US Politics

[Ironman]

Yes, it is called a market failure, it happens in free markets. I know this because I studied economics at uni.

That's funny Yes, you do, i.e. Comcast, Google, Luxottica, Monsanto, YKK, etc. There is also just five major banks, handful of insurance companies and a handful of media companies. The USA is the king of monopolies.

Trump personally attacks people everyday, I personally attack him back because I don't like bullies.

I don't hate him, but I do have issues with him. And because I do, you assume I'm a die-hard Hillary supporter and assume my positions on topics without hearing me out first. You are the one adding to the issue of hyperpartisanship by refusing to even hear someone out who might disagrees with you. It is not good that you put yourself in an completely closed-minded state.

I think you mean The New York Times, something that you have linked to as well. And just because I post something doesn't mean I 100% agree with it, I could just only find it interesting or I wanted to make a point with it.

I'm curious now, what exactly do you think my politics are and my positions?

Those companies have competing companies. Comcast is a competitor to Spectrum, my cable company.

I didn't say you were a Hillary fan, but I find it completely ironic that you pull the "hyperparitsanship" issue when you are clearly posting multiple links bashing Trump and the USA - our healthcare, our military, NASA.

I'm not as closed-minded as you think I am, but it's a lot easier to be where I am with life experience.

[Total Eclipse]

Those companies have competing companies. Comcast is a competitor to Spectrum, my cable company.

I didn't say you were a Hillary fan, but I find it completely ironic that you pull the "hyperparitsanship" issue when you are clearly posting multiple links bashing Trump and the USA - our healthcare, our military, NASA.

I'm not as closed-minded as you think I am, but it's a lot easier to be where I am with life experience.

I'm not weighting in on either side.. but it seems like, everyone knows what the right or wrong thing to do for a country outside of the country of "you should be like X country" and "X country is the best in the world". It's not as simple as that. And it can be alarming . Sometimes people don't understand the situation-- until they live in the country.

People are also upset over Trumps tactics over NATO, and reducing our cost, and yet also raring about we spend too much on Military... However, the reason we have all the bases is to protect people.

There has also been people complaining that we are backing out of funding for 3rd world country planned parent hood programs, refugee aid, illegal immigrant and etc.. Yet, still talk about how pathetic America is for not having free health-care. The humanity in us all wants to help everyone... however, "if America can't help themselves..." it's a double edge thing. If we where to back away from those programs until more economically sound, just maybe, we could afford a health-care program for everyone... and that sounds harsh, and cold.. (and I don't know what the best solution is...) -- the above isn't something I personally believe: but I know is a humanity vs economic view of things.. and people trying to find the balance. I'm just glad I don't have to make those choices... >.< It would feel like it would be screwing over someone, no matter what situation it goes with...

It's a really tough situation.. and our dynamics in our country and what we do are so much different than another, for someone to say "we do this and it works for us" is an understatement to the foundation of each country.

I do hope we come up with health-care for all.. one day... and a proper system to make sure vets aren't on the streets dying, we take care of our disabled, and our everyday working people, as well as people that fall on hard times--- preventing them from going homeless....AND are able to aid other countries, refugee's, and 3rd world etc... Right now, we've not been able to do any of this properly.

[Lunaire]

I'm not weighting in on either side.. but it seems like, everyone knows what the right or wrong thing to do for a country outside of the country of "you should be like X country" and "X country is the best in the world". It's not as simple as that. And it can be alarming . Sometimes people don't understand the situation-- until they live in the country.

People are also upset over Trumps tactics over NATO, and reducing our cost, and yet also raring about we spend too much on Military... However, the reason we have all the bases is to protect people.

There has also been people complaining that we are backing out of funding for 3rd world country planned parent hood programs, refugee aid, illegal immigrant and etc.. Yet, still talk about how pathetic America is for not having free health-care. The humanity in us all wants to help everyone... however, "if America can't help themselves..." it's a double edge thing. If we where to back away from those programs until more economically sound, just maybe, we could afford a health-care program for everyone... and that sounds harsh, and cold.. (and I don't know what the best solution is...) -- the above isn't something I personally believe: but I know is a humanity vs economic view of things.. and people trying to find the balance. I'm just glad I don't have to make those choices... >.< It would feel like it would be screwing over someone, no matter what situation it goes with...

It's a really tough situation.. and our dynamics in our country and what we do are so much different than another, for someone to say "we do this and it works for us" is an understatement to the foundation of each country.

I do hope we come up with health-care for all.. one day... and a proper system to make sure vets aren't on the streets dying, we take care of our disabled, and our everyday working people, as well as people that fall on hard times--- preventing them from going homeless....AND are able to aid other countries, refugee's, and 3rd world etc... Right now, we've not been able to do any of this properly.

