CapeXit 2

[ToxicBunny]

That's simply not the case.

The reason has to do with the temptation to relinquish individual responsibility for using your feet to appoint winners, rather than take the short cut of appointing an effective gate-keeper who will 'relieve you of the burden' of having to judge your peers.

That is a departure from the formula, not an implementation of it.

If you want to get the results that go with the formula, you have to stick with the formula..... even if someone who really wants to help you offers you the deal of your life by promising you that you will never have to worry about self-defense and exercising moral judgement of your peers.

You can stick your fingers in your ears and go nah nah nah your mom as much you want.

Reality and history paint a different picture.

 

[Cray]

In a free market:

1) A cartel of WC Apple farmers collude in an attempt to keep prices artificially high, making them filthy rich in the process.

2) An invited competitor farmer, looking to break into the WC Apple market, recognizes the artificial profit being made..... sees his chance to charge half that excess profit for the same product.

Question:

What can the cartel members legally do, in that free market, to prevent the new entrant from forcing the price down, without it affecting the existing quality of the product?

As an established cartel with lots of capital, they can do any number of things.

Ever heard of the phrase "dumping"? Am guessing your free economic system wouldn't prohibit that?

 

[lexity]

As an established cartel with lots of capital, they can do any number of things.

Except legally prevent new entrants from coming in and lowering the profit and hence taking customers away from the cartel.

Ever heard of the phrase "dumping"? Am guessing your free economic system wouldn't prohibit that?

Depends. Can you give a definition/description?

 

[ToxicBunny]

Except legally prevent new entrants from coming in and lowering the profit and hence taking customers away from the cartel.




Depends. Can you give a definition/description?

Except they can, and entirely legally in your unicorn infested fantasy.

 

[Cray]

Except legally prevent new entrants from coming in and lowering the profit and hence taking customers away from the cartel.

Sure, so who is bank rolling this new entrant that is going to take on the cartel, the fairy godmother?

Depends. Can you give a definition/description?

Basically selling a product at below cost to drive the competition out of business.

 

[Cray]

What has anyone of that got to do with you thinking you dont need to follow the rules you agreed to...?

You raise deflection to an art form

@lexity ?

 

[lexity]

@lexity ?

You mean to say the underlying assumption going in to these terms, that everyone makes i.e. that this sector is not pre-filtered/gatekept is..... a lie?

Is it a meritocracy or isn't it?

I thought we live in a system in which all are equal before the law, and aggression is aggression no matter who commits it.

Do you agree with competitors(who have the effect of reducing prices), being threatened with violence if they achieve accreditation through non-violent means?

Are you okay with that? Seems like you are more aligned with Crony-Capitalism than you would like to let on.

#Lady-Justice
#legal-privilege
#crony-capitalism

 

[Cray]

You mean to say the underlying assumption going in to these terms, that everyone makes i.e. that this sector is not pre-filtered/gatekept is..... a lie?

Is it a meritocracy or isn't it?

I thought we live in a system in which all are equal before the law, and aggression is aggression no matter who commits it.

Do you agree with competitors(who have the effect of reducing prices), being threatened with violence if they achieve accreditation through non-violent means?

Are you okay with that? Seems like you are more aligned with Crony-Capitalism than you would like to let on.

#Lady-Justice
#legal-privilege
#crony-capitalism

That's an awful lot of waffle to totally avoid the question. We are talking about the rules of behaviour on a private forum you agreed to...

So did you agree to those rules or not, and if you didnt, are you going to leave the forum as per the T's & C's?

 

[ToxicBunny]

You mean to say the underlying assumption going in to these terms, that everyone makes i.e. that this sector is not pre-filtered/gatekept is..... a lie?

Is it a meritocracy or isn't it?

I thought we live in a system in which all are equal before the law, and aggression is aggression no matter who commits it.

Do you agree with competitors(who have the effect of reducing prices), being threatened with violence if they achieve accreditation through non-violent means?

Are you okay with that? Seems like you are more aligned with Crony-Capitalism than you would like to let on.

#Lady-Justice
#legal-privilege
#crony-capitalism

Waffle waffle deflect deflect and say fsck all.

 

[lexity]

That's an awful lot of waffle to totally avoid the question. We are talking about the rules of behaviour on a private forum you agreed to...

Private?



Like I say I'm repeating myself.

You yourselves admitted it's the State regulating the sector.

That means it cannot be private.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Private?



Like I say I'm repeating myself.

You yourselves admitted it's the State regulating the sector.

That means it cannot be private.

It can be both lexy.. I know it's complicated.

 

[Cray]

Private?



Like I say I'm repeating myself.

You yourselves admitted it's the State regulating the sector.

That means it cannot be private.

This forum is not moderated and run by the state Lexie, dont be obtuse. However if you were to engage in threats or hate speech, the state might become involved.

