Cool! Quantitative Confirmation Rocks!

[OCinBuffalo]

As many of you know from my posts, I have been increasingly convinced that there is a serious lack of fundamental understanding on the part of our liberal friends when it comes to Economics. Soooo many of the posts of the left here demonstrate that fundamental lack of education on even the most basic of economic principles.

 

Examples of ridiculous assertions we have had to endure on this board:

1. massive government spending can fix real or potential structural unemployment, because...it translates to consumer spending.

2. we have to spend lots and lots of money on state workers because that will stabilize/increase demand.

that clearly demonstrate this fundamental lack of understanding.

 

Well, beyond this evidence, we now have this wonderful piece of news from the WSJ:

Liberals get an F/INC in ECON 101

 

I know, I know, I am sure to hear about how it's not fair, and I am certain that these guys fudged the #s, blah, blah, blah. In fact, none of that is true. Read the article again before you post that drivel. These guys went out of their way to give everyone a break by only recording "incorrect" answers as the 2 extreme options. So, even if you have a "C" level understanding you "pass".

 

Also, I think the #5 and 7 questions are poorly worded and therefore prejudicial. But, even if we throw those results out, a clear disparity remains, especially when you consider the other questions. Those questions reflect basic macro principles that anyone can learn by taking ECON 101 at their local community college.

 

The problem is and remains to be: far too many people who ID as liberals simply haven't taken that class.

 

So again, I honestly don't believe that most left leaning people are purposely ignoring the facts in hopes of controlling the rest of us. There may be some of those, and they need to be marginalized, but I don't think that represents most leftists. Rather, I simply think they don't know the facts to begin with, so it should be no surprise that they keep constructing these ridiculous assertions. I am all for fixing problems. But, I am just as for making sure the people we put in charge know what the f they are talking about.

[KD in CA]

As many of you know from my posts, I have been increasingly convinced that there is a serious lack of fundamental understanding on the part of our liberal friends when it comes to Economics.

What took you so long? I was convinced of that when I was 17 when it became apparent to me that reality blinders were a requirement for being a liberal. Still, I wouldn't have guessed the results of that survey would be so extreme.

 

 

Soooo many of the posts of the left here demonstrate that fundamental lack of education on even the most basic of economic principles.

That is the scary part. I used to assume people acquired a certain level of understanding about things as they grew up, but I've learned that's just not so. Some of the things that have come out of conner, pBills, etc. are jaw dropping.

[DC Tom]

As many of you know from my posts, I have been increasingly convinced that there is a serious lack of fundamental understanding on the part of our liberal friends when it comes to Economics. Soooo many of the posts of the left here demonstrate that fundamental lack of education on even the most basic of economic principles.

 

Examples of ridiculous assertions we have had to endure on this board:

1. massive government spending can fix real or potential structural unemployment, because...it translates to consumer spending.

2. we have to spend lots and lots of money on state workers because that will stabilize/increase demand.

that clearly demonstrate this fundamental lack of understanding.

 

Well, beyond this evidence, we now have this wonderful piece of news from the WSJ:

Liberals get an F/INC in ECON 101

 

I know, I know, I am sure to hear about how it's not fair, and I am certain that these guys fudged the #s, blah, blah, blah. In fact, none of that is true. Read the article again before you post that drivel. These guys went out of their way to give everyone a break by only recording "incorrect" answers as the 2 extreme options. So, even if you have a "C" level understanding you "pass".

 

Also, I think the #5 and 7 questions are poorly worded and therefore prejudicial. But, even if we throw those results out, a clear disparity remains, especially when you consider the other questions. Those questions reflect basic macro principles that anyone can learn by taking ECON 101 at their local community college.

 

The problem is and remains to be: far too many people who ID as liberals simply haven't taken that class.

 

So again, I honestly don't believe that most left leaning people are purposely ignoring the facts in hopes of controlling the rest of us. There may be some of those, and they need to be marginalized, but I don't think that represents most leftists. Rather, I simply think they don't know the facts to begin with, so it should be no surprise that they keep constructing these ridiculous assertions. I am all for fixing problems. But, I am just as for making sure the people we put in charge know what the f they are talking about.

 

For most of those questions, the correct answer would be "it depends". They're phrased very black-and-white, when we live in an ambiguous world.

