Government Did Not Build Your Business

[Quantum Windbag]

Who ever said Government built your business?

That is stupid?

Yet you keep arguing in support of the idiot that said it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who ever said Government built your business?

That is stupid?

“If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” declared President Barack Obama at a campaign stop last week in Virginia. Evidently, the president believes that economic growth and job creation are largely the result of actions taken by benevolent government agencies. But while it is certainly the case that good governance is essential, entrepreneurs engaging in voluntary cooperation coordinated through competition in free markets is what actually creates wealth and jobs.

*************************

I could not agree 100% more (with RightWinger).

If one is going to quote the president, cite the entire quote, in context:

Of course, Obama’s supposedly insulting comment is somewhat different in context. The full text of his speech, rather than denigrate small business, challenged the idea that wealthy and successful individuals have never benefited from government programs:

I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

Without the context, Obama’s point that individual effort is bolstered by community systems is completely lost. The idea is nothing new; Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) made very similar comments that went viral in September of last year. Indeed, far from denigrating small business owners, Obama has cut taxes on small businesses 17 times.
Deliberately editing Obama out of context is not a new tactic for conservatives. In one blatant example, a recent Romney campaign ad quoted Obama saying, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose,” a quote Obama was in fact using to criticize then-candidate John McCain for his refusal to discuss the economic crisis in 2008.

Conservatives Selectively Edit Obama's Speech To Claim He Hates Small Businesses | ThinkProgress

Yep, that helped. Obama thinks that being smart is not enough, what makes a difference is the government.

 

[Listening]

The conclusion to the article:

A new study for the Weidenbaum Center at Washington University in St. Louis reports that in constant dollars federal regulatory agency spending has increased from $15 billion in 1980 to $50 billion today. If every dollar of federal regulatory spending multiplies by $21 in compliance costs, that implies more than $1 trillion annually in regulatory costs to businesses and individuals. The IRS expects to collect $1.4 trillion in income taxes this year. Regulations can act as substantial barriers to entry for the startups that have historically been the source of job creation in the U.S. economy.

In his speech last week in Virginia, the president declared, “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” But all of his examples of the things we "do together" were government projects, e.g., building roads, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover dam, fighting fires, public schools, and inventing the Internet. We can argue over whether or not these are services that can only be provided only by government. The crucial point that the president misses is that “this unbelievable American system” thrives chiefly on private enterprise, and that a lot of the government intervention that he favors is hindering rather than helping businesses and entrepreneurs create new jobs and more wealth.

 

[flacaltenn]

The OP is close to the bullseye on "what ails this economy".. Lemme repost the critical clue...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4323443-post1.html

Nobody commented on those scary graphs.. Everyone wants to ignore what we SHOULD BE DOING, in favor of what they hear from our fuckwad "leadership".. Or they haven't been TOLD how serious that problem really is by Rachael Maddow or Sean Hannity..


Mounting regulation has made it less attractive to throw capital at NEW INNOVATIVE ideas and companies. And EASIER for the GIANTS to consume and stifle attempts to take away their market leadership.. MOST regulation is nothing but protective shields for the MEGA corps..

And if we don't get that IPO volume up --- Our employment situation and standard of living will take a massive dive..

 

[Listening]

The OP is close to the bullseye on "what ails this economy".. Lemme repost the critical clue...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4323443-post1.html

Nobody commented on those scary graphs.. Everyone wants to ignore what we SHOULD BE DOING, in favor of what they hear from our fuckwad "leadership".. Or they haven't been TOLD how serious that problem really is by Rachael Maddow or Sean Hannity..


Mounting regulation has made it less attractive to throw capital at NEW INNOVATIVE ideas and companies. And EASIER for the GIANTS to consume and stifle attempts to take away their market leadership.. MOST regulation is nothing but protective shields for the MEGA corps..

And if we don't get that IPO volume up --- Our employment situation and standard of living will take a massive dive..

What will Obama say then ?

You didn't go broke on your own....someone else (the government) did that. ????

or

You didn't drop into poverty on your own. The government did that ?

It is amazing what he does not get.

 

[flacaltenn]

The OP is close to the bullseye on "what ails this economy".. Lemme repost the critical clue...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4323443-post1.html

Nobody commented on those scary graphs.. Everyone wants to ignore what we SHOULD BE DOING, in favor of what they hear from our fuckwad "leadership".. Or they haven't been TOLD how serious that problem really is by Rachael Maddow or Sean Hannity..


Mounting regulation has made it less attractive to throw capital at NEW INNOVATIVE ideas and companies. And EASIER for the GIANTS to consume and stifle attempts to take away their market leadership.. MOST regulation is nothing but protective shields for the MEGA corps..

And if we don't get that IPO volume up --- Our employment situation and standard of living will take a massive dive..

What will Obama say then ?

You didn't go broke on your own....someone else (the government) did that. ????

or

You didn't drop into poverty on your own. The government did that ?

It is amazing what he does not get.

I doubt that Obama cares that our creation rate of NEW companies is at a historic low..

His approach has always been a juvenile "Command Economy" approach where he thinks he pulls a lever and out comes "Green Jobs" or "Shovel Ready" jobs.. As tho every entreprenuer in America is sitting with their feet up waiting for him to give them ideas.

When our manufacturing went offshore ---- we were SUPPOSED to maintain control of the creative, inventive end of products and science. As it sits now -- that effort in 20,000 Leagues under the sea and sinking fast. We are in very bad straights if we give up the "hard stuff" to the rest of the world..

Tell ya one thing.. It's some kind of divine intervention that we have a "venture capital" guy running for Prez. (even if I choose not to vote for him).. Because Venture Capital and Regulation review is the only path to fixing the economy so that our grandkids aren't gonna be picking thru the garbage dumps for household items..

 

[Listening]

Something to consider...

Over the past few decades, America has locked up more and more people. Our prison population has tripled. Now we jail a higher percentage of people than even the most repressive countries: China locks up 121 out of every 100,000 people; Russia 511. In America? 730.

"Never in the civilized world have so many been locked up for so little," The Economist says.

Yet we keep adding more laws and longer jail terms.

Lavrentiy Beria, head of Joseph Stalin's secret police in the old Soviet Union, supposedly said, "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime." Stalin executed anyone he considered a threat, and it didn't take much to be considered a threat. Beria could always find some law the targeted person had broken. That's easy to do when there are tons of vague laws on the books. Stalin "legally" executed nearly a million people that way.

I'm not saying that America is like Stalin's Russia, but consider the federal laws we have. The rules that bind us now total more than 160,000 pages. The Congressional Research Service said it was unable to count the number of crimes on the books. Yet last week the feds added or proposed another thousand pages. States and cities have thousands more. Have you read them all? Have our "representatives" read them all? You know the answer.

America, the Law-crazed - John Stossel - Page 1

Then think about regulations.

What has Obama been smoking these past 3.5 years ?

 

[auditor0007]

Government Did Not Build Your Business - Reason.com

The 2012 study found that while new business startups created 2.3 million jobs between March 2009 and March 2010, the net job creation from all U.S. private sector firms was minus 1.8 million jobs. The U.S. unemployment rate was then 9.7 percent. The number of business startups has dropped from 554,109 in 1987 to 394,632 in 2010. The 2012 Kaufmann report notes that the share of job creation from young firms has fallen from more than 40 percent in the 1980s to 30 percent now. While acknowledging that the severity of the Great Recession no doubt contributes to this decline in entrepreneurial activity, it is important to note that startups were a major factor in lifting the U.S. economy out of previous economic downturns. Why is new firm creation lagging now? Perhaps it has something to do with the Obama administration’s idea of governance.

First, numerous studies find that higher tax and regulatory burdens impede entrepreneurial activity which in turn slow economic growth and job creation. For example, a 2010 study, "The Economic Effects of the Regulatory Burden," done for the Swedish Agency for Growth Policy Analysis (of all places), found that while some rules are necessary for entrepreneurs and markets to function “that countries with a light regulatory burden show more rapid economic growth in GDP per capita.” A 2008 study, "Government Size, Composition, Volatility, and Economic Growth," done for the European Central Bank examined the effect of government size and fiscal volatility on economic growth for developed countries between 1970 and 2004. The study finds that the bigger government and the slower the growth rate. Every percentage point increase in the share of total revenue going to government decreases overall economic output by more than a tenth of a percent. The report further noted, “Public capital formation may indeed turn out to be less productive if devoted to inefficient projects, or if it crowds out private investment.” Other words, despite the impression that Obama gives, not every government expenditure on infrastructure or a business subsidy is an “investment.”

*****************************

Just fitting the narrative that our beloved Bozo-In-Chief really should be retired in Jan 2013 and someone brought in who would be less of a Bozo.

Bozo vs. Less Bozo.

Tax rates were slightly higher in 1987 than they were today. Shoots the shit out of the taxes being too high theory.

 

[tererun]

It is funny because the onlyu people who claim that statement are the republicans obama claimed that the infrastructure and other businesses that allow a new or established bnusiness to do what they do was built by someone else. Unless you can show me the one business that built the roads, planes, trains, railroads, shipping companies, trucking fleets, resource mining companies, plastics, metal refinement, oil refinement, oil drilling, and did all their payroll and accounting on their own, along with creating a sales force and retail outfits for all their stuff, and runs a copywrite and patent protection racket then your point is completely false, they most certainly did not do it themselves.

Oh yeah, that also includes printing and backing their own money, running a military to protect their country, making police force, building jails, running a fire department, collecting taxes for these purposes, making a congress, making a president, establishing an electronic paymenmt system including making credit cards, made up banks, printed their own checks, made commercial deals with foreign countries, learned all the laws for the foreign countries without the assistance of a lawyer, provided all their own insurance...

It almost makes me wonder if republicans have even the remotest clue how business and america work if they make a claim single businesses do it all on their own.

 

[flacaltenn]

Government Did Not Build Your Business - Reason.com

The 2012 study found that while new business startups created 2.3 million jobs between March 2009 and March 2010, the net job creation from all U.S. private sector firms was minus 1.8 million jobs. The U.S. unemployment rate was then 9.7 percent. The number of business startups has dropped from 554,109 in 1987 to 394,632 in 2010. The 2012 Kaufmann report notes that the share of job creation from young firms has fallen from more than 40 percent in the 1980s to 30 percent now. While acknowledging that the severity of the Great Recession no doubt contributes to this decline in entrepreneurial activity, it is important to note that startups were a major factor in lifting the U.S. economy out of previous economic downturns. Why is new firm creation lagging now? Perhaps it has something to do with the Obama administration’s idea of governance.

First, numerous studies find that higher tax and regulatory burdens impede entrepreneurial activity which in turn slow economic growth and job creation. For example, a 2010 study, "The Economic Effects of the Regulatory Burden," done for the Swedish Agency for Growth Policy Analysis (of all places), found that while some rules are necessary for entrepreneurs and markets to function “that countries with a light regulatory burden show more rapid economic growth in GDP per capita.” A 2008 study, "Government Size, Composition, Volatility, and Economic Growth," done for the European Central Bank examined the effect of government size and fiscal volatility on economic growth for developed countries between 1970 and 2004. The study finds that the bigger government and the slower the growth rate. Every percentage point increase in the share of total revenue going to government decreases overall economic output by more than a tenth of a percent. The report further noted, “Public capital formation may indeed turn out to be less productive if devoted to inefficient projects, or if it crowds out private investment.” Other words, despite the impression that Obama gives, not every government expenditure on infrastructure or a business subsidy is an “investment.”

*****************************

Just fitting the narrative that our beloved Bozo-In-Chief really should be retired in Jan 2013 and someone brought in who would be less of a Bozo.

Bozo vs. Less Bozo.

Tax rates were slightly higher in 1987 than they were today. Shoots the shit out of the taxes being too high theory.

you know -- for an auditor --- that was a pretty dam stupid observation.. Well maybe not in a 1980s textbook sort of way.. But in 1987, China didn't have more than 2 major international airports and Most of their folks were slouched in rice paddies. The Russians weren't an open trading society and Globalism was a hair-brained theory...

We need a whooping I suspect to get rid of the "old economics" and wake up and smell the way the world is today...

