Eric Cantor just lost his primary.

[Rob's House]

 

 

You mean jobs such as dishwashers, busboys, agricultural jobs on the field/farms, cleaning ladies and construction?

I agree that working immigrants aren't really a problem, but there's a better way than amnesty and unsecured borders to strike a balance.

[Magox]

but there's a better way than amnesty and unsecured borders to strike a balance.

 

Sure, but who on the right is endorsing this?

[GG]

Precisely.

 

I chose my wording poorly. This is the exact sentiment I was seeking to convey.

 

Backtracking on the monopolies aside, show proof that large multinationals are the enshrined winners, granted with protection from competition, and ensuring market share against failure of practice; and awarding legacy awards to monopolists.

 

Let's keep in mind that the two previous examples you provided were of companies that not only filed bankruptcy, but were liquidated, which is very rare. If that's your example of what happens to companies with government support, then what do companies in your world do when they don't get support?

[Rob's House]

Backtracking on the monopolies aside, show proof that large multinationals are the enshrined winners, granted with protection from competition, and ensuring market share against failure of practice; and awarding legacy awards to monopolists.

 

Let's keep in mind that the two previous examples you provided were of companies that not only filed bankruptcy, but were liquidated, which is very rare. If that's your example of what happens to companies with government support, then what do companies in your world do when they don't get support?

Are you arguing that large companies don't lobby for regulations and/or see to the enforcement of those regulations for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage over potential competitors who may attempt to enter the market?

[keepthefaith]

You mean jobs such as dishwashers, busboys, agricultural jobs on the field/farms, cleaning ladies and construction?

 

Some of those, sure. So where the "Americans won't do those jobs" argument falls apart is that labor is a supply and demand item. If we had fewer immigrants to do those things, wages for those jobs would rise to a level where Americans would take the jobs. Sure we'd pay a bit more for lettuce and hotel rooms but we'd have more people employed paying into those SS and Medicare programs. What do you say to the American construction companies that have gone belly up due to illegal immigrant competition?

Edited June 13, 2014 by keepthefaith

[GG]

Are you arguing that large companies don't lobby for regulations and/or see to the enforcement of those regulations for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage over potential competitors who may attempt to enter the market?

 

Only an idiot would argue that the companies don't lobby for extra protection or regulatory cover against competition. The point though is despite all these efforts, the natural forces of capitalism are too strong for that lobbying to have any real effect. It makes for good conspiracy theories, but very little impact on the business environment itself.

 

Case in point, Sears was a major backer of the Durbin Amendment in the recent credit/debit card legislation. So even though retailers won a little legislative victory, it will have no bearing on Sears' & KMart's very possible bankruptcy.

 

So, I'll just sit here and wait for proof that shows where large multinationals are the enshrined winners, granted with protection from competition, and ensuring market share against failure of practice; and awarding legacy awards to monopolists.

Edited June 13, 2014 by GG

[Keukasmallies]

I have a solution to the immigration reform problem, but most of the posters above would deem it cruel and unusual punishment: Enforce the laws currently on the books, no more, no less, then, after two years, see what, if anything, additional is needed.

[birdog1960]

Only an idiot would argue that the companies don't lobby for extra protection or regulatory cover against competition. The point though is despite all these efforts, the natural forces of capitalism are too strong for that lobbying to have any real effect. It makes for good conspiracy theories, but very little impact on the business environment itself.

 

Case in point, Sears was a major backer of the Durbin Amendment in the recent credit/debit card legislation. So even though retailers won a little legislative victory, it will have no bearing on Sears' & KMart's very possible bankruptcy.

 

So, I'll just sit here and wait for proof that shows where large multinationals are the enshrined winners, granted with protection from competition, and ensuring market share against failure of practice; and awarding legacy awards to monopolists.

sears and kmart? both were obsolete 10 years ago. little to do with capitalism, lots to do with technology and changing consumer preferences. i don't see any oil co's going bust and not too many big finance co's. outcomes aren't really the point at any rate (although they are often good for the cronies), none of this is desirable from a true governing perspective.

[Magox]

Some of those, sure. So where the "Americans won't do those jobs" argument falls apart is that labor is a supply and demand item. If we had fewer immigrants to do those things, wages for those jobs would rise to a level where Americans would take the jobs. Sure we'd pay a bit more for lettuce and hotel rooms but we'd have more people employed paying into those SS and Medicare programs. What do you say to the American construction companies that have gone belly up due to illegal immigrant competition?

I'm not going to pretend that there are some citizens that are negatively impacted by illegal immigration. However, I will absolutely unequivocally make the case that it is the countries best interest to have a more efficient and competent immigration system. We need more hard-working immigrants in order to grow, pay into S.S Medicare and be more innovative. This country is made up of immigrants, that's who we are.

[IDBillzFan]

This country is made up of immigrants, that's who we are.

 

Yes, but the country is primarily made up of immigrants who came here per the legal instructions of the land. I'll be happy to talk about my Italian ancestors, how they got here and what they did and endured. What's happening now is embarrassingly dangerous for every one of 'immigrants' who make up this country.

[Dorkington]

Yes, but the country is primarily made up of immigrants who came here per the legal instructions of the land. I'll be happy to talk about my Italian ancestors, how they got here and what they did and endured. What's happening now is embarrassingly dangerous for every one of 'immigrants' who make up this country.

 

Really?

 

I'm sure Native Americans would disagree with your assertion that our European ancesestors came over here "legally".

[Magox]

Yes, but the country is primarily made up of immigrants who came here per the legal instructions of the land. I'll be happy to talk about my Italian ancestors, how they got here and what they did and endured. What's happening now is embarrassingly dangerous for every one of 'immigrants' who make up this country.

Yes, hence the need for a reform of the immigration system. And no "just tightening up the borders" does not constitute effective immigration reform.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Magox

[IDBillzFan]

Yes, hence the need for a reform of the immigration system. And no "just tightening up the borders" does not constitute effective immigration reform.

 

But it starts with that. Which is where, I believe, the failure to do anything initially bogs down.

 

In the end, people who want stricter border control will, unfortunately, be proven right the minute someone here illegally kills enough people to warrant national press. You can barely open a local newspaper here without police blotters reporting about someone shot, run over, killed, robbed, etc. by an undocumented Mexican. Have them kill a few dozen and the media will suddenly discuss the danger of what we're witnessing right this moment.

[birdog1960]

Really?

 

I'm sure Native Americans would disagree with your assertion that our European ancesestors came over here "legally".

+1: perspective.

[TakeYouToTasker]

So, I'll just sit here and wait for proof that shows where large multinationals are the enshrined winners, granted with protection from competition, and ensuring market share against failure of practice; and awarding legacy awards to monopolists.

So you're unaware of the purpose and practice of oligopoly, then?

 

Constructing artificial barriers to market entry at the behest of those already owning market share is picking winners, and grants protection from competition.

 

The "total knowledge" relationship of firms within oligopolistic industries generally ensures against failure, unless technological advances create an entirely new industry (traditional retail box stores undone by the internet).

 

It also results in price setting, in which there is almost no industry competition driving down prices. Rather than being dictated by market forces, which is generally more benficial for consumers, set prices work to maximize profits.

 

As far as oligopoly resulting in practiced monopoly? You need look no further than cable and internet providers. They don't compete against each other, and readily admit to it, but rather work only in national regions where the others "aren't interested" in having a presence.

[GG]

So you're unaware of the purpose and practice of oligopoly, then?

 

Constructing artificial barriers to market entry at the behest of those already owning market share is picking winners, and grants protection from competition.

 

The "total knowledge" relationship of firms within oligopolistic industries generally ensures against failure, unless technological advances create an entirely new industry (traditional retail box stores undone by the internet).

 

It also results in price setting, in which there is almost no industry competition driving down prices. Rather than being dictated by market forces, which is generally more benficial for consumers, set prices work to maximize profits.

 

As far as oligopoly resulting in practiced monopoly? You need look no further than cable and internet providers. They don't compete against each other, and readily admit to it, but rather work only in national regions where the others "aren't interested" in having a presence.

 

I didn't ask for a Wiki definition of oligopoly. I asked for instances where large multinationals are the enshrined winners, granted with protection from competition, and ensuring market share against failure of practice; and awarding legacy awards to monopolists (or as edited oligopolists).

 

BTW, care to define what you mean by cable and internet providers?

[TakeYouToTasker]

I didn't ask for a Wiki definition of oligopoly. I asked for instances where large multinationals are the enshrined winners, granted with protection from competition, and ensuring market share against failure of practice; and awarding legacy awards to monopolists (or as edited oligopolists).

Ever major industrial and service industry.

 

 

BTW, care to define what you mean by cable and internet providers?

Comcast, Cox etc.

 

Now, I've obliged you.

 

Your turn to answer a question:

 

Do you deny the effects of oligopoly?

Edited June 13, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[GG]

[/background][/background][/size][/font][/color]

Ever major industrial and service industry.

 

And exactly how has the US government created barriers to enshrine these companies' market positions and erect oligopolies?

 

Or are you taking a lazy analysis and conflating a company's large size and scope that were attained through more capital investment, better products and execution for government-built monopoly status?

 

The reason you don't have the answers is that your thesis is wrong, and you fall back on jingoism that big companies got to where they are only because of government protection and of nothing they did on their own. That's why I laugh at the simpleton venn diagram in the BI article. That's why I laugh at the idiots who shout about income inequality. Sure, there are big multi-national companies that dominate their sectors today. But that is the byproduct of winning the competitive battle in industries where large scale really matters. The biggest test that the system is working though, is that the behemoths f today, are not the same as 10 years ago, as 20 years ago, and so on. That's very basic proof that in a capitalistic system, there's constant churning of leadership, because it's virtually impossible to remain on top. If anything, relying heavily on government protection will kill off a company much sooner, because management has little incentive to be competitive.

 

Sound familiar to your other arguments?

 

Comcast, Cox etc.

 

And these guys aren't in a big battle with AT&T, Verizon, DirecTV, DISH, Wide Open West, RCN? And that's just on the local access side, without bringing in competitors in the long-haul Internet access.

 

I urge you to educate yourself on the nature of these industries before you start spouting words that may impress only a birddog.

[birdog1960]

And exactly how has the US government created barriers to enshrine these companies' market positions and erect oligopolies?

 

Or are you taking a lazy analysis and conflating a company's large size and scope that were attained through more capital investment, better products and execution for government-built monopoly status?

 

The reason you don't have the answers is that your thesis is wrong, and you fall back on jingoism that big companies got to where they are only because of government protection and of nothing they did on their own. That's why I laugh at the simpleton venn diagram in the BI article. That's why I laugh at the idiots who shout about income inequality. Sure, there are big multi-national companies that dominate their sectors today. But that is the byproduct of winning the competitive battle in industries where large scale really matters. The biggest test that the system is working though, is that the behemoths f today, are not the same as 10 years ago, as 20 years ago, and so on. That's very basic proof that in a capitalistic system, there's constant churning of leadership, because it's virtually impossible to remain on top. If anything, relying heavily on government protection will kill off a company much sooner, because management has little incentive to be competitive.

 

you do realize that the venn cited doesn't support or refute any economic or political belief. it merely points out commonality of belief among otherwise disparate voting blocks. and in this way is salient to any converstion on cantor and political cronyism.

 

in regards to multinational large corporate turnover, it doesn't happen with near the regularity you predict in banking, finance or oil. when those entities are mortally threatend, gov't has bailed them out either directly or via legislation or both. might as well throw certain players in the auto industry in that mix as well..

[GG]

you do realize that the venn cited doesn't support or refute any economic or political belief. it merely points out commonality of belief among otherwise disparate voting blocks. and in this way is salient to any converstion on cantor and political cronyism.

 

 

Which is precisely why I'm railing against lazy analysis and propensity for mouth breathers to sound off without learning the facts.

 

But carry on with your crusades.