Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Old Trapper, Aug 5, 2017.
For the fourth time can you present your best example or must you admit you were Bsing
Nobody said politics was capitalism? Please say where you feel I should begin to educate myself. Yes the cokes give money but so do lots of people on all sides of many issues it's hardly proof that a politician is bought and paid for do you have even one example of a politician who is bought and paid for
as a conservative of course I will know way more than you do as a liberal. Liberalism is based on ignorance if you doubt it please find one example To support your claim that I don't know more than you do.
"Illuminated"? For the past 10 years, and for 6 years under Bush, and another 6 years under Clinton, Republicans were in control. Yet instead of lowering the corporate tax they established loopholes, and give aways. Ever wonder why?
As to Ireland, their corporate tax hasn't a damn thing to do with it. In fact, more foreign countries invest here in the US then in Ireland. The economy there rebounded because the government guaranteed (bailed out) the entire financial district. They then instituted wage controls on EVERYONE reducing them in some instances, They then deleveraged the balance sheet for both private, and public, businesses, making it easier to obtain a loan. And I am not going to get into how much smaller the Irish economy is.
Here again is another point at which you show yourself to be a fool. You said "2) if someone buys off a politician it is illegal and not capitalism"
And like I said, politics is not capitalism.
Trump says he did, and lists some names. Go look it up. I am tired of showing you up for the fool you are.
Comparative internet connection rates from here: This is how Internet speed and price in the U.S. compares to the rest of the world - photo, major internet-user countries:
Europe does have, in general, lower prices. Because internal to each country there are at least 3/4 major suppliers.
Moreover, there is no such thing as "free internet". The internet is a highway where speed matters. Many people are downloading movies which are mountainously large files, whilst we putter about in this forum at very low download rates.
There is no such thing as "One internet for everybody". Never was, never will be.
But only regulated competition will get the prices right. What's happening in the US? This bit (from here):
So, for those who voted for Donald Dork, it's "Time to get shafted on the Internet!" An internet connection need not be a free public-service. But it should be one that is heavily regulated in order to assure that an inherently oligopolistic market cannot be manipulate prices.
Far too much of America's services industries have been allowed to "consolidate" such that only a few at the top share oligopoly pricing. Which make for nice solid profits and high stock-market prices (thus "megabuck cash-in" for a very limited number of Top Management).
And who gets screwed in the process? Look in the mirror ...
About oligopoly pricing, from here: The New Yorker: The Oligopoly Problem
Market oversight is the responsibility of several government sources. "Competition" and "pricing" are both easy to assess from current market practices.
But, there must be the will to do so. And the Obama Administration never showed that much will.
Neither will Donald Dork's - for sure, for sure, for sure. If he wants to ge reelected, he needs "BigMoney" to spend for advertizing on the BoobTube ...
Trump received, after his election, 39 Trademarks from China to produce numerous different items, Ivanka received 3 more. Some people seem to be naive enough to think that simply because a product has a different name on it that it must be manufactured by some competitor when most often the "competitor" is the same party simply with a different trademark. For another example take a look at the chain of "corporations" that are owned by General Mills, and they make no secret of it:
if he did it that does not make it legal or capitalistic. Now do you understand? Capitalism is competing on basis of price and quality, not on basis of bought politicians. See how easy that? Also, I have asked 5 times for a significant example and your best is Trump said he did it. Are you embarrassed?
and is that to you a major event in the history of capitalism as compared to providing the jobs and products that sustain 7 billion lives at a higher level then ever in human history? China just switched to Republican capitalism and 700 million were moved into the middle class whereas 60 million had slowly starved to death under libcommieism. Can you you learn the obvious lesson here>
no he doesn't he just got elected without much big money. Any more tall tales you care to share?
They are not even in control now. Do you see Obamacommiecare disappearing? Its been in all the papers for a long time now.
no kidding? so why do you think so many corporations moved there in whole or in part? And why do you think the EU is demanding that they raise the tax????
1) if I said it was rising before NAFTA I will pay you $10000. Bet?
2) yes unions are falling but still a huge threat to any industry that wants to move to the USA. We should make unions illegal again to remove this threat. Nissan workers thankfully just rejected a union in Mississippi,
OLIGOPOLIES - FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF ABUSIVE PROMINENCE
No doubt about it - the US is not making a big enough effort to keep markets truly competitive? and for that reason it is the consumer that pays higher prices.
The notion that US markets are "mostly competitive" is badly abused. Yes, there is competition, but it is dismally insufficient in many sectors when considering "market shares" in predominant oligopolies ...
Consider a study by the Census Bureau of "market concentration" here: Concentration Ratios. Then click on, say, "Utilities", which gets you this resulting table.
Which let's us conclude that, in fact, utilities are a fairly competitive market in the US. That is, reading down the list we find that the four largest firms delivered about 16% of the total dollar value. That does not seem to be "oligopolistic" to me.
Now click down to Finance & Insurance. Only the four largest firms deliver 65% of "Sales, receipts, or revenue from concentration of largest firms as percent of total sales, receipts, or revenue (%)"
Wow! The perfect example of an oligopolistic market ... !
OLIGOPOLIES - FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF ABUSIVE PROMINENCE - Part 2
Quoting myself above:
To some, this comment needs some explanation about "oligopolies" - which are like "monopolies".
Monopoly is not just a board-game. It is a real-life concern. For instance, "Google Search" was for the longest time a "monopoly". It is now an Oligopoly, where only a very few have any real market importance, as described here:
Even the above can be characterized as "more a monopoly" than "more an oligopoly".
OUR OLIGOPOLISTIC PAST
For whatever the historical reasons, oligopolies in America have flourished. This has been accomplished by a series of lackadaisical Attorney Generals who did not take sufficiently strong action to prevent "oligopolization". Whazzat?
It is the simple fact that AGs have allowed markets to consolidate without asking too many questions about market competition. Which has allowed for super-profits at the expense of the consumer who finds no real price-competition in the market-place. S/he just pays the going price and wails loudly when their income is not sufficient to do so for all they would like to buy.
And scientific address of the problem gets mired in high-level mathematics. Because it is difficult to determine statistically when a market becomes "too concentrated for the public good". Unfortunately, for as long as the Attorney General does nothing to stop said concentration, markets will indeed agglomerate (thus become oligopolistic).
And who nominates the AG? You betcha, the PotUS.
And, for as long as the election of a PotUS depends upon BigMoney spent upon BoobTube commercials, just who is manipulating the process? You betcha, BigBusiness.
MY POINT: IT'S ALL ABOUT "POLITICS"
The above logic is not lost on any Replicant and particularly the Koch Brothers who take pride in influencing political outcomes by throwing money at politicians. Why shouldn't they? Since Reckless Ronnie diminished upper-income taxation to its ridiculously low-levels today, they (along with others of the super-rich) have had plenty to give away.
Nothing will change until the American people want it to change. That is, for as long as economic oligopolies are profit-escalators for BigBusiness that finances elections, then no elected PotUS will want to touch it.
Any candidate to the office would be simply shooting themselves in the foot - because they could not get elected* PotUS without the BigBusiness money-gifting that is necessary ...
From Investopedia, here:
*There is also the fact that the electoral process is manipulated in the Electoral College and by gerrymandering - but that is quite another subject.
No, it argues for some deregulation, but not to the extent that Trump proposes. Regulation is necessary for the reasons given, but
not to the extent that we have been regulated. Clinton and Busch relaxed regulations and the result were recessions. It is a fine line.
Take it from me who lives in Europe - Americans live in a comparatively unregulated environment.
In fact, so "unregulated" from the point of view of taxation that you (plural) are being milked by the super-rich who own the means of production. Which induces an Income-to-Wealth effect as shown here: Ratio of Total Household Wealth to National Income.
Note how (in the above) the top 0.1% of households obtain the VERY SAME PERCENTAGE OF WEALTH as the bottom 90% of households.
America needs badly to fix its Taxation Regulation in order to be more fair and equitable - or the above will lead to another Watts-Riot but next time on a national scale.
Can't happen? I would not bet on it ...
Trump's tax proposal is to reduce the tax on the rich from 35% to 15%, and virtually nothing for the poor and working middle class.
This equation needs to be changed. He is also eliminating most of the regulations to favor business, a bad idea.
Good luck on that one - he's got campaign debts to pay.
The way I figure it, the US is getting EXACTLY what it deserves. A first-class dork, held by the "you-know-whats" by banksters who will take any vengeance they want out on his son (now running his companies).
Donald Dork is "owned" ...
Separate names with a comma.