It is the purpose of every trademark, trade secret, restricted customer list, restricted pricing list, bulk discount etc. to create a market monopoly, and governments have nothing to do with any of them, save when Capitalists buy a Senate.
Nope.
The purpose of trademarks is to provide some assurance to the purchaser that the product they buy is actually from the manufacturer they think it is from. Fraud reduction.
Still think it's to create a "market monopoly"? Please feel free to support your contention with evidence and reasoning.
A trade secret is like the monopoly granted by a patent, except it isn't granted by a government, and if the secret is successfully maintained, it can last forever. The company has exclusive control over what it created, but it doesn't control the market. Competitors not using the secret can chase after those customers, by selling equivalent products, or products that offer the same benefits in a different way. So?
Restricted customer list. They don't want to reveal who their customers are. So? That hardly guarantees the firm a monopoly.
Bulk discount. Huh? You'll have to explain that one.
The monopoly boogieman is very popular in many places, but reality is not one of them.
The meanings of words, as used by normal people, can be found in dictionaries, too, not just the Internet.
You've got it backwards. Except for public utilities (and only of them) they get the government to grant special status, then they become monopolies.
The Constitution authorizes the national government to create post offices and post roads. It does not grant the power to make the post office a monopoly. You could look it up.
Reading a book written by a liberal or socialist for economic history is like reading a book written by a creationist for biology.
I'll not take your advice (phrased as an order) on reading books. I already do. I've usually got two or three books underway at a time: one to read at home, one to read over lunch at work, and one to listen to on my commute.
This one doesn't have much to recommend it for inclusion any time soon.
I will instead offer you some advice, phrased as advice: consider dialing back on the use of exclamation points. Alert readers notice that they often indicate a post is by a person with little to offer but enthusiasm.
If these are "risk-free" because they are guaranteed by the U.S. government, there may be a bit more risk involved that most people realize.
Eventually lenders are going to start looking at the U.S. government as (more of) a bad credit risk. Not all of them, and not all at once. But enough of them,over a period of time.
When that happens, those guarantees might be a little bit less iron-clad.
But still, it's good to see additional evidence. It takes more evidence to convince some people than others. If they get there later, at least they get there.
For some people on some issues, no amount of evidence is enough.
Yes, it is a symptom of a larger disease, which is free market capitalism
Well, that's the stupidest thing I've seen today. On the Internet. On Slashdot. (The competition is pretty fierce if FB and G+ are included.)
A government-regulated public utility business (or is it government-owned?) sells more product than it expected to, due to a new category of customer, and charges the customers who didn't buy that unexpected excess product more.
Hanging that one on capitalism -- free market capitalism, no less -- is quite remarkable.
It's like blaming obesity on fasting, or blaming parking tickets for car.crashes.
Is this "should" the "predictive should", the "ethics/morality should" or the "personal preference should"?
"The per-unit cost should be lower on the larger size." (Using experience or theory I predict this.)
"You should keep your end of the deal." "You should not murder people." (Society functions better when people do this.)
"Nobody should order pineapple on pizza." "Nobody should be homosexual." (My emotional state is determined by this.)
It makes a difference -- especially if you change meanings of "should" in the course of a discussion.
It makes even more of a difference if you are using one meaning but think you are using another. (Puritans, take note. Not that you'll recognize yourselves.)
(Hat tip to Larry Niven for writing "Grammar Lesson". The word in question in the story was "my", and it changed the way a war was waged. Strongly recommended.)
It's bad that Russians (real or imaginary) try to influence the election by using advertising effectively.
But is it any worse than NBC using news coverage effectively to influence the election? Or ineffectively?
Their support of the anointed Donkey Party candidate worked out well. They got the intended nominee. Their opposition to the "outsider" Elephant Party candidate didn't work out so well.
This whole "Russians are good at advertising to voters who don't think well" problem would be a moot point if there weren't so many idiots voting. But all you have to do is say a magic word (the word varies by idiot) and thinking shuts down. It even works on supposedly smart educated people.
Clearly, voter turnout is too high.
We need public service announcements to discourage excitable people from voting. Because they can't think worth a damn.
Slashdot Mirror
It is the purpose of every trademark, trade secret, restricted customer list, restricted pricing list, bulk discount etc. to create a market monopoly, and governments have nothing to do with any of them, save when Capitalists buy a Senate.
Nope.
The purpose of trademarks is to provide some assurance to the purchaser that the product they buy is actually from the manufacturer they think it is from. Fraud reduction.
Still think it's to create a "market monopoly"? Please feel free to support your contention with evidence and reasoning.
A trade secret is like the monopoly granted by a patent, except it isn't granted by a government, and if the secret is successfully maintained, it can last forever. The company has exclusive control over what it created, but it doesn't control the market. Competitors not using the secret can chase after those customers, by selling equivalent products, or products that offer the same benefits in a different way. So?
Restricted customer list. They don't want to reveal who their customers are. So? That hardly guarantees the firm a monopoly.
Bulk discount. Huh? You'll have to explain that one.
The monopoly boogieman is very popular in many places, but reality is not one of them.
Here's some debunking info I found quite easily, while looking for something else. https://www.investopedia.com/a...
I'll ignore the worst of the non-sequiturs.
The meanings of words, as used by normal people, can be found in dictionaries, too, not just the Internet.
