Pages: 1 2 3

 

2008-08-29 05:53:50
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6555
This is what I like to see:

http://www.rte.ie/business/2008/0829/kerry.html

Irish food giant Kerry Group has been prohibited from acquiring competing food group Breeo by the Irish Competition Authority. Free market capitalism is beneficial to all but it has its flaws and it is in situations like these that the government must intervene. Overinflated corporate behemoths are a bad thing - for capitalism to work effectively fostering and nurturing competition is of paramount importance.
2008-08-29 06:04:31
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5999|...
/agree
inane little opines
2008-08-29 06:07:07
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6646
You gotta admit though, Monopoly is a fun board game.
2008-08-29 06:11:28
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6707|67.222.138.85
I don't see anything responsible about it. Kid 1 starts to kick the crap out of Kid 2 and big brother steps in to stop it. The company would have gone through with the merger had the government not intervened.

Half-assing capitalism is the road to socialism, you have to take the good with the bad. The good lies on the fundamental belief that the sky is the limit, and anyone can be as successful as they have the ambition and skill to be, but measures like this directly contradict that. Are people allowed to be successful or not?
2008-08-29 06:14:07
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5999|...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't see anything responsible about it. Kid 1 starts to kick the crap out of Kid 2 and big brother steps in to stop it. The company would have gone through with the merger had the government not intervened.

Half-assing capitalism is the road to socialism, you have to take the good with the bad. The good lies on the fundamental belief that the sky is the limit, and anyone can be as successful as they have the ambition and skill to be, but measures like this directly contradict that. Are people allowed to be successful or not?
to a certain degree imo, you need competition to keep prices etc reasonable. If one person suddenly rolls over that competition and has control over all the aspects of what he does it gets a bit costly for the consumer, too costly in some cases.

same with companies making deals to eliminate eachothers' competition.
inane little opines
2008-08-29 06:22:19
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6222|Brisneyland

Flaming manic wrote:

Half-assing capitalism is the road to socialism, you have to take the good with the bad. The good lies on the fundamental belief that the sky is the limit, and anyone can be as successful as they have the ambition and skill to be, but measures like this directly contradict that. Are people allowed to be successful or not?
Company monopolies are only a bad thing for the community. If a company can buy out its opposition then hike up prices, then we are all over the proverbial barrell. Govt did the right thing in this case. I am sure the company trying to buy out its competition will still do very well. Maintaining competition isnt the road to socialism.
2008-08-29 06:23:41
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6707|67.222.138.85

dayarath wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't see anything responsible about it. Kid 1 starts to kick the crap out of Kid 2 and big brother steps in to stop it. The company would have gone through with the merger had the government not intervened.

Half-assing capitalism is the road to socialism, you have to take the good with the bad. The good lies on the fundamental belief that the sky is the limit, and anyone can be as successful as they have the ambition and skill to be, but measures like this directly contradict that. Are people allowed to be successful or not?
to a certain degree imo, you need competition to keep prices etc reasonable. If one person suddenly rolls over that competition and has control over all the aspects of what he does it gets a bit costly for the consumer, too costly in some cases.

same with companies making deals to eliminate eachothers' competition.
If the prices become truly ridiculous, it creates the perfect breeding ground for more competition in that field.

Much more dangerous is Carnegie style acquisition of your suppliers of raw materials and such. In this day in age however I do not see this as much of a problem, with so few industries in the West limited by raw materials.
2008-08-29 06:25:01
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6707|67.222.138.85

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

Flaming manic wrote:

Half-assing capitalism is the road to socialism, you have to take the good with the bad. The good lies on the fundamental belief that the sky is the limit, and anyone can be as successful as they have the ambition and skill to be, but measures like this directly contradict that. Are people allowed to be successful or not?
Company monopolies are only a bad thing for the community. If a company can buy out its opposition then hike up prices, then we are all over the proverbial barrell. Govt did the right thing in this case. I am sure the company trying to buy out its competition will still do very well. Maintaining competition isnt the road to socialism.
So they did a good job because it makes life better for you.

This is just rationalizing because you want the government to do what is best for you, not what is right.
2008-08-29 06:25:23
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6153|what

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

You gotta admit though, Monopoly is a fun board game.
You should try the Oligopoly board.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2008-08-29 06:26:03
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6555

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't see anything responsible about it. Kid 1 starts to kick the crap out of Kid 2 and big brother steps in to stop it. The company would have gone through with the merger had the government not intervened.

Half-assing capitalism is the road to socialism, you have to take the good with the bad. The good lies on the fundamental belief that the sky is the limit, and anyone can be as successful as they have the ambition and skill to be, but measures like this directly contradict that. Are people allowed to be successful or not?
Capitalism would destroy itself if allowed to operate unchecked just as socialism destroys itself when it is allowed to develop unchecked. What you are advocating is that in about 300 years time there will be one company selling us each of the various products we need - Bread Inc., Computers Ltd., Global Airways plc... -> each company in their 'success' being able to destroy any newcomer competitors in their infancy, or before they have even been born at all. It is not capitalism that benefits us - it is competition. And unfettered capitalism ultimately destroys competition leaving mega-corporations to choose the price of their product as they see fit to the detriment of the purchaser.

You are in fact advocating a return to guilds and mercantilism - something we dispensed with centuries ago.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-08-29 06:27:35)

2008-08-29 06:29:43
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6707|67.222.138.85

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't see anything responsible about it. Kid 1 starts to kick the crap out of Kid 2 and big brother steps in to stop it. The company would have gone through with the merger had the government not intervened.

Half-assing capitalism is the road to socialism, you have to take the good with the bad. The good lies on the fundamental belief that the sky is the limit, and anyone can be as successful as they have the ambition and skill to be, but measures like this directly contradict that. Are people allowed to be successful or not?
Capitalism would destroy itself if allowed to operate unchecked just as socialism destroys itself when it is allowed to develop unchecked. What you are advocating is that in about 300 years time there will be one company selling us each of the various products we need - Bread Inc., Computers Ltd., Global Airways plc... -> each company in their 'success' being able to destroy any newcomer competitors in their infancy, or before they have even been born at all. It is not capitalism that benefits us - it is competition. And unfettered capitalism ultimately destroys competition leaving mega-corporations to choose the price of their product as they see fit to the detriment of the purchaser.

You are in fact advocating a return to guilds and mercantilism - something we dispensed with centuries ago.
Care to explain how they would destroy themselves? It's survival of the fittest, there is nothing wrong with that.

People throw out how large corporations crush smaller ones, conveniently leaving out how they do that. They lower prices to below a profitable level, doing so because they have the cash reserves to back it up. What is the difference to the consumer?

edit: You kidding? Advocating the Wal-Mart empire is going backwards? The same fundamentals of economy apply to today's world of bigger and better, that's all there is to it.
2008-08-29 06:32:24
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5999|...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

dayarath wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't see anything responsible about it. Kid 1 starts to kick the crap out of Kid 2 and big brother steps in to stop it. The company would have gone through with the merger had the government not intervened.

Half-assing capitalism is the road to socialism, you have to take the good with the bad. The good lies on the fundamental belief that the sky is the limit, and anyone can be as successful as they have the ambition and skill to be, but measures like this directly contradict that. Are people allowed to be successful or not?
to a certain degree imo, you need competition to keep prices etc reasonable. If one person suddenly rolls over that competition and has control over all the aspects of what he does it gets a bit costly for the consumer, too costly in some cases.

same with companies making deals to eliminate eachothers' competition.
If the prices become truly ridiculous, it creates the perfect breeding ground for more competition in that field.

Much more dangerous is Carnegie style acquisition of your suppliers of raw materials and such. In this day in age however I do not see this as much of a problem, with so few industries in the West limited by raw materials.
breeding new competition which is very fragile and could easily be overtaken or isolated by the big giant that has everything in hands, it happens that way.
inane little opines
2008-08-29 06:33:44
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6493|Connecticut

CameronPoe wrote:

And unfettered capitalism ultimately destroys competition leaving mega-corporations to choose the price of their product as they see fit to the detriment of the purchaser.
Walmart has not raised their prices and they have expanded to over 5000 stores. If the company were to turn around and gouge us then the consumer would simply shop elsewhere. Also, I beleive it is how the company handles it suppliers and keeps them in check that makes a big difference at the cash register. I am not seeing how it is ethical for the government to limit someone's success.
Malloy must go
2008-08-29 06:37:38
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6555

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Care to explain how they would destroy themselves? It's survival of the fittest, there is nothing wrong with that.

