commen people are not allowed to donate money to political campaigns if they want to?
i mean people are free to choose who they give their money right?
Where did I say they weren't allowed? I said they could. A corporation unlike a a person was unable to donate unlimited amounts. There was only so much a candidate could take from corporations.
in the end it's the people that vote right?
the companys only donate money for the campaigns.
(companys are not allowed to vote. so companys already have less rights then individual people.)
They can greatly influence the course of elections by giving money to the candidate of their choice. Wit that candidate in place they can then influence that candidate threw the debt he owes to the corporation.
thats the nice thing of a free market they are unable to create a monopoly because small companys will be able to do the same for less. only on a smaller scale/area. 2 small companys can take down 1 big companys if they work well.
A big company could offer their services at the lower cost and on a larger scale since they have the money to back them. The product offered by the bigger company doesn't even have to be the better product so long as it's the more readily available. The advertising a big company can put in can function to be more convincing that a person should buy their crap over any quality product.
oligopoly only becomes reality if the demand for the prodect is low 1st and then instandly (or very fast as in few weeks, 1 year) becomes very populair. usualy when there is a oligopoly. new companys will fill in the holes prety fast.
if we talk about long term oligopoly then it's usely a product whit not much demand and then you just have to live whit it being a oligopoly.
Windows was fast becoming this, that's why the company was forced to have to break up into smaller branches by government restrictions.
your saying companys are completely unrestricted now? thats prety far from the truth tbh.
No I'm not saying that. I'm just putting form the other extreme. It seems when we thing of government regulations it's an either or situation. Neither extreme is good in my opinion. We need to find a middle ground and in the right places.
do you mean small companys that want to compete in the same scale/area is the big company? then small companys never have a chanch.
localy small companys can always compete whit big companys. taking that 1% of the big company. so whit enoufg small local companys and then fusing those can compete against a big company.
A big corporation can use it's larger influence issuing bullying tatics to deface a small company trying to gain ground in the same area if unrestricted. A corporation has the bigger voice and has no issue using that voice to do whatever it wants to crush anyone who get's in their way.
Since the government is basically in the back pocket of these corporations they not only can get away with doing this now but also have government backing while doing it.
but i also whold like to point out again that this is still not going against the corruption in the politics.
if the politics are corrupted then nothing will realy change anyway.
Some of the corruption in politics is the result of corporations being able to have these politicians in their back pocket.
then they must make sure that their goods are of quality and value that consumers want.
No they only have to make sure the people buying the product think this and they would be free to use any underhanded dirty tactic they want to in order to accomplish this.
As of now, the reason small markets can't grow is because of the government regulations, not because of a lack of regulations.
From what I can tell we are regulating the wrong way around the big corporations are getting the free ride when they neither need nor deserve it, while the smaller companys are getting put under a strangle hold.
What's the difference between the two and how are these differences important? I know they are of separate size, but how does size make a difference?
I understand that a bigger corporation will have to take more responsibility than a girl selling lemonade, but wouldn't the responsibility and risk grow with the business? If the girl gives away lemonade, there's a small chance someone will get sick off of it. However, if a big corporation sells lemonade, there are more opportunities for things to go wrong. The opportunities are naturally present. Therefore, shouldn't the corporation be handled on the scale of the problems that it causes rather than having a whole set of different rules?
As one get's more responsibilities in life we have to follow more rules. It's ridiculous to shut a little girls lemonade stand down because of the lack of a license but it isn't to do this to a big lemonade company that operates nation wide. You need the extra rules in place because more can go wrong on the larger scale.
It's like how a small group of people could operate effectively under an anarchy but use that on a large scale like a city and we end up with major problems.
Hope I explained myself okay that time.
