RE: State's that are still blue

RE: State's that are still blue (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: State's that are still blue (11/28/2010 11:41:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx You seem to have missed my point completely. Used cars tires bicycles etc were all originally produced by corporate monopolies. I do not disagree with your concept of saving money and reducing your carbon footprint...my point was and is that there is no competition because of corporate monopolies. You may not be aware of what exactly commodities are. A little research will help you to see what these commodities are who controls these commodities. You might also want to check and see what percentage of us food comes from corporate farms vs. private farms of less than 1000 acres. I point out factual data and you characterize that as whining... You do realize that, as long as there are multiple corporations producing the same item and selling it in the same markets, that does NOT constitute a "monopoly", right? Wrong...Perhaps you might avail yourself of the many fine publications which document how the few corporations who control a given commodity have historically conspired to "fix" both the price and the quantity avalable of any given commodity Just because a company is large does not mean that it has no competition... and a monopoly is defined as having no competition... You might want to look up what happened when some african states with large supplies of diamonds, tried to sell them in competition with the de beers corp. ie, "Monopolies are thus characterised by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide, and a lack of viable substitute goods." http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp What Does Monopoly Mean? A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products. Yes, factory farms currently produce about 90% of our nation's food. Another 6% by total value is imported from other countries (higher in some types of foods than others, with fish being one of the highest percentage imports at nearly 80% imported). However, the local food movement has increased its share of the market from a mere .03% five years ago to around 4% in just five short years. That sounds substantively more than "useless". Many would consider 90% to be "nearly all" as in the above definition Commodities: iron ore, crude, coal, salt, sugar, corn, soybeans, cotton, coffee, aluminum, electricity...basically, base materials that are not differentiated between suppliers.... coal is coal is coal. These are traded on a common market and their value is determined NOT by the market but by the value of certificates (futures) which IMPLY ownership of percentages of all of the available (or producible) quantity of that item. The value of the futures certificates is determined by the quantity of product allowed on the market by the monopoly...reference the above cited de beers diamond case. Things with smaller available quantities tend to trade at higher values, simply because what exists is highly limited. OTOH, things like cotton, corn, and soybeans have a volatile market that depends on speculation about potential upcoming supply -- and if anything throws off the supply, whether by excess (surplus) or insufficiency (shortage), the anticipated value of any futures sold AND the market as a whole will be affected. Is it possible that if one controls 90% of say soy beans that producer would have the ability to control the quantity of soy beans on the market by the simple expedient of planting more or less of that product. History is repleat with examples of this. Now... that being said, I still hold that it is possible and beneficial for companies to choose how and where they purchase the actual RAW MATERIALS (since we are not speaking of commodity futures here, but of actual materials), If one holds the futures cert to term they own the commodity. If corporate farms control 90% of the market then anyone who wishes to purchase more than 10% of the total must deal with the monopoly. and to do so as much as possible from local producers with whom they have established a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship that is NOT bound to the fluctuations of an artificially manipulated commodities market. Who are the local producers for coal,oil,cars,tires,iron,zink, or any other commodity? People have been doing this for years, and somehow, it works out. As I mentioned in my earlier post, one big stickler is energy -- and even then, a larger and larger percentage of individuals is taking the issue of energy into their own hands and choosing to generate at least a portion of their own energy... so explain to me again how this is not realistic and I'm missing "the point". You seem to be missing the point of the gross numbers involved. If one group controls 90% of something there is no competition for that 90%. There is only competition for the remaining 10% Calla

joether -> RE: State's that are still blue (11/29/2010 1:37:40 AM)
Geez, thompsonx, you really need to think on what you write... quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Things with smaller available quantities tend to trade at higher values, simply because what exists is highly limited. OTOH, things like cotton, corn, and soybeans have a volatile market that depends on speculation about potential upcoming supply -- and if anything throws off the supply, whether by excess (surplus) or insufficiency (shortage), the anticipated value of any futures sold AND the market as a whole will be affected. Is it possible that if one controls 90% of say soy beans that producer would have the ability to control the quantity of soy beans on the market by the simple expedient of planting more or less of that product. History is repleat with examples of this. To control 90% of soy beans, would mean, a company owning a HUGE amount of land, with intensive operations for the farming and distrubution sides. Not to mention they would have a few Republican Senators/Representatives, collared and leashed! Is it possible? Yes. Is that happening right now? No. So your using a complete fantasy, to justify your arguement. Lets just use your fantasy for a moment to explain the stupidity of your arguement. If a company controlled 90% of the soy bean production, and it could self regulate the quantity, who would purchase the buy contracts? That's the easy part (and short term thinking) And what would farmers plant NEXT YEAR, given soy beans traded for 200 times, what any other crop yielded? SOY BEANS. Do you think that company will have a 90% stake the follow few years after that? Highly doubtful. Companies that are in the business of producing raw materials for money, are typically invested for long term thinking, not short term gain. quote: Now... that being said, I still hold that it is possible and beneficial for companies to choose how and where they purchase the actual RAW MATERIALS (since we are not speaking of commodity futures here, but of actual materials), If one holds the futures cert to term they own the commodity. Actually, they DONT own the commodity (not yet at least). They hold the right to purchase it (from the owner) at a set price, at a set date (that's why they call it a FUTURE'S MARKET). Usually, they take those commodities and sell it to a company that needs the raw materials for a profit. Or, keep the commodity if they plan to use it for their company. quote: If corporate farms control 90% of the market then anyone who wishes to purchase more than 10% of the total must deal with the monopoly. Control of a commodity, isn't the same as, say, owning a set of properties in the board game Monopoly. If Company A controlled 90% of a commodity, all Company B has to do, is either A) Make the commodity they offer better, B) Make it cost less, or C) A combination of A & B. Company A starts losing market share, because customers get tired of Company A's crap, and like Company B. A good example of this is Microsoft Windows Operating System (i.e. a metaphorical commodity). quote: and to do so as much as possible from local producers with whom they have established a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship that is NOT bound to the fluctuations of an artificially manipulated commodities market. Who are the local producers for coal,oil,cars,tires,iron,zink, or any other commodity? 'Local' refers, I believe, in this case, to 'Inside the USA', or 'nation-wide'. And the list? That's pretty long one... quote: People have been doing this for years, and somehow, it works out. As I mentioned in my earlier post, one big stickler is energy -- and even then, a larger and larger percentage of individuals is taking the issue of energy into their own hands and choosing to generate at least a portion of their own energy... so explain to me again how this is not realistic and I'm missing "the point". You seem to be missing the point of the gross numbers involved. If one group controls 90% of something there is no competition for that 90%. There is only competition for the remaining 10% And you, fail to understand most of what your talking about! You absolutely believe that if one Guy A has 90 stones, and Guy B 10. That Guy B, can not get more stones, UNLESS, it comes out of Guy A's stockpile. That simply states how little you understand the commodities market. What happens, if Guy B discovers a new, and high yield source of stones? That would obviously effect the market share of stones, wouldn't it? According to your 'masterful' understanding of the commodities market, it wouldn't, since Guy A (who has 90%) would simply take a 90% cut of Guy B's new found source. Its a good thing, the future's market doesnt work that way.