People throw out how large corporations crush smaller ones, conveniently leaving out how they do that. They lower prices to below a profitable level, doing so because they have the cash reserves to back it up. What is the difference to the consumer?
OK. Let's look at the example of oil. There are only a few sellers of what is essentially a vital commodity bought by billions. They contrived to group together as OPEC. This group in large part controls the global price of oil and oil products. You are relying solely on the good will and beneficence of nations like Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela not to elevate the price to such a level that reduces all to mere subsistence levels of living - or pushing us much further towards that. Such cabalism can occur with ordinary products too, especially with more vital things like food. Microsoft sell their operating system for several hundred dollars. A product bought by millions/billions. They have overwhelming control of the operating systems market and are milking the consumer dry when, if faced with proper competition, they would probably be selling their product for a fraction of the cost. Instead their unscrupulousness and profit margins cut into consumers money that could be used for clothing, food, home improvements, education, etc. - something they maintain by buying up any and all competitors before they have a chance of getting off the ground. For capitalism to function and to remain healthy one has to intervene to foster competition and to prevent monopolies - monopolies = price-fixing = bad for the consumer = bad for the economy.

Are you seriously pushing an agenda whereby monopoly commissions shouldn't exist???

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-08-29 06:39:16)

2008-08-29 06:40:11
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6222|Brisneyland

Flaming Maniac wrote:

This is just rationalizing because you want the government to do what is best for you, not what is right.
I dont want govt to do whats best for me, I want it to do whats best for the whole community. Thats governments job.

Flaming Maniac wrote:

People throw out how large corporations crush smaller ones, conveniently leaving out how they do that. They lower prices to below a profitable level, doing so because they have the cash reserves to back it up. What is the difference to the consumer?
Sure the consumer gets cheap prices while they crush the opposition. Once they have taken over and become a monopoly they can charge whatever they want. Then the consumer loses, big time!
2008-08-29 06:41:14
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6555

deeznutz1245 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

And unfettered capitalism ultimately destroys competition leaving mega-corporations to choose the price of their product as they see fit to the detriment of the purchaser.
Walmart has not raised their prices and they have expanded to over 5000 stores. If the company were to turn around and gouge us then the consumer would simply shop elsewhere. Also, I beleive it is how the company handles it suppliers and keeps them in check that makes a big difference at the cash register. I am not seeing how it is ethical for the government to limit someone's success.
Walmart is not a monopoly. There are plenty of choices for the consumer when it comes to that type of shopping. Walmart don't buy out competition either - they just compete.
2008-08-29 06:46:16
PureFodder
Member
+225|6285

deeznutz1245 wrote:

I am not seeing how it is ethical for the government to limit someone's success.
The reason is fairly simply. If a big business messes up horribly they'll go running to the government for a bailout.

The cost of this safety net is regulation. limits on rewards for limits on failures. That's good business.
2008-08-29 06:48:37
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6707|67.222.138.85

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

Flaming Maniac wrote:

This is just rationalizing because you want the government to do what is best for you, not what is right.
I dont want govt to do whats best for me, I want it to do whats best for the whole community. Thats governments job.
That's the government's job as defined by you.

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

Flaming Maniac wrote:

People throw out how large corporations crush smaller ones, conveniently leaving out how they do that. They lower prices to below a profitable level, doing so because they have the cash reserves to back it up. What is the difference to the consumer?
Sure the consumer gets cheap prices while they crush the opposition. Once they have taken over and become a monopoly they can charge whatever they want. Then the consumer loses, big time!
Then another environment for competition is created.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Care to explain how they would destroy themselves? It's survival of the fittest, there is nothing wrong with that.