 

Still, the idea that anyone could be as "wrong" as they are about those questions is startling. A monopoly is the company with the largest market share? What kind of idiot would agree with that? What if that share is 8%?

[GG]

Pretty good summary:

 

" Governmental power joined with wrongheadedness is something terrible, but all too common. Realizing that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened sheds light on the troubles that surround us."

[OCinBuffalo]

For most of those questions, the correct answer would be "it depends". They're phrased very black-and-white, when we live in an ambiguous world.

 

Still, the idea that anyone could be as "wrong" as they are about those questions is startling. A monopoly is the company with the largest market share? What kind of idiot would agree with that? What if that share is 8%?

That's why I thought it worthy of posting, even with some of the minor flaws. The results are way too clear, even if we give back 2-3 questions, it's not even close.

[....lybob]

What a fool I've been - but now I've seen the light- some would say this test has about as much merit as a religion test, with questions like this 1. giving your life to Jesus is the only way to Heaven (unenlightened answer: disagree), / but not me- I love the clarity of "you don't agree with me thus you are stupid and wrong".

 

I mean one look at all the ragged, malnourished, homeless, people in the socialist hell that is Scandinavian Europe and how can you not be revolted by socialism, and China over the last 10 years shows that any government involvement in business will destroy economic progress.

 

Now all I need from my new found genius ultra conservative friends is some real life examples of countries that implement all the practices that you approve of so I can show them to my misguided progressive friend as to how things should be done- I know Somalia doesn't have much government interference but maybe not the best example.

[finknottle]

I read the original paper - fascinating. The study was intended to investigate the correlation between economic enlightenment and the level of education completed. There was no significant difference - the average was 3 wrong answers out of 8.

 

But sifting the data this way and that led to many other interesting correlations:

 

By self-described ideology,

5.26 Progressive

4.69 Liberal

3.67 Moderate

1.38 Very Conservative

1.38 Libertarian

1.30 Conservative

 

By Party

5.88 Green

4.59 Democrat

3.02 Independent/Other

1.94 Constitution

1.61 Republican

1.26 Libertarian

 

Voted for in the 2008 Election:

5.56 McKinney (G)

4.92 Nader (I)

4.61 Obama

1.60 McCain

1.56 Barr (L)

 

By Race:

4.26 African American

3.30 Hispanic

3.10 Other

3.09 Arab American

2.95 White

2.58 Asian/Pacific

 

By Religion:

4.04 Other

3.50 Jewish

3.29 Muslim

2.69 Catholic

2.40 Protestant

1.91 Atheist/Realist/Humanist

 

Household Member in a Union:

3.58 Yes

2.84 No

 

Resident of your City, America, or Planet Earth:

4.59 Planet Earth

2.87 Your City

2.24 America

 

Do you consider yourself a member of the "Investor Class"

3.46 No

2.38 Yes

 

How often do you shop at Wal-Mart?

4.24 Never

2.93 Couple of times a year

2.45 Few times a month

2.24 Every week

[John Adams]

The questions on that test were dumb and no test of economic knowledge but mostly in fact just questions of economic ideology. As measures of ideology, it's no surprise that Libertarians scored right (since the "right" answers were Libertarian). I agree with the Libertarian answers BTW but I'd be hard-pressed to give a "right" or "wrong" stamp on most of those statements and it's a shame that the WSJ, probably my favorite newspaper, believed that this study was newsworthy.

 

I read the original paper - fascinating. The study was intended to investigate the correlation between economic enlightenment and the level of education completed. There was no significant difference - the average was 3 wrong answers out of 8.

 

But sifting the data this way and that led to many other interesting correlations:

 

Resident of your City, America, or Planet Earth:

4.59 Planet Earth

2.87 Your City

2.24 America

 

And who the !@#$ knows what THIS question is. This is an "or" question? I don't find this study fascinating. I find it retarded. In exactly the way that offends someone (I forget who) on this board.

[finknottle]

And who the !@#$ knows what THIS question is. This is an "or" question? I don't find this study fascinating. I find it retarded. In exactly the way that offends someone (I forget who) on this board.

 

You find primary identification with a city, a country, or the planet puzzling? Most people have no problem identifying where they see their primary allegience.

 

I would suggest that it is the outcome that you find retarded. The study is what it is: a bunch of straight-forward statements about economics. And a correlation of the answers with the accompanying background data.

