WHAT?!?!?!?!!!!! How then do you explain the Standard Oil Company building into a multi-state monopoly for 20 or so years IN SPITE OF regulations that were supposed to prevent any company building outside of the state (I believe it was Ohio) at the time by creating unofficial corporate networks??? They didn't actually lose their monopoly until another government regulation came preventing that type of business.

Let me guess, now you are going to defend monopolies, right? Lol

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

But to the point. They may be more motivated but by your logic there is no "more" or "less" motivation. There is only motivation.

But even if they are motivated more by selfish reasons what is that supposed to mean? If you're going to say that it justifies capitalism then you are wrong, because it is irrelevant to the use of selfishness in capitalism. They are separate issues and a false dichotomy.

i guess what I could say is if the standard oil company had attempted to create a monopoly than an alternative fuel source would then be looked at. It's been proven that the electric car is much more efficient and cheaper than a car that runs on gasoline. But an oil company had bought the patent on it so no one could profit from it. I'm very against patents because I believe it stifles innovation. If there was no govn't than we wouldn't have to worry about it and entrepreneurs could profit from cars that use electricity or alternative fuel and wipe out their competition being oil companies.

There would then be no monopoly and oil companies would then have to compete with companies providing alternative fuel sources.

Added (05/Dec/09, 1:28 Am)
---------------------------------------------

We have a job to buy things that we want and need.
We lend helping hands to people in need so we feel good that they are helped. Ask any regular joe that and they will tell you that when they help someone they feel good that they made a difference.

Huh? You obviously haven't studied this yet. John D Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Company were before commercial automobiles even existed let alone had grown to the point that it constituted the entire oil industry or even a large portion of it. Cars were still in the process of being invented when Standard Oil reigned supreme. Oil was mainly refined into kerosene and used in lamps at the time. And they had no patents. Many smaller companies tried to come in to the industry and they used cutthroat and often flat out unethical methods to crush them including dipping the prices so far under what their new competitor could afford to do that they had no choice but to go out of business and then, when they did, they raised the prices back up to whatever they wanted to because they were the only supplier. When an opponent got big enough they would create a network and effectively (although unofficially due to laws of the time) merge. This was the beginning of the trust. This finally ended when Standard was convicted of monopolistic practices and congress passed the Anti-Trust act in 1911. Standard was effectively disbanded and other companies were finally able to enter the industry.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

A CEO lives selfish and owns a big company. This company accumulates money and inherently accumulates power. Due to his selfishness and greed he looks out only for himself and could care less about others. He uses his money and power to benefit himself despite the fact that everyone else is losing out. The dictation of his power has vast ripple effects throughout society and its future. You can see the problem? No one should have so much power and influence to the point where they can negatively or disastrously alter the course of our future and the well being of the earth that supports the preciousness of life that we so love to appreciate.

Added (05/Dec/09, 3:29 Am)
---------------------------------------------
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html

"Judging from the record, Standard Oil did not use predatory price discrimination to drive out competing refiners, nor did its pricing practice have that effect. Whereas there may be a very few cases in which retail kerosene peddlers or dealers went out of business after or during price cutting, there is no real proof that Standard's pricing policies were responsible. I am convinced that Standard did not systematically, if ever, use local price cutting in retailing, or anywhere else, to reduce competition."

"n the first place, such practices are very costly for the large firm, which is always assumed to be the predator. If price is set below average cost, the largest firm will incur the largest losses by virtue of having the largest volume of sales. Losing a dollar on each of 1,000 widgets sold per month is more costly than losing a dollar on each of 100 widgets.

"Second, there is great uncertainty about how long a price war would last. The prospect of incurring losses indefinitely in the hope of someday being able to charge monopolistic prices will give any business person pause. A price war is an extremely risky venture."

"Third, there is nothing stopping the competition (or "prey") from temporarily shutting down and waiting for the price to return to profitable levels. If that strategy is employed, price competition will render the predatory pricing strategy unprofitable--all loss and no compensatory benefit. "

"Fourth, there is the danger that the price war will spread to surrounding markets and cause the alleged predator to incur losses in those markets as well"

There's much much more. It's a very interesting read, and it talks more than just about the irrationality of predatory pricing and the lack of historical evidence of it.