What do you want your economy to do

[asterism]

I want the economy to rely on the ingenuity of entrepreneurs, not the government's micromanagement.

OK. Great. Now what. Fewer companies. Fewer jobs. ongoing. do you expect that the trend to less jobs and less businesses is going to be solved by private businesses? How do you think that will work, since it has not yet?

I never said fewer companies fewer jobs. That's your own (false) narrative. One major problem with our current economic situation is that there has been uncertainty regarding tax rates and intrusion of government into the business sector. That should stabilize soon. Then once the economic landscape is understood the role of government in hampering new ventures will have to be considered.

As it stands now, the current regulatory environment is stifling development of new business due to the government micromanaging activities instead of providing valid oversight. The FDIC is hamstringing small community banks which are the ones that traditionally loan to the people who start new small companies that fuel economic growth.

I think it will work once the federal government realizes that it cannot centrally plan the economy, can't pick winners, and can't apply hasty policy without negative consequences.

You're part of the group that voted for this administration twice. The first time it was said that "the adults are in charge." What's your excuse now?

 

[asterism]

So, businesses are in business for Proffit. To make their board of directors happy and wealthy, right. no judgement, just the way it is. So, to them, mergers are great. The bod gets wealthier.
and to them, outsoursing is great. cuts costs, makes proffits bigger. Bod gets wealthier.
Then, to them, autoation is great. cuts labor costs, increases proffits, Bod gets wealthier.

So, fewer companies, fewer jobs. Repeat. and Repeat. And repeat. So?? So far, everyone posting to this blog is happy. Corporations are wealthier, though fewer. Jobs are fewer. and competition for jobs is greater, making labor cheaper. And workers poorer. And repeat.

Problem is, it goes untill you reach the bottom. Anybody see a solution, or is this simply where you want the country to go? Is this where you want to see your future?

I do not. But that is just a value statement.

Consolidation and growth of individual companies leads to economies of scale, but it also makes the companies less nimble and less able to innovate new products and services. In the past that's where new companies come in and exploit those missed opportunities. That hasn't happened generally due to the factors I listed above.

 

[Rshermr]

So, businesses are in business for Proffit. To make their board of directors happy and wealthy, right. no judgement, just the way it is. So, to them, mergers are great. The bod gets wealthier.
and to them, outsoursing is great. cuts costs, makes proffits bigger. Bod gets wealthier.
Then, to them, autoation is great. cuts labor costs, increases proffits, Bod gets wealthier.

So, fewer companies, fewer jobs. Repeat. and Repeat. And repeat. So?? So far, everyone posting to this blog is happy. Corporations are wealthier, though fewer. Jobs are fewer. and competition for jobs is greater, making labor cheaper. And workers poorer. And repeat.

Problem is, it goes untill you reach the bottom. Anybody see a solution, or is this simply where you want the country to go? Is this where you want to see your future?

I do not. But that is just a value statement.

^ This is what happens when people comment on topics they know nothing about

so, come on genius. what do I have wrong. Never said i had the answers.

 

[Rshermr]

Yep. In my experience, growth of businesses at some point leads to dis economies of scale. But, problem is, there is this whole issue of barriers to entry. Microsoft was a great thing, but it is near impossible to create a new company to compete with Microsoft. they can afford to put you out of business with simple price competition, losing money till you are gone, then raising prices again. So, anybody see any problem with Monopoly Power??? The fathers of capitalism certainly did, but capitalism tends toward monopoly. In most areas. Sometimes regional monopolies, sometimes national, sometimes international.
So, Mergers and Acquisitions:
1. They are happening.
2. There is no known reason for them to stop.
3. The result is fewer and fewer companies in any industry.
4. The result of monopolies is control of prices, both purchased and sold.
And the lowering of labor costs, as fewer available employers compete for more workers.
5. Greater and greater bariers to entry for competitors.

Since so far the idea is to eliminate gov intervention entirely, what controls monopoly power?? Or is it no problem, irregardless of what Adam Smith and his cronies thought.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Microsoft was a great thing, but it is near impossible to create a new company to compete with Microsoft.

too stupid!!! Ever heard of Apple, Red Hat, Oracle, VMware, Sun, Google, IBM,
the internet ????

Microsoft is in the dying PC market so who cares anyway. Its already a victim of its own success. It did not even see the internet coming or the cell phone OS. Besides, they have always almost given their products away for fear of competition!!

Fear of competition, low prices, great products is not a monopoly. MIcrosoft's monopolu is as goods as IBM/s was, i,e,m not very good.Sorry.