 

[flacaltenn]

It is funny because the onlyu people who claim that statement are the republicans obama claimed that the infrastructure and other businesses that allow a new or established bnusiness to do what they do was built by someone else. Unless you can show me the one business that built the roads, planes, trains, railroads, shipping companies, trucking fleets, resource mining companies, plastics, metal refinement, oil refinement, oil drilling, and did all their payroll and accounting on their own, along with creating a sales force and retail outfits for all their stuff, and runs a copywrite and patent protection racket then your point is completely false, they most certainly did not do it themselves.

Oh yeah, that also includes printing and backing their own money, running a military to protect their country, making police force, building jails, running a fire department, collecting taxes for these purposes, making a congress, making a president, establishing an electronic paymenmt system including making credit cards, made up banks, printed their own checks, made commercial deals with foreign countries, learned all the laws for the foreign countries without the assistance of a lawyer, provided all their own insurance...

It almost makes me wonder if republicans have even the remotest clue how business and america work if they make a claim single businesses do it all on their own.

You're sure not shedding any photons on "how business and America work" here.. Why are you confusing private sector functions with public sector functions for starters. Do you have a clue which does which? Credit cards somehow are related to Making a Prez?

WTF?

 

[Londoner]

People on the right have never really understood how markets work.

The goal of any business is to increase market share.

Shareholders want market share.

Boards of Directors fire CEO's who do not build market share.

A monopoly is the point of building market share.

Steve Jobs doesn't want competition. He wants every tablet user to own an iPad.

The largest corporations have enough capital to fund elections and staff government. They have enough money to capture whole regulatory bodies.

In short, large corporations buy government and media assets in order to create the legal, regulatory and discursive environment for building and sustaining monopolies. Eli Lilly, by pumping money into congress, was able to shut down competition from generic and foreign competitors. Big oil did the same with energy. They successfully defended their control over energy from a host of different challenges. Capitalists don't want competition. Their shareholders win biggest when they capture the largest possible block of consumers. The point of business is to achieve a monopoly so that you can raise prices without fear of having your customers stolen.

Reagan, for instance, was funded massively by big oil. Remember: Carter posed a threat to big oil. Cater desperately wanted energy competition. Carter predicted that our reliance on high petroleum use would lead to crippling gas costs. He wanted alternative energy and conservation to compete with big oil - to pose solutions which eroded the market share of big oil and forced them to lower prices to retain customers. Reagan successfully defeated the challenges posed to big oil. He used government to solidify the monopoly power of big oil and he tied consumers to energy costs that would some day destroy the economy. This is what happens when special interests capture politicians and rig markets. Reagan helped rig the market in favor if his donors. The Left does the exact same thing.

Republican voters who talk about free markets don't get it. None of the corporations who exist inside markets want a free market - they want market share; they want monopolies - they don't want competition to destroy their profits. Competition erodes market share. Corporations use their profits to buy regulators and politicians in order to rig markets and get more market share. This allows them to raise prices without losing consumers to a competitor. Once you understand this, you will understand what has happened to U.S. capitalism since Reagan. We now have a bunch of special interests running the economy.

The big problem is that we have no means to fix this problem. Sean Hannity is paid by the same special interests who run the economy to defend these monopolies as "freedom". Sean will never tell his voters that companies like Eli Lilly and Exxon can raise their prices because Washington has helped them destroy the competition. If you try to break the monopolies and restore competition, Glen Beck screams "socialism".

God help us.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Government Did Not Build Your Business - Reason.com

The 2012 study found that while new business startups created 2.3 million jobs between March 2009 and March 2010, the net job creation from all U.S. private sector firms was minus 1.8 million jobs. The U.S. unemployment rate was then 9.7 percent. The number of business startups has dropped from 554,109 in 1987 to 394,632 in 2010. The 2012 Kaufmann report notes that the share of job creation from young firms has fallen from more than 40 percent in the 1980s to 30 percent now. While acknowledging that the severity of the Great Recession no doubt contributes to this decline in entrepreneurial activity, it is important to note that startups were a major factor in lifting the U.S. economy out of previous economic downturns. Why is new firm creation lagging now? Perhaps it has something to do with the Obama administration’s idea of governance.

