"putin, the no true Scotsman fallacy is, indeed, a fallacy, but it also doesn't follow that every man is a Scotsman"

Then please tell me who is a Scotsman, if not the leading capitalist countries in the world.

Monopoly is never inevitable in a free market economy because the demands of the market change too rapidly to allow a monopoly. In fact monopoly is virtually impossible the larger a free market is because it is impossible for one supplier to meet the tastes of all market participants if they are free to satisfy their individual, unique, eccentric tastes.

Putin, you need to define what a Scotsman is. You are the one who brought it up without clearly defining the ambiguous phrase you used.

If you read history, you know that back in the good old monarchial days, most industries were highly regulated. Monopolies were granted for the production of commodities, or the rights to trade in certain ways, or in grants of land. This was a nice system for the monarch, who could get rich off the lobbying for those valuable grants, and also for the well-connected who could win the grants. It was not a free market. It was not a command economy, as in the USSR. But it was an economy based on privilege and on graft. It is strikingly similar to what we are developing in the USA today. It's good to be the king, and it's good to be one of the king's favorites.

"Then please tell me who is a Scotsman, if not the leading capitalist countries in the world."

They are more capitalist than anybody else, but they are hardly exemplars of pure laissez-faire capitalism. Nobody is, or nobody major. There is nothing wrong with analyzing and recognizing the different economic and ideological influences that have gone into different policies and decisions, and discussing which ones might not have been made by adherents of another system.

The British East India Company, Dutch East India Company, Dutch West India Company, and the Royal African Company all had monopolies bestowed by their governments.

John James Cowperthwaite's term as financial secretary of Hong Kong is best exemplar of laissez-faire, free market capitalism in the 20th century.

"Nobody is, or nobody major."

Then your system is irrelevant so stop talking about it as if matters or can inform anybody about what the optimal policy is. If your version of free markets worked then they would exist. You laissez faire types throw up all these criticisms but ignore your own historical record of abysmal failure, claiming that every example of free market failure didn't meet your own bizarre definition of free market.

An island strategically located near several massive markets and entirely dependent on trade is the only example you can come up with.

And only for a short period of time, at that.

"Then your system is irrelevant so stop talking about it as if matters or can inform anybody about what the optimal policy is. If your version of free markets worked then they would exist."

Wait, does this mean you'll stop talking about Communism?

"Monopoly is never inevitable in a free market economy because the demands of the market change too rapidly to allow a monopoly. In fact monopoly is virtually impossible the larger a free market is because it is impossible for one supplier to meet the tastes of all market participants if they are free to satisfy their individual, unique, eccentric tastes."

Nonsense, first eccentric tastes cannot be met with respect to certain markets because start-up costs and infrastructure costs are too prohibitive to cater to every taste. Second, large companies can simply wipe out the competition by underpricing their goods and operating at a loss until the upstarts cannot compete anymore. Consumer tastes matter little in a market economy.

"Wait, does this mean you'll stop talking about Communism?"

Socialism has existed and continues to exist. Your ideology stopped being relevant in the 20th century.

"Socialism has existed and continues to exist. Your ideology stopped being relevant in the 20th century. "

I asked about Communism. Communism is a particular kind of socialism, just as laissez-faire capitalism is a particular kind of capitalism.

"If you read history, you know that back in the good old monarchial days, most industries were highly regulated."

What counts as the "good old monarchial (sic) days"? I'm sure you'll change it based on whatever is convenient, so are we talking 1700s?

Communism is a stage of socialism that has never existed because the conditions have not been met. Nor do I talk about it unless people like you confuse the terms. It's not a "particular kind of socialism".

" you need to define what a Scotsman is."

A capitalist country. Ownership of the means of production is privately owned, and the organizing mechanism is the market.

So why can I buy a computer custom made computer or laptop made to my specific specifications? Why are there so many choices of tables. Why so many types of phones. Why so many internet providers? Why so many different clothing choices, food choices, shoe choices, veterinary choices, and on and on and on.

There are no natural monopolies in free market capitalism because the market changes too fast. Monopolies only occur when government freezes entry into the marketplace or inhibits innovation.

"Communism is a stage of socialism that has never existed because the conditions have not been met."

Well, if socialism worked, they would have been met. (Paraphrasing you from above). So stop talking about it.

