President Obama's Job Creation Initiative Framework Speeches

[Conan71]

Gaspar, I think the strategy at this point for the Obama administration is they are simply hoping the economy and jobs picture will start to turn around on it's own in the next 12 months.  Going into November, they will lay most of the blame on Republican obstructionism so they can stack Congress with a Democrat majority for two more years before another shellacking in the '14 mid-terms.  That way he can get another truck load of legacy legislation passed, arrange quid pro quo's for his '12 backers, then go play golf the last two years of his second term while doing nothing but antagonizing the GOP Congress.

[Gaspar]

Obummer may have checkmated Rethuglicans as the Party of No.

He may have.  That would suck for everyone, except President Obama.  But, I don't think it will be enough.  He was voted into office on the blame train, and carried that campaign through the past 3 years.  I doubt the american people will allow that to continue.  

[Conan71]

Socialism/Communism?  pancakes?  That interpretation is allll you.  

He's right about the 1 company, though it's theoretical.  Markets respond to leverage and the bigger you are the more leverage you have to tilt the market in your favor.  It's a positive feedback loop.  More money equals more leverage and more leverage equals more money.  It also means that it's a negative feedback loop for your competitors.  Less money means less leverage means less money, etc.

That's a recognized feature of capital-based free markets, which is why -- all the way back in Teddy Roosevelt's day -- he was busting up monopolies (which are simply expressions of this leverage feedback loop).  

Capitalism thrives on entrepreneurship, individualism, diversity, and innovation- not native thoughts in your liberal line of thinking  .  You will find little to none of that within a monolith.

Apple could buy up all the PC software development companies as well as companies building computers on the PC platform and yet, more PC companies will emerge as there's a general tendency from consumers to demand enough competition that monoliths will always create opportunities for competition.  The only way that does not happen is if government steps in and prevents competition from happening.  Government won't do that unless there's a huge stake in it for them and that becomes socialism or communism.

Competition has and always will be a cornerstone of capitalism.

[Conan71]

He may have.  That would suck for everyone, except President Obama.  But, I don't think it will be enough.  He was voted into office on the blame train, and carried that campaign through the past 3 years.  I doubt the american people will allow that to continue.  

As long as the state-run media keeps up the meme that it's obstructionist Repigs, it will continue.  Keep in mind, most voters only have a long enough attention span for a headline and a paragraph or two.

[Gaspar]

Gaspar, I think the strategy at this point for the Obama administration is they are simply hoping the economy and jobs picture will start to turn around on it's own in the next 12 months.  Going into November, they will lay most of the blame on Republican obstructionism so they can stack Congress with a Democrat majority for two more years before another shellacking in the '14 mid-terms.  That way he can get another truck load of legacy legislation passed, arrange quid pro quo's for his '12 backers, then go play golf the last two years of his second term while doing nothing but antagonizing the GOP Congress.

That's kinda what they did over the past 3 years was "Hoping" that things would naturally turn around.  Well, Hope is not a strategy, and I'm happy to see that people are getting smarter and more interested in politics as a result of this administration.  It has certainly been a good lesson for many.

[Gaspar]

Apple could buy up all the PC software development companies as well as companies building computers on the PC platform and yet, more PC companies will emerge as there's a general tendency from consumers to demand enough competition that monoliths will always create opportunities for competition.  The only way that does not happen is if government steps in and prevents competition from happening.  Government won't do that unless there's a huge stake in it for them and that becomes socialism or communism.

Actually Apple could buy Europe right now!

[nathanm]

Competition has and always will be a cornerstone of capitalism.

You're conflating capitalism with the free market. History shows quite clearly that absent government intervention monopolies or duopolies are nearly inevitable. Yes, the free market works best for most of us when there is vigorous competition. Unfortunately, that does not present the best return on investment for the capitalists who own said companies. Better for them to use what market power they have to shut others out, whether that be through extralegal means or simply selling below cost long enough to drive the smaller competitors out of business.

[Conan71]

Actually Apple could buy Europe right now!

Oh, and that's the other thing, as long as Apple has competition from buggy MicroCrap, it keeps driving more people toward their product.  I've been on the Mac platform six months now and not one security issue. 

[Cats Cats Cats]

Realistically on a super monopoly over multiple industries and countries probably couldn't be easily managed.  You would have a few multi-industry monopolies.

[Gaspar]

Oh, and that's the other thing, as long as Apple has competition from buggy MicroCrap, it keeps driving more people toward their product.  I've been on the Mac platform six months now and not one security issue. 

