The Power Of Competition

To many taxes kill Competition

from JoeUser Forums

Here we are in another year 2009 came in with a whimper. We are being told that we are in the worse "recession" ever {read depression} since the 1930's. The President-Elect believes the government can spend our way out of this problem. He wants to have a "second stimulus bill " on his desk on January 20Th, so he can sign it. The purpose of a second stimulus package is to get the country spending again. The first one failed dismally since responsible citizens used the money they got to pay bills instead of going out and spending it for toys and getting into more debt.

There is in our history an American Statesman named Henry Clay who said " I would rather be right than to be President." It was Henry Clay who became known as "the great Pacifier" He much like our President-Elect thinks we can negotiate with our enemies. Because of his compromises of 1850, Clay attacked both Abolitionism and Slavery, Believing that they would expire naturally. Clays compromise alienated the anti-slavery states, and that ended any chance he might have had for the presidency.. Clay learned by sad experience to believe, in his older years, Of all human powers operating on the affairs of mankind, none is greater than competition. {socialism pretty much kill competition} So far unless we let Obama turn this great "land of the free home of the brave" into a socialistic European model country we still have competition. WE cannot let this die off just to please a few people, while the vast majority believe that this country is great because of capitalism, not some watered down form of communism.

If we the people remain silent I believe that a President Obama will turn America into a country we will not recognize anymore.

politics
25,965 views 30 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top

alot of people dont see it like this.... in fact they look at "who will give me the most free handouts"

 

Fact guys and i dont care what you say. Ive seen so many examples of this that its put me in the spot where people want something for nothing and not have to work for it.

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

You're right, into one we won't recognize because hopefully, finally we the people will be able to see pass the dismal life that so many seem to lead!  Competition is always good I agree Elie, because having a monopoly is never good for consumers. Our leaders make decisions they think will help its people, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.  Everyone learns by trial and error.  It is with hope that I do look forward to what 2009 will bring, because without hope, what else is there? It is this hope that ushers in a new team in the White House, will they be given the chance to lead?

Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting watertown1978, reply 1
alot of people dont see it like this.... in fact they look at "who will give me the most free handouts" Fact guys and i dont care what you say. Ive seen so many examples of this that its put me in the spot where people want something for nothing and not have to work for it.

This is what the Democrats feed on, the hopelessness of poor people, they get elected on it by promising free handouts, it''s kind of like their platform is "vote for me and I will give you money"

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting foreverserenity, reply 2
You're right, into one we won't recognize because hopefully, finally we the people will be able to see pass the dismal life that so many seem to lead!  Competition is always good I agree Elie, because having a monopoly is never good for consumers. Our leaders make decisions they think will help its people, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.  Everyone learns by trial and error.  It is with hope that I do look forward to what 2009 will bring, because without hope, what else is there? It is this hope that ushers in a new team in the White House, will they be given the chance to lead?

I to hope for the best from Team Obama, but truthfully all I see so far is just another politician.

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

Of course, the Republicans aren't too much better than the Democrats when it comes to turning our country into the next Soviet Union.  Bush ignored the bailout plan when he could have vetoed it, in essence tacitly agreeing to it.

And yes, I agree Moderateman, the Democrats definitely make a point of the "vote for me and I'll give you [insert random lie here]."  There isn't a thing that Obama has said that FDR or others hadn't said before him, especially that universal health care one.  And yes, Obama and virtually all Democrats are socialist.  They figure we should fund these programs with a "little" bump in taxes for the rich who can afford it, "spreading the wealth," as it were.  We all remember Joe the Plumber, don't we?

Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting IQofSpam, reply 5
Of course, the Republicans aren't too much better than the Democrats when it comes to turning our country into the next Soviet Union.  Bush ignored the bailout plan when he could have vetoed it, in essence tacitly agreeing to it.And yes, I agree Moderateman, the Democrats definitely make a point of the "vote for me and I'll give you [insert random lie here]."  There isn't a thing that Obama has said that FDR or others hadn't said before him, especially that universal health care one.  And yes, Obama and virtually all Democrats are socialist.  They figure we should fund these programs with a "little" bump in taxes for the rich who can afford it, "spreading the wealth," as it were.  We all remember Joe the Plumber, don't we?