I believe that this is a very well-rounded view to have.

Everything somewhere down the line is a zero-sum game. Making a decision to take action on one item is taking away labor and resources that could be put towards another item.

I think that we all agree that things can be done better in every country. Unfortunately the reality of the matter is that there are a very large number of factors at play and it is much easier to say what the best outcome should be than it is to actually execute it.

[Member11]

Those companies have competing companies. Comcast is a competitor to Spectrum, my cable company.

Unless you live in states that only has Comcast, like Michigan. And two huge corporations is not a free and competitive market, it is a duopoly which is worst because both can claim to have competition while being anti-competitive and disinterest in each other. Real competition looks more like hundreds of small and big businesses beating each other up for every dollar.

I didn't say you were a Hillary fan, but I find it completely ironic that you pull the "hyperparitsanship" issue when you are clearly posting multiple links bashing Trump and the USA - our healthcare, our military, NASA.

I'm not as closed-minded as you think I am, but it's a lot easier to be where I am with life experience.

Your point is undermined when you assumed that video "bashed" NASA without watching it first. That video is talking about the awesome things NASA could do with a bigger budget. If the USA can't handle constructive criticism then it should stop using the words freedom and free speech as it clearly doesn't know what those words means.

If you don't want people outside the USA giving criticism than you shouldn't criticise the healthcare systems of the UK and Canada, how would you know it is a failure if you never used it?

[Lunaire]

Unless you live in states that only has Comcast, like Michigan. And two huge corporations is not a free and competitive market, it is a duopoly which is worst because both can claim to have competition while being anti-competitive and disinterest in each other. Real competition looks more like hundreds of small and big businesses beating each other up for every dollar.

Sure the cable space in the US may be heavily saturated with oligopolies in some regions, but these companies wouldn't be in business if there was no demand for their services.

These companies take advantage of a high cost of entry to the market and low price elasticity to charge the prices they do, but if people weren't willing to pay them then they would be lower priced.

Free market theory dictates that there will be a market-driven solution to a market-driven problem, and this is exactly what we are seeing with the rise of streaming services like Netflix that produce their own content for a much lower price and little to no commercials.

[Member11]

Sure the cable space in the US may be heavily saturated with oligopolies in some regions, but these companies wouldn't be in business if there was no demand for their services.

Being forced to use a service is different to making a choice. It is impossible to go without the Internet these days and if there is only one provider, it doesn't matter how much it charges. Not having a choice kills the whole supply and demand.

These companies take advantage of a high cost of entry to the market and low price elasticity to charge the prices they do, but if people weren't willing to pay them then they would be lower priced.

It doesn't matter though. Even if a small business starts up and be competitive, these corporations are so huge it can just buy up the competition. That is not a free market. No business should have that level of control over a market.

Free market theory dictates that there will be a market-driven solution to a market-driven problem, and this is exactly what we are seeing with the rise of streaming services like Netflix that produce their own content for a much lower price and little to no commercials.

At the moment, the big media corporations are trying to bully Netflix by withholding content to get more and more money off it, that is why Netflix is rushing to create its own content to stop the bleeding. The market failure is still there, the same corporations that own the cable companies also own the studios that make the content, even if Netflix killed off the cable companies, the monopoly is still there and it controls Netflix.

[Lunaire]

Being forced to use a service is different to making a choice. It is impossible to go without the Internet these days and if there is only one provider, it doesn't matter how much it charges, it is forced on people. Not having a choice kills the whole supply and demand.



It doesn't matter though. Even if a small business starts up and be competitive, these corporations are so huge it can just buy up the competition. That is not a free market. No business should have that level of control over a market.



At the moment, the big media corporations are trying to bully Netflix by withholding content to get more and more money off it, that is why Netflix is rushing to create its own content to stop the bleeding. The market failure is still there, the same corporations that own the cable companies also own the studios that make the content, even if Netflix killed off the cable companies, the monopoly is still there and it controls Netflix.

I disagree. Even if you dislike the outcome of the industry's market equilibrium, nobody in America is "forced" to use their service. This is hyperbole at best and a straw man argument at worst in that you are arguing against a market condition which does not exist.

Internet and cable are services. They are luxuries and not necessities and are therefore not regulated like utilities are, despite being similar in limited spectrum and high cost of entry and infrastructure costs. Nobody is going to die from not having cable or internet.

If the prices were too high or the service too poor to be considered worth it then consumer demand would go down and these companies would be required to adapt to the market.

If nobody was willing to pay for the service then they would go out of business.

