Happy Birthday Fidel

[7960]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

You just obviously dont understand the system if you think that

I'm using YOUR explanation.

Are you sure YOU understand it?

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Monopolies only form with government assistance in some way, natural monopolies don't exist. Government does nothing good.

Monopolies come from competition. In any competition there is eventually only one winner and one is a monopoly.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm using YOUR explanation.

Are you sure YOU understand it?

I do. But i think you are completely puzzled. You will have to walk me through your point, if u think you have one to make.

Tell you what. Make your point very clearly, and i'll bat it out the field. Deal?

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Monopolies come from competition. In any competition there is eventually only one winner and one is a monopoly.

No they don't, there has never been a monopoly without government interference, they are an unnatural occurence.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

Make your point very clearly, and i'll bat it out the field.

cuba sucks because of fidel.

go.

[wanna be drummer]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

I do. But i think you are completely puzzled. You will have to walk me through your point, if u think you have one to make.

Tell you what. Make your point very clearly, and i'll bat it out the field. Deal?

Sheesh, whats with this superiority complex? Go back and reread his posts if you're confused instead of making him repost so its easier for you to understand...it was quite self-explanatory

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

The worker does own the means of production as a member of the collective workforce.

Incorrect. The worker owns nothing with regards to the means of production. The collective owns everything with regards to the means of production. The worker cannot legitimately claim ownership of anything if he is unable to exercise proprietory rights associated with his personal ownership. This is not the same as ownership in joint tenancy that is found in Capitalism. In socialism, the worker cannot sell (sell to the effect that he no longer owns it) his means of production, which means he has no equity rights. He cannot alter the value of his means of production, which means he has no custody rights. The only way that he can sell his means of production or alter the value of his means of production is by asking the owner, the collective, to act on his behalf. Again, you're trying to apply individualism to collectivism, which just plain inconsistent.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

No they don't, there has never been a monopoly without government interference, they are an unnatural occurence.

The trusts ,monopolies, were busted up by Roosevelt since then anti trust laws have been used to keep them from happening. The government is supposidly vigilantly trying to make sure there is compeition in the markets. The reason company take overs have to get government approval.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

The trusts ,monopolies, were busted up by Roosevelt since then anti trust laws have been used to keep them from happening. The government is supposidly vigilantly trying to make sure there is compeition in the markets. The reason company take overs have to get government approval.

The Sherman Antitrust Act was adopted in 1890, long before Roosevelt. Yet, there wasn't a single monopoly before the act. Instead of protecting competition, antitrust laws actually protect certain politically-favored competitors.
A monopoly is impossible in a completely free market, only with government can a monopoly be formed, and antitrust itself has never done anything but make American industry less competitive.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

The Sherman Antitrust Act was adopted in 1890, long before Roosevelt. Yet, there wasn't a single monopoly before the act. Instead of protecting competition, antitrust laws actually protect certain politically-favored competitors.
A monopoly is impossible in a completely free market, only with government can a monopoly be formed, and antitrust itself has never done anything but make American industry less competitive.

What were the trusts if not monopolies and they were busted. How can there not be monopolies in capitalism. In a competition if it is allowed to go to completion always has a winner that means one company thus a monopoly.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

What were the trusts if not monopolies and they were busted. How can there not be monopolies in capitalism. In a competition if it is allowed to go to completion always has a winner that means one company thus a monopoly.

Originally there weren't any trusts to be busted.
Capitalism isn't a game where there is simple a winner and a loser.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Originally there weren't any trusts to be busted.
Capitalism isn't a game where there is simple a winner and a loser.

They made anti trusts laws when they were no trusts doesn't make sense to me better check your history or your revised history. I know there is a lot of that going around people twisting history for their own designs. Capitalism is not so complex. It is a game, a competition, that is what makes it work without it you don't have capitalism and that is where the problem is when there is no competition then companies get away with murder or Monopolistic pricing.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

They made anti trusts laws when they were no trusts doesn't make sense to me better check your history or your revised history.

Yeah, duh. There wasn't an actual monopoly in existence in America when the first laws were passed.

Originally Posted by Rouger2

I know there is a lot of that going around people twisting history for their own designs.

Yeah, its called public school. It sounds like you've been indoctrinated very well.

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Capitalism is not so complex. It is a game, a competition, that is what makes it work without it you don't have capitalism and that is where the problem is when there is no competition then companies get away with murder or Monopolistic pricing.

What? You're contradicting yourself, does it work or not?
Competition will exist as long as there are no market barriers (AKA government).

[wanna be drummer]

What does all this have to do with Fidel guys?

[Rouger2]

Yeah better get back on Fidel we are getting no where fast. Who is going to replace him dictators like royality are often followed by their spoiled and often perverted children and relatives.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Incorrect. The worker owns nothing with regards to the means of production.

what he *means* when he says that is the worker is the muscle, and without the worker nothing would get built. so the worker "owns" the means of production because the worker is the horse, the slave, the machine.

but once the thing is built, once the last nail is driven, it becomes the state's to distribute..........that's where his system sucks.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Yeah better get back on Fidel we are getting no where fast. Who is going to replace him dictators like royality are often followed by their spoiled and often perverted children and relatives.

Fidel is not and never gas been a dictator. Any President must be like Fidel and Raul, elected by the National Assembly of People's Power.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

Fidel is not and never gas been a dictator. Any President must be like Fidel and Raul, elected by the National Assembly of People's Power.

who did Raul run against?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

Fidel is not and never gas been a dictator.

Incorrect.