This conversation is closed.

Why is it that American Corporations want the Government to fix their business problems?

It seems that the media Corporations ,who are still living in the past,want the government to fix their lack of foresight and ineptitude when responding to new technology,instead of then moving with the times and changing their outlook to fit with the new digital world. Frankly I'm amazed the Eastman Kodak did not want the US Congress to halt the advance in digital photography, so they could still sell film.
OR Have I got it wrong and it is more about control?

  • Jan 26 2012: because it is an easy way out. no accountablity yes things would be tough if they did not but if they are not responsable why should we? let things take there course of action and others would take more precause going foward to do a better job. but our politians have no balls.
  • Jan 24 2012: I hate to give the Sesame street answer but I think it all about HARD and EASY.
    Keeping up with technology, adapting, innovating (especially an established industry) and correctly predicting which new technology will be the keeper is HARD.
    Buying a politician (or a bunch of politicians) and get them to make laws protecting you is EASY.
  • thumb
    Jan 23 2012: companies does not like competition. why would they? competition makes their work hard. competition is risk. they just want to freeze things as they are. they want to stop change, and prevent new players to enter the game.

    we, the customers, want competition. so we have to be vigilant, and stop every effort to reduce competition in the name of "the industry" or "the economy".
    • Jan 23 2012: Predator pricing, mergers , acquisitions , price discrimination , collusion and cartels suggest the need for stronger rules pertaining to corporate governance and anti trust laws to insure competitive markets.
      • thumb
        Jan 23 2012: not at all. predatory pricing does not exist, only in textbooks. acquisition, price discrimination and cartels are moral, legal, valid business practices. none of these hurt anyone on a truly free market.
        • Jan 23 2012: Hi Krisztian,
          OK once again we meet :-). In our last thread I appreciated some of your insights. Rather than refute your comment with textbooks full of examples I will just bite on your hook assuming the argument is we have never had a truly free market. I actually believe once upon a time we did but it was back when clubbing each other on the head was the norm. As I previously mentioned to you I have many sympathies with libertarian principals and to such an extend that depending on the definition I have been called a social libertarian. I have never grasped the dogma of pure libertarian thought. So while you have me wiggling on the line I would appreciate your idea of a truly free market.
      • thumb
        Jan 23 2012: there are quite some body of libertarian/austrian work available about monopolies, theory of the firm, and such stuff. if you really have spent time on reading textbooks, it might be a good "correction" to read some of the other side as well.

        for a starter, and for the modern video generation, here is a lighter material:
  • thumb
    Jan 23 2012: The media indistry has always had an issue with advancements in the field.
    What you see against the internet today is exactly what they tried against video players, tape recorders, public radio etc etc. Anything to prevent the chance of competition against them, and new technology always brings it.