Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 04:45 am
I would like to emphasize the large possibilities of monopolies, large trusts, interests groups, cartels via their lobbying to governments - which they usually perform through illegal party election's campaign funding - deterring the implementation of policies supporting new, emerging businesses in the fear of existing and expected competition, resulting in the increase of unemployment.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 949 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
Vasska
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 06:21 am
@diamantis,
Corruption exists, you proved your point.
But what is your question really about?
0 Replies
 
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 09:29 am
@diamantis,
diamantis wrote:
monopolies, large trusts, interests groups, cartels via their lobbying to governments


These serve to stagnate innovation. It is in their interest to keep business as usual going as business as usual.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 11:52 am
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
These serve to stagnate innovation. It is in their interest to keep business as usual going as business as usual.
Hmm, monopolists sure invest a lot of money into buying out technology from smaller companies. It's not for the purpose of promoting stagnation, it's for the purpose of owning the innovation that's out there. Microsoft, for instance seems to have remained at the forefront of technology despite having a virtual monopoly. It's their main interest to prevent other innovation from surpassing them, not necessarily to cause stagnation.
Vasska
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 12:44 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Hmm, monopolists sure invest a lot of money into buying out technology from smaller companies. It's not for the purpose of promoting stagnation, it's for the purpose of owning the innovation that's out there. Microsoft, for instance seems to have remained at the forefront of technology despite having a virtual monopoly. It's their main interest to prevent other innovation from surpassing them, not necessarily to cause stagnation.


Your Microsoft argument holds up, but Microsoft is not the only monopolist. Let's take other companies, like for instance pharmaceutical and oil company's. It's a shame to innovate on herbs that grow in you backyard and cure cancer or fuel that is unlimited and environment friendly if you consider that this will bust companies.

Some company's buy out other companies because they don't want and can't handle the innovation. Think of the electrical car which completely vanished years ago and only now comes back, years later, again in prototypes. All cars sold could have been solar or otherwise powered by now.

My argument seems a bit paranoid, and it is. But it holds up if you think about it.

Of course there are other companies, called Private investors who buy a company for much money, cut it up and sale it with profit to anyone who wants to buy it. These are the companies that cause stagnation and destroy many "good" companies.

The amount of money payed for companies sometimes seems much, but it really is nothing if you see how much money can be made. Google bought Applied Semantics for 102 Million dollars and developed Adsense and Adword out of it, which makes up 98% of google's revenue which is 16.5 Billion (2007). Google itself on the market cap is worth 179.07 Billion dollar (2008). Not bad for an investment of 102 Million dollars.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:07 pm
@Vasska,
Vasska wrote:
Your Microsoft argument holds up, but Microsoft is not the only monopolist. Let's take other companies, like for instance pharmaceutical and oil company's. It's a shame to innovate on herbs that grow in you backyard and cure cancer or fuel that is unlimited and environment friendly if you consider that this will bust companies.
Do you have any idea how much money pharmaceutical companies pour into drug discovery, including screening natural products for active compounds? It's on the order of tens of billions of dollars every year. The criticism that CAN be levelled at drug companies is that they put money into profitable diseases more so than important diseases.

Oil companies pour money into discovery and development projects. This often requires a lot of technological ingenuity.

If you want to take companies and convince them to operate outside their comfort zone -- i.e. getting an oil company to develop petroleum-free energy sources -- then that's not a matter of monopoly. It's a matter of using financial incentives to get them to develop a speculative technology that they don't have a track record in and have little prospect of profit. The companies do what they do -- they innovate within their sphere.

Of course this can end up marginalizing them when technology really DOES change -- like how Kodak did a terrible job anticipating the impact of digital photography, or how Sony was very late in accomodating digital music. So both companies have fallen way behind other companies that sensed the winds changing.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 02:03 pm
@Aedes,
We can level a few more criticisms against big pharma than just that they put money into profitable diseases more so than important diseases - though this particular criticism is the most significant I can think of.

