Hmm, well, I’ll have to think about that. No such thing as a random number generator, I know that.
I suppose one could say things happen for reason(s), whether we understood or predicted the reasons or not.
And in that case, the effect is of randomness.
I still like to believe I am actually an agent of chaos.
My point wasn’t that Standard Oil was broken up, but that through the “free market” they were able to act as a monopoly. Which is not the “free market” incentivizing competition. It actually tends to not do that pretty often.
Then your point shows a lack of understanding about standard oil and how they achieved their massive market share.
Paradoxically, it did though.
Standard Oil’s success, spurred greater infrastructure development, which then was beyond the ability of Standard Oil to supply.
Thus causing Standard Oil’s market share to drop from 90% down to 60% (increasing competition) without any government intervention, or anti-trust being necessary.
Breaking up Standard Oil was about as necessary as dropping atomic bombs on Japan to procure Japan’s surrender.
Dropping atomic bombs on Japan may have been useful as a dick wag at the Soviet Union.
Breaking up Standard Oil, may have been a blood sacrifice to other gods, but…
So you’re arguing that they weren’t operating within a “free market”?
No I was pointing out what a bullshitter you are.
The argument for this comes from a guy arguing against antitrust law published by the Mises Institute. His analysis might even be correct but keep in mind it’s coming from someone with an agenda. Just like I would take any analysis about the Russian economy in the 90’s from a guy getting published by a press associated with the State Department with a grain of salt.
Bullshitting about what? That Standard Oil was able to gain 90% market share in a “free market”? Again, I’m not arguing in bad faith nor have I argued in bad faith in any post in this forum, even when I’m shitposting in kind.
No. My argument for this, comes from me.
Did you just do a quick embarrassed Google, because you brought something up, and then it became apparent to you and everybody else, that you were not very well versed in the actual history of it?
Okay.
Yes, I went to refresh myself on the info and found that book. So?
What book?
And why didn’t you make sure you were refreshed, before you glibly brought it up?
If you were drunk, we can excuse that.
But, in general, if done serially, that is lazy.
Because my point was in a casual conversation that Standard Oil was operating in a free market and was able to operate as a monopoly, and is one of the most famous examples. Whether it was 91% or 60% market share. I also provided a more modern example that while not per se a monopoly was anti competitive behavior by firms in the animation industry.
I’m not an advocate for a planned economy, but if you can’t recognize that there isn’t a “hand of the free market at work” you’re not thinking critically about “free markets”. A lot of advocates for the “free market” are getting politically marginalized by that same “free market” through the exercise of power by people who don’t care about “free markets”.
I also don’t expect people I’m talking to on here to have a works cited pulled up for them to engage with me. Is that the standard here? Should I be requiring a works cited for every discussion on a topic you engage in with me?
This is more often than not, a pub environment, so casual conversation is allowed.
Now you are being rashly impetuous, again.
How could you require anything of me, unless you earn those favors from me?
Regarding the book you just posted, I have nothing against books, but I can think for myself, well enough.
And when it comes to history, we learn well enough or better, from newspaper articles, letters, court documents, and nowadays video, although books that comprehensively compile those things, are indeed convenient, if that is what that book did.
No, I am simply making a statement without any intent to claim the high ground or claim that I am smarter than anyone here. If you aren’t looking at how the “free market” works de facto as well as the ideal of the “free market” then you aren’t getting the whole picture.
And how would you require the same of me? Lol you effectively replied with “well why didn’t you have all these research materials pulled up before you even thought of daring to reply in this thread?”
Either we all engage with each other casually are we engage aggressively. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. So I respond in kind to how I am engaged. If you require me to have a fully written white paper on a topic I will, but you better have your own ready. If you start off engaging me with insults I will engage back with funnier insults.
Claim high ground?
If we have high ground, and inform others we have it, that is only done for mercy towards the person who does have not have the high ground.
Otherwise, we use the high ground for what it is useful.
You can speak for your own struggles of vision, but not anybody else’s.
I did not require you not to be sloppy, or lazy.
I merely pointed out that you were being sloppy or lazy.
I did so, as a kindness, and gift.
Those are not the only two choices, nor are they mutually exclusive.
I always have proof, or I do not speak, unless I disclaim that I am making speculative comment.
I sometimes withhold posting proofs early, to give rubes enough rope to hang themselves, and prove themselves clowns.
And I sometimes withhold posting proofs early to shame the lazy.
I love to play games and make wagers.
And, I have not insulted you.
I have teased you, and I suspect that you know why.
I only tease you, when you should be teased, and in those cases, you are probably not dull enough to not realize that you could have done better.
See, now this is the aggressive (well passive aggressive) engagement I’m talking about lol. You could have just responded with “well that’s not what I meant” or “maybe I was being a bit of a cunt about that”.
They are mutually exclusive. Either the conversation is casual or it isn’t.
If I’m talking about fighting with someone in a casual setting I’m not going to require them to put on some 16oz gloves and show their work. If we are talking politics in a casual setting I’m not going to require them to pull out a works cited page or show me their regression table to show their work. That’s the understanding of a casual conversation.
If you require me to put on the gloves or bust out the regression table I will. But we aren’t having a casual conversation at that point.
That wasn’t aimed at you specifically actually. You aren’t the only poster on here that I have engaged with, even in this very thread lol.
That was a more general comment about the atmosphere here. And I understand why it exists since this forum has gone from probably more than 100 or more active users when I first joined to what it is now which is basically a group chat for about five people. In that kind of environment you’re going to immediately jump at a perceived outsider and require a different standard of engagement than you would with each other.
It is neither.
It is assertive.
You were sloppy or lazy.
That is not meant as an insult.
Nor aggressive.
It is a sincere observation, and as far as I can tell, a statement of fact, without flattery.
A conversation may be casual and not aggressive.
Or casual and aggressive.
Which were the terms you used, “casual”, and “aggressive”, not terms I brought up.
I have not asked you to cite your sources.
You were the one, that made an incorrect, speculative claim that I was referencing a book, from Mises.
Regression is not always the appropriate statistical technique.
Not something I am doing.
Your tenure with the site, nor anyone else’s means nothing to me.
The content of your, or their, posts do.
But not, your nor their, tenure.
If it makes you feel better then we can use the term Adversarial instead.
I have no feelings about it, one way or another.
I am passing time, waiting for Godot.
Blood for the blood god?