Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues

[Carcharodon]

If the natural monopoly prices it's good higher than the lowest price a competitor can charge than it risks its natural monopoly.

...but wouldn't it be possible for them to be able to buy out the competition or destroy it before it's able to become a threat (a legitimate competitor)?

 

[StorminNorman]

If all the competition sells their company, what are you going to do? Prevent them from doing what they want with their own company? Such a policy, however, would be difficult to maintain. How do you propose they destroy their competition?

 

[Carcharodon]

If all the competition sells their company, what are you going to do? Prevent them from doing what they want with their own company?

No, but that's beside the point entirely. Doesn't it hurt the free market?

Such a policy, however, would be difficult to maintain. How do you propose they destroy their competition?

I don't know, but if they're unregulated, they probably have some options open to them. What's stopping them?

 

[Spidey-Bat]

The BP oil well will be completely sealed today.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/17/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?iref=allsearch

 

[StorminNorman]

No, but that's beside the point entirely. Doesn't it hurt the free market?

No. The ability of their competitors to sell their company is the free market.

I don't know, but if they're unregulated, they probably have some options open to them. What's stopping them?

The law, mainly. Also the self interest of the other companies. It is actually far easier to destroy companies with regulation.

Lets take a look at what you are proposing. Company Alpha is huge and powerful. They made their place in the market by offering the best product at the cheapest price. A change in philosophy has taken over and Alpha has reduced quality while increasing price.

Company Bravo is a proposed competitor to Alpha. There are significant costs of entry into this market, but they are willing to accept those costs in search of long term products.

Company Alpha wants to prevent Bravo from entering the market. Alpha, with it's money and resources not dedicated to entering the industry, buy lobbyists. Lobbyists influence government policy that increase the amount of Federal regulation in the industry - increasing the costs of entering the industry. There is an increase in the minimum wage - increasing labor costs. Suddenly Company Bravo doesn't have enough initial capital to jump through federal hoops and still develop the necessary infrastructure to make a dent in the market.

The Free Market is not only free of government intervention but free of COERCION. That's the key and laws must be in place to prevent that coercion.

 

[Carcharodon]

No. The ability of their competitors to sell their company is the free market.

Again, you're side-stepping the point. If competitors are bought out, the consumer doesn't benefit from their presence in the market. Remember how competition is vital to the function of the free market?

The Free Market is not only free of government intervention but free of COERCION. That's the key and laws must be in place to prevent that coercion.

Does not compute. Is that not entirely contradictory?

 

[Marx]

The BP oil well will be completely sealed today.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/17/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?iref=allsearch

That is great news. Now maybe they can start getting the oil off of the bottom of the sea floor...

 

[Kelly]

They are finding this oil on the continental slope, it will be close to impossible to do much about that oil....there are hundreds of slopes, salt domes, etc....it will be very hard to do much in this case....IMO.

 

[Carcharodon]

That is great news. Now maybe they can start getting the oil off of the bottom of the sea floor...

I'm not sure they could do this without causing more damage to the sea floor. The only viable option would appear to be bioremediation (like the oil-eating microbes), but I have no idea what their tolerance is with respect to sea floor conditions (pressure, temperature and salinity).

 

[Marx]

They are finding this oil on the continental slope, it will be close to impossible to do much about that oil....there are hundreds of slopes, salt domes, etc....it will be very hard to do much in this case....IMO.

I'm not sure they could do this without causing more damage to the sea floor. The only viable option would appear to be bioremediation (like the oil-eating microbes), but I have no idea what their tolerance is with respect to sea floor conditions (pressure, temperature and salinity).

Yeah, I'm not exactly sure how they would manage to clean the sea floor...but it's a shame to think that all of the oil is now resting there. (And will likely be there forever.)

 

[Marx]

IT'S OFFICIAL! THE BLOWN OUT GULF OIL WELL IS DEAD
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/19/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2

 

[StorminNorman]

Again, you're side-stepping the point. If competitors are bought out, the consumer doesn't benefit from their presence in the market. Remember how competition is vital to the function of the free market?

Competition is one of the vital reasons the Free Market is essential, but it is not what makes the Free Markets right. It's the recognition of property rights that does. I never want the government to be able to prevent the owners of company A to be able to tell the owner of company A that he CAN'T sell his company to anyone. Or that he can't buy any company he can without coercion.

Does not compute. Is that not entirely contradictory?

No. Just as libertarians want a life without government intervention without supporting anarchy.

