Are there any economic beneffits from global corporations ?

[bripat9643]

A contract requires consent from both parties. When did I ever consent to any "social contract?" Just admit the social contract is a myth before I spend the next 100 posts beating you up about it.

Only capital Contracts have such requirements; socialism embodies this concept:

Wrong, ignoramus. All contracts require consent from all parties they impose terms on. Your mortgage required your consent. Your revolving credit accounts required your consent. You cable service required your consent. Your auto loan required you consent. Getting treated at a hospital requires your consent.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

This addresses the rest of your myth:

The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained

The fallacy you committed is known as the "appeal to authority." Madison was a smart man, but he wasn't infallible. On this issue he erred. That being said, even if it were true, that still wouldn't prove the existence of a social contract.

Not social Contracts; your view is a myth. Only a majority of the States was necessary.

A valid contract requires the consent of all parties who are subject to its terms. That's a fundamental principle of tort law. The Constitution is therefore not a contract.

A social Contract is not a tort law, but a fundamental law.

It's a fairy tail. It's the way demagogues justify their rule.

 

[bripat9643]

Is 1% a monopoly to a marxist liberal??

liberal culturecitizen bites the dust yet again

That's crap!
5 banks 44%
5 largest U.S. banks increase market share - Austin Business Journal

Not a monopoly.

 

[bripat9643]

Much of the world economy is controlled by multinational corporations, especially those engaged in finance:

Revealed the capitalist network that runs the world - physics-math - 19 October 2011 - New Scientist

That has nothing to do with "liberal." If any, it is the result of free market capitalism.

It's only "controlled" in the sense that these corporations provide people the products and services people want. They minute they stop providing these products and services, their so-called "control" disappears.

 

[danielpalos]

Only capital Contracts have such requirements; socialism embodies this concept:

Wrong, ignoramus. All contracts require consent from all parties they impose terms on. Your mortgage required your consent. Your revolving credit accounts required your consent. You cable service required your consent. Your auto loan required you consent. Getting treated at a hospital requires your consent.

This addresses the rest of your myth:

The fallacy you committed is known as the "appeal to authority." Madison was a smart man, but he wasn't infallible. On this issue he erred. That being said, even if it were true, that still wouldn't prove the existence of a social contract.

Not social Contracts; your view is a myth. Only a majority of the States was necessary.

A valid contract requires the consent of all parties who are subject to its terms. That's a fundamental principle of tort law. The Constitution is therefore not a contract.

A social Contract is not a tort law, but a fundamental law.

It's a fairy tail. It's the way demagogues justify their rule.

Simple propaganda and rhetoric to justify not having a clue and a Cause?

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong, ignoramus. All contracts require consent from all parties they impose terms on. Your mortgage required your consent. Your revolving credit accounts required your consent. You cable service required your consent. Your auto loan required you consent. Getting treated at a hospital requires your consent.

The fallacy you committed is known as the "appeal to authority." Madison was a smart man, but he wasn't infallible. On this issue he erred. That being said, even if it were true, that still wouldn't prove the existence of a social contract.

Not social Contracts; your view is a myth. Only a majority of the States was necessary.

A valid contract requires the consent of all parties who are subject to its terms. That's a fundamental principle of tort law. The Constitution is therefore not a contract.

A social Contract is not a tort law, but a fundamental law.

It's a fairy tail. It's the way demagogues justify their rule.

Simple propaganda and rhetoric to justify not having a clue and a Cause?

Wrong. The so-called "social contract" is propaganda. It's an excuse to justify the regime and to procure your compliance.

You telling anyone they don't have a clue is the ultimate irony.

 

[danielpalos]

Not social Contracts; your view is a myth. Only a majority of the States was necessary.

A valid contract requires the consent of all parties who are subject to its terms. That's a fundamental principle of tort law. The Constitution is therefore not a contract.

A social Contract is not a tort law, but a fundamental law.

It's a fairy tail. It's the way demagogues justify their rule.

Simple propaganda and rhetoric to justify not having a clue and a Cause?

Wrong. The so-called "social contract" is propaganda. It's an excuse to justify the regime and to procure your compliance.

You telling anyone they don't have a clue is the ultimate irony.

Why do you believe you are right and our Founding Fathers wrong?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Is 1% a monopoly to a marxist liberal??

liberal culturecitizen bites the dust yet again

That's crap!
5 banks 44%
5 largest U.S. banks increase market share - Austin Business Journal

Not a monopoly.

Rather an oligopoly. Not good anyway.

 

[bripat9643]

A valid contract requires the consent of all parties who are subject to its terms. That's a fundamental principle of tort law. The Constitution is therefore not a contract.

A social Contract is not a tort law, but a fundamental law.

It's a fairy tail. It's the way demagogues justify their rule.

Simple propaganda and rhetoric to justify not having a clue and a Cause?

Wrong. The so-called "social contract" is propaganda. It's an excuse to justify the regime and to procure your compliance.

You telling anyone they don't have a clue is the ultimate irony.

Why do you believe you are right and our Founding Fathers wrong?

I am right and Madison is wrong because of facts and logic. Furthermore, Madison didn't say the Constitution was a social contract, so your quote is entirely beside the point.

 

[bripat9643]

Is 1% a monopoly to a marxist liberal??

liberal culturecitizen bites the dust yet again

That's crap!
5 banks 44%
5 largest U.S. banks increase market share - Austin Business Journal

Not a monopoly.

Rather an oligopoly. Not good anyway.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

A social Contract is not a tort law, but a fundamental law.

It's a fairy tail. It's the way demagogues justify their rule.

Simple propaganda and rhetoric to justify not having a clue and a Cause?

Wrong. The so-called "social contract" is propaganda. It's an excuse to justify the regime and to procure your compliance.

You telling anyone they don't have a clue is the ultimate irony.

Why do you believe you are right and our Founding Fathers wrong?

I am right and Madison is wrong because of facts and logic. Furthermore, Madison didn't say the Constitution was a social contract, so your quote is entirely beside the point.

Which facts and logic is that? A social Contract is a requirement for socialism, to define a form of Government.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a fairy tail. It's the way demagogues justify their rule.

Simple propaganda and rhetoric to justify not having a clue and a Cause?

Wrong. The so-called "social contract" is propaganda. It's an excuse to justify the regime and to procure your compliance.

You telling anyone they don't have a clue is the ultimate irony.

Why do you believe you are right and our Founding Fathers wrong?

I am right and Madison is wrong because of facts and logic. Furthermore, Madison didn't say the Constitution was a social contract, so your quote is entirely beside the point.

Which facts and logic is that? A social Contract is a requirement for socialism, to define a form of Government.

There has never been any social contract in the history of civilization, and force is the only thing required to form a government. That's how every government since the wheel was invented has been formed.

 

[danielpalos]

A social Contract is a requirement for socialism, to define a form of Government.

 

[bripat9643]

A social Contract is a requirement for socialism, to define a form of Government.

Please provide one example of a so-called "social contract" that anyone has ever signed.

 

[danielpalos]

Our federal Constitution defines our government and was signed by our Founding Fathers.

 

[bripat9643]

Our federal Constitution defines our government and was signed by our Founding Fathers.

It's not a contract, and I certainly never signed it. Certainly the vast majority of people it was forced upon never signed it.

 

[danielpalos]

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

 

[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.

 

[CultureCitizen]

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.

 

[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.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Rather an oligopoly. Not good anyway.

Too stupid and liberal by 100% as always. Top 5 banks in USA have 44%. Top 5 in world have 3% and when you include shadow banking system (Goldman Sachs for example) which is 10 times bigger that standard banks our top 5 banks have less than 1%.

See where being a brain dead marxist liberal parrot leads you?