See why we say a liberal willl be slow. Do you ever get anything right??

Got it now????

 

[asterism]

Yep. In my experience, growth of businesses at some point leads to dis economies of scale. But, problem is, there is this whole issue of barriers to entry. Microsoft was a great thing, but it is near impossible to create a new company to compete with Microsoft. they can afford to put you out of business with simple price competition, losing money till you are gone, then raising prices again. So, anybody see any problem with Monopoly Power??? The fathers of capitalism certainly did, but capitalism tends toward monopoly. In most areas. Sometimes regional monopolies, sometimes national, sometimes international.
So, Mergers and Acquisitions:
1. They are happening.
2. There is no known reason for them to stop.
3. The result is fewer and fewer companies in any industry.
4. The result of monopolies is control of prices, both purchased and sold.
And the lowering of labor costs, as fewer available employers compete for more workers.
5. Greater and greater bariers to entry for competitors.

Since so far the idea is to eliminate gov intervention entirely, what controls monopoly power?? Or is it no problem, irregardless of what Adam Smith and his cronies thought.

Who said to eliminate government intervention entirely?

Also, there is a HUGE company that directly competed with Microsoft - and WON! That company is Google.

Other examples of companies that compete with Microsoft and are winning:

Oracle (even more with their acquisition of Sun)
Apple (iOs vs. Windows CE, iPad vs. Surface, OS X vs. Windows)
Millions of web developers that use Linux (still the largest market share of web servers on the planet)
Salesforce.com

 

[asterism]

Wal Mart sells LOTS of cell phones. Their "few size fits most" model has left a gaping hole for sales of service plans. A Verizon authorized reseller opened up a full service store in the same shopping center.

 

[tjvh]

What do you think people want? A job? More government handouts? To punish the rich?

Why do you think there are no jobs? Why do you think companies send jobs over seas? Could it be that they can't find good workers here?

So, you are a con tool. Expressing con dogma. All of which is your little opinion. Profound. And completely unhelpfull.

You must be so proud of yourself.

Another one who believes that a business exists to provide high paying jobs... Sorry, but a business exists to make a profit for it's owners and shareholders... If that means passing over Union workers, in favor of cheap foreign labor, that is the sole business of the owners of that company to decide... Not you.

 

[asterism]

Yep. In my experience, growth of businesses at some point leads to dis economies of scale. But, problem is, there is this whole issue of barriers to entry. Microsoft was a great thing, but it is near impossible to create a new company to compete with Microsoft. they can afford to put you out of business with simple price competition, losing money till you are gone, then raising prices again. So, anybody see any problem with Monopoly Power??? The fathers of capitalism certainly did, but capitalism tends toward monopoly. In most areas. Sometimes regional monopolies, sometimes national, sometimes international.
So, Mergers and Acquisitions:
1. They are happening.
2. There is no known reason for them to stop.
3. The result is fewer and fewer companies in any industry.
4. The result of monopolies is control of prices, both purchased and sold.
And the lowering of labor costs, as fewer available employers compete for more workers.
5. Greater and greater bariers to entry for competitors.

Since so far the idea is to eliminate gov intervention entirely, what controls monopoly power?? Or is it no problem, irregardless of what Adam Smith and his cronies thought.

Just a small sample of companies that have been founded and thrived since Microsoft created MSN, an investment of billions of dollars to harness the Internet:

Facebook
Pintrest
Google
MySpace
Vimeo
Mint

 

[Rshermr]

Yep. In my experience, growth of businesses at some point leads to dis economies of scale. But, problem is, there is this whole issue of barriers to entry. Microsoft was a great thing, but it is near impossible to create a new company to compete with Microsoft. they can afford to put you out of business with simple price competition, losing money till you are gone, then raising prices again. So, anybody see any problem with Monopoly Power??? The fathers of capitalism certainly did, but capitalism tends toward monopoly. In most areas. Sometimes regional monopolies, sometimes national, sometimes international.
So, Mergers and Acquisitions:
1. They are happening.
2. There is no known reason for them to stop.
3. The result is fewer and fewer companies in any industry.
4. The result of monopolies is control of prices, both purchased and sold.
And the lowering of labor costs, as fewer available employers compete for more workers.
5. Greater and greater bariers to entry for competitors.

Since so far the idea is to eliminate gov intervention entirely, what controls monopoly power?? Or is it no problem, irregardless of what Adam Smith and his cronies thought.

Who said to eliminate government intervention entirely?

Also, there is a HUGE company that directly competed with Microsoft - and WON! That company is Google.

