Are there any economic beneffits from global corporations ?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Finally if there wasn't a banking oligopoly there would have been no need to rescue the banks at all.

dear, 100's of banks and shadow bank is not an oligopoly. Is your IQ really too low to understand that? The problem was the govt monopoly that produced 132 programs to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford, and the Greenspan Put that promised to keep inflating the currency so no matter what you could sell your home(s) at a profit if you could not make the payments.

Do you understand?

 

[bripat9643]

The term "oligopoly" is absolutely meaningless. It was coined by toady economists on the government payroll to justify government intervention. If you examine any industry it will consist of corporations of various sizes. The government toady economist can take the X number of largest competitors and claim the control X % of the market and claim they makeup and "oligopoly," even though the economist can point to not a single action that distinguishes if from an industry that supposedly isn't an oligopoly. In fact, the government economist can't even list an industry that isn't an oligopoly. That's how idiotic and utterly useless the term is in any meaningful scientific sense. It's purely a term of anti-market propaganda.

I really hate when people start to rant. So other than a mouthfull of hot air can you support your position with any links?

First. The models of oligopolic competition were created a very very long time ago (1850)
Cournot competition - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Bertrand competition - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Oligopolic competition has some very specific characteristics.
Profit maximization
Ability to set prices
Long run profits
Interdependence
Oligopoly - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Finally if there wasn't a banking oligopoly there would have been no need to rescue the banks at all.

I looked up your Cournot competition model and your Bertrand competition model. Both describe situations with very special characteristics that have little application to the real world. These theories were largely made obsolete by modern marginal analysis. They have little to do with the theories of the modern cranks who write about "oligopolies."

Profit maximization - All profit making corporations strive to maximize their profits, so this characterization explains nothing
Ability to set prices - None of the firms that modern interventionist economists refer to as "oligopolies" have the power to set prices. In fact, oligopoly theory is just an attempt to claim that they do have such power. If they didn't, then there is no point to the theory.
Long run profits - What about long run profits?
Interdependence - Firms in an oligopoly are "interdependent?" How?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is a social Contract, enforcible at law.

Liberal Dictionary
===================================
Social Contract - A fiction used to claim that you agreed to be coerced by the governmemt.

The Constitution is not a contract, and no one living ever agreed to it. A real contract requires everyone subject to its terms to agree to it.

It is a social Contract that defines our form of Government. Our government is no myth regarding Taxes.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes, it is a social Contract, enforcible at law.

Liberal Dictionary
===================================
Social Contract - A fiction used to claim that you agreed to be coerced by the governmemt.

The Constitution is not a contract, and no one living ever agreed to it. A real contract requires everyone subject to its terms to agree to it.

It is a social Contract that defines our form of Government. Our government is no myth regarding Taxes.

yes when you add it all up its about 80% of income.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, it is a social Contract, enforcible at law.

Liberal Dictionary
===================================
Social Contract - A fiction used to claim that you agreed to be coerced by the governmemt.

The Constitution is not a contract, and no one living ever agreed to it. A real contract requires everyone subject to its terms to agree to it.

It is a social Contract that defines our form of Government. Our government is no myth regarding Taxes.

You're obviously an imbecile. You've had it explained to you over and over again that it doesn't meet the definition of the term "contract." When asked to explain what it is, you can only bleat mindlessly that it's a "social contract."

I'm done with you because you're too stupid to bother debating.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, it is a social Contract, enforcible at law.

Liberal Dictionary
===================================
Social Contract - A fiction used to claim that you agreed to be coerced by the governmemt.

The Constitution is not a contract, and no one living ever agreed to it. A real contract requires everyone subject to its terms to agree to it.

It is a social Contract that defines our form of Government. Our government is no myth regarding Taxes.

yes when you add it all up its about 80% of income.

Don't feed the trolls.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is a social Contract, enforcible at law.

ROFL! It's not a contract, so how can it be a social contract? A basic principle of contract law is that all parties subject to a contract must consent to it. When did I consent to the Constitution?

Of course, you are just going to blabber endlessly that the Constitution is a social contract. What is a social contract if it's not a real contract? Is it just any document you decide to call a "social contract?" So far, that's what we have to conclude from what you've posted. You have no facts or logic, just your imbecile dogma. You can only regurgitate it, not explain it.

You're a drone incapable of committing logic.

dude, you are confusing a social contract with a capital contract. our republican form of Government is established via a written social Contract; it was ratified by a quorum deemed necessary and proper, not the entirety.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, it is a social Contract, enforcible at law.

ROFL! It's not a contract, so how can it be a social contract? A basic principle of contract law is that all parties subject to a contract must consent to it. When did I consent to the Constitution?

Of course, you are just going to blabber endlessly that the Constitution is a social contract. What is a social contract if it's not a real contract? Is it just any document you decide to call a "social contract?" So far, that's what we have to conclude from what you've posted. You have no facts or logic, just your imbecile dogma. You can only regurgitate it, not explain it.

You're a drone incapable of committing logic.

dude, you are confusing a social contract with a capital contract. our republican form of Government is established via a written social Contract; it was ratified by a quorum deemed necessary and proper, not the entirety.

There's no such thing as a "capital contract." There are real contracts, and then there is a fiction trolls like you call "the social contract," which isn't a contract by any definition of the term. All you have proven is that the term "social contract" is meaningless. It's strictly a term of propaganda.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is a social Contract, enforcible at law.

ROFL! It's not a contract, so how can it be a social contract? A basic principle of contract law is that all parties subject to a contract must consent to it. When did I consent to the Constitution?

