Of course, one would be hard pressed to name any other multinational companies who have done or do business with dictatorships or repressive governments having murderous human rights records.;-)
"England in particular went thru a gut wrenching series of budgets for 20 years after WWII to recover."
And the US extracted terms for the loans which virtually destroyed the economic power of the British Empire. Removal of trade barriers and setting up the USD as the primary currency of trade.
Today, without the primacy of the dollar the US economy would sink.
Saddam started to sell his oil in euros.. Chavez was pushing OPEC to do the same. I wonder what will happen to Chavez?...the spoils to the victors...
US has allowed _processes_ to be patented. This is what happens when you allow big business to create/manipulate law.
In the UK these are not patentable.
What do they say? You get the government you deserve.......
Re:Naturally it IS price fixing
on
LCD Price Fixing?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Short economics lesson: the price you pay is determined by the supply curve AND the demand curve. Company A is not going to sell you that cheap toolset (they bought from china for $1) for less than $10 because that is what the market will bear. They could sell it at $2 and still make a profit, but that profit would not be adequate to keep them running, because shareholders expect what is called an economic profit: they would rather invest in company B which pays a decent dividend because it sells the toolset for $10.
I would be willing to bet that large stocks of CRTs are not an issue and that R&D is pretty minimal. After all we've had CRTs for 60 years or so.
>If coke started selling 12packs for $2.00 what >would pepsi do? They would have to compete to >survive. Of course Coke can't do that cause they >will lose money Coke would probably not lose money since I suspect the manufacturing/disbn cost of a can of soft drink is than 17c. The point is they would not make _enough_ money.
The problem comes when there are small numbers of suppliers: collusion is the natural tendency. Theoretically if the profits resulting from this collusion are great enough (ie prices are high enough) more players will enter the market and break the cartel. However there are clearly barriers to entry: setting up a plant is a very expensive business.
Collusion may not be overt: it could be simply that neither side really challenges on price.
The question is how many technology items are affected by collusion. DO you pay too much for your processor: how many makers can you choose from? Do you pay too much for your word processing softare: how many suppliers can you choose from?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, one would be hard pressed to name any other multinational companies who have done or do business with dictatorships or repressive governments having murderous human rights records. ;-)
"England in particular went thru a gut wrenching series of budgets for 20 years after WWII to recover."
...the spoils to the victors...
And the US extracted terms for the loans which virtually destroyed the economic power of the British Empire. Removal of trade barriers and setting up the USD as the primary currency of trade.
Today, without the primacy of the dollar the US economy would sink.
Saddam started to sell his oil in euros.. Chavez was pushing OPEC to do the same. I wonder what will happen to Chavez?
US has allowed _processes_ to be patented. This is what happens when you allow big business to create/manipulate law. In the UK these are not patentable. What do they say? You get the government you deserve.......
Short economics lesson: the price you pay is determined by the supply curve AND the demand curve. Company A is not going to sell you that cheap toolset (they bought from china for $1) for less than $10 because that is what the market will bear. They could sell it at $2 and still make a profit, but that profit would not be adequate to keep them running, because shareholders expect what is called an economic profit: they would rather invest in company B which pays a decent dividend because it sells the toolset for $10.
I would be willing to bet that large stocks of CRTs are not an issue and that R&D is pretty minimal. After all we've had CRTs for 60 years or so.
>If coke started selling 12packs for $2.00 what >would pepsi do? They would have to compete to >survive. Of course Coke can't do that cause they >will lose money
Coke would probably not lose money since I suspect the manufacturing/disbn cost of a can of soft drink is than 17c. The point is they would not make _enough_ money.
The problem comes when there are small numbers of suppliers: collusion is the natural tendency. Theoretically if the profits resulting from this collusion are great enough (ie prices are high enough) more players will enter the market and break the cartel. However there are clearly barriers to entry: setting up a plant is a very expensive business.
Collusion may not be overt: it could be simply that neither side really challenges on price.
The question is how many technology items are affected by collusion. DO you pay too much for your processor: how many makers can you choose from? Do you pay too much for your word processing softare: how many suppliers can you choose from?