Other examples of companies that compete with Microsoft and are winning:

Oracle (even more with their acquisition of Sun)
Apple (iOs vs. Windows CE, iPad vs. Surface, OS X vs. Windows)
Millions of web developers that use Linux (still the largest market share of web servers on the planet)
Salesforce.com

So, did someone say that new companies do not make it?? So, lets look at your list:

Who said to eliminate government intervention entirely?

OK. What should be the gov role"

Also, there is a HUGE company that directly competed with Microsoft - and WON! That company is Google.

Google competes with Bing, which has been introduced to compete with Google. And slowly, as a result of the Google search engine success, Google is trying to make inroads with Chrome against internet explorer. So, google went around the impediments to competition. In an area where MS was not.

Other examples of companies that compete with Microsoft and are winning:

Oracle (even more with their acquisition of Sun)

Oracle did not come into the market competing with Ms, but as a db management system, and a barage of purchased companies that they fit together. Peoplesoft, now Sun. And so forth. But heavily invested in Unix products. they are the second largest sw company, after ms, and have been at it for many years. They got in not competing with MS, but in related areas where MS is not. They now are, without doubt, a MS competitor.

Apple (iOs vs. Windows CE, iPad vs. Surface, OS X vs. Windows)

As old as MS. Came after the same market. MS won, except for graphics applications, for which OS X is a great product. The other products were in non MS controlled markets.
Millions of web developers that use Linux (still the largest market share of web servers on the planet)UH, ok. Linux is not a major player, even today. But it is a product that went at MS as a lower cost and less complex alternative.

Salesforce.com

Don't think I ever thought of Salesforce as a competitor to MS. Maybe I missed something, and MS got into the CRM market. But not a real competitor, at all.

so, you named some competitors, and some other companies that are in near by markets. Notice that mergers are happening there?
Also, you are in a good market to compete, because there are so many possible areas. Thousands of sw makers. So, likely a good place to be if you are the SW developer type of person.

But the point remains. for Many, many people, who are capable of manufacturing jobs, the barriers to entry help protect the big guys. Seen any one doing well at competing with General Electric??
See any expansion in the number of cell phone companies???

 

[Rshermr]

What do you think people want? A job? More government handouts? To punish the rich?

Why do you think there are no jobs? Why do you think companies send jobs over seas? Could it be that they can't find good workers here?

So, you are a con tool. Expressing con dogma. All of which is your little opinion. Profound. And completely unhelpfull.

You must be so proud of yourself.

Another one who believes that a business exists to provide high paying jobs... Sorry, but a business exists to make a profit for it's owners and shareholders... If that means passing over Union workers, in favor of cheap foreign labor, that is the sole business of the owners of that company to decide... Not you.

OK. Got it. You just parroted what I said about business, by the way. So you see no solution, just basically screw them.
Got it. thanks for your valuable contribution.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So you see no solution, just basically screw them.

dear, he gave you the solution?? A business must survive and to do that it has to offer the best jobs and best products in the world!!

Do you want a system wherein our companies offer only the worst jobs and worst products in the world???

See why we are 1000% positive a liberal will be slow??

 

[Rshermr]

So you see no solution, just basically screw them.

dear, he gave you the solution?? A business must survive and to do that it has to offer the best jobs and best products in the world!!

Do you want a system wherein our companies offer only the worst jobs and worst products in the world???

See why we are 1000% positive a liberal will be slow??

Thanks for your valuable contribution, ed. Not sure what we would do without you. So, got your vote. Libertarian economics all the way. And let the middle class fall where it may.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Libertarian economics all the way.

too bad as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to say what you have against libertarian economics or capitalism.

See why we we say slow????????

 

[Rshermr]

Libertarian economics all the way.

too bad as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to say what you have against libertarian economics or capitalism.

See why we we say slow????????

the quote does not mention capitalism, me boy. But libertarianism is your bag. You just can not name a successful nation that is under a libertarian economic policy. Because, you see, it never works. So, I just think it is kind of funny.
and, ed, me boy. You should really stop the whole liberal inslut thing. You have to have some respect for anyone to be affected by your insults. And no one respects you, ed. Sad. But true.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You just can not name a successful nation that is under a libertarian economic policy.

the USA was founded by libertarian capitalists and grew to be the most successful country in human history becuase of it!! China just switched to capitalism and instantly achieved the highest growth rates in human history!! Israel just switched and the same thing happened!!

Poor Cubans jumped across the water to libertarian America and suddenly got rich!! Germany divided into libertarian and socialist. Guess what happened; guess what liberals lack the IQ to see??


See why we say a liberal will be slow??

 

[asterism]

Yep. In my experience, growth of businesses at some point leads to dis economies of scale. But, problem is, there is this whole issue of barriers to entry. Microsoft was a great thing, but it is near impossible to create a new company to compete with Microsoft. they can afford to put you out of business with simple price competition, losing money till you are gone, then raising prices again. So, anybody see any problem with Monopoly Power??? The fathers of capitalism certainly did, but capitalism tends toward monopoly. In most areas. Sometimes regional monopolies, sometimes national, sometimes international.
So, Mergers and Acquisitions:
1. They are happening.
2. There is no known reason for them to stop.
3. The result is fewer and fewer companies in any industry.
4. The result of monopolies is control of prices, both purchased and sold.
And the lowering of labor costs, as fewer available employers compete for more workers.
5. Greater and greater bariers to entry for competitors.

Since so far the idea is to eliminate gov intervention entirely, what controls monopoly power?? Or is it no problem, irregardless of what Adam Smith and his cronies thought.

Who said to eliminate government intervention entirely?

Also, there is a HUGE company that directly competed with Microsoft - and WON! That company is Google.

Other examples of companies that compete with Microsoft and are winning:

Oracle (even more with their acquisition of Sun)
Apple (iOs vs. Windows CE, iPad vs. Surface, OS X vs. Windows)
Millions of web developers that use Linux (still the largest market share of web servers on the planet)
Salesforce.com

So, did someone say that new companies do not make it?? So, lets look at your list:

OK. What should be the gov role"



Google competes with Bing, which has been introduced to compete with Google. And slowly, as a result of the Google search engine success, Google is trying to make inroads with Chrome against internet explorer. So, google went around the impediments to competition. In an area where MS was not.


Oracle did not come into the market competing with Ms, but as a db management system, and a barage of purchased companies that they fit together. Peoplesoft, now Sun. And so forth. But heavily invested in Unix products. they are the second largest sw company, after ms, and have been at it for many years. They got in not competing with MS, but in related areas where MS is not. They now are, without doubt, a MS competitor.

Apple (iOs vs. Windows CE, iPad vs. Surface, OS X vs. Windows)

As old as MS. Came after the same market. MS won, except for graphics applications, for which OS X is a great product. The other products were in non MS controlled markets.
Millions of web developers that use Linux (still the largest market share of web servers on the planet)UH, ok. Linux is not a major player, even today. But it is a product that went at MS as a lower cost and less complex alternative.

Salesforce.com

Don't think I ever thought of Salesforce as a competitor to MS. Maybe I missed something, and MS got into the CRM market. But not a real competitor, at all.

so, you named some competitors, and some other companies that are in near by markets. Notice that mergers are happening there?
Also, you are in a good market to compete, because there are so many possible areas. Thousands of sw makers. So, likely a good place to be if you are the SW developer type of person.

But the point remains. for Many, many people, who are capable of manufacturing jobs, the barriers to entry help protect the big guys. Seen any one doing well at competing with General Electric??
See any expansion in the number of cell phone companies???

Your flawed analysis aside, you are correct that software is a growth industry.

So what you are really worried about is the manufacturing sector. That's just not a growth industry because it doesn't require much skill on a massive scale and automation is making those skills less and less valuable. That's why the US can't compete with China there. The solution isn't to artificially prop up a declining sector, it's to innovate something new.

Although with a growing global demand for manufactured goods the US could be a hotbed of prototyping and engineering. That's not something that can be forced by some protectionist policies though. It takes an entrepreneurial environment.

 

[Rshermr]

You just can not name a successful nation that is under a libertarian economic policy.

the USA was founded by libertarian capitalists and grew to be the most successful country in human history becuase of it!! China just switched to capitalism and instantly achieved the highest growth rates in human history!! Israel just switched and the same thing happened!!

Poor Cubans jumped across the water to libertarian America and suddenly got rich!! Germany divided into libertarian and socialist. Guess what happened; guess what liberals lack the IQ to see??


See why we say a liberal will be slow??

Wow. Us and China. You are full of shit, me boy. We regulate all sorts of things, have a huge government, and lots of taxes. So, if you think we ever were a libertarian country, good for you. You are full of crap, but that is what libertarians do. Funny.

When you really know there are no libertarian countries, you simply need to go to the web and look out there at all the libertarians trying to find a libertarian country. All over ron pauls site, for instance. And they come up with answers, then dismiss it as they learn it is no where near libertarian. They can not find one, ed me boy. They talk about starts, that were glorious in their little minds, but all FAIL. Always.
But if you really want to understand the stupidity, check this link:
Libertarian Island: A billionaire's utopia - The Week

We have a high tech billionaire trying to build floating Libertarian countries. Artificial islands. Now, do you suppose he had a difficult time finding a libertarian country??

because, you see, people do not like the concept once they see it. So, you have to end up with a very few people, living in what would be misery. Not condusive to ever working, now is it, now, ed.

BUT. BUT!!! BUT!!!! IF YOU ARE THE KOCH BROTHERS, YOU CAN GET MUCH, MUCH RICHER BY PUSHING IGNORANT TOOLS TO HELP YOU PUSH TOWARD THAT LIBERTARIAN IDEAL. THE TOOL GETS LITTLE, BUT THE KOCH BROTHERS AND THEIR LIKE, GET RICH.

So there is poor ed, and others of his ilk, taking the bucks from these masters, and believing as hard as they can. In a philosopy and an economic ideal that has never worked, and never will. If guys like ed were not so sad, they would be much funnier.

 

[akelch]

And that will help the lack of jobs issue how????

too stupid!!! Capitalism and the law of supply and demand of course !! Ever notice how supply equals demand when the government does not interfere??

Yup. If monopoly does not exist. But it does. And it gets greater, through mergers and acquisitions. Which create more M and A's. Fewer jobs, etc. Why do you expect it will change, Ed. We are not in your little perfect agrarian capitalist economy. We have corporations with insatiable appetites for more and more mergers. take a look around.

Monopolies exist because of Crony Capitalism....a free market would fix that.

The only way a business grows in a free markets is by pleasing the customer.

 

[Rshermr]

Who said to eliminate government intervention entirely?

Also, there is a HUGE company that directly competed with Microsoft - and WON! That company is Google.

Other examples of companies that compete with Microsoft and are winning:

Oracle (even more with their acquisition of Sun)
Apple (iOs vs. Windows CE, iPad vs. Surface, OS X vs. Windows)
Millions of web developers that use Linux (still the largest market share of web servers on the planet)
Salesforce.com

So, did someone say that new companies do not make it?? So, lets look at your list:

OK. What should be the gov role"



Google competes with Bing, which has been introduced to compete with Google. And slowly, as a result of the Google search engine success, Google is trying to make inroads with Chrome against internet explorer. So, google went around the impediments to competition. In an area where MS was not.


Oracle did not come into the market competing with Ms, but as a db management system, and a barage of purchased companies that they fit together. Peoplesoft, now Sun. And so forth. But heavily invested in Unix products. they are the second largest sw company, after ms, and have been at it for many years. They got in not competing with MS, but in related areas where MS is not. They now are, without doubt, a MS competitor.


As old as MS. Came after the same market. MS won, except for graphics applications, for which OS X is a great product. The other products were in non MS controlled markets.
Millions of web developers that use Linux (still the largest market share of web servers on the planet)UH, ok. Linux is not a major player, even today. But it is a product that went at MS as a lower cost and less complex alternative.

Salesforce.com

Don't think I ever thought of Salesforce as a competitor to MS. Maybe I missed something, and MS got into the CRM market. But not a real competitor, at all.

so, you named some competitors, and some other companies that are in near by markets. Notice that mergers are happening there?
Also, you are in a good market to compete, because there are so many possible areas. Thousands of sw makers. So, likely a good place to be if you are the SW developer type of person.

But the point remains. for Many, many people, who are capable of manufacturing jobs, the barriers to entry help protect the big guys. Seen any one doing well at competing with General Electric??
See any expansion in the number of cell phone companies???

Your flawed analysis aside, you are correct that software is a growth industry.

So what you are really worried about is the manufacturing sector. That's just not a growth industry because it doesn't require much skill on a massive scale and automation is making those skills less and less valuable. That's why the US can't compete with China there. The solution isn't to artificially prop up a declining sector, it's to innovate something new.

Although with a growing global demand for manufactured goods the US could be a hotbed of prototyping and engineering. That's not something that can be forced by some protectionist policies though. It takes an entrepreneurial environment.

Uh, relative to manufacturing, you may want to take a look at Germany, where the manufacturing industries are doing very well.

What the issue is, in my mind, is what do we end up with. We see heavy pressure to decrease spending including on EDUCATION. And again, not every worker can or will become a software developer. And by the way, that is quickly being outsourced, primarily to INDIA. So, net net, corporations are doing well. The few at the top are getting richer and richer. Over recent years, the top 1% of income earners are receiving 93% of revenue growth. You should really check out this link, to understand.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

So, this is a symptom of what happens when jobs are fewer, and businesses are fewer and more monopolistic.