So? They are the ones competing, not the consumers. The way I see it, the consumer is top dog, and the companies asjust their ways to better serve the consumer. That is the foundation of competition. Otherwise, we'd have a corporate government (which really isn't too far from what we have now) Um, in a monopoly, there are no competitors. That's pretty much the definition of a monopoly. And that's not just what I define one as, that's the literal meaning. Not true. Anti-legistlation does not prevent people from running businesses. Not sure where you got that from. In fact, it allows more people to run their businesses, and also gives the consumer greater power over the respective good or service. Don't you understand that businesses with no competition can put out crappy products at outrageously high prices? The current state of our government is a prime example of that. Do you really want private businesses being held to the same lowly standard? Remember how crappy communications were before AT&T was deregulated? You're right. I don't have to buy gas. I could take the bus to work, be late every single day, and probably get fired. That's all I have to do if I don't want to buy gas. Or I guess I could steal it. You probably take public transportation for granted since your locale depends on it so heavily. But that is just not the case around here. And no one else has to buy it, either. All of these companies that ship products across the country can just load everything up on busses or taxis and deliver them to where they need to go. I'm sure there are plenty of other plausible ways to transport copious amounts of goods. Yep, everyone that says that they have to buy gas is just a big, fat liar. As I've stated before, I don't care about the companies, my primary concern is that of the consumer. The companies are rolling in money, most consumers are not. When buyers boycott, they are exercising their choice not to buy (the one you like so much). They do not exist for the sole purpose of consuming, but companies do exist for the sole purpose of the consumers consuming. You can't ban a boycott, because you're not really banning anything at all. I mean, what, would you have the riot squad in front of Wal-Mart tackling people and throwing them into the stores? Yep. And they can do that because they are more important than the companies. They are the ones for which businesses compete, not the other way around. Without the consumer, there is no company. But if the company ceased to exist, the consumers certainly would not disappear. I understand the point, but I think it is short-sighted. I believe that the short-term impact on the economy would be far too devastating to support new technologies. So you still think that everyone who doesn't agree with you just doesn't understand? I don't 'want to be right,' this is truly the way I feel. The fact that it is right is just an added bonus.
why? because you are a consumer? i thought we wanted fairness? buyers and sellers are on equal footing as long as there is no gov't interference. how is a guy working on a hydrogen fuel cell not a dangerous and direct competitor to oil companies? same thing with numerous other alternatives. sure, then why would you use the force of the government to keep oil companies from colluding to raise prices, thereby opeing the door for alternative fuels? do you want to stifle innovation and competition? i bet you could use alot less gas than you use now, if you bought a more efficient car or a hybrid. if you wanted to you could even buy a converter that makes your car run on biodiesel. you could even catch a ride with a buddy from work and really save. but you dont, because you dont need to. if oil prices went way up, you would be fine, and we would quickly be better off because of the way oil prices would spur technology. obviously. only the government can make you do something. right, and that kind of thinking is why you dont understand how markets work. if both consumers and producers are allowed to operate unfettered in their own interests, the market will optimize and everyone is happy. and when sellers collude, they are exercising their right not to sell at lower prices. remember, it is their things we want to buy. their private property. why not, you favor the government doing the same thing to companies. when you make a law that says they cant collude, you are basically saying "sell your products the we say or we will send men with guns" i know, this is why i told you you need to read up on economic theory and think about it some more. almost always. because i am smarter and better at critical thinking than almost everyone else. i dont have opinions on the things i am not right about.
