Joined: Feb 16, 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted:
Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:40 am
sjc wrote:
Quote:
Entirely wrong. The corporation is accountable to every customer and consumer including those they don't have but would if they did what the people wanted.
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: You actually believe that, and here you said that there was no one on here who didn't worship them blindly. [-X
You sound like the Film Actors Guild in Team America. Y'know the scene... "The corporations sit there in their, in their corporation buildings and, and and see that's, they're all corporationy, and they make money." Tone it down a shade, and think about what you're saying.
Businesses aren't set up to oppress poor people, destroy the rainforest and generally piss everyone off. They're set up to make money. In order to make money, people have to be happy enough with the business to buy stuff from them. That makes them accountable to their customers. Why do you think they spend so much money on advertising? For fun?
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:37 am
Saitou wrote:
Can you explain how a corporation survives when it has no customers willing to buy what it offers?
Easy. They either takeover, or eliminate any and all competition. Without government regulations to keep it in check there would be only a very few companies, each in its own MONOPOLY and eventually only one company. Corporations are predatory entities, it is in their nature to dominate. Once they have a monopoly who cares if the "customers" are willing to buy or not since they no longer have any real choice in the matter. Like I had said before, you want to give more freedom to those who think nothing of taking it away from others.
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:39 am
Ophis wrote:
You sound like the Film Actors Guild in Team America. Y'know the scene... "The corporations sit there in their, in their corporation buildings and, and and see that's, they're all corporationy, and they make money." Tone it down a shade, and think about what you're saying.
Businesses aren't set up to oppress poor people, destroy the rainforest and generally piss everyone off. They're set up to make money. In order to make money, people have to be happy enough with the business to buy stuff from them. That makes them accountable to their customers. Why do you think they spend so much money on advertising? For fun?
That's when they still have a choice.
andrewgreve Just Arrived
Joined: Jan 15, 2007
Posts: 9
Posted:
Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:56 am
Dissident1 wrote:
There will always be those who wish to tell others what to think and how to live.
No, not just the Bush administration, but all government is wrong. Government is simply a group of people who have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory. Or, you can say that government is the final arbitor in a given territory, if you want to take the Rothbardian route. By definition, government is unjustified and immoral.
Joined: Feb 16, 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted:
Tue Jan 16, 2007 1:50 pm
sjc wrote:
That's when they still have a choice.
Well that's why I'm happy for there to be some level of anti-monopoly regulation. Though I still think you are exaggerating the tendency of companies to develop into monopolies, and the problems that occur when it does. Can you actually think of any company right now that you literally have to buy from? Even the famous big bad multinational corporations that socialists hate so much, like Microsoft, McDonald's and Coca-Cola, have quite a bit of competition. You also seem to be forgetting that in order to be in a position to take over all competition, a company has to spend many years providing a good service and making its customers happy, and then has to keep them happy enough to stop new businesses being set up to steal customers from it. Your strawman of a corporation sounds more like some kind of Satanic conspiracy than a moneymaking organisation.
Ophis Confident Learner
Joined: Feb 16, 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted:
Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:07 pm
andrewgreve wrote:
No, not just the Bush administration, but all government is wrong. Government is simply a group of people who have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory. Or, you can say that government is the final arbitor in a given territory, if you want to take the Rothbardian route. By definition, government is unjustified and immoral.
Weird. Part 1 made me think he was nuts, part 2 made me think he might have a point.
Xeon-The-Mg-Pony Graduate Thinker
Joined: May 18, 2006
Posts: 777
Posted:
Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:38 pm
Ophis wrote:
sjc wrote:
That's when they still have a choice.
Well that's why I'm happy for there to be some level of anti-monopoly regulation. Though I still think you are exaggerating the tendency of companies to develop into monopolies, and the problems that occur when it does.
Can you actually think of any company right now that you literally have to buy from?
Even the famous big bad multinational corporations that socialists hate so much, like Microsoft, McDonald's and Coca-Cola, have quite a bit of competition. You also seem to be forgetting that in order to be in a position to take over all competition, a company has to spend many years providing a good service and making its customers happy, and then has to keep them happy enough to stop new businesses being set up to steal customers from it. Your strawman of a corporation sounds more like some kind of Satanic conspiracy than a moneymaking organisation.
