If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Oct. Edition)

[petec]

Just look at what China has achieved since it did "release" its people. Of course, some things could and should be improved but, a run to the left is a recipe for disaster in the long run. Any student of history should know that.

 

Just shows how little you know about China.

 

Why do people who know nothing insist on showing off their ignorance on the internet?

 

I could equally say, "why do people make sweeping statements without any supporting evidence on the internet?"

 

If you have a different view on China would you mind fleshing it out, maybe in a new thread?  I'd be interested.

 

 

[petec]

Bottom line is simple: don't become like us or even worst, Europe! While there are positive elements about every location, the U.S. is what it is mainly because of entrepreneurship and a desire to achieve dreams. This cannot be achieved in a country where the government controls every aspect of our lives. Just look at what China has achieved since it did "release" its people. Of course, some things could and should be improved but, a run to the left is a recipe for disaster in the long run. Any student of history should know that.

 

 

Speaking as an (economically) very right wing European: some ideas of the left are very useful.  For example, antitrust is a fairly left wing idea but it brings out the best of capitalism imho.  And heresy of all heresies: I think socialised medicine might be better than the current US system because it is apparently more efficient (cost/outcome).  Capitalism only improves lives to the extent that it is inventive and competitive and efficient, and you do need some regulation to ensure that it is.  That said, I agree with the thrust of your point.  Whether any party in the US now genuinely stands for free markets, I am not so sure.

[rkbabang]

Just look at what China has achieved since it did "release" its people. Of course, some things could and should be improved but, a run to the left is a recipe for disaster in the long run. Any student of history should know that.

 

Just shows how little you know about China.

 

Why do people who know nothing insist on showing off their ignorance on the internet?

 

I know, right?  Everyone knows the Chinese were much better off in the 1960s.

 

[valcont]

Bottom line is simple: don't become like us or even worst, Europe! While there are positive elements about every location, the U.S. is what it is mainly because of entrepreneurship and a desire to achieve dreams. This cannot be achieved in a country where the government controls every aspect of our lives. Just look at what China has achieved since it did "release" its people. Of course, some things could and should be improved but, a run to the left is a recipe for disaster in the long run. Any student of history should know that.

 

 

Speaking as an (economically) very right wing European: some ideas of the left are very useful.  For example, antitrust is a fairly left wing idea but it brings out the best of capitalism imho.  And heresy of all heresies: I think socialised medicine might be better than the current US system because it is apparently more efficient (cost/outcome).  Capitalism only improves lives to the extent that it is inventive and competitive and efficient, and you do need some regulation to ensure that it is.  That said, I agree with the thrust of your point.  Whether any party in the US now genuinely stands for free markets, I am not so sure.

 

I think both of you are mixing the US political system with the free market. Political parties here have always been split into a workers party and the party of the affluent. They like to think that their fiscal policy determines the direction of the market but in reality they are always catching up. This is unlike the other countries where the government have a lot of influence. I once asked a Chinese businessman about how to find opportunities to do business in China. He replied, start reading the government's five year plans. He said we don't read annual reports of companies, we read government policies. Europe to a less extent works the same way.

 

Its completely different here. Think about the shale revolution, sharing economies like Uber, Air BnB etc. They disrupted large regulated businesses and now the government is catching up with them. Read the Rockefeller or Carnegie's biographies  and you'll find the same pattern when they disrupted oil and steel. Read the political news of those times and you'll find the same charges/counter charges. The only difference is that the voices are shriller which makes the division seems much starker than they actually are. I can guarantee you that this country will be ahead of everyone in the next decade , next 25 years. It takes generations to get the entrepreneurial culture in the DNA. I don't see a single country capable of that right now.

[cobafdek]

Five months old but still worth re-reading:

 

[DonFanucci]

[For example, antitrust is a fairly left wing idea but it brings out the best of capitalism imho.

 

I would have to disagree with that, I can't think of a single anti trust case that I thought was justified. I can think of some really stupid ones off the top of my head... Microsoft for giving away a browser, IBM for dominating mainframes, Alcoa for literally being too efficient, Staples-Office depot was totally insane, the list goes on and on. It seems like more of a way for competitors to coerce each other because they can't compete in a voluntary market. Like Benioff at Salesforce trying to get his cronies in Europe to block Microsoft's bid for LinkedIn.