People throw out how large corporations crush smaller ones, conveniently leaving out how they do that. They lower prices to below a profitable level, doing so because they have the cash reserves to back it up. What is the difference to the consumer?
OK. Let's look at the example of oil. There are only a few sellers of what is essentially a vital commodity bought by billions. They contrived to group together as OPEC. This group in large part controls the global price of oil and oil products. You are relying solely on the good will and beneficence of nations like Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela not to elevate the price to such a level that reduces all to mere subsistence levels of living - or pushing us much further towards that. Such cabalism can occur with ordinary products too, especially with more vital things like food. Microsoft sell their operating system for several hundred dollars. A product bought by millions/billions. They have overwhelming control of the operating systems market and are milking the consumer dry when, if faced with proper competition, they would probably be selling their product for a fraction of the cost. Instead their unscrupulousness and profit margins cut into consumers money that could be used for clothing, food, home improvements, education, etc. - something they maintain by buying up any and all competitors before they have a chance of getting off the ground. For capitalism to function and to remain healthy one has to intervene to foster competition and to prevent monopolies - monopolies = price-fixing = bad for the consumer = bad for the economy.

Are you seriously pushing an agenda whereby monopoly commissions shouldn't exist???
We don't rely on their benevolence, if they raised prices (aside from global rioting) it would force a shift in our culture away from petroleum products, just as it is now. The higher the price, the bigger market for alternatives, forcing OPEC to either drop prices or drop business.

There would be more competition for Microsoft if Windows couldn't be obtained for free so easily. They are essentially competing with a morally inferior but much cheaper version of themselves.

There is always room for competition in a truly free economy, if headed by a cunning businessman/woman. Government intervention to prop up companies in order to maintain some semblance of competition does nothing but promote weak business traits. Is nursing the genetically inferior animal back to health and releasing it back into the wild the best thing for the species as a whole?

Off to school. Be back later.
2008-08-29 06:48:59
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6493|Connecticut

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Care to explain how they would destroy themselves? It's survival of the fittest, there is nothing wrong with that.

People throw out how large corporations crush smaller ones, conveniently leaving out how they do that. They lower prices to below a profitable level, doing so because they have the cash reserves to back it up. What is the difference to the consumer?
OK. Let's look at the example of oil. There are only a few sellers of what is essentially a vital commodity bought by billions. They contrived to group together as OPEC. This group in large part controls the global price of oil and oil products. You are relying solely on the good will and beneficence of nations like Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela not to elevate the price to such a level that reduces all to mere subsistence levels of living - or pushing us much further towards that. Such cabalism can occur with ordinary products too, especially with more vital things like food. Microsoft sell their operating system for several hundred dollars. A product bought by millions/billions. They have overwhelming control of the operating systems market and are milking the consumer dry when, if faced with proper competition, they would probably be selling their product for a fraction of the cost. Instead their unscrupulousness and profit margins cut into consumers money that could be used for clothing, food, home improvements, education, etc. - something they maintain by buying up any and all competitors before they have a chance of getting off the ground. For capitalism to function and to remain healthy one has to intervene to foster competition and to prevent monopolies - monopolies = price-fixing = bad for the consumer = bad for the economy.

Are you seriously pushing an agenda whereby monopoly commissions shouldn't exist???
Cam, you are really comparing apples to oranges here. First off, oil is a commodity and a natural resource. It is not something that can be fabricated, manufactured and mass produced at random will. Whom ever may harvest that natural resource pretty much decides the fate of it and that is that until someone else can provide the same resource. That is exactly why the U.S. needs to start tapping into it's own oil. Not only would it benefit Americans but I bet it would bring balance to the rest of the world.
Malloy must go
2008-08-29 06:53:28
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6555

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Cam, you are really comparing apples to oranges here. First off, oil is a commodity and a natural resource. It is not something that can be fabricated, manufactured and mass produced at random will. Whom ever may harvest that natural resource pretty much decides the fate of it and that is that until someone else can provide the same resource. That is exactly why the U.S. needs to start tapping into it's own oil. Not only would it benefit Americans but I bet it would bring balance to the rest of the world.
What about PC operating systems then? Microsoft would probably break even if they charged a nickel for the fucking thing.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-08-29 06:53:54)

2008-08-29 07:03:00
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6555

FM wrote:

Burwhale wrote:

Sure the consumer gets cheap prices while they crush the opposition. Once they have taken over and become a monopoly they can charge whatever they want. Then the consumer loses, big time!
Then another environment for competition is created.
An environment where every new market entrant is gobbled up immediately by the incumbent monopoly so it can maintain free reign over the price of a particular product (the price of which would necessarily decrease if a competitor existed).