But to the main point here - Aedes is right, these big companies do not necessarily want stagnation. These companies want profits. Go figure. To protect and expand their profit margins, these companies use all sorts of strategies - some as simple and reasonable as buying up a smaller company, other times methods get nasty. Thievery and political abuse is not beyond the means of many companies, and such tactics have a place in the playbooks.
No0ne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 05:17 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Well in my opinion.

If a senator's emotion's are effecting his/her ability of representing the pubic/state where that senator has come from, then that senator could be said to be mis-representing the public/state that elected him/her to represent them, and therefore the senator would not be doing his/her job by mis representing the people that elected the senator, therefore if any form of emotion or out side interference such as lobbying or other out side interest's that effect's the senator's ability to represent the public that elected him/her to represent them, should be relieved of office and replaced by a person that can do the job by not mis-representing the public/state that has elected him/her to represent there point of view of matter's.( It's there obligation to the public that elected them, to correctly represent that public, by voicing that publics point's of view's, perception, and verdict's of a topic or bill that is to be passed or discussed.)

So a senator should not be voicing his/her point of view, or perception of a matter, but must be the voice of the people that him/her are representing(Cause it's there job, and if there not doing there job, them must be replaced by a person that will do the job, this is also true for the president.)

To Meany people's pocket's are getting filled to support bill's and tea partie's...

It's about time the pubic is represented correctly.

But, to carry out the business of rooting out the slacker's and abuser's, a bill must be pass, that would allow the creation of a new federal branch that oversees the the representation of the public, and if mis-representation is found, that branch makes sure that it is corrected, or if the mis representation can not be corrected by means other than replacing the senator with another senator that can represent the public as THEY WANT TO BE represented, then they would replace that senator with a senator that has the ability to represent that public as if he/she is that public.

(I think representation is a bigger problem than the lack of job's)

Mainly speculator's are "deterring the implementation of policies supporting new, emerging businesses in the fear of existing and expected competition, resulting in the increase of unemployment."

And some have intention's of doing such, do to the fact if you lower employment one field, it drives a rise in employment in another field.(Mainly oil and green companies share this up and effect)

So if they have intention's of doing such, then they can be found and fined or jailed or stopped, for having intent to carry(or carried) out the manipulation of the job market's for personal or businesses related reason's.( Collage's student's are a sector that are commonly effected by such act's of manipulation, since that are just emerging into many needed and productive field's, that arise competition in other's and therefore taking money from those other's) Yet it's also those that, speculate a spread the fear of existing and expected competition, that can resulting in the increase of unemployment."

Yet once again to fix such a problem, new equally fair legislation must be past to protect job market's and promote the healthy growth of such, that doesn't promote the possibilities of monopolies legally eating competition and small local businesses.

Also large trusts, interests groups, cartels via their lobbying to government branches also play a role in preventing such legislation from being passed, due to the fact that it would hurt them in the long and short run. Well the thing's that they are doing and promoting has been hurting the public in the past, present, and the future. (Yet not all group's do, some are legality representing and supporting the publics best interest's)

All in all... The "United State's" are being mis represented by "America" also known as "D.C" District of Columbia.

The governmental system is in two half's, "U.S" and "A" the people that are sent to "A" mis represent "U.S". So of course it's going to screw "U.S" up:rolleyes:

Could always join federal and state legislation to create one system of rule's and regulation's of accepted conduct in this silly game we all call life.:rolleyes:

Yet, everyone knows how far just word's have got the this nation's problem's, it's time for those word's to be turned into action to solve those problem's that those word's have identified.
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 06:42 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
We can level a few more criticisms against big pharma than just that they put money into profitable diseases more so than important diseases - though this particular criticism is the most significant I can think of.
I know, I have a litany of criticisms, including direct-to-consumer marketing, their patenting tactics, and their not-always-forthright disclosure of pre-marketing research findings. But I was referring specifically to the question at hand about ingenuity.

