Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Why cooperate with competitors ? "They're not going to put proposals on the table because they don't like the rules," Settles says. "Yet they're not going to cooperate with the entities that are going after the money." Why should they. Businesses are not in it for the general welfare. They are in it to make money. And they do that by crushing any competitors(current or POTENTIAL) at the earliest opportunity when they are most vulnerable. I don't think Settles understands business. Business is war and is fought with as few rules as possible. |
|
DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | "Why should they. Businesses are not in it for the general welfare. "
I agree completely! So I've bought property in your neighborhood where my chemical company can dump our toxic waste in your water supply. My friend owns a meatpacking company and he's going to start supplying your local restaurants with lower grade cuts of meat that haven't been refrigerated properly (refrigeration and storage costs money, ya know). When it's time to re-insulate your house or apartment, my brother-in-law's contracting company is going to use asbestos.
And if you don't like it, well, we really don't care. Business is a war after all and if you can't muster the arms to defend your position, we're just going to take you out.
Have a nice day!  |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by Desdinova: My friend owns a meatpacking company and he's going to start supplying your local restaurants with lower grade cuts of meat that haven't been refrigerated properly (refrigeration and storage costs money, ya know). When it's time to re-insulate your house or apartment, my brother-in-law's contracting company is going to use asbestos. Then those companies will go out of business because they won't have any customers. |
|
| said by Romney2012:said by Desdinova: My friend owns a meatpacking company and he's going to start supplying your local restaurants with lower grade cuts of meat that haven't been refrigerated properly (refrigeration and storage costs money, ya know). When it's time to re-insulate your house or apartment, my brother-in-law's contracting company is going to use asbestos. Then those companies will go out of business because they won't have any customers. Yes they will. Because they gave me, mayor of your city, plenty of money for my future campaign. I've thus engaged in some backhanded deals making it extremely hard for competitors to move in. You have no choice but to submit to their whims.
Have a nice day! |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to Desdinova
Laws and regulations exist to prevent all of your examples. So are you suggesting that we put Ma Bell back together again and regulate them as they were in the old days? My IRA is looking forward to the guaranteed profits. |
|
 camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA | reply to Romney2012
There is a difference between killing the competition,and a legal monopoly in areas of this country, I am no business/law expert but the last times I checked monopoly's are illegal. |
|
|
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by camaro92:There is a difference between killing the competition,and a legal monopoly in areas of this country, I am no business/law expert but the last times I checked monopoly's are illegal. Actually monopolies are NOT illegal. Only certain clearly proscribed monopolistic practices are illegal. |
|
| reply to Romney2012
Yes, except now me Dishonest Meatpacking Company, Inc. is now paying off the mayor to prevent competitors from entering business locally. That $10,000 is cheaper than losing money to a competitor. And, of course your buddy the judge in the local courthouse gets a shove of money under the table. He sure enjoyed that trip to Europe and the Bahamas ever year. And he will always rule in your favor so that anyone gets sick or dies from your S&*^%& meat cannot sue in court. Of course local congressmen, etc won't bother you. Because, you have threatened to reveal their dishonest relations outside their marriage in the local media if they ever happen to mount an investigation or react to someone gets sick or dies from your crap.
What bliss! Its nice to operate a company that walks all over people and for a small price ensures that you are all locked up with a fat wallet every month. Nothing wrong with a fat wallet because who cares if someone gets a parasite and dies. That's not my problem and not even the USDA inspectors care because I pay them extra under the table and have an armed guard waiting as they enter the building during inspection. The guard never really would use his weapon (its not loaded). But, he is there to ensure an atmosphere of intimidation so that the inspectors will ignore any sanitation or other violations. |
|
DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | reply to openbox9
"Laws and regulations exist to prevent all of your examples."
You're absolutely right. And they were put in place because so many businesses were doing those things because it was profitable.
I'm all about capitalism, competition and running a successful business but unfortunately, there are many times when the wants of the business conflict with the well-being and needs of the community around it. If the business acts responsibly, then there's no issue as they won't be hurting the good of the community (whatever the boundaries of that community may be...either online or an actual neighborhood) and no regulation is needed. But when the company's wants tilt so far out of alignment with the community that the business actively begins to unfavorably manipulate the checks and balances of the majority around it, then I feel regulation is needed. There are too many past and current examples of an irresponsible minority doing great damage to an innocent majority.
And no, I have no desire to see ma Bell resurrected. But I WOULD like to see the splinters behaving a bit more responsibly... |
|
| reply to Romney2012
Business used to and should be about making a profit by offering a good product or service at a fair and reasonable cost, in an honest and responsible manner.
Competition is about innovating, improving or adding value to products or services offered by your competitors, at a comparable or lower cost.
It's not about not killing them off or blocking their entry to the market so you can maintain or charge higher prices without having to innovate and improve, or denying market access to services that you don't or won't offer, but your competitors do. There's nothing honest or responsible about that.
I work for a company in a highly competetive industry and we never consider "taking out" the competition as part of any plan to grow our business. We continuously look for and develop the next "must have" product or service that can add value and differentiate us from our competitors, and improve our efficiency and increase productivity so we can remain price competetive.
That's how the world advances, otherwise I'd still be chiseling this message on a stone tablet. |
|
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:Laws and regulations exist to prevent all of your examples. So are you suggesting that we put Ma Bell back together again and regulate them as they were in the old days? My IRA is looking forward to the guaranteed profits. Don't make me laugh. You endlessly denigrate the idea of regulating these giant infrastructure duopolies while at the same time defending the likes of AT&T and Verizon, giants who have corrupted the political system to satisfy their whims. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to Romney2012
said by Romney2012:said by Desdinova: My friend owns a meatpacking company and he's going to start supplying your local restaurants with lower grade cuts of meat that haven't been refrigerated properly (refrigeration and storage costs money, ya know). When it's time to re-insulate your house or apartment, my brother-in-law's contracting company is going to use asbestos. Then those companies will go out of business because they won't have any customers. Not if the customer is too stupid to know/doesn't know/doesn't make the connection, or if the business will change their name/be out of town by nightfall. |
|
flbas1
join:2010-02-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to 8744675
said by 8744675:I work for a company in a highly competetive industry and we never consider "taking out" the competition as part of any plan to grow our business. We continuously look for and develop the next "must have" product or service that can add value and differentiate us from our competitors, and improve our efficiency and increase productivity so we can remain price competetive. That's how the world advances, otherwise I'd still be chiseling this message on a stone tablet. google voice (and its predecessor) have done more for residential telephone customers than the bells have. you can record conversations easily, transcribe emails, set calling limits, etc. (tried to be prevented last summer by the telcos for blocking access to nuns)
Skype revolutionized VOIP calling (blocked by Apple/ATT until recently)
not being harsh - maybe your company isn't competitive enough? or isn't in a competitive field?
because - if it weren't for services like Vonage (who got sued by the telcos for not having a nice -enough 911 service, and a too-nice callerid service) - we wouldn't have diversification in our local markets - and a quasi monopoly. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:You endlessly denigrate the idea of regulating these giant infrastructure duopolies while at the same time defending the likes of AT&T and Verizon, giants who have corrupted the political system to satisfy their whims. I do? I have no problem regulating a monopolistic environment if the monopoly, and it's shareholders and creditors, are sufficiently compensated. Unfortunately, that's usually not what's argued for around here. I do have serious doubts that a fairly regulated monopoly will bring about lower costs for consumers than what we currently enjoy in most markets. Nevertheless, I would enjoy the earnings of a regulated nationwide telecom monopoly in my retirement portfolio.
As for the political corruption, blame the game that allows it, not the players that seize its advantage. |
|
| said by openbox9:said by sonicmerlin:You endlessly denigrate the idea of regulating these giant infrastructure duopolies while at the same time defending the likes of AT&T and Verizon, giants who have corrupted the political system to satisfy their whims. I do? I have no problem regulating a monopolistic environment if the monopoly, and it's shareholders and creditors, are sufficiently compensated. Unfortunately, that's usually not what's argued for around here. I do have serious doubts that a fairly regulated monopoly will bring about lower costs for consumers than what we currently enjoy in most markets. Nevertheless, I would enjoy the earnings of a regulated nationwide telecom monopoly in my retirement portfolio. As for the political corruption, blame the game that allows it, not the players that seize its advantage. What besides regulation of monopolies/oligopolies and encouragement of competition is argued for around here? Biological warfare against the CEOs?
What the heck does "sufficient compensation" even mean? Infrastructure companies should all be regulated to begin with. Any shareholder attempting to hold stock in an infrastructure company should already understand the danger of regulation for a company fielding infrastructure services.
As for political corruption, the game that allows it is in large part caused by the players themselves, who altered the rules of the game with their pouring of their massive financial resources into lobbying efforts. Of course this was much less a problem when Ma Bell was first broken up into many smaller companies, but over the years they remerged (bribing regulators along the way to let them do it), and funded corporate nazist Republican campaigns to lie to the public about the benefits of enhancing the profits of giant corporations. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to Romney2012
Not when they don't have any or enough competition, they won't. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:What besides regulation of monopolies/oligopolies and encouragement of competition is argued for around here? "Sufficient compensation". A majority of the viewpoints around here seem to be that infrastructure companies should exist solely for the benefit of the consumer regardless of the costs to build, operate, and sustain the infrastructure. While that may be fine and dandy for a nationalized utility (I definitely don't advocate that), it doesn't work for the investors that actually enable the company to exist.said by sonicmerlin:What the heck does "sufficient compensation" even mean? You seriously need to ask that question? Do you want me to tie a percentage to the ROI? How about 12%?said by sonicmerlin:Infrastructure companies should all be regulated to begin with. Any shareholder attempting to hold stock in an infrastructure company should already understand the danger of regulation for a company fielding infrastructure services. Serious investors understand the cost of regulation when they willingly put money into a company. However, if the regulation changes after the fact, investors tend to not like the change if it doesn't benefit them.said by sonicmerlin:As for political corruption, the game that allows it is in large part caused by the players themselves, who altered the rules of the game with their pouring of their massive financial resources into lobbying efforts. You just talked in a circle. It's the game the allowed the influence of the players to take hold. |
|
camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA | I say tough shit,nobody likes change,whether it's business or life but i don't think it's fair that i have to change with life's new situations but because they have money means they get to keep there statuesque. |
|
1 edit | reply to Romney2012
So I assume then that you would be the one running the meatpacking company and cutting corners on sanitation, etc because business is war and your only responsibility is to make as much money as you can and the fact that someone might get sick or die on your crap is no worry of yours. Uh huh. This is exactly the mentality that created the problems recently with derivatives on wall street (among others). Take your behind and move away or disappear or something. You give hard working, honest americans a bad name and you are not a real american or you'd be interested in someone other than yourself. You are not a patriot or you'd be concerned with your community and those around you. |
|
| This is also why "nanny state" regulations are necessary. If corporations were actually responsible and operated honestly there wouldn't be all the need for government intervention and regulation. Think about that. So yes, someone has to kick companies in the behind now and then when they are S&*%^&*& everyone else in the behind. |
|
