March 19, 1999 at 18:31:39:

In Reply to: Wittgenstein. posted by Red Deathy on March 19, 1999 at 18:10:39:

: Fact remains, if I own the roads into Lancaster, can charge rent on their use, since its my property and I can do with it as I please. the rest of you have to put up or shut up. Anyone tries to build alternative roads, I smash them with my wealth.

Just like that, eternally. So if all the people in Lancatsre stoppped paying you'd somehow have an infinite reserve because you own the road, and repeated attempts to compete can *all* be defeated because of this infinate reserve? No.

: Yes, but big firms, once they are established, can smash small firms, and without a state to stop it, they would do so.

Your assuming some kind of infinite reserve which is not so, as per your lancaster idea. Or is it that the company can continue to make lots of money...for which they need...willing customers. See my response for the competitor dynamic.

: atm we have 'competition laws' (I coulda sworn the market could do that for itself, why are they felt to be necessary?) to stop firms doing that.

Ask yourself why? its a populist vote winner? maybe, it gives govt arbitrary power they can enforce pretty much at will (anti trust laws make just about any business 'guilty' - thats how nebulous they are)? yes that sounds right. Got to keep the cattle in line for regular milking after all, how else could the milkers survive?

: : Only relatively. In absolute terms there are many more rags to riches stories than vice versa.

: But many, many more rags to rags.

I think he means marginally richer rather than $1 to $1million

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup