Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (607422)	4/11/2011 3:48:49 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579842

Ted, > The average American has very little if any control over corps. They do have some control over gov't. That's why gov't should always have the upper hand when it comes to corps. On the contrary, Americans have all the power necessary to control corporations. That includes government regulation as well as choosing not to buy their products or services. Contrast this with government, which is under siege by competing special interests. Corporate special interests, union special interests, political action committees, all clashing to ensure that government stays gridlocked. Limited government may be an ideology, but it's a good one to adhere to, and preferable to the ideology that big government is the solution to everything. Tenchusatsu

To: tejek who wrote (607422)	4/11/2011 4:53:24 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1579842

Definition of IDEOLOGUE 1: an impractical idealist : theorist 2: an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology merriam-webster.com An example: I want to tax corporations until they whither and die. Message 27285719

To: tejek who wrote (607422)	4/12/2011 11:04:13 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1579842

The average American has very little if any control over corps. They do have some control over gov't. Consumers have more control over sellers than voters have over government. If consumers stop buying a product its taken off the market, if they stop buying from a particular company it goes out of business. You get to vote for president only every four years, for a particular senate seat only every six, for other things only every two or four most of the time. Your vote will probably never determine any election, particularly a major one. And you don't get to vote for most of the people who pass federal laws over you, there are 535 members of congress, we each only get to vote for 3 of them. And many people with some degree of power in the government are not even elected (and many of that group are not subject to confirmation). And importantly if I don't want to buy from a particular corporation, I can just not buy from them. My lack of purchasing is unlikely to put them under, but it does allow me to a void having a business relationship with them. My vote is similarly unlikely to cause someone to get elected or not elected, but whoever I vote for, or if I don't vote, the government will exercise power over me (it has much more power, and uses it much more freely than any corporation). Tim, you're all over the place. One minute you are opposed to all restraint of trade; the next you are saying it may be a necessity. Which is it? I never said its a necessity. "Although in some cases corporations would actually die (or at least be drastically restructured) if they couldn't get any subsidies, targeted tax breaks, or restraint of trade (not only monopolies, and trade restrictions, but licensing requirements" does not imply that the subsidy is necessary. A company that will die without subsidies probably should die. Its a feature of capitalism not a bug. when there was no restraint of trade, it led to monopolies. Without government protection near monopolies still have some advantages, but if they fail to perform competition will develop. Near monopolies can still feel competitive pressure. For example Standard Oil kept itself a near monopoly for awhile by keeping prices low, and serving its customers well. With government protection (which is the source of most monopolies) there is less competitive pressure, both actual and potential, and less need to control prices or provide good service.