Electric cars do not save vast amounts of C02 emissions if the electricity is generated by the conventional burning of oil or coal.

There were good reasons why the internal combustion engine won out in the competition with electric cars a century ago. Electrial technology has indeed changed – but whether it has changed enough remains to be seen.

If you really think the Chevez supporters and Occupy movement people are “Rothbardians” perhaps you should watch the recordings the late Andrew Breitbart made of them.

As for Rothbard – back in the 1960s (the decade you are stuck in) Rothbard did indeed come out with the “left and right join hands” bullcrap, and pretended that the Communist aggression in Indochina was a revolt againt “Western Imperialism”.

However, Rothbard never (not even in the insanity of the late 1960s and early 1970s) opposed large scale private property in the means of production, distribution and exchange.

The basic point of the “libertarian” left is to DESTROY large scale private property in the means of production, distribution and exchange.

Please, please, please (pretty please with a sugar lump on top) understand.

They are NOT “potentional allies”.

The left “libertarians” are Chevez supporters and “Occupy” movement people (and so on) – they are evil to the very core of their being.

It’s worth pointing out that analogous “right-libertarians” who conflate being pro-free-market with being pro-business also exist. I’m generally more accepting of them than of left-libertarians for two reasons: to balance the anti-business sentiment so widespread in our culture, and because their errors seem to be less fundamental than those of the other side, or at least than those of any “libertarian” so far to the left at to use the word “propertarian”.

Gave me a good chuckle. SQOTD?

To a first approximation, Verizon is the other half of the original AT&T, too. So it’s kind of debatable whether that is a new company either.

And anyway, the Dow is the wrong index to use. (The Dow is always the wrong index to use).

No they would not.

Would they like railways and private roads any better if they were not subsidised by government?

No they would not.

Would they like large enterprises any better if the vast web of government regulations (which hit large companies as well as small ones now) and the endless flood of “cheap” (i.e. low interest rate) credit money was shut off?

No they would not.

“How do you know that Paul?”

Because of who they support – and who they work with.

The savage “Social Justice” mobs of Egypt (and so many other places) – they (the “libertarian” left) support then.

Chevez in Venezula?

Of course – he is “better than the regime the Americans would support” (this is written by people who were born and raised in the United States – they still think of “the Americans” as alien, and they do not even understand that Barack Obama is one of their own).

The international (and fanatically collectivist) “Occupy” movement?

Again of course – they can be seen with their Black Flags happily cooperating with the Red Flag Marxists (after all both want to destroy civil society – sorry “captialism”).

The unions (even the Communist led Chicago Teachers Union)? Of course – they support them as well. Come over to dinner Mr and Mrs Ayers you are the allies of these “libertarians” against the evil “capitalist corporations”.

These people are not honest libertarians who just want this or that regulation repealed or the government not to build roads.

They are Social Justice types – and they are to the core of their being. What they are trying to do to the word “libertarian” is what the left did to the word “liberal” a century ago – turn in round 180 degrees.

Turn a word that meant pro business, pro lower taxes and less regulations – and make it a word that means (at least in the United States) pro collectivist, anti private enterprise.

Once liberal journals such as “The Nation” attacked collectivists such as Richard Ely – by the 1920s they were supporting their ideas.

That can happen with the word “libertarian” – just as it happened with the word “liberal”.

All that is needed for defeat (total and absolute defeat) is to treat these people as if they were honest and well meaning.

They are neither – they are liars (they will lie and twist quotations in the “best” tradition of Karl Marx himself), and they are not well meaning.

What they want is not civil society – they want the destruction of what is left of civil society.

They want the world reduced to blood and ashes.

A few of our problems seem to have cropped up in this article.

One: Economy of scale. We would get our products about 1/2 the price we are currently charge if we could commit to a fairly huge quantity of them. In theory we could do so.

But: That would mean we would have to set up a warehouse arm, a step the franchisor has no expertise in. Then theres the possibility of being stuck with a warehouse full of “betamaxes” instead of CD players if the order is wrong/mistakes are made.

The company currently has 2 areas it is focusing on, franchising, and sales.

We have gained from government over regulation of our industry sector, it is effectively impossible for a small business to join it due to the sheer amount of compliance and regulation imposed by government. We are fortunate our “back office” was set up prior to the regulatory changes.
The fact that this has removed new competition and is actually bad for consumers has completely escaped the government.

In Japan, retailing was for decades regulated to protect an immense number of small shops, denying consumers lower prices and convenience.

As to the relative nimbleness of retailers and manufacturers… A retailer has a lot more “sunk assets” than the current stock in the shop. The shop (or shops) themselves are a huge asset. If demographics shift, the old locations become a huge drag.

Staff can be turned over, but not quickly.

There is also brand identification. A retailer which is noted for selling products of a particular style, quality, and price range cannot transit overnight into entirely different market segments. For one thing, at any given moment, the old brand still draws in customers who may not go for the new brand, while those who would like the new brand have to be persuaded that this particular retailer can provide it well. A long established market identity is thus both an asset and a handicap.

And there are also effects of being squashed by outside trends. A retailer specializing in a class of product will die if the product class dies.

So if you get rid of government (or make it much smaller), I am not sure whether companies will be larger or smaller, but I tend to think big companies will be shorter lasting, at least in that period of their life cycles when they dominate particular industries.