-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Interesting... I must make a note of that.
A good example of what might happen if the Tories and Nat Libs split.
Enewald probably thinks that Monetarists are some breed of leftie socialists because they favour government intervention (which, as we all know, is evil Stalinist Tyranny) in regards to the money supply.
Hayek and Mises are not Monetarists and are opposed to Central Banking. But as he and for example Hazlitt they are not anarchi capitalists, want a small welfare state and it is not laissez-faire.
Speaking of Hazlitt, you should read his Economics in One Lesson, really well written and a good read - even if you're not a free-marketeer or (classical-)liberal.
If it happens you'll know.
I sense either a AAR note or the possibility of Tanzhang establishing a Right-Winged Alliance.
I have absolutely no idea what my honourable friend is on about.
(and hopefully neither does the Member for Leeds South...)
I'm making a point about Enewald's zealotry there.
Maybe, but for example a state is needed as for example a free-market is useless without property rights and someone who can protect others from coercion and frauds.
So you agree with Antonine then? (He made an argument about sixty pages ago that a free market requires some regulation, anti-trust laws and so forth, in order for it to be truly free because trusts and cartels are distortions of the free market.)
I have absolutely no idea what my honourable friend is on about.
(and hopefully neither does the Member for Leeds South...)
It was just a quip, in any case.
No cos his regulations are totally different. Mine are focusing on negative rights, while his is focusing on positive rights. And anti-trust laws etc are mainly based upon the assumptions that it will no matter what be established monopolies, and of they forms for some reason they can't face competition from either foreign entrepeneurs or domestic ones.
If a monopoly had prices way over the market demand, then people would start to import from cheaper countries or entrepenurs would create competition that have the market price. Same principle as external threats to cartels. Or even the market functions to oligopolies; the monopoly raise the price the new ones will have a lower price resulting in the monopoly loosing profits or even going in deficits. If they lower the prices the conpetitors wil follow up and it will be status quo.
Last edited:
But surely the sheer power of a monopoly allows it to easily crush competition if unchecked by legislation? And while imports might help consumers to deal with a national monopoly, what about a multinational one?
Why do you assume so? What do you base this upon? Ironically it is the governments efforts into not establishing monopolies that create it. It is often barriers created by government legislation that creates monopolies or state issued monopolies (either a state company or the state giving rights to a company) that well.. make monopolies possible. Under these circumstances the monopolies can't fail as they are protected by the law. In a free-market they are only controlled by the market laws. So let us say that a company gets a monopoly on milk in UK. If they are going to have extreme high prices they need to control all the milk in UK, all the cattle and so on. And they need to find a way to prevent a farmer from producing milk on it's own or foreign milk producers selling milk to Britain, British citizens buying foreign milk and buying up all potential mill producers. That is impossible, unless they have a market price or a price the consumers accept. Also we have alternative goods to milk, that means that british citizens might stop consuming milk infavor of something else.
But one way the monopoly, or aspiring one, can get total monopoly and control over the market is to make the goverment legislate tarriffs that make it unprofitable for foreign milk and them establishing companies in Britain and creating legal barriers making it impossible to be a milk producer.
Other than that the rules of oligopolies and external threats to cartels apply here. So the monopoly do need to follow market rules. Also monopolies have this nasty habit of not modernizing. This is because they think they got complete control. Suddenly someone come up with a better solution that produce a better quality milk or a cheaper milk. Thus the old market rules are back and the monopoly loose consumers as they simply can't keep up. Also milk and other goods are so basic that the demand curve is really steep, that means that one small positive shift will produce a vast drop in demand.
Bah, freedom freedom freedom liberty.
The economy should be controlled by the state and used for invasion purposes. Screw everyone's self-obsession with 'individual liberties.'
The economy should be controlled by the state and used for invasion purposes. Screw everyone's self-obsession with 'individual liberties.'
Aye. Let's bring in some proper military men to steer this ship back on the right course.
The government should protects it's citizens. Both from other citizens, other nations and the government itself. The laws was meant to serve the citizens, now the laws are made so the citizens can serve the law.
And under what definition is the government supposed to serve citizens?
For thousands of years the government existed to serve the government. When citizens started whining about stupid things, suddenly the government is obligated to serve citizens from...(gasp)...the government!
Jesus Christ said this about laws. So that is the will of your God.
- Status