 

[ToxicBunny]

This forum is not moderated and run by the state Lexie, dont be obtuse. However if you were to engage in threats or hate speech, the state might become involved.

We have a super secret RBP button that goes to the state.

 

[Grant]

Mostly agreed with your post's logic, but we don't actually know there's no (or even few) donors, all it takes is someone very devoted to the cause.

there may be some out there - at this point it would seem none are devoted to the cause.

perhaps there is a lack of confidence in the ability of phil muh cavity's leadership skills.
perhaps phyllis is not putting much effort into "jackpotting" those with deep pockets.
perhaps phallus this and perhaps phallus that - who knows

maybe, just maybe, phillistine should start courting the likes of hersov, in a language they enjoy and place offers on the table that may satisfy personalities & in doing so, mitigate any perceived risk they may feel exposed to.

in my humble opinion, "fill" is not the right person for the task.
one needs people with a strong commanding presence to seize attention and maintain it

 

[lexity]

there may be some out there - at this point it would seem none are devoted to the cause.

perhaps there is a lack of confidence in the ability of phil muh cavity's leadership skills.
perhaps phyllis is not putting much effort into "jackpotting" those with deep pockets.
perhaps phallus this and perhaps phallus that - who knows

maybe, just maybe, phillistine should start courting the likes of hersov, in a language they enjoy and place offers on the table that may satisfy personalities & in doing so, mitigate any perceived risk they may feel exposed to.

in my humble opinion, "fill" is not the right person for the task.
one needs people with a strong commanding presence to seize attention and maintain it

To some - not small - extent, Phil has been leveraging the successful strategy of Farage, leading up to Brexit.

If Farage had changed his pitch or political allegiances, before reaching his goal, I think the British public would have sniffed him out in no time, and not supported him in such great numbers.

Phil Craig has built up a brand in the same vein. He can't go changing it at this stage, without seriously bombing out. If he did he'd probably end up in the mould of GHL, and the CIM would never trust him again.

He could even become a very successful politician by selling out his base, in the name of attaining greater power 'for the people'. He would not be the first.

 

[lexity]

This forum is not moderated and run by the state Lexie, dont be obtuse.

It most certainly is.

However if you were to engage in threats or hate speech, the state might become involved.

Wow, so perhaps you ARE capable of distinguishing those two, after all.

Hm...

 

[lexity]

Icasa as a regulator is guided by legislation, so the blame ought to go to those who make the law. It is our legislative regime that enables Icasa to shut down value-providing businesses and inhibit the operation of others. For Icasa to be called to order, the laws must change so they encourage businesses instead of punishing them.

~ https://www.businessday.co.za/bd/op...-handed-approach-invalidates-consumer-choice/

Even those calling the culprits to account are careful not to upset their own personal future prospects/careers.

'The laws must change...'

Wow. It's certainly true. But I think we might just run out of runway if we keep pretending we have all the time in the world.

Ask any Commie on this thread, whether 'deregulation' is the answer to the problem.

If we stick to this pretense, history shows Communist-style collapse wins.

It may be the case that a SA collapse, in isolation, would reflect too badly on the Rainbow Project's Critical Theory architects. In which case it would wait for everyone else to go down, before being allowed to fall.

Until then it would be a case of Week-end at Bernies. Lot's of financial stimulus through the usual suspects.

 

[lexity]

As an established cartel with lots of capital, they can do any number of things.

Except legally prevent new entrants from coming in and lowering the profit and hence taking customers away from the cartel.

Sure, so who is bank rolling this new entrant that is going to take on the cartel, the fairy godmother?

How about the consumer, who is convinced he's being taken to the cleaners?

All they have to do is take their business elsewhere, and there is nothing (legal) the cartel would be able to do about it.

 

[lexity]

lexity: What can the cartel members legally do, in that free market, to prevent the new entrant from forcing the price down, without it affecting the existing quality of the product?

Cray: As an established cartel with lots of capital, they can do any number of things. Like dumping.

lexity: 'Dumping'? Can you give a definition/description?

Cray: Basically selling a product at below cost to drive the competition out of business.

This is too easy....

Selling below cost to drive the competition out, would at best be a temporary measure. Once the exorbitant profit returns to the cartel, so would the opportunity and incentive, for the next new entrant to come in and take half of that exorbitant profit and, with it, the cartel's customers.

 

[lexity]

You can stick your fingers in your ears and go nah nah nah your mom as much you want.

Reality and history paint a different picture.

Current reality is has a cause... it didn't just drop out of the sky, of its own accord.

People who were busily engaged in implementing a free market formula, had to be enticed away from doing that.

That is where today's reality came from.

You do believe in cause and effect, right? If you want to keep the original effect, you have stick with the original formula.

Don't over-complicate things.