 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
The problem with this is that even if competitive money was inside the law, the "winner" may buy up the "loser." For example, there was an announcement that ATT just brought up T-Mobile
serenesam,
Perhaps you fail to see the point.
Competition is what it is; and if it isn't, then it isn't.
If competition exists, by law or not, the competitors will have to increase the quality of their product, and lower the cost of their product, or the competitor will, that is a fact, and you can ignore that fact if that is what you decide to do, in your own best interest, or any reason under the sun.
If a competitor creates a cartel, or mutual agreement, or monopoly, by hostile take over, or by deceit, or by threats of violence, or by acts of violence, or by any method at all, then competition no longer exists.
A. Competition exist
B. Not A
Do you see the point, or do you prefer to continue to not see the point?
You are offered a solution, and you ignore it, and you claim that the solution you are offered isn't what it is, when it is what it is, and your claim is akin to replying to my solution as I report to you that some people do good things, and you reply with "the problem is that some people are bad".
There is a legal money monopoly.
It exists.
It is run by bad people.
That is a problem.
The solution is competition.
You can say: "But the problem is that bad people destroy competition."
Yea, that's right, so why are you ignoring the obvious solution offered to you? I'm curious.