We have one; IC-BC. May they burn in ruble asap
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:09 pm
Ophis wrote:
Well that's why I'm happy for there to be some level of anti-monopoly regulation. Though I still think you are exaggerating the tendency of companies to develop into monopolies, and the problems that occur when it does.
If only I were exaggerating it. One just has to look at recent history to see what is happening with mergers and hostel takeovers.
Quote:
Can you actually think of any company right now that you literally have to buy from? Even the famous big bad multinational corporations that socialists hate so much, like Microsoft, McDonald's and Coca-Cola, have quite a bit of competition.
And getting smaller. Did you know that Pepsi Cola until 1997 they owned KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut until they were "spun off"? It currently owns Quaker Oats, Gatorade, Frito-Lay and Tropicana. It use to be that you could only get phone service from the Phone Company like AT&T until new anti-monopoly laws were put into effect. It is because of these laws that there remains at least some competition, if it weren't for them than it would be a different story altogether.
Standard Oil is a prime example of what can happen without these laws to help protect people.
You also seem to be forgetting that in order to be in a position to take over all competition, a company has to spend many years providing a good service and making its customers happy, and then has to keep them happy enough to stop new businesses being set up to steal customers from it.
Like Wal-Mart the world's largest company? People have shown that when it comes to price verses quality that price will win. Much of what you get at Wal-Mart is cheap crap.
Quote:
Your strawman of a corporation sounds more like some kind of Satanic conspiracy than a moneymaking organisation.
Who said that there was a difference? What conspiracy? Its just business.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:23 pm
Ophis wrote:
Well that's why I'm happy for there to be some level of anti-monopoly regulation. Though I still think you are exaggerating the tendency of companies to develop into monopolies, and the problems that occur when it does.
sjc wrote:
If only I were exaggerating it. One just has to look at recent history to see what is happening with mergers and hostel takeovers.
And just what
is
happening, in this non-free-trade world?
Ophis wrote:
Can you actually think of any company right now that you literally have to buy from? Even the famous big bad multinational corporations that socialists hate so much, like Microsoft, McDonald's and Coca-Cola, have quite a bit of competition.
sjc wrote:
And getting smaller.
No, it's getting larger.
sjc wrote:
Did you know that Pepsi Cola until 1997 they owned KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut until they were "spun off"? It currently owns Quaker Oats, Gatorade, Frito-Lay and Tropicana. It use to be that you could only get phone service from the Phone Company like AT&T until new anti-monopoly laws were put into effect.
Funny thing about that: the US government made AT&T a monopoly back in WW2. Then it complained that it was a monopoly. Imagine that! Trying to have one's cake and eat it, too.
But let's not let facts stand in the way of a good socialist rant, right?
sjc wrote:
Standard Oil is a prime example of what can happen without these laws to help protect people.
Yeah--oil costs went down. That really hurt people. A lot. More people could afford oil products. Really hurt them. A lot.
Oh--Ida Tarbel didn't do any research on Standard Oil, and Ida's brother's company simply couldn't compete with Standard Oil. Thus, Ida had an axe to grind. But let's not let facts stand in the way of a good socialist rant, right?
Ophis wrote:
You also seem to be forgetting that in order to be in a position to take over all competition, a company has to spend many years providing a good service and making its customers happy, and then has to keep them happy enough to stop new businesses being set up to steal customers from it.
sjc wrote:
Like Wal-Mart the world's largest company? People have shown that when it comes to price verses quality that price will win. Much of what you get at Wal-Mart is cheap crap.
Well that's why I'm happy for there to be some level of anti-monopoly regulation. Though I still think you are exaggerating the tendency of companies to develop into monopolies, and the problems that occur when it does.
If only I were exaggerating it. One just has to look at recent history to see what is happening with mergers and hostel takeovers.
And mergers are bad because?
sjc wrote:
Quote:
Can you actually think of any company right now that you literally have to buy from? Even the famous big bad multinational corporations that socialists hate so much, like Microsoft, McDonald's and Coca-Cola, have quite a bit of competition.