[Gregmal]

[For example, antitrust is a fairly left wing idea but it brings out the best of capitalism imho.

 

I would have to disagree with that, I can't think of a single anti trust case that I thought was justified. I can think of some really stupid ones off the top of my head... Microsoft for giving away a browser, IBM for dominating mainframes, Alcoa for literally being too efficient, Staples-Office depot was totally insane, the list goes on and on. It seems like more of a way for competitors to coerce each other because they can't compete in a voluntary market. Like Benioff at Salesforce trying to get his cronies in Europe to block Microsoft's bid for LinkedIn.

 

The Staples/Office Depot was literally the gold standard for moronic government intervention. If any candidate needed any example of why politicians should not be allowed to make business or economic decisions, this was a great example. Amazon will now put both of them out of business.

[rb]

[For example, antitrust is a fairly left wing idea but it brings out the best of capitalism imho.

 

I would have to disagree with that, I can't think of a single anti trust case that I thought was justified. I can think of some really stupid ones off the top of my head... Microsoft for giving away a browser, IBM for dominating mainframes, Alcoa for literally being too efficient, Staples-Office depot was totally insane, the list goes on and on. It seems like more of a way for competitors to coerce each other because they can't compete in a voluntary market. Like Benioff at Salesforce trying to get his cronies in Europe to block Microsoft's bid for LinkedIn.

Standard oil? Bell System?

[petec]

[For example, antitrust is a fairly left wing idea but it brings out the best of capitalism imho.

 

I would have to disagree with that, I can't think of a single anti trust case that I thought was justified. I can think of some really stupid ones off the top of my head... Microsoft for giving away a browser, IBM for dominating mainframes, Alcoa for literally being too efficient, Staples-Office depot was totally insane, the list goes on and on. It seems like more of a way for competitors to coerce each other because they can't compete in a voluntary market. Like Benioff at Salesforce trying to get his cronies in Europe to block Microsoft's bid for LinkedIn.

Standard oil? Bell System?

 

Quite.

 

There is some evidence that the Standard was losing its monopoly due to free market competition anyway.  But, some markets do tend toward abuse of monopoly positions which isn't good.

[petec]

Bottom line is simple: don't become like us or even worst, Europe! While there are positive elements about every location, the U.S. is what it is mainly because of entrepreneurship and a desire to achieve dreams. This cannot be achieved in a country where the government controls every aspect of our lives. Just look at what China has achieved since it did "release" its people. Of course, some things could and should be improved but, a run to the left is a recipe for disaster in the long run. Any student of history should know that.

 

 

Speaking as an (economically) very right wing European: some ideas of the left are very useful.  For example, antitrust is a fairly left wing idea but it brings out the best of capitalism imho.  And heresy of all heresies: I think socialised medicine might be better than the current US system because it is apparently more efficient (cost/outcome).  Capitalism only improves lives to the extent that it is inventive and competitive and efficient, and you do need some regulation to ensure that it is.  That said, I agree with the thrust of your point.  Whether any party in the US now genuinely stands for free markets, I am not so sure.

 

I think both of you are mixing the US political system with the free market. Political parties here have always been split into a workers party and the party of the affluent. They like to think that their fiscal policy determines the direction of the market but in reality they are always catching up. This is unlike the other countries where the government have a lot of influence. I once asked a Chinese businessman about how to find opportunities to do business in China. He replied, start reading the government's five year plans. He said we don't read annual reports of companies, we read government policies. Europe to a less extent works the same way.

 

Its completely different here. Think about the shale revolution, sharing economies like Uber, Air BnB etc. They disrupted large regulated businesses and now the government is catching up with them. Read the Rockefeller or Carnegie's biographies  and you'll find the same pattern when they disrupted oil and steel. Read the political news of those times and you'll find the same charges/counter charges. The only difference is that the voices are shriller which makes the division seems much starker than they actually are. I can guarantee you that this country will be ahead of everyone in the next decade , next 25 years. It takes generations to get the entrepreneurial culture in the DNA. I don't see a single country capable of that right now.

 

I agree with you, except that I don't think the voices are shriller.  I'm reading Titan (Rockefeller) at the moment and Tarbell et al were pretty shrill.

[DonFanucci]

[For example, antitrust is a fairly left wing idea but it brings out the best of capitalism imho.

 

I would have to disagree with that, I can't think of a single anti trust case that I thought was justified. I can think of some really stupid ones off the top of my head... Microsoft for giving away a browser, IBM for dominating mainframes, Alcoa for literally being too efficient, Staples-Office depot was totally insane, the list goes on and on. It seems like more of a way for competitors to coerce each other because they can't compete in a voluntary market. Like Benioff at Salesforce trying to get his cronies in Europe to block Microsoft's bid for LinkedIn.

Standard oil? Bell System?

 

Quite.

 

There is some evidence that the Standard was losing its monopoly due to free market competition anyway.  But, some markets do tend toward abuse of monopoly positions which isn't good.

 

I've never seen any evidence of bad monopoly positions, if that 'monopoly' was achieved on an actually free market. Re standard oil...

 

"Between 1870 and 1885 the price of refined kerosene dropped from 26 cents to 8 cents per gallon. In the same period, the Standard Oil Company reduced the [refining] costs per gallon from almost 3 cents in 1870 to 0.452 cents in 1885. Clearly, the firm was relatively efficient, and its efficiency was being translated to the consumer in the form of lower prices for a much improved product, and to the firm in the form of additional profits.

 

That story continued for the remainder of the century, with the price of kerosene to the consumer falling to 5.91 cents per gallon in 1897. Armentano concludes from the record that “at the very pinnacle of Standard’s industry ‘control,’ the costs and the prices for refined oil reached their lowest levels in the history of the petroleum industry.”"

 

https://fee.org/articles/41-rockefellers-standard-oil-company-proved-that-we-needed-anti-trust-laws-to-fight-such-market-monopolies/

 

This isn't the only case of this. Alcoa was also attacked for being too efficient. I really don't see a single economic reason for anti trust. There's also the injustice of punishing people for being good.

 

I don't know much about Bell, but I'm fairly confident it's not correct to classify its markets/business as built on voluntary exchange. Government monopolies should definitely be broken up.

[rkbabang]

 

I've never seen any evidence of bad monopoly positions, if that 'monopoly' was achieved on an actually free market. Re standard oil...

 

"Between 1870 and 1885 the price of refined kerosene dropped from 26 cents to 8 cents per gallon. In the same period, the Standard Oil Company reduced the [refining] costs per gallon from almost 3 cents in 1870 to 0.452 cents in 1885. Clearly, the firm was relatively efficient, and its efficiency was being translated to the consumer in the form of lower prices for a much improved product, and to the firm in the form of additional profits.

 

That story continued for the remainder of the century, with the price of kerosene to the consumer falling to 5.91 cents per gallon in 1897. Armentano concludes from the record that “at the very pinnacle of Standard’s industry ‘control,’ the costs and the prices for refined oil reached their lowest levels in the history of the petroleum industry.”"

 

https://fee.org/articles/41-rockefellers-standard-oil-company-proved-that-we-needed-anti-trust-laws-to-fight-such-market-monopolies/

 

This isn't the only case of this. Alcoa was also attacked for being too efficient. I really don't see a single economic reason for anti trust. There's also the injustice of punishing people for being good.

 

I don't know much about Bell, but I'm fairly confident it's not correct to classify its markets/business as built on voluntary exchange. Government monopolies should definitely be broken up.

 

+1.  Exactly.  There is certainly no need for antitrust laws enforced by governments.  The only real consumer harming monopolies are those created and protected by governments.  The taxi cartels in cities which require medallions and ban Uber for instance or the Bell system, the cable companies.  All the time and money spent in the 90's (by both sides) on the Microsoft antitrust case which technology just made irrelevant a few years later.

 

Government itself is a violently enforced monopoly.  Try to call up city hall and say "You know what? I'm not happy with the police in this city, I'm going to cancel my subscription."  See what they tell you.

 

[rb]

Great! Here comes the antitrust and insider trading should be legal brigade!

[DonFanucci]

Great! Here comes the antitrust and insider trading should be legal brigade!

 

Lol! Bring on the brigade! No seriously, if you have an argument to the contrary I'd be interested in it. I've done a lot of research and thinking on these arguments over the years and all the evidence, carefully examined, points one direction. Anti trust is an unnecessary evil.

