Australia PM Rudd says free market fundamentalism is personal greed dressed up as economic philosphy, calls for new era of "social capitalism"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Kevin Rudd has denounced the unfettered capitalism of the past three decades and called for a new era of "social capitalism" in which government intervention and regulation feature heavily.

In an essay to be published next week, the Prime Minister is scathing of the neo-liberals who began refashioning the market system in the 1970s, and ultimately brought about the global financial crisis.

"The time has come, off the back of the current crisis, to proclaim that the great neo-liberal experiment of the past 30 years has failed, that the emperor has no clothes," he writes of those who placed their faith in the corrective powers of the market.

"Neo-liberalism and the free-market fundamentalism it has produced has been revealed as little more than personal greed dressed up as an economic philosophy. And, ironically, it now falls to social democracy to prevent liberal capitalism from cannibalising itself."

...

"A system of open markets, unambiguously regulated by an activist state, and one in which the state intervenes to reduce the greater inequalities that competitive markets will inevitably generate," he writes.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/01/30/1232818725574.html

[Yoink 7]

everyones panties get tied up in knots in a bad economy and start finger pointing...

Its a joke to think somehow todays recession has to do with liberals in the 70's

[mendeleev 68]

everyones panties get tied up in knots in a bad economy and start finger pointing...

Its a joke to think somehow todays recession has to do with liberals in the 70's

In Australian and British Commonwealth terms generally, neo-liberalism is what we in the USA would call conservatism. And I agree with the Australian PM that the conservative ideology whose ascendence Reagan and Thatcher brokered is the proximate cause of today's economic crisis and that the dominant market ideology is greed dressed up as economic philosophy.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

everyones panties get tied up in knots in a bad economy and start finger pointing...

Its a joke to think somehow todays recession has to do with liberals in the 70's

In Australian and British Commonwealth terms generally, neo-liberalism is what we in the USA would call conservatism. And I agree with the Australian PM that the conservative ideology whose ascendence Reagan and Thatcher brokered is the proximate cause of today's economic crisis and that the dominant market ideology is greed dressed up as economic philosophy.

Agreed as well. This is proof (as if any was needed) that free markets are not self-regulating or self-correcting.

[mRx 16]

everyones panties get tied up in knots in a bad economy and start finger pointing...

Its a joke to think somehow todays recession has to do with liberals in the 70's

In Australian and British Commonwealth terms generally, neo-liberalism is what we in the USA would call conservatism. And I agree with the Australian PM that the conservative ideology whose ascendence Reagan and Thatcher brokered is the proximate cause of today's economic crisis and that the dominant market ideology is greed dressed up as economic philosophy.

Agreed as well. This is proof (as if any was needed) that free markets are not self-regulating or self-correcting.

Of course they are self regulating. But coercive intervention has impeded the natural flow of the market. Reagan wasn't pro-market, not at all. He brokered just as much intervention as any other president.

So long as the government cannot control every purchase of every consumer, the intervention of man cannot overcome the basic laws of economics.

[Tahoma 2,291]

everyones panties get tied up in knots in a bad economy and start finger pointing...

Its a joke to think somehow todays recession has to do with liberals in the 70's

In Australian and British Commonwealth terms generally, neo-liberalism is what we in the USA would call conservatism. And I agree with the Australian PM that the conservative ideology whose ascendence Reagan and Thatcher brokered is the proximate cause of today's economic crisis and that the dominant market ideology is greed dressed up as economic philosophy.

Agreed. The neo-liberal economic philosophy is the economic philosophy which has been promoted by conservatives for almost 30 years now. It was heavily promoted in the USA by Milton Friedman and his Chicago school of economics. Indeed, it is leading us into a second gilded age.

[Tahoma 2,291]

everyones panties get tied up in knots in a bad economy and start finger pointing...

Its a joke to think somehow todays recession has to do with liberals in the 70's

In Australian and British Commonwealth terms generally, neo-liberalism is what we in the USA would call conservatism. And I agree with the Australian PM that the conservative ideology whose ascendence Reagan and Thatcher brokered is the proximate cause of today's economic crisis and that the dominant market ideology is greed dressed up as economic philosophy.

Agreed as well. This is proof (as if any was needed) that free markets are not self-regulating or self-correcting.

Of course they are self regulating. But coercive intervention has impeded the natural flow of the market. Reagan wasn't pro-market, not at all. He brokered just as much intervention as any other president.

So long as the government cannot control every purchase of every consumer, the intervention of man cannot overcome the basic laws of economics.

How is a free market self-regulating if, for example, there are no anti-trust laws and no price-fixing laws to intervene? The natural inclination of a "free" market leads to a single individual (or corporation) controlling an entire industry (or more). If it were not for government intervention, the Rockefeller family today would control the entire petroleum industry in the USA (and perhaps beyond), all the way from the oil wells to your gas tank. You would pay any price they charged you since there would be no competition.

Also, how does price fixing fit into the idea of a "self-regulating free market"? If you eliminate the competition, is it still a free market?

[mRx 16]

everyones panties get tied up in knots in a bad economy and start finger pointing...

Its a joke to think somehow todays recession has to do with liberals in the 70's

In Australian and British Commonwealth terms generally, neo-liberalism is what we in the USA would call conservatism. And I agree with the Australian PM that the conservative ideology whose ascendence Reagan and Thatcher brokered is the proximate cause of today's economic crisis and that the dominant market ideology is greed dressed up as economic philosophy.

Agreed as well. This is proof (as if any was needed) that free markets are not self-regulating or self-correcting.

Of course they are self regulating. But coercive intervention has impeded the natural flow of the market. Reagan wasn't pro-market, not at all. He brokered just as much intervention as any other president.

So long as the government cannot control every purchase of every consumer, the intervention of man cannot overcome the basic laws of economics.

The natural inclination of a "free" market leads to a single individual (or corporation) controlling an entire industry (or more). If it were not for government intervention, the Rockefeller family today would control the entire petroleum industry in the USA (and perhaps beyond), all the way from the oil wells to your gas tank. You would pay any price they charged you since there would be no competition.

Also, how does price fixing fit into the idea of a "self-regulating free market"? If you eliminate the competition, is it still a free market?

You are completely wrong. Cartelization and monopolization could never exist on a free market, as there are no government regulations that could bar entry into market competition. A producer would be checked by the natural fact that if he skyrocketed prices, then another entreprenuer would clearly be able to enter the market and do it for less. Free market competition forges and establishes the lowest possible prices for consumers.

Regulation allows businesses to pander to the government to cheat the system. Just as when Wal-Mart so "graciously" decided to lobby and push to raise the Minimum Wage, this wasn't a selfless act of charity, but rather, Wal-mart knew that raising the wage would raise the costs of it's competitors; Costs that Walmart could afford, but Mom 'n Pop stores could not.

[Tahoma 2,291]

everyones panties get tied up in knots in a bad economy and start finger pointing...

Its a joke to think somehow todays recession has to do with liberals in the 70's

In Australian and British Commonwealth terms generally, neo-liberalism is what we in the USA would call conservatism. And I agree with the Australian PM that the conservative ideology whose ascendence Reagan and Thatcher brokered is the proximate cause of today's economic crisis and that the dominant market ideology is greed dressed up as economic philosophy.

Agreed as well. This is proof (as if any was needed) that free markets are not self-regulating or self-correcting.

Of course they are self regulating. But coercive intervention has impeded the natural flow of the market. Reagan wasn't pro-market, not at all. He brokered just as much intervention as any other president.

So long as the government cannot control every purchase of every consumer, the intervention of man cannot overcome the basic laws of economics.

The natural inclination of a "free" market leads to a single individual (or corporation) controlling an entire industry (or more). If it were not for government intervention, the Rockefeller family today would control the entire petroleum industry in the USA (and perhaps beyond), all the way from the oil wells to your gas tank. You would pay any price they charged you since there would be no competition.

Also, how does price fixing fit into the idea of a "self-regulating free market"? If you eliminate the competition, is it still a free market?

You are completely wrong. Cartelization and monopolization could never exist on a free market, as there are no government regulations that could bar entry into market competition. A producer would be checked by the natural fact that if he skyrocketed prices, then another entreprenuer would clearly be able to enter the market and do it for less. Free market competition forges and establishes the lowest possible prices for consumers.

Regulation allows businesses to pander to the government to cheat the system. Just as when Wal-Mart so "graciously" decided to lobby and push to raise the Minimum Wage, this wasn't a selfless act of charity, but rather, Wal-mart knew that raising the wage would raise the costs of it's competitors; Costs that Walmart could afford, but Mom 'n Pop stores could not.

As I pointed out, monopolization can (and has) existed in a free market. The only thing "wrong" is your assumption that government regulation is the only issue here. The prohibitive amount of capital necessary for a competitor to enter the market would (and has) prevented competition. Standard Oil of the late 1800's is a good example of precisely that. Even if a competitor would have been financially capable of entering the market, what is to prevent them from price fixing? Where is the competition there? Are you suggesting that we return to the days of unfettered, unregulated predatory capitalism?

No one is saying that prices must (or will) skyrocket in a monopoly. However, using your logic, a monopoly can exist if prices don't skyrocket...because of a lack of competition, people can be overcharged as long as they are not overcharged too much. Hence, people are not getting the lowest price in a free market.

Another problem I have with your Econ 101 analysis of "free" markets is that your theories don't appear to take into account social considerations. Are you giving your blessing to sweatshops, child labor, an 80 hour work week, and polluting the environment? These are all products of a free market.

Your Walmart example doesn't hold water either. The fact of the matter (to anyone who has been paying any attention whatsoever to Walmart) is that after decades of lobbying against raising the minimum wage, Walmart underwent a deathbed conversion only because they saw the handwriting on the wall regarding the inevitability of Congress raising the minimum wage. At that point, they simply tried to get a bit of positive PR for themselves by supporting a bill they couldn't stop. If Walmart thought that raising the minimum wage was good for their business, why did they fight it for so long? Instead, they would have been advocating for it long ago. Or, maybe you think that they just woke up one day and discovered a new business strategy.

[mRx 16]

everyones panties get tied up in knots in a bad economy and start finger pointing...

Its a joke to think somehow todays recession has to do with liberals in the 70's

In Australian and British Commonwealth terms generally, neo-liberalism is what we in the USA would call conservatism. And I agree with the Australian PM that the conservative ideology whose ascendence Reagan and Thatcher brokered is the proximate cause of today's economic crisis and that the dominant market ideology is greed dressed up as economic philosophy.

Agreed as well. This is proof (as if any was needed) that free markets are not self-regulating or self-correcting.

Of course they are self regulating. But coercive intervention has impeded the natural flow of the market. Reagan wasn't pro-market, not at all. He brokered just as much intervention as any other president.

So long as the government cannot control every purchase of every consumer, the intervention of man cannot overcome the basic laws of economics.

The natural inclination of a "free" market leads to a single individual (or corporation) controlling an entire industry (or more). If it were not for government intervention, the Rockefeller family today would control the entire petroleum industry in the USA (and perhaps beyond), all the way from the oil wells to your gas tank. You would pay any price they charged you since there would be no competition.

Also, how does price fixing fit into the idea of a "self-regulating free market"? If you eliminate the competition, is it still a free market?

You are completely wrong. Cartelization and monopolization could never exist on a free market, as there are no government regulations that could bar entry into market competition. A producer would be checked by the natural fact that if he skyrocketed prices, then another entreprenuer would clearly be able to enter the market and do it for less. Free market competition forges and establishes the lowest possible prices for consumers.

Regulation allows businesses to pander to the government to cheat the system. Just as when Wal-Mart so "graciously" decided to lobby and push to raise the Minimum Wage, this wasn't a selfless act of charity, but rather, Wal-mart knew that raising the wage would raise the costs of it's competitors; Costs that Walmart could afford, but Mom 'n Pop stores could not.

As I pointed out, monopolization can (and has) existed in a free market. The only thing "wrong" is your assumption that government regulation is the only issue here. The prohibitive amount of capital necessary for a competitor to enter the market would (and has) prevented competition. Standard Oil of the late 1800's is a good example of precisely that. Even if a competitor would have been financially capable of entering the market, what is to prevent them from price fixing? Where is the competition there? Are you suggesting that we return to the days of unfettered, unregulated predatory capitalism?

No one is saying that prices must (or will) skyrocket in a monopoly. However, using your logic, a monopoly can exist if prices don't skyrocket...because of a lack of competition, people can be overcharged as long as they are not overcharged too much. Hence, people are not getting the lowest price in a free market.

Another problem I have with your Econ 101 analysis of "free" markets is that your theories don't appear to take into account social considerations. Are you giving your blessing to sweatshops, child labor, an 80 hour work week, and polluting the environment? These are all products of a free market.

Your Walmart example doesn't hold water either. The fact of the matter (to anyone who has been paying any attention whatsoever to Walmart) is that after decades of lobbying against raising the minimum wage, Walmart underwent a deathbed conversion only because they saw the handwriting on the wall regarding the inevitability of Congress raising the minimum wage. At that point, they simply tried to get a bit of positive PR for themselves by supporting a bill they couldn't stop. If Walmart thought that raising the minimum wage was good for their business, why did they fight it for so long? Instead, they would have been advocating for it long ago. Or, maybe you think that they just woke up one day and discovered a new business strategy.

When monopolization occurs within the economy, and if predatory price fixing occurs, as you suggest, this creates an aggregate demand. This demand is realized by entreprenuers, and ultimately the prospect for profit persuades the redirection of capital to such fields. Lack of capital to enter is largely irrelevant, as a successful entreprenuer would likely be able to find a lender who would fund the entrance, especially if the lender sees the prospect for success, as he would given the demand. Now this is only if the company is demanding a price higher than believed could be provided. The truth is, the only way you can decide if you are being overcharged as a consumer, is if someone can provide it at a lower price, other than that, it's unquantifiable speculation.

The case of Standard Oil, is a little bit different. Rockefeller was a very successful businessman in the free-market. He provided a product that everyone needed at a price that couldn't be competed with, which explains why the less efficient oil companies ran to government, crying of predatory "anti-competitive" practices. Rockefeller was only successful because we made him that way through our economic actions. No one could compete with such low prices, plain and simple.

Predatory price fixing through collusion of competitors is as outlandish as NFL teams scoring points for each other during the SuperBowl. Additionally, if two or more companies attempt to cartelize through price fixing, as I've explained, this would be seen as a demanded opportunity by a prospective entreprenuer.

In regards to your social considerations, that appeared to be missing from my "Econ101" theory or the market, as you so condescendingly put, (which is irrelevant, as we are not talking basic econ theory, but market competition), each and every business thrives due to our individual actions within the economy. If nobody shopped at Wal-Mart, they would quickly go out of business, but people keep going there. That's the way the market rewards a good business. Now, I wouldn't personally purchase products that were made due to child exploitation, and I really doubt many consumers consciencely would. Hypothetically, If I was a business and I was competing with a company that employed child labor exploitively, then I would definitely take advantage of letting every consumer know of this damaging fact about my competitor. Ultimately competition among business naturally discourages activities which could lower their profits and sales.

Your Wal-Mart theory of them just trying to get some "good PR" is ridiculously naive. Considering that Wal-Mart was paying higher than the current National average minimum wage at the time, the lobbying that they did to raise the minimum wage wouldn't affect them whatsoever, but would destroy some of their competitors, who would see their prices rise to uncompetitive rates due to the increased wage. As a consumer, a companies "wage rate" wouldn't influence my decision to purchase from them whatsoever. Quality and price concern me as a consumer. You need to look behind the smoke and mirrors. There's more to it, than just "good PR".

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Great, articulate posts, Matt and pangga! Although I don't agree with your Libertarian views, Matt - you certainly have a good grasp of what you are talking about.

[mRx 16]

Although I don't agree with your Libertarian views, Matt - you certainly have a good grasp of what you are talking about.

Thanks, Steven. It's not too late to make a believer out of you.

[Tahoma 2,291]

everyones panties get tied up in knots in a bad economy and start finger pointing...

Its a joke to think somehow todays recession has to do with liberals in the 70's

In Australian and British Commonwealth terms generally, neo-liberalism is what we in the USA would call conservatism. And I agree with the Australian PM that the conservative ideology whose ascendence Reagan and Thatcher brokered is the proximate cause of today's economic crisis and that the dominant market ideology is greed dressed up as economic philosophy.

Agreed as well. This is proof (as if any was needed) that free markets are not self-regulating or self-correcting.

Of course they are self regulating. But coercive intervention has impeded the natural flow of the market. Reagan wasn't pro-market, not at all. He brokered just as much intervention as any other president.

So long as the government cannot control every purchase of every consumer, the intervention of man cannot overcome the basic laws of economics.

The natural inclination of a "free" market leads to a single individual (or corporation) controlling an entire industry (or more). If it were not for government intervention, the Rockefeller family today would control the entire petroleum industry in the USA (and perhaps beyond), all the way from the oil wells to your gas tank. You would pay any price they charged you since there would be no competition.

