Toyota safety crisis prompts 'black box' plan for new cars and lorries

In article <eab07bbc-280b-4a3d-a32f-
>, says...
>
> On May 2, 4:04*pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K >
> > said:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >On May 1, 11:21*am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> > >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K >
> > >> said:
> >
> > >> >> >black boxes in each new car? *I bet all both the manufacturers and
> > >> >> >customers are going to like that idea - not!
> >
> > >> >> They're certainly not going to appreciate the additional CO$T.
> >
> > >> >Customers maybe, manufacturers won't care - that cost is paid by the
> > >> >consumer.
> >
> > >> Manufacturers absolutely will care. The more cars cost, the harder it
> > >> is to sell them. Lower sales means less profit for the automakers.
> >
> > >When the cost to every manufacturer goes up, the competition to sell
> > >stays the same.
> >
> > Doesn't matter. If the prices of new cars go up, fewer people will be
> > able to afford new cars, and fewer will be sold.
> >
> > >There is a market out there that will be satified no
> > >matter what the cost (withing reason).
> >
> > And more and more of it will be satisfied either with a used car or by
> > keeping and repairing the current car.
>
> I dunno. There are quite a few cars out there that are pretty low
> priced and meet the standards and from what I hear both China and
> India plan on offering fully compliant cars in the sub 15K range....
> sub 10K if you believe this:
>
> http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...oming-to-U-S-/

The LA Times just reported that a major Chinese manufacturer is setting
up their US headquarters here in SoCal, I forget exactly where.

I might be persuaded to buy an Indian car. I'd never, in a million
years, buy a Chinese car.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA

On Sun, 2 May 2010 18:44:35 -0700, Steve Sobol > wrote:
>In article <eab07bbc-280b-4a3d-a32f-
>, says...
>>
>> On May 2, 4:04?pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K >
>> > said:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >On May 1, 11:21?am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>> > >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K >
>> > >> said:
>> >
>> > >> >> >black boxes in each new car? ?I bet all both the manufacturers and
>> > >> >> >customers are going to like that idea - not!
>> >
>> > >> >> They're certainly not going to appreciate the additional CO$T.
>> >
>> > >> >Customers maybe, manufacturers won't care - that cost is paid by the
>> > >> >consumer.
>> >
>> > >> Manufacturers absolutely will care. The more cars cost, the harder it
>> > >> is to sell them. Lower sales means less profit for the automakers.
>> >
>> > >When the cost to every manufacturer goes up, the competition to sell
>> > >stays the same.
>> >
>> > Doesn't matter. If the prices of new cars go up, fewer people will be
>> > able to afford new cars, and fewer will be sold.
>> >
>> > >There is a market out there that will be satified no
>> > >matter what the cost (withing reason).
>> >
>> > And more and more of it will be satisfied either with a used car or by
>> > keeping and repairing the current car.
>>
>> I dunno. There are quite a few cars out there that are pretty low
>> priced and meet the standards and from what I hear both China and
>> India plan on offering fully compliant cars in the sub 15K range....
>> sub 10K if you believe this:
>>
>> http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...oming-to-U-S-/

>The LA Times just reported that a major Chinese manufacturer is setting
>up their US headquarters here in SoCal, I forget exactly where.

>I might be persuaded to buy an Indian car. I'd never, in a million
>years, buy a Chinese car.


You probably have a car that is mostly chinese content and don't even
know it. Very little is made in the U.S. by the transnational
corporations and the auto makers are all transnational.

On May 2, 9:31*pm, Brent > wrote:
>
> Not without government aid. Walmart serves their customers better so
> they get the business. The moment Walmart cuts selection and raises
> prices and makes people wait for goods to come in is when someone else
> will show up and drive walmart out of business.

you need to read up on Standard Oil....

he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...on_and_breakup
>
> >> > and in terms of safety - would you really want a market where
> >> > companies could sell cars without air bags and the like - for
> >> > cheaper?
> >> Considering the harm airbags can do, that would be a good thing.
> >> Automakers offered airbags nearly 20 years before the mandate. They
> >> found the problems with them and stopped offering them because they
> >> didn't want to be sued because of the injuries. When the government
> >> wanted to mandate them the automakers made warnings about what would
> >> happen to children and small adults. Government decided it knew better..
> > it's an actuarial approach where they look at the number who are
> > harmed verses the number who are saved.
>
> Isn't that what got Ford in trouble with the pinto? The actuarial
> calculation?