Of course, you are just going to blabber endlessly that the Constitution is a social contract. What is a social contract if it's not a real contract? Is it just any document you decide to call a "social contract?" So far, that's what we have to conclude from what you've posted. You have no facts or logic, just your imbecile dogma. You can only regurgitate it, not explain it.

You're a drone incapable of committing logic.

dude, you are confusing a social contract with a capital contract. our republican form of Government is established via a written social Contract; it was ratified by a quorum deemed necessary and proper, not the entirety.

There's no such thing as a "capital contract." There are real contracts, and then there is a fiction trolls like you call "the social contract," which isn't a contract by any definition of the term. All you have proven is that the term "social contract" is meaningless. It's strictly a term of propaganda.

dude, capitalism must engage in capital contracts, not social contracts. why do you believe our federal Constitution for our Body politic, is not a Social contract?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes, it is a social Contract, enforcible at law.

ROFL! It's not a contract, so how can it be a social contract? A basic principle of contract law is that all parties subject to a contract must consent to it. When did I consent to the Constitution?

Of course, you are just going to blabber endlessly that the Constitution is a social contract. What is a social contract if it's not a real contract? Is it just any document you decide to call a "social contract?" So far, that's what we have to conclude from what you've posted. You have no facts or logic, just your imbecile dogma. You can only regurgitate it, not explain it.

You're a drone incapable of committing logic.

dude, you are confusing a social contract with a capital contract. our republican form of Government is established via a written social Contract; it was ratified by a quorum deemed necessary and proper, not the entirety.

There's no such thing as a "capital contract." There are real contracts, and then there is a fiction trolls like you call "the social contract," which isn't a contract by any definition of the term. All you have proven is that the term "social contract" is meaningless. It's strictly a term of propaganda.

dude, capitalism must engage in capital contracts, not social contracts. why do you believe our federal Constitution for our Body politic, is not a Social contract?

dear, why not drop the too cool for school language of yours and try to persuade someone about something important using good english

 

[danielpalos]

dude, if you don't care enough for a clue or a Cause for Your Cause, why should I. I already know I am always going to have a better answer when we have adult conversations.

 

[bripat9643]

dude, if you don't care enough for a clue or a Cause for Your Cause, why should I. I already know I am always going to have a better answer when we have adult conversations.

How can that be when you're an infantile retard? You babble incoherently.

 

[danielpalos]

dude, if you don't care enough for a clue or a Cause for Your Cause, why should I. I already know I am always going to have a better answer when we have adult conversations.

How can that be when you're an infantile retard? You babble incoherently.

dear, it must be just You, projecting, since You resort to more fallacies than myself, especially in public venues.

 

[bripat9643]

dude, if you don't care enough for a clue or a Cause for Your Cause, why should I. I already know I am always going to have a better answer when we have adult conversations.

How can that be when you're an infantile retard? You babble incoherently.

dear, it must be just You, projecting, since You resort to more fallacies than myself, especially in public venues.

You don't even know what a fallacy is, retard.

 

[danielpalos]

dude, if you don't care enough for a clue or a Cause for Your Cause, why should I. I already know I am always going to have a better answer when we have adult conversations.

How can that be when you're an infantile retard? You babble incoherently.

dear, it must be just You, projecting, since You resort to more fallacies than myself, especially in public venues.

You don't even know what a fallacy is, retard.

Yes, it is diversions such as Yours. Did you know You argue no better than Any wo-man?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dude, if you don't care enough for a clue or a Cause for Your Cause, why should I. I already know I am always going to have a better answer when we have adult conversations.

How can that be when you're an infantile retard? You babble incoherently.

dear, it must be just You, projecting, since You resort to more fallacies than myself, especially in public venues.

You don't even know what a fallacy is, retard.

Yes, it is diversions such as Yours. Did you know You argue no better than Any wo-man?

since global corporations have no benefit I say wel eliminate Apple? Can anyone argue with that?

 

[bripat9643]

dude, if you don't care enough for a clue or a Cause for Your Cause, why should I. I already know I am always going to have a better answer when we have adult conversations.

How can that be when you're an infantile retard? You babble incoherently.

dear, it must be just You, projecting, since You resort to more fallacies than myself, especially in public venues.

You don't even know what a fallacy is, retard.

Yes, it is diversions such as Yours. Did you know You argue no better than Any wo-man?

You're a babbling fool.

 

[danielpalos]

dude, if you don't care enough for a clue or a Cause for Your Cause, why should I. I already know I am always going to have a better answer when we have adult conversations.

How can that be when you're an infantile retard? You babble incoherently.

dear, it must be just You, projecting, since You resort to more fallacies than myself, especially in public venues.

You don't even know what a fallacy is, retard.

Yes, it is diversions such as Yours. Did you know You argue no better than Any wo-man?

You're a babbling fool.

You are fuller of fallacy

 

[bripat9643]

How can that be when you're an infantile retard? You babble incoherently.

dear, it must be just You, projecting, since You resort to more fallacies than myself, especially in public venues.

You don't even know what a fallacy is, retard.

Yes, it is diversions such as Yours. Did you know You argue no better than Any wo-man?

You're a babbling fool.

You are fuller of fallacy

Learn to speak English, turd.

 

[danielpalos]

dear, it must be just You, projecting, since You resort to more fallacies than myself, especially in public venues.

You don't even know what a fallacy is, retard.

Yes, it is diversions such as Yours. Did you know You argue no better than Any wo-man?

You're a babbling fool.

You are fuller of fallacy

Learn to speak English, turd.

Learn to have a clue and a Cause