Quote:
But to the main point here - Aedes is right, these big companies do not necessarily want stagnation.
Ingenuity is what keeps them on top. Apple and IBM and Dell want to keep making more and more powerful computers. Canon and Nikon more and more capable cameras. Pfizer and Merck drugs and vaccines to fill important holes in our medical armamentarium. But they have to follow profits -- and hence even a disease like malaria which infects half a billion people yearly gets underfunded and understudied compared with erectile dysfunction (which may affect more than half a billion but honestly they only care about Americans with erectile dysfunction).
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 06:56 pm
@Aedes,
Quote:
I know, I have a litany of criticisms, including direct-to-consumer marketing, their patenting tactics, and their not-always-forthright disclosure of pre-marketing research findings. But I was referring specifically to the question at hand about ingenuity.


Oh, I'm sure you have more criticisms of the business than I - you work in the field. One of my pet peeves is the placement of big pharma employees on FDA Advisory Committees.

Quote:
Ingenuity is what keeps them on top. Apple and IBM and Dell want to keep making more and more powerful computers. Canon and Nikon more and more capable cameras. Pfizer and Merck drugs and vaccines to fill important holes in our medical armamentarium. But they have to follow profits -- and hence even a disease like malaria which infects half a billion people yearly gets underfunded and understudied compared with erectile dysfunction (which may affect more than half a billion but honestly they only care about Americans with erectile dysfunction).


Right - ingenuity is extremely important to the survival of most businesses. However, sometimes stagnation is part of their profit margin agenda - like car and oil companies and alternative energy. Decades old technology is still kept in the back room. They'll use the technology to maximize profits; until the day comes when the technology is financially beneficial, it is buried.

I think we're basically on the same page - neither of us makes excuses for big business or corrupt government.
0 Replies
 
Vasska
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 03:32 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
We can level a few more criticisms against big pharma than just that they put money into profitable diseases more so than important diseases - though this particular criticism is the most significant I can think of.

But to the main point here - Aedes is right, these big companies do not necessarily want stagnation. These companies want profits. Go figure. To protect and expand their profit margins, these companies use all sorts of strategies - some as simple and reasonable as buying up a smaller company, other times methods get nasty. Thievery and political abuse is not beyond the means of many companies, and such tactics have a place in the playbooks.


Aedes is right, and we can level more criticism to any kind of commercial company on different levels (human rights, environment, safety etc).

However as you say these companies want profit. If stagnation is the key to more profit they'll take it. If buying out other companies is the key (and by that can cause either stagnation or innovation) they'll take that.

My saying is that even though companies invest in new technologies they at the same time try to prevent world changing innovation in order to push their old - safe - technologies.

I did not say Aedes his statement is wrong, but i felt he took a safe company, and ommited the rest of the companies that have far bigger and more dangerous monopolies than microsoft. Microsoft has computers, and only workstations and windows-only networks and their monopoly is relatively safe if you look at it. MobileExxon, Shell, BP and others have oil and the world market in their hands.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 04:40 pm
@Vasska,
You're absolutely right, Vasska. The price of oil soared and (more) people started going hungry; food riots.

It's easy for people to cause a great deal of suffering when they do not have to look at the suffering themselves.
Vasska
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 12:59 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
You're absolutely right, Vasska. The price of oil soared and (more) people started going hungry; food riots.

It's easy for people to cause a great deal of suffering when they do not have to look at the suffering themselves.


I feel your example is not something a company wants unless it's corrupt and is compensated for it's troubles by the government or other influential and rich people who want something your example to happen.

The world market of course is separated in primary and secondary. Food, water, oil and all others are primary and needed to survive in the 21st century. In this case scenario your example will work, for it allows control of the people, but then again it's always a master plan of the people behind the curtain, and the companies are the weapons used.

The secondary market is the stuff that makes life easier, but is not needed, like computers, household appliance, TV's and all even the luxury foods like candy, chocolate and others. These companies do what they do out of pure profit. Nintendo keeps it stock low to make people stand in lines for the latest video console, and Apple did it with the iPhone V1 and in Europe again with iPhone V2.

Inflicting suffering on others is far easier for the common human being, when you don't have to see the faces of the ones you make suffering.
You're right on that one.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/14/2019 at 12:06:41