FACTBOX-Facts on new UN assembly head D'Escoto

Quote :

"June 4 (Reuters) - Former Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann, a fierce critic of the United States, was elected president of the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, a post he will hold for a year from September. Following are some facts about D'Escoto: -- The son of a Nicaraguan diplomat, D'Escoto, 75, was born in Los Angeles and studied in the United States, where he was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest with the Maryknoll mission and embraced the left-wing liberation theology movement. -- D'Escoto has been a foreign policy adviser to Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega since he returned to power in 2006. -- Ignoring a reprimand by Pope John Paul II for backing Nicaragua's left-wing Sandinista revolution, he ended up joining revolutionary leader Daniel Ortega's government as foreign minister for his 1979-1990 rule, which was marked by a decade-long civil war against U.S.-backed 'Contra' rebels. -- D'Escoto's anti-American past includes successfully taking the United States to the International Court of Justice in the Hague for arming Contra rebels and staging a hunger strike against U.S. policy. In 2004 he told a U.S. news program former President Ronald Reagan was 'the butcher of my people' and called President George W. Bush Reagan's 'spiritual heir'. -- In the 1980s, the Sandinista government accused U.S. CIA agents of trying to murder D'Escoto by sending him a bottle of Benedictine liqueur laced with the tasteless and odorless heavy metal thallium, a favorite poison among crime writers."

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN03424970

I mean, this is the kind of shit United States' officials and others have to deal with at the United Nations, folks--a supposedly ex-Sandinista. This is the best guy the Latin American and Caribbean regions could find for the rotating post?!

In any event, this thread is for all U.N.-related topics.

6/6/2008 4:38:24 AM

I don't really think a Nicaraguan is the best candidate for a job like this. But at least he studied in the US, is a non-violent dissenter, and is against arming rebels in order to overthrow a government. I mean, having a guy that's so radically left isn't my ideal candidate either, but this guy seems fairly well qualified and not really that crazy (in terms of his policy ideas).

Not that the UN has any real kind of power anyway...

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 8:05 AM. Reason : ]

6/6/2008 8:05:30 AM

I have a feeling that Hooksaw is unhappy with whomever is in that position if they are to the left of Franco.

He fails to remember that it is a world body and not an American body. Being a world body it means that the voices of the world have a voice. Including Latin America, where socialism is much more prevelant than the rest of the Western Hemisphere.

6/6/2008 9:28:59 AM

Putting anti-American people like this in charge of the UN reinforces the point that we must be ever-alert in not letting our politicians hand our sovereignty over to theis "world body."

6/6/2008 9:40:12 AM

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN0429589920080604

Quote :

"But within hours of his election, Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann said he wanted to turn a page on his past comments and work with the United States and other countries. Washington's U.N. envoy said he had similar assurances and would wait and see."

Quote :

"D'Escoto was elected by acclamation by the 192-member assembly after standing unopposed as candidate of Latin American and Caribbean countries, whose turn it is to hold the post.............. Latin American diplomats said that under a routine practice in which some U.N. posts rotate among members of the regional groups, this year's assembly president could have come from Nicaragua, Bolivia or Paraguay. But Bolivia and Paraguay had offered no candidate, they said."

UN takes turns regionally, so it's not really anything special.

Quote :

"In an acceptance speech, D'Escoto made no direct criticisms of the United States but made a barbed reference to "acts of aggression" in Iraq and Afghanistan, where U.S. forces are fighting insurgents. "The behavior of some member states has caused the United Nations to lose credibility as an organization capable of putting an end to war and eradicating extreme poverty from our planet," he said without elaborating. "

Quote :

" "I do not want to turn this (General Assembly) presidency into a place to take it out on the United States," he said, adding that he loved the United States as a country."

6/6/2008 9:44:00 AM

and that we'd be severely limited in who to pick if we only picked countries that liked the US (especially right now)

6/6/2008 9:45:15 AM

From the UN Fundamental Declaration of Human "Rights."

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Quote :

"(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

Quote :

"(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work."

Quote :

"(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit."

And finally the kicker...

Quote :

"(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

From the Moon treaty...

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/SpaceLaw/gares/html/gares_34_0068.html

Quote :

"The exploration and use of the moon shall be the province of all mankind and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development."

Quote :

"In exploring and using the moon, States Parties shall take measures to prevent the disruption of the existing balance of its environment"

Quote :

"The moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind"

Quote :

"Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non- governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person."

A sculpture in front of the UN building in New York



Fuck those socialist retards. I'm not even sure why the US is in the UN.

6/6/2008 11:07:16 AM

Quote :

"Fuck those socialist retards. I'm not even sure why the US is in the UN."

well, for one thing: we signed those statements and helped to create the united nations.

another: is providing access to free elementary education such an affront to you?

6/6/2008 11:09:00 AM

TANSTAFL (tahn-stoffle)

"There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch"

"Free Education" is simply education you pay for whether you use it or not. Furthermore, you're paying your hard-earned cash to bureaucrats who can use their privileged position to continually jack up prices while letting the quality of delivered education continue to deteriorate.

Plus, government people are just about the last people who should be permitted to spew their corruption at impressionable young children.

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 11:19 AM. Reason : ']

6/6/2008 11:12:00 AM

?

6/6/2008 11:12:29 AM

sometimes i like to imagine that the terrorists really wanted to take down the UN building as well.

either way, i'm sure nutsmackr and crew wouldv'e found a way to show a conspiracy with it all. lol

6/6/2008 11:13:04 AM

?

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 11:20 AM. Reason : .]

6/6/2008 11:20:39 AM

so i'm going to get this straight: megaloman is against some sort of access to free elementary education?

6/6/2008 11:23:44 AM

No, just against "free" government education. The "free" part is a vicious misnomer, since money is being extracted by force from the population to pay for it.

If someone else wants to provide free education they're welcome to.

6/6/2008 11:33:10 AM

freely provided to those people. obviously it is paid for by some mechanism (likely taxes)

so you think elementary education should only be provided to those that can afford it?

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 11:35 AM. Reason : .]

6/6/2008 11:34:58 AM

^^What if it is the people who decide to do it through an elected government?

6/6/2008 11:38:54 AM

I know of private schools that charge less than a thousand dollars per year for a decent education. If you can't pony up $60-70 per month to send your kid to school, then you don't really have any business having kids. Even so, if we get rid of the regulatory burden that restrains our economy, if we repeal the gas tax, the sales tax, the payroll tax, and property tax, all of which the poorest of the poor are forced to pay, there shouldn't be anyone left who can't afford elementary education. If there are, I'm sure you would be more than willing to contribute to a scholarship fund for underprivileged youth. Or are you only generous with other people's money?

^ How many times do we have to go over this? Democracy is bullshit.

One person doesn't have the right to rob or enslave his neighbor, so he doesn't have the right to appoint someone to do so in his name. Democracy boils down to nothing more than the theory that any crime is legitimate, so long as the perpetrators outnumber the victims. If you're willing to get behind such a naked application of "might makes right", then fuck you. The only just and rational standard for government is consent. Not forced consent, not consent of the largest faction, real, honest to goodness consent. Private education + charity is consistent with this standard, democracy is not.

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 11:50 AM. Reason : ']

6/6/2008 11:44:42 AM

Do you not understand the massive breakdown in society if that were to happen

6/6/2008 11:47:31 AM

You're right, society was in a continuous state of massive breakdown until the late 19th century, when public education first became widespread.

6/6/2008 11:51:22 AM

Jesus Christ numbnuts, you are talking about removing all forms of revenue for the State in order to allow people to afford one thing. That would create the breakdown of society.

There are costs involved when you live in a society. Some of those costs are taxes. Those taxes pay for the police, the roads, etc. Remove those and who will provide those services.

6/6/2008 12:03:06 PM

I don't know, providing services is just one thing people are utterly incapable of doing.

6/6/2008 12:04:35 PM

Those services are currently being provided by people through their government.

Your suggestion basically means that for people to have the police investigate a crime, they will have to pay out of pocket for it. For the fire department to come to your home, you will have to pay out of pocket. Every road would become a toll road. Don't you see the lunacy of this?

6/6/2008 12:06:28 PM

If people have to pay for those services directly, they will balance their use of them against their needs for other products and services. These services would be subject to regulation through the price system and would therefore be allocated in a rational manner.

If, as we do now, we rely on taxing bureaucrats to supply these services, then their allocation will be arbitrary and irrational. Without competition, without even the test of profit and loss, each of these services will be either under-supplied or over-supplied. Costs will be through the roof, quality will be poor. It is quite inconceivable that anything even approximating an economically efficient allocation of resources will result. Don't you see the lunacy in this?

