Eric Cantor just lost his primary.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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.

Let me know when you're ready to stop strawmanning.

 

I openly defy you to provide a quote in which I've stated that large multi-nationals owe 100% of their success to industry regulation to their position.

 

I'll also challenge you to support oligopoly on it's merits, rather than accepting your dubious claims that "capitalism makes oligopolistic business practices irrelevant".

 

On the contrary, oligopoly is disadvantageous to the consumer, and is anti-capitalistic.

[GG]

 

Let me know when you're ready to stop strawmanning.

 

I openly defy you to provide a quote in which I've stated that large multi-nationals owe 100% of their success to industry regulation to their position.

 

I'll also challenge you to support oligopoly on it's merits, rather than accepting your dubious claims that "capitalism makes oligopolistic business practices irrelevant".

 

On the contrary, oligopoly is disadvantageous to the consumer, and is anti-capitalistic.

 

Ever hear of the pot calling the kettle black? You should read up on it.

 

I haven't introduced a single strawman. I've asked you repeatedly to provide proof for your claims, to which you resort to the standard jingoism. Sorry that won't fly here.

 

Besides, show me where I supported oligopolies or even claimed that they exist?

 

Oh, wait, I never did. But you claim that I did. Sorry but your circular logic doesn't work with me.

 

Better be careful around smokers, your straws may flame up.

[Rob's House]

There are all manner of regulations and hurdles that exist for the purpose of creating a barrier to the market. Often times these barriers are created due to the influence of those on the inside. For example, the reason most states require one to go to an expensive law school for 3 years to earn the right to take the bar exam is because those on the inside have an interest in keeping that barrier to entry.

 

Half the licensing requirements for any number of professions exist for the same reason. Industry regulations don't insure the success of any one company, and don't insulate companies from their competitors, but they do often serve as a barrier to at least make it difficult for smaller would be competitors, who may not have the resources to comply with (or hire lawyer's to navigate) all the complex loopholes required to enter the market, from competing with them.

 

It's been a while since I read up on this topic so I don't have a lot of examples off the top of my head, and I don't have the time to research it at the moment, but I think the fact that so many companies spend so much money lobbying for advantages is a prima facie case that it has a significant impact.

[Deranged Rhino]

(For real, this has been an interesting thread for those of us who drank through econ classes. Cheers to all).

[dayman]

To be clear, nobody thinks that large companies would fail to cement themselves on top in a perfectly free market...?

Edited June 14, 2014 by MoreOffense

[DC Tom]

(For real, this has been an interesting thread for those of us who drank through econ classes. Cheers to all).

 

They have a name for people who drink through their econ classes.

 

They're called "economists."

[meazza]

They have a name for people who drink through their econ classes.

 

They're called "economists."

 

[Deranged Rhino]

I heard a stat last night that blew my mind. With Cantor out the House and Senate GOP are now completely Christian. That's astounding. I didn't believe it was true until I checked and I'm still flabbergasted by that.

 

Not that Cantor's faith had anything to do with his losing the election, it didn't, but wow.

 

Talk about a party that does not represent America anymore. Holy schit.

 

http://www.thedenver...ss-is-christian

Edited June 16, 2014 by GreggyT

[DC Tom]

I heard a stat last night that blew my mind. With Cantor out the House and Senate GOP are now completely white (bar Scott who was appointed, not elected) and all Christian. That's astounding. I didn't believe it was true until I checked and I'm still flabbergasted by that.

 

Not that Cantor's faith had anything to do with his losing the election, it didn't, but wow.

 

Talk about a party that does not represent America anymore. Holy schit.

 

http://www.thedenver...ss-is-christian

 

Read the article - completely Christian, not completely white. One black, several hispanics.

[Deranged Rhino]

Read the article - completely Christian, not completely white. One black, several hispanics.

Good point and catch. Only one black representative and a smattering of hispanic reps. I'm more astounded by the religious element than the race as it's exactly why I stopped voting Republican.

[B-Man]

Good point and catch. Only one black representative and a smattering of hispanic reps. I'm more astounded by the religious element than the race as it's exactly why I stopped voting Republican.

 

B.S.

 

Gee, lets look at the (majority) democrat U.S. senators

 

1 Black, Corey Booker

and 1 Hispanic Menendez...................both from New Jersey...........................what's wrong with the rest of the country ?

 

I have no interest in the religion of any of the senators, I'll leave that type of 'categorizing' to the Left.

 

But your astonishment is odd, since three quarters of the country identify themselves as Christians.

 

How they vote and and what they say & do is whats important.

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

Edited June 16, 2014 by B-Man

[IDBillzFan]

With Cantor out the House and Senate GOP are now completely Christian.

 

Talk about a party that does not represent America anymore. Holy schit.

 

So you believe that a group comprising mostly Christians doesn't represent America?

 

... it's exactly why I stopped voting Republican.

 

You stopped voting Republican because you don't believe in Christ?

Edited June 16, 2014 by LABillzFan

[Deranged Rhino]

B.S.

Not BS. Those are the stats. Are they important or significant? Probably not. I merely said they were astonishing to me. There used to be a time when the GOP had diversity, those days are gone.

 

So you believe that a group comprising mostly Christians doesn't represent America?

 

Not mostly Christian, ENTIRELY Christian now.

 

You stopped voting Republican because you don't believe in Christ?

 

I am a person of deep faith who believes religion and politics mix about as well as money and politics. And once the GOP sold out to (then) evangelical Christians and doubled down with the fundamentalist Christians in the Tea Party rank and file it stunted the GOP's social policies to such an extent that they did not represent me or my beliefs.

 

And I'm one of many who feel the same. We can't have a debate about science in this country because the GOP is dependent upon appeasing their base which consists of a lot of kooks who think the Bible is fact. The influence of the religious right bleeds into nearly everything the GOP has come to stand for over the past twenty years.

 

This statistic is proof.

[meazza]

Define christian. If i was elected, i may be born roman catholic but i am not very devout. I barely make it through good friday without scarfing down a burger.

[Deranged Rhino]

Define christian. If i was elected, i may be born roman catholic but i am not very devout. I barely make it through good friday without scarfing down a burger.

The quibbling isn't important to me, I'm not pretending or claiming every GOP is a fundamentalist Christian and I've been up front that this isn't really a significant statistic -- merely an interesting one. Put in context of the rise of the religious right over the past two decades though and it can be an illuminating statistic.

 

Why? Because of the social agenda of the party. When your party has been hijacked by fundamentalists who believe their faith and their faith alone provides all the answers you can't run anyone whose social platform challenges that faith. I'm not saying it was a planned outcome -- rather an inevitable one. And if the GOP doesn't start looking at itself honestly in the mirror (posts like B-Man's show how out of touch they actually are with the realities inside their own party by saying it's BS when it is indeed a fact) it will destroy the party in the end.

 

ADDED: More to the point, as the article mentions, there used to be a time when the GOP consisted of moderates, conservatives and the religious right. Now, mainly because of the influence of the tea-party, you have a GOP that's conservative and religious right. There aren't any moderates because moderates would be socially liberal in comparison to the religious right today -- and the fundamentalists are the ones pulling the purse strings. The GOP can't risk angering its now primary base so it has to go further to the right to stay in line with the now official faith of the party. At least nationally.

Edited June 16, 2014 by GreggyT

[DC Tom]

The quibbling isn't important to me, I'm not pretending or claiming every GOP is a fundamentalist Christian and I've been up front that this isn't really a significant statistic -- merely an interesting one. Put in context of the rise of the religious right over the past two decades though and it can be an illuminating statistic.

 

Why? Because of the social agenda of the party. When your party has been hijacked by fundamentalists who believe their faith and their faith alone provides all the answers you can't run anyone whose social platform challenges that faith. I'm not saying it was a planned outcome -- rather an inevitable one. And if the GOP doesn't start looking at itself honestly in the mirror (posts like B-Man's show how out of touch they actually are with the realities inside their own party by saying it's BS when it is indeed a fact) it will destroy the party in the end.

 

ADDED: More to the point, as the article mentions, there used to be a time when the GOP consisted of moderates, conservatives and the religious right. Now, mainly because of the influence of the tea-party, you have a GOP that's conservative and religious right. There aren't any moderates because moderates would be socially liberal in comparison to the religious right today -- and the fundamentalists are the ones pulling the purse strings. The GOP can't risk angering its now primary base so it has to go further to the right to stay in line with the now official faith of the party. At least nationally.

 

Incorrect. The influence of the religious right predates the Tea Party by a good number of years - back to Gingrich and his "Contract with America," at least, and arguably much farther.

[IDBillzFan]

I am a person of deep faith who believes religion and politics mix about as well as money and politics. And once the GOP sold out to (then) evangelical Christians and doubled down with the fundamentalist Christians in the Tea Party rank and file it stunted the GOP's social policies to such an extent that they did not represent me or my beliefs.

 

And I'm one of many who feel the same. We can't have a debate about science in this country because the GOP is dependent upon appeasing their base which consists of a lot of kooks who think the Bible is fact. The influence of the religious right bleeds into nearly everything the GOP has come to stand for over the past twenty years.

 

This statistic is proof.

 

You don't believe in Christ, you're one of many who don't believe in Christ, and those who follow Christ are kooks.

 

And that's why you stopped being a Republican.

 

That's all you had to say. Would have saved a lot of unnecessary typing on your part and reading on mine.

[Deranged Rhino]

Incorrect. The influence of the religious right predates the Tea Party by a good number of years - back to Gingrich and his "Contract with America," at least, and arguably much farther.

You're an idiot.

 

I didn't say it started with the Tea Party. Read what I wrote, (then) was used specifically.

 

You don't believe in Christ, you're one of many who don't believe in Christ, and those who follow Christ are kooks.

 

And that's why you stopped being a Republican.

 

That's all you had to say. Would have saved a lot of unnecessary typing on your part and reading on mine.

Reading is important. I didn't say I didn't believe in Christ at all. In fact I said quite the opposite. And I didn't say those who follow Christ are kooks.

 

Maybe you should try reading it again. Sound out the words you don't understand. You literally comprehended nothing I wrote. That's embarrassing.

Edited June 16, 2014 by GreggyT

[DC Tom]

You're an idiot.

 

I didn't say it started with the Tea Party. Read what I wrote, (then) was used specifically.

 

 

Reading is important. I didn't say I didn't believe in Christ at all. In fact I said quite the opposite.

 

I know what you said. It's not "mainly" because of the Tea Party's influence. It's been building for at least 30 years. The implication that it's mainly due to the Tea Party in any way, in any time frame, misrepresents the religious right, the GOP, and the Tea Party.

[Deranged Rhino]

I know what you said. It's not "mainly" because of the Tea Party's influence. It's been building for at least 30 years. The implication that it's mainly due to the Tea Party in any way, in any time frame, misrepresents the religious right, the GOP, and the Tea Party.

Again, not what I said. I said they "doubled down", which they did. Would you like to list how many moderate Republicans have been primaried since the rise of the Tea Party?

Edited June 16, 2014 by GreggyT