they were doing in with lawsuit money to lives...

the gov does it comparing which of the choices causes the least
deaths.
>

On 2010-05-03, Larry G > wrote:
> On May 2, 9:31*pm, Brent > wrote:
>>
>> Not without government aid. Walmart serves their customers better so
>> they get the business. The moment Walmart cuts selection and raises
>> prices and makes people wait for goods to come in is when someone else
>> will show up and drive walmart out of business.
>
> you need to read up on Standard Oil....
> he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...on_and_breakup

You confuse pleasing customers and building a better mousetrap with a
cartel/monopoly.

He
http://mises.org/daily/2317

>> Isn't that what got Ford in trouble with the pinto? The actuarial
>> calculation?

> they were doing in with lawsuit money to lives...
> the gov does it comparing which of the choices causes the least
> deaths.

Government not consider money? HA! Government care about lives? HA!

On May 2, 2:48*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2010-05-02, Larry G > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 6:05*pm, Brent > wrote:
> >> On 2010-05-01, Larry G > wrote:
>
> >> > On May 1, 2:21*pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> >> >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K >
> >> >> said:
>
> >> >> >> >black boxes in each new car? *I bet all both the manufacturers and
> >> >> >> >customers are going to like that idea - not!
>
> >> >> >> They're certainly not going to appreciate the additional CO$T.
>
> >> >> >Customers maybe, manufacturers won't care - that cost is paid by the
> >> >> >consumer.
>
> >> >> Manufacturers absolutely will care. The more cars cost, the harder it
> >> >> is to sell them. Lower sales means less profit for the automakers.
> >> >> --
> >> >> The MFFY Litmus Test:
> >> >> If your maneuver forces another driver who has the right-of-way
> >> >> to alter course or speed, what you did was probably MFFY.
>
> >> > if the govt "believes" that ultimately black boxes will result in less
> >> > accidents, and less irresponsible driving.. and a way to get to the
> >> > bottom of claims like unintended acceleration.. brakes that don't
> >> > work, etc... then I think it's a no brainer.
>
> >> > you asked to give an example. My understanding is that things like air
> >> > bags, ESC, and such have a positive cost benefit. * Didn't the
> >> > insurance companies make this point?
>
> >> > If the insurance company offered you a 30% reduction in your premium
> >> > if you allowed an on-board event recorder.. would you do it? 40%,
> >> > 50%? * how about they tell you they are going to RAISE your premiums
> >> > 50% if you do not?
>
> >> > Bonus Question: if the insurance company did that to you - would you
> >> > go running to *that big bad over-regulating nasty big govt for help?
>
> >> If an insurance company did that to me it would because they went to
> >> government and had laws changed/passed. Otherwise I'd just go to a
> >> different insurance company when they raised my rates for no reason
> >> other than a desire to track me. Lots of people don't want to be
> >> tracked. There is just barely enough of a free market in auto insurance
> >> in IL that such customers can go elsewhere.
>
> >> Every notice that in some states auto insurance is very expensive for no
> >> good reason? There's a reason for that, and it starts with a "G".
>
> >> It is the closing off of a free market that forces people to seek help
> >> in the political process rather than just taking their business
> >> elsewhere.
>
> > well.. if the market was truly "free" like it was before govt anti-
> > trust laws - you would find companies colluding with each other to fix
> > prices and other actions to increase their profits and disable true
> > competition.
>
> No cartel can survive without government participation or violence that
> government does nothing about. Company owners and executives have sought
> government protection for hundreds if not thousands of years. In a free
> market someone in the cartel will cheat or new competition will rise up.
> The only way to stop it is with the government or violence the
> government allows. And no, they can't just lower prices. They'll have to
> keep prices low otherwise each time they raise prices too high new
> competition springs up.
>
> > and in terms of safety - would you really want a market where
> > companies could sell cars without air bags and the like - for
> > cheaper?
>
> Considering the harm airbags can do, that would be a good thing.
> Automakers offered airbags nearly 20 years before the mandate. They
> found the problems with them and stopped offering them because they
> didn't want to be sued because of the injuries. When the government
> wanted to mandate them the automakers made warnings about what would
> happen to children and small adults. Government decided it knew better.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I suspect they quit offering them because _nobody_ would buy them.
They were a very high priced option.

