Socialism Creates Monopolies, Capitalism Destroys Them

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
WalMart is just the extension of the evolutionary business process that was employed by A&P grocers and others in the early part of the last century. It used to be that to shop for food meant 15 stops at 15 stores. A&P put the baker, produce stand, butcher, and dairy etc. under one roof. Mom and Pop stores went under, life continued, and the consumer benefited. WalMart added dry goods, hardware, pharmacy, eyeglass store etc. For #'s sake people. All the truely horrible # in the world to worry about and Walmart is portrayed as the evil empire. Sheesh.




[edit on 29-12-2009 by RKWWWW]




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Its cost prohibitive to sue a large corporation for damages?

Are you nuts?

Lawyers will do it for FREE if they think they can win!

Large corporations = deep pockets, trial lawyers favorite kind.

If corporations are selling tainted products overseas, then the people in those countries will sue and stop buying the products. Regulation is not necessary. I fail to see where you are making the point that it is "necessary" to have regulations when the market automatically drives out those producers.


Corporate tax on profits absolutely is less than the middle class tax, however you don't solve our production problems by raising corporate taxes! You cut government spending, regulation, taxes, involvement in the market, etc.. etc.. etc.. and reduce the taxes on the middle class.

Raising corporate taxes isn't going to create jobs that's for sure. However reducing taxes on the middle class just might.

Your argument is circular.

On the one hand you point the finger and say corporate taxes are too low, then on the other hand you say producers outsource because the cost of production is so much lower in foreign countries.

I'm arguing that even with with China suppressing labor rates, we could dramatically increase our domestic production of we cut out all the government regulation, taxation, subsidies, and financial market manipulation that drive up production costs here.

All those things add up to make production here unprofitable.




Lawsuits: yeah, tell an American Lawyer you want him to fly to the Republic of Congo, to sue an American mega-corporation in a court of law that is probably bought. Oh, and if he/she loses wont see a dime let alone reimbursement for the plane trip.

You might even still hear the laughter as you get into your car.

I said no such thing about corporate taxes being too low. I said in comparison to a household they are unfair-at least that is what I was implying. I also did not say taxes are fix to it in anyway shape or form-that is your solution. A take off of the failed "Reagonomics" philosophy that was barely applicable in the 80's. With outsourcing it is a far worse answer.

I was illustrating that unless the taxes = the same as the profit margin-it will not help keep jobs from being exported. IMO the only way to do that is to regulate wages-enforce it so any U.S. company must pay U.S. minimum wage to an employee regardless of where they live or country of operation. That is just a start. You reduce the incentive to move overseas. Not give benefits to remain. To give benefits to remain means you wind up paying the difference in profit which is deplorable and so extremely burdonesome... wait, no thats socialism, silly me.

Government regulation cuts... Great. So I can now run my factory as dirty as I want, and pay less in wages-only I will sell less product people fewer people would be able to afford goods while saving a few grand a year to remain in compliance. Or... I can outsource and make 10 times the profits as I could in remaining.

(edit, was going to comment on



I'm arguing that even with with China suppressing labor rates, we could dramatically increase our domestic production of we cut out all the government regulation, taxation, subsidies, and financial market manipulation that drive up production costs here.

All those things add up to make production here unprofitable.


Isn't that a chicken and egg argument? In China Walmart pays $1/day for a worker, and supplies board/room/meals. This is actually an awesome deal in China: for $1 in some parts of the country that is a night on the town. Pitchers of beer are around 20 cents. Basically Walmart removes all the cost of living and then gives spending money. Sure: No white picket fenced houses, but in a place that is overpopulated-it is a strong place of stability.

That being said: The problem is not regulations, it is the cost of living. We hear the wages and think "Thats only a candy bar!" but over there-it isn't.

How is regulation supposed to compete with this? Any incentives we provide in the states-I guarantee would be countered by the Chinese to keep the production there.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by lordtyp0]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 





IMO the only way to do that is to regulate wages-enforce it so any U.S. company must pay U.S. minimum wage to an employee regardless of where they live or country of operation.


So basically your plan is to make it impossible for every american corporation to compete in the global market.


Do have any idea what would result from that?




[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
btw, if a lawyer thought he could make a few million in royalties by suing in a foreign country, he'd be on the plane in a new york minute.

typically though, they aren't allowed to sue in foreign countries because the foreign countries have - you guessed it! - regulations! prohibiting unlicensed foreing lawyers from practicing law there.

