sleepy joe malla esesindu

[dasari4kntr]

4 minutes ago, mirchi_bajji said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-14/google-s-waze-deal-is-a-likely-target-in-new-ftc-antitrust-sweep

FTC is looking into it. 

ok..aa case paina naaku nammakam ledhu...finally it will land in google hands...no matter what.. (Adhi neeku kooda telusu...still trying to defend your favt govt..you dont have to reply to me on this...just answer yourself).....

 

but i would like to know..about your monopoly defending theories...

you think there is no monopoly in business...? any examples..? i already said internet example...i like to know your comment to prove me wrong..(instead of just simply saying you are wrong...)

[mirchi_bajji]

2 minutes ago, dasari4kntr said:

ok..aa case paina naaku nammakam ledhu...finally it will land in google hands...no matter what.. (Adhi neeku kooda telusu...still trying to defend your favt govt..you dont have to reply to me on this...just answer yourself).....

 

but i would like to know..about your monopoly defending theories...

you think there is no monopoly in business...? any examples..? i already said internet example...i like to know your comment to prove me wrong..(instead of just simply saying you are wrong...)

dude . the sale happened in 2013 under obama. stop making this political.

i am trying to explain that near-monopolies are hard to stop and govts will end up dooming their economies if they make rules too stringent. cost of entry is very high in US and as long as there are multiple players in each field, i am good ( not the best case scenario...but something is better than nothing)

[chanchala]

4 minutes ago, dasari4kntr said:

ok..aa case paina naaku nammakam ledhu...finally it will land in google hands...no matter what.. (Adhi neeku kooda telusu...still trying to defend your favt govt..you dont have to reply to me on this...just answer yourself).....

 

but i would like to know..about your monopoly defending theories...

you think there is no monopoly in business...? any examples..? i already said internet example...i like to know your comment to prove me wrong..(instead of just simply saying you are wrong...)

first anti trust action is all eyewash in the US. How can monopolies be avoided if Uber is not allowd to buy lyft, lol?

Uber, if it wants to monopolize will buy mapping s/w, then an AI company, then an electric car company or make all of them themselves. buying lyft is like the least effective way to become a monopoly.

anti trust laws don't go after the former actions... indeed its hard to do so and still maintain functioning markets.

when the markets are not free, monopolies are the only way to make any money. most US companies are loss making, except those that control the market.

[chanchala]

Just now, mirchi_bajji said:

dude . the sale happened in 2013 under obama. stop making this political.

i am trying to explain that near-monopolies are hard to stop and govts will end up dooming their economies if they make rules too stringent. cost of entry is very high in US and as long as there are multiple players in each field, i am good ( not the best case scenario...but something is better than nothing)

yes. monopolies are impossible to stop. The source of the problem is lack of free markets. some companies get creative in exploiting lax govt regulations in an area (amazon with sales tax) and grow into a huge monster before the govt can do anything.

antitrust laws are basically for show. you can't argue that they successfully stop creating monopolies, when US is full of monopolies.

[dasari4kntr]

1 minute ago, mirchi_bajji said:

dude . the sale happened in 2013 under obama. stop making this political.

i am trying to explain that near-monopolies are hard to stop and govts will end up dooming their economies if they make rules too stringent. cost of entry is very high in US and as long as there are multiple players in each field, i am good ( not the best case scenario...but something is better than nothing)

dude...i didnt make this political...

you are the one bring up obama name in this deal...(or monopoly discussion)..

yes i raised trump name..because of his recent threat to USPS...but that is not related to this google deal...

[mirchi_bajji]

Just now, dasari4kntr said:

dude...i didnt make this political...

you are the one bring up obama name in this deal...(or monopoly discussion)..

yes i raised trump name..because of his recent threat to USPS...but that is not related to this google deal...

you said  "still trying to defend your favt govt." - i thought you meant republicans. did you mean US as such?

are you critical that US does not have environment for world class companies to form and grow? 

[chanchala]

4 minutes ago, mirchi_bajji said:

you said  "still trying to defend your favt govt." - i thought you meant republicans. did you mean US as such?

are you critical that US does not have environment for world class companies to form and grow? 

shifting goalposts.

world class companies are misnomers.. because for all the talent that US sucks up from the world, US is an underperformer. precisely because most of its economy is under corporate monopoly.

ofcourse its the same for Europe and Asia too. except they are more efficient

here the topic USPS ani anukunna.

[mirchi_bajji]

Just now, chanchala said:

shifting goalposts.

world class companies are misnomers.. because for all the talent that US sucks up from the world, US is an underperformer. precisely because most of its economy is under corporate monopoly.

ofcourse its the same for Europe and Asia too. except they are more efficient

here the topic USPS ani anukunna.

good . atleast you brought back the topic of USPS. discussion was going all over the place

you guys want USPS to continue its course and let competition build better infrastructure?

[chanchala]

5 minutes ago, mirchi_bajji said:

are you critical that US does not have environment for world class companies to form and grow? 

private companies are inefficient except in bringing a new technology into a mass consumer product. especially under capitalist structure.

under that one narrow area, private firms are extremely fluid and innovative (again not in fundamental/applied research).

companies exist purely to perfect processes to create widgets at the lowest possible cost. This can be done outside of capitalist structures too... like in USPS case.

US govt is trying to kill it.

[dasari4kntr]

2 minutes ago, mirchi_bajji said:

you said  "still trying to defend your favt govt." - i thought you meant republicans. did you mean US as such?

are you critical that US does not have environment for world class companies to form and grow? 

ohh ok..."still trying to defend your favt govt"...i will take those words back...sorry

now lets discuss original point..."do you think it is good to put USPS in private hands?"

 

---

in fact some out of topic...

in india...postal system was introduced by british 1854...

in 1884 itself they gave life insurance for indian postal workers...just example  to the importance of postal system in everyone life...

 

now @Catalpha or some saying just privatize USPS (so simply) being in comfortable chair built by other people (which she dont know who built her chair..)

if it is in private hands..? will the common people afford the prices?

 

 

[chanchala]

1 minute ago, mirchi_bajji said:

good . atleast you brought back the topic of USPS. discussion was going all over the place

you guys want USPS to continue its course and let competition build better infrastructure?

see, US has the best system in the world. I don't have a doubt about that. It sucks at many areas like extreme application of intellectual property etc... but it is the best we have in this world.

but still, its not a free market. Not even close. 

USPS is just too efficient. The competition is not worth talking about. The infra that competition builds is not available for other providers at a decent rate. USPS infra is available. I can't see how private players are ever gonna top that, without govt colluding with them to destroy USPS

[chanchala]

1 minute ago, dasari4kntr said:

if it is in private hands..? will the common people afford the prices?

 

yes. privatization is good. consider USPS also a private player, because until recently USPS didn't need govt funding to function. 

people can afford prices from private players if govt doesn't support one private player to corner the market and raise prices.

that's why the tech monopolies in the US are not raising any alarms. The people who are most hurt by those monopolies are small businesses, and not people.

[mirchi_bajji]

4 minutes ago, dasari4kntr said:

ohh ok..."still trying to defend your favt govt"...i will take those words back...sorry

now lets discuss original point..."do you think it is good to put USPS in private hands?"

 

---

in fact some out of topic...

in india...postal system was introduced by british 1854...

in 1884 itself they gave life insurance for indian postal workers...just example  to the importance of postal system in everyone life...

 

now @Catalpha or some saying just privatize USPS (so simply) being in comfortable chair built by other people (which she dont know who built her chair..)

if it is in private hands..? will the common people afford the prices?

 

 

i feel that some reform is needed and its urgent. either the govt should radically change the working of USPS or privatize it. 

1st is the better option but after observing the same issues being discussed for almost two decades without any resolution or way forward...i am inclined towards privatization if needed. 

players like amazon and walmart are creating their own infrastructure to do better and fast deliveries across states. soon they will have enough volume to monopolize the delivery business.  USPS has to adapt and that is becoming too complex. i feel that they might offload the business entirely in future

[dasari4kntr]

5 minutes ago, chanchala said:

yes. privatization is good. consider USPS also a private player, because until recently USPS didn't need govt funding to function. 

people can afford prices from private players if govt doesn't support one private player to corner the market and raise prices.

that's why the tech monopolies in the US are not raising any alarms. The people who are most hurt by those monopolies are small businesses, and not people.

 

3 hours ago, Catalpha said:

He is trying to increase the shipping fees to make it similar to UPS and FedEx, because private firms are charging more than USPS, and USPS is in financial losses.

 

[chanchala]

5 minutes ago, mirchi_bajji said:

i feel that some reform is needed and its urgent. either the govt should radically change the working of USPS or privatize it. 

1st is the better option but after observing the same issues being discussed for almost two decades without any resolution or way forward...i am inclined towards privatization if needed. 

players like amazon and walmart are creating their own infrastructure to do better and fast deliveries across states. soon they will have enough volume to monopolize the delivery business.  USPS has to adapt and that is becoming too complex. i feel that they might offload the business entirely in future

this is what the govt wants you to think. 

what is the problem with working of USPS? how can they deliver mail at 1/10th the cost of what amazon does? 

what is 'efficient' in your view, other than delivering a service for the lowest possible cost?

the losses USPS makes is purely of govts cause.. They made USPS dependant on govt funds by changing reporting requirements... and using book losses since 2006 (not real losses) to cut back on infra spend.

its purely political clusterfcuk. as a business, USPS is still way more efficient than amazon that wants to earn a profit for its investors. There's no way to earn a profit and still keep costs low, unless one is living in la la land.