First, numerous studies find that higher tax and regulatory burdens impede entrepreneurial activity which in turn slow economic growth and job creation. For example, a 2010 study, "The Economic Effects of the Regulatory Burden," done for the Swedish Agency for Growth Policy Analysis (of all places), found that while some rules are necessary for entrepreneurs and markets to function “that countries with a light regulatory burden show more rapid economic growth in GDP per capita.” A 2008 study, "Government Size, Composition, Volatility, and Economic Growth," done for the European Central Bank examined the effect of government size and fiscal volatility on economic growth for developed countries between 1970 and 2004. The study finds that the bigger government and the slower the growth rate. Every percentage point increase in the share of total revenue going to government decreases overall economic output by more than a tenth of a percent. The report further noted, “Public capital formation may indeed turn out to be less productive if devoted to inefficient projects, or if it crowds out private investment.” Other words, despite the impression that Obama gives, not every government expenditure on infrastructure or a business subsidy is an “investment.”

*****************************

Just fitting the narrative that our beloved Bozo-In-Chief really should be retired in Jan 2013 and someone brought in who would be less of a Bozo.

Bozo vs. Less Bozo.

Tax rates were slightly higher in 1987 than they were today. Shoots the shit out of the taxes being too high theory.

What was the GDP in 1987?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People on the right have never really understood how markets work.

The goal of any business is to increase market share.

Shareholders want market share.

Boards of Directors fire CEO's who do not build market share.

A monopoly is the point of building market share.

Steve Jobs doesn't want competition. He wants every tablet user to own an iPad.

The largest corporations have enough capital to fund elections and staff government. They have enough money to capture whole regulatory bodies.

In short, large corporations buy government and media assets in order to create the legal, regulatory and discursive environment for building and sustaining monopolies. Eli Lilly, by pumping money into congress, was able to shut down competition from generic and foreign competitors. Big oil did the same with energy. They successfully defended their control over energy from a host of different challenges. Capitalists don't want competition. Their shareholders win biggest when they capture the largest possible block of consumers. The point of business is to achieve a monopoly so that you can raise prices without fear of having your customers stolen.

Reagan, for instance, was funded massively by big oil. Remember: Carter posed a threat to big oil. Cater desperately wanted energy competition. Carter predicted that our reliance on high petroleum use would lead to crippling gas costs. He wanted alternative energy and conservation to compete with big oil - to pose solutions which eroded the market share of big oil and forced them to lower prices to retain customers. Reagan successfully defeated the challenges posed to big oil. He used government to solidify the monopoly power of big oil and he tied consumers to energy costs that would some day destroy the economy. This is what happens when special interests capture politicians and rig markets. Reagan helped rig the market in favor if his donors. The Left does the exact same thing.

Republican voters who talk about free markets don't get it. None of the corporations who exist inside markets want a free market - they want market share; they want monopolies - they don't want competition to destroy their profits. Competition erodes market share. Corporations use their profits to buy regulators and politicians in order to rig markets and get more market share. This allows them to raise prices without losing consumers to a competitor. Once you understand this, you will understand what has happened to U.S. capitalism since Reagan. We now have a bunch of special interests running the economy.

The big problem is that we have no means to fix this problem. Sean Hannity is paid by the same special interests who run the economy to defend these monopolies as "freedom". Sean will never tell his voters that companies like Eli Lilly and Exxon can raise their prices because Washington has helped them destroy the competition. If you try to break the monopolies and restore competition, Glen Beck screams "socialism".

God help us.

I was going to reply to you intelligently, then I read your post.

You should post this in the appropriate forum.

 

[tererun]

It is funny because the onlyu people who claim that statement are the republicans obama claimed that the infrastructure and other businesses that allow a new or established bnusiness to do what they do was built by someone else. Unless you can show me the one business that built the roads, planes, trains, railroads, shipping companies, trucking fleets, resource mining companies, plastics, metal refinement, oil refinement, oil drilling, and did all their payroll and accounting on their own, along with creating a sales force and retail outfits for all their stuff, and runs a copywrite and patent protection racket then your point is completely false, they most certainly did not do it themselves.

