Linked by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff on Fri 31st Aug 2007 08:54 UTC
Editorial This article is an answer to "Competition Is Not Good" by Kroc and reading it wouldn't be comfortable without switching to and from the original article. I wrote it just because I do strongly disagree with Kroc and I believe I can prove that he is not as close to truth as it may seem from the first glance.
Thread beginning with comment 267576
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: I agree
by chemical_scum on Sat 1st Sep 2007 02:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I agree"
Member since:

We are getting a little off topic, but the crash of '29 was not caused by competition. It was caused by a previous government sponsored credit bubble starting in the early years of the century. If you want to understand it, research the effects of the founding of the Federal Reserve on bank reserve requirements and lending ability, in Murray Rothbard's book, available online. The depression which followed was also not caused by any lack of regulation. The standard account now is that it was largely caused by the actions the government took during the New Deal to decrease competition and keep prices up. The inevitable result was, output fell.

You right wing US libertarian's are so funny or perhaps tragic. You just love to lie about history. The depression could not have been caused by the New Deal as it did not start until the depression was at is worst. The turn around in production occurred during the first New Deal and continued through the second New Deal. Industrial output had recovered by 1936. The mini-depression of 1937 was cured primarily by by increasing government expenditure though debt financing. There were only threats of ant-trust activity and little was actually done. However the increase in government expenditure then was small in comparison to that which occurred during WW11 which resulted in a massive increase in employment.

Personally I think the best solution is to eat the rich even though it might be not good for ones cholesterol levels.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: I agree
by sbergman27 on Sat 1st Sep 2007 06:56 in reply to "RE[5]: I agree"
sbergman27 Member since:

Personally I think the best solution is to eat the rich even though it might be not good for ones cholesterol levels.

Most blood cholesterol is produced by the liver. Consumed cholesterol does not actually have that much effect. So you can probably eat as many wealthy people as you want, to no ill effect.

Except for the calories, of course. ;-)

Edited 2007-09-01 06:57

Reply Parent Score: 2