3 ms·
This is not a definition, this is an expression of the leftist ideological position. I have seen many situations on Wikipedia where factually correct edits are
by lzw 16y ago
This is not a definition, this is an expression of the leftist ideological position. I have seen many situations on Wikipedia where factually correct edits are reversed because they disagree with the ideology of the wikipedia editors who have stature.
It is kinda like hacker news where a useful comment like mine is voted down to zero, while someone calling me names and repeating ignorant comments that are consistent with the groupthink of the left, get modded up.
It is not that their name calling and ideological regurgitation are superior to my argument... it is that people vote based on ideology, often when they are profoundly ignorant of the reality.
I suggest that you not use Wikipedia as a source for definitions, as that one is particularly heinous. In common usage one could use the term "monopoly" to describe entities with strong pricing power, but common usage is not usage in economics, yet the wikipedia definition starts "in economics".
Any "Economist" who defines a monopoly as a company that does not have ownership of the entire market, is an ideologue pretending to be an economist.
In economics, they use this term correctly.
- cromulent 16y agoAccording to my economics textbooks, when you say "ownership of the entire market" you are talking about a pure monopoly, which is different to a monopoly. You don't need the entire market to have monopolistic power. So, I would disagree with your definitions, and your assertion that "in economics, they use this term correctly". I would also suggest that your assertions seem somewhat ideological. Many people agree that trusts are bad for capitalism in that they restrict competition, and are not evidence of socialism.
- lzw 16y agoI love how you just made up a term and then claimed that using the word wrong is justified because you made up a different term for the correct definiton. Of course, you've never opened an economic texbook in your life. I also love how you claim that my references to history are ideological assertions, then you make a broad and profoundly ignorant ideological assertion as a counter argument, except that, of course, you don't make an actual argument, you just say "many people believe". Many people believe there is a good, that's not proof that its true. You are a fucking ignorant socialist, and it is consequently no wonder that you are so dishonest as well. It is fucktards like you that make hacker news (and any "social" news site) not worth participating on,..... because there are just too many ignorant, low intelligence people downvoting those who bothered to learn something and who bother to think. Just in case there's any question of our relative positions here.
- cromulent 16y agoI'm afraid you are too kind in attributing the definition of "pure monopoly" to me. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=classic+economic+textbook&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&tbs=bks:1&q=%22pure+monopoly%22+textbook&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=4e68c20b4f065a86 http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=... I'm sorry that you got downvoted. Take it easy.