The breaking up of monopolies does not "ensure that competition happens" it is the exact opposite of competition. If a company has a monopoly then others need to be more creative in ways to compete with them. Breaking up monopolies destroys competition.

 

Its the other way around, actually. A monopoly is a market void of competition.

Its the other way around, actually. A monopoly is a market void of competition.

 

Very true. In his mind, he thinks someone needs to get creative & compete with Microsoft!! Lets all get in line to compete with them. Are you guys with me?? Lets put all our savings together & start a Microhard business. If we do, you all better be rooting for those "socialist" programs like bankruptcy b/c thats where we'd go.

So, it is okay for a company to control all telephone and railroads? It is okay for those to be unregulated & charge what they want b/c there is NO competition & no gov't oversight.

 

You are living in a fantasy world were business will look out for consumers!!

 

How many truly free markets do you know of??

 

I do think it is okay for a company to control all telephone and railroads. If what they charge becomes too high, people will find alternatives or start alternatives on their own.

 

If businesses don't look out for their consumers, then the consumers will leave or find other means of supply.

 

I don't know of any truly free markets personally, but it would be nice to experience one some day.

Thank you for elaborating.

 

Where do you draw the line on high profits but not "at the expense of society"?

 

I think several non-union corporations have an interest in well-paid workers and a good environment. Just talk to someone who works at TMMK in Georgetown. They manage to do this without a union. They also offer health care and pension opportunities and a very good wage. Once again without unions.

 

The breaking up of monopolies does not "ensure that competition happens" it is the exact opposite of competition. If a company has a monopoly then others need to be more creative in ways to compete with them. Breaking up monopolies destroys competition.

 

I don't thing members of unions are socialists. Probably most just want to be part of a group and feel like they have a voice.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Toyota and other non-union companies who give good benefits and pay do so b/c of what unions have done in the past. If you treat workers well then they won't unionize. The public good must always be ensured. If a company is polluting the environment then the government must make laws and enforce laws to protect the people. If a company is buying up all other competitors and keeping the capitalist system under its boot by creating monopolies then the government must enforce anti-trust laws. Trust me, I'd love to make millions in the stock market, there's nothing wrong with that, but we are all in this together.

 

We're way off the healthcare topic though.

Very true. In his mind, he thinks someone needs to get creative & compete with Microsoft!! Lets all get in line to compete with them. Are you guys with me?? Lets put all our savings together & start a Microhard business. If we do, you all better be rooting for those "socialist" programs like bankruptcy b/c thats where we'd go.

 

 

If you have a problem with what microsoft is doing and think you can do a better job, then by all means compete. How do you think microsoft began? Was it always dominant? It took years of hard work and commitment and risk to get where it is today. Should they not be rewarded for that?

If you have a problem with what microsoft is doing and think you can do a better job, then by all means compete. How do you think microsoft began? Was it always dominant? It took years of hard work and commitment and risk to get where it is today. Should they not be rewarded for that?

 

To get back on target! IMO, Government oversight is essential even in a capitalist (not free market) economy. Monopolies are bad b/c there is zero competition so the gov't needs to look out for the common man. Anti-trust laws are good. Safety regulations are good. Pollution regulations are good. Minimum wage rates must be good b/c most feel the illegals are the reason our economy is shot.

 

Anywho, Any time there is regulations, the gov't must enforce those. The gov't already regulations industry, business, trade, wages, etc. They are not doing this to make a profit like businesses. They are doing it for the people, the consumer, the common man, to make the playing field equal for ALL. In saying this, I do not have a problem with the gov't trying to "help" the health industry and try to make it that everybody can buy insurance.

I would say it is not a republican argument, it is a free market argument. My seek alternatives comment is more in relation to personal behavior. Most of the time if I feel something is too expensive, I stop buying it. Or I only buy what I need. Look for alternative transportation. Look for better fuel economy. My vehicle has a 17 gallon fuel tank and I get close to 40mpg and it seats 5 comfortably(650 miles per fillup). The cost of fuel is based on supply and demand.

 

The cost of fuel is not based on supply and demand. It is priced through futures which can cause the price to go up b/c of a FEAR of some catastrophic event in the future - that may never come to pass. It is not a strict supply and demand as nothing else really is either.

Why wouldn't it be alright for them to make high profits? If I invest in a company I want it to make a profit. If companies don't make a profit they will disappear. I do support monopolies (both the real-life and the parker brothers version) I also support a free market economy.

 

I do not support unions. If companies pay too low, a free market will allow employees to leave and therefore require them to raise their pay. Same thing with unsafe conditions.

