On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 11:37:56 +0200, D wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> I find it tragic that something like that should be necessary for
>>>> people to lift a finger when it comes to protecting markets.
>>>
>>> Almost as though free markets cannot remain free without regulators to
>>> keep them free.
>>>
>> Of course they can.
>
> No they can’t. Left to themselves, they fall prey to anticompetitive
> practices, deceptive advertising, price-fixing, and just plain fraud.
> That’s why we need laws, and a Government to enforce them. Freedom
> requires order; anarchy is not freedom.
>

Incorrect. Read this:
https://fee.org/articles/how-the-free-market-handles-monopoly/ .

On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Jul 2024 10:56:20 +0200, Andreas Eder wrote:
>
>> Free markets ten ro become oligopols, if not regulated.
>
> Case in point: the introduction of mobile phones. The Europeans decided
> that there had to be a common standard, rather than having every carrier
> build its own proprietary network. So they came up with a Government-
> mandated spec called “GSM”. Yes, it was a complex. bureaucratic spec, but
> it was a proper spec, with compliance tests and everything. So you had
> proper interoperability. The only thing that tied you to a particular
> carrier was that you got your SIM card from them. So switching carriers
> was as easy as getting a new SIM card.
>
> Meanwhile, in the USA, the prevailing ideology was “let the market
> decide”. So each carrier created its own proprietary network, and its
> customers were locked into that network.
>
> And so you had the interesting situation where, in Europe, you could buy
> your phone first, then decide which carrier to sign up to, whereas in the
> USA, you first chose your carrier, and then you had to buy your phone from
> them.
>
> And not only was the European system successful in Europe, it became
> popular in most of the rest of the world, too. So you had the situation,
> in the early days of Android, where a new model from Samsung or HTC or
> whomever would be available across the entire GSM-using world within a
> matter of days, while customers in the US had to wait another couple of
> weeks, for carrier-specific versions to come out for their particular
> carriers.
>

Except that neither europe nor the US are free markets, so neither can be
used as an example.

In terms of european failure we can just compare european GDP (PPP) per
capita according to IMF (58,838 USD) with the US (85,373 USD) to see that
a more free society is a richer and more ethical society.

On Fr 05 Jul 2024 at 18:51, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Andreas Eder wrote:
>>>>> On Do 04 Jul 2024 at 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find it tragic that something like that should be necessary for people
>>>>>>> to lift a finger when it comes to protecting markets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Almost as though free markets cannot remain free without regulators to
>>>>>> keep them free.
>>>>>
>>>>> Free markets ten ro become oligopols, if not regulated.
>>>>> That is not gard to priive under some mild conditions.
>>>>> Go read about it, if zou can understand the math behind that.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, actually governments tend to create oligopolies due to being such
>>>> big actors on the market that work according to politics and not according
>>>> to profit motive. FANG profit handsomely by government protection.
>>>
>>> Both of these statements are true and they are in no way contradictory.
>>> --scott
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nope, they are contradictory.
>
> The statements are not contradictory.
>
>> The act of regulation decreases freedom, hence increases
>> oligopoly/monopoly. It is of course a spectrum and not binary, but
>> the more regulation, the more monopoly and the end station is
>> socialism where the government is the monopoly with all the power,
>> and the citizens being slaves.
>
> You are correct.
>
>> Only less regulation and more free markets can counter that. Johan
>> Norbergs book, The capitalist manifesto also proves conclusively that less
>> regulation and more freedom is the only thing that leads to increase
>> quality of life.
>
> Yes, and no. You may be overlooking that in a totally free market, the
> competitors are also completely free to purchase each other, reducing
> the overall competition. If the specific market has large market
> specific capitol costs for entry (i.e., must build a $5Bn or more
> semiconductor chip fab in order to enter and compete) then, over time,
> consolidation (largest competitor purchasing up smaller competitors)
> can happen faster than new entrants such that, in the limit, the result
> will also be monopoly.

That is exactly what will happen to an unregulated free market.
The only participants remaining after some time are the ones so big -
and almost equally big - that they are unable to purchase each other.