I'm sure some enterprising lawyer in the congo will take up the lawsuit if he thought he could win for large damages.

Its the same in all countries.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by lordtyp0
 





IMO the only way to do that is to regulate wages-enforce it so any U.S. company must pay U.S. minimum wage to an employee regardless of where they live or country of operation.


So basically your plan is to make it impossible for every american corporation to compete in the global market.


Do have any idea what would result from that?

[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]


I don't care about the Global market. I care about my neighbors having jobs. I care about the factories that were shut down. I care about the fact profits are seen as the end-all-be-all even in areas like education and health-care (the two areas I am 100% avid should be universal to all citizens).

As for what would result: a few less billionaires? A few more local jobs?

I think you forget that the bulk of all things consumed is in the U.S. All commodities-biggest consumers of it all are Americans. The Chinese and E.U. are certainly gaining ground. But the biggest margin of success of any product is usually how well it plays in America.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
btw, if a lawyer thought he could make a few million in royalties by suing in a foreign country, he'd be on the plane in a new york minute.

typically though, they aren't allowed to sue in foreign countries because the foreign countries have - you guessed it! - regulations! prohibiting unlicensed foreing lawyers from practicing law there.

I'm sure some enterprising lawyer in the congo will take up the lawsuit if he thought he could win for large damages.

Its the same in all countries.


Did you just include Lawyers and by extension-Doctors in your 'needing deregulation' umbrella? Each state requires licensing of both in the U.S... And for good reason.

Otherwise, laughing all night at the prospect. Flying there, losing out on all the clients for a long-shot trial.

Laughing all night long.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by lordtyp0
 





IMO the only way to do that is to regulate wages-enforce it so any U.S. company must pay U.S. minimum wage to an employee regardless of where they live or country of operation.


So basically your plan is to make it impossible for every american corporation to compete in the global market.


Do have any idea what would result from that?

[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]


I don't care about the Global market. I care about my neighbors having jobs. I care about the factories that were shut down. I care about the fact profits are seen as the end-all-be-all even in areas like education and health-care (the two areas I am 100% avid should be universal to all citizens).

As for what would result: a few less billionaires? A few more local jobs?

I think you forget that the bulk of all things consumed is in the U.S. All commodities-biggest consumers of it all are Americans. The Chinese and E.U. are certainly gaining ground. But the biggest margin of success of any product is usually how well it plays in America.


More government regulation that drives up costs isn't going to make more jobs for your neighbors.

However noble your intentions, more regulation and taxation that drives up the costs of goods NEVER creates jobs.

What creates jobs is less regulation and taxation.

That's it.

Nothing else can make jobs.

Nothing.

Government has no resources of its own, it must take its resources from the private sector. For every job government creates, 10 more are lost due to the mis allocation of resources.

If you want to blame someone for the current job market, blame the central banking system (ie. government) that has destroyed this country though its massive moral hazard, suppression of interest rates, 10% reserve requirements, and bailout programs to wealthy elitists.

The monetary system is to blame for our problems, not producers and retailers acting to maximize profits.




[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Ideas are not property in a free market.


No, becuase the free market is basically based upon the idea of piracy. Why do you think I argue against the concept of the "free market"? It's only free for the most blackbeard-ish.


Having the idea first and being the first to market has its own rewards.
Sure, if you ignore the inconvenient fact that R&D costs money that your competitors didn't have to spend, allowing them to produce cheaper products at a higher profit.


What do you think would happen if levis held the patent on jeans.

No one could make jeans except for levis.

How much do you think levis would charge for a pair of jeans?


Considering that copper riveted jeans were in fact patented by Levi Strauss co. on May 20, 1873... Patent #139121 in fact...

I'll let you go do your own research

[edit on 29-12-2009 by TheWalkingFox]




Ideas can be replicated infinitely without the original holder loosing anything. Patent law has no business being in a free market. Patents create arbitrary monopolies.




Thats false sir

The founding fathers included intellectual property and creative endeavors in the founding documents, which a patent would fall under. I don't know if they are free market, but they are AMERICAN as eagles. Thank god this is not a free market



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Originally posted by mnemeth1
btw, if a lawyer thought he could make a few million in royalties by suing in a foreign country, he'd be on the plane in a new york minute.

typically though, they aren't allowed to sue in foreign countries because the foreign countries have - you guessed it! - regulations! prohibiting unlicensed foreing lawyers from practicing law there.