You have failed to distinguish what, if any, qualitative difference exists between security, fire protection, and roads, and other, equally important products and services such as food, housing and telecommunications that necessitates compulsory, coercive provision of the former, when voluntary trade and exchange suffice to provide the latter.

Your bland assertions that I'm proposing lunacy do not constitute an argument.

6/6/2008 12:19:11 PM

services such as roads, schools, police, fire, etc. are cheaper for the consumer when they are spread among the entire user base. Just like with health insurance.

6/6/2008 12:27:19 PM

Really, so the fact that comprehensive health insurance coverage is now widespread (if not universal) and the fact that health care costs, in nominal, inflation adjusted terms, and as a percentage of GDP, are at an all-time high are completely unrelated?

Furthermore, the cost savings from economics of scale are enough to offset the fact that bureaucrats' revenue is independent from their attentiveness to the needs of their "customers" and that they face no competition.

You're making some pretty incredible claims, which defy logic. It'd be nice if you supported them instead of just assuming their mere statement to be enough.

6/6/2008 12:35:33 PM

Quote :

"Really, so the fact that comprehensive health insurance coverage is now widespread (if not universal) and the fact that health care costs, in nominal, inflation adjusted terms, and as a percentage of GDP, are at an all-time high are completely unrelated? "

I hope you realize that if you had to pay the entire costs of your healthcare at every single one of your visits you would be fucked. As for competition, there is competition within government. You don't like the way they are doing things, vote them out. You don't like the county government, or the town government, you can move away.

6/6/2008 12:39:35 PM

An assertion that public education is without value is nothing short of irrational. Everyone benefits from an educated population, socially, economically, and culturally. Your argument about a total free market approach to all goods and services amounts to anarchy, and only makes some semblance of sense assuming a level playing field at the beginning of the system, something which is impossible, so don't make the mistake of assuming there will be no such things as large conglomerates that would control these things (and your life very directly), in much the same way that government already does, except that you really have no say. I'd suggest some reading on the Gilded Age and labor practices of the late 19th century as supporting evidence. The idea of free market-run roads and similar services is not a good one: no rational profit-centered group gives a good flying fuck about anything but increasing its own profits, which they would do by reducing costs (maintenance, especially) and increasing prices as much as they can. As given groups out-compete the ones around them, they become local monopolies, and they own your ass. They genuinely do not care whether you live or die, except as it affects their bottom line.

6/6/2008 12:41:24 PM

He can't be any worse than John "asshole" Bolton.

6/6/2008 1:31:00 PM

Quote :

"I hope you realize that if you had to pay the entire costs of your healthcare at every single one of your visits you would be fucked"

It sure is wonderful that the insurance companies are willing to take a loss on providing my healthcare then.

For the record, I don't have anything against insurance per se. It's very useful for not having to set aside large amounts of money for contingencies. I do, however, have some issues with the way the insurance market is currently structured by government.

Quote :

"As for competition, there is competition within government. You don't like the way they are doing things, vote them out."

Yes, being able to vote for or against someone every two, four or six years is exactly like being able to choose how and with whom I'm going to spend each and every dollar, day in and day out.

I love how people like you (though not you, yet) love to sqauwk about "public goods", "externailities" and "free riders" and then expect me to expend time, money and effort participating in a mass political process, whose outcome, I, individually, have little chance of influencing and whose benefit will accrue almost entirely to people other than me.

Quote :

"Everyone benefits from an educated population, socially, economically, and culturally."

I guarantee you there are people who are not benefiting from the existing educational system. Some are simply not served by a bloated, inefficient, propagandizing bureaucracy like the one that now exists. Some, place no value on education, have parents that place no value on education, and gain nothing from being forced by law to hang around a classroom interfering with other people who are trying to learn. I went to school with people like this. Since they're just going to drop out and get minimum wage jobs at 16 anyway, we might as well not waste anybody's time with such people.

Quote :

"Your argument about a total free market approach to all goods and services amounts to anarchy"

Since I'm willing to admit as much, I don't see why you're wasting time pointing it out.

Quote :

"The idea of free market-run roads and similar services is not a good one"

I guess the idea of free market railroads is pretty ridiculous too then. And the private turnpikes that enabled westward expansion and the industrial revolution in early America were not a good idea either.

http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=1328

Quote :

"The best way to understand the notion of private roads is to examine the literature on America’s own era of private turnpikes. In 1821 there were over 4,000 miles of private roadway in the state of New York. Between 1792 and 1840, some 230 New England turnpike companies built and operated 3,800 miles of road. It was private enterprise that really got the show on the road in America."

