US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2336

On September 24 2015 13:53 LimpingGoat wrote:
I'm a solid liberal and I want to vote for Trump.

Change my view

On September 24 2015 13:38 cLutZ wrote:


None of those things are sustainable. Even the most classic examples (such as Rockafeller) were either caused by government support or had real competitors that were bubbling up because of the opportunity for undercutting/flanking (such as microsoft).

On September 24 2015 13:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:


I'm not big on economic theory, but I don't think those types of policies have to be sustainable indefinitely, they just need to be sustainable long enough for new competitors to crumple. I feel like the higher the cost of entering the market and the more intelligence the monopolist can gather about new market entrants the easier it is for those policies to work (and even in a free market you still have cost of entry).

Edit: If market entry was free and instantaneous they wouldn't work, but it never is.

On September 24 2015 15:12 IgnE wrote:
I think you mean:

Natural monopoly and natural monopoly for the first two. Regulation exists because they are natural monopolies.

It's still pretty unclear whether you think monopolies exist in the natural state of "free markets." But you seem pretty delusional so I don't know if I care about your answers.

On September 24 2015 16:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think the words "free market" and "regulation" have been thrown around so haphazardly for so long they have lost their meaning to 1000 translations.

From my experience when people say "free market" no two of them mean the same thing. For most it's just a catch phrase/slogan like "socialist" or "I'm lovin' it"

On September 24 2015 21:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:


Ah yes, whenever there's anything wrong with the free market, just say that it's actually due to "regulations".

Never mind the fact that your economic ideology relies on a fantasy world where human beings won't exploit one another like they have throughout all of human history.

[B]On September 24 2015 22:06 DickMcFanny wrote:

Precisely.

Regulations don't undermine free markets, advertising does.

Why Aren’t We Inspired by Hillary Clinton?

was an unseasonably warm night in Chicago. On Tuesday, November 4, 2008, nearly a quarter of a million people—young and old, men and women of almost every racial and ethnic background—streamed into Grant Park. The crowd was peaceful and somewhat subdued, filled with a jittery anticipation about how the night would likely unfold. Shortly after 10 P.M. Central Standard Time, television networks announced that Barack Obama had been elected the forty-fourth President of the United States. For a few seconds, the crowd stood still, in a stunned silence. Then, the crowd let out a collective and euphoric scream. There was joy, relief, and disbelief. Tears flowed freely, strangers hugged for several minutes, others knelt and prayed. Senator John McCain’s concession speech put Obama’s election into its historic context by reminding Americans that just a century ago President Theodore Roosevelt had been vilified for inviting Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House. Obama’s victory speech took the high-spirited crowd even higher: “If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.” I called my cousin, who was too filled with emotion and too mystified to complete her thought: “This country . . . This country . . . This country . . . ” she said quietly, as her voice trailed off.

If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and the national election, can we expect the same gathering of crowds and the same emotional outpouring? Would the historic election of the first woman President evoke a similar thrill and sense of wonderment at the leaps that this country is capable of making?

Probably not. But why not? Is the election of a black man more revolutionary than the election of a white woman? Of course, one cannot compare the moment of an election victory of one candidate to a moment during another candidate’s campaign, a year before the election. And much of the excitement about Obama derived from the dissatisfaction with the President he was replacing. But the question remains: what’s behind the shortfall of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton?

On September 24 2015 22:09 Plansix wrote:

I would love to see a lot enforcement when it comes to deceptive advertising. And updated regulation requiring disclosure of digitally enhanced or altered photos.

On September 24 2015 22:30 ticklishmusic wrote:


From the New Yorker

An interesting perspective about why people are ready, but not excited, for Hillary.

On September 24 2015 21:55 Plansix wrote:

Free markets exist beside regulation, no matter what internet free market worshipers say. And it accepts that government supported monopolies are necessary sometimes, like electricity, airports and train lines. If there is one thing that is true about free market theory on the internet and in politics, its that most people talking about it haven't read Adam Smith. Because he clearly states when the free market isn't effective and why. For example, he says that the free market fails when the consumer does not have enough information. Yet you hear a lot of folks(but not everyone) who claim to all about the free market dislike regulations requiring greater disclosure and transparency.

In the cases of the cLutZ is referencing, all the companies are using government regulations to enforce their dominance in the market. While also pushing to not regulated further. Facebook and Google are just running free and no one can challenge them for a number of reasons, but none are regulation.

On September 24 2015 13:53 LimpingGoat wrote:
I'm a solid liberal and I want to vote for Trump.

Change my view