 

If you want to disagree with the "correct answers" to the eight statements, fine. I'm sure everybody here would enjoy your argument that companies with the largest market share are monopolies.

[Dante]

What a fool I've been - but now I've seen the light- some would say this test has about as much merit as a religion test, with questions like this 1. giving your life to Jesus is the only way to Heaven (unenlightened answer: disagree), / but not me- I love the clarity of "you don't agree with me thus you are stupid and wrong".

 

I mean one look at all the ragged, malnourished, homeless, people in the socialist hell that is Scandinavian Europe and how can you not be revolted by socialism, and China over the last 10 years shows that any government involvement in business will destroy economic progress.

 

Now all I need from my new found genius ultra conservative friends is some real life examples of countries that implement all the practices that you approve of so I can show them to my misguided progressive friend as to how things should be done- I know Somalia doesn't have much government interference but maybe not the best example.

Yes. Point out one of the few socialist outfits thats still upright as others crumble. Greece, Spain, Portugal. Britain just announced its cutting the ass out of their socialized medicine. China is all about what perspective you take I suppose. I look at it as a hard nosed commie country where everyone lived on crumbs is now turning towards the capitalist, free enterprise system. This is the reason for their improved situation. But I'm sure its the politicians in China that are so brilliant right? They have so much experience in the competitive business world. But I guess you don't need a real great business acumen when you can pay your people like **** and have absolutely no worries what and how much you pollute. Keep admiring

[LeviF]

You find primary identification with a city, a country, or the planet puzzling? Most people have no problem identifying where they see their primary allegience.

Were those the only three options, and was it an "or" question? If so, that is most definitely retarded. I'm a resident of all three, and I have "allegiance" to all three, I suppose.

[DC Tom]

Were those the only three options, and was it an "or" question? If so, that is most definitely retarded. I'm a resident of all three, and I have "allegiance" to all three, I suppose.

 

Welcome to the reason poll results are meaningless without the questions.

[OCinBuffalo]

What a fool I've been -

Yep, we're about to confirm that one in technicolor.

I love the clarity of "you don't agree with me thus you are stupid and wrong".

Agreeing that "A company with the largest market share is a monopoly" is stupid, and wrong. As I said, some of the questions are worded poorly, thus invoking emotion instead of intellect.

I mean one look at all the ragged, malnourished, homeless, people in the socialist hell that is Scandinavian Europe and how can you not be revolted by socialism, and China over the last 10 years shows that any government involvement in business will destroy economic progress.

First, let's crush the ridiculous assertions:

1. "China has lots of government involvement in their economy...and look how good they are doing!" Yes, let's talk about the last 10 years of history, and conveniently forget the preceding 50. Hmm, which period showed massive economic growth? the last 10? or, the preceding 50?....and...which period had significantly more government control of the economy? Hint: not the last 10. Which direction is China headed? Towards more, or less, government? Economics? Hell, this retarded assertion gets blown up with 8th grade social studies.

 

2. "Scandinavian Socialism proves socialism is a superior economic model!" Sure it does. Never mind that none of these countries could defend themselves for 36 hours, and 100% relies on us for that. Never mind that these countries contribute next to nothing in foreign aid to other countries. Never mind the over 300 times socialism has failed in other countries....

...nah the fact that it has "worked" in little countries with small populations and tiny economies that use accounting tricks like these to "prove" that socialism works is all we need to know. Yes, let's ignore all the other facts and only allow for the ones that support Scandanavian Socialism. BTW, you have to have taken accounting and economics to fully understand that article. IF you haven't, that article loses at least half it's meaning and import, and you might even end up misinterpreting it.

 

EDIT: Your progressive friends aren't misguided, they are simply uneducated.

[OCinBuffalo]

Ok, now that we have reduced the retarded assertions to rubble, now it's time for you to answer the questions(drag your mouse over the "redacted" = black lines to get the answers):

 

1) Please explain to us how and when restrictions on housing development have ever:

a. lowered the price of housing

b. lowered the cost of housing production

 

never, and never

 

 

2) Please explain to us how and when the licensing of professionals has:

a. lowered the price of their services

b. lowered the cost of providing those services

 

never, and never

 

 

3) Is the standard of living higher now than 30 years ago or not?

