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: 5
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:53 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.


Maybe it didn't matter.

Those "breakups" gave the "broken" investors a huge profit because they got stock in the new companies.

It's not like anybody took any money away from anybody.

I think The Successor Companies made more rich people richer.

John D laughed all the way to all the new banks he had accounts in




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

He made more money off of the breakup but that's not the point.

The Point was that he was able to acquire and amass unimaginable wealth at the cost of putting almost all of his competition out of business with unsavory business practices.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I agree.




posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
The Point was that he was able to acquire and amass unimaginable wealth at the cost of putting almost all of his competition out of business with unsavory business practices.

And the white elephant in the room is the fact that the "invisible hand" couldn't/didn't keep this monopoly from forming. He would have continued if there wasn't a bigger bully, government.


edit on 9-7-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
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.


The problem with your thinking is that there is no possible way other than outright tyranny to force anyone to give away their wealth. This also never works because those with the talent and skills to build fortunes will either move or they just won't build wealth for it be taken away.

Your entire premise that being wealthy is some how morally wrong is false. Please show us this great Utopian society where there are no greedy people. Even the monument to equality (equality of misery) North Korea still has those who are immensely wealthy at the top. Every communist sh*t hole that supposedly redistributes wealth still results in a small percentage of people who control all the riches.

When it gets down to it, you liberals and progressives want everyone else's money but don't want to give up any of your own money. It is like how you see all the so called progressives railing about how bad the poor have it, yet they continue to live high on the hog in their own personal lives and make no effort to voluntarily give away their own wealth.

Yes, there are examples of corporations and executives who are greedy. What generally allows them to get away with this is complicit politicians who pass laws and regulations (usually in the name of safety, you know for the children), that do nothing but help the large corporations while crushing the small competitors.

The free market / invisible hand does work. It wasn't that long ago that Apple Computer was damn near bankrupt and IBM ruled the universe. I remember a time when there was no Google. Facebook? I guess you forgot about Myspace. Who remembers Kodak? Countless other large mega corporations that have folded, been acquired or gone out of business due to executive mismanagement, technology, and better competitors.

Many of the immensely wealthy lose their fortunes within a generation while others create massive fortunes from nothing. This is what freedom is about.

While these fortunes are created and lost, a by product of it is opportunity for others to jump on their coat tails. Sure Bill Gates is worth $50 billion or whatever it is nowadays. You can't count the number of millionaires he created a long the way. Tens of thousands of six figure jobs and we don't even count the ancillary industries that developed as a result of Microsoft.

All you see in your myopic world is that one person has way more than you. It is not your decision to tell anyone what to do with their money.

I'd have way more respect for you progressives if you would put your money where your mouth is and risk your own capital to start businesses, grow them into successful empires, while at the same time running them as you demand of others. Pay some bullsh*t living wage to low skilled workers. Have all your products made locally. Only pay your top management team $200k a year or whatever ratio you see fit. Give away all your profit to feed the hungry. Do all this while remaining competitive. Put up or shut up. Yet, none of you do this because you know deep down all you spout is a fantasy.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I like to call it Hegelianomics. I'd call it Jewnomics but there is no such thing as a jew.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

Who remembers Kodak?


A very interesting example.

They dominated the market for a century, got stale/complacent and misjudged the tech-boom, went bankrupt and reinvented themselves with new and innovative products.

That is how the free market should work.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Edumakated

Who remembers Kodak?


A very interesting example.

They dominated the market for a century, got stale/complacent and misjudged the tech-boom, went bankrupt and reinvented themselves with new and innovative products.


That is how the free market should work.



Kodak, Atari, Commodore, Countless car companies, massive industrial giants.... the list goes on and on. Remember how Nokia used to dominate cell phones? Blackberry? I remember when the only people that gave a shiz about Apple were graphic artists. The company was practically dead. Stock was like $15/share or something. They took off after the first ipod came out which ironically was not the first mp3 player. Thye just managed to do it better than the competitors.

Telsa is the best selling luxury sedan now. outselling BMW, Mercedes, etc. Elon Musk put up his own capital to start the company. So what if he winds up being worth billions more. He took the risk and deserves it.

Let me give you an example of how misguided some of these folks are. I work for a mid-sized finance company. The owner is wealthy. I'd guess his worth may be around $15-$20 million. I am trying to raise money for a charity. He committed $250 bucks. He could probably write a check for the entire amount we need which is like $50k. But that is irrelevant. It is HIS CHOICE as to where he wants to give his money. Sure, my cause is a good one, but I cannot compel him to give more. He gives money to other causes that he feels is important. However, he employs me which gives me a high salary and therefore, I can contribute to the cause. So indirectly, his efforts are actually helping out.

I can't count the museums, libraries, major universities, and all kinds of other good causes that receive funds from the rich.

