Obamanomics working

[GWRULES2004]

How is breaking up a monopoly so other people can start their own internet providers going back to the stone age? Remember a few years back when At&t was broke up? Something like that.

Once again you have not proven these are monopolies, and not all monopolies are bad for the economy. If the product would not be available otherwise, then a monopoly is better than the alternative. Cell phone companies compete with one another and only in a few areas do you have monopolies in terms of internet service-those areas WOULD NOT HAVE the service otherwise as the cost to provide those services to these underpopulated areas are fairly high.

 

[Umaro]

Once again you have not proven these are monopolies, and not all monopolies are bad for the economy. If the product would not be available otherwise, then a monopoly is better than the alternative. Cell phone companies compete with one another and only in a few areas do you have monopolies in terms of internet service-those areas WOULD NOT HAVE the service otherwise as the cost to provide those services to these underpopulated areas are fairly high.

But once a service reaches such an integrated point that it becomes necessary for everyday life, why should a single businessman dominate the entire nation instead of either making it a controlled, public monopoly like waste disposal or water, or breaking up the monopoly so new companies can enter and compete again? How would you feel if you knew a single man was profiting millions off the USPC? Wouldn't that feel a little unfair to you? We've reached a point where your right to mail a letter is the same as your right to send an email.

 

[GWRULES2004]

But once a service reaches such an integrated point that it becomes necessary for everyday life, why should a single businessman dominate the entire nation instead of either making it a controlled, public monopoly like waste disposal or water, or breaking up the monopoly so new companies can enter and compete again? How would you feel if you knew a single man was profiting millions off the USPC? Wouldn't that feel a little unfair to you? We've reached a point where your right to mail a letter is the same as your right to send an email.

There are no actual monopolies in the US at this point in terms of a large company forcing out competitors and then CHARGING the consumer a higher price which is the danger when it comes to monopolies.

 

[reverend B]

There are no actual monopolies in the US at this point in terms of a large company forcing out competitors and then CHARGING the consumer a higher price which is the danger when it comes to monopolies.

on what do you base this assertion?

 

[wpiman2]

Fine, keep refusing to answer the question. Let's think of another example of a virtual monopoly.

Take the major phone companies, Verizon and At&t. Even if you knew everything there was to know about phones, how could a person of average income, let's say $25k per year, ever start a business to compete with them? How could you possibly afford to set up your own towers and to pay for the advertising to take customers away from their current provider? It is virtually impossible to enter the market, which means that only established companies like Verizon and At&t are competing. It's a virtual duopoly.

I don't even see a question. If you are the average computer user- you have three real plausible OS for everyday work.


So the barriers to entry in the cell phone business are high? Yet, I can currently buy service from AT&T, Verizon, TMobile, Sprint, Boost, MetroPCS, Beyond Mobile, Virgin, TRAC and a couple others at my local mall.

How is this a duopoly? Sounds like a healthy market to me.

Success attracts attention and competition.

 

[variant]

I am not sure I follow your first point. The money has to come back; it is more likely that I will have a job run by a Chinese company-- but not sure that it affects my chances of having a job.

Just consider all the things you can buy that no American made. Your money is going somewhere, and it has to come from somewhere. Producing things is essentially the original foundation of the economy. Services are great, they just are rarely exported (hence the trade deficit).

If we don't produce anything, the economy stagnates. The monetary imbalance puts American companies at an economic disadvantage, so there must necessarily be fewer jobs.

Your second point- I sort of agree with. Cheap credit can be like a drug-- but responsible people will benefit.

Clearly this administration and the last don't qualify.

The point of getting credit is to make an investment, otherwise you are just digging yourself a hole you will eventually either have to dig out of or be buried.

The only justifiable deficits are those that are going to yield greater return in the future.

 

[wpiman2]

Just consider all the things you can buy that no American made. Your money is going somewhere, and it has to come from somewhere. Producing things is essentially the original foundation of the economy. Services are great, they just are rarely exported (hence the trade deficit).

If we don't produce anything, the economy stagnates. The monetary imbalance puts American companies at an economic disadvantage, so there must necessarily be fewer jobs.



