Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Please define a free economy. And, if what you mean by this term is an economic system unregulated, and tax free, say so. But explain how a free society lives without regulation or revenue.
A free economy allows for pure competiton with safeguards to prevent monopolies while promoting the development of oligopolies.
Yes...oligopolies will do for the economy a lot more than any government regulations.
And it seems that mega monopolies rule anymore. Where were all the dissenters before now, while the SEC approved every merger and takeover imaginable, and then left them alone with no "safeguards" in place as they devoured small businesses?
A free economy allows for pure competiton with safeguards to prevent monopolies while promoting the development of oligopolies.
Yes...oligopolies will do for the economy a lot more than any government regulations.
For the record: Oligopolies, the market condition that exists when there are few sellers, as a result of which they can greatly influence price and other market factors.
And how do oligopolies differ from cartels, or better yet, who is to prevent the few sellers from conspiring to reduce producton, raise prices and increase profits?
PS, And who benefits from such a system, and how?
Oligopolies, in a pure competition environment have the few major players that set the price and the multitude of smaller players that follow the lead. It eliminates those that try to undercut and opens the door for the smaller players to enter the marketplace with a proven business model to follow and allow for the possibility of become a larger player if one chooses.
In an oligopoly, the ability for one to overprice is completely eliminated and such is best for pure competition. In essence, demand is allowed to dictate price so the consumer is in control.
Telecommunications is an excellent example of this. No one can complain about the cost of telephone use, nor can anyone say that a new player is unable to break into the market.
Well, here's my 2 cents:
I think that there are certain media figures, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck who pray silently every day for a major terrorist attack.
I truly believe this, as if it happened their ratings would skyrocket well beyond what they currently enjoy, and I believe that ratings is all they care about in the world.
I also believe that this secret desire bleeds out in the talking points that they disseminate to "the faithful" every day on their programs.
So, truthfully, I don't think the average Joe right-winger WANTS another 9-11, at least not consciously, but it seems like they do when looking at their statements.
I also firmly believe that Dick Cheney does in fact desperately want there to be another 9-11, so that his Vice Presidency will somehow be vindicated.
There are a few other radical members of the right-wing that want another 9-11 for their own reasons, but I think they are few and an far between.
For the record: Oligopolies, the market condition that exists when there are few sellers, as a result of which they can greatly influence price and other market factors.
And how do oligopolies differ from cartels, or better yet, who is to prevent the few sellers from conspiring to reduce producton, raise prices and increase profits?
PS, And who benefits from such a system, and how?
Oligopolies, in a pure competition environment have the few major players that set the price and the multitude of smaller players that follow the lead. It eliminates those that try to undercut and opens the door for the smaller players to enter the marketplace with a proven business model to follow and allow for the possibility of become a larger player if one chooses.
In an oligopoly, the ability for one to overprice is completely eliminated and such is best for pure competition. In essence, demand is allowed to dictate price so the consumer is in control.
Telecommunications is an excellent example of this. No one can complain about the cost of telephone use, nor can anyone say that a new player is unable to break into the market.
Carefully reading your synopsis, isn't that exactly what the government-sponsored insurance exchange program would be under the proposed Senate version of the health care bill?
Hoping for the worst
The biggest terrorist attack happened when Obama was sworn into office. It'll take a lot to top that.
you know, X. i usually think you're kind of funny. but that's disgusting.
but thanks for proving maggie's point.
and as a resident of nyc, i think that comment truly beneath you
I hate to say it, but the OP is right. WillowTree can shout "proof!" from the rooftops, but what the OP is discussing can't be proven...it's just a feeling and an interpretation based on the perceived tone of posts by republicans. They won't come out and say it (even though Limbaugh did on the radio, out loud for people to hear mind you) so you can't prove it. But sure, the tone is there - not by all, but by some.
As I scan through some of the threads today, posted by the usual vicious extremists, I'm getting the sense that these people are actually eager for another al-Qaeda attack on American soil, one that would do as much devastation as 911, just to "prove" that Obama failed to prevent an attack, as was alleged personally against Bush in 2001--just to get even.
Short of reviewing the entire background of events leading to the attacks of 911, there was a lot that wasn't known on a large scale about the capabilities of terrorists pre-2001. But before it happened, I can't think of anyone who was hoping such an attack would happen just because they didn't like George W. Bush.
I get the impression that some so-called "Americans" who post here would just love for the economy to totally tank, so they can then laugh and high-five their fellow jerkoffs that the whole thing is Obama's fault.
They gleefully post how bad retail numbers are, how unemployment keeps rising, and pooh-pooh any of the encouraging barometers. These negative arm-chair politicos don't want to know anything about the history leading up to the economic crisis nor admit that it was years in the making. They constantly see the glass as half-empty and pray that it stays that way, just so they can blame Obama, period.
Is that what you people believe it means to think like an American these days? Our ancestors who forged this country through thick and thin and weathered all sorts of threats from foreign enemies and economic downturns are turning in their graves over the current ATTITUDES of so-called "Americans" whose only desire for America is to tear it down.
Well I'm one American who thinks that YOUR version of what it means to be an American makes me sick to my stomach.
Yes..the tone is there and it is disturbing.
The tone was there during the Bush years as well.
Harry Reid and "the war is lost" was very disturbing. It was almost like he was so happy about it he couldnt keep it inside ...
Amazing how partisanship makes people so dam ugly.
A free economy allows for pure competiton with safeguards to prevent monopolies while promoting the development of oligopolies.
Yes...oligopolies will do for the economy a lot more than any government regulations.
And it seems that mega monopolies rule anymore. Where were all the dissenters before now, while the SEC approved every merger and takeover imaginable, and then left them alone with no "safeguards" in place as they devoured small businesses?
I do not see it that they devoured small business. They gave small business the opiton to compete or make money and sell. In essence, it was good for the majority of the small businesses....those that sold, made their money...those that didnt would be sitting pretty right now if the government did not decide to bail out the big boys.
And it seems that mega monopolies rule anymore. Where were all the dissenters before now, while the SEC approved every merger and takeover imaginable, and then left them alone with no "safeguards" in place as they devoured small businesses?
I do not see it that they devoured small business. They gave small business the opiton to compete or make money and sell. In essence, it was good for the majority of the small businesses....those that sold, made their money...those that didnt would be sitting pretty right now if the government did not decide to bail out the big boys.
How did this get sidetracked into specific industries? Are you talking about GM and Chrysler?Are you talking about the major financial institutions? The insurance umbrella AIG? If AIG hadn't been bailed out, all those hundreds of insurance companies would have gone belly up ONLY because of one small administrative branch of AIG that dealt in marketing securities which, because of major losses and theft of the assets of those smaller insurance companies to cover up those losses, brought the entire organization to its knees. How was THAT mother ship ogligopoly beneficial to those companies?
Oligopolies, in a pure competition environment have the few major players that set the price and the multitude of smaller players that follow the lead. It eliminates those that try to undercut and opens the door for the smaller players to enter the marketplace with a proven business model to follow and allow for the possibility of become a larger player if one chooses.
In an oligopoly, the ability for one to overprice is completely eliminated and such is best for pure competition. In essence, demand is allowed to dictate price so the consumer is in control.
Telecommunications is an excellent example of this. No one can complain about the cost of telephone use, nor can anyone say that a new player is unable to break into the market.
Carefully reading your synopsis, isn't that exactly what the government-sponsored insurance exchange program would be under the proposed Senate version of the health care bill?
No Maggie. Demand will not be dictating price. A non profit organization (the government) will be. Likewise, sales revenue will not be dictating viable operating costs as there will be a bottomless pit of tax revenue to use....something private companies will not have access to.
That may prove to be very dangerous.
Carefully reading your synopsis, isn't that exactly what the government-sponsored insurance exchange program would be under the proposed Senate version of the health care bill?
No Maggie. Demand will not be dictating price. A non profit organization (the government) will be. Likewise, sales revenue will not be dictating viable operating costs as there will be a bottomless pit of tax revenue to use....something private companies will not have access to.
That may prove to be very dangerous.
You're the one that keeps saying an oilgopoly provides options. That's precisely what the exchange program would do, and price is part of it. The exchanges will be existing private sector insurers.
Powered by Google Docs
Carefully reading your synopsis, isn't that exactly what the government-sponsored insurance exchange program would be under the proposed Senate version of the health care bill?
No Maggie. Demand will not be dictating price. A non profit organization (the government) will be. Likewise, sales revenue will not be dictating viable operating costs as there will be a bottomless pit of tax revenue to use....something private companies will not have access to.
That may prove to be very dangerous.
You're the one that keeps saying an oilgopoly provides options. That's precisely what the exchange program would do, and price is part of it. The exchanges will be existing private sector insurers.
Powered by Google Docs
and ignores or attacks any opinion which differs then their own
Amen.. this is part and parcel from the Fascist Left.
As I scan through some of the threads today, posted by the usual vicious extremists, I'm getting the sense that these people are actually eager for another al-Qaeda attack on American soil, one that would do as much devastation as 911, just to "prove" that Obama failed to prevent an attack, as was alleged personally against Bush in 2001--just to get even.
Short of reviewing the entire background of events leading to the attacks of 911, there was a lot that wasn't known on a large scale about the capabilities of terrorists pre-2001. But before it happened, I can't think of anyone who was hoping such an attack would happen just because they didn't like George W. Bush.
I get the impression that some so-called "Americans" who post here would just love for the economy to totally tank, so they can then laugh and high-five their fellow jerkoffs that the whole thing is Obama's fault.
They gleefully post how bad retail numbers are, how unemployment keeps rising, and pooh-pooh any of the encouraging barometers. These negative arm-chair politicos don't want to know anything about the history leading up to the economic crisis nor admit that it was years in the making. They constantly see the glass as half-empty and pray that it stays that way, just so they can blame Obama, period.
Is that what you people believe it means to think like an American these days? Our ancestors who forged this country through thick and thin and weathered all sorts of threats from foreign enemies and economic downturns are turning in their graves over the current ATTITUDES of so-called "Americans" whose only desire for America is to tear it down.
Well I'm one American who thinks that YOUR version of what it means to be an American makes me sick to my stomach.
MM, I'm curious if you are now saying those from the 'left' that did this ad nauseam to Bush and tied McCain to such, were wrong? Or is it just that Obama plays by different parameters?
I want the homeland safe, wth, I want every place safe and free from attacks. I want 'no more war.' I certainly want unemployment down and the economy up. I want all children to go to school in safe buildings, free from worry of any sort of attack, whether from crazies out to kill massive numbers or gang bangers. I would love to see everyone have a safe, secure home. No poverty, no hunger, no needs unmet. I can live with unmet wants, but needs?
I do not see it that they devoured small business. They gave small business the opiton to compete or make money and sell. In essence, it was good for the majority of the small businesses....those that sold, made their money...those that didnt would be sitting pretty right now if the government did not decide to bail out the big boys.
How did this get sidetracked into specific industries? Are you talking about GM and Chrysler?Are you talking about the major financial institutions? The insurance umbrella AIG? If AIG hadn't been bailed out, all those hundreds of insurance companies would have gone belly up ONLY because of one small administrative branch of AIG that dealt in marketing securities which, because of major losses and theft of the assets of those smaller insurance companies to cover up those losses, brought the entire organization to its knees. How was THAT mother ship ogligopoly beneficial to those companies?
But you see...I disagree. AIG going belly up would have been a blow to the industry, yes, but also have opened the door to others coming in.
Same with the automoboile companies, the banks, etc.
In the 90's advertising agencies tried that merge and make big thing.....and it failed.....and the industry struggled for a few years and now many other companies in the industry are thriving.
I am sorry Maggie...and this is not to be taken as directed to you in any way...but I have owned many businesses...and experienced much in my years in business...I did not buy into that "too big to fail" thing in 2008 and I dont buy into it now.
There is no such thing as too big to fail in a pure competition environment.
