It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supply and demand economics the real killer

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Standard oil is prime example of someone coming along and taking over a market.




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Standard oil is prime example of someone coming along and taking over a market.


How is 60% 'taken over'? You do realize an entire market would compose 100% (or nearly so)?

Additionally, and we both know this, tossing a corporation out there was not the basis of your 'some psychopath will come along and take over the entire economy' throw away comment as a corporation is not a whole economy when it is not even its whole sector.

You have an example of some psychopath taking over a whole economy?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The economy already is owned, by the 1% along with the US government. Maybe not ONE psychopath, but it's pretty close.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
His company was responsible for 1.5% of the entire GDP of the economy.



Wozzie, wowzers, and Apple is at 1.10% with Walmart and Exxon even higher and neither one of those is a monopoly or has 'taken over the economy'.


Semantics man your missing the point as usual this kind of conversation that happens with you is exactly why I typically choose not to engage with you.


The above is not semantics, it is your inability to grasp the deeper meaning of the numbers you like to throw out. You have no context because you do not understand economics and obviously history as well.

Oh, and you promised to stop talking to me but you have not, you obviously enjoy this in some masochistic way.


Your not being intellectually honest with yourself. You clearly understand what in saying but refuse to admit it instead choosing to debate over semantics or ad hominem attacks.


No, I understand completely what you are saying, every last word, and I hold you accountable for them but you like to squiggle and squirm while simultaneously avoiding backing up your statements with facts.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

The majority of wealth, i.e. the stock market (market capitalization), is institutionally owned meaning we the people have sway over that money. There may be wealthy people on the boards but they can be removed and replaced, you just need to garner the support of others ot do so.

Ask yourself, Exxon-Mobil is vilified for being profitable but guess who the major shareholders are? Union pension funds via mutual fund holdings.





edit on 8-7-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Capitalism is not perfect, but it has by far been the most successful economic system that has done more than any other system to eradicate poverty and improve the standards of living for everyone.

Yes, there are people who get immensely wealthy. So what? They get wealthy by providing services and goods that create an inordinate amount of value well beyond their individual riches.

There will always be poor people. Always. Should we try to help the best we can? Yes. But to act like if just every rich person would give a little more there would be no poverty is just being intellectually dishonest.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I just thought it was funny you Mentioned Exxon.


Standard Oil Co. Inc. was an American oil producing, transporting, refining, and marketing company. Established in 1870 by John D. Rockefeller as a corporation in Ohio, it was the largest oil refiner in the world of its time.[7] Its controversial history as one of the world's first and largest multinational corporations ended in 1911, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that Standard was an illegal monopoly. It subsequently operated as Esso (the phonetic pronounciation of Standard oil), Exxon and subsequently Chevron oil company.[8][9]


Anyway enjoy your bliss!



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

And you're being intellectually dishonest if you are claiming the imense and growing wealth gap between the 1% and everyone else is an irrelivant and ignorable fact when looking at the deplorable state of the world economy.

Once again, there's wealthy then there's the 1%. We're not talking a small fraction of the worlds wealth here.

Hell we're not even talking MOST of the worlds wealthy or well off here. I have no problem with people having reasonable wealth.

But ANYONE who claims the wealth owned by the 1% is reasonable in any capacity is intellectually dishonest, and anyone who thinks that immense wealth doesn't give them immense sway over our government is either gullible, a fool, or bought.

Addendum: Oh and to give an idea. Last I saw the 1% owned roughly 40% of the worlds wealth. If you took for example only 3% leaving them at a oh so sad for them 37% of the worlds wealth, and put it down to the bottom, you could easily bring the worlds buying power, for even the lowest of the low up to three times what it is currently. That 3% drop alone redistributed could by itself end world poverty, and they'd STILL be ridiculously well off. That's how little of their wealth needs to be given up alone to end hunger worldwide.

But no, heaven forbid they be asked to give up a dime.
edit on 7/8/2015 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
I just thought it was funny you Mentioned Exxon.


I mentioned Exxon-Mobil with Mobil being the other half of the Standard Oil corporation (Socony).

I thought it was funny that you mentioned, well, nothing. Let me know when you find an example where 'some psychopath will come along and take over the entire'.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The federal government in 1911 seemed to thing that John D had been taking over the market.

Good thing they stopped him Huh? Otherwise he would have.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
The federal government in 1911 seemed to thing that John D had been taking over the market.


Actually it was 1907 when the suit was filed if you want to stick with the facts, by the time the breakup was ordered they had lost a good deal of market share anyway. The last laugh is theirs however as the main constituents of the company are all back together.


Good thing they stopped him Huh? Otherwise he would have.


No, his competition would have, just like they were doing prior to the break up.


Find an example of 'some psychopath will come along and take over the entire economy' yet?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Rofl.

Your so salty.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Your so salty.


'You're', but I will take it as a compliment.

Find an example yet?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I already gave you one you just refuse to accept it.

"Give me an example of someone taking over a market"

"John D."

"Not uh, never happened"

"Yes it did, they lost an anti trust suite and were broken up by the federal government"

"Never happened"

"Ugh"

I should use your personality as an example for a cartoon parody.
edit on 7/8/2015 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
"Give me an example of someone taking over a market"


No, no, no, no. Not what you said. You said:


'some psychopath will come along and take over the entire economy'


Did Standard Oil take over the whole economy? No, not even close since they did not control their entire sector let alone the entire economy.

You do know what the difference between the economy and a sector of it happens to be, right? I mean, you did mention earlier you do not need to be a PhD to understand this, right?

When you find someone taking over the entire economy let me know, then we can discuss your evidence instead of your pathetic goal post shifting.





edit on 8-7-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

oh god.

Yeah going back to not engaging with you again.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Yeah going back to not engaging with you again.


Promise?

If you do change your mind, which is likely, do not forget you said this:

'some psychopath will come along and take over the entire economy'

and not this:

'Give me an example of someone taking over a market'



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The federal government in 1911 seemed to thing that John D had been taking over the market.

Good thing they stopped him Huh? Otherwise he would have.


All right, let's get some basics established here: what are you terming as "market"?

Standard Oil was in no way threatening to take over the ENTIRE US market at that time. Or are you claiming that Standard Oil was in some threatening to own, operate and produce every single good and service in the entire United Stated of America at that time?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You guys are jokers.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

All right, let's get some basics established here: what are you terming as "market"?


Nah, he initially said 'some psychopath will come along and take over the entire economy' and meant that there were failed capitalistic states because it is a 'failed system every time'.

So when I pressed him to provide examples I am sure he was not able to locate any, because there are none, and shifted the goal posts to a much more granular definition by using 'market' and Standard Oil.

However, the disingenuous part is that he never admitted the switch even though it is glaringly apparent.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join