Skip to comments.
Justices End 96-Year-Old Ban on Price Floors
The New York Times ^
| June 28, 2007
| STEPHEN LABATON
Posted on 06/28/2007 1:28:18 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 last
To: CdMGuy
However, you forgot the part about the Federal government taking anti-monopoly against both due to their price gouging brought about because each had a monopoly. Do the words Standard Oil mean anything to you? How about John D. Rockefeller?
The monopoly charges or anti-trust litigation had nothing to do with price gouging. There was a growing concern over the expanding power of big business, and that's what starting the ball rolling. I know all about Standard Oil and John D. Rockefeller. One thing Standard Oil and JD Rockefeller did not do was drive prices up.
For some reason you feel the need to be rude, and you don't know what you're talking about, so I'l stop at that. You can have the last word if you like but I don' want to discuss this with you anymore.
PS - A great read on John D Rockefeller is "Titan" by Ron Chernow.
41
posted on
06/28/2007 6:08:52 PM PDT
by
Jaysun
(It's like people who hate corn bread and hate anchovies, but love cornchovie bread.)
To: WVNan
When there was only Ma Bell you could not even purchase and install your own telephone. You were paying rent for one month in and month out via Bell’s monthly rate schedule.
Today, I own the phones I want to own, have one in every room instead of only one or two in the entire house, pay close to the same monthly flat rate charge but really less when you consider inflation, and buy interstate and intrastate long distance service from a third party provider at 3 1/2 cents for interstate and 4 1/2 cents for intrastate. I can remember when long distance calls via Ma Bell (AT&T) were 10 cents or more per minute.
42
posted on
06/28/2007 7:13:38 PM PDT
by
CdMGuy
To: Jaysun
How ‘bout my local cable company, local electric company, et al...
43
posted on
06/28/2007 7:22:19 PM PDT
by
fieldmarshaldj
(~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
To: Jaysun
No it didn’t. It was able to set its desired prices usually far above that of a competitive market but would lower them to drive out competition.
If your newly expounded theory is correct we have been spending trillions of dollars needlessly when all that was required for lower prices was a single supplier of each product.
Under you economic theory, how would innovation occur when there would be no force driving it?
44
posted on
06/28/2007 7:29:13 PM PDT
by
em2vn
To: HiTech RedNeck
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read all night. WTF is “agressive DRM support”?
45
posted on
06/28/2007 7:30:10 PM PDT
by
Doohickey
(Giuliani: Brokeback Republican)
To: em2vn
No it didnt. It was able to set its desired prices usually far above that of a competitive market but would lower them to drive out competition.
If your newly expounded theory is correct we have been spending trillions of dollars needlessly when all that was required for lower prices was a single supplier of each product.
Under you economic theory, how would innovation occur when there would be no force driving it?
What you're saying about Standard Oil isn't entirely true. They had their detractors to be sure. And when prices went up they were accused of gouging, and when prices fell they were accused of driving out competition. The real reason Rockefeller did so well is that he relentlessly searched for and corrected inefficiencies.
Kerosene was their bread and butter for a long time and they drove the price of it down. The price of Kerosene when Standard Oil started was about .24 a gallon. Twenty years later (1890) they were selling it for about .08 a gallon. And in 1890 they were as big a monopoly as they'd ever be in their history.
This isn't my economic theory but a simple observation of facts. The idea that monopolies engage in price gouging is a popular one. A lot of people reason that if only one guy sells wheat he'd increase the price and make more money. But it doesn't work that way. And the notion that monopolies drive prices up is without merit.
46
posted on
06/28/2007 8:09:48 PM PDT
by
Jaysun
(It's like people who hate corn bread and hate anchovies, but love cornchovie bread.)
To: Doohickey
if you knew, you wouldn’t think i was so dumb
To: Jack Wilson
Very astute!
It reminds me of the maxim that liberals like any policy, provided that it is mandatory. Here is an example. If the government forces gas prices up (conservation) that is good. If the government forces gas prices down (caring for the consumer) that is good. But if the government allows prices to fluctuate in a free market, that is bad.
48
posted on
06/28/2007 8:38:17 PM PDT
by
ChessExpert
(Socialism: always taught, never works.)
To: HiTech RedNeck
I do know, and I still think you’re misinformed.
49
posted on
06/29/2007 5:02:16 AM PDT
by
Doohickey
(Giuliani: Brokeback Republican)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson