Further Rebuttals to Lord T Hawkeye

The dishonesty and facts twisting continues!

Fake Britain on Fake Goods Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BZPadQuC8c

Category:

Education

Tags:

• LordTHawkeye
• FSAthe1st
• Nightmare060
• Free
• Market
• Universal
• Healthcare
• rebuttals

[Guncriminal]

The regulations haven't prevented the employment of quack doctors, nor did they prevent Viox, Thalidomide etc. coming into use.

And for all your mewling about protecting the consumer from quack medicine, homeopathy is still available on the NHS.

Your fail is complete.

[Nightmare060]

@Guncriminal You mean regulations aren't perfect? Wow, I never would've guessed! Cherry picking a couple of examples of where regulations have not prevented something are not reasonable arguments against regulation as whole, especially when you have not given sources for your arguments.

The fact is that the NHS is founded on giving care according to clinical need and for the most part succeeds in that.

[FSAthe1st]

@cincofone And why do you keep ignoring the point about them purchasing a critical rail link between the oil fields and the refineries?

[FSAthe1st]

@cincofone "Standard Oil was not an exploitative monopoly.

This statement can only be considered true if you redefine the meaning of the words exploitative and monopoly to fit your particular ideology.

"Standard Oil was as successful as they were because no one could compete with them on price."

Yes, and that was the case for a variety of reasons, not least of which was because they had a vast majority market share. A monopoly doesn't have to be 100%, you realise.

[FSAthe1st]

@cincofone Pity I don't work to your timetable then, isn't it?

[cincofone]

@FSAthe1st Still waiting on those examples :)

[cincofone]

@FSAthe1st Standard Oil was as successful as they were because no one could compete with them on price. As they grew and grew in size, their prices kept falling and falling. It wasn't because they could unfairly keep competition out that they were so large, it's because they were the most efficient and competitive oil company by far.

Also, examples please. Standard Oil was not an exploitative monopoly.

[FSAthe1st]

@cincofone "The only way they can corner a market is to a) serve the needs of the market better than anyone else and drive out competitors or b) get help from the state."

No... They can also corner the market by obtaining a choke point in the supply chain and exploiting it. This requires neither serving of the needs better than anyone else OR government assistance. Standard Oil purchased a critical rail link between the reservoirs and the oil fields, and had NO government assistance to do so.

[cincofone]

@FSAthe1st The only way they can corner a market is to a) serve the needs of the market better than anyone else (in which case, why is this a bad thing?) and drive out competitors or b) get help from the state.

You're also ignoring cross-product competition (e.g. oil/gas/coal/etc. have to compete against each other)

Give me an example of how someone would monopolize a market today, and show me how government regulations prevent it. Show me previous historical examples.

[FSAthe1st]

@cincofone " In a market without state control, there's nothing stopping entrepreneurs from starting up competing companies that undercut the monopoly and start eating into it's marketshare, forcing them to bring prices back down to compete."

This has already been addressed numerous times. You have done nothing to refute the possibility that if a company corners the market sufficiently, it is unfeasible to enter the market to begin with.

[FSAthe1st]

@cincofone And that's the fault of Government... HOW, exactly?

Besides, this doesn't address the FACT... F.A.C.T... That without ANY regulation, there is NOTHING to stop monopolistic activity whatsoever.

Your "invisible hand" assertions are not evidence. The fact that even a SINGLE monopoly existed without government intervention is evidence against such claims.