[rkbabang]

Great! Here comes the antitrust and insider trading should be legal brigade!

 

Yeah, god forbid you be able to use the knowledge you have to make sound financial decisions.

 

[rb]

Great! Here comes the antitrust and insider trading should be legal brigade!

 

Yeah, god forbid you be able to use the knowledge you have to make sound financial decisions.

Because it's like wack-a-mole with you guys which turns into a waste of time. You come with some ridiculous proposition. Then someone spends a lot of time crafting an intelligent post as to why you're wrong. Then you dismiss what that person said based on your feelings and move to another ridiculous proposition.

 

If you've done so much research why don't you present your findings based on hard data (not something you read in some book) that supports your proposition? I'd love to see respected research that show that when a firm gets monopoly power the result is higher output and lower prices.

[rkbabang]

Great! Here comes the antitrust and insider trading should be legal brigade!

 

Yeah, god forbid you be able to use the knowledge you have to make sound financial decisions.

Because it's like wack-a-mole with you guys which turns into a waste of time. You come with some ridiculous proposition. Then someone spends a lot of time crafting an intelligent post as to why you're wrong. Then you dismiss what that person said based on your feelings and move to another ridiculous proposition.

 

If you've done so much research why don't you present your findings based on hard data (not something you read in some book) that supports your proposition? I'd love to see respected research that show that when a firm gets monopoly power the result is higher output and lower prices.

 

Because that isn't the case.  No firm gets monopoly power without government's help (regulations, licensing, subsidies, outright grant of monopoly power such as with patents).  And if they ever did, how could they stop a competitors from undercutting their prices?    The answer is that they couldn't so this "monopoly power" wouldn't last very long.

 

[Liberty]

One more:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/27/trump-twelfth-woman-sexual-assault-accusation-ninni-laaksonen

[sys]

Yes I am Canadian but, I did live in the Midwest and South for a while...

 

So I guess that you should also ask that question to Liberty, RB, Elig and many others that I am missing who are all Canadians and posting at times a fair bit more than I am. And extremely biased.

 

thanks for answering.  and thanks for the information on some of the others posting in this thread.  i knew there were a lot of canadians on the board, but for some reason i assumed that the regular participants in this thread were american.

[DooDiligence]

I'll be so glad when all this is over!

 

I just joined this board a month or so ago after having lurked in the shadows & read posts on here for nearly 3 years.

 

The intelligence & restraint I've come to admire in your thoughtful analysis of businesses has completely gone out the window when it comes to which one of these idiots should be our next president.

 

(Here's where someone trots out a post I made about my least favorite candidate which just proves my point...)

[rb]

No worries. Less than two weeks to go. I actually found this thread to be a bit therapeutic, blow some steam in relation to the election stuff that i face in real life where I can't express an opinion. I actually get mad when people corrupt this thread with other stuff. This is the place for Trump is an asshole and Hillary is evil.

[rkbabang]

No worries. Less than two weeks to go. I actually found this thread to be a bit therapeutic, blow some steam in relation to the election stuff that i face in real life where I can't express an opinion. I actually get mad when people corrupt this thread with other stuff. This is the place for Trump is an asshole and Hillary is evil.

 

:)  This is a great venting your frustrations about the election thread.  It goes from being therapeutic to I can't read it anymore, so I stop reading it for a few days and come back later.  This has got to be the craziest US presidential election in history.  I'm not a fan of any politicians, but I've never been so utterly disgusted about an election as I am this year.  It is a new low for sure.

 

[rb]

Well I guess we got a pretty clear indication of what financial markets think of a Trump presidency.

[Gregmal]

Saw a headline which read something along the lines of "Clinton: Americans deserve full and complete facts". Oh boy. Really Hillary? Well you could have given them to us a long, long time ago instead of hiding and deleting them. This woman is just too much. What a riot.

[rkbabang]

The Chicago Tribune:

Democrats should ask Hillary Clinton to step aside

 

"It's obvious the American political system is breaking down. It's been crumbling for some time now, and the establishment elite know it and they're properly frightened. Donald Trump, the vulgarian at their gates, is a symptom, not a cause. Hillary Clinton and husband Bill are both cause and effect."