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

We don't rely on their benevolence, if they raised prices (aside from global rioting) it would force a shift in our culture away from petroleum products, just as it is now. The higher the price, the bigger market for alternatives, forcing OPEC to either drop prices or drop business.
FM - as you well know there are currently no alternatives and there won't be for 30 to 40 years. As such, we are getting sucked dry for as much as they think we can handle: making hay while the sun shines.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

There would be more competition for Microsoft if Windows couldn't be obtained for free so easily. They are essentially competing with a morally inferior but much cheaper version of themselves.
So you're saying that free market capitalism is working because black markets have developed? That fundamentally exposes the fact the supply-demand system has broken down! Economics 101.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

There is always room for competition in a truly free economy, if headed by a cunning businessman/woman. Government intervention to prop up companies in order to maintain some semblance of competition does nothing but promote weak business traits. Is nursing the genetically inferior animal back to health and releasing it back into the wild the best thing for the species as a whole?
Not when each cunning businessman/woman can be edged out instantly before they've even secure an entrepeneurial loan when the incumbent monopoly gobbles them up - as Microsoft have long done, as have other corporations. Your second point is irrelevant - I'm not talking about promoting weak business - mergers generally involve a massive and successful company buying a smaller successful company - there is no 'weak business' about it: all that is happening is that a reduction in the level of competition is taking place.
2008-08-29 07:27:26
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6736|Salt Lake City

Maniac, you have to remember that we already went through a bout with monopolies in the early part of the 20th century, and it hurt America.  It didn't make it better, and thus the reason for laws regarding monopolies.

Now lets talk about something you have missed.  Competition drives innovation.  Without competition a company will not spend the time and money to improve a product of which they are the only supplier.  They will get lazy.  And for this reason Cam is right.  A monopoly isn't going to allow any new competition, they will buy it up or force it out by undercutting their pricing.  A monopoly would also take their monopolistic power and do whatever they can to control the resources that it needs for its products, thus disrupting the ability of competition, even if not bought up, to even be able to buy the materials necessary.

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2008-08-29 07:28:28)

2008-08-29 07:31:50
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6493|Connecticut

CameronPoe wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Cam, you are really comparing apples to oranges here. First off, oil is a commodity and a natural resource. It is not something that can be fabricated, manufactured and mass produced at random will. Whom ever may harvest that natural resource pretty much decides the fate of it and that is that until someone else can provide the same resource. That is exactly why the U.S. needs to start tapping into it's own oil. Not only would it benefit Americans but I bet it would bring balance to the rest of the world.
What about PC operating systems then? Microsoft would probably break even if they charged a nickel for the fucking thing.
True enough, maybe a quarter though.
Malloy must go
2008-08-29 14:07:12
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6411|'Murka

CameronPoe wrote:

Overinflated corporate behemoths are a bad thing - for capitalism to work effectively fostering and nurturing competition is of paramount importance.
You're right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … itrust_law

It appears others think it's a good idea, too.

article wrote:

It is only the third time the competition body has blocked a proposed merger since the current legislation came into effect in 2003.
Did you not have laws like that before 2003?
<After looking up Irish Competition Law on wiki, it appears you've had laws like this since 1991 at least>
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-08-29 14:09:35
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6690|Tampa Bay Florida

deeznutz1245 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

And unfettered capitalism ultimately destroys competition leaving mega-corporations to choose the price of their product as they see fit to the detriment of the purchaser.
Walmart has not raised their prices and they have expanded to over 5000 stores. If the company were to turn around and gouge us then the consumer would simply shop elsewhere. Also, I beleive it is how the company handles it suppliers and keeps them in check that makes a big difference at the cash register. I am not seeing how it is ethical for the government to limit someone's success.
At the expense of workers in foreign countries and their employees here at home.  That's how they keep their prices low.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard