: Their competition is from you deciding to find other ways, get a bike, moped, pool cars, hire your own minibus etc etc.
If I have the money, sometimes I can only afford teh bus, and need to take it.
How about trying again with water? Even though they must keep their prices low enough to keep custom, its stil a monopoly, and still one they are gaining heavilly from.
: ....A mixed economy with some success. Soon put a stop to that though - all those commoners building factories and becoming richer than the landed gentry! whatever next.
I think it was the threat of revolution from below put a stop to it, though the Feudal class did try and ally with the Proles, it being more socially aware (ideology wise) than the middle class.
:Thus, who did they seek to incentivize the most?
How long would microsoft last without claening staff?
: Since you define poverty as relative to others then indeed no one can be, even if everyone had no more than bowl of rice per day, they would not be relatively poorer than the next man. Hence my comment that poverty should be defined objectively if it is to mean anything.
Since we have riches in the world, a bowl of rice a day (dead Kennedies, (Holliday in Cambodia', am I right?)is patently poor.
: There has been no proof any more than we could offer Russia as proof of communist failings.
I think teh Hopal factor and teh proof against Free-market law, and the problem of money have been presented and un-rebutted.
:You get the point though - selectiveness.
I'm a partisan, I'm not here to make your points for you, of course I am selective.