Harry K

On 2010-05-03, Harry K > wrote:

> I suspect they quit offering them because _nobody_ would buy them.
> They were a very high priced option.

I know it was a long time ago, but check the manufacturers' objections to
the mandate. They were based on the prior experience.

Most everything starts out as a high priced option.

On May 2, 11:41*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2010-05-03, Larry G > wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 9:31*pm, Brent > wrote:
>
> >> Not without government aid. Walmart serves their customers better so
> >> they get the business. The moment Walmart cuts selection and raises
> >> prices and makes people wait for goods to come in is when someone else
> >> will show up and drive walmart out of business.
>
> > you need to read up on Standard Oil....
> > he *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...ges.2C_anti-tr...
>
> You confuse pleasing customers and building a better mousetrap with a
> cartel/monopoly.
>
> Hehttp://mises.org/daily/2317

monopolies are real.... the pure capitalist market will and does
generate monopolies because that is one of the aspects of pure
capitalism that the participants will engage in to beat their
competitors.

You can see this in action every time a WaWa or Sheetz moves in next
to a mom/pop place and lowers the gasoline prices lower than the
actual cost. The bigger companies can sustain the loss longer than the
little guy can and as soon as he is gone - the prices not only rise -
they go up even higher if there are no other nearby competitors.

At an exit ramp, one company can buy all the prime land and then put
up a station that charges higher rates than if a competitor moved in
across the street.

For a more complete list of the strategies actually practiced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopol...titive_markets
>
> >> Isn't that what got Ford in trouble with the pinto? The actuarial
> >> calculation?
> > they were doing in with lawsuit money to lives...
> > the gov does it comparing which of the choices causes the least
> > deaths.
>
> Government not consider money? HA! Government care about lives? HA!

govt considers the number of lives lost and the number of people
injured as well as costs.

every time you take an aspirin or eat a pork chop - the govt has
played a role in the efficacy and safety of those and virtually
anything that you eat. The nutrition labels on food are there because
of govt. The interstate highways and their standardized designs and
safety features are there because of the govt making tradeoffs between
lives lost / injure and the costs of mitigating.

Without govt - there would be no public roads. Everywhere you went you
would be paying an entrepreneur whose road design and safety features
would be unique to him and the next road... you'd also pay another
toll on and it would be different.

Govt has an important role and even though govt can and does screw up
- it does not negate the role and all the things it does that do work
properly.

pure, unadulterated capitalism is anarchy .... go visit Somalia or
Yemen to see what pure Capitalism is about.

On 2010-05-03, Larry G > wrote:
> On May 2, 11:41*pm, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2010-05-03, Larry G > wrote:
>>
>> > On May 2, 9:31*pm, Brent > wrote:
>>
>> >> Not without government aid. Walmart serves their customers better so
>> >> they get the business. The moment Walmart cuts selection and raises
>> >> prices and makes people wait for goods to come in is when someone else
>> >> will show up and drive walmart out of business.
>>
>> > you need to read up on Standard Oil....
>> > he *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...ges.2C_anti-tr...
>>
>> You confuse pleasing customers and building a better mousetrap with a
>> cartel/monopoly.
>>
>> Hehttp://mises.org/daily/2317
>
> monopolies are real.... the pure capitalist market will and does
> generate monopolies because that is one of the aspects of pure
> capitalism that the participants will engage in to beat their
> competitors.

Yes, that's what government school teaches us, however it's impossible
unless that monopoly pleases all of the customers all of the time and
maintains lower prices than any would be competition can achieve. So,
exactly why is that a bad things?

> You can see this in action every time a WaWa or Sheetz moves in next
> to a mom/pop place and lowers the gasoline prices lower than the
> actual cost. The bigger companies can sustain the loss longer than the
> little guy can and as soon as he is gone - the prices not only rise -
> they go up even higher if there are no other nearby competitors.

And when they jack up the prices afterwards nobody else moves in exactly
why? When they jack up the prices why don't customers just get gas
elsewhere?

Can you even prove they are selling under their cost? Or is it
another issue of their costs being lower? (BTW, lots of gas stations
are just francises, and are ma and pa even though it looks like big oil,
and whatever WaWa or Sheetz is they can't be too big as I've never heard
of them)

The problem with undercutting competition by selling at a loss is that
after 'winning' the endurance contest they can never make up for it with
higher prices without inspiring new competition. Of course if takes 5
years of permiting through the government then, well, they can be
assured that such practices will benefit them.

