I'm going to repost my comment for readability, as I messed up some quotations. Grumble.
First of all I have to say I enjoy talking to you even though I disagree. You sound well educated.
Why thankyou, I also enjoy a good political discussion.
By buying the all available resources
Well I honestly can't see this happening. In which area of the market can one buy all available resources? For example, do you realise how much money it would cost to buy all available oil?
being a good customer to 'forbid' the supplyer from supplying competitors
Well this is only a bad thing if there is only a single supplier. Or are you implying that a single customer could buy out all suppliers at once?
or by making a huge debt to your supplyer and then ask him to stop selling to your competitor if he wants to be paid back
Well no, that would be coercion, you can't accept a deal and then threaten not to pay. I think you're misinterpreting my stance, I am not arguing that we should have absolutely no market rules, that would be total anarchy. Basic free trade rules can still be enforced without a state.
The new competitor connot make an investment and open up because the price set by Campany A (his competitor) does not leave him any profit margin
It doesn't leave companyA any profit margin either, you see? It can't run at a loss indefinitely. Investors can still invest if they think they can ride out the period of undercutting - Remember, the monopolistic company is running at the same loss as everyone else. And as I said before the new competition may have even more assets invested in it than companyA's assets, so you can't assume that companyA can survive longer. Furthermore, companyA doesn't want to undercut for too long, because as I said it will weaken it, making it more susceptible to new competition. If an investor follows this logic, he may come to a rational conclusion that investing in competition is the right thing to do.
I fear that we're just going to go in circles on this topic though.
Oh, please, don't start the forrest thing
???
What forest thing? I came up with that analogy on the fly.
If humans and their SOCIAL needs (like family, friendships, love, harmony and freedom)
All these things affect the economy, though. For example, love creates demand for products that display love (chocolate, roses, etc...)
Without love these things would not be such an integral part of our culture, and thus the economy would take a different form, as human interaction would not be the same. There would be a lower supply of roses, and less people with the occupation of "rose farmer" or whatever they're called.
This is just a trivial example, though. This is not an important part of the discussion.
I find it rather interesting that even though we're looking at the same target(?) we are facing in opposing directions
Yes, I have come to realise this many times. Most anti-capitalists I encounter are quick to label me a conservative that hates poor people. Sometimes they're irrational enough to declare that I'm being paid by big corporations.
We all have the same target, that is improving the standard of living for all people. We just think it should be done in different ways.
I feel that somehow you're proving my point that anarcho-capitalism is a 'mask' for neo-liberalism
I've never really looked into neo-liberalism at great depth, so I don't know if there are any differences. I question why liberalism would be associated with a total free market, however, as most liberals seem to think corporations are evil things out to destroy the planet.