The point of getting credit is to make an investment, otherwise you are just digging yourself a hole you will eventually either have to dig out of or be buried.

The only justifiable deficits are those that are going to yield greater return in the future.

First point: America has a surplus on the service trade. You can certainly do quite well just focusing on services. In better times, Greece provided much of the world's shipping. US air carriers once provided much of the world's air travel. All services.

Do you think there is any good that we could NOT build in the USA should it become economically viable to do so? Do you think if our labor became lower than other countries; we couldn't build LCD TVs? The only thing I could see is that regulation might prevent companies from doing it (environmental).

Second point: very, very wise statement. I could not agree more.

 

[Umaro]

There are no actual monopolies in the US at this point in terms of a large company forcing out competitors and then CHARGING the consumer a higher price which is the danger when it comes to monopolies.

That is irrelevant. The problem with even benefitial monopolies are that it is impossible to introduce a new company into the system, preventing upstart small businesses from starting.

 

[GWRULES2004]

on what do you base this assertion?

The facts. I do not know of a single monopoly that is currently operating to the detriment of consumers. If there are, I would like to know.

 

[wpiman2]

That is irrelevant. The problem with even benefitial monopolies are that it is impossible to introduce a new company into the system, preventing upstart small businesses from starting.

Well, if you were a proponent of free trade; you would be arguing that large outside companies would enter a market to compete with this monopoly. The more global the market, the more large players, and the less likely chances there are for a monopoly to form.

 

[variant]

First point: America has a surplus on the service trade. You can certainly do quite well just focusing on services. In better times, Greece provided much of the world's shipping. US air carriers once provided much of the world's air travel. All services.

I didn't say we didn't export services, I said they were less likely to be exported.

So we have a massive overall negative trade deficit thus monetary outflow, which should trigger dollar devaluation, but doesn't (because of previously discussed factors). Because economies run primarily on producing goods, the fewer economic goods produced, the less stable the economy, with less services demanded and fewer support jobs.

Do you think there is any good that we could NOT build in the USA should it become economically viable to do so? Do you think if our labor became lower than other countries; we couldn't build LCD TVs? The only thing I could see is that regulation might prevent companies from doing it (environmental).

It depends. How long do you think it takes for a stagnated industry to be impossible to restart? America stopped making TV’s in the 80's. So how long do you think it would take for an American company to gear up to overtake established companies?

What kind of economic condition would you think the country would be in if it was feasible to make them here? And if those conditions were to exist, would it be the best choice to make them here?

 

[GWRULES2004]

That is irrelevant. The problem with even benefitial monopolies are that it is impossible to introduce a new company into the system, preventing upstart small businesses from starting.

Anyone with a good idea can start a company. They can pitch it to venture capitalists.

 

[wpiman2]

I didn't say we didn't export services, I said they were less likely to be exported.

So we have a massive overall negative trade deficit thus monetary outflow, which should trigger dollar devaluation, but doesn't (because of previously discussed factors). Because economies run primarily on producing goods, the fewer economic goods produced, the less stable the economy, with less services demanded and fewer support jobs.

Just some numbers....
US goods imports $2.169 trillion.
US good exports $1.287 trillion

US service imports $365 billion
US service exports $518 billion

The current account is somewhere around $700 billion in the red. We are talking on a $14 trillion economy.

These are monetary outflows but the capital account couple be offsetting. Very, very tricky. A US company exports to its Mexican plant components, then imports the merchandise, then repatriates profits from the plant. That sort of transaction is common and affects both. Both countries benefit.

It depends. How long do you think it takes for a stagnated industry to be impossible to restart? America stopped making TV’s in the 80's. So how long do you think it would take for an American company to gear up to overtake established companies?

What kind of economic condition would you think the country would be in if it was feasible to make them here? And if those conditions were to exist, would it be the best choice to make them here?
[/QUOTE]

U.S. Stuff Product - Televisions Made in USA

To assemble TVs; pretty quickly. Low level stuff. The fabs that make the chips; another story. But those are already here. The ICs are build here and often shipped overseas to be packaged.

 

[Umaro]

Well, if you were a proponent of free trade; you would be arguing that large outside companies would enter a market to compete with this monopoly. The more global the market, the more large players, and the less likely chances there are for a monopoly to form.

