Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by waif, Apr 11, 2008.
Agreed - I was simply making an observation on the astonishingly lucrative nature of the "equality-industry" in and of itself.
yeah, well grow up, people dont come here or go anywhere for that matter to have some pompus ass look down their nose at them, seems to be your entire act, your so great and everyone else is an asshole
Now what "blanket" statement was it you feel I should do a 4 hour study on and present with footnotes to fullfil your ego ?
Jarman - Shut up !......
This all sounds good... if you were born in '92, reached puberty in 04 and werent around for Regans deregulation when all this BS started. Start ups dont stand a chance period and it has nothing to do with anything in your post.
Yarite... see responce above
I was born in '86 thank you.
So long as Niskanen of the Cato Institute writes it, I am inclined to agree. I dislike Reagan on account of his vagabond military spending and borrowing so heavily in the People's name.
As for the relevance of the argument, start-ups can and do succeed, though it is the saddling of these expenses that contributes to their propensity to fail.
As for being great et. al., keep telling yourself that which you want to believe, though methinks you are full of faecal matter.
OK that was nicely side stepped with selective quoting used to steer the truth off course. With Regans massive military expence saying lowest priority is like saying 5 on a 100 watt amp isnt loud. So lets try this
Nope no problems since then with any of these industries......
Speaking of Banks, somewhere in there was the savings and loan crisis, white collar crime ran rampant, stuff like that.
So a handful of start ups barely make it or if its a new venture succeed. However the real reason there is no competition and no one can get on the playing field is because money talks. The big conglomerated corporations developed monopolies and are so huge now they just cant be touched. One example I can think of in recent decades where we saw alot of startups was the airline industry, cut throat pricing killed many long standing airlines, but low and behold next thing you knew the upstarts cut their own throats and began dropping like flys as well.
Another problem in this country for decades has been anything that involved investors, they wanted their money back yesterday and wanted huge profits for their investments immeadiatly. Some things are just not feasible when viewed in this manor. Regulations are necessary for business due to various reasons, blame of regulations is a mask when the nature of capitalism is always the root of the problem. Why is it you suppose all the smaller competitors that were at one time finally began selling out or merging into/too the larger companies from the 80's on ? Because money talked and they simply could not compete with the power of the larger corporations.
So now I've removed the blanket that kept the ugly truth all warm and fuzzy in the closet.
1. It is the nature of capitalism that careless banks be allowed to fail; the Federal Reserve system has created inexcusable moral hazard in that it will bail them out, and did on many occasions. Let them be tried on fraud charges if they cooked the books, but no such bail-out was called for.
2. The fluctuations in the oil price have served to do this. If the older players cannot survive some competition, let them fail or buy up the competition if they can, though such a tactic can only work for so long before the bottom line takes one too many hits.
If the surviving airlines cannot stand the new economic conditions i.e. higher jet fuel costs, let them fail too.
3a. I admit that the .com bubble spoiled quite a few retail investors, though I emulate Warren Buffet in the sense that I buy and hold with a good part of my capital, though I do tend to make a leveraged trade (5x, 10x) or three at key technical levels. Investors may seek a return, though that does not mean they will get one.
3. Yes, money talks, and yes if shareholders want to accept a buyout offer, it is their right to do so. The beautiful thing about monopolies and oligopolies is that they always fail, or in the case of OPEC, have failed before (i.e. '80s oil glut). However, in keeping a price artificially high, a producer makes viable other alternatives i.e. makes elastic an inelastic commodity as well as research into alternatives. However, to imply that the state has the right to meddle in the production and pricing of goods is to violate the manufactures' property rights, rendering moot this squabble.
As a side-note, as much as you seem to dislike monopolistic forces, what do you think the state is?
You would not know the truth if it gave you a lap-dance. I have taken the liberty of compiling a list of countries whose economic systems you may find more palatable:
1a. the truth sucks, its why you dont accept it
1. is deviod its point
2. if it has to do with airlines is only a small percentage of the problem
3a. trading should not be allowed only firm long term investments
3. disinterested share holders should be removed from the surface population. They contribute nothing to society not unlike those of the welfare system
I know a country that was most compatable
America 1946 - 197_