Again, it comes down to property rights and liability. Say, for example, a hamburger chain poisons a lot of kids with undercooked chicken nuggets. Lassie Faire does not prevent the company from being punished through the courts in way of civil law. If Company Bravo intimidates the owners of Companies Alpha, Charlie and Delta that they have to keep prices high or they are going to kidnap their mothers, nothing prevents Company Bravo for being thrown in jail.

In a Lassie-Faire economy the government will perform it's only valid reason to exist: the protection of laws.

You can't compare the impact a well known, common sense (anti-coercion) law has on the economy than a group of Washington-lobbyist-self serving bureaucrats passing regulation.

 

[Carcharodon]

Competition is one of the vital reasons the Free Market is essential, but it is not what makes the Free Markets right. It's the recognition of property rights that does. I never want the government to be able to prevent the owners of company A to be able to tell the owner of company A that he CAN'T sell his company to anyone. Or that he can't buy any company he can without coercion.

None of this does anything to refute my claim that, without regulation, nothing can stop monopolies from forming and sustaining themselves once they reach a certain level of wealth and control.

I question the validity of the claim that it is easier for monopolies to form under our current regulatory system than under the operation of a "free market".

No. Just as libertarians want a life without government intervention without supporting anarchy.

That seems impossible, to be frank. I suppose it would help me to understand that viewpoint if you were to define "government intervention."

Again, it comes down to property rights and liability. Say, for example, a hamburger chain poisons a lot of kids with undercooked chicken nuggets. Lassie Faire does not prevent the company from being punished through the courts in way of civil law. If Company Bravo intimidates the owners of Companies Alpha, Charlie and Delta that they have to keep prices high or they are going to kidnap their mothers, nothing prevents Company Bravo for being thrown in jail.

In a Lassie-Faire economy the government will perform it's only valid reason to exist: the protection of laws.

You can't compare the impact a well known, common sense (anti-coercion) law has on the economy than a group of Washington-lobbyist-self serving bureaucrats passing regulation.

Heh..."lassie."

I'm not saying that the current system of regulation doesn't need reform (as clearly indicated by the astounding failure of the MMS to perform its function), but that's a far cry from deregulation.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Snowstorm the Size of Australia Hits New Zealand

http://www.sage-life.org/?p=494


Tell me thats normal.

 

[Gamma Ray]

Snowstorm the Size of Australia Hits New Zealand

http://www.sage-life.org/?p=494


Tell me thats normal.

That picture is unrelated to the story. It's not as big a deal as it sounds.

 

[Hobgoblin]

A snow storm of that size is no big deal?

 

[Gamma Ray]

A snow storm of that size is no big deal?

It's not a big deal as the write up makes it sound. That image shows how little the editor cares for accuracy.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/42857/

Seems to me that nothing more than a 10 year old stadium was severely damaged.

 

[StorminNorman]

None of this does anything to refute my claim that, without regulation, nothing can stop monopolies from forming and sustaining themselves once they reach a certain level of wealth and control.

I question the validity of the claim that it is easier for monopolies to form under our current regulatory system than under the operation of a "free market".

The only scenario that demonstrates the existent of such a monopoly is farcical to the extreme. It would require a company with a never ending supply of revenue allowing it to purchase every competitor at the price their owners value it. As the company spent more and more on buying out competitors, the costs of those purchases will have to be paid through a rise in cost. As the costs rises, in comes room in the market for competition. Remember, monopolies in a free market can exist only if the monopoly can sell a good at a cheaper price than any competitor.

Just google Government-generated monopolies. It's a term so common it has a wikipedia page. Then consider this. You agree that there are inherit costs in a business for agreeing to regulation, correct? That includes all sorts of regulation - including acts like the Americans with Disabilities Act. In order to abiding by that regulation, you must take certain precautions that you may not otherwise make in a skeleton budget. Now the costs can be high or low, but money is spent on certain objects that would otherwise have not been bought. That's extra costs of entry. That inherently decreases competition.

Now I can admit that it's not all that cutting a defense to bring up the extra costs of wheel chair ramps for companies large enough to be effected by the ADA. Consider the FDA's cost of 1.6 million dollars to get your drug tested. That's not even a guarantee.

If you are a small company pharmaceutical company you may have three amazing drugs, but can only afford to get one tested. And then that drug doesn't become a hit, you can't recover your losses and the other two never see the light of day.

A 1.6 million dollar tag on drug testing is idiotic. And Obama wants to raise it.

That seems impossible, to be frank. I suppose it would help me to understand that viewpoint if you were to define "government intervention."

Government intervention is when government manipulates with the markets. That's regulation. That's subsidies. That's tariffs. Etc. It is not laws that protect private property.

 

[Carcharodon]

The only scenario that demonstrates the existent of such a monopoly is farcical to the extreme. It would require a company with a never ending supply of revenue allowing it to purchase every competitor at the price their owners value it. As the company spent more and more on buying out competitors, the costs of those purchases will have to be paid through a rise in cost. As the costs rises, in comes room in the market for competition. Remember, monopolies in a free market can exist only if the monopoly can sell a good at a cheaper price than any competitor.

Just google Government-generated monopolies. It's a term so common it has a wikipedia page. Then consider this. You agree that there are inherit costs in a business for agreeing to regulation, correct? That includes all sorts of regulation - including acts like the Americans with Disabilities Act. In order to abiding by that regulation, you must take certain precautions that you may not otherwise make in a skeleton budget. Now the costs can be high or low, but money is spent on certain objects that would otherwise have not been bought. That's extra costs of entry. That inherently decreases competition.

The problem is that all either of us can offer is conjecture. I'm aware that regulation incurs additional costs on businesses. What I question is the degree to which that is the case, and whether that has greater effects on decreasing competition than a company could in a free market. I'm not convinced that the "free market" could provide greater measures against monopolization than the system we have now.

Now I can admit that it's not all that cutting a defense to bring up the extra costs of wheel chair ramps for companies large enough to be effected by the ADA. Consider the FDA's cost of 1.6 million dollars to get your drug tested. That's not even a guarantee.

If you are a small company pharmaceutical company you may have three amazing drugs, but can only afford to get one tested. And then that drug doesn't become a hit, you can't recover your losses and the other two never see the light of day.

A 1.6 million dollar tag on drug testing is idiotic. And Obama wants to raise it.

You may have three dangerous drugs, too. How do you know that $1.6 million is sufficient for effective testing? How do you know it's too much? How many drug studies have you been involved with?

Government intervention is when government manipulates with the markets. That's regulation. That's subsidies. That's tariffs. Etc. It is not laws that protect private property.

Ah, k. The problem I was having was that any enforcement of any law could be termed "government intervention." Thanks.

 

[Carcharodon]

Seems to me that nothing more than a 10 year old stadium was severely damaged.

Or, there's, you know...the supermarket with the collapsed roof. Mentioned in the article you posted.

I think the article focused on the stadium (and mentioned the supermarket roof) to illustrate the sheer amount of snow that has been falling. The amount of snow required to do something like that is probably significant. The fact that these buildings were the articles' focus doesn't mean that other damage hasn't occurred.

For you to dismiss this as "no big deal" on such a basis is absurd and illogical. Furthermore, your claim that the editor cares little for accuracy based on the picture is based on...what? The picture from the other article? I'd like you to explain that, because I'm lost in the apparent lack of logic.

I'm not claiming that this is the result of climate change. I'm claiming that your comments are asinine, so let's put that to rest right now before continuing.

 

[StorminNorman]

The problem is that all either of us can offer is conjecture. I'm aware that regulation incurs additional costs on businesses. What I question is the degree to which that is the case, and whether that has greater effects on decreasing competition than a company could in a free market. I'm not convinced that the "free market" could provide greater measures against monopolization than the system we have now.

For the most part you are right, we are both dealing with concepts (in your case a more efficent regulatory system and in my case truely free markets) that do not exist currently and therefore the results of which are conjecture. I would only add then that I believe a historical analysis of America defends my position. If you would like for me to provide you with material outlining some of my historical understandings, I will send you a PM.

You may have three dangerous drugs, too. How do you know that $1.6 million is sufficient for effective testing? How do you know it's too much? How many drug studies have you been involved with?

It seems to me that if we are going to mandate drugs to be tested by government agencies, it should be the job of the government to pay for the tests. When you mandate that the drugs not only pass internal testing, but then have to pay for FDA testing, you are increasings the costs of drug manufactoring to the point where you practically have to be a huge corporation to create any drug.

 

[Marx]

Has anyone heard about the toxic sludge disaster in Hungary? Apparently, the wall of an industrial plant resevoir cracked and spilled a massive amount of sludge onto nearby towns. Reports are also suggesting that another wave of the sludge could break free before it is able to be fixed!

 

[Hobgoblin]

Yes, I heard about it. They were estimating about 30 million tons of sludge were released from the reservoir.

 

[Kelly]

I saw that.....that is absolutely horrible. AND the process of cleaning it up is ALSO horrible to the environment.

 

[Marx]

UPDATE: HUNGARY BRACING FOR POTENTIAL SECOND WAVE OF TOXIC SLUDGE
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/10/hungary.toxic/index.html?hpt=T1