Case 1: “…They are not profitable, ergo they can't.” And why are they not profitable? Do you believe that being able to set prices is the only thing that affects a company being profitable? Your syllogism does not match reality.
Case 2: Again, the syllogism bears little resemblance to reality. My last post had to do with news agencies. Murdock can and does set his rates. How many cities no longer have two or three competing newspapers? How many different companies own news outlets? What is the major purpose of GE? Disney? When vested interests own the airwaves (cables these days), what competition is even possible? When one car company produces numerous ‘different’ brands, makes and models, in reality ‘competing’ with them self, where is the competition? When a large auto company follows it’s legal and fiduciary responsibility by offering the shareholders a quick and largest possible return on their investment rather than looking for long term profitability let alone viability, how can this form of mismanagement, even though it is a type of monopoly, be compared to some ideal about the market place? Again, too limited of a view, in my view. On Nov 24, 5:54 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ignoring your rant, I will simply point out that if GM and its cohorts > could set pricing where they wished, they would set the price at a > level that would enable them to be profitable. They are not > profitable, ergo they can't. > > If you were a CFO, then you must have some basic knowledge of > economics. When there is a competitive market, there is a market > demand curve and an individual firm demand curve. The demand curve > for an individual firm is very elastic, the market less so. When a > firm in a competitive market raises its prices, demand drops **a > lot**, therefore price levels are determined by the market. If the > firm had a monopolistic position, its individual demand curve would be > identical to the market demand curve and it could price its products > to maximize revenue. > > On Nov 24, 7:43 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > You entirely misread me when you assign an ‘anti business’ attitude in > > my direction. I have owned small businesses. I have been CFO of a > > manufacturing firm. I have worked for a University, non-profit > > organizations, as an independent contractor etc. > > > I am anti-propaganda which is what is found on most corporate > > infotainment ‘news’ programs. During my lifetime, I’ve seen gross > > changes in the way the media presents and collects information. The > > news agencies have become trusts, monopolies and consortiums. They > > have been deregulated in many of the more important areas assuring > > that precious little actual news is presented. Decades ago, I could > > learn some things from watching/listening to news programs. Today, not > > so much. > > > I am against the new influx of public money into the corporate and > > multinational coffers. And, especially so since there have been little > > to no restraints as to how the ‘gift’ (not loan) is to be spent. > > Again, IF the government were to actually nationalize the banks, auto > > industry etc. which would be one possible return on such a large > > investment, we could expand the discussion. Also, IF what were > > happening is that the government is in fact purchasing stock, again we > > could discuss this further. That is not what is happening. > > > As an aside, corporations are not democracies. They are dictatorships. > > Just try to cross them! Nader used to be able to. Laws have changed > > and he can’t do this any more. > > > Since the deregulation of how those who lobby the US congress has > > become almost total, we have shifted to what can truly be called a > > fascist form of government in the tradition of Benito Mussolini's > > Italy. It can also be called an oligarchy. While this can be seen as > > hyperbole, when more carefully examined, the components are all there. > > Those who haven't lived through the last half century may not have as > > much experience living in different political environments. > > > And, since you have analyzed my bias, I will suggest strongly that > > your view is not only grossly simplistic and ignores most of the > > larger picture, it would seem that you use these simplistic views to > > support whatever point you start out to make without much/any room for > > a discussion. I would prefer the latter…a discussion. > > > And, like the omnipresent propaganda of the current ‘big brother’ > > which includes the very notion of as well as the manifestation of > > Corporations, I tire of such attempts at imposing a singular and > > supportive of vested interests view. This is what Noam was talking > > about in the video when he discussed two forms of democracy and that > > the current view is in fact a dictatorship. > > > Yes, I know I’m conflating my original post and rants with the Chomsky > > video. I find them to be compatible. > > > On a different board, I posted this quote from a movie. The components > > and ethos differ somewhat today, but the tenor doesn’t. > > > “So, does this quitation from the 1976 movie, Network, still hold > > water? > > > "Arthur Jensen: [bellowing] You have meddled with the primal forces > > of > > nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it! Is that clear? You think > > you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case! The > > Arabs > > have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must > > put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological > > balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and > > peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no > > Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no > > West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and > > immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion > > of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, > > reichmarks, > > rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of > > currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That > > is > > the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic > > and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the > > primal forces of nature, and YOU...WILL...ATONE!"” > > > *** pushes soapbox back under the couch ending the most recent rant > > *** > > > On Nov 24, 4:46 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > They are losing money!!! Cartels can price where they wish and make > > > lots of money. > > > > Your anti-business bias seems to really distort your perceptions on > > > this issue. (IMHO, of course.) > > > > On Nov 24, 6:01 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Truth by fiat seldom is questioned by the one who makes the > > > > proclamation. > > > > > On Nov 24, 3:47 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Everything you post contradicts your point of view: > > > > > > ===== > > > > > cartel: > > > > > an association of manufacturers or suppliers formed to MAINTAIN HIGH > > > > > PRICES and RESTRICT COMPETITION. > > > > > ===== > > > > > > This DOES NOT OCCUR IN THE US MARKET.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