Also, how does price fixing fit into the idea of a "self-regulating free market"? If you eliminate the competition, is it still a free market?

You are completely wrong. Cartelization and monopolization could never exist on a free market, as there are no government regulations that could bar entry into market competition. A producer would be checked by the natural fact that if he skyrocketed prices, then another entreprenuer would clearly be able to enter the market and do it for less. Free market competition forges and establishes the lowest possible prices for consumers.

Regulation allows businesses to pander to the government to cheat the system. Just as when Wal-Mart so "graciously" decided to lobby and push to raise the Minimum Wage, this wasn't a selfless act of charity, but rather, Wal-mart knew that raising the wage would raise the costs of it's competitors; Costs that Walmart could afford, but Mom 'n Pop stores could not.

As I pointed out, monopolization can (and has) existed in a free market. The only thing "wrong" is your assumption that government regulation is the only issue here. The prohibitive amount of capital necessary for a competitor to enter the market would (and has) prevented competition. Standard Oil of the late 1800's is a good example of precisely that. Even if a competitor would have been financially capable of entering the market, what is to prevent them from price fixing? Where is the competition there? Are you suggesting that we return to the days of unfettered, unregulated predatory capitalism?

No one is saying that prices must (or will) skyrocket in a monopoly. However, using your logic, a monopoly can exist if prices don't skyrocket...because of a lack of competition, people can be overcharged as long as they are not overcharged too much. Hence, people are not getting the lowest price in a free market.

Another problem I have with your Econ 101 analysis of "free" markets is that your theories don't appear to take into account social considerations. Are you giving your blessing to sweatshops, child labor, an 80 hour work week, and polluting the environment? These are all products of a free market.

Your Walmart example doesn't hold water either. The fact of the matter (to anyone who has been paying any attention whatsoever to Walmart) is that after decades of lobbying against raising the minimum wage, Walmart underwent a deathbed conversion only because they saw the handwriting on the wall regarding the inevitability of Congress raising the minimum wage. At that point, they simply tried to get a bit of positive PR for themselves by supporting a bill they couldn't stop. If Walmart thought that raising the minimum wage was good for their business, why did they fight it for so long? Instead, they would have been advocating for it long ago. Or, maybe you think that they just woke up one day and discovered a new business strategy.

When monopolization occurs within the economy, and if predatory price fixing occurs, as you suggest, this creates an aggregate demand. This demand is realized by entreprenuers, and ultimately the prospect for profit persuades the redirection of capital to such fields. Lack of capital to enter is largely irrelevant, as a successful entreprenuer would likely be able to find a lender who would fund the entrance, especially if the lender sees the prospect for success, as he would given the demand. Now this is only if the company is demanding a price higher than believed could be provided. The truth is, the only way you can decide if you are being overcharged as a consumer, is if someone can provide it at a lower price, other than that, it's unquantifiable speculation.

The case of Standard Oil, is a little bit different. Rockefeller was a very successful businessman in the free-market. He provided a product that everyone needed at a price that couldn't be competed with, which explains why the less efficient oil companies ran to government, crying of predatory "anti-competitive" practices. Rockefeller was only successful because we made him that way through our economic actions. No one could compete with such low prices, plain and simple.

Predatory price fixing through collusion of competitors is as outlandish as NFL teams scoring points for each other during the SuperBowl. Additionally, if two or more companies attempt to cartelize through price fixing, as I've explained, this would be seen as a demanded opportunity by a prospective entreprenuer.

In regards to your social considerations, that appeared to be missing from my "Econ101" theory or the market, as you so condescendingly put, (which is irrelevant, as we are not talking basic econ theory, but market competition), each and every business thrives due to our individual actions within the economy. If nobody shopped at Wal-Mart, they would quickly go out of business, but people keep going there. That's the way the market rewards a good business. Now, I wouldn't personally purchase products that were made due to child exploitation, and I really doubt many consumers consciencely would. Hypothetically, If I was a business and I was competing with a company that employed child labor exploitively, then I would definitely take advantage of letting every consumer know of this damaging fact about my competitor. Ultimately competition among business naturally discourages activities which could lower their profits and sales.

Your Wal-Mart theory of them just trying to get some "good PR" is ridiculously naive. Considering that Wal-Mart was paying higher than the current National average minimum wage at the time, the lobbying that they did to raise the minimum wage wouldn't affect them whatsoever, but would destroy some of their competitors, who would see their prices rise to uncompetitive rates due to the increased wage. As a consumer, a companies "wage rate" wouldn't influence my decision to purchase from them whatsoever. Quality and price concern me as a consumer. You need to look behind the smoke and mirrors. There's more to it, than just "good PR".

Matt, you are entitled to your own opinions. However, you are not entitled to your own facts. John Rockefeller did not provide a product that everyone needed at a "price that couldn't be competed with". He simply refused to compete. Instead, he drove any potential competition out of the market before they could even begin to compete. For example, if a competitor tried to ship their product by railroad, Rockefeller would either buy the railroad (and not allow his competitor to use it), or he would threaten to pull his business from the railroad. Also, any threat of competition would be met by his product's price cuts (to a point of selling below cost) until the competitor was driven out of business. Then he would raise his prices again. He (and the other robber barons) had a whole bag of dirty tricks. This is how a "free" market operates outside of text books.

As for your assertion that lack of capital is "largely" irrelevant and an entrepreneur is "likely" be able to find a lender in order to enter a field (note that we are not talking about a business, but an entire industry), you seem to be hedging your argument. I don't blame you, because the fact is that Rockefeller was rich enough that he could squash any and all competition without resorting to competing against them. Can you imagine how much capital would be needed to come into the market if you were planning on competing against an entire industry...from the oil wells all the way through the refining stage to (and including) the gas stations? Rockefeller had a unassailable monopoly for a very simple reason...the free market could not provide enough capital to challenge him. How does unlimited wealth which prevents competition fit into your free market model?

And you completely sidestepped my questions about Walmart. How about their deathbed conversion? What do you attribute that to? Why do they routinely fight minimum wage increases? Is it possible that they fight them because they believe in a slippery slope idea of wage increases? I noticed you used the misleading assertion about Walmart paying higher than the current "national average minimum wage". This is entirely misleading because each and every state sets it's own minimum wage, with the federal minimum wage acting as simply the floor for minimum wage. Walmart does not pay Washington State's minimum wage (well above the federal minimum wage) to all of their workers in states where the state minimum wage is lower, especially the states where the minimum wage is down to the federal minimum wage level. They pay as little as they can in any particular state. Further, you don't say anything about starting wages. The idea that Walmart is driving Mom and Pop out of business through higher wages is ignoring the relevant factors. Nowhere do you talk about economies of scale and the fact that Walmart is big enough to dictate their product costs to the manufacturer. Nowhere do you talk about Walmart abandoning their "Buy American" philosophy in order to chase the cheapest labor costs to the sweatshops of Third-World countries.

I applaud you for having a social conscience regarding child labor. However, there are many more labor issues involved with sweatshop labor than just child labor. Environmental concerns are also a major issue. The free market does not address the issues of labor exploitation and pollution. People knowingly buy products that come from manufacturers that abuse labor and pollute the environment. Does it make it any better if people choose not to look at where their product come from? Instead of businesses capitalizing on these issues, they simply join the rush to those countries which have the cheapest labor and the laxest environmental laws.

Also, maybe you could give me a real-world example of where collusion to fix prices has raised demand and led to competitors entering the market. History must be full of gilded-age examples of price fixing and the resulting market adjustment. Of course, that subject could bring up another inconvenient problem with the very foundation upon which your free market theory rests...the market concept of perfect information...another concept that exists only in text books. While you are at it, maybe your market theory will explain why people and businesses don't always act rationally. This free market stuff is yesterday's news.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

John Rockefeller did not provide a product that everyone needed at a "price that couldn't be competed with". He simply refused to compete. Instead, he drove any potential competition out of the market before they could even begin to compete. For example, if a competitor tried to ship their product by railroad, Rockefeller would either buy the railroad (and not allow his competitor to use it), or he would threaten to pull his business from the railroad. Also, any threat of competition would be met by his product's price cuts (to a point of selling below cost) until the competitor was driven out of business. Then he would raise his prices again. He (and the other robber barons) had a whole bag of dirty tricks.

Aye, that is pretty much what I recall reading in American Economic History in college.

[Tahoma 2,291]

Great, articulate posts, Matt and pangga! Although I don't agree with your Libertarian views, Matt - you certainly have a good grasp of what you are talking about.

Thanks MF.......care to join the debate?