[Member11]

Internet and cable are services. They are luxuries and not necessities and are therefore not regulated like utilities are...

The internet is regulated as a public utility by the FCC in the USA, it is why this site can exists without having to pay millions to cable/internet providers.

I disagree. Even if you dislike the outcome of the industry's market equilibrium, nobody in America is "forced" to use their service. This is hyperbole at best and a straw man argument at worst in that you are arguing against a market condition which does not exist.

What if it was a food corporation instead, it was the only one selling food there was nothing else and no other way to get food and it was charging $50 for each apple. Wouldn't that be a forced choice if the only other option is death?

[Lunaire]

The internet is regulated as a public utility by the FCC in the USA, it is why this site can exists without having to pay millions to cable/internet providers.



What if it was a food corporation instead, it was the only one selling food there was nothing else and no other way to get food and it was charging $50 for each apple. Wouldn't that be a forced choice if the only other option is death?

The FCC regulates the internet as a public utility for the purpose of Net Neutrality, not as a public necessity unlike water and heating.

Your question regarding a single company selling food is a textbook example of an industry that cannot possibly have a monopoly in a free market economy. There is nearly no cost of entry to the industry as anyone can take the seeds of a non-gmo plant and replant them.

If only one company was selling food and it was at a price that consumers deemed not worth the cost then people would grow their own food and competition would organically occur.

[sunrise]

I'm not weighting in on either side.. but it seems like, everyone knows what the right or wrong thing to do for a country outside of the country of "you should be like X country" and "X country is the best in the world". It's not as simple as that. And it can be alarming . Sometimes people don't understand the situation-- until they live in the country.

People are also upset over Trumps tactics over NATO, and reducing our cost, and yet also raring about we spend too much on Military... However, the reason we have all the bases is to protect people.

There has also been people complaining that we are backing out of funding for 3rd world country planned parent hood programs, refugee aid, illegal immigrant and etc.. Yet, still talk about how pathetic America is for not having free health-care. The humanity in us all wants to help everyone... however, "if America can't help themselves..." it's a double edge thing. If we where to back away from those programs until more economically sound, just maybe, we could afford a health-care program for everyone... and that sounds harsh, and cold..

I do hope we come up with health-care for all.. one day... and a proper system to make sure vets aren't on the streets dying, we take care of our disabled, and our everyday working people, as well as people that fall on hard times--- preventing them from going homeless....AND are able to aid other countries, refugee's, and 3rd world etc... Right now, we've not been able to do any of this properly.

Your argument of limited resources could be a valid one; however, that's not the reason that high ranking Republicans give. Obamacare was attacked as "socialism" and government meddling. I can't think of a single Republican president that actually tried to implement universal healthcare. But they're always trying to cut entitlements and build up the military. There are wasteful spending in social programs, but there's also a lot of waste in the military. A LOT. I don't even think Democrats point out the irony. The US spends more on the military than the next 7-8 countries combined.


But the focus is always on entitlements. Cut the waste - sure I'm for that. There's fraud. But the same goes for the military. Also with prescription drug pricing. And corporate welfare.

Regardless of where anyone falls on the political spectrum, everyone should be for universal healthcare. People have died, untold numbers, because of lack of access to healthcare. This should've been at the top of every presidential agenda. The reason why universal healthcare has belatedly entered the US landscape is because of the health insurance lobby.

[Member11]

Your question regarding a single company selling food is a textbook example of an industry that cannot possibly have a monopoly in a free market economy. There is nearly no cost of entry to the industry as anyone can take the seeds of a non-gmo plant and replant them.

If only one company was selling food and it was at a price that consumers deemed not worth the cost then people would grow their own food and competition would organically occur.

Not if the corporations patents and control the seeds for different food items, which is what is going on now. And if the corporation is large enough, it has many different ways to make the entry impossible for anyone else. One popular way is to cut its prices to below cost in areas where there is competition and just wait until the competition goes out of business then raise prices again. Do that enough times and no-one will try again.

You are also forgetting about land, seeds, water, equipment, wages, storage, transport, etc, then you got the shop itself which includes property, stock, fit-out, wages, insurance, food safely, etc. The cost of entry is not low.

[Lunaire]

Not if the corporations patents and control the seeds for different food items, which is what is going on now. And if the corporation is large enough, it has many different ways to make the entry impossible for anyone else. One popular way is to cut its prices to below cost in areas where there is competition and just wait until the competition goes out of business then raise prices again. Do that enough times and no-one will try again.

You are also forgetting about land, seeds, water, equipment, wages, storage, transport, etc, then you got the shop itself which includes property, stock, fit-out, wages, insurance, food safely, etc. The cost of entry is not low.