According to your argument Putin there should be a monopoly in computers because "consumer tastes matter little in a market economy." So why doesn't everyone have the same, standard, cheap computer. There needs of the consumer mean little right?
Yet the reality is that there is no one standard computer made by a monopoly manufacturer who drove everyone else out of business.
I do appreciate you make insanely stupid statements that are so easily demolished Putin.

"So why can I buy a computer custom made computer or laptop made to my specific specifications? Why are there so many choices of tables. Why so many types of phones. Why so many internet providers? Why so many different clothing choices, food choices, shoe choices, veterinary choices, and on and on and on. "

But I thought we didn't live in a free market economy? Or are you dissenting from your friends here?

How many types of Operating System are there?. Windows has about 85% of the market share for desktop OS. Did the government give Microsoft some special privileges?

"Why are there so many choices of tables"

Because furniture companies make lousy products and no company has emerged as a market leader.

"Why so many types of phones"

Are you kidding? 4 companies comprise 95% of the market. What variety are you talking about? Everybody I see is running around with the same kind of phone.

"Why so many internet providers?"

LOL.

"There are no natural monopolies in free market capitalism because the market changes too fast."

Big companies have the resources to adapt to market changes. Start-ups and smaller companies do not. They offer less products and fewer services. You're not going to see small telecoms lay down fiber optics. Your version of monopoly might sound nice to you, blame the government for everything, but it isn't reality.

Why aren't all cars the same color, the same price, and from the same manufacturer Putin? Entrance costs are too high and consumer tastes matter little. In fact at one time Ford sold almost all the cars in the United States, but the market destroyed Ford's market share. Alfred Sloan realized that consumers had unique, individual, eccentric tastes and he met them by developing brand lines with different models and styles and colors and etc. etc. etc.

You make such ignorant statements about capitalism Putin because you are a Soviet with no comprehension of the world outside the Stalinist paradigm. Your intellect is trapped in the old Soviet Union and you fall behind the real world more and more with each passing second. You are an anachronism Putin.

"(Paraphrasing you from above)"

You calling it paraphrasing doesn't make it paraphrasing. It's distorting. Which is typical .I said I don't talk about it. Apparently that point was difficult to comprehend so I'll repeat it for you. I don't talk about communism. I only talk about the definition when people like you who don't have a clue about socialism butcher the definition and I have to correct you. Otherwise, I stick firmly to the first stage of socialism.

But anything to deflect from the fact that your ideology is irrelevant but you're still here, behaving as if we should care about what you say about economics.

You can always tell when Putin's mind is overloaded. He starts throwing out the desperate red herrings trying to distract from the argument at hand where his premise was demolished.

Nope Putin, defend your statement. You made claims that "eccentric tastes cannot be met" and that "start-up costs and infrastructure costs are too prohibitive to cater to every taste" and that "large companies can simply wipe out the competition by underpricing their goods and operating at a loss until the upstarts cannot compete" and finally that "consumer tastes matter little in a market economy."

Every one of these statements is a completely false premise, and since these false premises form the base of your entire argument about free markets they make your entire argument invalid.

No wonder you are throwing out the red herrings trying to change the subject from the colossal falsehoods in your posts.

"Which is typical .I said I don't talk about it. Apparently that point was difficult to comprehend so I'll repeat it for you."

Actually, the "it" in this sentence referred to "socialism." Read again and you'll note this yourself.

mo·narchi·al (m-närk-l) adj. variant of monarchal

"but the market destroyed Ford's market share"

So the highly protectionist - Japanese government supported firms of Honda & Toyota, which eroded Ford's market share, is an example of your market working?

Got it.

"Read again and you'll note this yourself."

How does it follow that if the second stage of socialism hasn't yet been implemented, this means the first stage doesn't work?

That's not paraphrasing my argument in the slightest. First, because laissez-faire capitalism is not an advanced stage of capitalism. Second, because it at one point was the dominant ideology of the leading economic powers of the world, who then proceeded to abandon it when it failed miserably.

"He starts throwing out the desperate red herrings trying to distract from the argument at hand where his premise was demolished."

Projection. You and your buddies here are throwing out all sorts of distractions and side comments about socialism in order to deflect from the fact that laissez-faire capitalism has utterly failed and not practiced anywhere on the planet for a very long time. Your buddies have no attention span whatsoever and can't stay on topic for longer than one post. Nor can you argue with engaging in lame and repetitive ad hominem attacks.