 

Of course it is. Even this idiot(link) in the NY times begrudgingly admits that the black people of Memphis have made progress over the last 20 years. I know, shocking, isn't it?

 

 

4) Define monopoly(and no, not the board game). Then define market share(and no, not Park Place and Boardwalk). Then define how much market share a company has to have to be considered a monopoly. Actually... define how the game monopoly ends: what do you have to have in order to win the game?

 

A friggin monopoly!

 

 

5) Please explain how rent control works in terms of supply/demand and the affect it has on price. Then, explain how enforcing artificial prices affects ROI for suppliers of housing.

(Hell, I have given you more than enough in the question to get this one right so no answer on this one).

 

6) Please explain how Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited, when they are making way more than they would be than if they WEREN'T working for American companies.

(Only an idiot argues this point, so again, no answer. I am so sure all those Indian, Russian, Polish and Irish programmers I used to have to jump through INS hoops to bring here back in the day, are being...exploited by getting to stay home and live like kings in their own country today. )

 

7) Please explain, especially in terms of "social justice", how exactly free trade has caused worldwide unemployment?

 

If anything, free trade has done more to employ people, especially in the third world, than any other single policy. It was intended to stop wars from starting and make things cost less world wide, thus, reducing poverty world wide. It has. Nothing is a cure all, but free trade is certainly part of the solution.

 

 

8) Please explain how and when minimum wage laws have lowered unemployment.

 

They haven't, ever.

 

 

This should be fun....

[John Adams]

You find primary identification with a city, a country, or the planet puzzling? Most people have no problem identifying where they see their primary allegience.

 

Allegiance? To city, country, or planet? Are you serious that you find that question poses "no problem?"

 

I would suggest that it is the outcome that you find retarded. The study is what it is: a bunch of straight-forward statements about economics. And a correlation of the answers with the accompanying background data.

 

If you want to disagree with the "correct answers" to the eight statements, fine. I'm sure everybody here would enjoy your argument that companies with the largest market share are monopolies.

 

The monopoly question seems about the only straightforward question in the list. "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable" depends on a million factors. Restrictions on housing like "unlimited numbers of multi-unit projects can be bult in the xxx area code" makes housing cheaper for everyone because property values go down...while the opposite regulation "no projects" drives property values up. And there are a million examples like this just with this question. It's a ****ty question. I *know* what they are driving at but the question sucks and I'd have a hard time choosing "agree" even though generally I might.

 

With questions like that and "allegiance to planet," I'd have to question their conclusions EVEN THOUGH my gut tells me their conclusions are probably right. But that study does nothing to verify those conclusions. All that study concluded, to me, is that Libertarians and most likely to agree with people who look at economics the way Libertarians do. Yeah. No ****.

[keepthefaith]

Allegiance? To city, country, or planet? Are you serious that you find that question poses "no problem?"

 

 

 

The monopoly question seems about the only straightforward question in the list. "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable" depends on a million factors. Restrictions on housing like "unlimited numbers of multi-unit projects can be bult in the xxx area code" makes housing cheaper for everyone because property values go down...while the opposite regulation "no projects" drives property values up. And there are a million examples like this just with this question. It's a ****ty question. I *know* what they are driving at but the question sucks and I'd have a hard time choosing "agree" even though generally I might.

 

With questions like that and "allegiance to planet," I'd have to question their conclusions EVEN THOUGH my gut tells me their conclusions are probably right. But that study does nothing to verify those conclusions. All that study concluded, to me, is that Libertarians and most likely to agree with people who look at economics the way Libertarians do. Yeah. No ****.

 

 

While there is room to question the poll itself, the results line up nicely with the fiscal performance and policies of the majority in Washington. No coincidence or surprise to me.

[OCinBuffalo]

Allegiance? To city, country, or planet? Are you serious that you find that question poses "no problem?"

 

 

 

The monopoly question seems about the only straightforward question in the list. "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable" depends on a million factors. Restrictions on housing like "unlimited numbers of multi-unit projects can be bult in the xxx area code" makes housing cheaper for everyone because property values go down...while the opposite regulation "no projects" drives property values up. And there are a million examples like this just with this question. It's a ****ty question. I *know* what they are driving at but the question sucks and I'd have a hard time choosing "agree" even though generally I might.

 

With questions like that and "allegiance to planet," I'd have to question their conclusions EVEN THOUGH my gut tells me their conclusions are probably right. But that study does nothing to verify those conclusions. All that study concluded, to me, is that Libertarians and most likely to agree with people who look at economics the way Libertarians do. Yeah. No ****.

1. How does "unlimited" = restriction? Seriously? Yes if we set no limit on the amount of sh**ty houses that can be built in an area code, yes, we can expect the property value to go down. But, by definition, that's not a restriction, that's the exact opposite of a restriction.

 

2. I think a better word here would have been "regulation" in place of "restriction".

 

3. If the market demands a certain type of housing, at a certain price, blocking/slowing down the delivery of supply for that demand, with regulation, will only ever cause both the cost and price to increase. In which case does zoning/building inspectors, never mind when these are corrupt, ever lower the cost or price?

 

#5 and 7 could have been worded better, as I did above. But the rest of the questions are right out of the textbook.

[....lybob]

1) Please explain to us how and when restrictions on housing development have ever:

a. lowered the price of housing

b. lowered the cost of housing production

a) areas designated for multi-dwelling units lower the cost of housing for people in that area

b) standardization of code allows for economies of scale and reduction in insurance rates

 

2) Please explain to us how and when the licensing of professionals has:

a. lowered the price of their services

b. lowered the cost of providing those services

a) since the term services is ambiguous (leeches and heart surgery could both be medical services but they are not the same) so we have to weigh the cost of the service verses the value of the service and I contend that the Licensing of professionals has increased the average value of the services more than the average costs of the services and thus lowered the price of the services.

b) see above

 

3) Is the standard of living higher now than 30 years ago or not?

Of course it is. Even this idiot(link) in the NY times begrudgingly admits that the black people of Memphis have made progress over the last 20 years. I know, shocking, isn't it?

a) again ambiguous, if you were to define this using the income adjusted for inflation of the median two parent family then yes, If I was to define it as the amount of discretionary income produced by an hour of work by a worker earning the median hourly wage then no- just for example of how hard comparisons are, my father worked two jobs an average of 64 hours a week total, my mother did not work - my fathers work provided a middle class life style, paid for most of college for his five children, the jobs provided good benefits (vacation, medical, dental, pension), Even with dollars adjusted for inflation my brothers family makes about 20% more than father but they work a total of 120+ hours a week to do it, because my brother's wife works they absolutely needed two cars, they cook less and eat take-out more, they needed day care, and baby sitters, benefit wise they have good medical, but not dental, no pensions (brother has 50% match sister-in-law nothing), less vacation - my brother thanks the gods they only have two children to help put through college and even so the girls are going to end up with a lot more debt than we did. That being said I'd say we do have a higher standard of living than 30 years ago but that would be due much more to advances in science and technology than any absolutist economic theory- and if I wanted to argue the other way I could use the tenets of biological stress theory, any environment that provides more stress than is adaptable to brings unhealthy physical and psychological changes which I see everyday in the combination of fat bellies, skinny legs, and depression- which is an excellent indication of elevated cortisol levels due to high levels of stress.

 

 

4) Define monopoly(and no, not the board game). Then define market share(and no, not Park Place and Boardwalk). Then define how much market share a company has to have to be considered a monopoly. Actually... define how the game monopoly ends: what do you have to have in order to win the game?

a) control of a item, good, service in (and this is important) a given area- so how do I know the one with the largest market share is a monopoly? trick question all I have to do is increase the specificity of the item or the area and all businesses have monopolies for example coke doesn't have a monopoly if I define the item as soft drinks but does have a monopoly if I define the item as coke, on the other hand no one probably (except maybe God) has a monopoly if define the area as the multiverse.

b) the game monopoly ends when the future tea bagger flips the board over and runs out of the room crying.

 

5) Please explain how rent control works in terms of supply/demand and the affect it has on price. Then, explain how enforcing artificial prices affects ROI for suppliers of housing.

(Hell, I have given you more than enough in the question to get this one right so no answer on this one).

a) Well if I have the rent controlled apartment my price is low, my supply is fine, and my demand is nil.

b) not sure if you want (rate of investment) (rate of interest) or if you mistyped and want (rate of return) I assure you I can make something up for any of them.

 

6) Please explain how Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited, when they are making way more than they would be than if they WEREN'T working for American companies.