> At an exit ramp, one company can buy all the prime land and then put
> up a station that charges higher rates than if a competitor moved in
> across the street.

Because customers are too lazy to drive a little further? Again, another
unfounded complaint.

> For a more complete list of the strategies actually practiced:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopol...titive_markets

Exactly how does having government as a referee make for a free
market? Government is not impartial and it's not fair either.

>> >> Isn't that what got Ford in trouble with the pinto? The actuarial
>> >> calculation?
>> > they were doing in with lawsuit money to lives...
>> > the gov does it comparing which of the choices causes the least
>> > deaths.
>>
>> Government not consider money? HA! Government care about lives? HA!

> govt considers the number of lives lost and the number of people
> injured as well as costs.

It doesn't care if you live or die. Government cares about government.
This is why everything gets sucked into the political system.

> every time you take an aspirin or eat a pork chop - the govt has
> played a role in the efficacy and safety of those and virtually
> anything that you eat.

No. It has set a very very very low standard such that those who wish to
provide a better quality product cannot or at the very least not
indicate that they have done better than the FDA minimum. The low
standards are set to allow the giant corporations producing medicore
product to not face competitive issues. BTW, Aspirin is grandfathered
in.

> The nutrition labels on food are there because of govt.

I'm sure you'll find that the details of how a nutrition label are put
together are for the benefit of those who have the political inside
track. Like how the government has decided that GMO foods don't have to
be labeled. How it often decides that those companies who do not use
whatever new fangled risky cost reduction methods that are the new
hotness cannot label their products as such. Yeah, the FDA protects
those with the political influence from undo competition of ma and pa's
better made product.

My favorite example is a company that wanted to sell premium beef in the
US but mostly wanted to export to Japan. It wanted to test every cow for
mad-cow disease. That should be its right, yes? Nope. The FDA forced it
to test only to the standard it set, not exceed it. Not show up the
other beef companies.

> The interstate highways and their standardized designs and
> safety features are there because of the govt making tradeoffs between
> lives lost / injure and the costs of mitigating.

Ah. There's the costs you claimed weren't considered. US interstate is
pretty crappy in terms of the best known road building and safety.
Instead they decide to use heavy handed enforcement of low speed limits,
too low even for the way the roads are designed in most cases.

> Without govt - there would be no public roads. Everywhere you went you
> would be paying an entrepreneur whose road design and safety features
> would be unique to him and the next road... you'd also pay another
> toll on and it would be different.

Do I need to go over the private-vs-socialist road system again? Without
government, I might be able to pay only for what I use and drive proper
speeds. Another bonus is that the government highwaymen wouldn't be an
issue any more. Government also decides that to use its roads I have to
give up my rights. Remember the fast one they've pulled on most people
by creating the illusion that driving is a privilege it grants and
therefore can mandate whatever it wants in return for that grant.

> Govt has an important role and even though govt can and does screw up
> - it does not negate the role and all the things it does that do work
> properly.

Yes, that's what government schools teach us and it's entirely wrong.
Government works for the ruling class and others that can manipulate
government. Not you, not me. Sure every so often it does it's job
because of fear that the great mass will revolt in most cases.

> pure, unadulterated capitalism is anarchy .... go visit Somalia or
> Yemen to see what pure Capitalism is about.

It's amazing the job government schools have done. The problems in those
countries are the direct result of those who wish to impose government
at the point of a gun. Outside of the violence of those who wish to be a
government Somalia has shown the natural self organizing tendencies of
civilization. Now if only criminal gangs and foreign governments weren't
trying to impose a government civilization could flurish.

