Less government regulation in action

Legion Grind said:
I do?

Earlier you claimed I was afraid to cite a single example, and denied that trusts are monopolies.

You are extremely flexible in your positions. Is that a libertarian trait?
Click to expand...

You were afraid to cite a single specific example and a trust is not necessarily a monopoly.

You are far more ignorant than you seemed. Is that a troll trait?
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
You were afraid to cite a single specific example and a trust is not necessarily a monopoly.

You are far more ignorant than you seemed. Is that a troll trait?
Click to expand...


So you admit that you wrongly accused me of citing "the Match companies of Ivar Kreuger" as an example of monopolies that arose due to a lack of government regulation.

Any other positions I didn't take that you'd like to misattribute?
 
Legion Grind said:
So you admit that you wrongly accused me of citing "the Match companies of Ivar Kreuger" as an example of monopolies that arose due to a lack of government regulation.

Any other positions I didn't take that you'd like to misattribute?
Click to expand...

Are you now trying to runaway from the examples you repeatedly cited?

This is exactly why I insisted on you citing a specific example. Your tactics are tired and weak.

Let's look at some of your other examples of monopolies that could only be stopped by government regulation.


US Steel held a 67% share of the market upon its formation in 1901. It never again saw it's market share reach that high and declined steadily from that point forward. The government attempted an antitrust action in 1911 (at which time US Steel's market share had already declined to 50%) to break it up but failed. It now controls 8% of the US market and that had nothing to do with government regulation. US Steel failed as a monopoly because it could not keep smaller competitors, like Bethlehem Steel, out of the market and it's largess made it less innovative.


The International Mercantile Marine Co., was formed in 1900 and was in receivership by 1915. Morgan lost a shit ton of money. The government did not break it up, it simply failed. In fact, the government tried to subsidize the floundering company with the Frye-Payne bill.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Are you now trying to runaway from the examples you repeatedly cited?

This is exactly why I insisted on you citing a specific example. Your tactics are tired and weak.

Let's look at some of your other examples of monopolies that could only be stopped by government regulation.


US Steel held a 67% share of the market upon its formation in 1901. It never again saw it's market share reach that high and declined steadily from that point forward. The government attempted an antitrust action in 1911 (at which time US Steel's market share had already declined to 50%) to break it up but failed. It now controls 8% of the US market and that had nothing to do with government regulation. US Steel failed as a monopoly because it could not keep smaller competitors, like Bethlehem Steel, out of the market and it's largess made it less innovative.


The International Mercantile Marine Co., was formed in 1900 and was in receivership by 1915. Morgan lost a shit ton of money. The government did not break it up, it simply failed. In fact, the government tried to subsidize the floundering company with the Frye-Payne bill.
Click to expand...

So you say.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Poor little troll.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Steel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mercantile_Marine_Co.
Click to expand...

Poor little libertarian.

The US Steel Wiki page you misquoted does not say "and that had nothing to do with government regulation. US Steel failed as a monopoly because it could not keep smaller competitors, like Bethlehem Steel, out of the market and it's largess made it less innovative."

You 'forgot' this little detail: "In 1901, it controlled two-thirds of steel production. Because of heavy debts taken on at the company's formation — Carnegie insisted on being paid in gold bonds for his stake — and fears of antitrust litigation, U.S. Steel moved cautiously. Competitors often innovated faster, especially Bethlehem Steel, run by U.S. Steel's former first president, Charles M. Schwab. U.S. Steel's share of the expanding market slipped to 50 percent by 1911"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mercantile_Marine_Co

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.

:rofl2:
 
Legion Grind said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mercantile_Marine_Co

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.

:rofl2:
Click to expand...

It does not?

Add a period to the end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mercantile_Marine_Co.

I did not indicate my statements were taken verbatim from the article and I did not forget any details.

Poor little troll.
 
It's shameful to see someone hijack a thread about a tragedy that resulted in a child being decapitated in order to tout a selfish political philosophy in such a morally-bankrupt manner.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Having been conclusively proven wrong on what conditions create and allow for the survival of a monopoly, the poor little troll and his cat are reduced to ad homs. Poor little troll.
Click to expand...

So you say. I'm not the one who falsely implied that Wiki articles contained text that isn't there.

Poor little libertarian.
 
Let us henceforth give the poor little libertarian all the attention his disingenuous thread hijack deserves, Brother Leon.

While he selfishly attempts to prove the righteousness of his philosophy of greed, a small child lies headless and a family mourns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top