If you close your eyes and just listen the Republicans sound much like the liberals of old. I switched to the Republican party in 2003 after being a long time Democrat, now I am thinking it's time to switch to something else again.

Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting Moderateman, reply 6

IQofSpamcomment 5Of course, the Republicans aren't too much better than the Democrats when it comes to turning our country into the next Soviet Union.  Bush ignored the bailout plan when he could have vetoed it, in essence tacitly agreeing to it.And yes, I agree Moderateman, the Democrats definitely make a point of the "vote for me and I'll give you [insert random lie here]."  There isn't a thing that Obama has said that FDR or others hadn't said before him, especially that universal health care one.  And yes, Obama and virtually all Democrats are socialist.  They figure we should fund these programs with a "little" bump in taxes for the rich who can afford it, "spreading the wealth," as it were.  We all remember Joe the Plumber, don't we?
If you close your eyes and just listen the Republicans sound much like the liberals of old. I switched to the Republican party in 2003 after being a long time Democrat, now I am thinking it's time to switch to something else again.

 

You know there is a nice person that would do wonders for the country... or even a party, and its not the Rep or Dem right now....

 

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

having a monopoly is never good for consumers

Not so - having a monopoly can actually be better than having the 'ideal' of perfect competition, due to research. If no new technology/improvements could be developed then perfect competition would be better. However because of such things there are certain markets where a monopoly is actually the better option, and this is shown by the granting of patents by governments. Patents are in effect providing a company with a monopoly over a product for a set time period - it means the company can then spend tons of money researching a product and know that if it turns out to be amazing they get to make their money back, as opposed to having competitors offer their invention for far less. Don't allow the monopoly and that research won't get undertaken at all, meaning consumers can end up with inferior products at higher prices.

Furthermore, if you have say 100 similarly sized companies competing in an industry, neither one of them is large enough to undertake extensive research. Furthermore any research is likely to be duplicated by other companies. So you could end up with lots of those companies researching the same thing - wouldn't it be more efficient to have just the one larger company spending that money on the research?

If we the people remain silent I believe that a President Obama will turn America into a country we will not recognize anymore

I thought that was the whole point of having the election? So you the people could choose what sort of country you would want to have?

Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting maudlin27, reply 8

having a monopoly is never good for consumers
Not so - having a monopoly can actually be better than having the 'ideal' of perfect competition, due to research. If no new technology/improvements could be developed then perfect competition would be better. However because of such things there are certain markets where a monopoly is actually the better option, and this is shown by the granting of patents by governments. Patents are in effect providing a company with a monopoly over a product for a set time period - it means the company can then spend tons of money researching a product and know that if it turns out to be amazing they get to make their money back, as opposed to having competitors offer their invention for far less. Don't allow the monopoly and that research won't get undertaken at all, meaning consumers can end up with inferior products at higher prices.

Furthermore, if you have say 100 similarly sized companies competing in an industry, neither one of them is large enough to undertake extensive research. Furthermore any research is likely to be duplicated by other companies. So you could end up with lots of those companies researching the same thing - wouldn't it be more efficient to have just the one larger company spending that money on the research?


If we the people remain silent I believe that a President Obama will turn America into a country we will not recognize anymore
I thought that was the whole point of having the election? So you the people could choose what sort of country you would want to have?

No alot voted for "the black man" or " hope and change"

 

What they didnt look at besides all the freebies was what the reprocussions would be

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

What they didnt look at besides all the freebies was what the reprocussions would be

Then they get the government they deserve, and will just have to wait until the next election to put their vote to better use. It's a bit late (and slightly hypocritical) to start shouting about those repercussions if they were only just given the chance to have their direct say over the next government.

Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top

No alot voted for "the black man" or " hope and change"

What they didnt look at besides all the freebies was what the repercussions would be
watertown1978on Jan 04, 2009

Exactly, and there never was any kind of definition of what "hope and change" looked like except there would be more handouts for the terminally lazy.

Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting maudlin27, reply 10
What they didnt look at besides all the freebies was what the reprocussions would be Then they get the government they deserve, and will just have to wait until the next election to put their vote to better use. It's a bit late (and slightly hypocritical) to start shouting about those repercussions if they were only just given the chance to have their direct say over the next government.

The greatness of living in a Democracy is the ability to scream and yell all we want to with no fear of repercussions

Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting maudlin27, reply 10

What they didnt look at besides all the freebies was what the reprocussions would be
Then they get the government they deserve, and will just have to wait until the next election to put their vote to better use. It's a bit late (and slightly hypocritical) to start shouting about those repercussions if they were only just given the chance to have their direct say over the next government.

 

I didnt vote for either of the fools.... write in FTW!

Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting Moderateman, reply 12

maudlin27comment 10What they didnt look at besides all the freebies was what the reprocussions would be Then they get the government they deserve, and will just have to wait until the next election to put their vote to better use. It's a bit late (and slightly hypocritical) to start shouting about those repercussions if they were only just given the chance to have their direct say over the next government.
The greatness of living in a Democracy is the ability to scream and yell all we want to with no fear of repercussions

 

Yep and I love it though I wish some kind of knowledge into the canadates would be manditory too in order to vote... O well who knows OB might do great things and I hope he does for the sake of the country... but its more or less the majority made thier beds and they can sleep in it

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

However because of such things there are certain markets where a monopoly is actually the better option, and this is shown by the granting of patents by governments. Patents are in effect providing a company with a monopoly over a product for a set time period

But that has nothing to do with competition, and everything to do with allowing the inventor time to recoup the cost of the invention.  Monopolies, even when state run or managed (utilities) are bad.  Because it does not respond to the consumer, and wastes a lot of resources on non-productive venues.

I guess because of the desire of others to lionize FDR, it is necessary to kill that myth once and for all.  It will be painful, but it is inevitable.  So many other nations have already realized the truth that government does not create wealth, just consumes and destroys it.  America has to learn it as well.

Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 15

However because of such things there are certain markets where a monopoly is actually the better option, and this is shown by the granting of patents by governments. Patents are in effect providing a company with a monopoly over a product for a set time period
But that has nothing to do with competition, and everything to do with allowing the inventor time to recoup the cost of the invention.  Monopolies, even when state run or managed (utilities) are bad.  Because it does not respond to the consumer, and wastes a lot of resources on non-productive venues.

I guess because of the desire of others to lionize FDR, it is necessary to kill that myth once and for all.  It will be painful, but it is inevitable.  So many other nations have already realized the truth that government does not create wealth, just consumes and destroys it.  America has to learn it as well.

 

The question is.... will we realize it before we destroy ourselves... I am thinking not.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting watertown1978, reply 7
You know there is a nice person that would do wonders for the country... or even a party, and its not the Rep or Dem right now.... 

Ron Paul?

Unfortunately he didn't have a chance in hell because the media hated his guts and wouldn't give him coverage for any price, and because he rarely got invited to debates of any kind, and because lazy people like handouts which he said in no uncertain terms that he would not give them.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

The question is.... will we realize it before we destroy ourselves... I am thinking not.

I would not bet against you.  I sure hope you are wrong, but only time and colossal ignorance of America will tell.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting watertown1978, reply 13
maudlin27reply 10What they didnt look at besides all the freebies was what the reprocussions would be Then they get the government they deserve, and will just have to wait until the next election to put their vote to better use. It's a bit late (and slightly hypocritical) to start shouting about those repercussions if they were only just given the chance to have their direct say over the next government. I didnt vote for either of the fools.... write in FTW!

I voted for me>

Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting IQofSpam, reply 17
watertown1978comment 7You know there is a nice person that would do wonders for the country... or even a party, and its not the Rep or Dem right now.... Ron Paul?Unfortunately he didn't have a chance in hell because the media hated his guts and wouldn't give him coverage for any price, and because he rarely got invited to debates of any kind, and because lazy people like handouts which he said in no uncertain terms that he would not give them.

