Competition


Pols and regulators should butt-the-hell out of corporate mergers and other actions that disrupt the status-quo. See Democrat primary loser and hypocrite for supporting corporate shill Hillary Clinton Bernie Sanders for example. Trump also said he opposes it.

Employees of the merging firms must figure out how best to serve their customers and shareholders.

Remember folks, firms have to work within the current regulatory and legal framework. If gov’t wants to do something useful it should deregulate telecom and scrap net neutrality. Those constrictions led the decision-makers in this deal to view a merger as a way to drive growth.

The interventionist fear is based on outdated definition of monopoly. Standard Oil’s so-called “monopoly” lowered kerosene prices “from 58 to 26 cents from 1865 to 1870. Competitors disliked the company’s business practices, but consumers liked the lower prices.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil.

Yet, some politicians and activists want to stop this merger because they are simply afraid of change.

You can let firms experiment and innovate to figure out how to serve customers and grow, or you can let politicians protect the status quo and continue with 1% GDP.

 

But instead of reform, congressional Republicans are moving forward with legislation that tinkers around the edges. Their bill adjusts retiree health care, hikes stamp prices, and retains six-day delivery despite a 40 percent drop in letter volume since 2000. The bill would also create “new authority to offer non-postal products,” thus threatening to increase the tax-free entity’s unfair competition against private firms.

The Democrats overseeing postal issues are happy as larks with the GOP bill, which appears to be a victory for unionized postal workers. You might wonder what the point of electing Republicans to Congress is if they are just going to let Democrats run the show in defense of unions and monopolies.

Here.

 

 

President Barack Obama will call for new government spending on infrastructure, education and research in his State of the Union address Tuesday. . .
While proposing new spending, Mr. Obama also will lay out significant budget cuts elsewhere, people familiar with the plans say, though they will likely fall short of what Republican lawmakers have requested.

Great that the president will identify spending cuts but, really, why is this spending going to be any different from the spending politicians have been doing for decades anyway? Even before the financial mess government spending was too high. It’s the same old, same old. There is no magic elixir that combines President Obama’s spending with the spending of the 2011 Republicans and Democrats to produce “We seek to do everything we can to spur hiring and ensure our nation can compete with anybody on the planet. . . ” to quote the president.

Here.

It will not produce the economic version of Love Potion Number 9.

Whatever you call it, a growing number of companies are beginning to see better times ahead — and are taking steps to ensure that they get their share of the pie.

Kind of a misleading formulation of commerce by economist  Irwin Kellner.  Firms and people do not fight for slices of a fixed size economy in a capitalist economy.  They do so in a politicized economy.

If a firm wins new sales, losing firms did not lose business.  They just did not grow and create new wealth.  If a firm takes away sales from an another firm, the latter did indeed lose wealth.  But that is the result of the winning firm providing a better value proposition.  In both cases, overall wealth is created, the customer benefits, and the broader society benefits.

In any case, Mr. Kellner is describing recent positive economic developments.

Here. That a way to generate tax revenue and create jobs.  Maybe the county executive wants to turn Suffolk county in France.

Dan Mitchell has examples of local government stupidity in the Washington DC metro area.

So many examples, so little time.

Here. No.  Too much government.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”

Here.

Obama praised the free-market, saying he wants the government to “get out of the way” of innovation and job creation.

“In every speech, every interview that I have made, I’ve constantly said what sets America apart, what has made us successful over long term, is we’ve got the most dynamic free-market economy in the world. And that has to be preserved. We benefit from entrepreneurs and innovators who are going out there and creating jobs, creating business. Government can’t create the majority of jobs. And, in fact, we want to get out of the way of folks who’ve got a good idea and want to run with it and are going to be putting people to work,” Obama said.

Sure.  Not only do you vilify business, but, like President Bush before you, you do not support free markets.  You confuse pro-business with pro-market. You wouldn’t know a free market from a flea market. Regulations on credit card use, a consumer finance watchdog, bailouts, housing subsidies, higher income taxes, import tariffs on Chinese-made tires, and Obamacare are all statist policies.

On Obamacare, the previous status quo was not free-market, either. Using health insurance to pay for routine medical expenses totally distorts the purpose of insurance.  Insurance is for catastrophes, such as injury from an auto accident.  Obamacare went in the exact opposite direction.  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has become a “seal of approval” for many people.  Private entities could do that. 

Competition is the free market process that governs business practices.  Too much regulation, and bureaucratic administration are the government’s mechanism, and they usually stifle competition.

Pro-business and pro-free-market are different.  Subsidies, special tax breaks, import tariffs are all statist and pro-business.

Here.

Next Page »