(Only an idiot argues this point, so again, no answer. I am so sure all those Indian, Russian, Polish and Irish programmers I used to have to jump through INS hoops to bring here back in the day, are being...exploited by getting to stay home and live like kings in their own country today. )

a) do I have to make the case that all American companies overseas exploit all the third world workers all the time? that would be very hard- or do I just have to make the case that some American companies exploit some third world people? that would be very easy- or are we talking about on balance? that would take a lot of study, I don't know and neither do you.

 

7) Please explain, especially in terms of "social justice", how exactly free trade has caused worldwide unemployment?

If anything, free trade has done more to employ people, especially in the third world, than any other single policy. It was intended to stop wars from starting and make things cost less world wide, thus, reducing poverty world wide. It has. Nothing is a cure all, but free trade is certainly part of the solution.

a)I have nothing against Free-ish trade but lets be clear that our country and most 1st world countries have used tariffs and other forms of protectionism to build up and maintain certain vital industries - we would like to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, Why? I mean the Saudis can produce oil much cheaper than we can, free markets absolutist would say whoever can provide a product cheapest should be the one to do it- globalization has lead some countries to building very unbalanced economies very vulnerable to any global downturn, free markets taken to a religious extreme would say a country should only produce what they can competitively produce vis a vis the global market- the IMF advances this policy to what many would say is to the detriment of 2nd and 3rd world countries.

 

8) Please explain how and when minimum wage laws have lowered unemployment.

a) they aren't meant to lower unemployment they are meant to provide a living wage and dignity to work but there has been no correlation made between unemployment and the minimum wage - example no minimum wage during the great depression very high unemployment, with minimum wage laws unemployment has been as low as under 4%

 

This should be fun- and how

[....lybob]

First, let's crush the ridiculous assertions:

1. "China has lots of government involvement in their economy...and look how good they are doing!" Yes, let's talk about the last 10 years of history, and conveniently forget the preceding 50. Hmm, which period showed massive economic growth? the last 10? or, the preceding 50?....and...which period had significantly more government control of the economy? Hint: not the last 10. Which direction is China headed? Towards more, or less, government? Economics? Hell, this retarded assertion gets blown up with 8th grade social studies.

 

2. "Scandinavian Socialism proves socialism is a superior economic model!" Sure it does. Never mind that none of these countries could defend themselves for 36 hours, and 100% relies on us for that. Never mind that these countries contribute next to nothing in foreign aid to other countries. Never mind the over 300 times socialism has failed in other countries....

...nah the fact that it has "worked" in little countries with small populations and tiny economies that use accounting tricks like these to "prove" that socialism works is all we need to know. Yes, let's ignore all the other facts and only allow for the ones that support Scandinavian Socialism. BTW, you have to have taken accounting and economics to fully understand that article. IF you haven't, that article loses at least half it's meaning and import, and you might even end up misinterpreting it.

 

EDIT: Your progressive friends aren't misguided, they are simply uneducated.

 

Ok since you want 60 years I'm going to give you 1950 - 2009 GDP in (year 2000 dollars)

 

United States GDP 1950 1.5 trillion 2009 14.2 trillion a very respectable 9.4 fold increase ( I rounded so if you want to say ten that's fine)

 

China GDP 1950 .24 trillion 2009 8.7 trillion a 36.2 fold increase ( again I rounded so if you want to say 35 that's fine) China has had massive growth spurts even under pure communism, might have killed a lot of people but you didn't ask that, they have also had massive declines that have killed even more people but crap like that happens when you are trying to move from the 15th century to the 20th century in 20 years.

 

 

 

2. "Scandinavian Socialism? hey I don't have to prove that Scandinavian Socialism or China's managed capitalism are the greatest systems in the world all I have to do is to Show that which you hate ( a degree of government involvement) does not absolutely destroy economic growth (China) or produce hellish living conditions (Denmark et al) and now that I've politely replied I'm still waiting for your country that is a shinning example of pure libertarianism or the closest that you can muster so I can study and compare and see if I'd like to live there.

[DC Tom]

coke doesn't have a monopoly if I define the item as soft drinks but does have a monopoly if I define the item as coke, on the other hand no one probably (except maybe God) has a monopoly if define the area as the multiverse.

 

Holy ****...are you serious?