'Andreas

--
ceterum censeo redmondinem esse delendam

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>They are. One sentence says that free markets become oligopolies (which is
>not true) while the other says that government regulated markets (non-free
>markets) become oligopolies.

But they BOTH can become oligopolies.

>Either free markets create them, or non-free markets. If both create them,
>this discussion is meaningless. Needless to say, I do not believe so, but
>if someone does believe it, I see no point in continuing talking.

The natural state of the system is oligopoly. A government can resist this,
or it can accelerate it. This is why a government controlled by an informed
electorate is so important.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

D wrote:
> In terms of european failure we can just compare european GDP (PPP) per
> capita according to IMF (58,838 USD) with the US (85,373 USD) to see
> that a more free society is a richer and more ethical society.

Are you actually claiming that higher GDP equals more ethical? So Qatar
and the United Arab Emirates, as well as various European nations are
more ethical then America as well as China's increasing GDP is based on
becoming more ethical.
Dave

with <335ed481-557d-7d19-949a-fadba2016d2f@example.net> D wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Andreas Eder wrote:
>>>> On Do 04 Jul 2024 at 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:

*SKIP* [ 37 lines 6 levels deep]
> This is for instance the situation between Lawrence and myself, so
> every time he writes about his socialist theories, I just laugh and
> write some nonsense back, since I cannot even take him seriously.

Do you realize that you both are not distinguishable from chatgpt?

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2024 13:00:23 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Ahh, except that the spec included SIM Locking, with which all that
>> compatiblity can be made irrelevent for a user with a network-locked
>> phone:
>
> All the jurisdictions I'm aware of had consumer-protection regulators who
> saw to it that unlocking a locked phone was available at a reasonable
> charge. Basically, customers got a discount off buying a SIM-locked phone
> (compared to an unlocked one), and they had to repay some part of that
> discount when it was unlocked, depending on how long before this was done.
>
> Compare this to the US system, where there was no option to unlock the
> SIM, because there was no SIM.

As I also mentioned there's still the problem with different
phone networks using different frequency bands, and phones only
supporting the bands of one network. That was a common issue with
3G phone networks in Australia, though the bands used for 4G are
more consistent between networks and therefore all of the used 4G
bands are supported by most/all of the locally-sold phones.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:28:05 +0200, D wrote:

> Except that neither europe nor the US are free markets, so neither can
> be used as an example.

The simple fact is that mobile phones took off in lots of countries,
reaching over 100% penetration in several of them, while the US continued
to lag behind. What was different? Those other countries used the
Government-mandated GSM standard, while the US just “let the market
decide”.

Coincidence? You be the judge.

On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:21:52 +0200, D wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 11:37:56 +0200, D wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I find it tragic that something like that should be necessary for
>>>>> people to lift a finger when it comes to protecting markets.
>>>>
>>>> Almost as though free markets cannot remain free without regulators
>>>> to keep them free.
>>>>
>>> Of course they can.
>>
>> No they can’t. Left to themselves, they fall prey to anticompetitive
>> practices, deceptive advertising, price-fixing, and just plain fraud.
>> That’s why we need laws, and a Government to enforce them. Freedom
>> requires order; anarchy is not freedom.
>>
> Incorrect. Read this [useless article].

Maybe stop paying attention to content-free polemicists, and start paying
attention to the reality around you.

Consider how long your economy would last if currency counterfeiters were
allowed to proliferate unchecked, just for example.

On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:21:32 +0200, D wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 11:40:44 +0200, D wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where are the righteous right-wingers who can contribute to Free
>>>> software as well as expound opinions on it? There don’t seem to be
>>>> any.
>>>>
>>> Either they are outspoken and are shunned and net-hated ...
>>
>> But nobody can stop them distributing their software, can they? It will
>> still manage to stand or fall on its merits, just like everything in
>> Open Source.
>>
> I am not talking about distributing their software.

If their software contributions *are* being accepted and distributed, then
how would you say they are being “shunned”?

On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:18:57 +0200, D wrote:

> If they raise the price, competitors will form, or alternatives will be
> developed.

There are ways to stifle competition, if there are no laws to prevent it.
Deceptive advertising, predatory pricing, cornering the market on
important components, buying out competitors ... the history of capitalism
is littered with examples of all of these.

Remember the phrase: “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely”. An economic monopoly is something pretty close to “absolute
power”.

On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>> They are. One sentence says that free markets become oligopolies (which is
>> not true) while the other says that government regulated markets (non-free
>> markets) become oligopolies.
>
> But they BOTH can become oligopolies.

I give you this, _for a time_ but the free market is a dynamic, changing
system, as technology progresses, new products, services and replacement
parts will arrive and be developed and old monopolies and oligopolies will
fall.

At worst, you'll end up with an equilibrium, where you might have a few
100s or 1000s of companies and where prices are quite static and balanced
by the supply and demand.

The consumer only benefits from this. The classic marxist idea of one
company rising to the top and forcing everyone to live at starvation
levels due to high prices, is impossible.

>> Either free markets create them, or non-free markets. If both create them,
>> this discussion is meaningless. Needless to say, I do not believe so, but
>> if someone does believe it, I see no point in continuing talking.
>
> The natural state of the system is oligopoly. A government can resist this,
> or it can accelerate it. This is why a government controlled by an informed
> electorate is so important.
> --scott

Except that the logical failure here is that the government is a monopoly.
So since humans act on the free market and in governments, any corruption
or negative effects that supposedly happens on free markets, will happen
within the government as well. That is why so often, governments just keep
on growing. The only way to counter that, is collapse of a government or
severe system shock.

If we reverse the logic, if governments, as monopolies, are benevolent and
kind, so are the same humans acting on behalf of monopoly companies.

As for the natural state of the system in a free market, it is not
oligopoly. It is a diverse set of millions and millions of companies. One
company governing all of earth would collapse the same way as big
governments (and I'm thinking world government) collapses due to
inefficient organization.

The free market is self organizing and decentralised, and that is the
natural state of it, without government creating and helping the behemoths
we have today.

On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:

> D wrote:
>> In terms of european failure we can just compare european GDP (PPP) per
>> capita according to IMF (58,838 USD) with the US (85,373 USD) to see
>> that a more free society is a richer and more ethical society.
>
> Are you actually claiming that higher GDP equals more ethical? So Qatar and
> the United Arab Emirates, as well as various European nations are more
> ethical then America as well as China's increasing GDP is based on becoming
> more ethical.
> Dave
>

Yes, because they steal less from me in terms of taxes. Tax is theft. In
terms of violence, war, theft etc. governments are all bad. The difference
is the type of criminal activity, and if it is successfully hidden. So
yes, from a tax point of view, that is my opinion.

One thing to note though, is that I say more ethical, and not _ethical. No
government is ethical. And all governments can become more and more
ethical as they strive to abolish themselves. So no, arabia is not
"ethical" but since they engage in less theft than for instance, sweden,
then yes, they are more ethical than sweden.

On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Eric Pozharski wrote:

> with <335ed481-557d-7d19-949a-fadba2016d2f@example.net> D wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Andreas Eder wrote:
>>>>> On Do 04 Jul 2024 at 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
>
> *SKIP* [ 37 lines 6 levels deep]
>> This is for instance the situation between Lawrence and myself, so
>> every time he writes about his socialist theories, I just laugh and
>> write some nonsense back, since I cannot even take him seriously.
>
> Do you realize that you both are not distinguishable from chatgpt?

