new_trader
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,770
- Likes
- 1,656
Mail delivery is a GOVERNMENT monopoly.
Discuss!
Discuss!
Capitalism
- Thread starter Forexmospherian
- Start date
- Watchers 19
hhiusa
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,687
- Likes
- 140
There is a thing called hidden-city ticketing.
There is an extremely high level of scrutiny by US government on international airlines. It is the belief of the US that most international airlines fewer or slightly unsatisfactory safety protocols. Even though I believe that capitalism should not be controlled, the US has a modicum of control in regards to monopolies. The only monopoly that I can think of, which the US government has broken up, is Pac Bell in 1974. The Pac Bell divestiture.
Believe it or not, you do have some control over ticket price, and it's real simple: If airlines price their tickets too high, people won't fly. It works, too; last year, individual airlines tried to raise ticket prices on 12 separate occasions, but competing carriers said "no" and the hikes didn't happen. Those naysaying airlines knew the higher prices wouldn't fly with their customers, and if people don't fly, airlines don't make money. Note: Three of those 12 hikes were considered “successful,” but they were very narrow in scope.
Why is an empty seat a factor? If the airlines can't fill it, prices drop, which is the last thing they want. So, over the years, airlines have cut capacity and even routes, all with an eye toward filling every seat on every plane.
While some people would say that big companies don't need your business if they are really big, this is entirely not the case. Airlines are a prime example.
hhiusa
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,687
- Likes
- 140
Mail delivery in the US is more of an oligopoly. Fedex and UPS have placed bids to purchase the USPS (United States Postal Service) unsuccessfully. It is likely that very soon the US government will decide to sell it. The debt from paying all those exorbidant pensions is taking its toll upon the USPS. They recently switched for those that are not grandfathered in from pensions to forced investments. This is what socialist economic policies bring about. As my signature says, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” Public pensions are not a stable plan. This is what I mean by laissez-faire capitalism. You should be required to save for your own retirement. People complain about CEOs making too much money, but they are the life blood of the economy. It is supply side economics. Entrepreneurs should not be vilified for taking initiative and providing jobs. Those jobs are a privilege, not a right. It is your responsiblity to make sure that you remain relevant to the time and useful. CEOs do not receive pensions from the state and federal government. I just read an article about public employees who receive $100,000+ pensions after only 25 years of service. CALPERS is running dry on funds, while some people even leech close to 7 figures a year.
Curtis D Ishii – senior investment officer for CalPERS made $757,063.
Eric B Baggesen – senior investment officer for CalPERS made $755,182.
Timothy P Foley – dentist at Fairview State Hospital made $710,917.
I am sure it is similar in the UK. This is where your tax dollars are going. This is why socialism, which provides too heavily for the masses and penalizes entrepreneurs is more morally reprehensible.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,864
- Likes
- 4,040
Government's not much different to Monopoly or Oligopoly or any other big corporation yes that is true. Tried to point this out to you when you commended Chinese State Capitalism for some of the success but you were too tight arsed to consider such a plausibility.
National Mail devilery is called a natural monopoly too and a good argument can be made for it being of national strategic importance and thus should remain under state control. As it happens increasingly with TNT and FEDex eating into profitable deliveries competition is hotting up. So we have a bit of a mixed play at the moment with Royal Mail also privatised.
Re: Flying - the reasoning behind that ruling no doubt is to fly those routes, licenses need to be purchased and subsequent earnings from domestic flights are in some way returned in some amount as revenue to local/fedearal governments.
Protectionism is rife all over the place no surprises there. Tit for tat rules/laws may also be applied or be in use in international carriers host country.
Now can you respond to these antitrust lawsuits please. Did pose this question before but sadly none of you two clever clogs attempted to explain the what why reason of it all.
UPDATE: Airlines now face at least 15 antitrust lawsuits
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/...now-face-at-least-15-antitrust-lawsuits.html/
On Wednesday, we counted 11 lawsuits filed that allege that American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines had colluded to restrain capacity and thereby drive up airfares.