And getting smaller. Did you know that Pepsi Cola until 1997 they owned KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut until they were "spun off"? It currently owns Quaker Oats, Gatorade, Frito-Lay and Tropicana.
Yes, Big corporations are bad bad bad. It's not like there's such a thing as economies of scale, oh no.
sjc wrote:
It use to be that you could only get phone service from the Phone Company like AT&T until new anti-monopoly laws were put into effect. It is because of these laws that there remains at least some competition, if it weren't for them than it would be a different story altogether.
As knight mentioned, AT&T only had a monopoly because it was granted one by the government. Now, I'd like you to give me a single example of a natural monopoly earning supernormal profits in the long run without assistance from government. I'll be waiting for your answer.
sjc wrote:
Standard Oil is a prime example of what can happen without these laws to help protect people.
Yes, Standard Oil produced oil much much cheaper than their competitors, allowing more people to buy it at a lower price - those bastards! That's not to mention that Standard Oil wasn't even a monopoly in the first place.
sjc wrote:
Quote:
You also seem to be forgetting that in order to be in a position to take over all competition, a company has to spend many years providing a good service and making its customers happy, and then has to keep them happy enough to stop new businesses being set up to steal customers from it.
Like Wal-Mart the world's largest company? People have shown that when it comes to price verses quality that price will win. Much of what you get at Wal-Mart is cheap crap.
According to what standard? And it's funny that you'd bring up quality, 'cause I seem to be able to by the same potatoes, beer, and motor oil (not to imply some objective measure of quality) at Wal-mart as I do at Hy-Vee (a local grocery chain) - only at significantly lower prices.
By the way SJC, are you still deciding to puss out on the one-on-one debate offer?
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:13 pm
Liberal's opinion on Walmart is mind-bogglingly nonsensical and entirely illogical. Their position seems to suggest that Walmart hurts the poor but in fact Walmart helps the poor. It helps them by lowering prices on many of the things they need and want to buy. It helps a great many of them by employing them.
The common liberal complaint about Walmart is that they do not provide their employees with health care. Not only is that factually incorrect since they offer health coverage at many different price levels but it also overlooks the fact that without Walmart many of these people wouldn't have jobs. Are liberals saying no job is better than a job without generous health coverage benefits?
That brings us to the other common liberal complaint about Walmart destroying smaller businesses. Of course this is nonsense since the customer chooses where they wish to shop. Are liberals saying that low prices is an unfair anti-competitive practice? Also it overlooks the fact that businesses often thrive by being next to (or even inside) a Walmart store. Also, with perhaps rare exceptions, the jobs these stores provided also would not have health care coverage as part of compensation any more than Walmart does.
Ophis Confident Learner
Joined: Feb 16, 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted:
Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:53 am
Saitou wrote:
Liberal's opinion on Walmart is mind-bogglingly nonsensical and entirely illogical. Their position seems to suggest that Walmart hurts the poor but in fact Walmart helps the poor. It helps them by lowering prices on many of the things they need and want to buy. It helps a great many of them by employing them.
The common liberal complaint about Walmart is that they do not provide their employees with health care. Not only is that factually incorrect since they offer health coverage at many different price levels but it also overlooks the fact that without Walmart many of these people wouldn't have jobs. Are liberals saying no job is better than a job without generous health coverage benefits?
That brings us to the other common liberal complaint about Walmart destroying smaller businesses. Of course this is nonsense since the customer chooses where they wish to shop. Are liberals saying that low prices is an unfair anti-competitive practice? Also it overlooks the fact that businesses often thrive by being next to (or even inside) a Walmart store. Also, with perhaps rare exceptions, the jobs these stores provided also would not have health care coverage as part of compensation any more than Walmart does.
Lets be honest, the only reason that socialists hate Walmart is because it's big and rich.
Ivan_Ivanov Grand Poster
Joined: Jun 16, 2004
Posts: 1250
Location: Poland
Posted:
Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:55 pm
Ophis wrote:
Lets be honest, the only reason that socialists hate Walmart is because it's big and rich.
Let's not oversimplify things, or it'll end in a pissing match.
While it's bigness and richness are surely the things that drive their attention to it, I think they actually believe Walmart is hurting people in some way.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
What conspiracy? Its just business.
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file