I don't care about companies outside the US. I want jobs for American workers. Free trade has lead to the destruction of American manufacturing, and has destroyed nearly all types unskilled jobs. We need new companies to come on the scene, and it's mostly impossible now.

Anyone with a good idea can start a company. They can pitch it to venture capitalists.

You can't just assume people can start a company. How much money in advertising alone would it take to offset even one town from using one of the established phone providers? You simply cannot set up your own tower system in one town because people call outside of that area, and you can't get a loan large enough to set up nation wide, that would be outrageously expensive and no one would lend that much. CEOs make 13 million in profit a year in bonuses alone, how are you going to beat out that much capital? It's just impossible. Do you honestly think you could pitch to someone "I'm going to make a better fast food system than McDonalds, please lend me millions"? It just doesn't work like that.

 

[TerranceL]

Fine, keep refusing to answer the question. Let's think of another example of a virtual monopoly.

Take the major phone companies, Verizon and At&t. Even if you knew everything there was to know about phones, how could a person of average income, let's say $25k per year, ever start a business to compete with them? How could you possibly afford to set up your own towers and to pay for the advertising to take customers away from their current provider? It is virtually impossible to enter the market, which means that only established companies like Verizon and At&t are competing. It's a virtual duopoly.

Ever heard of Pocket Mobile?

 

[Umaro]

Just some numbers....
US goods imports $2.169 trillion.
US good exports $1.287 trillion

US service imports $365 billion
US service exports $518 billion

The current account is somewhere around $700 billion in the red. We are talking on a $14 trillion economy.

These are monetary outflows but the capital account couple be offsetting. Very, very tricky. A US company exports to its Mexican plant components, then imports the merchandise, then repatriates profits from the plant. That sort of transaction is common and affects both. Both countries benefit.

You don't see a problem with those numbers? Counting total net gains and losses, we're spending $2.805 trillion and selling $1.534 trillion in total. That means each year our economy loses $1.271trillion each year. A country only gains if it's spending less than it takes in, and our corporations are sending away America's money. And I'll tell you one thing, The American government is spending money on services in the country, it's the corporations that are selling out manufacturing.

 

[Umaro]

Ever heard of Pocket Mobile?

Pocket Mobile - Welcome to Pocket Mobile!

This one? Says it runs on Windows Mobile.

 

[GWRULES2004]

I

You can't just assume people can start a company. How much money in advertising alone would it take to offset even one town from using one of the established phone providers? You simply cannot set up your own tower system in one town because people call outside of that area, and you can't get a loan large enough to set up nation wide, that would be outrageously expensive and no one would lend that much. CEOs make 13 million in profit a year in bonuses alone, how are you going to beat out that much capital? It's just impossible. Do you honestly think you could pitch to someone "I'm going to make a better fast food system than McDonalds, please lend me millions"? It just doesn't work like that.

So what is your solution to get small businesses to expand to the point that they could sell to most Americans in a short amount of time? Sorry, no other way to do it other than the way we are doing it.

 

[Umaro]

So what is your solution to get small businesses to expand to the point that they could sell to most Americans in a short amount of time? Sorry, no other way to do it other than the way we are doing it.

I would propose to break up the large companies so that other ones can have a change at competition. Do you really think anyone could offset a superbowl commercial? It's no longer a fair free market competition.

How can you say the way we are doing it works? It's clearly failing. New companies can no longer emerge, and if you claim otherwise prove it.

 

[Zlex]

So let me see if I understand this logic

1] There are dozens of choices for Operating Systems, some of which are free, which for some reason unexplained discounts them as alternatives, therefore there is a monopoly on the operating systems market.

2] There are hundreds of choices for telecommunications companies, but the two biggest ones are AT&T and Verizon (actually, the other big ones are Sprint, T-Mobile, and TracPhone), therefore there is a monopoly.

3] The solution is to punish successful companies in order to deter people, I mean, encourage people to build successful business.

Could you imagine this? Hooray! AT&T was split up, now I am the biggest provider, followed immediately by, crap I'm the biggest provider.

Have I pretty much got this right?