On the contrary, the cost of entry is very low. Not every competitor would need to be a national distributor.

You can very easily start a garden in your backyard. When I had a garden I have scattered seeds at random and nature did the rest at no cost to me. Rain and sunlight are free.

Patented seeds are a different product from organically grown seeds. For your scenario to exist the entire supply of organically grown seeds would need to be destroyed or cut off.

You also admitted that a large corporation would bring prices down to attempt to drive out business from lower priced competitors. This results in a lower cost good for the consumer and would continue to happen until the market reaches an equilibrium.

I don't believe it is a fair comparison anyways as I stand by my belief that cable/internet are luxury items and not a necessity such as food.

[Member11]

On the contrary, the cost of entry is very low. Not every competitor would need to be a national distributor.

You can very easily start a garden in your backyard. When I had a garden I have scattered seeds at random and nature did the rest at no cost to me. Rain and sunlight are free.

A small garden in a backyard isn't going to supply a store, especially one that is taking on a large corporation.

Patented seeds are a different product from organically grown seeds. For your scenario to exist the entire supply of organically grown seeds would need to be destroyed or cut off.

That's easy to do as the corporations can have the government pass laws to make the non-patented seeds illegal.

You also admitted that a large corporation would bring prices down to attempt to drive out business from lower priced competitors. This results in a lower cost good for the consumer and would continue to happen until the market reaches an equilibrium.

No it wouldn't, the corporation would drop prices to under cost price, so it is making a loss, wait a few months until the competition goes out of business, then raise prices to where it was before or even higher. Waiting until a hopeful small business owner comes along and puts their savings into starting a small business just to get cheap food for a few months is a horrible way to treat people. I prefer regulations so that there is hundreds of small businesses, instead of one corporation.

I don't believe it is a fair comparison anyways as I stand by my belief that cable/internet are luxury items and not a necessity such as food.

Internet isn't a luxury, if you need it to apply for jobs, it is an necessity.

[Lunaire]

A small garden in a backyard isn't going to supply a store, especially one that is taking on a large corporation.



That's easy to do as the corporations can have the government pass laws to make the non-patented seeds illegal.



No it wouldn't, the corporation would drop prices to under cost price, so it is making a loss, wait a few months until the competition goes out of business, then raise prices to where it was before or even higher. Waiting until a hopeful small business owner comes along and puts their savings into starting a small business just to get cheap food for a few months is a horrible way to treat people.



Internet isn't a luxury, if you need it to apply for jobs, it is an necessity.

If a government passes a law restricting organically grown seeds then that is government interventionism and not a free market economy. I am not aware of a western country that has banned organically grown crops, but the United States certainly has not.

You also certainly do not need to operate a full time store with a supply chain and logistics to sell things out of a backyard garden. Farm-side fruit stands and pop-up style farmers markets are quite popular in the states and do not require all of the costs you have mentioned.

Even if a corporation would sell things at a loss to attempt to drive out local farmers, the local farmers could very easily re-enter the market as soon the corporation began selling at "regular" price again due to low cost of entry.

This would cause a boom and bust cycle which is actually pretty common in free trade markets, especially regarding produce. If you were to visit the States you may notice that produce price varies considerably throughout the year due to fluctuations of supply and demand.

Internet access is not required to apply for every job in the United States. There are plenty of businesses that accept handwritten applications and there are numerous locations that provide free internet access such as public wi-fi at businesses and free-to-use terminals at public libraries.

[Total Eclipse]

Regardless of where anyone falls on the political spectrum, everyone should be for universal healthcare. People have died, untold numbers, because of lack of access to healthcare. This should've been at the top of every presidential agenda. The reason why universal healthcare has belatedly entered the US landscape is because of the health insurance lobby.

I totally agree! I think deep down, people like that concept and want free healthcare for everyone. However, I know several people that have been stressed or scared due to some people getting short-ends-of-the-sticks with Obamacare, and insurance sky-rocketing, that they were unable to afford treatment and a modest size house. It was cheaper for them to have a very low-income job, to get treatment for their chronic illness, not to marry their partner, etc.. because of the system.

And some people I've seen with stage-4 breast cancer.... decided it would be best to work out the rest of their days so they'd have money for their family and not seek anymore treatment. When people hear of new plans and their fears go back to what happened with Obamacare.. and they would 'rather not have any'.

In my state, I've been grateful that we picked-up a form of Obamacare as without it I wouldn't be able to do my infusion therapy treatment, blood infusions, or medicine I require to stay stable with my illnesses (to say the least my bills would be over 60K a month..). It sadness me that so many other people are without insurance and not have that aid provided.