I've had three mice from logitech since 2004 starting with the MX510. I think I needed to cut out and rejoin the cable twice close to the mouse body after the conductors broke inside the insulation. The third time it happened I bought a MX518 and after much use the left switch gave out. I first replaced it with a switch I desoldered from something but it had a different feel than the original so I settled on moving the scroll wheel switch to left and replacing that with the spare. Having a different feel in the scroll wheel didnt matter to me. I might have had to cut and join the cable once or twice on that. When the cable failed again I decided it was time to try these newfangled laser mice and bought a G400. Actually I think I gave the MX510 away after cutting out the bad part of the cable again and it's still running today under light use.

One switch failing in 20 years with about 7 years of heavy use (thousands of hours of first person shooters) is not bad quality in my mind. The cables could have been better.

How can you tell if it's more efficient as a monopoly than as a toll network when you remove the very thing that determines efficiency i.e. the price?

I get that stopping every few klicks or tens of klicks is a timewaster and inefficient but nowadays we have all this wonderful wireless technology and strong encryption so tolls are no longer any way near as inefficient as they were.

Do you have any actual data or is it just conjecture?

I can't tell if this is meant sincerely or as satire.

No, not through size alone it takes more than that. But I'm not ruling out the existance of a point where the increased bureaucracy and inefficiencies inevitably leads to evil in spite of good ownership.

That would solve the problem. It would probably also create much bigger problems. Something should be done but what I cannot tell you.

I did and I see standard oil continually lowering their prices as costs fell to keep newcomers out of the business. I see alcoa doing the same. The same goes for some of the "robber baron" railway tycoons.

Have you actually looked at history or did you only look at the parts supporting your preconceptions?

As for companies "turning evil" when above a certain size I'm convinced it's due to the shortsightedness that comes when the original owners relinquish or otherwise are no longer in control. Then the only check on shortsighted behaviour are the shareholders and they tend not to hold accountable for errors nor very interested in the long term.

The only decently behaving (giving the customers what they want) large companies seem to be the ones still under the original owners control. Examples are: google, walmart and maybe IKEA. There are probably better examples and you'll probably disagree with walmart.

No, I don't find it troublesome that he spends his cash they way he sees fit. What I do find troublesome is the amount of hypocrisy it takes for you to complain about Bezos spending while still spending money on an internet connection instead of saving some starving children with that money instead.

You see, if you come by money or goods voluntarily you are free to spend it the way you see fit. You should afford the others the same freedom.

Condescending, moi?

OK, I understand and agree.

Thank you for the clarification!

That's the second reading fail I made in a single day. I need to stop reading things.

But I still don't get how you can call what COD did first steps if you're aware of BF2.

Indeed he does....

I somehow substituted Lenin with Putin in my mind. My bad.

Useful idiots is an old KGB or general soviet/russian intelligence expression.

I came across the term in spy novels over ten years ago.

Ever heard of battlefield 2? I believe that was one of if not the first game with "persistent levelling". Not to the same degree as COD or the later Bad Company but there were a few years between the titles.

Yeah but the difference is that the soviets did follow Marx. What California did was price fixing which is not following Friedman, Rand or whatever name fits.

When communists claim that soviet wasn't communist they are either liars or using equivocation. When libertarians claim that a market isn't free enough it is usually true. And in the case of deregulation in California it's so bleeding obvious you'd have to purposely ignore such small regulations as fixing the fucking price.

The question is if the other neighboring monopolies are getting subsidies from taxes. If they are they're not cheaper you're just paying differently for it.