20 years of mac with no security issues.  I have an 8 year old Mac at home that I've never turned off.  Still works like the day it was purchased.

[AquaMan]

Man, conversation around here, anywhere lately, is bizarre. People seem to be talking as though what they say is fact when it really seems to be a witches brew of politics, drugs, religion and old black and white propaganda films. Is it just me?

History majors feel free to fill in my spaces, I'm working from memory. Anyway, here is what happens when government does not restrain the growth of monopolies. In fact in the mid to late 1800's (the business period so revered by Libertarians and TPartiers for freedom from gubmnt) government actually encouraged them.  The railroads were given free reign in the entire process of railroad infrastructure development. They determined routes, what towns grew and didn't, what products could be transported and what it would cost. Total monopoly power. The industry grew like weeds. If a weaker, innovative, entrepreneurial operator emerged and threatened the big boys they were summarily purchased, destroyed or legislated into oblivion.

Cornelius Vanderbilt and his partners constructed a railroad using land the government gave to them to enable their construction. It was a successful venture. So much so that the partners stole the company from Vanderbilt through stock manipulation. It took him awhile to figure it out but when he did he sent them a telegraph that went something like this, "Gentlemen. You have endeavored to steal something that was not yours. I will destroy you." They laughed it off. Vanderbilt then proceeded to construct another rail line directly parallel to the original yet much more opulent and comfortable. He then operated it at a loss until the original railroad could no longer compete and went bankrupt. He then bought the line back.

There is very little entrepreneurial spirit, innovation or creativity when monopolies are allowed to flourish unrestrained without the dreaded government interference.

[Conan71]

There is very little entrepreneurial spirit, innovation or creativity when monopolies are allowed to flourish unrestrained without the dreaded government interference.

Not sure what your whole ramble was to arrive at this point, but I think everyone here is pretty much in agreement on your last sentence.

[Gaspar]

There is very little entrepreneurial spirit, innovation or creativity when monopolies are allowed to flourish unrestrained without the dreaded government interference.

Not sure if you are arguing a point, or who that thing was directed at, but I agree 100%.

Nice post. I think.

[AquaMan]

Not sure what your whole ramble was to arrive at this point, but I think everyone here is pretty much in agreement on your last sentence.

I think I was responding to your remark, "Capitalism thrives on entrepreneurship, individualism, diversity, and innovation- not native thoughts in your liberal line of thinking  .  You will find little to none of that within a monolith.

Apple could buy up all the PC software development companies as well as companies building computers on the PC platform and yet, more PC companies will emerge as there's a general tendency from consumers to demand enough competition that monoliths will always create opportunities for competition.  The only way that does not happen is if government steps in and prevents competition from happening.  Government won't do that unless there's a huge stake in it for them and that becomes socialism or communism.

Competition has and always will be a cornerstone of capitalism."

Nathan's reply, "You're conflating capitalism with the free market. History shows quite clearly that absent government intervention monopolies or duopolies are nearly inevitable. Yes, the free market works best for most of us when there is vigorous competition. Unfortunately, that does not present the best return on investment for the capitalists who own said companies. Better for them to use what market power they have to shut others out, whether that be through extralegal means or simply selling below cost long enough to drive the smaller competitors out of business."

It really wasn't worth the time I spent regurgitating the story. It was an argument looking for a participant I guess.

Carry on.

[Gaspar]

I think I was responding to your remark, "Capitalism thrives on entrepreneurship, individualism, diversity, and innovation- not native thoughts in your liberal line of thinking  .  You will find little to none of that within a monolith.

Apple could buy up all the PC software development companies as well as companies building computers on the PC platform and yet, more PC companies will emerge as there's a general tendency from consumers to demand enough competition that monoliths will always create opportunities for competition.  The only way that does not happen is if government steps in and prevents competition from happening.  Government won't do that unless there's a huge stake in it for them and that becomes socialism or communism.

Competition has and always will be a cornerstone of capitalism."

Nathan's reply, "You're conflating capitalism with the free market. History shows quite clearly that absent government intervention monopolies or duopolies are nearly inevitable. Yes, the free market works best for most of us when there is vigorous competition. Unfortunately, that does not present the best return on investment for the capitalists who own said companies. Better for them to use what market power they have to shut others out, whether that be through extralegal means or simply selling below cost long enough to drive the smaller competitors out of business."

It really wasn't worth the time I spent regurgitating the story. It was an argument looking for a participant I guess.

Carry on.

Been guilty of that myself.  I'm sure a participate will emerge. . . Nate. . .Teatown. . .Bueller?