Since were are talking about the Rockefellers. The OP probbaly doesn't realize that he basically bankrolled Spelman College. Spelman is a historically black all female college (the sister school of Morehouse College which is all male and across the street). Morehouse is known for its alumi from Martin Luther King to Sam Jackson to Spike Lee and countless other prominent black men. So inspite of all the accusations of how evil and Rockefeller was as a businessman, he obviously had a heart. He did this back in the mid 1800s when blacks were hardly considered equal and it wasn't fashionable to be down for the cause....here is an excerpt from Wikipedia.

"In 1882 the two women returned to Massachusetts to bid for more money and were introduced to wealthy Northern Baptist businessman John D. Rockefeller at a church conference in Ohio.[1] Rockefeller was impressed by Packard's vision. In April 1884, Rockefeller visited the school. By this time, the seminary had 600 students and 16 faculty members. It was surviving on generous donations by the black community in Atlanta, the efforts of volunteer teachers, and gifts of supplies; many Atlanta black churches, philanthropists, and black community groups raised and donated money to settle the debt on the property that had been acquired.[8] Rockefeller was so impressed that he settled the debt on the property.[9] Rockefeller's wife, Laura Spelman Rockefeller; her sister, Lucy Spelman; and their parents, Harvey Buel and Lucy Henry Spelman, were also supportive of the school. The Spelmans were longtime activists in the abolitionist movement. Thus, in 1884 the name of the school was changed to the Spelman Seminary in honor of Laura Spelman, John D. Rockefeller's wife,[1] and her parents, who were longtime activists in the anti-slavery movement. Rockefeller also donated the funds for what is currently the oldest building on campus, Rockefeller Hall, which was constructed in 1886."



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I'm really curious if the OP could help us understand how he would have been able to have as much of an impact on society and philanthropy had he not been so successful and gained his immense wealth? Does the OP not recognize that Standard Oil allowed Mr. Rockefeller to be in a position to give away billions of dollars? I'm not saying he didn't play dirty when it comes to business, but you can't on one hand claim capitalism as a failure using Standard Oil as an example, but then summarily dismiss the philanthropy of Mr. Rockefeller.

Also, I'd like some examples of where socialism and communism have had the same life changing impact.

So let's look at all the good that Mr. Rockefeller did as a result of his massive wealth, per Wikipedia:

Rockefeller spent the last 40 years of his life in retirement at his estate, Kykuit, in Westchester County, New York. His fortune was mainly used to create the modern systematic approach of targeted philanthropy. He was able to do this through the creation of foundations that had a major effect on medicine, education and scientific research.[8] His foundations pioneered the development of medical research and were instrumental in the eradication of hookworm and yellow fever....

Rockefeller reportedly tithed a portion of his earnings to his church.[citation needed] His church was later affiliated with the Northern Baptist Convention, which formed from American Baptists in the North with ties to their historic missions to establish schools and colleges for freedmen in the South after the American Civil War. As Rockefeller's wealth grew, so did his giving, primarily to educational and public health causes, but also for basic science and the arts. He was advised primarily by Frederick Taylor Gates[65] after 1891,[66] and, after 1897, also by his son.

He was influenced by a meeting with Swami Vivekananda, who urged him to use more of his philanthropy to help the poor and distressed people.[67][68]

Rockefeller believed in the Efficiency Movement, arguing that: "To help an inefficient, ill-located, unnecessary school is a waste..... it is highly probable that enough money has been squandered on unwise educational projects to have built up a national system of higher education adequate to our needs, if the money had been properly directed to that end."[69]

He and his advisers invented the conditional grant, which required the recipient to "root the institution in the affections of as many people as possible who, as contributors, become personally concerned, and thereafter may be counted on to give to the institution their watchful interest and cooperation."[70]

In 1884, Rockefeller provided major funding for a college in Atlanta for African-American women, which became Spelman College (named for Rockefeller's in-laws who were ardent abolitionists before the Civil War).[71] The oldest existing building on Spelman's campus, Rockefeller Hall, is named after him.[72] Rockefeller also gave considerable donations to Denison University[73] and other Baptist colleges.

Rockefeller gave $80 million to the University of Chicago[74] under William Rainey Harper, turning a small Baptist college into a world-class institution by 1900. He also gave a grant to the American Baptist Missionaries foreign mission board, the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society in establishing Central Philippine University, the first Baptist and second American university in Asia, in 1905 in the Philippines.[75][76]

His General Education Board, founded in 1903,[77] was established to promote education at all levels everywhere in the country.[78] In keeping with the historic missions of the Baptists, it was especially active in supporting black schools in the South.[78] Rockefeller also provided financial support to such established eastern institutions as Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Brown, Bryn Mawr, Wellesley and Vassar.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Love when a thread goes quite after someone gets a beat down with logic and facts.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: ketsuko

You guys are jokers.


It's a serious question.

You did say that someone would come and take over the entire system. By that, I took you to mean the entire economy or the whole economic market of the US. Just to give you an idea, the health care market of the United States is roughly 1/5 to 1/6 of the US economy or the total US market.

So, when you say Standard Oil was in danger of taking over the entire market, it's only fair to ask you to define what you meant.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I don't think so. Recognizing an excersice in futility does the same.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join