or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by jahonen

  Depends where you are I guess as well. I can understand your viewpoint living in the US, where the corruption index is 7.1/10. I live in the nordics, where it's in the 9.x/10 range and I don't have any problems with the police or military forces here. Can't remember seeing any news on opressing people with force in recent history.
  Thank you for finally spelling out your ideology. I find parts of it very similar to my thinking, but my disagreement comes from the fact that I do not believe  that if capitalism is left without any guards, it would definitely NOT self regulate and would create a slaving monopoly and/or cartel system. How for example you can see the mining societies, which exploited (and still do in Africa - blood diamonds for example) as government-supported and protected crony...
  OK. Then a question. Do you see the proposal of forcing investment banking and savings banking to be separate a bad regulatory tactic or a good one? Actually I'm pretty sure of your answer, but if it is as I suspect, I'll stop here.
Are you saying that the current financial crisis started with government intervention as well? 
  I am quite aware of that. It's actually not a monopoly, but closer to a cartel, which is just as bad.    It's ML1970 who doesn't seem to see that but that's fine. It seems that he advocates anarchy because he is afraid of the possibility that a government may use force against it's own people, not necessarily the governance part. But he'll quickly correct me if I misunderstood him. I just have a hard time seeing that how can you guarantee any protection against violence...
  And yet you fail to see how companies in an unrestricted country would gain monopolies, where they could set prices at will without competitions.
  Yes. Basically a practical monopoly tried to limit end user choice to be able to buy a better product at a cheaper price. So they acted as a market entry barrier.
  My bad, I left out the name of the other company: AMD.   http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/intel-tentatively-settles-ftc-antitrust-suit/
  It very often does, but it doesn't have to be if done properly. 
  Hmm. So you are saying that all the antitrust lawsuits pushed by governments against uncompetitive practices of companies in a commandeering or otherwise powerful role are bad for competition? Or did I get your gist wrong somehow?   Look for example at the Intel case where they denied processors to companies that wanted to use the cheaper and faster (thus better) processors. Is that bad legislation? If it isn't, how would you do that without a state?
New Posts  All Forums: