GG Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Yeah... That's exactly the argument I've been making for much, much longer than I've been posting here. And the alternative to large multinational companies is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) And the alternative to large multinational companies is? Competition, which drives innovation, and drives down prices for consumers; multi-nationals emerging, or maintaining, on merit. Where as you prefer to enshrine winners, granting them protection from competition, and ensuring marketshare against failure of practice; and awarding legacy awards to monopolists. /golfclap Edited June 12, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Competition, which drives innovation, and drives down prices for consumers; multi-nationals emerging, or maintaining, on merit. Where as you prefer to enshrine winners, granting them protection from competition, and ensuring marketshare against failure of practice; and awarding legacy awards to monopolists. /golfclap we agree...amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Competition, which drives innovation, and drives down prices for consumers; multi-nationals emerging, or maintaining, on merit. Where as you prefer to enshrine winners, granting them protection from competition, and ensuring marketshare against failure of practice; and awarding legacy awards to monopolists. /golfclap Keep patting yourself in the back for the usual very shallow analysis. If your theory was true, there would be true monopolies dominating nearly every industrial sector. So, prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Competition, which drives innovation, and drives down prices for consumers; multi-nationals emerging, or maintaining, on merit. Where as you prefer to enshrine winners, granting them protection from competition, and ensuring marketshare against failure of practice; and awarding legacy awards to monopolists. /golfclap Competition can be destructive, uncooperative and a road block to progress, too. Look at google and robots, they bought up five or six robot companies bring a whole bunch of talent and ideas together. That will push innovation forward. Not that I totally disagree, but overall corporations are efficient, innovative and consumer friendly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 we agree...amazing. ... I'll have to assume then, that this is one of my first posts you've ever read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 ... I'll have to assume then, that this is one of my first posts you've ever read? No, it's proof that your theory is way off base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 The day the old geezers in the tea party rally against Medicare is the day I'll believe they are against big government. They are against poor people getting health care i think this is mostly true as well. there are those in the tea party that would disband medicare, just not many that are already on medicare. healthcare is not conducive to the free market model because it will not ensure minimum humanitarian care. it needs to be cut out from the rest of the model as it is in most other industrialized nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 No, it's proof that your theory is way off base. Failed who, exactly? And when? Too big to fail belongs to you. Perverse incentive hangs around your neck. Political patronage and corruption, and government picking winners are yours. Enron. Solyndra. That's you. And you hilariously claim that it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Failed who, exactly? And when? Too big to fail belongs to you. Perverse incentive hangs around your neck. Political patronage and corruption, and government picking winners are yours. Enron. Solyndra. That's you. And you hilariously claim that it works. Sloganisms. Show proof that there are pervasive monopolies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Sloganisms. Show proof that there are pervasive monopolies. Hardly. They are charges. Confront them Which do you deny? Edited June 12, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Hardly. They are charges. Confront them Which do you deny? They weren't monopolies, for starters. They were taken down by market forces. I'll ask again. Name the monopolies across the entire industrial sectors that are propped up by the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 They weren't monopolies, for starters. They were taken down by market forces. I'll ask again. Name the monopolies across the entire industrial sectors that are propped up by the government. Change monopoly to oligopoly and you can include just about every major player in any highly regulated industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 That's not a "reasonable" rate of growth. Specially in a time where we NEED more people paying into S.S and Medicare.[/font][/color][/font][/color] Yes but we need jobs to employ more people. My point was that immigration policy should be tied to economic conditions. Right now we have about 7 million illegal immigrants in jobs that should be done by Americans and we have lost jobs in comparison to population growth, so adding people through immigration (especially illegal immigration) hurts Americans. Brat campaigned on this. Cantor was weak on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 12, 2014 Author Share Posted June 12, 2014 Yes but we need jobs to employ more people. My point was that immigration policy should be tied to economic conditions. Right now we have about 7 million illegal immigrants in jobs that should be done by Americans and we have lost jobs in comparison to population growth, so adding people through immigration (especially illegal immigration) hurts Americans. Brat campaigned on this. Cantor was weak on the issue. Is there a credible source/study that shows this to actually be the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Yes but we need jobs to employ more people. My point was that immigration policy should be tied to economic conditions. Right now we have about 7 million illegal immigrants in jobs that should be done by Americans and we have lost jobs in comparison to population growth, so adding people through immigration (especially illegal immigration) hurts Americans. Brat campaigned on this. Cantor was weak on the issue. Brat campaigned on this issue in a GOP primary. If he was running for Senate in Virginia and he was going up against a Democratic Senator, guess what? The Democrat would be running on immigration reform and Brat wouldn't even barely mention it, much less if it was a presidential election. In regards to needing more jobs, yes, but it has almost next to nothing to do with US immigration policy. The reason why we've been losing jobs is because of structural economic issues that have much more to do with of a lack of lasting job opportunities that creates more demand for products and services in this country. There is this awful misconception of those that wish to come over to the US. That they are some group of dirty Mexicans wishing to mooch off the US government. That simply isn't the case, most people that wish to come here wish to work, wish to be productive wish to integrate. They leave their countries because they lack opportunities and see ours as a somewhere they can move up the socioeconomic latter. There is an understandable anxiety amongst those in the middle class that believe that if you allow more immigrants into the country then you are taking away jobs opportunities. It's a misplaced anxiety that isn't backed up in any sort of data on a wide scale. I have a much different view than many of you here on this issue, I'm actually much more in line with TYTT on this one in that I'd much more content with a productive immigrant living in our country than a non productive citizen. That's not to say that there aren't non productive immigrant's but the vast majority are. Just about every single illegal or legal immigrant I know is someone who works. Just about every one. And I know a bunch. And there are many people that I know that are US citizens who don't do jack sh*t and complain about how hard life is etc. I tell you what else is funny, just about everyone on the right respects Paul Ryan's economic acumen. But when he mentions in great detail how we need an immigration reform for the country and it's positive economic impacts, they either dismiss it or pretend he never said anything about it. Another thing, I see on a headline in Drudge right now " PAPER: RAND PAUL JOINS AMNESTY MOVEMENT... " What a load of crock! Read the link and there is nothing in there or for that matter that Rand Paul is endorsing amnesty. Amnesty is a boogey word term for the anti illegal immigrants and It's a way to rile up opposition. But what is even worse is that it's a complete and utter mischaracterization and fabrication of his position. Marco Rubio was a darling of the right, he's been a consistent conservative on every issue, and then came out in favor of some sort of immigration reform, and now he's a "traitor", "establishment", "moderate" "Sellout". He has never recovered. They are going to do the same Paul Ryan and my guess is the same to Rand Paul. Either Rand Paul will get bashed on or he'll turn himself into an unrecognizable pretzel who would have no credibility on the matter if he ever did make it into the general elections. That's what frustrates me most, mischaracterizations and representations of the truth. Just look at the back-and-forth between you and me, I've twice now corrected your misinformation's on this subject, first you began with inflows of immigration into the country has a harmful impact on economies, when in fact it's the exact opposite, then you went to a more nuanced argument, stating that we needed a reasonable number of inflows and that we have been above what should be, when in fact that's emphatically not true. And now you are changing it once again to implying that economic conditions are weak partially due to inflows of immigrants, and that isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Not that you proposed it Magox, but if we could identify the lazy and shiftless and send them out of the country, I'd be all for it. More seriously, I agree with you: People come here from Mexico and poorer countries because their home countries are a train wreck. Most would work if they could find the work. And we need a better system of letting them come and become productive citizens. Regarding the people already here, I'm a fan of amnesty for non-violent offenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Is there a credible source/study that shows this to actually be the case? What that there are 7 million illegal immigrants working in this country? Does anyone doubt that? Google roy beck numbersUSA or do the same on youtube. There are hours of information on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Change monopoly to oligopoly and you can include just about every major player in any highly regulated industry. Precisely. I chose my wording poorly. This is the exact sentiment I was seeking to convey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 What that there are 7 million illegal immigrants working in this country? Does anyone doubt that? Google roy beck numbersUSA or do the same on youtube. There are hours of information on the subject. You mean jobs such as dishwashers, busboys, agricultural jobs on the field/farms, cleaning ladies and construction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts