Like I said, the vendor sets the price. When the price goes up, demand decreases. When the price goes down, the supply will diminish---unless the product has lost popularity. This is indeed organic, as I explained. So, we don't go anywhere by repeating truisms. The only difference between us is that i accept these truisms.
You are asserting things about monopolies and oligopolies that are untrue. They are no different from a "big" vendor. They do not control supply vs. demand, and you haven't shown that they can. The only way they can do that is by invoking government coercive power to hinder, discourage, or eliminate competition---but that is not a free market, and it requires government intervention (which I oppose). You, on the other hand, would cheerfully use government intervention to rearrange the market according to your tastes (and I also oppose that). I don't think that is the droid you are looking for.
What are you going to do with all the inventors, authors, performers, and film producers who have a monopoly on their products? I notice you have dodged this issue. If you cannot understand this...it's not because I haven't tried to explain.
Wrong. You have a free market when there is no coercion to compel a purchase. If someone invents the automobile, they have a de facto monopoly and they must compete against all the other forms of transportation. There is always competition---or there is something new and competition will have to emerge.
You don't enforce competition. You make sure it is allowed.
Ah. You are not a friend of the free market at all. Your kind is easily recognized in Ayn Rand's novel, "Atlas Shrugged." You want the benefits of the free market, but you begrudge the creators of securing their benefits.
Plus, your example is ridiculous, or malicious. If something is "critical" (demand is high), that will prompt an expansion of its production by anyone who is capable of producing it. If that someone---or someones---can meet the demand, all is well. If we are talking about something critical to life, such as water, I think the last thing you want to do is "regulate" the one person who is providing it. ("Do as we say, or we will kill you.") This degenerates into crisis ethics, about which person we eat first when the food supplies run out.
You haven't come up with an example of a "monopoly" needing "regulation," which indicates to me you are playing with words but not understanding the concepts.
"What are you going to do with all the inventors, authors, performers, and film producers who have a monopoly on their products? I notice you have dodged this issue. If you cannot understand this...it's not because I haven't tried to explain."
What product and market are you talking about???
Most of those inventors, authors, performers and film producers HAVE OTHER PEOPLE COMPETING AGAINST THEM!!
Not with inventions, which are unique and for a given purpose. As for the rest, that is the world of "What Do We Do With Our Spare Time and Money?" It is a competition among monopolies.
LOL!
Not true.
A free market is based on a price system that is set by each vendor.
When the price goes up. Supply will increase while demand decreases.
When the price goes down. Supply will decrease while demand increases.
THIS IS ORGANIC AND NOT CONTROLLED BY ANY SPECIAL GROUP.
Monopolies and oligopolies have the POWER TO CONTROL SUPPLY vs DEMAND no different then the government.
A free market means NO INDIVIDUAL or SMALL GROUP controls supply vs demand.
If you are ok with monopolies and oligopolies. That is no different than the government controlling supply or demand.
The goals is to remove a single player or small group of players from MARKET CONTROL.
If you cannot understand this.
I don't know what to tell you.
Like I said, the vendor sets the price. When the price goes up, demand decreases. When the price goes down, the supply will diminish---unless the product has lost popularity. This is indeed organic, as I explained. So, we don't go anywhere by repeating truisms. The only difference between us is that i accept these truisms.
You are asserting things about monopolies and oligopolies that are untrue. They are no different from a "big" vendor. They do not control supply vs. demand, and you haven't shown that they can. The only way they can do that is by invoking government coercive power to hinder, discourage, or eliminate competition---but that is not a free market, and it requires government intervention (which I oppose). You, on the other hand, would cheerfully use government intervention to rearrange the market according to your tastes (and I also oppose that). I don't think that is the droid you are looking for.
What are you going to do with all the inventors, authors, performers, and film producers who have a monopoly on their products? I notice you have dodged this issue. If you cannot understand this...it's not because I haven't tried to explain.
You are not understanding my point of view.
A Big Vendor isn't the problem.
It's when there is NO COMPETITION to big vendor in a certain market space.
Hence the word COMPETITION!
Wrong. You have a free market when there is no coercion to compel a purchase. If someone invents the automobile, they have a de facto monopoly and they must compete against all the other forms of transportation. There is always competition---or there is something new and competition will have to emerge.
You don't enforce competition. You make sure it is allowed.
Yes. by breaking up MONOPOLIES and the O's.
Because that's how governments do control supply and demand.
That's my point dude.
it's much harder for government to control supply and demand when their are many vendors to compete.
Unless they went out full communist.
The American government knows the people will not accept communism.
So they used big business as back door.
And yes.. that VENDOR IS SUPPOSE TO HAVE "NATURAL" COMPETITION!
If it's only one vendor supplying something critical. They have to be regulated.
Ah. You are not a friend of the free market at all. Your kind is easily recognized in Ayn Rand's novel, "Atlas Shrugged." You want the benefits of the free market, but you begrudge the creators of securing their benefits.
Plus, your example is ridiculous, or malicious. If something is "critical" (demand is high), that will prompt an expansion of its production by anyone who is capable of producing it. If that someone---or someones---can meet the demand, all is well. If we are talking about something critical to life, such as water, I think the last thing you want to do is "regulate" the one person who is providing it. ("Do as we say, or we will kill you.") This degenerates into crisis ethics, about which person we eat first when the food supplies run out.
You haven't come up with an example of a "monopoly" needing "regulation," which indicates to me you are playing with words but not understanding the concepts.
Blackrock is an example of oligopoly. Are you saying that Blackrock doesn't need regulation?
Ahh.. I see. Let's keep Blackrock as is. Got it!
You said
"What are you going to do with all the inventors, authors, performers, and film producers who have a monopoly on their products? I notice you have dodged this issue. If you cannot understand this...it's not because I haven't tried to explain."
What product and market are you talking about???
Most of those inventors, authors, performers and film producers HAVE OTHER PEOPLE COMPETING AGAINST THEM!!
Not with inventions, which are unique and for a given purpose. As for the rest, that is the world of "What Do We Do With Our Spare Time and Money?" It is a competition among monopolies.
LOL,
Monopolies means ONE dude.
You do know the big banks are a CARTEL right?