guys I just love talking about economics let me tell you why

[sabinati]

Do people drink wine with their pretzels in France?

don't be silly, the french don't eat pretzels

[Potjeh]

Consumer satisfaction is the measure of how satisfied the consumers are with a specific good or service, taking it's price into account (ie how much bang they think they're getting for their buck). If you're replacing bananas with apples there may be a significant dip in consumer satisfaction since some people just want a banana smoothie, but it depends on how popular the bananas are in the first place (ie if I only buy them once or twice a year anyway, I won't mind replacing them with mangos).

Bananas are a pillar of cuisine in countries with high banana consumption rates and which feature bananas in a wide array of staple recipes, such as in some Central and South American countries.

You don't risk becoming a monopolist, you do it on purpose, so I don't really understand your question.

The market is a flexible term, and it can mean anything from a village to the world. Analogously, monopolies can be local or global. Think of it as the economese for "environment".

People in France don't eat pretzels on the scale that Americans do.

Synthetic oil is not a perfect substitute since it doesn't come anywhere near covering the demand. I guess it could theoretically do that given decades of infrastructural development, but in the meantime an oil monopolist can do whatever he likes. And the most logical thing for him is to use his superior wealth to either sabotage development of synthetic oil or to simply take over that fledgling market as well.

[jorb]

Consumer satisfaction is the measure of how satisfied the consumers are with a specific good or service, taking it's price into account (ie how much bang they think they're getting for their buck). If you're replacing bananas with apples there may be a significant dip in consumer satisfaction since some people just want a banana smoothie, but it depends on how popular the bananas are in the first place (ie if I only buy them once or twice a year anyway, I won't mind replacing them with mangos).

Again, who are these consumers? Is this a statistical average? How dissatisfied do they have to be? Are we taking other factors than price into account? Say durability, further cooking options, use as creative decorations?

Bananas are a pillar of cuisine in countries with high banana consumption rates and which feature bananas in a wide array of staple recipes, such as in some Central and South American countries.

High consumption rates? Staple recipes? Wide array? 12? 47? 50%?

You don't risk becoming a monopolist, you do it on purpose, so I don't really understand your question.

How was Microsoft supposed to know that packeting internet explorer with windows would lend them an anti-trust suit from a disgruntled eurocrat? Normally that would be considered a consumer service, no?

Do you by this mean that the crime has to be intentional? If so, to what degree does intent have to be proven? If I control 100% of the market, yet have manifestly never ever sought to establish a monopoly, am I guilty of this crime?

The market is a flexible term, and it can mean anything from a village to the world. Analogously, monopolies can be local or global. Think of it as the economese for "environment".

So if I operate the only shop in city A (100% of the market), 80% in City B, 20% in City C, am I a monopolist? Wouldn't shutting down my monopoly in City A be a bad thing? Should city A not have a shop? Is the market percentage interesting in itself, or is it my act of having "dictated prices" that is? If so, does it have to be proven in a court of law that I have, in fact, "dictated prices"?

People in France don't eat pretzels on the scale that Americans do.

... so? The reason I asked was that you claimed wine to be "perfectly substitutable for beer" in France, which it obviously isn't, other than as a tired cultural cliché of what French people like and don't like.

Synthetic oil is not a perfect substitute since it doesn't come anywhere near covering the demand.

Your definition of what this alleged crime actually is keeps on swelling. Do ersatz goods have to be capable of fulfilling demand? But demand for what? Fuel? Demand is obviously not static. If oil was cheaper than it is, demand would rise. If it were more expensive, demand would fall. What demand, at what point in time, is determining this, and -- again -- how do you propose we measure this?

I guess it could theoretically do that given decades of infrastructural development, but in the meantime an oil monopolist can do whatever he likes. And the most logical thing for him is to use his superior wealth to either sabotage development of synthetic oil or to simply take over that fledgling market as well.

So he invests his money into synthetic oil. Is the development of synthetic oil to be prohibited? Generally, or just for petroleum tycoons? If *I* owned a petroleum company I would see synthetic oil as not only the future, but as an excellent area for RnD and future investments. Should I be prevented from attempting to develop synthetic oils? Do you not think that that could stifle the synthetic oil industry? Do people who are already invested in a particular market (say oil) not have special advantage, talent and experience with that particular market that makes them especially *well* suited for exploring future developments of it? Kind of the way that Google pours shit-tons of money into cool and awesome computer research projects? Is this a bad thing? Why would we want to prohibit the market leaders -- who obviously know the market in and out -- from exploring new ventures in it? Of course they stand to profit, but so what? Is that a bad thing?

[downpourguy]

Oh, my brain! It bleeds!

[Potjeh]

You poll the consumers to get the average satisfaction. What each individual consumer decides is important for his satisfaction is his own business.

Are you pulling the sorites paradox on me?

You are a monopolist in cities A and B if you use underhanded methods to prevent competition from gaining a foothold. Government regulation is about stopping you from using these methods.

I didn't claim that wine is a perfect substitute for beer in France, I said that beer is a perfect substitute for wine in America, since your average American has no taste (just look at how popular Bud Light is).

Demand for oil doesn't respond to changes in prices in the same way that demand for chocolate does. Demand for some goods, such as energy or medicine, is nigh perfectly inelastic. Goods like these are what you want to monopolize, since you can get away with much more price gauging, especially when there's no ersatz that can adequately cover the demand.

The problem isn't if you branch out into synthetic fuels, the problem is if you undertake a series of hostile takeovers for the purpose of maintaining your stranglehold on the oil market.


Anyway, I don't see us getting anywhere in this direction since you refuse to accept any common economics terminology, so let's take a look at your stance from another angle. Do you oppose *all* government regulation of business? Health and safety standards? Pollution standards? Enforcement of contracts?

[krawco]

It means a company holds a large enough share of the market to dictate the prices.

Are bananas to be considered one market, or is there a general fruit category?

Both?

edit: uh, sry, didn't notice the next page =p
Just ignore this ^^

[jorb]

if you use underhanded methods to prevent competition from gaining a foothold

Is this a general requirement for the crime in question? That I have to use "underhanded methods"? If so that's again something you just added to the definition (nothing wrong with that per se, but don't you see the mountain of bloat that you're begging to pile up?) Do you understand how this law that you've now formulated over the last couple of pages will be impossible to apply in any sort of consistent fashion, seeing as how even the trivial cases I can pull out of my ass give you enormous problems in terms of measurability and objective standards? Do you see how it is impossible for me as a company owner to know whether I'm committing this crime or not, precisely because the law isn't formulated in any sort of fashion that is anywhere near clear?

Demand for oil doesn't respond to changes in prices in the same way that demand for chocolate does. Demand for some goods, such as energy or medicine, is nigh perfectly inelastic.

Another special case qualifier, I take it?

The problem isn't if you branch out into synthetic fuels, the problem is if you undertake a series of hostile takeovers for the purpose of maintaining your stranglehold on the oil market.

Ah, so again the definition changes? I must now engage in "hostile takeovers" in order to have committed this crime? Could you define hostile takeover? Does it involve the use of force or threat thereof? If not, how is it hostile? If I simply buy up the competition -- and they're all happy to sell to me at an agreed upon price -- does this fall within your definition of what the crime here actually is?

You refuse to accept any common economics terminology,

Odd, that, considering how clear and well defined the terminology seems to be. Most of what passes for economic "science" today does indeed fail to meet minimum standards of comprehensibility, with the notable exception being the Austrian economists in the school after Böhm-Bawerk. I'm also quite fond of Ricardo, Smith, Say and Bastiat, and several other classical economists as well.

Do you oppose *all* government regulation of business? Health and safety standards? Pollution standards? Enforcement of contracts?

Government sanctioned force is my absolutely last resort when confronted with a societal problem. I realize the dangers inherent in making laws and writing them poorly (it's what we do when we develop Haven, and you know how bad that can get when we write poor rules), and I have also come across so many laws in my study of the subject that must reasonably have been written by five-year olds, considering how murky any application of them must necessarily become. Often times when I read laws, I doubt that the lawmaker himself even knew how he intended for the law to be applied, kind of like how you now don't have a clue how this anti-trust law of yours is actually to be applied to anything resembling a concrete situation. I realize the danger inherent in the application of government force in terms of unintended consequences, and I generally try to resist the urge to advocate laws, since people usually find a way around most problems without the government being there to "help" them.

I notice through experience that often times the government accomplishes precisely the opposite of what it sets out to accomplish when it tries to meddle with market behaviors, as its interference often prevent people from applying or thinking of creative solutions to the alleged problems. I think there are several institutional problems that plague the very essence of what it means to be a government (No connection between work well done and reward for those working in the institutions, inverse connection between budget and the keeping of the same (if you fail to meet a budget you get more money). The lack of a profitability clause or even a "consumer satisfaction" clause means that government institutions cannot spontaneously die (unlike poorly managed companies, for instance), but are instead perpetuated by default. Disconnect between the people who make the decisions (politicians) and those who pay for them (taxpayers). Etc, etc etc.

I would not say yes or no to any particular one of those ideas before I had the actual text of the law before me, but generally I oppose the expansion of the legal apparatus. Laws are very crude tools that must deal with extremely complex realities, and I can assure you that there are no such things as "text book cases". All actual cases contain a myriad of factors that are impossible to predict, which is why the excesses of lawmaking are so incredibly dangerous. Another danger inherent in making a law is that you now have to support and enforce it forever. To maintain a law on safety standards you will have to create a whole bureaucracy of government inspectors running around measuring the distance between steps in stairs, which generally fosters a mentality of dependence on others as well as a general air of irresponsibility! (I lived up to the safety standards, no one can blame me!)

Enforcement of contracts is the one I can say immediately yes to. I think that is something that the government should do. Pollution and health & safety standards should be considered cases of a general law dealing with damages -- with the onus of proof placed on the person claiming to have suffered a damage -- and thus require no immediate special legislation. Pollution can be tricky, but again I see no immediate need for any special legislation, but I shall readily admit to not having considered all the potential cases.

Again: How was Microsoft supposed to know that bundling IE with Windows was against the law, given that the law looks kinda like the one you just defined? (Because you're in the right ballpark. Anti-trust laws do kinda look like that, and I've read at least two.)

[jorb]

Also, I am genuinely sorry if I sound like a smart-ass-hat. I don't really mean to.

[Sotsa]

Also, I am genuinely sorry if I sound like a smart-ass-hat. I don't really mean to.

no but you sound like a big nerd about the topic and your posts make my brain explode. : D

[Jackard]

this looks like a lot of crap that should be split into its own thread. or am i wrong