You've got it backwards. Except for public utilities (and only of them) they get the government to grant special status, then they become monopolies.
The Constitution authorizes the national government to create post offices and post roads. It does not grant the power to make the post office a monopoly. You could look it up.
Reading a book written by a liberal or socialist for economic history is like reading a book written by a creationist for biology.
I'll not take your advice (phrased as an order) on reading books. I already do. I've usually got two or three books underway at a time: one to read at home, one to read over lunch at work, and one to listen to on my commute.
This one doesn't have much to recommend it for inclusion any time soon.
I will instead offer you some advice, phrased as advice: consider dialing back on the use of exclamation points. Alert readers notice that they often indicate a post is by a person with little to offer but enthusiasm.
Nice try. Government does not create monopoly.
You sure about that? The Internet seems to disagree.
https://duckduckgo.com?q=united.states.postal.service+monopoly
https://duckduckgo.com?q=local.cable.television+monopoly
https://duckduckgo.com?q=telephone+monopoly
https://duckduckgo.com?q=taxi.medallion
If you're going to pull a Humpty Dumpty and redefine words, there's no point discussing anything with you.
Have a nice squrgl, and I hope your fleen is everything you'd wilted for.
Don't trust it? Don't pay attention to it. Warn others of it.
Sounds like you're on the right track.
To try to become a monopoly, maybe.
To succeed requires government assistance.
Has the sky fallen yet, now that "net neutrality" is gone?
You seem very certain.
How is it you know those things are true?
Well, they could always go to the right if they needed a matching pair of them.
Need to invert some parts or swap some parts around to make them suitable for their use, is all.
And THIS is exactly why we need Net Neutality
OK. You're going to have to fill in some missing steps in your reasoning, for those of us who have trouble keeping up with your brilliance.
A moose once bit my sister.
If these are "risk-free" because they are guaranteed by the U.S. government, there may be a bit more risk involved that most people realize.
Eventually lenders are going to start looking at the U.S. government as (more of) a bad credit risk. Not all of them, and not all at once. But enough of them,over a period of time.
When that happens, those guarantees might be a little bit less iron-clad.
Neither is posting on Slashdot a "basic need".
In the words of Eddie Valient, "Everybody's got to have a hobby."
They happen to have picked a hobby that, at least for the moment, pays for itself, and then some.
For 12 hours, Comcast gave itself a black eye. Then it stopped.
No thumb-fingered bureaucrats necessary.
Facebook is taking sides and is not apolitical.
Golly. That's a shocker.
But still, it's good to see additional evidence. It takes more evidence to convince some people than others. If they get there later, at least they get there.
For some people on some issues, no amount of evidence is enough.
Yes, it is a symptom of a larger disease, which is free market capitalism
Well, that's the stupidest thing I've seen today. On the Internet. On Slashdot. (The competition is pretty fierce if FB and G+ are included.)
A government-regulated public utility business (or is it government-owned?) sells more product than it expected to, due to a new category of customer, and charges the customers who didn't buy that unexpected excess product more.
Hanging that one on capitalism -- free market capitalism, no less -- is quite remarkable.
It's like blaming obesity on fasting, or blaming parking tickets for car.crashes.
Your prize: a dictionary of economic terms.
Golly! Who could have predicted that?
Anyone who knows the meaning of the word "boondoggle" and can cite an example.
If it were possible, I would have bet on this happening.
But I'm sure politicians have made that illegal. For some reason.
AAAaand what is the problem, exactly?
Who has it? What is it?
They're behind the Tide Pod fad, and reality TV, and all the other inexplicable things that are dooming our society!
WAKEUP SHEEPLE!!!!
Yeah, that'll work.
Expecting that kind of sophisticated planning from city governments that can't manage to keep the potholes filled and other elementary tasks?
Not happening.
Well, they could find a way to hide the decline, or whatever.
everyone should have free access to it
Is this "should" the "predictive should", the "ethics/morality should" or the "personal preference should"?
"The per-unit cost should be lower on the larger size." (Using experience or theory I predict this.)
"You should keep your end of the deal." "You should not murder people." (Society functions better when people do this.)
"Nobody should order pineapple on pizza." "Nobody should be homosexual." (My emotional state is determined by this.)
It makes a difference -- especially if you change meanings of "should" in the course of a discussion.
It makes even more of a difference if you are using one meaning but think you are using another. (Puritans, take note. Not that you'll recognize yourselves.)
(Hat tip to Larry Niven for writing "Grammar Lesson". The word in question in the story was "my", and it changed the way a war was waged. Strongly recommended.)
It's bad that Russians (real or imaginary) try to influence the election by using advertising effectively.
But is it any worse than NBC using news coverage effectively to influence the election? Or ineffectively?
Their support of the anointed Donkey Party candidate worked out well. They got the intended nominee. Their opposition to the "outsider" Elephant Party candidate didn't work out so well.
Me? I think NBC is just jealous. ;-)
This whole "Russians are good at advertising to voters who don't think well" problem would be a moot point if there weren't so many idiots voting. But all you have to do is say a magic word (the word varies by idiot) and thinking shuts down. It even works on supposedly smart educated people.
Clearly, voter turnout is too high.
We need public service announcements to discourage excitable people from voting. Because they can't think worth a damn.
Not The Onion? Because parts of it read like a parody of master-class idiocy.