Oh yeah, that also includes printing and backing their own money, running a military to protect their country, making police force, building jails, running a fire department, collecting taxes for these purposes, making a congress, making a president, establishing an electronic paymenmt system including making credit cards, made up banks, printed their own checks, made commercial deals with foreign countries, learned all the laws for the foreign countries without the assistance of a lawyer, provided all their own insurance...

It almost makes me wonder if republicans have even the remotest clue how business and america work if they make a claim single businesses do it all on their own.

You're sure not shedding any photons on "how business and America work" here.. Why are you confusing private sector functions with public sector functions for starters. Do you have a clue which does which? Credit cards somehow are related to Making a Prez?

WTF?

Your confusion is not cause by me, it is caused by trying to take a quote way out of context. Republicans are trying to say that your business operates without any help from private or government and that is absurd.

 

[Interpol]

“If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen”

Barack Hussein Obama

According to our leader it wasn't the business owner.
I'm thinking Obama was stating that government is responsible.

Retards think?

He wasn't talking about the government.

He was talking about how it takes a society of folks to get the big things done, like building businesses.

One person can build their own lemonade stand, but it takes a bunch of folks to build a fucking store.

 

[Interpol]

It is funny because the onlyu people who claim that statement are the republicans obama claimed that the infrastructure and other businesses that allow a new or established bnusiness to do what they do was built by someone else. Unless you can show me the one business that built the roads, planes, trains, railroads, shipping companies, trucking fleets, resource mining companies, plastics, metal refinement, oil refinement, oil drilling, and did all their payroll and accounting on their own, along with creating a sales force and retail outfits for all their stuff, and runs a copywrite and patent protection racket then your point is completely false, they most certainly did not do it themselves.

Oh yeah, that also includes printing and backing their own money, running a military to protect their country, making police force, building jails, running a fire department, collecting taxes for these purposes, making a congress, making a president, establishing an electronic paymenmt system including making credit cards, made up banks, printed their own checks, made commercial deals with foreign countries, learned all the laws for the foreign countries without the assistance of a lawyer, provided all their own insurance...

It almost makes me wonder if republicans have even the remotest clue how business and america work if they make a claim single businesses do it all on their own.

You're sure not shedding any photons on "how business and America work" here.. Why are you confusing private sector functions with public sector functions for starters. Do you have a clue which does which? Credit cards somehow are related to Making a Prez?

WTF?

Your confusion is not cause by me, it is caused by trying to take a quote way out of context. Republicans are trying to say that your business operates without any help from private or government and that is absurd.

Republicans hate Obama.

They change the channel whenever he comes on.

But then they act like they've been paying attention to what he's been saying, but in reality they're just repeating what Rush or some other fucking fat ass on the far right told them to think.

These people NEED Obama to be the monster in their own reality. They need him to be a complete invention so that it gets their panties in a twist.

Meanwhile, he governs like a fucking Republican from the 80's.

 

[Bfgrn]

Who ever said Government built your business?

That is stupid?

“If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” declared President Barack Obama at a campaign stop last week in Virginia. Evidently, the president believes that economic growth and job creation are largely the result of actions taken by benevolent government agencies. But while it is certainly the case that good governance is essential, entrepreneurs engaging in voluntary cooperation coordinated through competition in free markets is what actually creates wealth and jobs.

*************************

I could not agree 100% more (with RightWinger).

Let's be clear, are you saying the single sentence you took out of context is a stand alone? That the President was saying you didn't build your business?

 

[Steelplate]

People on the right have never really understood how markets work.

The goal of any business is to increase market share.

Shareholders want market share.

Boards of Directors fire CEO's who do not build market share.

A monopoly is the point of building market share.

Steve Jobs doesn't want competition. He wants every tablet user to own an iPad.

The largest corporations have enough capital to fund elections and staff government. They have enough money to capture whole regulatory bodies.

In short, large corporations buy government and media assets in order to create the legal, regulatory and discursive environment for building and sustaining monopolies. Eli Lilly, by pumping money into congress, was able to shut down competition from generic and foreign competitors. Big oil did the same with energy. They successfully defended their control over energy from a host of different challenges. Capitalists don't want competition. Their shareholders win biggest when they capture the largest possible block of consumers. The point of business is to achieve a monopoly so that you can raise prices without fear of having your customers stolen.