I am afraid we as a nation of greatness are in "end days" all great empires rise and fall.

Reply #21 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 18
The question is.... will we realize it before we destroy ourselves... I am thinking not.I would not bet against you.  I sure hope you are wrong, but only time and colossal ignorance of America will tell.

Joe Lieberman is a sane voice, but not listened to very much these days.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

that has nothing to do with competition, and everything to do with allowing the inventor time to recoup the cost of the invention.  Monopolies, even when state run or managed (utilities) are bad.

It has nothing to do with competition?! It is a monopoly! You get sole rights to the production+distribution of x invention, and can sue anyone who attempts to compete against you (/uses the invention in their own products) for damages. To argue against ALL monopolies and to say they are never a good thing means you argue against such monopolies, meaning you end up with a pretty bleak situation.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

It has nothing to do with competition?! It is a monopoly! You get sole rights to the production+distribution of x invention, and can sue anyone who attempts to compete against you (/uses the invention in their own products) for damages. To argue against ALL monopolies and to say they are never a good thing means you argue against such monopolies, meaning you end up with a pretty bleak situation.

And who is to stop YOU from building a DIFFERENT mouse trap?  No one.  That is competition.  You just cant steal my idea for the mousetrap, but that does not give me a monopoly on ALL mousetraps.

That is the difference.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

And who is to stop YOU from building a DIFFERENT mouse trap?  No one.  That is competition.  You just cant steal my idea for the mousetrap, but that does not give me a monopoly on ALL mousetraps.

That is the difference

No, because there's a different between copyright law and patents; copyright law is the 'you can copy the idea, you just can't copy the specific thing'. Patents give you rights over all use of the invention. So if I happened to develop a mechanism for a spring that could be used in mousetraps, and somehow managed to get a patent granted for it for such uses, if anyone else tried making a mousetrap with a spring in it I could stop them.

With a patent, you have a monopoly over the thing that has been patented. No-one else can compete with you on the patented item. They can try and compete by coming up with a product that has a similar effect but which is able  to avoid the terms of the patent, but they can't compete on the specific patented item.

To give you an example from distant memory, with asprin/paracetemols(/drugs generally), they used to cost a fortune. Suddenly their price dropped to next to nothing. The reason is that for a long time they enjoyed a patent meaning only the developer could sell them. When that expired, competitors could come in, take the product and sell it on at a fraction of the price. Until that time though, the drug developer had a monopoly over the product. If they hadn't been given such a monopoly, there would have been a massively reduced potential gain to developing it, while the research costs would've remained unchanged, so the chances are it wouldn't have been developed then.

Reply #25 from PolMach Forums Top

To give you an example from distant memory, with asprin/paracetemols(/drugs generally), they used to cost a fortune. Suddenly their price dropped to next to nothing. The reason is that for a long time they enjoyed a patent meaning only the developer could sell them. When that expired, competitors could come in, take the product and sell it on at a fraction of the price. Until that time though, the drug developer had a monopoly over the product. If they hadn't been given such a monopoly, there would have been a massively reduced potential gain to developing it, while the research costs would've remained unchanged, so the chances are it wouldn't have been developed then.

You are missing the subtlety that Doc was using.  Yes while someone holds a patent on a product you can't copy that product but you can develop something else that achieves the same end result without violating the patent.  In the case of drugs the patent is on a particular forumla or drug combination not on treating one medical problem.  So while one company may own a patent for something like Abilify to treat Schizophrenia and/or bi-polar disorder that doesn't prevent some other drug company from coming up with a different drug that treats the same conditions like Geoden (sp?).  Once the patent expires then other drug companies can come in and copy your drug formula which is when generic drugs start coming out.

Going back to the mousetrap example you may own a patent on a spring loaded mousetrap but that won't prevent someone from coming up with a glue trap or some other product that has the same end result ie trapped/killed mouse.  Therefore you don't have a monopoly on mousetraps, but I suppose if you want to get technical you do have a monopoly on spring loaded mousetraps, but that isn't exactly the same thing.