?

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #7,353

8/31/01 3:09:58 PM

So - you are saying that a monopoly condition can't be represented in an economic model? That constraints or limits on that condition in said model are impossible to represent?

Nope. Quite easy. Covered in ECON 101.

Excellent! Then since constraints on monopoly are easy to represent, and you can "demonstrate a monopoly condition on a S/D graph", then constraints on monopoly conditions (antitrust legislation) should be (easily?) representable. Of course, I am obviously not the devotee of the hard science of economics, as you are.

Of course, you STILL didn't bother to prove your point.

Oh. Sorry. I guess I lack the command of econ-speak to make my point.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #7,362

by addison

8/31/01 4:19:13 PM

You've gotten confused.

then constraints on monopoly conditions (antitrust legislation) should be (easily?) representa

Well, that's up to you to *do* that (and what I've been asking for).

Oh. Sorry. I guess I lack the command of econ-speak to make my point

You're lacking the above - show that its easily represented, first, because that's how you show "market forces".

So you're wanting *me* to prove your point, and insisting its easy, but you're not doing it. :)

Excellent! Then since constraints on monopoly are easy to repre

And that's not constraints *on* a monopoly, its *monopoly conditions*. That's showable.

But the entire crux here is back the first part -that's YOUR job to produce that to prove me wrong.

Addison

Bill Gates's way, or no way - (addison) - (105) - Aug. 29, 2001, 12:33:21 PM EDT

A lesson - - (imric) - (104) - Aug. 29, 2001, 05:52:42 PM EDT

At last I see, the only viable solution next: - (Ashton) - Aug. 29, 2001, 09:25:47 PM EDT

Wrong lesson. - (addison) - (102) - Aug. 29, 2001, 09:36:45 PM EDT

This faith may not be entirely misplaced but.. - (Ashton) - Aug. 29, 2001, 11:08:56 PM EDT

And the Thousand Year Reich would have corrected itself . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (7) - Aug. 30, 2001, 02:16:16 AM EDT

Touch\ufffd____cackle___cackle_____Market Forces for Dummies\ufffd - (Ashton) - Aug. 30, 2001, 06:03:23 AM EDT

Markets, Andrew, not Governments. - (addison) - (5) - Aug. 30, 2001, 09:38:10 AM EDT

False Godwin. - (inthane-chan) - (1) - Aug. 30, 2001, 10:39:19 AM EDT

False False godwin. - (addison) - Aug. 30, 2001, 11:19:19 AM EDT

I fail to see the difference. - (Andrew Grygus) - (2) - Aug. 30, 2001, 11:32:44 AM EDT

The one sentence version - (Andrew Grygus) - Aug. 30, 2001, 11:57:39 AM EDT

I agree, its a failing. :) - (addison) - Aug. 30, 2001, 01:28:37 PM EDT

I disagree. - (Another Scott) - (15) - Aug. 30, 2001, 10:04:50 AM EDT

Re: I disagree. - (addison) - (14) - Aug. 30, 2001, 11:38:00 AM EDT

The infrastructure would still be there . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (4) - Aug. 30, 2001, 12:02:42 PM EDT

That's a "presume" not a "simply". - (addison) - (3) - Aug. 30, 2001, 01:31:49 PM EDT

What's Microsoft's ratio of "plants, trucks, etc"... - (CRConrad) - (1) - Aug. 30, 2001, 01:55:20 PM EDT

Erm. I think you got mixed up. - (addison) - Aug. 30, 2001, 02:16:00 PM EDT

Counterexample. - (a6l6e6x) - Aug. 30, 2001, 05:02:12 PM EDT

SOAP - (Decco Dave) - (8) - Sept. 1, 2001, 11:28:08 AM EDT

Needs more washing - (addison) - (3) - Sept. 1, 2001, 11:56:40 AM EDT

Re: Needs more washing - (Decco Dave) - (2) - Sept. 3, 2001, 11:16:10 PM EDT

Needs a LOT more washing. - (addison) - (1) - Sept. 4, 2001, 12:53:45 AM EDT

Interoperation? - (Decco Dave) - Sept. 4, 2001, 12:28:29 PM EDT

Re: SOAP - MS 'invented' SOAP ? - (dmarker2) - (1) - Sept. 1, 2001, 12:06:52 PM EDT

Pleasing MS - (Decco Dave) - Sept. 3, 2001, 11:29:09 PM EDT

Microsoft did not invent SOAP. - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Sept. 1, 2001, 01:00:45 PM EDT

Dave Winer. - (static) - Sept. 3, 2001, 12:27:38 AM EDT

Antitrust law IS a 'market correction' -NT - (imric) - (76) - Aug. 30, 2001, 05:29:26 PM EDT

No, its an artificial outside influence, like ceiling/floors -NT - (addison) - (43) - Aug. 30, 2001, 08:51:54 PM EDT

Wrong. - (imric) - (42) - Aug. 30, 2001, 10:34:33 PM EDT

If you insist on perverting the language, fine. - (addison) - (41) - Aug. 31, 2001, 12:24:14 AM EDT

noting previous antitrust vs. Microsoft - (wharris2) - (1) - Aug. 31, 2001, 04:46:23 AM EDT

Absolute faith in a simplistic concept, 'free market' - (Ashton) - Aug. 31, 2001, 06:18:55 AM EDT

So hostile... - (imric) - (38) - Aug. 31, 2001, 09:58:40 AM EDT

Because its a "concept" that disallows agreement. - (addison) - (37) - Aug. 31, 2001, 10:24:01 AM EDT

Now we know - (Silverlock) - (4) - Aug. 31, 2001, 11:19:48 AM EDT

Re: Now we know - (addison) - (3) - Aug. 31, 2001, 01:15:35 PM EDT

Just going by history - (Silverlock) - (2) - Aug. 31, 2001, 01:58:22 PM EDT

I suggest you repeat History, you've forgotten it. - (addison) - (1) - Aug. 31, 2001, 02:08:36 PM EDT

Sorry dude, you just rub me the wrong way - (Silverlock) - Aug. 31, 2001, 02:29:17 PM EDT

Sure. Whatever. - (imric) - (3) - Aug. 31, 2001, 11:32:36 AM EDT

Re: Sure. Whatever. - (addison) - (2) - Aug. 31, 2001, 01:12:21 PM EDT

? - (imric) - (1) - Aug. 31, 2001, 03:09:58 PM EDT

You've gotten confused. - (addison) - Aug. 31, 2001, 04:19:13 PM EDT

Shoplifting is a market force . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2) - Aug. 31, 2001, 12:02:23 PM EDT

WOT - (jbrabeck) - Aug. 31, 2001, 01:08:52 PM EDT

Not really. - (addison) - Aug. 31, 2001, 01:24:39 PM EDT

Huh??? - (CRConrad) - (4) - Aug. 31, 2001, 07:12:14 PM EDT

Context, CRC, context. - (addison) - (3) - Aug. 31, 2001, 09:43:06 PM EDT

What, you think BeeP is the only economist in here??? - (CRConrad) - (2) - Sept. 2, 2001, 07:09:18 PM EDT

No idea how many there are in here. - (addison) - Sept. 2, 2001, 10:45:15 PM EDT

Econometrics...cool - (bepatient) - Sept. 2, 2001, 11:34:12 PM EDT

Good point... - (hnick) - (17) - Sept. 1, 2001, 10:54:07 AM EDT

Two approaches to "the market" - (Andrew Grygus) - (16) - Sept. 1, 2001, 12:37:56 PM EDT

Re: Two approaches to "the market" - (addison) - (11) - Sept. 1, 2001, 01:14:28 PM EDT

BTW: - (addison) - (10) - Sept. 1, 2001, 01:15:40 PM EDT

Which is why you adhere . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (9) - Sept. 1, 2001, 01:55:31 PM EDT

Which is why I asked... - (addison) - (8) - Sept. 1, 2001, 02:56:56 PM EDT

How "Super Buys" work . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (7) - Sept. 1, 2001, 04:25:28 PM EDT

Hey! I think I see a 'graph' in there________:-\ufffd - (Ashton) - (1) - Sept. 1, 2001, 05:12:49 PM EDT

Adventures in marketing #48734655j - (Andrew Grygus) - Sept. 1, 2001, 05:56:44 PM EDT

Or, for the 'engineering model' - (Ashton) - (1) - Sept. 1, 2001, 05:38:24 PM EDT

No problem - it's "Faith Based" -NT - (Andrew Grygus) - Sept. 1, 2001, 06:52:49 PM EDT

Missed item - (wharris2) - (2) - Sept. 3, 2001, 07:11:36 PM EDT

dollar stores also - (boxley) - Sept. 3, 2001, 09:23:43 PM EDT

No, I got that . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - Sept. 3, 2001, 09:41:16 PM EDT

Boys boys boys.... - (bepatient) - (3) - Sept. 2, 2001, 01:24:22 PM EDT

Now don't spoil it, BP - (Ashton) - Sept. 2, 2001, 04:30:42 PM EDT

How much is this a semantic argument? - (drewk) - (1) - Sept. 4, 2001, 04:35:31 PM EDT

Definition... - (bepatient) - Sept. 4, 2001, 05:03:41 PM EDT

hate to let a perfectly degenerating thread go to waste. - (boxley) - (1) - Sept. 1, 2001, 09:46:19 PM EDT

Ah.. but the *Biggest* 'marketing force' has to be - (Ashton) - Sept. 2, 2001, 06:41:26 AM EDT

I think there is a definition issue here - (ben_tilly) - (31) - Aug. 31, 2001, 01:03:53 PM EDT

Exactly. Thanks. - (addison) - (30) - Aug. 31, 2001, 01:26:31 PM EDT

Fine! - (imric) - (7) - Aug. 31, 2001, 03:01:33 PM EDT

Market theory assumes idealized conditions. - (drewk) - (2) - Aug. 31, 2001, 03:30:55 PM EDT

Oh, shut the (*#@$ up. - (addison) - (1) - Aug. 31, 2001, 04:21:11 PM EDT

*chuckle* -NT - (imric) - Aug. 31, 2001, 06:59:00 PM EDT

Re: Fine! - (addison) - (3) - Aug. 31, 2001, 04:15:20 PM EDT

Thanks for an illuminating thread, all. - (Ashton) - Aug. 31, 2001, 06:58:46 PM EDT

Aieee! - (imric) - Aug. 31, 2001, 07:53:09 PM EDT

In support of your position - (boxley) - Sept. 1, 2001, 09:56:04 PM EDT

Where do you get this stuff from??? - (CRConrad) - (21) - Aug. 31, 2001, 07:11:55 PM EDT

Many years of econ classes. - (addison) - (17) - Aug. 31, 2001, 09:25:02 PM EDT

How many? And of *what* -- Econ 101, over and over again...? - (CRConrad) - (6) - Sept. 2, 2001, 06:46:18 PM EDT

3. - (addison) - Sept. 2, 2001, 10:59:10 PM EDT

Apologies to Mr. Smith, for having blamed him for - (Ashton) - Sept. 2, 2001, 11:45:04 PM EDT

Natural monopoly - (bepatient) - (3) - Sept. 2, 2001, 11:50:10 PM EDT

yeah right Auburn :-) - (boxley) - Sept. 3, 2001, 01:08:08 AM EDT

yeah right Auburn :-) - (boxley) - (1) - Sept. 3, 2001, 01:08:09 AM EDT

Just had to give the credit.... - (bepatient) - Sept. 3, 2001, 09:53:50 AM EDT

Not just time but method - (mhuber) - (9) - Sept. 4, 2001, 01:34:20 PM EDT

Yep...sometimes what is substituted... - (bepatient) - (8) - Sept. 4, 2001, 03:53:36 PM EDT

How so? - (Silverlock) - (7) - Sept. 4, 2001, 04:05:31 PM EDT

Issues... - (bepatient) - (6) - Sept. 4, 2001, 04:26:50 PM EDT

Good! the nitty-gritty.. finally. - (Ashton) - Sept. 4, 2001, 05:23:42 PM EDT

I figured Billy needs a personal punishment. - (Andrew Grygus) - (3) - Sept. 4, 2001, 05:37:30 PM EDT

Well... - (bepatient) - Sept. 4, 2001, 07:59:40 PM EDT

Then why didn't you describe one? :-) - (static) - (1) - Sept. 4, 2001, 09:23:24 PM EDT

Nope. Then he'd go into politics directly, 'stead of buying' -NT - (Ashton) - Sept. 4, 2001, 10:48:04 PM EDT

Re: Issues... - (addison) - Sept. 4, 2001, 10:16:30 PM EDT

Oh it will... - (bepatient) - (1) - Aug. 31, 2001, 10:18:01 PM EDT

Well... we are still waiting on that last supposition - (Ashton) - Sept. 1, 2001, 12:37:37 AM EDT

AT&T - (wharris2) - Sept. 1, 2001, 03:23:32 AM EDT

iwethey.org

If there are really aliens, I would think that L. Ron Hubbard would have to be one of them.
246 ms