Refleft capitalist on thom hartmann

[RGacky3]

JPBUHXp8sRw

Almost verbatum arguments from a right wing capitalist on the thom hartmann show, every argument is basically the same thrown around on revleft.

He starts out with a strawman, and ends up just in nonsense, Thom Hartmann does a good job, but an actual socialist would have been much better.

[#FF0000]

"Name one, please"
"UH"

[#FF0000]

And then immediately afterwards Thom Hartmann breaks my heart.

[ZombieRothbard]

Both people in the debate are idiots, except at least Ferrara seems to acknowledge that there cannot be monopolies in a free market.

[#FF0000]

I think that's kind of a moot point since the "free market" ancaps talk about exist only in dreams.

[RGacky3]

Both people in the debate are idiots, except at least Ferrara seems to acknowledge that there cannot be monopolies in a free market.


What #FF0000 said, also the freer the market the more monopolistic the economy.

[EdgyandOriginal]

Both people in the debate are idiots, except at least Ferrara seems to acknowledge that there cannot be monopolies in a free market.
This is only true under the assumption of 'perfect competition' where the average production costs of a firm rises as it grows due to “diminishing marginal returns”. In reality, larger firms have huge cost advantages in producing goods. Capitalism creates monopolies.

[ZombieRothbard]

This is only true under the assumption of 'perfect competition' where the average production costs of a firm rises as it grows due to “diminishing marginal returns”. In reality, larger firms have huge cost advantages in producing goods. Capitalism creates monopolies.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2169518&postcount=25

[EdgyandOriginal]

...
(If I understand correctly) your argument focuses on monopoly power. I was challenging your claim that a free market prevents monopolies.

Anyway, I don't see the logic of your claim that as 'they raise the price, the amount of consumers willing to spend the money shrinks'. Surely once a monopoly has been established, consumers will have no choice but to accept whatever price (within reason) is set (assuming they need the product), as there is no alternative. The demand curve (when extrapolated to society as a whole) will only 'slope down' assuming that (a) all people have the same tastes and (b) each person’s tastes remain the same in response to reduced choice. In reality the demand curve will not be smooth, more a jagged mess.

There's also issues of innovation, choice accountability, quality and investment.

[ZombieRothbard]

(If I understand correctly) your argument focuses on monopoly power. I was challenging your claim that a free market prevents monopolies.

Well it is semantics then, because saying something is "monopolistic" is useless to an Austrian Schooler, because it doesn't tell us much of anything by doing so. If they charge a monopoly price, that is all that matters.


Anyway, I don't see the logic of your claim that as 'they raise the price, the amount of consumers willing to spend the money shrinks'. Surely once a monopoly has been established, consumers will have no choice but to accept whatever price (within reason) is set (assuming they need the product), as there is no alternative. You said "within reason" which is important to mention, and also you said "as there is no alternative". There are always alternatives. For example, if somebody monopolizes the hamburger industry (assuming they somehow have managed to accomplish the almost impossible task of buying up all the cattle on Earth) then they still will have to compete with poultry and fish etc, meaning they will still have to charge competitive rates for their beef.

The NFL has a monopoly on football in North America, yet they still are constantly changing the rules and attempting to make the games more interesting. Why? Because they are competing with baseball, hockey and also all the shows on television etc. In this way, all goods and services on the market are in competition with each other. If you jack the price up of hamburgers, people may use that money to buy poultry, perhaps they will use it to buy carrots, or maybe even buy a plane ticket to Hawaii.



The demand curve (when extrapolated to society as a whole) will only 'slope down' assuming that (a) all people have the same tastes and (b) each person’s tastes remain the same in response to reduced choice. In reality the demand curve will not be smooth, more a jagged mess.I don't see the relevance of this, after my statement above.


There's also issues of innovation, choice accountability, quality and investment.Indeed, however I fail to see how mentioning these things has any impact on Rothbardian Monopoly Price Theory.

[ZombieRothbard]

Crickets after I explain why monopoly prices are a myth.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

i want to fucking stab both these people, but guess who first?

[RGacky3]

i want to fucking stab both these people, but guess who first?


You should see someone.

[Dean]

You said "within reason" which is important to mention, and also you said "as there is no alternative". There are always alternatives. For example, if somebody monopolizes the hamburger industry (assuming they somehow have managed to accomplish the almost impossible task of buying up all the cattle on Earth) then they still will have to compete with poultry and fish etc, meaning they will still have to charge competitive rates for their beef.

The NFL has a monopoly on football in North America, yet they still are constantly changing the rules and attempting to make the games more interesting. Why? Because they are competing with baseball, hockey and also all the shows on television etc. In this way, all goods and services on the market are in competition with each other. If you jack the price up of hamburgers, people may use that money to buy poultry, perhaps they will use it to buy carrots, or maybe even buy a plane ticket to Hawaii.

Entertainment is an interchangeable commodity. It is not what people generally refer to in "monopoly price" arguments since it refers to a good that can be replaced by an inferior one.

Water and energy resources, for instance, often experience real monopoly price issues - and groups like Koch Industries and Cargill have been the monopolizers in those industries.

[danyboy27]

i can confirm you that price fixing by monopolies are actually real.

go on the dell or the apple website and try to purchase a spare part for your macbook or your dell laptop.

[eric922]

Both people in the debate are idiots, except at least Ferrara seems to acknowledge that there cannot be monopolies in a free market. I don't agree with Thom Hartmann on everything, or else I wouldn't be a Marxist, but I can't agree that he is an idiot. He is a very smart man and I've learned a lot from his show. He is also very open to debate on his show from both the left and the right. At one point he had the president of the CPUSA on his show to talk about the BP spill and how he thinks the government should handle it and Thom ended up praising his ideas about nationalization. He isn't a Marxist, but I think like Bernie Sanders he considers himself a democratic socialist. So I do think it is wrong and unfair to dismiss Hartman as an "idiot."