or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › The Keynesian Dead End
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Keynesian Dead End - Page 7

post #91 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by javyn View Post
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but if not, I agree w/ you. Yesterday's most successful capitalists make today's most ardent socialists. See the Hearst family.
I am serious, and I know you agree, but I think that using the term socialist for this kind of stuff is pretty stupid. I think you are smarter than that.
post #92 of 127
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
They are more concerned about government changing the rules than they are about government intrusion, because often their competitive advantage comes, at least partly, from the current way the rules are structured.

Only part of the time.
post #93 of 127
They want everyone else to be hobbled by regulation while they use their influence to get a loophole exemption.

Do you really think Goldman Sachs hates the government and wants a free market competition?
post #94 of 127
Thread Starter 
Here's an example, I am working with several prominent health insurers. They are working hard to devise strategy to handle the risks of inviting in new customers from the uninsured pool. They have two big concerns... 1. It is not clear what data they can use to underwrite the risk. 2. If they develop a plan with pricing per policy guidelines, how do they know what level the current Administration will find acceptable in terms of price? If we had a free market approach in healthcare, we could agree to let anonymized medical and geodemographic data guide underwriting policy and that in turn would be used to generate a pricing level where there is a shareholder return. It would moreover create an atmosphere where more entrants would come in and offer more specialized health plans, driving more competition and the costs down for the insured.
post #95 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinW View Post
They want everyone else to be hobbled by regulation while they use their influence to get a loophole exemption.

Do you really think Goldman Sachs hates the government and wants a free market competition?
I think it is slightly more nuanced than this.
post #96 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
I think it is slightly more nuanced than this.

Sure, but is this a thread for nuance?
post #97 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinW View Post
Sure, but is this a thread for nuance?
I just wanted to try that line on for size. It really means nothing, but it is satisfying to say, and it gets a rise out of the target.
post #98 of 127
Thread Starter 
There is lots of Goldman Sachs access and influence in D.C., especially under this regime. However, Goldman is where they are due to liquid and free capital markets. That's really a terrible example but thanks for supporting my argument.
post #99 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
One answer for both of these. Firms want free markets because they know that government control is far worse a scenario as an alternative. Almost all executives I speak with whether CEO, CFO, CMO, or CRO are most concerned about govt intrusion...and they all feel they have a competitive advantage to utilize.

In other words, they would prefer competition to the vagaries of a political process for the most part.

Not quite. They're worried about government intrusion that will damage their positions. Offer them government intrusion that will help their positions and/or hurt that of the competition and they will jump at it.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ereg/Tran8.htm

Quote:
All of these events proved to be favorable for large-scale deregulation. In November 1977, Congress formally deregulated air cargo. In late 1978, Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, legislation that had been principally authored by Senators Edward Kennedy and Howard Cannon. There was stiff opposition to the bill"”from the major airlines who feared free competition, from labor unions who feared nonunion employees, and from safety advocates who feared that safety would be sacrificed.
post #100 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
I just wanted to try that line on for size. It really means nothing, but it is satisfying to say, and it gets a rise out of the target.
If you meant that my post was somewhat simplistic and the causation issues are more complex than that, I've already agreed with you. A couple of days ago when this threak was first posted I started a serious reply, even pulling-up some JMK and Hicks models and a Stiglitz text. Then I read the OP op ed and decided not to waste my time. This is not a threak for nuance:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
There is lots of Goldman Sachs access and influence in D.C., especially under this regime. However, Goldman is where they are due to liquid and free capital markets. That's really a terrible example but thanks for supporting my argument.
post #101 of 127
Thread Starter 
Well airlines are an odd example. They are very limited in the amount of operational elements they control. A lot of their business is driven by fuel costs, gate access, built-in labor costs versus new upstarts like Emirates that have more efficient fleets and lower labor expense, geographic territory, etc.
post #102 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
Well airlines are an odd example. They are very limited in the amount of operational elements they control. A lot of their business is driven by fuel costs, gate access, built-in labor costs versus new upstarts like Emirates that have more efficient fleets and lower labor expense.

There we go. And free markets facilitate what? Upstarts. Established businesses do not want upstarts.
post #103 of 127
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
There we go. And free markets facilitate what? Upstarts. Established businesses do not want upstarts.

Why not? Established businesses love upstarts. They can buy them and avoid the legacy costs. They can create their own spin-offs which are upstarts.

My employer is buying upstarts in analytics and data left and right.
post #104 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
I am serious, and I know you agree, but I think that using the term socialist for this kind of stuff is pretty stupid. I think you are smarter than that.

Yeah I know, but since liberal = socialist these days, using that word is my clever way of trolling.
post #105 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
Why not? Established businesses love upstarts. They can buy them and avoid the legacy costs. They can create their own spin-offs which are upstarts.

My employer is buying upstarts in analytics and data left and right.

That's just classic strategy to eliminate the upstart, i.e. buying them out.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. In all truth, I think your dogma is blinding you to a pretty clear fact. All things being equal, a successful, established player would be incredibly stupid not to take all steps to protect their marketspace. These steps can, and do, include seeking regulation to aid the process.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › The Keynesian Dead End