From: garrett@Ingres.COM (Smokers are productive, but death cuts efficiency)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Summary: Rockefeller
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:41:16 GMT

In article <robc.24.0@wicat>, robc@wicat (Rob Carlson)                                           writes...
>In article <1993Jan12.024806.9366@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
>>From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
>>Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
>>Summary: Rockefeller  
>>In article <robc.18.0@wicat>, robc@wicat (Rob Carlson)                                    writes...
>>>In article <1993Jan11.065529.27080@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>>>From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
>>>>Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
>>>>In article <robc.16.0@wicat> robc@wicat (Rob Carlson) writes:
>>>>>In article <C0nIDp.oy@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>>>>>	The only situation under which your scenario could be achieved is by 
>>>>>force. Like some government making a law that says you may only work for 
>>>>>that employer and cannot form any business of your own.
>>>>
>>>>	Or when other companies lock you out, for example.
>>> 
>>>	It will take force (i.e. government) for them to accomplish this.
>>> 
>>Or you could try Rockefeller's method. Which was to pay the railroad's
>>to charge his competition much higher rates and drive them out of the
>>business becuase they couldn't get their product to market.
> 
>	I don't know how true this is, but I have no reason to doubt you so 
>I will assume it is true that he tried it. But this method will simply not 
>work. Rockefeller would have to increase his operating costs higher than his 
>competition. This would make him vulnerable in the long run. Products were 
>moved to market long before railroads were invented and a number of 
>alternative methods have been devised since the advent of the railroad.
> 
Let me take this one at a time.
1) It is true. Although I don't have the cases in front of me, he did it
many times.
2) It DID work, at least for several decades (enough time for him to gain
   a fortune). It was stopped by anti-trust lawsuits from individuals and
    the states.
3. As for higher operating costs, probably. But if you have no competition
   then it doesn't matter.
4. During Standard Oil's time, there was only one resonable way to get things
    to market, railroad. As for now, there could be considerable debate.

>	At the other end, their would be a great market for transportation 
>services. It wouldn't be hard to undercut the current providers prices since 
>they are artificially high. The railroad that is being subsidized would have 
>the choice of being locked to one customer or lowering its prices to avoid 
>giving the competition an advantage and its former customers.

You overlooked something. Because Standard oil had achieved a monopoly, the
railroads were dependent on Standard Oil to run their locomotives (and
Standard Oil was dependent on the railroads to get their oil to markets).
It's a vicious cycle.
> 
>Rob Carlson

-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality