I am quite sure that Friedrichstraße was the only East Berlin S-Bahn
station where one could buy S-Bahn tickets towards West Berlin in DM.
And only in the "non-socialist currency" area, i.e. the area which acted
as an exchange station for intra West Berlin traffic.

I saw them on the machine at Kopenick.

"Lüko Willms" wrote in message

Am 04.01.2012 00:05, schrieb ian batten:
Much of that is down to changes in the technology; e.g.
international
telephone calls are not cheaper due to a change in ownership.
Actually, international telephone calls are a prime example of
something that really_is_ cheaper when state monopoly telecos are
broken up or otherwise lose their monopoly.

Why then do international phone companies like Vodafone, T-Mobile or
Orange charge huge amounts for calls from one of their national
networks to another of their national networks?

Why had the European Commission to intervene against the market
forces to drive down the roaming charges and charges for international
calls?

(I had found out, to my surprise, that an SMS from Paris to Germany
did cost me less than an SMS from Germany to Germany! Thanks to the
intervention of the European Commission ordering lower international
tariffs).

Yes, that's a good example of how capitalist markets do need to be
regulated. The EU commission has done an excellent job of bringing down
the outrageous roaming costs.

On Jan 4, 11:26*am, "Recliner" wrote:

So, yes, it was enforced
competition, and not just technology that have made phone calls much
cheaper in the UK than they would have been had BT retained its
monopoly. For one thing, if it still had its monopoly, it would have
been slower to invest in those new technologies.

It's never explained by enthusiasts for monopoly why a monopoly
supplier would pass on savings from new technology to their
customers. GPO/PTO/BT's prices didn't drop because of new technology
(indeed, the introduction of System X was at a time of unparalleled
high prices), they dropped because Mercury were allowed into the
market. And the saga of System X, which will one day one hopes be
written up, is like the VC10: beautiful engineering, but driven much
too closely by one customer.

ian

On Jan 4, 11:27*am, ian batten wrote:
On Jan 4, 11:19*am, Lüko Willms wrote:

* *You have to discuss this issue not with me. I only point to what Herr
Schnell is always writing. Take issue with him, not me. I make no claims
about the situation of the Berlin railway workers, Herr Schnell does.
And I report what he says. So discuss the issue with Herr Schnell and
not with me.

I'm starting to remember why it's a waste of time arguing with
tankies. *Their basic premise --- that the Sovbloc 1945--1989 was a
workers' paradise --- is so obviously deranged that they can't be seen
to say so in terms, and indeed start calling people "liars" (while
demanding apologies when called on it) when it's pointed out that
their arguments lead, inevitably, to that position. *But because they
believe it in their heart of hearts they get all upset when counter-
examples are quoted. *Which is why under all the bluster, they can't
provide simple answers to to simple questions like "Were workers in the DDR
in 1980 happy with their lot, and if so why did it req...

....uire a fence with guards to stop them fleeing?" If they say "yes,
they were happy" they get laughed at (and the fence and guards remain
unexplained), if they say "no, they were not" then they have cognitive
dissonance over their chosen economic system. It's the same reason
why they bluster and start calling people liars when asked about
Stalin's purges; most CP members refused to believe the Secret Speech
had actually happened.

Fortunately, with friends like Luko, the hard left don't need enemies,
and their long-term electoral annihilation is an amusing side-show in
the dreary decline of the ever-splitting, ever-fighting groupuscles of
the former CP.

Let's see if he can reply without calling anyone a liar. No, I didn't
think so.

ian

Am 04.01.2012 12:26, schrieb Recliner:
Both domestic and international calls from the UK are now more or less
free, but only if you use carriers other than BT. If those companies
were not allowed to function, the price drops would not have happened.

I think you are distorting the facts:

In reality, if BT was not forced to operate as a profit oriented
commercial company, maintaining its position as the the British telecoms
operator, it would have lowered the prices according to the
technological advances. Deutsche Bundespost did in its times.

But once the incumbent is a profit oriented commercial company, as BT
is or Deutsche Telekom (T-something), it does maintain high prices for
those who are not so keen to switch to a different telecoms company
every other month. They call this windfall profits.

Some for Deutsche Telekom in Germany ... But it is even worse for
their unregulated competitors: none of those allows to save by using
call-by-call with cheaper switchers, so that one is stuck with higher
prices for international calls and calls to mobile phones than what a
customer Deutsche Telekom can have.


L.W.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:01:14 +0100, Lüko
wrote:
That is what makes a distinction, not the shareholder.

No. Both do.

In terms of holding, a company can be private (of which
government-owned or nationalised is one type) or public.

What a company's motivation is, while usually primarily profit, can
vary hugely based on shareholders' wishes.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

Am 04.01.2012 12:17, schrieb Recliner:
No, that was again this Mr. Recliner (or who ever) who claimed that
once there is only one owner of a company, that turns this company
into a monopoly which is to be fought.

I know that English is not your native tongue, so perhaps you're
confused by the English language terms "ownership" and "monopoly". The
ownership of a company has nothing to do with whether it's a monopoly.

Correct. But YOU wrote that a single owner turns a company into a
monopoly:

Am 03.01.2012 14:33, schrieb Recliner:
If a company is dominated by one single shareholder, and
that shareholder has other interests, then you have a potential
conflict of interest. It's why monopolies are restricted
in the EU and other free capitalist countries.

I welcome you retraction of that nonsense, but you should not deny
that you wrote it.

By the way, I like your humor in the phrase of "free capitalist
countries", and the similar

In strongly socialist countries,

You made my day! I need something to laugh at midday...

Now please will you answer my question about workers' rights in north
and south Korea?

No, that is off-topic here.



Cheers,
L.W.

Am 04.01.2012 12:19, schrieb Recliner:
Do you also care about the color of the skin of the shareholdes,
their religion, their sexual orientation, their preferred sports?

The religious views of a shareholder in one UK-based transport group
attracted some public interest in the not too distant past.

Tell me more. I don't anything about this.
I suggest you read up on Sir Brian Souter.

Sure, but not about his religious beliefs, which is something I do
normally not care about, being a private affair.

Did Mr. Souter try to forces his beliefs on his workers, or what?
That would be an inappropriate incursion into the private matters of
those workers.


Cheers,
L.W.

"Lüko Willms" wrote in message

Am 04.01.2012 12:26, schrieb Recliner:
Both domestic and international calls from the UK are now more or
less free, but only if you use carriers other than BT. If those
companies were not allowed to function, the price drops would not
have happened.

I think you are distorting the facts:

In reality, if BT was not forced to operate as a profit oriented
commercial company, maintaining its position as the the British
telecoms operator, it would have lowered the prices according to the
technological advances. Deutsche Bundespost did in its times.

When it was state-owned, BT and its predecessors performed much less
well in terms of pricing and efficiency than they did after
privatisation and the introduction of competition. The same is true of
BA.

Am 04.01.2012 12:27, schrieb ian batten:

continuing lies and slanders

On Jan 4, 11:19 am, Lüko wrote:


You have to discuss this issue not with me. I only point to what Herr
Schnell is always writing. Take issue with him, not me. I make no claims
about the situation of the Berlin railway workers, Herr Schnell does.
And I report what he says. So discuss the issue with Herr Schnell and
not with me.

and indeed start calling people "liars"

Of course I do state the simply fact that you are a habitual liar and
slanderer. That is your permanent way of operation.

Note the fact that Herr Schnell never denied my description of his
view that the Berlin railway workers need to be brought under the whip,
and that their "last socialistic company" needs to be smashed.

Discuss Herr Schnells views, but stop slandering me.


Deeply disgusted
L.W.