 

Because companies would never collude to keep the cost of Labor down if they were unregulated. Companies are not benevolent by nature, b/c they are companies with a specific purpose. They are machiavellian by nature.

To get back on target! IMO, Government oversight is essential even in a capitalist (not free market) economy. Monopolies are bad b/c there is zero competition so the gov't needs to look out for the common man. Anti-trust laws are good. Safety regulations are good. Pollution regulations are good. Minimum wage rates must be good b/c most feel the illegals are the reason our economy is shot.

 

Anywho, Any time there is regulations, the gov't must enforce those. The gov't already regulations industry, business, trade, wages, etc. They are not doing this to make a profit like businesses. They are doing it for the people, the consumer, the common man, to make the playing field equal for ALL. In saying this, I do not have a problem with the gov't trying to "help" the health industry and try to make it that everybody can buy insurance.

 

My biggest worry is that if the government tries to "help" the health industry now, it can quickly open up doors to mandates and then nationalization.

 

Anyhow, I guess we agree to disagree. I enjoy hearing different sides of an issue. And while I may strongly disagree, I respect everyone's opinion, and I appreciate the respect shown by all on this site. I have said before, I think we all want our country to be successful, we just have different strategies in how we should get there.

 

l66

Toyota and other non-union companies who give good benefits and pay do so b/c of what unions have done in the past. If you treat workers well then they won't unionize. The public good must always be ensured. If a company is polluting the environment then the government must make laws and enforce laws to protect the people. If a company is buying up all other competitors and keeping the capitalist system under its boot by creating monopolies then the government must enforce anti-trust laws. Trust me, I'd love to make millions in the stock market, there's nothing wrong with that, but we are all in this together.

 

We're way off the healthcare topic though.

 

You said that you would "love to make millions in the stock market, there's nothing wrong with that" but that is exactly what is being bashed in this thread, oil company owners and large corporations making millions for their investors in the stock market. If you owned stock in one of these major companies, you might feel a little different about government regulation and how much profit a company makes. I could be wrong though. If I find out that a company I own stock in doesn't want to make profits, I will quickly move my money elsewhere.

No actually I wouldn't feel different. To be clear I do own stock, though none is in oil. I don't think there is anything wrong with people being multi-billionaires but they must be responsible in how they go about it.

Back to healthcare. I actually read somewhere that a universal healthcare system would save businesses money as well.

So, it is okay for a company to control all telephone and railroads? It is okay for those to be unregulated & charge what they want b/c there is NO competition & no gov't oversight.

 

You are living in a fantasy world were business will look out for consumers!!

 

How many truly free markets do you know of??

 

 

If businesses do not meet the needs of the consumer they will be out of business so I would say their customers are pretty important.

 

As for your take on monopolies. I want as little government involvement in regulation of any industry. The extent of that involvement is in relation to protecting employees and consumers from undue harm in the workplace or through use of its products. Government should NEVER be able to say, well since you came up with a great idea and are making boatloads of money and your profit margins are huge, we need to regulate that down to a more "reasonable" level with windfall taxes or some other phoney socialist redistribution of wealth nonsense. This country, in slightly over 230 years (mind you a couple of millenia behind most of the rest of the developed nations on earth), is the lead dog because of our democracy and our free markets. The United States is not blessed with great natural resources like many of those other developed nations. However the best natural resource we do have is our people.

 

Your obtuse answer about buying three horses for travel, really just shows IMO the typical attitude of many of those who do not want truly do something about the situation and would rather just complain.

No actually I wouldn't feel different. To be clear I do own stock, though none is in oil. I don't think there is anything wrong with people being multi-billionaires but they must be responsible in how they go about it.

Back to healthcare. I actually read somewhere that a universal healthcare system would save businesses money as well.

 

 

How did you check out all of your stocks to see if they were all responsible in how they go about making profits? Is there a website that does this or did you just complete extensive research on your own?

The cost of fuel is not based on supply and demand. It is priced through futures which can cause the price to go up b/c of a FEAR of some catastrophic event in the future - that may never come to pass. It is not a strict supply and demand as nothing else really is either.

 

You cannot rule out supply and demand as having an effect on fuel pricing. Yes fear of some catastrophic event plays a rule in pricing. Why? Because the concern that those catastrophic events will have an effect on supply. There are plenty of events beside catastrophies that effect supply and plenty of events beside catastrophies that effect demand. The rapidly increasing demand for oil in China is definitely affecting oil/fuel prices and the increasing demand for steel, concrete and other construction materials in China is affecting the prices for those items in the U.S. also.