Quote :

"Between 1795 and 1830 turnpike construction was brisk, crisscrossing the Northeast with private roads. During the same period, public construction virtually ceased. In New York between 1790 and 1821, for example, the state’s expenditure of $622,000 on the construction of roads and bridges is dwarfed by the investment in similar private concerns: $11 million in turnpike companies and $850,000 in bridge companies. A mixed system of private and public roads emerged. Not only did private enterprise boost road mileage in America, it greatly improved the qualities of the country’s roads as well. As the leading transportation historian B. H. Meyer stated, “It is evident that the turnpike movement resulted in a very general and decided betterment of roads.”"

Quote :

"no rational profit-centered group gives a good flying fuck about anything but increasing its own profits"

Which, in the face of competition, it can only do by faithfully serving the interests of its customers.

Quote :

"As given groups out-compete the ones around them, they become local monopolies, and they own your ass."

That's not how things work. Monopolies can only exist for extended periods by using the power of the government to exclude competition. Even a dominant company like Alcoa faces potential competition, if they abuse their position they will lose market share and customers to upstarts. That's why, despite controlling virtually the entire market for aluminum in the US for a number of decades, Alcoa never stopped innovating, developing new processes, and reducing costs.

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=384

Quote :

"Alcoa before World War II was the only producer of aluminum ingot in the United States. However, it achieved and maintained that position by means of its competitive efficiency, in the face of the legal freedom of entry of all other producers, i.e., by achieving and maintaining lower costs of production than potential competitors and by selling at lower prices than its potential competitors required to achieve profitability."

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 1:51 PM. Reason : ]]

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM. Reason : ']

6/6/2008 1:45:35 PM

Megaloman84 is quickly usurping Rat as King Dumbass of TSB.

6/6/2008 1:59:59 PM

clearly anyone that does not like the US must be a communist or a terrorist. Last time i checked the UN was a world organization not a US puppet organization.

6/6/2008 6:26:11 PM

Quote :

" UN wasis a world organization not a US puppet organization."

fixed

6/6/2008 9:38:40 PM

My fault, Megaloman, I didn't realize you were an anarchist. That's my fault, I haven't known many anarchists since I left high school. As far as the thing about monopolies, I don't know that Rockefeller or Carnegie needed help from the government to deliberately undercut smaller companies using their accumulated assets until they went down, at which point prices could be raised. That aside, it's in the interest of non-regulated companies to engage in price-fixing and similar behaviors, so that they can raise prices. Maybe my point should have been that it seems to be in the interest of these groups to organize, merge, or drive each other out of business, given the opportunity, if not for the purpose of owning everything, then at least to gain more of the market share. Would you disagree? Also, given a group of any considerable size, individuals have no significant power, especially if that group controls something as necessary as a road or bridge. Will you just let your stuff sit and be worthless, or just take the annoyance and go on.

I don't know, I don't mind admitting fault if I'm wrong. You raise a point about the roads, though I do think we're better off letting them be publicly owned if for no other reason than to guarantee fair access. But I find it surprising that you're more apt to trust a company that owes you nothing and sees you as a mound of dollars than a government that while admittedly imperfect, at least has some degree of accountability besides a potential economic hit. A sufficiently large company can tell everyone to go to hell with no worries. I'm just not a big Adam Smith believer.

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 11:39 PM. Reason : Name]

6/6/2008 11:32:53 PM

Quote :

"UN takes turns regionally, so it's not really anything special."

SkankinMonky

You have a firm grasp of the obvious. I already noted--for neophytes--in the OP this well-known fact:

Quote :

"This is the best guy the Latin American and Caribbean regions could find for the rotating post?!"

hooksaw

To focus on the regionally rotating aspect of the position at issue famously misses the point. It's the individual currently filling the post that requires further examination.

FYI:

Quote :

"Megaloman84 is quickly usurping Rat as King Dumbass of TSB."

IMStoned420

Quote :

"you can be a total dickhole in how you argue with someone, but you can't fall into just talking shit."

theDuke866

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=500208&page=8

[Edited on June 7, 2008 at 1:25 AM. Reason : .]

6/7/2008 1:21:18 AM

Quote :

"Megaloman84 is quickly usurping Rat as King Dumbass of TSB"

6/7/2008 3:37:28 AM

Quote :

"Megaloman84 is quickly usurping Rat as King Dumbass of TSB"

Yes, conclusive argument there. I concede defeat in the face of your overwhelming logical prowess.

Quote :

"I don't know that Rockefeller or Carnegie needed help from the government to deliberately undercut smaller companies using their accumulated assets until they went down, at which point prices could be raised."

The first part there, the part about undercutting competitors, poses no problem. If a company is able to maintain dominant market share by selling at lower prices than others, that's a boon for the consumer.

I think you underestimate the ease with which prices can simply be raised, as well as overestimating the dominance of Standard Oil and US Steel.

http://mises.org/story/388

Quote :

"The industry’s output of refined petroleum increased rapidly throughout this period--just the opposite of what mainstream monopoly theory would predict. In 1911, the year in which the federal government forced the breakup of Standard Oil, the company faced fierce competition from Associated Oil and Gas, Texaco, Gulf, and 147 other independent refineries. Because of this competition Standard Oil’s market share fell from 88 percent in 1890 to a mere 11 percent by 1911."

6/7/2008 8:26:18 PM

Check the next bit of the Carnegie/Rockefeller sentence, Megaloman. The drop in price that's a "boon to the consumer" is temporary. Then it's back to the gouge, once there's no more competition in an area. My point isn't as much that Rockefeller was an asshole (he was), I was giving an example of how this can work, as you pointed out when you said "underestimating how easily prices can be raised." I could be underestimating it. It could be easier than I thought, like you said. That's the entire point. It's really easy when you have a monopoly share, maybe something like the 88% cited in your source.

I don't especially agree with your source to begin with, but that's more a historical bone of contention than anything else after going through some of the other articles, like the one on the misrepresentation of Progressivism, i.e. it connects Jim Crow to Progressivism directly, rather than just stating that some Progressive politicians were racist, kind of like most of white America at the time, and seems vaguely outraged that amendments were passed making U.S. Senators directly elected and giving women suffrage rights. The article is in the link below, and after reading it, I'm not nearly as inclined to accept what's found there at first glance. I'd be interested to see some of the author's work in a peer-reviewed journal.

http://mises.org/story/364

[Edited on June 7, 2008 at 10:33 PM. Reason : Spell edit]

6/7/2008 10:23:24 PM

^^^

6/8/2008 5:37:34 AM

^ lmao

6/8/2008 6:11:14 AM

Quote :

"Check the next bit of the Carnegie/Rockefeller sentence, Megaloman. The drop in price that's a "boon to the consumer" is temporary. Then it's back to the gouge, once there's no more competition in an area."

This argument has just never held water for me. No one has ever been able to point to a clearcut example of this happening historically. The examples of "monopolies" that people commonly point out either use the power of government to exclude competition or are legitimately the strongest competitor. In other words, they can profitably sell at prices which no one can match without turning a loss. Selling at a loss, even temporarily, is no way to do business.

Think about it. If you faced a dominant company that controlled the market for some commodity and you suspected they were jacking up prices and raking in the monopoly profits, that would be a potential for you to make huge money competing with them. Sure, they could slash their prices and sell at a loss, but at the new, lower price, quantity demanded would go up. Not only would they have to cut prices to below cost, they'd have to ramp up output as well. If they didn't they'd leave customers high and dry who might still prefer your higher priced product that they are able to get, versus a lower priced product that is difficult or unreliable to find due to shortages. If you suspected the possibility of such tactics from them, you could operate in such a way as to use their strategy against them. If you start competing with them and they slash prices without sufficiently increasing output, you could still pick up market share. If they increase output enough to meet demand, you mothball your operation while they hemorrhage cash. Eventually they'll have to increase prices again. You can then simply fire up your operation and resume competition. Each subsequent cycle would enable you to drive a larger wedge into their market share, while they deplete their stock of capital.

Of course, they could always buy you out. This tactic, also commonly attributed to successful monopolists, would pose its own problems. A dominant company with a propensity to buy out smaller competitors would actually encourage rather than discourage competition, as people rush into the market anticipating large cash payouts simply for being in a position to threaten the established enterprise.

Neither of these strategies is fundamentally workable. By being a legitimately better competitor, a company might be able to pull it off, but it would still be more costly and less profitable than just openly out-competing everyone.

6/8/2008 5:53:02 PM

You make fine arguments. I'd respond by saying that a small company is rarely in a position to compete price-wise with a much larger one thanks to economies of scale, i.e. Wal-Mart, so it might not be necessary to drop prices to below cost just to drive people out of business as much as just letting your marginally lower prices take business from them. Not a bad thing in and of itself, but it's bad for competition. And in the case of a hypothetical company bent on achieving monopoly, or even one just planning to maximize market share by out-competing, I wouldn't say it makes sense for a rational business person who genuinely wants to make a profit to put their money on the line knowing full well that they'll be driven out in a couple of years when their operating costs exceed their profits and they're forced to shut down or sell out at what is likely to be a very low price. I know I wouldn't pay anything like a fair price to get a competitor out if I didn't have to, based on a profit-seeking mindset.

Government-mandated monopolies are generally for services that would be monopolies regardless, like power service, where competition would mean nobody could afford to stay in business, or where a service simply needs to exist, as in the case of USPS for most of the country's history.

6/8/2008 7:28:51 PM

Quote :

"a small company is rarely in a position to compete price-wise with a much larger one thanks to economies of scale"

No problem, even if a "natural monopoly" existed and was being exploited by the established firm to "gouge" consumers, such a firm would come nowhere near controlling the entire economy. Other, equally large firms would exist in other industries that might be induced to enter a new market, if they thought they could unseat the incumbent and have some of those monopoly profits for themselves.

6/8/2008 8:04:01 PM

holy shitballs man what the bible says is true


mccain 08

6/8/2008 8:04:40 PM

Quote :

"or where a service simply needs to exist, as in the case of USPS for most of the country's history."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company

Quote :

"The American Letter Mail Company was started by Lysander Spooner in 1844, competing with the legal monopoly of the United States Post Office (USPO) (now the United States Postal Service {USPS}) in violation of the Private Express Statutes. It succeeded in delivering mail for lower prices, but the U.S. Government challenged Spooner with legal measures, eventually forcing him to cease operations in 1851."

Quote :

"According to McMaster[2], the company had offices in various cities, including Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York. Stamps could be purchased and then attached to letters which could be sent to any of its offices. From here agents were dispatched who travelled on railroads and steamboats, and carried the letters in hand bags. Letters were transferred to messengers in the cities along the routes who then delivered the letters to the addressees."

Quote :

"Spooner's intentions were founded on both an ethical perspective, as he considered government monopoly to be an immoral restriction, as well as an economic analysis, as he believed that 5 cents was sufficient to send mail throughout the country. The American Letter Mail Company was able to reduce the price of its stamps significantly and even offered free local delivery, significantly undercutting the 12 cent stamp being sold by the USPO. Although the business was forced to close shop after only a few years, it succeeded in driving down the cost of government delivered mail."

6/8/2008 8:10:13 PM

You didn't need to go that far back, you could have cited FedEx and UPS. I'll agree that it wasn't really right of them to put him out of business.

With regards to the situation of a handful of large businesses controlling even their own markets completely, I don't think some other massive company that owns, or all but owns, some other sector of the economy moving in really counts as competition. McDonald's deciding they want in Starbucks's high-end coffee business doesn't really do me a whole lot of good as a consumer, and it makes life that much harder if I wanted to get into the business myself. I really continue to be confused by your faith in the essentially good nature of business, when compared to your total lack of faith in government. I don't believe private business is less prone to exploit people and situations than government. The last few years have demonstrated to me pretty clearly that companies cannot be trusted to act responsibly on their own, so the idea of totally deregulating business makes no sense to me. It's definitely more cost effective to dump your chemical waste into the groundwater than to dispose of it properly, and its much cheaper to pay your workers in company scrip (sp.?) while requiring them to live in company housing at inflated rent and paying inflated prices in company stores.

A natural monopoly is, by definition, an industry in which is it only cost-effective for one company to be in business, and in some cases is unavoidable, unless government steps in to provide the service. Even these aren't ideal, as there is no incentive not to raise prices if they aren't regulated, and if they are regulated, there is no incentive to improve service significantly, as profits cannot be improved. If left unregulated, and if the situation you've described arises, then someone goes out of business, and service may be interrupted. A monopoly which is not a "natural monopoly" is one I would object to, and even if that company doesn't control the entire economy, they do control their portion of it.

I like that the same debate is in two threads, but I feel kind of bad that the UN thread is no longer about the UN.

6/9/2008 1:01:53 AM