thompsonx -> RE: State's that are still blue (11/29/2010 7:47:32 AM)
ORIGINAL: joether Geez, thompsonx, you really need to think on what you write... Please do try to follow your own advice ORIGINAL: thompsonx Things with smaller available quantities tend to trade at higher values, simply because what exists is highly limited. OTOH, things like cotton, corn, and soybeans have a volatile market that depends on speculation about potential upcoming supply -- and if anything throws off the supply, whether by excess (surplus) or insufficiency (shortage), the anticipated value of any futures sold AND the market as a whole will be affected. Is it possible that if one controls 90% of say soy beans that producer would have the ability to control the quantity of soy beans on the market by the simple expedient of planting more or less of that product. It would appear that you have never heard of adm...archer danials midland...give it a shot and see what you find. History is repleat with examples of this. Yet you fail to cite any. To control 90% of soy beans, would mean, a company owning a HUGE amount of land, with intensive operations for the farming and distrubution sides. Not to mention they would have a few Republican Senators/Representatives, collared and leashed! Yup that does sound like adm Is it possible? Yes. Is that happening right now? No. So your using a complete fantasy, to justify your arguement. So you think adm is a fantasy? Lets just use your fantasy for a moment to explain the stupidity of your arguement. If a company controlled 90% of the soy bean production, and it could self regulate the quantity, who would purchase the buy contracts? Those who have traditionally bought them, who did you think? That's the easy part (and short term thinking) And what would farmers plant NEXT YEAR, given soy beans traded for 200 times, what any other crop yielded? SOY BEANS. Do you think that company will have a 90% stake the follow few years after that? Highly doubtful. Since corporate farmers produce 90% of the produce who would take up the slack? Companies that are in the business of producing raw materials for money, are typically invested for long term thinking, not short term gain. You seem to have a firm grasp on the obvious. quote: Now... that being said, I still hold that it is possible and beneficial for companies to choose how and where they purchase the actual RAW MATERIALS (since we are not speaking of commodity futures here, but of actual materials), If one holds the futures cert to term they own the commodity. Actually, they DONT own the commodity (not yet at least). They hold the right to purchase it (from the owner) at a set price, at a set date (that's why they call it a FUTURE'S MARKET). So your position is that if someone buys a futures contract and it goes term then the buyer must pay for it since he has not sold the futures contract...gee that is exactly what I said so what are you arguing here? Usually, they take those commodities and sell it to a company that needs the raw materials for a profit. Or, keep the commodity if they plan to use it for their company. Well that is the nature of the commodities market. quote: If corporate farms control 90% of the market then anyone who wishes to purchase more than 10% of the total must deal with the monopoly. Control of a commodity, isn't the same as, say, owning a set of properties in the board game Monopoly. If Company A controlled 90% of a commodity, all Company B has to do, is either A) Make the commodity they offer better, Just how does one make a commodity better...iron is iron,zink is zink,tin is tin? B) Make it cost less, or C) A combination of A & B. Company A starts losing market share, because customers get tired of Company A's crap, and like Company B. A good example of this is Microsoft Windows Operating System (i.e. a metaphorical commodity). This would imply competition which is not the nature of monopolies quote: and to do so as much as possible from local producers with whom they have established a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship that is NOT bound to the fluctuations of an artificially manipulated commodities market. Who are the local producers for coal,oil,cars,tires,iron,zink, or any other commodity? 'Local' refers, I believe, in this case, to 'Inside the USA', or 'nation-wide'. And the list? That's pretty long one... Perhaps you might list for us the local suppliers of oil,copper,zink,tin. quote: People have been doing this for years, and somehow, it works out. As I mentioned in my earlier post, one big stickler is energy -- and even then, a larger and larger percentage of individuals is taking the issue of energy into their own hands and choosing to generate at least a portion of their own energy... so explain to me again how this is not realistic and I'm missing "the point". You seem to be missing the point of the gross numbers involved. If one group controls 90% of something there is no competition for that 90%. There is only competition for the remaining 10% And you, fail to understand most of what your talking about! It is pretty clear that you do not seem unable to comprehend what I am saying You absolutely believe that if one Guy A has 90 stones, and Guy B 10. That Guy B, can not get more stones, UNLESS, it comes out of Guy A's stockpile. That simply states how little you understand the commodities market. A monopoly would by definition mean that if guy a had 90% of the stones there would only be 10% left...there are no more stones. What happens, if Guy B discovers a new, and high yield source of stones? What happens if santa clause fucks the easter bunny? The nature of monopoly is such that there are no new sources of stones that are not controlled by the monopoly. That would obviously effect the market share of stones, wouldn't it? The word you are looking for here is affect. No it would not because it ignores the nature of monopolies According to your 'masterful' understanding of the commodities market, it wouldn't, since Guy A (who has 90%) would simply take a 90% cut of Guy B's new found source. Its a good thing, the future's market doesnt work that way. It is, however, how monopoly works

servantforuse -> RE: State's that are still blue (11/29/2010 7:48:43 PM)
Well Charles, I wouldn't move back to New York just yet. An on going recount will determine if the GOP takes control of the state senate there. To ad insult to injury. Not only did the GOP retake a total of 690 seats nationwide on November, 2nd., 13 democrats, mostly from the South have gone to the darkside and are now republicans..

Moonhead -> RE: State's that are still blue (11/30/2010 5:59:41 AM)
Dearie me.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125