Reagan, for instance, was funded massively by big oil. Remember: Carter posed a threat to big oil. Cater desperately wanted energy competition. Carter predicted that our reliance on high petroleum use would lead to crippling gas costs. He wanted alternative energy and conservation to compete with big oil - to pose solutions which eroded the market share of big oil and forced them to lower prices to retain customers. Reagan successfully defeated the challenges posed to big oil. He used government to solidify the monopoly power of big oil and he tied consumers to energy costs that would some day destroy the economy. This is what happens when special interests capture politicians and rig markets. Reagan helped rig the market in favor if his donors. The Left does the exact same thing.

Republican voters who talk about free markets don't get it. None of the corporations who exist inside markets want a free market - they want market share; they want monopolies - they don't want competition to destroy their profits. Competition erodes market share. Corporations use their profits to buy regulators and politicians in order to rig markets and get more market share. This allows them to raise prices without losing consumers to a competitor. Once you understand this, you will understand what has happened to U.S. capitalism since Reagan. We now have a bunch of special interests running the economy.

The big problem is that we have no means to fix this problem. Sean Hannity is paid by the same special interests who run the economy to defend these monopolies as "freedom". Sean will never tell his voters that companies like Eli Lilly and Exxon can raise their prices because Washington has helped them destroy the competition. If you try to break the monopolies and restore competition, Glen Beck screams "socialism".

God help us.

excellent post....it's what a lot of us have been saying all along....you summarized it well.

 

[Steelplate]

People on the right have never really understood how markets work.

The goal of any business is to increase market share.

Shareholders want market share.

Boards of Directors fire CEO's who do not build market share.

A monopoly is the point of building market share.

Steve Jobs doesn't want competition. He wants every tablet user to own an iPad.

The largest corporations have enough capital to fund elections and staff government. They have enough money to capture whole regulatory bodies.

In short, large corporations buy government and media assets in order to create the legal, regulatory and discursive environment for building and sustaining monopolies. Eli Lilly, by pumping money into congress, was able to shut down competition from generic and foreign competitors. Big oil did the same with energy. They successfully defended their control over energy from a host of different challenges. Capitalists don't want competition. Their shareholders win biggest when they capture the largest possible block of consumers. The point of business is to achieve a monopoly so that you can raise prices without fear of having your customers stolen.

Reagan, for instance, was funded massively by big oil. Remember: Carter posed a threat to big oil. Cater desperately wanted energy competition. Carter predicted that our reliance on high petroleum use would lead to crippling gas costs. He wanted alternative energy and conservation to compete with big oil - to pose solutions which eroded the market share of big oil and forced them to lower prices to retain customers. Reagan successfully defeated the challenges posed to big oil. He used government to solidify the monopoly power of big oil and he tied consumers to energy costs that would some day destroy the economy. This is what happens when special interests capture politicians and rig markets. Reagan helped rig the market in favor if his donors. The Left does the exact same thing.

Republican voters who talk about free markets don't get it. None of the corporations who exist inside markets want a free market - they want market share; they want monopolies - they don't want competition to destroy their profits. Competition erodes market share. Corporations use their profits to buy regulators and politicians in order to rig markets and get more market share. This allows them to raise prices without losing consumers to a competitor. Once you understand this, you will understand what has happened to U.S. capitalism since Reagan. We now have a bunch of special interests running the economy.

The big problem is that we have no means to fix this problem. Sean Hannity is paid by the same special interests who run the economy to defend these monopolies as "freedom". Sean will never tell his voters that companies like Eli Lilly and Exxon can raise their prices because Washington has helped them destroy the competition. If you try to break the monopolies and restore competition, Glen Beck screams "socialism".

God help us.

I was going to reply to you intelligently, then I read your post.

You should post this in the appropriate forum.

ummmm...riiiight....Obama's a Communistmarxistkenyanmuslimapologist....but londoner's post should be in conspiracy theories?

BTW...Londoner? when you get responses like this? You've fucked with their world view and they don't know how to handle it.