openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to Desdinova
Re: Why cooperate with competitors ? 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. |
|
DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | "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 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. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | 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. |
|
|
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | 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. |
|
