Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: There's a flaw in deregulating corporations

  1. #61

    Default

    It's pretty disheartening to see how many people don't know what a monopoly is. It has nothing to do with the size of the company or how 'evil' the CEO seems. If it's not possible to compete due to legal or any other restriction involving force, it's a monopoly. If a big company comes to your town, competes with the local businesses and puts them out of business, it's not a monopoly unless they did it with force (Ie, government 'assistance'). It's really sad to see how many people think that if a company does well due to people choosing to buy their product or service, then they are evil and the government needs to use force to save us from their low prices and reliable service..
    Last edited by vodalian; 03-12-2012 at 03:53 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    This is not a debate on the merits and opinions you have about MSoft.

    The claim was MSoft was a monopoly.

    You demonstrate very well that it is not.
    MSFT has monopolies in the patents they hold as do a great many other corporations. My earlier point was that: patent=monopoly. I don't know what your other argument was about. Patents and monopolies are different subsets of the general conversation ("deregulating corporations"). I did not venture an opinion on the 1990s MSFT=Monopoly case. My point would be that if the governement didn't want them to be a powerful monopoly, they could stop doing the things that make MSFT more powerful than they should be. This includes stop being such a big-ass customer of Microsoft.

    It is asinie that the government pretends to be concerned with trusts and monopolies and grants the exact sort of favors that make these things likely.

    People for decades have underestimated Gates.

    Time after time he has eaten their lunch.
    The guy is retired. Can you make a solid case for owning MSFT the last 12 years or in the future?:



    Which is why I asked if you believe in the company enough to own their stock. My bad for asking a troll an honest question.


    Attachment 1338

  4. #63
    Member Voluntary Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    everywhere & nowhere, but always here: Union of Soviet America
    Posts
    1,519
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Marketing does not make a product. It helps, but if the goods are not satisfactory, no amount of marketing can save it.
    Betamax or VHS?

    Hemp or Wood Pulp?

    Ron Paul or Rick Romgrich?
    Last edited by Voluntary Man; 03-12-2012 at 05:33 PM.

  5. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Free Hornet View Post
    MSFT has monopolies in the patents they hold as do a great many other corporations. My earlier point was that: patent=monopoly.
    I see your point.

    Monopoly require a government edict.
    Patent qualifies as such an edict.

    Which is why I asked if you believe in the company enough to own their stock. My bad for asking a troll an honest question.
    I do not own stock in corporations.
    That would be like owning a piece of the spawn of the devil.

  6. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    I've seen lots of executives being led away in handcuffs, yet the liberals keep telling me it doesn't happen.
    Not too many from the mortgage crisis.

  7. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    I do not own stock in corporations.
    That would be like owning a piece of the spawn of the devil.
    Kudos for being hardcore!

  8. #67

    Default

    I didn't read all the posts so forgive me if I repeat a point already made.

    One thing that I have realized from being a small business owner, is that the mega corporations are the guys who absolutely LOVE excess regulations. I own my own little painting biz. Recently the EPA has required that ALL contractors [not just painters] working on a house built before the late sixties [which is the majority of buildings in the united states] MUST become lead base paint "certified". We are required to pay a lead based paint "instructor" nearly a thousand dollars, take off a full day of work, and an additional three hours the next day, to be taught how to be SAFE from these harmful chemicals.

    So I got pissed and decided to look for help from some of the big boys in my area in order to see if we could get a petition to Mitch Daniels our governor, to see if he could pass it up the chain and get this stopped. I found out after a few days of research, that all the big boys support such ridiculous regulation. The unions also support such ridiculous regulation. I thought to myself "How, WHY???"

    I reasoned with myself and came to the conclusion that the big guys can afford this crap, but the average Joe on the street can't even get a leg in. Regulation kills competition. Massive corporations lobby for this crap all the time, because they know they can hack it. Their worst fear is de-regulation, because then Mr. and Mrs. Smith can go to Bob's Retail Store owned by Bob and his wife down the street, and pay the same low prices as they can at Wal-Mart.

    Suddenly Wal-Marts and McDonald's would start to disappear, and places like Bob's Retail Shack and Janet's Burger Paradise would start to pop up all over the place.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •