Are combinations in restraint of trade part of a free market economy?

[JJIII]

To answer Fast Eddie: I agree with what you say as to how things work in the here and now. Somewhat off topic, but maybe not... what happened to the teaching of morality at home, in the schools, and in society in general that has brought us to this? Greed has always been part of the mix. How have we let it become such a large part?

[Fast_Eddie]

I'm with you man. As with most things, I have my thoughts on it, but one self-righous megga post a day should be my new rule.

[merrylander]

Forgive my ignorance but who was the barking idiot who came up with quarterly reporting by business? If there is any single thing that leads to the problems Eddie described that has to be it.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by JJIII

For the record, I don't think that smaller company's merging into ever growing amoeba like monster corporations is a good thing. I just have hard time wrapping my mind around government interference in the private sector. I guess I should change my name to Pollyanna!

And I worry more about private sector (corporate) interference in government. My employer already controls 40+ hours a week of my life.

No more, thanks.

Regards,
Dave

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

For the conservatives who believe that a free market will do a better job of curing economic ills than regulations, I have a question. Do companies who agree not to compete, or who merge smaller competitors into ever larger corporations, advance or detract from a properly functioning economy?

Regards,

D-Ray

Like Teddy (), I am firmly anti-trust. Trusts and monopolies are NOT free market.

This segues into the Federal government too, vis-a-vis State and local gov'ts (if I ever say vis-a-vis again please shoot me). The Fed is the ultimate monopoly, with the added terror of force of law. That terror the Founders understood well.

The gov't should act like a referee, not a player. Like refs it is extremely important that they don't pick winners or losers.

Like giving a local company $700,000+ for new equipment. Which they just did with stimulus money. It's trickling down I guess.

Is that it?

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Sorry, didn't realize I wrote another one of my books...

Write away, Eddie!

Originally Posted by Charles

I suppose I should respond, since I've been call out by name. I'm not really up to this as I didn't get much sleep last night and feel like shit...but here goes.

There should be some regulation concerning monopolies, unethical business practices, etc. Then again, the government is just as effective at creating regulations which make the situation worse as the are at making the situation better.

I'm in favor of good and effective regulations on big business. But anytime they decide to quit forcing me to wear a seatbelt, quit trying to screw me with cap and trade, quit refusing to let me take a junk water water heater to the dump because it is hazardous waste, quit requiring that I get certified in lead abatement, etc, etc, etc, would suit me just fine.

Effective regulations on the government are at least as necessary as effective regulations on the multinationals.

Clear as mud?

Chas

Indeed!

Pete

[merrylander]

There are effective regulations on the federal government, it is called The Constitution. However, some administrations ignored it and the current Supreme Court is of no help whatsoever.

I'll make a deal with cyclists who don't want to wear helmets or drivers who don't want to wear seatbelts. The EMTs are not responsible for picking up the pieces when you crash, OK?

Having installed seatbelts in a 1962 Ford Falcon I was damn glad I was wearing them whe it rolled over and screw the government, if you ride in my car it does not move umnless the seatbelts are all on. That is not the result of some interlock but is a result of the driver who does not want his insurance rates to go up.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by merrylander

There are effective regulations on the federal government, it is called The Constitution. However, some administrations ignored it and the current Supreme Court is of no help whatsoever.

I'll make a deal with cyclists who don't want to wear helmets or drivers who don't want to wear seatbelts. The EMTs are not responsible for picking up the pieces when you crash, OK?

Having installed seatbelts in a 1962 Ford Falcon I was damn glad I was wearing them whe it rolled over and screw the government, if you ride in my car it does not move umnless the seatbelts are all on. That is not the result of some interlock but is a result of the driver who does not want his insurance rates to go up.

I ended an argument about seat belts once with; "Fine, don't wear the damned thing. People with crushed skulls rarely make it into the voting booth."

It amazes me what some people think of as "governmental tyranny". When the president suggested proper tire inflation, I actually had a "wingnut" tell me he would be "damned if the government is going to tell me what to do with my tires, I'll let the fuckin' things go flat if I want!".

Dave

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by JJIII

To answer Fast Eddie: I agree with what you say as to how things work in the here and now. Somewhat off topic, but maybe not... what happened to the teaching of morality at home, in the schools, and in society in general that has brought us to this? Greed has always been part of the mix. How have we let it become such a large part?

I absolutely agree that the primary responsibility for imparting morals and values belongs to parents, with a little help from the community (I've spoken before about the former drill sergeant baseball coach who was at least as interested in developing solid citizens as he was in developing baseball players). While I don't want morality legislated, we made darn sure that our kids understood the moral and the practical issues with teen sex, but we balanced that with information about protection. They learned a work ethic, and as a result have had the ability to return to jobs after taking time off for school and other things. We would not let them drink until they are 21 (but it is don't ask don't tell in college). The younger one ended up paying for most of his freshman year because of the choices he made (which made us look like geniuses because of how much he grew up that year, but he deserves all of the credit for that).

The point is, I am definitely more conservative in my lifestyle than I am in my politics, but that is a choice I am free to make.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

This segues into the Federal government too, vis-a-vis State and local gov'ts (if I ever say vis-a-vis again please shoot me). The Fed is the ultimate monopoly, with the added terror of force of law. That terror the Founders understood well.

Well, the difference, of course, is that the government isn't private or for (edit) profit. It is all of us. And acts in *our* interst not the interest of corporate proffit. The last couple of decades mis-trust in government really is a healty check on things, I don't dispute that. But ultimately we need the government to keep private industry from crushing us.

Like a lot of Americans I'm kinda stuck on the health care thing, but it really is a great example. We need help and that help should come from the federal government.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

(if I ever say vis-a-vis again please shoot me).

Pete

I'll give you a two for one trade. You don't say "vis a vis," and I won't say "vel non" and "to tell the truth."

Regards,

D-Ray