On May 3, 8:53*am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2010-05-03, Larry G > wrote:
>
> > monopolies are real.... *the pure capitalist market will and does
> > generate monopolies because that is one of the aspects of pure
> > capitalism that the participants will engage in to beat their
> > competitors.
>
> Yes, that's what government school teaches us, however it's impossible
> unless that monopoly pleases all of the customers all of the time and
> maintains lower prices than any would be competition can achieve. So,
> exactly why is that a bad things?

are you saying that effective monopolies do not exist because there is
always competition ? what if the companies engage in strategies to
kill the competition before it gets big enough to challenge? where
govt is not involved, it would happen all the time.
>
> > You can see this in action every time a WaWa or Sheetz moves in next
> > to a mom/pop place and lowers the gasoline prices lower than the
> > actual cost. The bigger companies can sustain the loss longer than the
> > little guy can and as soon as he is gone - the prices not only rise -
> > they go up even higher if there are no other nearby competitors.
>
> And when they jack up the prices afterwards nobody else moves in exactly
> why? When they jack up the prices why don't customers just get gas
> elsewhere? *

where are they going to go? 5, 10 miles down the road? If they do
that, then they'll set their prices accordingly. what part of this do
you not get?
>
> Can you even prove they are selling under their cost? Or is it
> another issue of their costs being lower? *(BTW, lots of gas stations
> are just francises, and are ma and pa even though it looks like big oil,
> and whatever WaWa or Sheetz is they can't be too big as I've never heard
> of them) *

you don't have to prove that if there is no govt involved. do you get
this point?
>
> The problem with undercutting competition by selling at a loss is that
> after 'winning' the endurance contest they can never make up for it with
> higher prices without inspiring new competition. Of course if takes 5
> years of permiting through the government then, well, they can be
> assured that such practices will benefit them.

Brent - the smart guy jacks the prices up but not so high that they
won't compete. There goal is to OUT COMPETE by using their size and
weigh to their advantage.
>
> > At an exit ramp, one company can buy all the prime land and then put
> > up a station that charges higher rates than if a competitor moved in
> > across the street.
>
> Because customers are too lazy to drive a little further? Again, another
> unfounded complaint.

not too lazy. you pull off to get gas and then what? they know they
have you and your choice is to either buy or make another stop.
>
> > For a more complete list of the strategies actually practiced:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopol...ompetitive_mar...
>
> Exactly how does having government as a referee make for a free
> market? Government is not impartial and it's not fair either.

govt restricts the ways that businesses can create and maintain
monopolies. You'd be the very first guy complaining to the govt about
your electric bill if they double the rates and you had no alternative
because they do, in fact, have a monopoly.
>

>
> It doesn't care if you live or die. Government cares about government.
> This is why everything gets sucked into the political system.

if your kid gets killed by a defective car seat - you are going to
demand that the govt make them stop making defective car seats. If a
chemical company moves in next door to you - you are going to go
running to the govt... don't be a hypocrite
>
> > every time you take an aspirin or eat a pork chop - the govt has
> > played a role in the efficacy and safety of those and virtually
> > anything that you eat.
>
> No. It has set a very very very low standard such that those who wish to
> provide a better quality product cannot or at the very least not
> indicate that they have done better than the FDA minimum. The low
> standards are set to allow the giant corporations producing medicore
> product to not face competitive issues. BTW, Aspirin is grandfathered
> in.

the standard is, of necessity, a compromise. It's not perfect and
there are numerous examples of where it does not work completely as
intended but you don't do away with all of it because it is not
perfect. Aspirin is subject to purity standards. If someone sells
contaminated aspirin.. you are going to go running to the govt are you
not? I bet you will.. if it destroys your liver..eh?

>
> > The nutrition labels on food are there because of govt.
>
> I'm sure you'll find that the details of how a nutrition label are put
> together are for the benefit of those who have the political inside
> track. Like how the government has decided that GMO foods don't have to
> be labeled. How it often decides that those companies who do not use
> whatever new fangled risky cost reduction methods that are the new
> hotness cannot label their products as such. Yeah, the FDA protects
> those with the political influence from undo competition of ma and pa's
> better made product.

yadda yadda yadda... you say first that govt should not be poking it's
nose into private business then you say they don't do it according to
the way you think they should.
this sounds a lot like the Tea Party folks... no matter the situation
- the govt does it wrong.

Political influence is a reality just like cockroaches. grow up.