I did not realize that. Thank you very much Eric for pointing that out. ;)

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:28:05 +0200, D wrote:
>
>> Except that neither europe nor the US are free markets, so neither can
>> be used as an example.
>
> The simple fact is that mobile phones took off in lots of countries,
> reaching over 100% penetration in several of them, while the US continued
> to lag behind. What was different? Those other countries used the
> Government-mandated GSM standard, while the US just “let the market
> decide”.
>
> Coincidence? You be the judge.
>

That is incorrect. See original statement.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:21:52 +0200, D wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 11:37:56 +0200, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I find it tragic that something like that should be necessary for
>>>>>> people to lift a finger when it comes to protecting markets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Almost as though free markets cannot remain free without regulators
>>>>> to keep them free.
>>>>>
>>>> Of course they can.
>>>
>>> No they can’t. Left to themselves, they fall prey to anticompetitive
>>> practices, deceptive advertising, price-fixing, and just plain fraud.
>>> That’s why we need laws, and a Government to enforce them. Freedom
>>> requires order; anarchy is not freedom.
>>>
>> Incorrect. Read this [useless article].
>
> Maybe stop paying attention to content-free polemicists, and start paying
> attention to the reality around you.
>
> Consider how long your economy would last if currency counterfeiters were
> allowed to proliferate unchecked, just for example.
>

Ahh... so you did not read? Then we can stop. I could cut n' paste it
here, but since you admit defeat by not reading and responding, I consider
this argumetn won! =)

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:21:32 +0200, D wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 11:40:44 +0200, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Where are the righteous right-wingers who can contribute to Free
>>>>> software as well as expound opinions on it? There don’t seem to be
>>>>> any.
>>>>>
>>>> Either they are outspoken and are shunned and net-hated ...
>>>
>>> But nobody can stop them distributing their software, can they? It will
>>> still manage to stand or fall on its merits, just like everything in
>>> Open Source.
>>>
>> I am not talking about distributing their software.
>
> If their software contributions *are* being accepted and distributed, then
> how would you say they are being “shunned”?
>

Read original message. Will not repeat.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:18:57 +0200, D wrote:
>
>> If they raise the price, competitors will form, or alternatives will be
>> developed.
>
> There are ways to stifle competition, if there are no laws to prevent it.
> Deceptive advertising, predatory pricing, cornering the market on
> important components, buying out competitors ... the history of capitalism
> is littered with examples of all of these.
>
> Remember the phrase: “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
> absolutely”. An economic monopoly is something pretty close to “absolute
> power”.
>

Incorrect. Markets have customers and are based on free informed consent.
What you describe is a government based, ultimately on a monopoly on
violence.

Congratulations Lawrence, you just explained why governments are the
threat and not free markets! =D

D wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
>
>> D wrote:
>>> In terms of european failure we can just compare european GDP (PPP) per
>>> capita according to IMF (58,838 USD) with the US (85,373 USD) to see
>>> that a more free society is a richer and more ethical society.
>>
>> Are you actually claiming that higher GDP equals more ethical? So
>> Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, as well as various European
>> nations are more ethical then America as well as China's increasing
>> GDP is based on becoming more ethical.
>> Dave
>>
>
> Yes, because they steal less from me in terms of taxes. Tax is theft. In
> terms of violence, war, theft etc. governments are all bad. The
> difference is the type of criminal activity, and if it is successfully
> hidden. So yes, from a tax point of view, that is my opinion.
>
> One thing to note though, is that I say more ethical, and not _ethical.
> No government is ethical. And all governments can become more and more
> ethical as they strive to abolish themselves. So no, arabia is not
> "ethical" but since they engage in less theft than for instance, sweden,
> then yes, they are more ethical than sweden.

Why do you pay taxes if you consider it unethical? There's country's you
could move to with little government and no taxes such as Haiti, or
simply stop paying taxes by not taking the fruits of those taxes.
Dave

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:

> D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
>>
>>> D wrote:
>>>> In terms of european failure we can just compare european GDP (PPP) per
>>>> capita according to IMF (58,838 USD) with the US (85,373 USD) to see
>>>> that a more free society is a richer and more ethical society.
>>>
>>> Are you actually claiming that higher GDP equals more ethical? So
>>> Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, as well as various European
>>> nations are more ethical then America as well as China's increasing
>>> GDP is based on becoming more ethical.
>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>> Yes, because they steal less from me in terms of taxes. Tax is theft. In
>> terms of violence, war, theft etc. governments are all bad. The
>> difference is the type of criminal activity, and if it is successfully
>> hidden. So yes, from a tax point of view, that is my opinion.
>>
>> One thing to note though, is that I say more ethical, and not _ethical.
>> No government is ethical. And all governments can become more and more
>> ethical as they strive to abolish themselves. So no, arabia is not
>> "ethical" but since they engage in less theft than for instance, sweden,
>> then yes, they are more ethical than sweden.
>
> Why do you pay taxes if you consider it unethical? There's country's you
> could move to with little government and no taxes such as Haiti, or simply
> stop paying taxes by not taking the fruits of those taxes.
> Dave
>

