Big Business

[Bono]

Unfavorable, because they only got big because of government priviledges, like walmart using eminent domain to demolish churches and set stores there.

[Bono]

Unfavorable, because they only got big because of government priviledges, like walmart using eminent domain to demolish churches and set stores there.

Walmart doens't get to invoke eminent domain. Only government can do that. You should be upset with government for misusing eminent domain. Under the constitution eminent domain is used to obtain land for public use, not for private business. So its government, not Walmart that acted improperly.

Also what type of business do you think we should have? Its fair enough to criticize big business, but what works better?

And why do you think Government doues those 'favor$' to Wal-Mart??

Fact is, big business all suck on the tits of the government, weather it's using it to crunch their competitors, be it by giving themselves corporate welfare, or by increasing relulations so that new competitors can't arise, vide what the Detroid cartel of auto industry does, be it by hiding behind limited liability, be it by saving from bankruptcy due to government contratcs, be it by escaping stock market failures because of insider trading çaws, or any other thing you might want to add. Those laws don't just appear, tehy are fed by corporate money being given to legislators.

[Bono]

- is in the Ayn Rand club at university with me

That's a good thing?

[Bono]

Unfavorable, because they only got big because of government priviledges, like walmart using eminent domain to demolish churches and set stores there.

Walmart doens't get to invoke eminent domain. Only government can do that. You should be upset with government for misusing eminent domain. Under the constitution eminent domain is used to obtain land for public use, not for private business. So its government, not Walmart that acted improperly.

Also what type of business do you think we should have? Its fair enough to criticize big business, but what works better?

And why do you think Government doues those 'favor$' to Wal-Mart??

Fact is, big business all suck on the tits of the government, weather it's using it to crunch their competitors, be it by giving themselves corporate welfare, or by increasing relulations so that new competitors can't arise, vide what the Detroid cartel of auto industry does, be it by hiding behind limited liability, be it by saving from bankruptcy due to government contratcs, be it by escaping stock market failures because of insider trading çaws, or any other thing you might want to add. Those laws don't just appear, tehy are fed by corporate money being given to legislators.

Wow. Where do you get your info? Have you noticed that there are Japanese cars, Korean cars and European cars on the road? Many years ago the big three may have been a cartel, but those days are long past. Foreign competition forced them to build better cars at lower prices. The auto industry is very competitive today. According to quicken.com GM made a profit of only 1.17% in the last year. Ford Made about 4% and DaimlerChrysler about 1.5%. That's just barely survival, and remember in some of the past years they lost money. Plus GM and Ford are carrying a mountain of debt. I'm told by friends at GM that they came close to going bellyup a few years ago. As far as liability goes there have been huge settlements against all automakers. GM got nailed for one in excess of a billion dollars a few years ago. Whether it was really their fault is not so clear.
Your complaints about payoff to government though not specific, are a greater criticism of government than business.
But you haven't answered the most important question; what would be better?

If left naturally, big business don't hold on because they become inneficient. The ideal structure is a society of small/mid-sized business. An ocasional big business might emerge, but it wuld have to be exceptionally well-managed to be able to survive on a free market. Yes, nice, cars from brands with nice capitals and that were well-stablished on their origins before they hit America. Now tell me, how many new American car companies were able to sprung up on the last, say 50 years, that weren't driven by one of the 3 giants?

[Bono]

Unfavorable, because they only got big because of government priviledges, like walmart using eminent domain to demolish churches and set stores there.

Walmart doens't get to invoke eminent domain. Only government can do that. You should be upset with government for misusing eminent domain. Under the constitution eminent domain is used to obtain land for public use, not for private business. So its government, not Walmart that acted improperly.

Also what type of business do you think we should have? Its fair enough to criticize big business, but what works better?

And why do you think Government doues those 'favor$' to Wal-Mart??

Fact is, big business all suck on the tits of the government, weather it's using it to crunch their competitors, be it by giving themselves corporate welfare, or by increasing relulations so that new competitors can't arise, vide what the Detroid cartel of auto industry does, be it by hiding behind limited liability, be it by saving from bankruptcy due to government contratcs, be it by escaping stock market failures because of insider trading çaws, or any other thing you might want to add. Those laws don't just appear, tehy are fed by corporate money being given to legislators.

Wow. Where do you get your info? Have you noticed that there are Japanese cars, Korean cars and European cars on the road? Many years ago the big three may have been a cartel, but those days are long past. Foreign competition forced them to build better cars at lower prices. The auto industry is very competitive today. According to quicken.com GM made a profit of only 1.17% in the last year. Ford Made about 4% and DaimlerChrysler about 1.5%. That's just barely survival, and remember in some of the past years they lost money. Plus GM and Ford are carrying a mountain of debt. I'm told by friends at GM that they came close to going bellyup a few years ago. As far as liability goes there have been huge settlements against all automakers. GM got nailed for one in excess of a billion dollars a few years ago. Whether it was really their fault is not so clear.
Your complaints about payoff to government though not specific, are a greater criticism of government than business.
But you haven't answered the most important question; what would be better?

If left naturally, big business don't hold on because they become inneficient. The ideal structure is a society of small/mid-sized business. An ocasional big business might emerge, but it wuld have to be exceptionally well-managed to be able to survive on a free market. Yes, nice, cars from brands with nice capitals and that were well-stablished on their origins before they hit America. Now tell me, how many new American car companies were able to sprung up on the last, say 50 years, that weren't driven by one of the 3 giants?

As far as big business becomming inefficient goes, that's a trend that happens to companies of any size. So what? If their competitors are better, the inefficient company will go out of business. That happens all the time. Small and medium compaines go out of buusiness too.

The investment required to start a new car company in the US would be staggering, in part because of government mandated standards for safety, fuel economy, and emissions. Beyond that, to make cost competitive cars you need mass production methods that require a huge financial outlay. There are few companies other than the existing automakers that have the expertise or the money to do it. Delorean tried it a few years back, but he didn't stay in business long.

The point is, thanks to showering money on law makers, the inneficient companies can stay in business.