draeco,

We're working on the whole "slant" thing. Just as you would wish Ray to be civil to you, I request that you be civil to him. In fact, if you maintain the moral high ground no matter what your opponent throws at you, that speaks for itself.

Let's try to stick to talking about issues instead of each other; I think that's something we all need to be reminded of once in a while. And sure; everyone has "one of those days" and slips up occasionally... we can all be big enough to forgive an occasional breach. But if someone continually offends, the better solution is to send them to virtual Coventry, as in -- don't respond to their bait, for bait it is in truth. Some people feed on blood. Don't let their remarks cut you.... it's their delight to lap at your wounds, and you become an all-they-can-eat buffet.

If any particular user offends you, there is an "Ignore" feature you may use. Click on that member's profile and you'll see a text link to "Ignore" that will cause all posts from that member to become invisible to you. It's always there if someone just irks you past your point of no return. And reversible if you change your mind later on.

Hope to hear from you more on other subjects!

There are, as far as I know, still anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws on the books. They've been more or less forgotten because they were passed so long ago and for so many different reasons than the ones we're faced with today, that I doubt any attorney would use them as precedent.

However, I don't understand your use of the word 'protectionism' in the air industry. Can you please expain?

While I may agree with your statement that:



I don't agree that our government is "uncomfortable" with this. If it were, why would it allow such things to happen? The most recent is the government allowing banks to buy banks--or a recent decision by the FCC that allows a single owner to have X number of radio stations, X number of TV stations, and X number of newpapers?

Since corporations have been allowed to hide behind subsidiaries and umbrella corporations, how does the normal person know just what owns what?

If I wanted to buy stock in, say, Home Depot, how am I supposed to know what corporation backs Home Depot? To what does Home Depot really belong?

It's because of this intertwining of financial interests on every level, that I don't believe "capitalism," or any other form of economic government will 'end' unless the people mount a revolution. That won't happen as long as people 'gain' from the existing systems.

btw, even if that 'gain' equals 53 cents a month, it's a gain, isn't it?

Lizbeth was referring to RNG's post;

I, too, would like to pursue this further, starting with the effects of deregulating the airlines and ending with how airlines are figuratively lined up in the bankruptcy courts.

If there was ever 'protection' of the airlines by the government it would have been prior to their deregulation. Prior to that point, airlines were tightly regulated, including fares and maintenance. Deregulation did result in what amounts to continuing fare wars, with consequential reduction in passenger service and diminished monitoring of maintenance. Outsourcing and off-shoring of maintenance without oversight has certainly reduced maintenance cost, but anyone that follow airline safety reports would conclude that it has become almost shoddy. Airline travel was once something to look forward to: today it is anticipated with fear and loathing.

From the airlines' perspective, they didn't need to fear financial loss as the government established fares at a level that gave them a reasonable return and a guarantee of market share.

It is the intense competition that has resulted in all of the bankruptcies. In this case, unrestrained capitalism has been self-destructive.

Am I advocating the end of capitalism? No, not at all. But there are some industries that are too important to the public good to be left unregulated. Transportation infrastructure is one of those. The same might be said of the energy industry.

It seems to me that there is no 'protectionism' of US airlines today.

yes, I was replying to RNG's point about protectionism so please ask him.

regarding the current anti-trust laws on the books, perhaps some of them should have been used recently.

regarding who owns (say) Home Depot, there are laws which require me to find out who owns it if I am to buy stock which would give me a controlling interest and, if my corporation was a rival, I would have to apply to the financial regulator in the country concerned and recieve permission to buy such a controlling interest.

I would gladly tolerate incivility in return for moderation and accuracy..

But what if you only want to buy $10,000 worth of common stock? You could spend hours in the library tracing the history or go on line. But would you find out what corporation really owns HomeDepot?

You could find out even if you didn't buy stock, because public corporations must be publicly registered.

Can I bring the discussion to Non American problems and solutions. An EU meeting fail to agree on a bail out in Europe. However Ireland, Greece and Germany have already agree to gurantee private bank deposits. This is a form of subisy because it is not the banks dong this.

This in turn has cause a run on banks of countries who did not make this guarntee as people move their deposits to countries which have this guarntee. Soon all European countries will have to do the same.

Some banks including Germany second bank havt been nationalised. This is a better solution than just buying their debts.

On the point of protection. This does limit competition but sometimes is essential to keep a local industry going. Most countries have restriction of routes for foreign carriers to protect their national airline. I am not sure of the position in the USA but our government does restrict foreign airlines on the Australia-USA route.

Protection is not always good , and Australia is a Free Trade country in most things like agriculture but sometimes protection is needed in specific industries.

buying $10K worth of common stock won't bring down the system, nor create a monopoly. It's when you want to buy ALL the common stock (or at least 51%) of a company similar to the one you mentioned AND you own a rival chain is when the problems start. At that point, leveraging off your increasing assets base, you then go and buy ALL the hardware chains in the US and (work with me here) the world and all the (say) nail manufacturing plants. You can then charge what you want for a nail, if all nails are $10 each (say) in your hardware chain and you have no competitors: monopoly

You grow rich at the expense of the people. That's what Capitalism's ultimate goal is - monopoly. That's why Govt. regulates very strictly re super-mergers and takeovers.