03 Feb 2011, 2:39 am
03 Feb 2011, 3:22 am
03 Feb 2011, 5:40 am
03 Feb 2011, 6:52 am
03 Feb 2011, 6:56 am
03 Feb 2011, 7:06 am
03 Feb 2011, 7:48 am
Zur-Darkstar wrote:
Grisha wrote:
Zur-Darkstar wrote:
It happens in every industry. The big players buy up the smaller players to limit competition so that they can raise prices.
This is one of the fundamental drawbacks of unregulated capitalism. Market share invariably accumulates to a few large corporations. When one company controls a substantial part of the market, they can crush competitors by temporarily pricing below cost. They can also bully suppliers into selling at a lower price than they otherwise would. They can force consumers to buy more products by updating their product line and cutting service to the old lines. There are a number of other ways this goes on. Moreover, they use the power of market share to benefit themselves at others' expense. Every time a corporation uses it's market share to influence the market place, we deviate from the perfect competition and become a little less efficient as an economy. The more economic power is concentrated in the hands of huge multinational conglomerates, the more inefficient our society becomes, and as always, the people on the bottom feel the most hurt. This is classical economic theory straight from Adam Smith and it's what the Republican Party is
hoping that the middle class won't figure out.
I used to use match.com and it's not a bad site, but the people on there tend to be rather mainstream extroverted people. I find more geeks, oddballs, and otherwise different people on OKCupid which is why I use it more. If OKCupid changes sufficiently that these people leave, they'll go somewhere else and I will also.
This is one of the fundamental drawbacks of unregulated capitalism. Market share invariably accumulates to a few large corporations. When one company controls a substantial part of the market, they can crush competitors by temporarily pricing below cost. They can also bully suppliers into selling at a lower price than they otherwise would. They can force consumers to buy more products by updating their product line and cutting service to the old lines. There are a number of other ways this goes on. Moreover, they use the power of market share to benefit themselves at others' expense. Every time a corporation uses it's market share to influence the market place, we deviate from the perfect competition and become a little less efficient as an economy. The more economic power is concentrated in the hands of huge multinational conglomerates, the more inefficient our society becomes, and as always, the people on the bottom feel the most hurt. This is classical economic theory straight from Adam Smith and it's what the Republican Party is
hoping that the middle class won't figure out.
I used to use match.com and it's not a bad site, but the people on there tend to be rather mainstream extroverted people. I find more geeks, oddballs, and otherwise different people on OKCupid which is why I use it more. If OKCupid changes sufficiently that these people leave, they'll go somewhere else and I will also.
As an ex-Wall Street Minion, I agree with every word that you said. This is exactly how "too big to fail" happens and straightjackets the economy into a situation that a more decentralized structure would naturally be able to handle.
The thing that's really spooky though is when you're in the middle of it, you become completely desensitized to it. You see "operational synergies" that create a beautiful result from your point of view, but it never occurs to you that it means 1,000 people losing their
jobs. It's just numbers on an income statement...
I can certainly understand how it does make sense from a certain point of view. It's not as if there are a bunch of guys in a room toiling their mustaches thinking "how can we ruin the economy today". It's just everybody acting in their own interests, and then you end up with a result that isn't really good for anybody except a handful of political and corporate elites at the top of the pyramid.
It's called "building shareholder value" and it's a sacred mission that justifies any excess. Anything done in the name of the "shareholders" is good and accepted without question. The interests of one "shareholder" is far more valuable than a thousand "employees".
Never really thought about who the "shareholders" are...
03 Feb 2011, 9:10 am
03 Feb 2011, 9:15 am
03 Feb 2011, 10:07 am
curlyfry
Veteran
Joined: 13 Jun 2010
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,502
Location: Latitude : 45.373. Longitude : -84.955
03 Feb 2011, 10:13 am
03 Feb 2011, 10:25 am
03 Feb 2011, 10:37 am
Grisha wrote:
It's called "building shareholder value" and it's a sacred mission that justifies any excess. Anything done in the name of the "shareholders" is good and accepted without question. The interests of one "shareholder" is far more valuable than a thousand "employees".
Never really thought about who the "shareholders" are...
Never really thought about who the "shareholders" are...
Oh I actually have an MBA so I know all the terminology. Some shareholders are everyday people that own stock or invest in mutual funds. However, the reality is that most stock is held either by other companies or large investment firms that handle the money of those that would be considered "wealthy" by most everyday people. Most people that have enough shares to sit on the board are those that were born into family fortunes that have been built and maintained over generations. IMO, the bigger problem isn't corporations as such, but rather the transfer of wealth from one generation to the next, where some are born independently wealthy and will never have to work to maintain their lifestyle. Henry Ford deserved to get wealthy for building a company from the ground up, developing new products and ways of producing things, and creating thousands of jobs. What have all his descendants done since then? There are similar stories for just about every major corporation you can name. It's far more efficient if money goes to the actual innovators, producers, and workers in a society, rather than maintaining an aristocracy of the idle rich. If I were dictator, I'd implement a hard cap on how much children can inherit from parents at about the level of what it would take to pass on a small business (in the several millions of dollars). The remainder would be seized by the state as tax revenue. Property could simply be sold off. Who ends up with the property isn't really that important, but that it changes hands based upon the marketplace rather than based upon parentage. Ultimately it's about the most efficient use of resources in a society and preventing the formation of hereditary aristocracies, which have for ages been the bane of efficiency, innovation, and progress in human society.
03 Feb 2011, 11:13 am
Zur-Darkstar wrote:
Grisha wrote:
It's called "building shareholder value" and it's a sacred mission that justifies any excess. Anything done in the name of the "shareholders" is good and accepted without question. The interests of one "shareholder" is far more valuable than a thousand "employees".
Never really thought about who the "shareholders" are...
Never really thought about who the "shareholders" are...
Oh I actually have an MBA so I know all the terminology. Some shareholders are everyday people that own stock or invest in mutual funds. However, the reality is that most stock is held either by other companies or large investment firms that handle the money of those that would be considered "wealthy" by most everyday people. Most people that have enough shares to sit on the board are those that were born into family fortunes that have been built and maintained over generations. IMO, the bigger problem isn't corporations as such, but rather the transfer of wealth from one generation to the next, where some are born independently wealthy and will never have to work to maintain their lifestyle. Henry Ford deserved to get wealthy for building a company from the ground up, developing new products and ways of producing things, and creating thousands of jobs. What have all his descendants done since then? There are similar stories for just about every major corporation you can name. It's far more efficient if money goes to the actual innovators, producers, and workers in a society, rather than maintaining an aristocracy of the idle rich. If I were dictator, I'd implement a hard cap on how much children can inherit from parents at about the level of what it would take to pass on a small business (in the several millions of dollars). The remainder would be seized by the state as tax revenue. Property could simply be sold off. Who ends up with the property isn't really that important, but that it changes hands based upon the marketplace rather than based upon parentage. Ultimately it's about the most efficient use of resources in a society and preventing the formation of hereditary aristocracies, which have for ages been the bane of efficiency, innovation, and progress in human society.
This is the idea behind the estate tax, and why Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Warren Buffet are giving thier money to charity. I think that is the point, to avoid hereditary aristocracies based on "old money".
03 Feb 2011, 11:24 am
03 Feb 2011, 11:37 am