I'm sure some enterprising lawyer in the congo will take up the lawsuit if he thought he could win for large damages.

Its the same in all countries.


Did you just include Lawyers and by extension-Doctors in your 'needing deregulation' umbrella? Each state requires licensing of both in the U.S... And for good reason.

Otherwise, laughing all night at the prospect. Flying there, losing out on all the clients for a long-shot trial.

Laughing all night long.


You act like other countries don't have lawyers, and I just told you most foreign countries don't allow foreign unlicensed lawyers to practice law there.

btw, my friends mother was just injured by a doctor and a drug manufacturer.

Her lawyer flew in from San Fran the day after Christmas to work on her case - free.





[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

Thats false sir

The founding fathers included intellectual property and creative endeavors in the founding documents, which a patent would fall under. I don't know if they are free market, but they are AMERICAN as eagles. Thank god this is not a free market


What is false?

That patent law has no business in a free market?

You keep arguing for monopolies.

Why do you like monopolies so much?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by lordtyp0
 





IMO the only way to do that is to regulate wages-enforce it so any U.S. company must pay U.S. minimum wage to an employee regardless of where they live or country of operation.


So basically your plan is to make it impossible for every american corporation to compete in the global market.


Do have any idea what would result from that?

[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]


I don't care about the Global market. I care about my neighbors having jobs. I care about the factories that were shut down. I care about the fact profits are seen as the end-all-be-all even in areas like education and health-care (the two areas I am 100% avid should be universal to all citizens).

As for what would result: a few less billionaires? A few more local jobs?

I think you forget that the bulk of all things consumed is in the U.S. All commodities-biggest consumers of it all are Americans. The Chinese and E.U. are certainly gaining ground. But the biggest margin of success of any product is usually how well it plays in America.


More government regulation that drives up costs isn't going to make more jobs for your neighbors.

However noble your intentions, more regulation and taxation that drives up the costs of goods NEVER creates jobs.

What creates jobs is less regulation and taxation.

That's it.

Nothing else can make jobs.

Nothing.

Government has no resources of its own, it must take its resources from the private sector. For every job government creates, 10 more are lost due to the mis allocation of resources.

If you want to blame someone for the current job market, blame the central banking system that has destroyed this country though its massive moral hazard, suppression of interest rates, 10% reserve requirements, and bailout programs to wealthy elitists.

The monetary system is to blame for our problems, not producers and retailers acting to maximize profits.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]


So... Don't blame the incentive of greed? Don't pay attention to huge layoffs while companies rake in record setting profits with stocks soaring?
Don't consider any sort of personal accountability... Just keep consuming because to do otherwise increases the cost...It's all a shadow government thing-the nasty evil bankers, it isnt that people can make 10 times the money doing things that are detrimental to society oh no.
When people do things detrimental to society we call them criminals and toss in jail. When companies do it-we are just jealous of their success. It's all because of the nasty regulations the elite put in place to keep the poor man down, the poor man who makes six figures a year, not you or I. Because when that poor man (not us) has to face making a tiny tiny bit less this year than last-raises the prices on everything which DOES impact the poor us.

But that man is a saint, he lives the American Dream. So the answer is to let him make as much money as he can, while hoping (please mister! please) that he keeps prices reasonable.

It's all the powerful elites fault... Just not the Elites who control all the mega-corporations that we actually interact with day to day (time warner, walmart and holdings etc.) It's a different group of Elites-the bad kind who's greed knows no bounds in the banking sector. The only way to fight the bad kind is to remove regulations so the Good mega-corp elites can fight the good fight! If you dont, then store costs will go up and all the jobs vanish, which cause more job loss! Ohhh, those sinister and dastardly evil Banking Elites!

,,,,

Right.

What creates jobs is room for profit. Currently there is far more profit in making cheaper products with less support (smaller staff). Downsizing products, putting cheaper ingredients in and outsourcing.

Removal of regulations will do nothing to fix any problems. It will simply allow more profits on top of what they already earn, which-sorry-will NEVER trickle down.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Buddy, those corporations didn't get to be so big because they operated in a free market.

They got to be so big because of government regulations, special tax breaks, and subsidies.

You're blaming the free market all of the sudden for huge profits by these mega corporations when the free market has absolutely nothing to do with it.

What part are you not getting here?

Government is responsible for 40% of the spending in this country. Who do you think is the beneficiary of all that spending?

You see that link in my sig?

23.7 trillion was just looted by the banking establishment. The nations GDP is only 14 trillion.

Didn't we just have a discussion about wal mart selling at a near loss? Wal mart really does operate in a free market, they have enormous competition.

The companies looting us DO NOT operate in a free market, they got all their money from the government.



[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Janky Red

Thats false sir

The founding fathers included intellectual property and creative endeavors in the founding documents, which a patent would fall under. I don't know if they are free market, but they are AMERICAN as eagles. Thank god this is not a free market


What is false?

That patent law has no business in a free market?

You keep arguing for monopolies.

Why do you like monopolies so much?


Did you learn that ploy in primary school?

This is not a free market and it is not a Bolshevik system either.

Monopoly is a "state" of business

Patent is a function of law

two different things, you are reaching well beyond



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Buddy, those corporations didn't get to be so big because they operated in a free market.

They got to be so big because of government regulations, special tax breaks, and subsidies.

You're blaming the free market all of the sudden for huge profits by these mega corporations when the free market has absolutely nothing to do with it.

What part are you not getting here?

Government is responsible for 40% of the spending in this country. Who do you think is the beneficiary of all that spending?

You see that link in my sig?

23.7 trillion was just looted by the banking establishment. The nations GDP is only 14 trillion.



Correct, mega-corps got as big as they have by being shady. From SLAP lawsuits to other things...

And... wait: "Special tax breaks".. did you just include that in the problem category? After all that talk of how tax breaks and deregulation are the only ways to generate jobs?

What point are you not getting? I am saying the 'free-market' idea is a pipe dream, something unattainable and never existed in the first place.

The wealthy are wealthy because they collude, they protect their wealth. If regulations were the cause then why would there be a perpetual tear-fest from the Right wing about how anti-american and anti-business Regulations are?

What regulations are you talking about-exactly-that allowed companies to grow to megalithic proportions?

Couldn't care less about where the government spent money goes, that isn't the topic of this thread. But if you listen to the right-wing talking heads-it all goes to socialist programs that benefit those who refuse to work.

So, get a bit more specific here. What regulations have boosted the performance of a companies?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reaching well beyond what?

that's what a patent is, its a licensed monopoly.

that is the definition of a patent.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Buddy, those corporations didn't get to be so big because they operated in a free market.

They got to be so big because of government regulations, special tax breaks, and subsidies.

You're blaming the free market all of the sudden for huge profits by these mega corporations when the free market has absolutely nothing to do with it.

What part are you not getting here?




There are those who place a high degree of trust in the government and it's hard for them to accept the fact that government can become the whore of big businesses. It's difficult for them to see the government's role in the corruption of the market. Instead they blame the market itself. They essentially become tools of the unholy union of business and government.



[edit on 29-12-2009 by RKWWWW]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Correct, mega-corps got as big as they have by being shady. From SLAP lawsuits to other things...

And... wait: "Special tax breaks".. did you just include that in the problem category? After all that talk of how tax breaks and deregulation are the only ways to generate jobs?

What point are you not getting? I am saying the 'free-market' idea is a pipe dream, something unattainable and never existed in the first place.

The wealthy are wealthy because they collude, they protect their wealth. If regulations were the cause then why would there be a perpetual tear-fest from the Right wing about how anti-american and anti-business Regulations are?

What regulations are you talking about-exactly-that allowed companies to grow to megalithic proportions?

Couldn't care less about where the government spent money goes, that isn't the topic of this thread. But if you listen to the right-wing talking heads-it all goes to socialist programs that benefit those who refuse to work.

So, get a bit more specific here. What regulations have boosted the performance of a companies?


Tax breaks for one corporation gives that corporation a competitive advantage and allows it to form a monopoly.

Tax breaks for all corporations create a healthier market.

And business are certainly colluding, but not with each other, they are colluding with government to shut out their competition.

Look at the healthcare bill for Christ sake, the damn insurance companies wrote the bill!

You got the banking sector entirely in bed with washington. The obama administration is entirely run by goldman sachs.

You got bailouts galore.

You got government contracts galore.

Its a total fascist state.




[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Correct, mega-corps got as big as they have by being shady. From SLAP lawsuits to other things...

And... wait: "Special tax breaks".. did you just include that in the problem category? After all that talk of how tax breaks and deregulation are the only ways to generate jobs?

What point are you not getting? I am saying the 'free-market' idea is a pipe dream, something unattainable and never existed in the first place.

The wealthy are wealthy because they collude, they protect their wealth. If regulations were the cause then why would there be a perpetual tear-fest from the Right wing about how anti-american and anti-business Regulations are?

What regulations are you talking about-exactly-that allowed companies to grow to megalithic proportions?

Couldn't care less about where the government spent money goes, that isn't the topic of this thread. But if you listen to the right-wing talking heads-it all goes to socialist programs that benefit those who refuse to work.

So, get a bit more specific here. What regulations have boosted the performance of a companies?


Tax breaks for one corporation gives that corporation a competitive advantage and allows it to form a monopoly.

Tax breaks for all corporations create a healthier market.

And business are certainly colluding, but not with each other, they are colluding with government to shut out their competition.

Look at the healthcare bill for Christ sake, the damn insurance companies wrote the bill!

You got the banking sector entirely in bed with wall street. The obama administration is entirely run by goldman sachs.

You got bailouts galore.

You got government contracts galore.

Its a total fascist state.
[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]


So... can't cite any regulations that benefit companies? Or is the term being munged with 'cherry picked laws'?

A regulation is a guideline that "Regulates" behavior. A lobby getting a law passed is not the same thing. A Regulation prohibited any company from doing certain things... Like dumping production waste into the gutter, or insider trading and the like.

Are there any regulations that you can think of specifically, that should be expunged? Or, do you actually think all of them, like the aforementioned Toxic waste and insider trading?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0

So... can't cite any regulations that benefit companies? Or is the term being munged with 'cherry picked laws'?

A regulation is a guideline that "Regulates" behavior. A lobby getting a law passed is not the same thing. A Regulation prohibited any company from doing certain things... Like dumping production waste into the gutter, or insider trading and the like.

Are there any regulations that you can think of specifically, that should be expunged? Or, do you actually think all of them, like the aforementioned Toxic waste and insider trading?


I think FRAUD is illegal and wrong.

If a corporations commits FRAUD they can be sued and their executives can be brought up on criminal charges.

Madoff was charged with FRAUD, defrauding his customers.

You don't need regulations to deal with fraud.

A few laws that define what fraud is are all you need.

Madoff broke hundreds of regulations while conducting his fraud. Regulations do NOTHING! They prevent nothing. The SEC is a joke!

You have to fix the problem at the root, which is our monetary system and central bank. When you get rid of the central bank and go back to a gold standard where markets control interest rates and lending, all of this moral hazard goes away.

Suddenly people will be VERY concerned about who they bank with, who they invest with, and what those investors are doing with their money.

The markets flushed Madoff out, not the SEC.


[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by lordtyp0

So... can't cite any regulations that benefit companies? Or is the term being munged with 'cherry picked laws'?

A regulation is a guideline that "Regulates" behavior. A lobby getting a law passed is not the same thing. A Regulation prohibited any company from doing certain things... Like dumping production waste into the gutter, or insider trading and the like.

Are there any regulations that you can think of specifically, that should be expunged? Or, do you actually think all of them, like the aforementioned Toxic waste and insider trading?


I think FRAUD is illegal and wrong.

If a corporations commits FRAUD they can be sued and their executives can be brought up on criminal charges.

Madoff was charged with FRAUD, defrauding his customers.

You don't need regulations to deal with fraud.

A few laws that define what fraud is are all you need.

Madoff broke hundreds of regulations while conducting his fraud. Regulations do NOTHING! They prevent nothing. The SEC is a joke!

You have to fix the problem at the root, which is our monetary system and central bank. When you get rid of the central bank and go back to a gold standard where markets control interest rates and lending, all of this moral hazard goes away.

Suddenly people will be VERY concerned about who they bank with, who they invest with, and what those investors are doing with their money.

The markets flushed Madoff out, not the SEC.


[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]


So the SEC which had long been crippled by Bush at the time Maddof came about, is worthless because they didn't do anything... which proves Regulations are a huge benefit for companies becoming Monopolies?

You realize I hope: That Fraud is Fraud BECAUSE of a regulation? ie: A law that regulates behavior and defines legal from not.

But,,, still not seeing any proof or even a single actual regulation that is some how beneficial to a company and/or halting legit growth in any sector of business.

Any specific regulation that facilitates unfair advantage to a company? (the healthcare bill: not a regulation.). Something that backs up your thesis statement of "Deregulation is needed to allow companies to prosper in a fair free-market"?

Anything at all to show regulations as being beneficial?





top topics
 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join