The new count: 15, including four more that were filed Wednesday.
They were all filed after the U.S. Department of Justice asked those four airlines last week to provide all documents and records they possessed that discussed capacity. The DOJ followed complaints from lawmakers that airlines weren’t cutting fares in the wake of falling fuel price and were talking a lot about capacity discipline.
Last edited:
new_trader
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,770
- Likes
- 1,656
Socialism = Popular
You only have to read through this thread to see why Richard Branson wouldn't dare admit that he truly believes in what he actually practices - Capitalism.
He knows that if he publically admitted his approval of Capitalism he would be hounded by a mob of angry coveting citizens carrying pitchforks foaming at the mouth and shouting obscenities.
Like all celebrities, Richard Branson knows that being popular and liked by the masses is more important than the truth. So he puts on a public display of solidarity with his fellow comrades and when the show is over he retreats to Necker Island which he was able to acquire entirely due to the virtues of capitalism.
You see the same sort of pandering to the ignorant and ill-informed public from other celebrities and especially Hollywood stars (Hollywood gets many Government concessions), although I would say many aren't anywhere near as clued up about economics as Branson.
BTW, although I have never worked with Richard Branson I know someone who worked closely with him for a few months. I will ask him whether he knows if Branson is truly a socialist or capitalist. My guess is he won't know and it wouldn't surprise me. How many people go around asking others "Are you a socialist or capitalist?"....anyway....
This is an extremely interesting article to which this thread is an absolute testament...I find it very disturbing...especially since this is allegedly a trading and investment forum!
The Twisted Motives Behind Political Correctness
http://personalliberty.com/the-twisted-motives-behind-political-correctness/
You only have to read through this thread to see why Richard Branson wouldn't dare admit that he truly believes in what he actually practices - Capitalism.
He knows that if he publically admitted his approval of Capitalism he would be hounded by a mob of angry coveting citizens carrying pitchforks foaming at the mouth and shouting obscenities.
Like all celebrities, Richard Branson knows that being popular and liked by the masses is more important than the truth. So he puts on a public display of solidarity with his fellow comrades and when the show is over he retreats to Necker Island which he was able to acquire entirely due to the virtues of capitalism.
You see the same sort of pandering to the ignorant and ill-informed public from other celebrities and especially Hollywood stars (Hollywood gets many Government concessions), although I would say many aren't anywhere near as clued up about economics as Branson.
BTW, although I have never worked with Richard Branson I know someone who worked closely with him for a few months. I will ask him whether he knows if Branson is truly a socialist or capitalist. My guess is he won't know and it wouldn't surprise me. How many people go around asking others "Are you a socialist or capitalist?"....anyway....
This is an extremely interesting article to which this thread is an absolute testament...I find it very disturbing...especially since this is allegedly a trading and investment forum!
The Twisted Motives Behind Political Correctness
http://personalliberty.com/the-twisted-motives-behind-political-correctness/
hhiusa
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,687
- Likes
- 140
Why don't we count the number of times that @Forexmospherian has mentioned that he has worked for Richard Branson. It is as if he is living vicariously through him. Since you worked for a successful capitalist, then you must be a successful capitalist. Is that what you are implying here? I would say that this removes credence from your claim as successful capitalists in my book, start and run their own businesses instead of working for somebody else. What does it matter if Richard Branson is a billionaire? You are not him. That is tantamount to saying that because I know the queen, then I must be royalty. If I have been an extra and worked with Brad Pitt, does that make me a successful actor?
@new_trader
What you have said about socialism = popular is so true. "In vino veritas" as you have said about this thread. "What's right isn't always popular. What's popular isn't always right."
- Howard Cosell
@new_trader
What you have said about socialism = popular is so true. "In vino veritas" as you have said about this thread. "What's right isn't always popular. What's popular isn't always right."
- Howard Cosell
Last edited:
tar
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,443
- Likes
- 1,314
Forexmospherian
Legendary member
- Messages
- 39,928
- Likes
- 3,306
Its a waste of time - quoting quotes from people - mainly because they are in the past - so history - and can always be improved
The one you quote can be improved so easily
ie What's right isn't always popular. What's popular isn't always right."
But - when you get rights that are popular - then you are on your way to something that will work
Forexmospherian - 8 02 am am Thursday 16th July 2015
Please quote that one in the future - its better than yours ;-)
Forexmospherian
Legendary member
- Messages
- 39,928
- Likes
- 3,306
Hi n_t
I could write a book about my time with Richard Branson - maybe I will when I fully retire
It started in 1985/86 and I was a director of 3 of the 127 Ltd companies he was involved with at that time
I had many "one to one" meetings with him over a 3 yr period - at various locations - the main ones at his house boat in Maida vale that he used as his own personal office at the time.
He assisted me to become a multi millionaire over the next 10 years - and maybe - just maybe - I assisted him to become a multi billionaire.
A shy introvert outside of public life - but a wild extrovert when it suited him and maybe that was one of the key's to his great success
I have no contact with him over the last decade - last time I met him was in Marbella - when we were both on holiday.
All the real interesting stuff - I will save for my book
Regards
F
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,864
- Likes
- 4,040
Richard Branson, his character, persona, behaviour are all part of the Virgin brand image. BA is a selfless corporation as Richard Branson is the personification of the Virgin brand corporate image.
He could be labelled a social capitalist. I can imagine this may hit you as a bit of a paradox but there are many other worlds of capitalism out there beyond the confines of your interpretation on what capitalism is. Not everyone is pure as you.
If I were to say Henry Ford was a "social capitalist" what would you say?
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
Unfortunately not really. If you read the accounts of the violence of the strikes at Ford in the 1930s you will understand. He was in reality a ruthless man who employed ruthless men like Bennett to implement his policies by force if necessary. There at Ford the battle for social democracy in America was lost.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,864
- Likes
- 4,040
Yes and I know there were lots of union battering going on.
However, he did have a vision of bringing cars to masses. Before Henry cars were for the exclusive possession of the well to do. He had a vision for the common man to drive and coupled with his production lines made that possible.
Freddie Laker and Richard Branson likewise bringing cheap flights.
Usually these days companies compete on Product differentiation and not price. Competing on price is very destructive.
Theory of capitalism is based on producing to meet demand but in many cases like the utilities they do not compete on price at all. It's just branding and 200 tariffs. What's the point? You get to pick the logo on your bill.
Why do car manufactures produce a limited edition of say 200 cars. Because they are hand built and they take so long. Really? Just clever marketing trick for the snob effect, ******** who feels special.
Usually Arabs who have more money than brains. Point is social capitalism is about bringing a product to market for the masses and not restricting supply to maintain high prices and abnormal profits with barriers to entry.
No system is perfect. However, do recall US auto-labourers are more expensive now than their Japanese and European counterparts. So a bit of leap frogging going on too.
P
postman
I love these stories, theyre almost always made up.
"An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked well since no one would be poor and no one would be rich, thus providing a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on the Socialist plan".... All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they likewise studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one was motivated to study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward (and risk) is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will work really hard to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on)
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Can you think of a reason for not sharing this? "
"An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked well since no one would be poor and no one would be rich, thus providing a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on the Socialist plan".... All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they likewise studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one was motivated to study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward (and risk) is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will work really hard to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on)
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Can you think of a reason for not sharing this? "
hhiusa
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,687
- Likes
- 140
The above statement is the reason why capitalism is not mixed with socialism. It is the antithesis of socialism. The unemployed do not need an indefinite safety net. All of the things you keep mentioning are privileges, not rights.
I also find it funny that @postman went from bashing capitalism to an article or anecdote that completely supports unadulterated capitalism. :smart:
Forexmospherian
Legendary member
- Messages
- 39,928
- Likes
- 3,306
Hi hhiusa
The fact that you look upon Socialism as a complete opposite of Capitalism is maybe one of the most important reasons they have to be used together to get a social balance.
Its the Yin and the Yang
Wise countries regulate to try and obtain the correct balance.
Maybe you could tell me the best country at doing it ?
You may think its the US - they do have a balance and you and n_t have been showing it with some examples.
We all know Greece just did not have the correct balance.
All the rich multi millionaire business owners ( Capitalists ) just got away not paying their fair share back into the Greek economy - for years they have got away with maybe only paying a fifth of the tax they should have done.
Then all the government and state employees just demanded too much - retirement at 50 - over 23% of population worked for state - efficient countries aim for under 12% - the lower the better
So you had the Capitalists doing the economy - but also the Socialists doing the same
Result - an inefficient economy that would have already gone bankrupt without the past help of the EU.
To achieve a good mix of capitalism and socialism you need a strong referee - or government . They need to be like a good boss themselves - not frightened of using the "stick" but rewarding those who deserve it with the "carrot"
Instead they reward all their government workers and to get away with it - they turn a blind eye to 93% of all citizens under declaring their incomes on their tax returns.
A weak government - can you imagine your favourite Lady Maggie Thatcher allowing that - no way.
For a government to get respect from it citizens - its needs to be seen to be unbias - fair - strong - uncorrupt - hard working - cost saving - innovative - ground breaking - etc etc
Unfortunately - not many of those around - Can Hilary Clinton be another Maggie or Merkel - because Donald Trump only does "me me me" - and that will just not be good enough for what the US need for the next decade
Regards
F
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,864
- Likes
- 4,040
Yes it's SPAM...
The reader is led like bull with a ring through it's nose.
Don't wish to work through the whole lot but point 4 for example...
If there are 9 people with not much and 1 person with a great deal you can multiply wealth and create more of it yes.
For example, no matter whether one person has homes in NY, London, Paris or Tokyo; he can only live in one of them at a time. Whether he has 100 fast sport cars he can only drive one at a time.
By better distribution of wealth and facilitating the 9 workers by giving them a fair wage, who in our good world, will lead them to raise a decent well fed family, who's one child may get to university, study medical practice and find a cure for cancer and cure the wealthy chap in his old age who might be about to die from catching skin cancer having spent too much time on his yatch.
Hoarding of wealth and living off interest does not produce anything.
Societies where incomes are more equally distributed are usually more happy than ones where they are skewed and labour is abused and exploited.
On the other hand if it is trying to highlight the free rider problem alone then yes I agree with it.
Everyone associates socialism with equality which is a load of rubbish.
Objective should be for an Efficient Economic system with Equitable distribution of rewards. Not equal distribution.
:smart:
new_trader
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,770
- Likes
- 1,656
I bet Atilla thinks that the money banks loan out comes from a magical printing press so therefore nobody needs to save! Perhaps he actually believes (and it wouldn't surprise me) that the money rich people are 'hoarding' in the bank is actually kept in a shoebox, in a safe, with the rich man's name and a sign on it saying "Don't touch"
After reading Atilla's idiotic post, does anyone here think he understands that savers are CREDITORS to a bank? I'd say he hasn't got the foggiest idea...and he is allegedly a trader and investor...would you trust him with your money after reading what he wrote?
As far as I'm concerned, the rest of Atilla's bizarre post has been discredited by this display of absolute IGNORANCE of basic economics! It really is the MOST retarded left wing logic so far.
P
postman
I find it sad that you have previously referenced Plato who was best know for his Republic, and yet you advocate Capitalism. You seem to treat scholars' ideals like a pick and mix counter when it suits you and yet give the appearance of being inflexible on others.
You have obviously read other peoples books, but dont have the wisdom to understand how they fit into the real world. Your immaturity will be you downfall.
Good luck trading Mr Market with your inflexible attitude.
Similar threads
