The big media companies are oligopolies, not monopolies - which in plural form would not compete with each other
Visions of Tin Foil hats danced in my.... What are you looking at?!
- Thread starter Land Speeder
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
justbecause
perpetually lost.
I was disagreeing with the sentiment that monopolies form as a result of the "free market" "working"
If that little bit is all you got out of that then you need to reread my post.
But monopolies do form because of the free market and that is also why the fail. This is easy econ did you sleep during your 11th grade econ class?
But monopolies do form because of the free market and that is also why the fail. This is easy econ did you sleep during your 11th grade econ class?
I think he was saying partnerships form as a way to stay competitive and that because of this they can then drive the price down and buy up or drive out of business smaller competitors. The car industry in the USA is a great example Pontiac, FJC, Cadillac, Buick, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, AMC(AM general), Holden, Isuzu, opal, Vauxhall and I know there are others all fall under the GM umbrella. What had happened over the years is they realized they made similar products and merged or were bought out/drove out of business. They them went on to firm an oligopoly in the US with Ford and Chrysler and about drive themselves out of business not listening to what the customer wanted.
GMC not fjc
justbecause
perpetually lost.
If you had read or took time to understand anything I have ever said you wouldnt accuse me of favoring regulations.
and there is nothing "easy" about using the force of the federal government to write regulations that make it hard for new business or products to enter the market place.
You should read Joel Salatins book Folks this aint normal.
or everything I want to do is illegal.
Thank you for wording it better than I did.
justbecause
perpetually lost.
All this means that the opportunity costs of regulation—that is, the benefits that could have been gained if an alternative course of action had been pursued—are much higher than the costs of compliance. For example, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's report Ten Thousand Commandments 2013 estimates that it costs consumers and businesses approximately $1.8 trillion—about 11 percent of current GDP—to comply with current federal regulations. That's bad enough, but it pales in comparison to the loss of tens of trillions in overall wealth calculated by Dawson and Seater.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/21/federal-regulations-have-made-you-75-per
So if the effects of regulation are so deleterious to economic growth and the prosperity of citizens, why do countries enact so much of it? Dawson and Seater's paper mentions three theories: Arthur Pigou's notion that governments enact regulations to improve social welfare by correcting market failures, George Stigler's more cynical view that industries capture regulatory agencies in order exclude competitors and increase their profits, and Fred McChesney's argument that regulations are chiefly aimed at benefiting politicians and regulators. I asked if their results fit most closely with McChesney's. Dawson replied: "This could be the conclusion that one reaches based on our empirical results (since they show a net cost of regulation over time), but again we did not set out to prove or disprove any particular theory." Seater added that their research does not address the question of "why society allows excessive regulation....It's an important [issue], but it is one for the public choice people to study, not for macroeconomists like me and my coauthor."
I'd argue that the other side of this coin is that many who are, "free thinkers" and pride themselves on formulating independent opinions on things are doing nothing more than regurgitating the anti-establishment views of the people who indoctrinated them on the position in the first place.
The source of the information being "corporate or state media" doesn't automatically mean it's false. Healthy skepticism and critical inquiry resulting in an honest discussion of the facts, along with a healthy respect of differing perspectives, are all marks of a civilized society. I don't have any faith that many folks really do that anymore though.
Perhaps that's a dim view of humanity, but I don't think many people honestly seek out FACTUAL information, read it all, process it on their own, and arrive at conclusions independent of other supporters or detractors.
And where out of my post did you get that I'm for regulations? It is a good thing that I don't take these serious or I would be on blood pressure meds hell you already have me taking advil.
And where out of my post did you get that I'm for regulations? It is a good thing that I don't take these serious or I would be on blood pressure meds hell you already have me taking advil.
Tell you what'll fix that right up, is a pint of Oka Oba.
That sounds good wish I could come down. I'm taking care the splinter in my eye I mean the apple of.
justbecause
perpetually lost.
And where out of my post did you get that I'm for regulations? It is a good thing that I don't take these serious or I would be on blood pressure meds hell you already have me taking advil.
I didnt think you were for regulations.
I took offence to you saying "it would seem that you now think the government should put more regulations out there and control more stuff."
I saw a problem, I never insinuated that I thought the way to fix the problem was to have the government step in.
I dont particularly like Reagan, but the man has some good one liners.
Then I miss understood where your point was and that one is on me. My bad didn't mean to offend you this is all in fun to me.:whoops:
Land Speeder
InstaH8R
- Thread starter
- #35
Then I miss understood where your point was and that one is on me. My bad didn't mean to offend you this is all in fun to me.:whoops:
He hates the executive branch, which includes LEO's.
But loves the Judicial branch, that says anyone is innocent until proven guilty. And not guilty until a court of law says so, because witnessing it or admitting to it doesnt count.
Where do you stand on the legislative branch?
justbecause
perpetually lost.
I am still waiting for you to show me where dorner admitted anything.
the "news" said he wrote a manifesto and put it on facebook, where is the evidence that says he did that?
I am not a fan of congress. they need to stop spending so much, they need to stop growing the federal government and they need to collectively grow a pair and stop letting presidents go to war without their approval.
LEO needs to be on a much shorter leash.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/texas-cop-shoots-unarmed-teen-hiding-woodshed
excuse me, do you have a warrant?
Land Speeder
InstaH8R
- Thread starter
- #37
I don't gib a damn. Alls my point is, that in order to drink the cool aid you must drink the coloring, can't split it up and just get the water or the sugar, it's a whole package, at least, it's taste better that way. Otherwise what you get is nasty ass s*** that doesn't do anything but piss you off, and definitely doesn't quench your thirst.
justbecause
perpetually lost.
Blackdog
"Y'all smell that?"
I Tried!!!
I tried to watch it, but that dude is tooo hard to listen to. If you really have a point to make, the least you should do is give the script to somebody who can read it without putting your audience to sleep or annoying them to the point of turning you off.
Yep, I made it about 5 seconds, fast forwarded to the middle to see if it was the same, found that it was and closed the window.
