Frank Merton Posted September 8, 2013 #176 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Monopolies never survive, because they lose their drive. They don't inovate. Well no enterprise lasts indefinitely, but monopolies can last a long time if they are supported by political power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted September 8, 2013 Author #177 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Br. The problem is with the me generation. They have grown up being taught I only matter. There is no one else. This goes to the doing away with god. Real or not, serving god got the idea that helping others was a good thing. Today it is a bad ,thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted September 8, 2013 Author #178 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Well no enterprise lasts indefinitely, but monopolies can last a long time if they are supported by political power. Really where is the west indias. Trading company. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted September 8, 2013 #179 Share Posted September 8, 2013 There are lots of monopolies. Each copyrighted book and record and movie is a natural monopoly. The ownership of a piece of land is a monopoly, as is a brand. If the customer has to leave the airport to find a competitive vendor, then the airport vendor has a monopoly. The whole idea of trade unions and trade restrictions is to create monopolies. About the only thing prohibited is conspiracy to set prices, so dominant firms use market signals rather than outright conspiracy -- at any rate the price of gasoline at each station remains close to the same as that of each other station, unless the station is isolated, in which case its prices are higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted September 8, 2013 Author #180 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Monopolies are illegal. If this were not the case Standard Oil would rule the world They are in the usa. As for standard oil, it was broken into five companies. Which gave the owner, control of five companies instead of one. Making him richer with a stroke of a pen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted September 8, 2013 #181 Share Posted September 8, 2013 They are in the usa. As for standard oil, it was broken into five companies. Which gave the owner, control of five companies instead of one. Making him richer with a stroke of a pen. Before the breakup John Rockefeller had complete control of every aspect of oil production Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted September 8, 2013 #182 Share Posted September 8, 2013 And after the breakup he collected money from every one of those five companies. You think people are rich now those guys were worth the equivalent of $100's of billions whereas bill gates is always around $60b. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted September 8, 2013 #183 Share Posted September 8, 2013 And after the breakup he collected money from every one of those five companies. You think people are rich now those guys were worth the equivalent of $100's of billions whereas bill gates is always around $60b. No argument there.It seems the rich now want to recreate that kind of wealth.Can't really blame them I guess but Rockefeller's business tactics would end him up in jail today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted September 8, 2013 #184 Share Posted September 8, 2013 No argument there.It seems the rich now want to recreate that kind of wealth.Can't really blame them I guess but Rockefeller's business tactics would end him up in jail today If they are trying most if them aren't doing so good. A measley and stagnet $60B is small potatoes compared to Rockefeller and Carnegie and there aren't many, if any, richer than Gates today. Maybe the Rothsteins are in the old timers league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremiah65 Posted September 8, 2013 #185 Share Posted September 8, 2013 (edited) No argument there.It seems the rich now want to recreate that kind of wealth.Can't really blame them I guess but Rockefeller's business tactics would end him up in jail today Well, they weren't called "the robber barons" for nothing. Rockefeller, Morgan, Vanderbuilt, Carnegie...I watched "the men who built america" marathon over the weekend...some of the crap they pulled, amazing. Oh well, I'd like to think I'd be better and more kind....but I prob wouldn't have been. Edited September 8, 2013 by Jeremiah65 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted September 8, 2013 #186 Share Posted September 8, 2013 If they are trying most if them aren't doing so good. A measley and stagnet $60B is small potatoes compared to Rockefeller and Carnegie and there aren't many, if any, richer than Gates today. Maybe the Rothsteins are in the old timers league. Maybe they are waiting for another tax cut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted September 8, 2013 #187 Share Posted September 8, 2013 I have no problem with wealth. The problem is poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted September 8, 2013 #188 Share Posted September 8, 2013 I have no problem with wealth. The problem is poverty. I completely agree. My only opposition to most conservative views is that I think the poor need help.Food programs and job training and medical treatment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted September 8, 2013 #189 Share Posted September 8, 2013 I completely agree. My only opposition to most conservative views is that I think the poor need help.Food programs and job training and medical treatment Conservatives also think the poor need help. This isnt a Liberal issue. There is a strange thinking Conservatives are less caring and Liberals more passionate. Its not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 8, 2013 #190 Share Posted September 8, 2013 I don't have time to address the whole post this evening (I will if time allows tomorrow though), but I don't believe I am wrong about the above. This is worth a read: http://www.wwu.edu/c...yetsemitan1.htm That fairly much confirms what I just said. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSS Posted September 8, 2013 #191 Share Posted September 8, 2013 (edited) That fairly much confirms what I just said. Br Cornelius No it confirmed one aspect of what you said - interaction at older age. More importantly, you said "In many non-western societies if you survive to adolescence your chance of a long life is quite high." The link concluded: "Researchers in non-Western societies have focused more on issues relating to the sociological dimension for too long to the neglect of the functional dimension of aging and adult development. Although the reason for this neglect may be cultural, another reason may be because of the relatively short life expectancy in non-Western societies." How does that 'fairly much' confirm what you said then? Edited September 8, 2013 by Sky Scanner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 8, 2013 #192 Share Posted September 8, 2013 (edited) Given high infant mortality the comparison of life expectancy is far from straightforward. It is my contention that once you live into adulthood the life expectancy between developing countries and developed countries is similar. This is difficult to prove without specific analysis of the figures. Child mortality is the main difference and is mainly due to differences in public hygiene policy between countries. Br Cornelius Edited September 8, 2013 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted September 8, 2013 #193 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Conservatives also think the poor need help. This isnt a Liberal issue. There is a strange thinking Conservatives are less caring and Liberals more passionate. Its not true. Well it's been my experience. Conservatives wanting to get rid of food programs and head start and even suggesting firing big bird.The only passion I have seen from conservatives has to do with tax cuts for the wealthy which is the cure all for everything. Reagan's voo-doo economics recycled again and again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted September 8, 2013 Author #194 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Before the breakup John Rockefeller had complete control of every aspect of oil production And he still did after the break up. He just owned five times the stock. I believe those five companies are again one company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted September 8, 2013 Author #195 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Well it's been my experience. Conservatives wanting to get rid of food programs and head start and even suggesting firing big bird.The only passion I have seen from conservatives has to do with tax cuts for the wealthy which is the cure all for everything. Reagan's voo-doo economics recycled again and again No, conservitives don't want to get rid of the food programs or head start. Big bird only gets ten percent of his pay from the federal government. What conservtives do want is a way to PAY for it all. Reagn's voo-doo economics gave us the nineties. We didn't have that boom because of clinton, but dispite him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted September 8, 2013 Author #196 Share Posted September 8, 2013 No argument there.It seems the rich now want to recreate that kind of wealth.Can't really blame them I guess but Rockefeller's business tactics would end him up in jail today And what is wrong with haveing that kind of wealth. The more wealth you are trying to get, the more money you hsve to invest. And, you can't get that kind of wealth with out investing it in companiez. The more comanies you invest in the more jobs you create. As for tax cuts for the wealthy, the more money you have to invest the more jobs you can create. The worse thing that could happen, is for the wealthy to decide they have enough money and stop investing. Thrn new jobs would dry up over night and there would a huge suctiin sound coming from the government when te income tax stopped coming in from the wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 8, 2013 #197 Share Posted September 8, 2013 And what is wrong with haveing that kind of wealth. The more wealth you are trying to get, the more money you hsve to invest. And, you can't get that kind of wealth with out investing it in companiez. The more comanies you invest in the more jobs you create. As for tax cuts for the wealthy, the more money you have to invest the more jobs you can create. The worse thing that could happen, is for the wealthy to decide they have enough money and stop investing. Thrn new jobs would dry up over night and there would a huge suctiin sound coming from the government when te income tax stopped coming in from the wealthy. That is not the way it has worked out. The super rich have deinvested in America and the developed nations and speculated on the developing nations. This has increased unemployment in the USA but also helped to destabilize the developing countries who are currently entering currency crisis as capitol washes out. there is no serious long term investment from the super rich because they make more money by gambling on currencies and commodities with the effect that real goods have their prices driven up whilst real wages stay stagnant or fall in relative terms. Hence minimum wages fall far short of the inflated commodities prices. The reality is very very different from your imagined ideal. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 8, 2013 #198 Share Posted September 8, 2013 No, conservitives don't want to get rid of the food programs or head start. Big bird only gets ten percent of his pay from the federal government. What conservtives do want is a way to PAY for it all. Reagn's voo-doo economics gave us the nineties. We didn't have that boom because of clinton, but dispite him. The boom was voodoo economics - it stored up the inevitable collapse of 2008 (and a few inbetween). It was bad economics because it destroyed the sound fundamentals of the real economy and left a shell behind. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted September 8, 2013 #199 Share Posted September 8, 2013 (edited) And he still did after the break up. He just owned five times the stock. I believe those five companies are again one company. No he owned everything dealing with supply refining and distribution of petroleum which is why his company was broken up.He ruthlessly ran any competition out of business.This is why monopolies are outlawed.See Taft-Hartley Act and Sherman anti-trust Act.Standard was broken into 33 companies.One is now Exxon.Another is now Mobil.After the breakup Rockefeller was the richest man in the world Edited September 8, 2013 by spacecowboy342 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted September 8, 2013 #200 Share Posted September 8, 2013 I And what is wrong with haveing that kind of wealth. I guess if I stick to my principles then nothing. However, once you reach the hundred billion dollar club you will no longer find me giving a crap if you ever make or lose any money again. At that point you've officially hit the big times and no amount concern on my part is going to mean anything to me or you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now