>
> My favorite example is a company that wanted to sell premium beef in the
> US but mostly wanted to export to Japan. It wanted to test every cow for
> mad-cow disease. That should be its right, yes? Nope. The FDA forced it
> to test only to the standard it set, not exceed it. Not show up the
> other beef companies.

they can't tranship to a country that does allow it?
>
> > The interstate highways and their standardized designs and
> > safety features are there because of the govt making tradeoffs between
> > lives lost / injure and the costs of mitigating.
>
> Ah. There's the costs you claimed weren't considered. US interstate is
> pretty crappy in terms of the best known road building and safety.
> Instead they decide to use heavy handed enforcement of low speed limits,
> too low even for the way the roads are designed in most cases.

again.. which way do you want it? do you want public roads - imperfect
as they are or do you not?
>
> > Without govt - there would be no public roads. Everywhere you went you
> > would be paying an entrepreneur whose road design and safety features
> > would be unique to him and the next road... you'd also pay another
> > toll on and it would be different.
>
> Do I need to go over the private-vs-socialist road system again? Without
> government, I might be able to pay only for what I use and drive proper
> speeds. Another bonus is that the government highwaymen wouldn't be an
> issue any more. Government also decides that to use its roads I have to
> give up my rights. Remember the fast one they've pulled on most people
> by creating the illusion that driving is a privilege it grants and
> therefore can mandate whatever it wants in return for that grant.

could you - if they owned the only bridge within 20 miles and charged
you $5 per crossing?

what is it with you and govt? is does not work the way you think it
should so we should do away with it? You're sounding more and more
like a Tea Party guy .
>
> > Govt has an important role and even though govt can and does screw up
> > - it does not negate the role and all the things it does that do work
> > properly.
>
> Yes, that's what government schools teach us and it's entirely wrong.
> Government works for the ruling class and others that can manipulate
> government. Not you, not me. Sure every so often it does it's job
> because of fear that the great mass will revolt in most cases.

ever hear of elections? that's the way this country is designed..
we don't rule with militias despite the fond fantasies of some
>
> > pure, unadulterated capitalism is anarchy .... go visit Somalia or
> > Yemen to see what pure Capitalism is about.
>
> It's amazing the job government schools have done. The problems in those
> countries are the direct result of those who wish to impose government
> at the point of a gun. Outside of the violence of those who wish to be a
> government Somalia has shown the natural self organizing tendencies of
> civilization. Now if only criminal gangs and foreign governments weren't
> trying to impose a government civilization could flurish.

do you mean the war lords who sells drugs and buy weapons and then
rule as dictators and kill whoever gets in their way?

this is the kind of "naturally organizing" govt that you believe will
occur?

what is your answer to criminal gangs? rival gangs? militia? do you
not believe in elected govt?

On 5/3/2010 07:53, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-05-03, Larry G > wrote:
>> On May 2, 11:41 pm, Brent > wrote:
>>> On 2010-05-03, Larry G > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 2, 9:31 pm, Brent > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Not without government aid. Walmart serves their customers better so
>>>>> they get the business. The moment Walmart cuts selection and raises
>>>>> prices and makes people wait for goods to come in is when someone else
>>>>> will show up and drive walmart out of business.
>>>
>>>> you need to read up on Standard Oil....
>>>> he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...ges.2C_anti-tr...
>>>
>>> You confuse pleasing customers and building a better mousetrap with a
>>> cartel/monopoly.
>>>
>>> Hehttp://mises.org/daily/2317
>>
>> monopolies are real.... the pure capitalist market will and does
>> generate monopolies because that is one of the aspects of pure
>> capitalism that the participants will engage in to beat their
>> competitors.
>
> Yes, that's what government school teaches us, however it's impossible
> unless that monopoly pleases all of the customers all of the time and
> maintains lower prices than any would be competition can achieve. So,
> exactly why is that a bad things?
>
>> You can see this in action every time a WaWa or Sheetz moves in next
>> to a mom/pop place and lowers the gasoline prices lower than the
>> actual cost. The bigger companies can sustain the loss longer than the
>> little guy can and as soon as he is gone - the prices not only rise -
>> they go up even higher if there are no other nearby competitors.
>
> And when they jack up the prices afterwards nobody else moves in exactly
> why? When they jack up the prices why don't customers just get gas
> elsewhere?
>
> Can you even prove they are selling under their cost? Or is it
> another issue of their costs being lower? (BTW, lots of gas stations
> are just francises, and are ma and pa even though it looks like big oil,
> and whatever WaWa or Sheetz is they can't be too big as I've never heard
> of them)
>
> The problem with undercutting competition by selling at a loss is that
> after 'winning' the endurance contest they can never make up for it with
> higher prices without inspiring new competition. Of course if takes 5
> years of permiting through the government then, well, they can be
> assured that such practices will benefit them.
>
>> At an exit ramp, one company can buy all the prime land and then put
>> up a station that charges higher rates than if a competitor moved in
>> across the street.
>
> Because customers are too lazy to drive a little further? Again, another
> unfounded complaint.
>
>> For a more complete list of the strategies actually practiced:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopol...titive_markets
>
> Exactly how does having government as a referee make for a free
> market? Government is not impartial and it's not fair either.
>
>>>>> Isn't that what got Ford in trouble with the pinto? The actuarial
>>>>> calculation?
>>>> they were doing in with lawsuit money to lives...
>>>> the gov does it comparing which of the choices causes the least
>>>> deaths.
>>>
>>> Government not consider money? HA! Government care about lives? HA!
>
>> govt considers the number of lives lost and the number of people
>> injured as well as costs.
>
> It doesn't care if you live or die. Government cares about government.
> This is why everything gets sucked into the political system.
>
>> every time you take an aspirin or eat a pork chop - the govt has
>> played a role in the efficacy and safety of those and virtually
>> anything that you eat.
>
> No. It has set a very very very low standard such that those who wish to
> provide a better quality product cannot or at the very least not
> indicate that they have done better than the FDA minimum. The low
> standards are set to allow the giant corporations producing medicore
> product to not face competitive issues. BTW, Aspirin is grandfathered
> in.
>
>> The nutrition labels on food are there because of govt.
>
> I'm sure you'll find that the details of how a nutrition label are put
> together are for the benefit of those who have the political inside
> track. Like how the government has decided that GMO foods don't have to
> be labeled. How it often decides that those companies who do not use
> whatever new fangled risky cost reduction methods that are the new
> hotness cannot label their products as such. Yeah, the FDA protects
> those with the political influence from undo competition of ma and pa's
> better made product.
>
> My favorite example is a company that wanted to sell premium beef in the
> US but mostly wanted to export to Japan. It wanted to test every cow for
> mad-cow disease. That should be its right, yes? Nope. The FDA forced it
> to test only to the standard it set, not exceed it. Not show up the
> other beef companies.
>
>> The interstate highways and their standardized designs and
>> safety features are there because of the govt making tradeoffs between
>> lives lost / injure and the costs of mitigating.
>
> Ah. There's the costs you claimed weren't considered. US interstate is
> pretty crappy in terms of the best known road building and safety.
> Instead they decide to use heavy handed enforcement of low speed limits,
> too low even for the way the roads are designed in most cases.
>
>> Without govt - there would be no public roads. Everywhere you went you
>> would be paying an entrepreneur whose road design and safety features
>> would be unique to him and the next road... you'd also pay another
>> toll on and it would be different.
>
> Do I need to go over the private-vs-socialist road system again? Without
> government, I might be able to pay only for what I use and drive proper
> speeds. Another bonus is that the government highwaymen wouldn't be an
> issue any more. Government also decides that to use its roads I have to
> give up my rights. Remember the fast one they've pulled on most people
> by creating the illusion that driving is a privilege it grants and
> therefore can mandate whatever it wants in return for that grant.
>
>> Govt has an important role and even though govt can and does screw up
>> - it does not negate the role and all the things it does that do work
>> properly.
>
> Yes, that's what government schools teach us and it's entirely wrong.
> Government works for the ruling class and others that can manipulate
> government. Not you, not me. Sure every so often it does it's job
> because of fear that the great mass will revolt in most cases.
>
>> pure, unadulterated capitalism is anarchy .... go visit Somalia or
>> Yemen to see what pure Capitalism is about.

There is no capitalism at all in those two places.

There is no pure capitalism anywhere, to the best of my knowledge.

We came close up until the early 1900's.

Without government support (read "force of arms") monopolies can not
form, much less persist.

There is no thing that is so perfect that somebody won't (if allowed to
by the government) make one that is better, or cheaper, or both.

> It's amazing the job government schools have done. The problems in those
> countries are the direct result of those who wish to impose government
> at the point of a gun. Outside of the violence of those who wish to be a
> government Somalia has shown the natural self organizing tendencies of
> civilization. Now if only criminal gangs and foreign governments weren't
> trying to impose a government civilization could flurish.
>


--
Somebody should have said:
A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting
the vote.

Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca

ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml