2 days ago, Maddus Mattus wrote
Ah, my confrere, but the difference between a company and a government is, the monopoly of force. I can choose not to do business with a certain company, I cannot choose not to do business with a government. Government can dictate what I can and must do, a company cannot. Huge difference.
You're free to leave the country. Please don't come into mine though.
You did when you cry out for regulations to prevent so called market failures.
First, I didn't cry out for anything. Second, I was defending the government's response to prevent a total economic collapse. That's a little bit broader in scope than any one particular "market".
No it's not. It's their duty to see that it does not come to that point, and if it does, we should ride it out, not pour tax dollars from current and future citizens into it.
The government's primary job is to preserve the nation's existence and well-being. Their duty to make sure it didn't get to that point was because of deregulation. Just letting everyone ride it out is about the most idiotic thing you can do. Thankfully, we didn't do that. However, the second most idiotic thing is to NOT readopt regulations that would have prevented this from happening in the first place, and unfortunately, we ARE doing just that. The reason that we aren't able to prevent this from happening by breaking up the banks is because we have too many morons who are beholden to the very banks that caused the mess without having any reason to be.
I believe it's at the hart of the problem, as you believe it is at the heart of the solution.
Jup,. Regulations prevents competition, lack of competition creates big fat lazy big companies.
How do regulations prevent competition? Are anti-trust laws anti-competitive? Really? Are you really that out of touch with reality?
What about environmental or labor laws? Most small companies get exemptions. How did these regulations foster big companies getting bigger and make smaller successful companies disappear like endangered species?
This is not to say no small companies exist. Lots of people start small companies with an exit strategy of being bought out by a larger company. It's absolutely sad what's become of entrepreneurship. Small companies have ZERO hope of ever becoming a large company, and it has NOTHING to do with regulations. They get all the regulatory exemptions and actual benefits (e.g. SBA 8(a) advantages afforded to small, minority-own companies that want to contract with the government, for instance). Yet, they still have little chance of competing because the game is absolutely rigged.
So, they are holding the patents wrong? Where have I heard that before?
The idea behind the system is valid, the effects it has are the opposite. That's what I've been trying to tell you for ten threads now. The intention is there to do good, no doubt, but in the process they do harm. There is a difference between the fiction of paper and stone cold reality.
The patent laws are specific enough and allow for no consideration for current market implications. Prior art and first to file rules are really the only determining factors in the validity of a patent. Just as the SEC can use a little common sense in what mergers can or can't happen because of monopolistic implications, the patent laws can allow for common sense to be applied to whether or not a patent should be considered valid based on current market implications rather than the first to file and prior art rules.
No it's not. My solution is where two people do business voluntairly, to let them do it without regulation. Only when dealings between these two affect a third in a negative way, is there a role for government.
Who died and let you decide what the role of the government should be?
I trust that people spend their own money the wisest. I do not trust some other guy to spend my money wise on yet another guy. I've explained this to you before.
Why allow it to happen? Do you think you are God? You cannot stop these processes by regulations. If government is the key to success, why isnt everybody succesfull?
Fewer regulations would allow for more competition. More competition leads to more efficient businesses. More efficient businesses leads to less overhead. Less overhead means no CEO can offord a $300M paycheck.
Each regulation recuires more red tap. You need a guy to enforce the regulation.
So, if you want better regulation, you first have to get of a bunch, otherwise you would increase red tape.
Round and round we go. Same *. Different day. Are you STILL not understanding the point of this thread?
Lets try to find some common ground.
We can all agree that oligopolies are bad for the economy, right? IMO, oligopolies are monopolies in sheep's clothing. They have all the anti-competitive effects of monopolies without the regulatory baggage of monopolies.
Do you dispute that M&A activity was at an all time high in the past 10 to 15 years?
Do you dispute that companies, especially banks, are now larger than ever with smaller regional banks virtually disappearing as they're being gobbled up by larger banks?
Do you dispute that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was the single biggest regulatory move the US government made in the past 20 years?
Do you consider the repeal of Glass-Steagall "enacting more regulations" or "deregulating"?
My claim is that the advent of information technologies, automation, deregulation, and the increasing desire for making *-tons of money from the equities markets have pushed companies to merge and grow huge instead of improving their products and services to improve earnings organically.
So if you don't dispute any of things that I mentioned, then you can't dispute my claim.
All of the market forces that I mentioned all fit. Even if you take away deregulation, what I described still makes sense, and what I described as happening (formation of oligopolies) is actually happening.
Now, you tell me how the repeal of existing regulations would have prevented Apple, Microsoft, and Google from accumulating $200 billion in cash.
Give me SPECIFIC regulations this time. Cause and effect. Connect the dots. Point A to point B. Until you do that, you're just talking out of your *.