Sadly I have family commitment which are leveraged against me. If I could
just stop paying taxes without jeopardising those family commitments and
without risking violence I definitely would.

So what do I do instead?

I fight with lawyers and aggressive tax planning. I'm down to about 9% to
14% in taxes, which is much better than the 60+% or so I used to pay, but
the journey towards 0% continues! =) Once my family commitments are not
holding me back, I think, as you say, that it should be quite possible to
shave off some additional couple of % from that figure! =)

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:34:21 +0200, D wrote:

> Tax is theft.

Tax pays for law enforcement. Tax pays for the roads leading to your
house. Tax pays for keeping your water clean and your air breatheable,
against the depredations of corporations who would happily pass on such
costs as an “externality”.

Imagine if you had to pay a toll just to take your car out of your
driveway. Or pop a coin in the meter every time you turned on your water
tap, or took a breath.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:36:20 +0200, D wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:28:05 +0200, D wrote:
>>
>>> Except that neither europe nor the US are free markets, so neither can
>>> be used as an example.
>>
>> The simple fact is that mobile phones took off in lots of countries,
>> reaching over 100% penetration in several of them, while the US
>> continued to lag behind. What was different? Those other countries used
>> the Government-mandated GSM standard, while the US just “let the market
>> decide”.
>>
>> Coincidence? You be the judge.
>>
> That is incorrect.

That’s what really happened. This is all a matter of public record, that
no amount of ranting polemic, no matter how loudly shouted, can erase.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:37:07 +0200, D wrote:

> Ahh... so you did not read?

Appealing to such a questionable authority who has done such a good job of
telling you what to think is convincing others only of how gullible you
are.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:34:21 +0200, D wrote:
>
>> Tax is theft.
>
> Tax pays for law enforcement.

"Law enforcement" prevents us white people from organizing collective
defense of our neighborhoods against blacks. They also enforce the
current anarcho-tyranny we're forced to live under here in America.

> Tax pays for the roads leading to your
> house. Tax pays for keeping your water clean and your air breatheable,
> against the depredations of corporations who would happily pass on such
> costs as an “externality”.

A small amount compared to just Medicare and Medicaid. Oh wait, tax
doesn't pay for the majority of those, as they are currently some 80
percent unfunded by tax receipts, and account for the vast majority,
if not ALL of the deficit.

Stop with your bait-and-switch.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:31:05 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
<7896d979-7348-9c9c-d5a1-db664baa32fc@example.net>:

> As for the natural state of the system in a free market, it is not
> oligopoly. It is a diverse set of millions and millions of companies.
> One company governing all of earth would collapse the same way as big
> governments (and I'm thinking world government) collapses due to
> inefficient organization.
>
> The free market is self organizing and decentralised, and that is the
> natural state of it, without government creating and helping the
> behemoths we have today.

We should also do away with referees on soccer pitches, because the games
will self organize.

Seriously, I have just 2 comments:

1) The bigotry from "Anonymous" was uncalled for, and
2) "free markets" are not to be desired. _FAIR_ markets, are.

You can't have a fair market without fair referees...and there's the rub.
_Some_ regulation is necessary.

For example: Microsoft was adjudicated to be a monopoly at one point,
the question was if they were using that status unfairly in the market.

How does that look today?

--
-v ASUS TUF Dash F15 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3060 Mobile
OS: Linux 5.15.0-113-lowlatency Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 15.9G
"It is not only fine feathers that make fine birds."