• 85 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by lilburtonboy7489 (1948 posts) -

Most people have heard that  AMD sued lntel for almost $1.5 B dollars in a recent lawsuit. That lawsuit was absolute bullshit. But now, others are getting in on the loot train.  Now the FTC is planning on stealing from Intel as well. The EU, AMD, and the FTC are all getting in on this action. By the end, Intel will be dead. After they are forced to give away all of their money, they will be so closely monitored that they won't even bother trying to expand. This is so fucking disgusting. Intel has done nothing wrong. They have simply been competing and doing a damn good job. Their CPUs are far superior to AMDs (This isn't even a debate anymore) and they offer them at acceptable prices. They are nothing but a huge benefit to our economy and especially to consumers.  
 
Get ready for higher priced and slower computers. Oh yea, and all the jobs that will be lost on top of that. I'm sure most people will say "OMG INTELL haz so much monies!". They make unbelievable amounts of money, but they have high expenses. Profit does not equal revenue. No company can continue to write checks for billions of dollars and stay in business. And why would they want to? Where's the incentive to do well?  This is like a football team breaking their best player's leg because he makes the rest of the team too good.  
 
Unfortunately, my guess is that most people will be in support of all this shit. People hate big businesses. Also, people are too stupid to see how much they benefit from companies like this. 

#2 Edited by AgentJ (8778 posts) -

I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as the next guy, but what Intel did was illegal. Was that worth 1.5 billion? Probably not. But they could easily avoid these lawsuits by just sticking to the rules 
 
Also, you mentioned that profit isn't the same as revenue. Intel made a REVENUE of 9.5 billion dollars in the second quarter of last year alone. That would project to about 38 billion dollars over the course of 2008, not taking into account seasonal factors or how the recession impacted them. I think they'll be fine.

#3 Posted by lilburtonboy7489 (1948 posts) -
@AgentJ said:
" I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as the next guy, but what Intel did was illegal. Was that worth 1.5 billion? Probably not. But they could easily avoid these lawsuits by just sticking to the rules 
 
Also, you mentioned that profit isn't the same as revenue. Intel made a REVENUE of 9.5 billion dollars in the second quarter of last year alone. That would project to about 38 billion dollars over the course of 2008, not taking into account seasonal factors or how the recession impacted them. I think they'll be fine. "
First of all, AMD hasn't been able to prove the majority of their allegations, so what they DID and what AMD SAID they did may be completely different. Second, who cares if it is illegal or not? The anti-trust laws need to be changed.  
 
And yes, that's crazy revenue. Now subtract their total costs and you have their profit.   
 
They won't be fine. That 1.5 B is just the one lawsuit alone that is complete. Now they are looking at 6 more suits. Anyone who thinks this won't severely damage Intel is delusional. 
#4 Posted by Bellum (2944 posts) -
@lilburtonboy7489 said:
who cares if it is illegal or not?
 
The courts, presumably.
#5 Posted by theMuse (209 posts) -

Considering the FTC is a corrupt joke in and of itself, I think it is depressingly-hilariously ironic they are suing Intel on anti-trust grounds.

#6 Posted by AgentJ (8778 posts) -
@lilburtonboy7489 said:
" @AgentJ said:
" I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as the next guy, but what Intel did was illegal. Was that worth 1.5 billion? Probably not. But they could easily avoid these lawsuits by just sticking to the rules 
 
Also, you mentioned that profit isn't the same as revenue. Intel made a REVENUE of 9.5 billion dollars in the second quarter of last year alone. That would project to about 38 billion dollars over the course of 2008, not taking into account seasonal factors or how the recession impacted them. I think they'll be fine. "
First of all, AMD hasn't been able to prove the majority of their allegations, so what they DID and what AMD SAID they did may be completely different. Second, who cares if it is illegal or not? The anti-trust laws need to be changed.   And yes, that's crazy revenue. Now subtract their total costs and you have their profit.    They won't be fine. That 1.5 B is just the one lawsuit alone that is complete. Now they are looking at 6 more suits. Anyone who thinks this won't severely damage Intel is delusional.  "
The majority? So they have proven that Intel did something illegal.  
Whether the laws need to be changed or not is irrelevant, because Intel did something that was against the law when they did it.  
I'm surprised you are standing up for them. If they don't make enough money to pay for their illegal activities, they should go out of business without any sort of  intervention, correct? 
I agree that the 1.5 billion dollar hit will be costly, but they make far more than that in a year. Do you know what the amounts of those other lawsuits will be?
#7 Posted by The_Ish (481 posts) -
@lilburtonboy7489 said:
Their CPUs are far superior to AMDs (This isn't even a debate anymore). "
Bullcrap. 
#8 Posted by Suicidal_SNiper (949 posts) -

Intel was doing something illegal and thus had to pay for it. 1.5 billion may be a little excessive but they shouldn't of been conducting the illegal activity. And at the time that AMD sued them (2005 was it?) AMD had faster processors than Intel. So arguing that they have superior chips anyway is kinda pointless because they're always going to be turning tides.

#9 Posted by Termite (2398 posts) -

I wouldn't say that they've "just been competing, and doing a damn good job" if they've been breaking the law to drive out their competition. Now, I don't know how many of the allegations are true, but if even one of them is true then Intel should be fined, obviously. A 1.5 billion fine? That's probably way over-the-top, but a fine nonetheless. 
 
And what do you think should be done about anti-trust laws Burton?

#10 Posted by lilburtonboy7489 (1948 posts) -
@Bellum said:
" @lilburtonboy7489 said:
who cares if it is illegal or not?
 The courts, presumably. "
Obviously. The system needs to be changed though.@Termite said:
" I wouldn't say that they've "just been competing, and doing a damn good job" if they've been breaking the law to drive out their competition. Now, I don't know how many of the allegations are true, but if even one of them is true then Intel should be fined, obviously. A 1.5 billion fine? That's probably way over-the-top, but a fine nonetheless.   And what do you think should be done about anti-trust laws Burton? "
1.5 B is just the one suit. That's already done with. They can expect to pay approximately 6 times that amount.  
 
I think the anti-trust laws need to disappear completely. 
#11 Posted by lilburtonboy7489 (1948 posts) -
@AgentJ said:
" @lilburtonboy7489 said:
" @AgentJ said:
" I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as the next guy, but what Intel did was illegal. Was that worth 1.5 billion? Probably not. But they could easily avoid these lawsuits by just sticking to the rules 
 
Also, you mentioned that profit isn't the same as revenue. Intel made a REVENUE of 9.5 billion dollars in the second quarter of last year alone. That would project to about 38 billion dollars over the course of 2008, not taking into account seasonal factors or how the recession impacted them. I think they'll be fine. "
First of all, AMD hasn't been able to prove the majority of their allegations, so what they DID and what AMD SAID they did may be completely different. Second, who cares if it is illegal or not? The anti-trust laws need to be changed.   And yes, that's crazy revenue. Now subtract their total costs and you have their profit.    They won't be fine. That 1.5 B is just the one lawsuit alone that is complete. Now they are looking at 6 more suits. Anyone who thinks this won't severely damage Intel is delusional.  "
The majority? So they have proven that Intel did something illegal.  Whether the laws need to be changed or not is irrelevant, because Intel did something that was against the law when they did it.  I'm surprised you are standing up for them. If they don't make enough money to pay for their illegal activities, they should go out of business without any sort of  intervention, correct? I agree that the 1.5 billion dollar hit will be costly, but they make far more than that in a year. Do you know what the amounts of those other lawsuits will be? "
Meh, not really. They were bundling their CPUs with certain vendors for really cheap. It's only illegal if they are selling at a loss. They don't know all of their finances yet, so that hasn't been proven. But the other allegations are ridiculous. Things such as them driving out competition by having plans to integrate better GPUs. Things like that.  
 
They should go out of business if they fail in the market. They have succeeded in the market. These costs are being imposed by an arbitrary entity, not market losses. If they failed on their own (like AMD should), I would definitely want them to go out of business. The problem is that the laws are shit.  
 
And no, no one knows the costs with the other suits yet. But the EU and the FTC suits are said to be bigger than the amount they paid AMD (the 1.5B). 
#12 Edited by Ham08 (202 posts) -

The OP is obviously a fanboy, a corporate lackey, or just plain ignorant.  There are very good reasons for anti-trust laws, which you don't seem to understand or care about.  If Intel was allowed to continue illegally eliminating the competition it would only be a matter of time when they dominated the market so thorougly that prices would soar and they would be able to get away with it, because they would be the only game in town.  I suppose you are going to stick up for Microsoft's past anti-trust infractions, as well?


Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, has three main elements:

  • prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.
  • banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.
  • supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licenses or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing


Protecting the interests of consumers and ensuring that entrepreneurs have an opportunity to compete in the market economy are important objectives.  Big trusts are synonymous with big monopolies, the perceived threat to democracy and the free market these trusts represented led to the Sherman and Clayton Acts.  The antitrust laws were minimized in the mid-1980s under influence of Chicago school of economics and blamed for the loss of economic supremacy in the world.

All first world countries recognize the need for anti-trust laws.  Some of which include: European Union law, The Competition Act of Canada, Anti monopoly Law of China, Anti-monopoly in Japan, Competition Law in Russia.  See also, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).


Breaking these anti-trust laws may prevent others from even entering the market to compete and does severe damage the overall economy.   When firms hold large market shares, consumers risk paying higher prices and getting lower quality products than compared to competitive markets.  The Supreme Court of the United States said, "Every violation of the antitrust laws is a blow to the free-enterprise system envisaged by Congress. This system depends on strong competition for its health and vigor, and strong competition depends, in turn, on compliance with antitrust legislation."  and also said,  "The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself."  The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply. In other words, innocent monopoly, or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve his status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. Put another way, it has sometimes been said that the purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors, but rather to protect competition and the competitive landscape.


The OP seems to be rooting for another Wall-Street scale of economic disaster.

#13 Posted by lilburtonboy7489 (1948 posts) -

"  The OP is obviously a fanboy, a corporate lackey, or just plain ignorant." 
 
UM....None of the above? 
 
  
 "There are very good reasons for anti-trust laws, which you don't seem to understand or care about. " 
 
I can guarantee that I understand and care about them more than you.  And I also know that the reasons are nonsensical. 
 
 "If Intel was allowed to continue illegally eliminating the competition it would only be a matter of time when they dominated the market so thorougly that prices would soar and they would be able to get away with it, because they would be the only game in town."  
 
Yea, that's usually what happens isn't it? Oh wait....no it's not. Being dominant in the market doesn't mean you control the market. Only idiots think that. Markets are ruled by exchanged between consumers and producers. They are all in it for the money. If there is profit to be made, more businesses move into the market. Usually businesses become too comfortable and don't innovate enough, that's when other companies step in. Ford used to completely control the market for cars, but GM entered the market with innovation and became a strong competitor. That's how it works. Monopolies cannot stop competition, only laws can. In the market, companies are ALWAYS susceptible to competitors. 
 
 " I suppose you are going to stick up for Microsoft's past anti-trust infractions, as well?"  
 
I don't know enough about them, but if they are "anti-competitive", then I'm sure I have no problem with what they did.  
 
Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, has three main elements:

  • prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.
  • banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.
  • supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licenses or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing"
 
I have a degree in economics, I know what antitrust laws are.   
 
 "Protecting the interests of consumers and ensuring that entrepreneurs have an opportunity to compete in the market economy are important objectives." 
 
Consumers protect their own interests, and entrepreneurs will always have the ability to compete in the market. That was always the case before antitrust laws.  The biggest barriers to entry right now are from the government through subsidies, licensing boards, and special interests. Those are real barriers, unlike the imaginary ones which have never been proved to exist (teh evil corporations controlz teh markets!). 
 
  "Big trusts are synonymous with big monopolies, the perceived threat to democracy and the free market these trusts represented led to the Sherman and Clayton Acts. " 
 
The market is democracy. Monopolies don't exist because it is not possible to have a business safe from competition in the market. They still need to meet the needs of consumers and innovate or else someone else will. Businesses like Intel come about because of democracy. Voluntary exchanges are made by people, and whichever business is the most successful, has been chosen by the people to be the best deal. Billions of democratic transactions have created Intel. They are anything but a threat to democracy.  
 
You know what IS a threat to democracy? Having the government take money from the businesses we have chosen to succeed, and then giving it to those who we have decided not to buy from. 
 
 
"The antitrust laws were minimized in the mid-1980s under influence of Chicago school of economics and blamed for the loss of economic supremacy in the world."  
 
Antritrust laws didn't exist before the 1930s. We never had a problem with monopolies then, and we wouldn't now either. I'm not sure what your point was here, but you are right. The Chicago School is the cause, and that's about the one thing that School ever did to help our economy.  
 
Our loss of economic supremacy has nothing to do with the lack of antitrust laws. That's moronic to even imply.  
 
"All first world countries recognize the need for anti-trust laws.  Some of which include: European Union law, The Competition Act of Canada, Anti monopoly Law of China, Anti-monopoly in Japan, Competition Law in Russia.  See also, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)." 
 
I'm failing to see a point here either? These are of the countries who have destroyed the world economy as well? They have no idea what they are doing. Even if they did, the ad populum fallacy still prevails here.  
 
"Breaking these anti-trust laws may prevent others from even entering the market to compete and does severe damage the overall economy. " 
 
No, they don't. I've already explained this.  
 
  "When firms hold large market shares, consumers risk paying higher prices and getting lower quality products than compared to competitive markets. " 
 
Watch this: When firms hold small market shares, consumers risk aids.
 
I can make stuff up to.  
 
There is no empirical or deductive truth to that whatsoever. Having more money to continually invest in more factors of production means they can produce more and cheaper prices. The higher amount of savings they get from profits, the more capital they can acquire. The more capital they acquire, cheaper the goods. 
#14 Posted by nanikore (2740 posts) -

I was trying to read your topic which seemed interesting but I'm too distracted by that awesome mullet. 
 
Ah well, shit happens. 

#15 Edited by Ham08 (202 posts) -
@lilburtonboy7489:

How you achieved a degree in economics is baffling, unless you cheated or attended a community college. Or Both.


Before AMD came onto the scene, Intel had outrageous prices.  Don't fool yourself, It was competition, primarily, that drove the prices down not Intel's success.  If AMD disappeared, as you so desperately desire, ........, Intel would raise prices to procure more profits.  Don't think the consumers will benefit in any way.  That is the nature of successful business and is perfectly legal in and of itself, until Intel breaks the anti-trust laws, thereby illegally attempting to remove competition.  The laws are meant to protect the consumers, entrepreneurs, the market, and competition itself.  They have to play by the rules to prevent market failure.  Repealing and relaxing protective laws is what lead to the Wall-Street economic disaster. 

#16 Posted by Snipzor (3317 posts) -

Damn that mullet, it crippled my ability to care about this in any way! Not that I could care or be outraged, they broke the law, big time. Sure, 1.5 billion is a lot, but I don't care.

#17 Edited by KamasamaK (2409 posts) -

Intel used their position of power to execute anti-competitive practices by offering incentives for not also doing business with competitors. I can't defend that. Competition is what drives industries, and Intel should be able to compete on the merits of their superior products at good prices without having to resort to anti-competitive tactics.
 
EDIT: I think the EU goes too far on some of these issues, but this happens to be one I agree with.

#18 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

dang, that sucks if AMD does win. i just think that it is just a money grabbing people that want more money. i just have to say at least it is not a no body that just wants to make money. it's just what i think of it as i hate hearing about somebody sueing a company. the person is just seem poor person that wants money.

#19 Posted by lilburtonboy7489 (1948 posts) -
@Ham08 said:

" @lilburtonboy7489:

How you achieved a degree in economics is baffling, unless you cheated or attended a community college. Or Both.


Before AMD came onto the scene, Intel had outrageous prices.  Don't fool yourself, It was competition, primarily, that drove the prices down not Intel's success.  If AMD disappeared, as you so desperately desire, ........, Intel would raise prices to procure more profits.  Don't think the consumers will benefit in any way.  That is the nature of successful business and is perfectly legal in and of itself, until Intel breaks the anti-trust laws, thereby illegally attempting to remove competition.  The laws are meant to protect the consumers, entrepreneurs, the market, and competition itself.  They have to play by the rules to prevent market failure.  Repealing and relaxing protective laws is what lead to the Wall-Street economic disaster. 

"
I have a degree in economics from one of the "public ivy league" schools, and no I didn't cheat.  Where did you get your degree in economics from?
 
And you just proved my point: "  Before AMD came onto the scene, Intel had outrageous prices.  Don't fool yourself, It was competition, primarily, that drove the prices down not Intel's success." 
 
Duh. Anytime a company offers a product which consumers feel is overpriced, another company will enter the market to drive prices down. So......wait....Why do we need antitrust laws? If Intel was able to knock AMD off the map, they might raise prices. If they do that and do not satisfy customers, what will happen? I'll give you a hint, it's something you just said.  
 
  "That is the nature of successful business and is perfectly legal in and of itself, until Intel breaks the anti-trust laws, thereby illegally attempting to remove competition "    
 
There is no such thing as removing competition in the market you moron. Tell me how a business in the market can remove competition? 
 
 "Repealing and relaxing protective laws is what lead to the Wall-Street economic disaster." 
 
Oh really? So exactly what laws were repealed that caused a global economic collapse? How did repealing protective laws cause some 17% real unemployment? Which laws were repealed that artificially lowered the interest rates and caused trillions in malinvestments?
#20 Posted by clapperdude (192 posts) -
@lilburtonboy7489 said:

There is no such thing as removing competition in the market you moron. Tell me how a business in the market can remove competition?
Don't companies do this somewhat frequently by buying out the competition?
#21 Posted by Butchio (333 posts) -

if AMD were to go out of business, Intel's prices would go through the roof as there would be no other option for the consumers. I dont need no economics degree to know that. Its business 101 and it happens all the time.

#22 Edited by Ham08 (202 posts) -
@lilburtonboy7489:

You are a fracking liar!  You sound like a dropout!

How can a business remove competition? By making it impossible for other companies to obtain the resources needed to compete is one example (striking a deal so that the resource company would not do business with others).

Look up the Glass–Steagall Act which was put in place after the 1929 crash to prevent such a catastrophe from ever happening again.  Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act  repealed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. Jackass.

#23 Posted by Crocio (542 posts) -
There are some overly personal comments in this thread and many blind assumptions
 
What I am questioning is how the penalty is even calculated. What is $1.5 billion, the exact amount consumers would have lost? How do they know that? And how will they compensate the consumers?
#24 Posted by lilburtonboy7489 (1948 posts) -
@clapperdude said:
" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

There is no such thing as removing competition in the market you moron. Tell me how a business in the market can remove competition?
Don't companies do this somewhat frequently by buying out the competition? "
That's not removing competition. 
#25 Posted by lilburtonboy7489 (1948 posts) -
@Ham08 said:
" @lilburtonboy7489:

You are a fracking liar!  You sound like a dropout!

How can a business remove competition? By making it impossible for other companies to obtain the resources needed to compete is one example (striking a deal so that the resource company would not do business with others).

Look up the Glass–Steagall Act which was put in place after the 1929 crash to prevent such a catastrophe from ever happening again.  Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act  repealed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. Jackass.

"
"  You are a fracking liar!  You sound like a dropout!" 
 
Sorry, to disappoint, but I'm not lying. So you never responded. Where did you get your degree from? 
 
"  How can a business remove competition? By making it impossible for other companies to obtain the resources needed to compete is one example (striking a deal so that the resource company would not do business with others)." 
 
The only reason businesses agree to those deals is because such a good deal is made. A competitor could offer a better deal to the owner of the resources to compete. All they need is a good plan to present to investors to get the capital.  
 
"Look up the Glass–Steagall Act which was put in place after the 1929 crash to prevent such a catastrophe from ever happening again. " 
 
How did that work out? And I would loooove to here your explanation of the Great Depression. Let me guess, 80% of businessmen got greedy simultaneously and destroyed the economy from lack of regulation, right? And then the Hoover was too much of a free market ideologue and kept the economy in the depression. Am I right?
 
 
  "Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act  repealed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. "  
 
Oh, I see. So that's why the interest rates were low and not backed by the savings which the rates signaled? And that's what caused the trillions in malinvestments, right? Ooooooh....wait....that makes absolutely no sense. 
 
 
"Jackass." 
 
Why, for being coherent?
#26 Posted by clapperdude (192 posts) -
@lilburtonboy7489 said:
" @clapperdude said:
" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

There is no such thing as removing competition in the market you moron. Tell me how a business in the market can remove competition?
Don't companies do this somewhat frequently by buying out the competition? "
That's not removing competition.  "
Then what is it? Heres a couple of examples of what I mean: 
 
--(long time ago) Halo is in developement for the PC and has the possibility of being multiplatform. Microsoft buys out the developer before the launch of their console,and makes it exclusive to the XBOX only. 
 
--(recently) imeem.com was a site where you could go and listen to full music albums for free. Myspace.com (a place where you can listen to free music) bought the site making imeem.com no more.  
 
So, are saying those aren't examples of the competition being removed by being bought out?
#27 Edited by Ham08 (202 posts) -

I received my degree from a university.  That's about as vague a  response as you submitted.  Maybe you should try to understand why these acts of illegal anti-competition are dangerous.  Ask yourself, "What is the worst case scenario?" and "Why would we want to prevent that from happening?" Only then will you have a chance to experience an epiphany.

History Lesson:


"The refusal of king George III to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the revolution."

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

.

Our country sought escape from this during the American Revolutionary war!

“All of the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arises, not from the defects of the Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit circulation.” —

John Adams



The Federal Reserve has the power to regulate the money supply and it's value, which gives it the power to bring entire economies to it's knees.

"Give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes it's laws." --

Mayer Amschel Rothschild, Founder of Rothschild Banking Dynasty

.

The Federal Reserve is a private corporation. It makes it's own policies and is under no regulation by the government. It is a private bank that loans all the currency, at interest, to the government.

"The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson."

Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933



That's right, Andrew Jackson killed the Central BANK currently known as The Federal Reserve, but banking cartel came back when Woodrow Wilson took office. Look it up.

The central bank, or Federal Reserve, does not simply supply the governments money, it loans it at interest.

The central bank, or Federal Reserve, regulates the value of the currency being issued.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies ... if the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency ... the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." --

Thomas Jefferson



"If you want to remain slaves of the bankers and pay for the costs of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and control the nations credit." --

Sir Josiah Stamp, 1880-1941



Dominate Banking Families:
J.D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Paul Warburg, Baron Rothschild.



"The Morgan interests took advantage ... to precipitate the panic [of 1907] guiding it shrewdly as it progressed." --

Fredrik Allen, Life Magazine.



Congressional investigation, lead by Nelson Aldrich, who had intimate ties to the banking cartels and later became part of the Rockefeller family through marriage. The Commission, lead by Aldrich, recommended a central bank be implemented, so a panic like 1907 could never happen again.

The Federal Reserve ACT was written by bankers. Woodrow Wilson promised to sign it into law in return for campaign support. Later

Woodrow Wilson wrote in regret

, "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.  [Our] Great Industrial Nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men ... who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No government by free opinion. No longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominate men."

Congressman Louis McFadden expressed the truth after the passage of the bill

, "A world banking system was being set up here ... a superstate controlled by international bankers ... acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. The Fed has usurped the government."

From 1914-1919, The Federal Reserve increased the money supply by nearly 100%, resulting in extensive loans to small banks and the public. Then, in 1920, the FED called in mass percentages of the outstanding money supply, thus requiring the supporting banks to call in huge numbers of loans and just like 1907, bank runs, bankruptcy and collapse occurred. 5400 Banks went down.

Congressman Charles Lindbergh stepped up in 1921 and said, "Under the Federal Reserve Act, panics are scientifically created. The present panic is the first scientifically created one, worked out as we figure a mathematical equation." 

That was just a warm-up.


From 1921-1929, the FED increased the money supply by 62%, resulting once again in extensive loans to the public and banks. The new type of loan was called a "margin loan" in the stock market. 10% down gets 100% control of the stock. The catch was at any time the loan could be called in. A 24 hour margin call could occur at any time.

A few months before October 1929, J.D. Rockefeller and other insiders quietly exited the market. Then on October 24th 1929, the New York financiers who furnished the margin loans started calling them in, in mass. Instantaneous massive sell off in market, everyone had to cover the margin loans. It then triggered mass bank runs for the same reason, callapsing 16 thousand banks, enabling conspiring international bankers to not only buy up rival banks at a discount, but to also buy up whole corporations at pennies on the dollar. It was the greatest robbery in American history. Rather than expanding the money supply to recover from this economic collapse, the FED actually contracted it, fueling one of the largest depressions in history.

Once again outraged, Congressman Louis McFadden, a long time opponent of banking cartels, began bringing impeachment proceedings against the Federal Reserve Board. Saying of the crash and depression, "It was a carefully contrived occurrence. International bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair, so that they might emerge the rulers of us all." Not surprisingly, after two assassination attempts, McFadden was poisoned at a banquet before he could push for impeachment.

“The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the government’s greatest creative opportunity. The financing of all public enterprise, and the conduct of the treasury will become matters of practical administration. Money will cease to be master and will then become servant of humanity.” --

Abraham Lincoln



Nearly all the illegal income tax goes to the FED to pay interest on the fraudulently produced currency! "If you ... examined [the 16th Amendment] carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." --

U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox 2003.



“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” —

Henry Ford



The next tool for profit and control is WAR! WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc..

WWI: "The large banking interests were deeply interested in the world war, because of the wide opportunities for large profits." --

William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State.



The most lucrative opportunity of the banking cartels is war, for it forces the country to borrow even more money from the Federal Reserve, at interest.

Woodrow Wilson's top advisor and mentor was Colonel Edward House, a man with intimate connections with international bankers, who wanted in the war.

In a documented conversation between Colonel House and Sir Edward Grey, foreign secretary of england, regarding how to get America in the war:

Sir Edward Grey

, "What will Americans do if Germans sink an ocean liner with American passengers on board?"

Colonel House

, " I believe that a flame of indignation would sweep the United States and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into war."

I bet you can connect nearly all modern wars to the greedy banking cartels on Wallstreet. They make double money because they loan money to both sides! They supply the money for war materials to both sides!!

All the Federal Reserve and the Banking Cartel on Wall Street has given us is perpetual debt and wars!!!


The Wall-Street crash of 2007-2009 was only made possible by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act.  Congress created the very arena that allowed the Federal Reserve Member banks to commit the largest robbery the world has ever known and get away with it.  In Feburary, 2004, Alan Greenspan uttered "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage." We wound up with sub-prime mortgages that were bundled into securities, and these securities were wrongly graded AAA so that they could be sold for more than they were worth.  Leveraged purchases of stock played the largest part in the 1929 crash, leading to limits on margin. The more sophisticated leverage scheme utilizing "credit default swaps" undermined the markets. That was part of the AIG malaise.  Deleveraging massive numbers of derivatives created a cash black hole and the "margin" was called sort of speak.  CBC Newsworld documentary refered to the crisis as the biggest pyramid scheme, money grab in modern history.  The Federal Reserve member banks have quite a few smart people working for them.  The investment banks were trading the equivalent of the US GNP every three days.  They knew what would happen because they planned it.  The banks who survived were member banks of the Federal Reserve, while the others were destroyed and gobbled up.  


The Federal Reserve Act was enacted in 1913 on Dec. 23 while most members of Congress were on Christmas Break.

#28 Posted by Skald (4367 posts) -

Rules are rules, whether you want to follow them or not. 
Intel wanted to break the law for profit. Whether it was wrong or right, it bit them in the ass. 
Doesn't matter what Intel thinks. Doesn't matter what we think. It's the law.

#29 Edited by ninjadodo (194 posts) -

I find it hilarious how after government intervention had to save an utterly broken financial system from total collapse people still think The Market is the answer to everything.
 
Greed and self-interest isn't 'democracy at work', it's just greed and self-interest. Does exactly what it says on the tin.

#30 Posted by lilburtonboy7489 (1948 posts) -

 

"I received my degree from a university."
 
Highly doubt it. 
 
 
 "That's about as vague a  response as you submitted. "
 
University of Wisconsin. Got my degree in econ, and now I'm finishing up a degree in philosophy and getting a minor in math.
 
 " Maybe you should try to understand why these acts of illegal anti-competition are dangerous. "
 
I understand why they are not dangerous. 

"Our country sought escape from this during the American Revolutionary war!"
 
What is your point?


"The Federal Reserve has the power to regulate the money supply and it's value, which gives it the power to bring entire economies to it's knees."
 
Um...yes


"The Federal Reserve is a private corporation. It makes it's own policies and is under no regulation by the government. It is a private bank that loans all the currency, at interest, to the government."
 
No, it is not private. It's a mix between private and public. If Sears counterfeits money, they go to jail. No private industry has the right to counterfeit currency. It is not a private bank, and that's not all it does.  Not even close. It finances government debt through the world bond market, does currency swaps, sets interest rates, regulates, sets reserve requirements, and much more.


"That's right, Andrew Jackson killed the Central BANK currently known as The Federal Reserve, but banking cartel came back when Woodrow Wilson took office. Look it up."
 
I don't need to look it up fucktard. I know all about the BUS. Again....I have a degree in economics, which included history of banking.

"The central bank, or Federal Reserve, does not simply supply the governments money, it loans it at interest. "
 
Where does it get the money it loans to the government? It buys bonds with newly created money. It also creates money to and gives it to private banks who loan it out to people. This expands the money supply and lowers interest rates.

"The central bank, or Federal Reserve, regulates the value of the currency being issued."
 
Holy sweet jesus...i know what it does. Again....I HAVE A DEGREE IN ECONOMICS


"Congressional investigation, lead by Nelson Aldrich, who had intimate ties to the banking cartels and later became part of the Rockefeller family through marriage. The Commission, lead by Aldrich, recommended a central bank be implemented, so a panic like 1907 could never happen again."
 
Yup, I know.

"The Federal Reserve ACT was written by bankers. Woodrow Wilson promised to sign it into law in return for campaign support. "
 
Yup I know. They wrote it while on a duck hunting expedition. Really....I know.



"From 1914-1919, The Federal Reserve increased the money supply by nearly 100%, resulting in extensive loans to small banks and the public. Then, in 1920, the FED called in mass percentages of the outstanding money supply, thus requiring the supporting banks to call in huge numbers of loans and just like 1907, bank runs, bankruptcy and collapse occurred. 5400 Banks went down. "
 
Yup, I know. 
 

"That was just a warm-up."

What are you talking about?
 
 "From 1921-1929, the FED increased the money supply by 62%, resulting once again in extensive loans to the public and banks. The new type of loan was called a "margin loan" in the stock market. 10% down gets 100% control of the stock. The catch was at any time the loan could be called in. A 24 hour margin call could occur at any time."
 
Yup, I know.

"A few months before October 1929, J.D. Rockefeller and other insiders quietly exited the market. Then on October 24th 1929, the New York financiers who furnished the margin loans started calling them in, in mass. Instantaneous massive sell off in market, everyone had to cover the margin loans. It then triggered mass bank runs for the same reason, callapsing 16 thousand banks, enabling conspiring international bankers to not only buy up rival banks at a discount, but to also buy up whole corporations at pennies on the dollar. It was the greatest robbery in American history. Rather than expanding the money supply to recover from this economic collapse, the FED actually contracted it, fueling one of the largest depressions in history."
 
Yea, according the the Chicago and Keynesian schools that's the problem. Contracting the money supply was the best option. It caused the Depression and would have let the necessary adjustments take place. Instead, they didn't allow the adjustment to take place. They increased the money supply in the 30's, increased taxes, broke up banks, and created programs which hampered the recovery. 
 
Just like the contraction was the best thing back then, it was also the best thing they should have done in 2007 when they saw the bubble. The expansion of the money supply created the issue in the first place, how is it going to fix the problem?
 
 "Once again outraged, Congressman Louis McFadden, a long time opponent of banking cartels, began bringing impeachment proceedings against the Federal Reserve Board. Saying of the crash and depression, "It was a carefully contrived occurrence. International bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair, so that they might emerge the rulers of us all." Not surprisingly, after two assassination attempts, McFadden was poisoned at a banquet before he could push for impeachment."
 
Point?


"The next tool for profit and control is WAR! WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.."
 
Why are you even talking about this?


"The most lucrative opportunity of the banking cartels is war, for it forces the country to borrow even more money from the Federal Reserve, at interest."
 
Yes....point?

"Woodrow Wilson's top advisor and mentor was Colonel Edward House, a man with intimate connections with international bankers, who wanted in the war."
 
Okay....

"I bet you can connect nearly all modern wars to the greedy banking cartels on Wallstreet. They make double money because they loan money to both sides! They supply the money for war materials to both sides!!"
 
Dude.....what's your point with all this randomness?

"All the Federal Reserve and the Banking Cartel on Wall Street has given us is perpetual debt and wars!!!"
 
I know.


"The Wall-Street crash of 2007-2009 was only made possible by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act. "
 
Bravo! Talk about your all time best non sequitor! Bubbles were created by the central bank well before the Glass-Steagall Act was in existence. Saying this bubble would not exist without it is silly. The bubble was created and had nothing to do with deregulation, it was because of the interest rates not being backed with savings but rather the Federal Reserve buying bonds.
 
 
 "Congress created the very arena that allowed the Federal Reserve Member banks to commit the largest robbery the world has ever known and get away with it.  In Feburary, 2004, Alan Greenspan uttered "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage." We wound up with sub-prime mortgages that were bundled into securities, and these securities were wrongly graded AAA so that they could be sold for more than they were worth.  "
 
That's only a fraction of the problem, but again, that's a problem with the FED, not lack of regulations. They could only make those loans with the FED because there were not deposits to back them up.
 
 " Leveraged purchases of stock played the largest part in the 1929 crash, leading to limits on margin. The more sophisticated leverage scheme utilizing "credit default swaps" undermined the markets. That was part of the AIG malaise.  Deleveraging massive numbers of derivatives created a cash black hole and the "margin" was called sort of speak.  CBC Newsworld documentary refered to the crisis as the biggest pyramid scheme, money grab in modern history.  The Federal Reserve member banks have quite a few smart people working for them.  The investment banks were trading the equivalent of the US GNP every three days.  They knew what would happen because they planned it.  The banks who survived were member banks of the Federal Reserve, while the others were destroyed and gobbled up. The Federal Reserve Act was enacted in 1913 on Dec. 23 while most members of Congress were on Christmas Break."
 
Wow. Congratulations on creating the longest post I've ever seen without answering a single question I asked. I agreed with most of the stuff you wrote, most of it was just straight facts. Too bad they had nothing to do with what we are talking about. 
 
We basically agree that they Federal Reserve created this problem. Your solution isn't to make the FED stop creating bubbles, but instead make regulations on banks, even though crises come about with these regulations in place.

#31 Posted by lilburtonboy7489 (1948 posts) -
@extremeradical said:

" Rules are rules, whether you want to follow them or not. Intel wanted to break the law for profit. Whether it was wrong or right, it bit them in the ass. Doesn't matter what Intel thinks. Doesn't matter what we think. It's the law. "

If it's illegal for a company to incentivize clients to exclusively buy their products, then it should also be illegal for you to deny other people access to a taxi-cab you hired, or a hotel room you rented, and chartered flights should be illegal as well. Someone please tell me the difference between vehicle chartering and exclusivity rebates.
#32 Posted by MAN_FLANNEL (2462 posts) -
@lilburtonboy7489 said:

 
 
 "That's about as vague a  response as you submitted. "
 
University of Wisconsin. Got my degree in econ, and now I'm finishing up a degree in philosophy and getting a minor in math.
 

That better have been UW Madison. 
#33 Edited by Ham08 (202 posts) -

I'm done talking to you.  Comprehension is not your strong suit is it? Putting words in people's mouths seems to be your only defense.  Your solution is to replace regulation with anarchy and chaos; a lawless, no rules, survival of the fittest reality, where the rich and powerful beat everyone else into submission with no chance to compete for a better life (There, I can do it too).  Die in ignorance if you want. Imbecile.

#34 Posted by Mgsfreak (133 posts) -

Economics are for nerdddds:D comon guys lets play some games!

#35 Posted by oldschool (7264 posts) -
@lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @extremeradical said:

" Rules are rules, whether you want to follow them or not. Intel wanted to break the law for profit. Whether it was wrong or right, it bit them in the ass. Doesn't matter what Intel thinks. Doesn't matter what we think. It's the law. "

If it's illegal for a company to incentivize clients to exclusively buy their products, then it should also be illegal for you to deny other people access to a taxi-cab you hired, or a hotel room you rented, and chartered flights should be illegal as well. Someone please tell me the difference between vehicle chartering and exclusivity rebates. "
I promised myself never to waste time on your lunatic economics, but that is so inane, it is laughable.  One is designed to limit competition and the other is a benign service.  Competition law 101. 
 

Exclusive dealing

Broadly speaking, exclusive dealing occurs when one person trading with another imposes some restrictions on the other’s freedom to choose with whom, in what, or where they deal. This type of conduct is common between buyers and suppliers.

Sometimes the conduct is prohibited outright, other times it is subject to a test on whether it has substantially lessened competition in a market.

When it is subject to a substantial lessening of competition test, it is not enough to merely show that an individual business has been damaged. In this context the term 'substantial' is interpreted to mean an effect that is real or of substance. To determine whether a substantial lessening of competition occurs the overall market for the particular product and its substitutes, as well as whether or not the refusal would substantially restrict availability of that type of product to consumers, must be analysed. When territorial restrictions have been imposed as a condition of supply, it must be determined whether consumers are severely restricted in their ability to buy a product or its substitutes within the territory.

As a general guide, the more exclusive the product and the more powerful the supplier, the more likely it is that competition will be affected.

There are essentially two types of exclusive dealing: full line forcing and third line forcing.

Full line forcing

Full line forcing involves a supplier refusing to supply goods or a service unless the intending purchaser agrees not to:

  • buy goods of a particular kind or description from a competitor
  • resupply goods of a particular kind or description acquired from a competitor
  • resupply goods of a particular kind acquired from the company to a particular place or classes of places.

However, for a full line forcing arrangement to contravene the Trade Practices Act it must have the effect of substantially lessening competition in the relevant market.

Third line forcing

Third line forcing is a specific form of exclusive dealing prohibited outright by the Trade Practices Act. It is not subject to the substantial lessening of competition test. It involves the supply of goods or services on condition that the purchaser buys goods or services from a particular third party, or a refusal to supply because the purchaser will not agree to that condition.

  
 

Now it is your turn to post something ridiculous, tell us how smart you are, how dumb we all are  and then insult me and call me a name. 
#36 Posted by Colonel_Cool (808 posts) -

If Intel was allowed to drive AMD out of business, then we would REALLY have slower, more expensive computers. The fines slapped on Intel are pretty huge, but the company can certainly afford it.

#37 Posted by Cynic04 (124 posts) -

The idea that Europeans or European courts should have any say over how commerce is conducted in their country is just plain stupid.  Remember, Europe is where France is!

#38 Posted by hunkaburningluv (568 posts) -
@Cynic04 said:
" The idea that Europeans or European courts should have any say over how commerce is conducted in their country is just plain stupid.  Remember, Europe is where France is! "
yeah the fucking cheese eating surrender monkeys!!! 
 
what it all boils down to is quite simple - Intel were caught doing some shady business that is under European law, illegal. Simple as that. Certain people can bitch and moan all about it, but the fact is that it was ILLEGAL for Intel to do it. As such, they were fined, is the fine a bit over the top? I'd say yes, but it was deserved.
#39 Edited by bitcloud (646 posts) -

Defending Intel was the part where he loses all credibility(legal matters wise). Thread over. 
 
The comics Nvidia has put out about Intel recently are all so true. Ignore the troll and move one.

#40 Posted by lilburtonboy7489 (1948 posts) -
@MAN_FLANNEL said:
" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

 
 
 "That's about as vague a  response as you submitted. "
 
University of Wisconsin. Got my degree in econ, and now I'm finishing up a degree in philosophy and getting a minor in math.
 

That better have been UW Madison.  "
indeed
#41 Posted by cspiffo (869 posts) -

Both parties have already settle out of court and made concessions.  This is how business works people.  Stop taking sides when you have nothing at stake in the outcome.  btw,  The article the O.P. used is too old to be relevant.  Here's a NYT article on the matter.

#42 Posted by lilburtonboy7489 (1948 posts) -

"Broadly speaking, exclusive dealing occurs when one person trading with another imposes some restrictions on the other’s freedom to choose with whom, in what, or where they deal. This type of conduct is common between buyers and suppliers. " 

 
Exclusive dealing isn't any form of force or imposition. If HP agrees only to carry Intel processors because it makes sense for them to do so, their freedom has not been attacked nor has anything been imposed. 
 
 "Sometimes the conduct is prohibited outright"
 
Doesn't mean it should be (naturalistic fallacy ftl). 
 
" other times it is subject to a test on whether it has substantially lessened competition in a market."  
 
There is no such thing. 
 

  

 "When it is subject to a substantial lessening of competition test, it is not enough to merely show that an individual business has been damaged. In this context the term 'substantial' is interpreted to mean an effect that is real or of substance. To determine whether a substantial lessening of competition occurs the overall market for the particular product and its substitutes, as well as whether or not the refusal would substantially restrict availability of that type of product to consumers, must be analysed. When territorial restrictions have been imposed as a condition of supply, it must be determined whether consumers are severely restricted in their ability to buy a product or its substitutes within the territory.

As a general guide, the more exclusive the product and the more powerful the supplier, the more likely it is that competition will be affected." 

 
How is competition affected? If there is a monopoly on a product, and we only have one to choose from, that does not mean that competition doesn't exist. Competition exists as long as firms are not formally or systematically barred from entry. If Intel was the only CPU company in existence and no other firm was moving into the market, it's because they are dealing at the market price. If they deviate from what the market desires, competitors will enter the market. That is competition. 



"Full line forcing involves a supplier refusing to supply goods or a service unless the intending purchaser agrees not to:

  • buy goods of a particular kind or description from a competitor
  • resupply goods of a particular kind or description acquired from a competitor
  • resupply goods of a particular kind acquired from the company to a particular place or classes of places.

However, for a full line forcing arrangement to contravene the Trade Practices Act it must have the effect of substantially lessening competition in the relevant market." 

Yup, I definitely do not see a problem with that. And no, it does not remove competition by doing any of those things.  


"Third line forcing is a specific form of exclusive dealing prohibited outright by the Trade Practices Act." 

  What's your point here? The fact that the law exists does not validate its existence. Just as this lawsuit existing does not validate the lawsuit.  

  

 It is not subject to the substantial lessening of competition test." 

 There is no such thing. Human action (or cattallactics in general) is not some science experiment with constant and where substances react to stimuli. 

   

You haven't really made any conclusion here whatsoever. In fact, I'm not even sure you are arguing against my points here. Giving definitions of terms and saying that certain laws exists isn't enough.
  
 "Now it is your turn to post something ridiculous" 
 oldschool has a brain 
 
  "tell us how smart you are" 
I have a degree in economics from UW-Madison 
 
 "how dumb we all are" 
You don't   
  
"and then insult me and call me a name. "     
Fucktard
#43 Posted by lilburtonboy7489 (1948 posts) -
@cspiffo said:
" Both parties have already settle out of court and made concessions.  This is how business works people.  Stop taking sides when you have nothing at stake in the outcome.  btw,  The article the O.P. used is too old to be relevant.  Here's a NYT article on the matter. "
I'm not just talking about that. That was just the beginning. I already said they settled, but now there are multiple other suits being filed. @bitcloud said:
" Defending Intel was the part where he loses all credibility(legal matters wise). Thread over. 
I didn't say what they did was legal. What I have been arguing is that the laws themselves are shit. @Ham08 said:
"

I'm done talking to you.  Comprehension is not your strong suit is it? Putting words in people's mouths seems to be your only defense.  Your solution is to replace regulation with anarchy and chaos; a lawless, no rules, survival of the fittest reality, where the rich and powerful beat everyone else into submission with no chance to compete for a better life (There, I can do it too).  Die in ignorance if you want. Imbecile.

"
I responded (like always) to every line you posted. And you are calling me ignorant? And how am I putting words in anyone's mouth when I just copy and past what you type?  
 
As for the rest of that nonsense you just typed, I didn't say I wanted any of that. In fact, I am no fan of empowering the rich at the expense of the poor. 
#44 Posted by cspiffo (869 posts) -
@lilburtonboy7489 said:
" @cspiffo said:
" Both parties have already settle out of court and made concessions.  This is how business works people.  Stop taking sides when you have nothing at stake in the outcome.  btw,  The article the O.P. used is too old to be relevant.  Here's a NYT article on the matter. "
I'm not just talking about that. That was just the beginning. I already said they settled, but now there are multiple other suits being filed. @bitcloud said:
" Defending Intel was the part where he loses all credibility(legal matters wise). Thread over. 
I didn't say what they did was legal. What I have been arguing is that the laws themselves are shit. @Ham08 said:
"

I'm done talking to you.  Comprehension is not your strong suit is it? Putting words in people's mouths seems to be your only defense.  Your solution is to replace regulation with anarchy and chaos; a lawless, no rules, survival of the fittest reality, where the rich and powerful beat everyone else into submission with no chance to compete for a better life (There, I can do it too).  Die in ignorance if you want. Imbecile.

"
I responded (like always) to every line you posted. And you are calling me ignorant? And how am I putting words in anyone's mouth when I just copy and past what you type?   As for the rest of that nonsense you just typed, I didn't say I wanted any of that. In fact, I am no fan of empowering the rich at the expense of the poor.  "
Sorry, I didn't feel like reading the whole thread.  TBH,  This is really just about money.  These Governments want their share too.
 
I see the problem though that Intel has created for itself.  It has tried to position itself as the only source for X86 based processors (which they invented).  Had their been more competition in the PC hardware market place they wouldn't be in this mess.  These laws are supposedly in place to create a competitive environment but more recently it has become a cash grab for governments strapped for funds.
#45 Posted by oldschool (7264 posts) -
@lilburtonboy7489 said:
"

"Broadly speaking, exclusive dealing occurs when one person trading with another imposes some restrictions on the other’s freedom to choose with whom, in what, or where they deal. This type of conduct is common between buyers and suppliers. " 

 
Exclusive dealing isn't any form of force or imposition. If HP agrees only to carry Intel processors because it makes sense for them to do so, their freedom has not been attacked nor has anything been imposed. 
 
 "Sometimes the conduct is prohibited outright"
 
Doesn't mean it should be (naturalistic fallacy ftl). 
 
" other times it is subject to a test on whether it has substantially lessened competition in a market."  
 
There is no such thing. 
 

  

 "When it is subject to a substantial lessening of competition test, it is not enough to merely show that an individual business has been damaged. In this context the term 'substantial' is interpreted to mean an effect that is real or of substance. To determine whether a substantial lessening of competition occurs the overall market for the particular product and its substitutes, as well as whether or not the refusal would substantially restrict availability of that type of product to consumers, must be analysed. When territorial restrictions have been imposed as a condition of supply, it must be determined whether consumers are severely restricted in their ability to buy a product or its substitutes within the territory.

As a general guide, the more exclusive the product and the more powerful the supplier, the more likely it is that competition will be affected." 

 
How is competition affected? If there is a monopoly on a product, and we only have one to choose from, that does not mean that competition doesn't exist. Competition exists as long as firms are not formally or systematically barred from entry. If Intel was the only CPU company in existence and no other firm was moving into the market, it's because they are dealing at the market price. If they deviate from what the market desires, competitors will enter the market. That is competition. 



"Full line forcing involves a supplier refusing to supply goods or a service unless the intending purchaser agrees not to:

  • buy goods of a particular kind or description from a competitor
  • resupply goods of a particular kind or description acquired from a competitor
  • resupply goods of a particular kind acquired from the company to a particular place or classes of places.

However, for a full line forcing arrangement to contravene the Trade Practices Act it must have the effect of substantially lessening competition in the relevant market." 

Yup, I definitely do not see a problem with that. And no, it does not remove competition by doing any of those things.  


"Third line forcing is a specific form of exclusive dealing prohibited outright by the Trade Practices Act." 

  What's your point here? The fact that the law exists does not validate its existence. Just as this lawsuit existing does not validate the lawsuit.  

  

 It is not subject to the substantial lessening of competition test." 

 There is no such thing. Human action (or cattallactics in general) is not some science experiment with constant and where substances react to stimuli. 

   

You haven't really made any conclusion here whatsoever. In fact, I'm not even sure you are arguing against my points here. Giving definitions of terms and saying that certain laws exists isn't enough.   "Now it is your turn to post something ridiculous"  oldschool has a brain    "tell us how smart you are" I have a degree in economics from UW-Madison   "how dumb we all are" You don't     "and then insult me and call me a name. "     Fucktard "
Hand clap. 
 
There is a career going for you at Fox News somewhere.   You already have a catch phrase - Fucktard!  Perfect for Fox.  "Illburton Boy tonight, interviews another Fucktard"  It will never get old.
 
I love how you think you are smarter than the highly educated and trained legal people who frame these laws.  It is a very endearing trait.  You must be very popular at parties and be a magnet for chicks.   
 
However, all you say fails completely on this massive point:  consumers.  Yes, you can make grand statements surrounding catallactics, but theory is not reality and as long as you are so fixated on theory, you will continue to be nothing more than a joke or curiosity piece. 
#46 Edited by tbone81889 (162 posts) -
@lilburtonboy7489 said:

Profit does not equal revenue. 

There's a reason why there are patent, trademark, and anti-trust laws.  Also you have it backwards.  Revenue sometimes does not equal profits.   
Just because you got this wrong, I don't believe that you got a degree in Economics.
#47 Posted by Ham08 (202 posts) -
@tbone81889:
The incompetent rarely recognize the extremity of their own inadequacies.  Whenever facts are presented that he cannot intelligently argue against, he'll resort to name calling as if it somehow strengthens his argument.  The truth of the matter is, that it only undermines his own credibility since he has nothing intelligent to say in order to back it up.  The more he speaks the more he makes himself out to be a fool.  In a court of law he would be utterly destroyed, but I doubt a judge would hear his case since he has so thoroughly made himself out to be a liar and a bafoon.
#48 Posted by iAmJohn (6120 posts) -
@lilburtonboy7489 said:
" @clapperdude said:
" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

There is no such thing as removing competition in the market you moron. Tell me how a business in the market can remove competition?
Don't companies do this somewhat frequently by buying out the competition? "
That's not removing competition.  "
Let's give an example with a well-known monopoly: Satellite Radio.  So let me get this straight: 
  • There is only one provider - SiriusXM, born out of a merger between the two.
  • This collective unit has all the current satellite transmitters, all the subscribers for this type of radio, and most of the talent that anyone could ever be looking for in these stations (Howard Stern, Opie & Anthony, Steven Van Zant, Tony Hawk, exclusive licenses for all the American national sports).
  • And yet, this isn't removing competition when there's pretty much no way for a competitor to enter the satellite radio business and attempt to compete by creating a better service when there is no possible way their service could be better, making anyone committing to satellite radio beholden to the one provider and whatever prices or packages they dictate for monthly fees and receivers?
Somehow, I don't buy this.
#49 Posted by lilburtonboy7489 (1948 posts) -
@tbone81889 said:
" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

Profit does not equal revenue. 

There's a reason why there are patent, trademark, and anti-trust laws.  Also you have it backwards.  Revenue sometimes does not equal profits.   Just because you got this wrong, I don't believe that you got a degree in Economics. "
No shit there is a reason for patents, trademarks, and anti-trust laws. Did I ever say there wasn't?  
 
I have it backwards? OOOOOH, I see. It's not "Profit does not equal revenue", instead, it's "Revenue sometimes does not always equal profits". Holy shit, how do you manage to breathe? Revenue NEVER equals profit. Also, it logically follows that profit NEVER equals revenue. That's the case because they are two completely different things you fucking idiot. Revenue is how much money you make. Profit is your total revenue minus your total costs.  
 
How does this imply I don't have a degree when I was literally just giving a text definition of profit? 
 
@Ham08 said:
" @tbone81889:The incompetent rarely recognize the extremity of their own inadequacies.  Whenever facts are presented that he cannot intelligently argue against, he'll resort to name calling as if it somehow strengthens his argument.  The truth of the matter is, that it only undermines his own credibility since he has nothing intelligent to say in order to back it up.  The more he speaks the more he makes himself out to be a fool.  In a court of law he would be utterly destroyed, but I doubt a judge would hear his case since he has so thoroughly made himself out to be a liar and a bafoon. "
Name one single fact I didn't argue against. In fact, I think I copied every point you made and argued against it while you didn't do that once.   
 
And I have no once used name calling to strengthen my argument. That would be committing the ad hominem fallacy which I wouldn't do (no, ithe ad hominem is not just name calling). Instead, I do it for fun.  
 
@oldschool said:
" @lilburtonboy7489 said:
"

"Broadly speaking, exclusive dealing occurs when one person trading with another imposes some restrictions on the other’s freedom to choose with whom, in what, or where they deal. This type of conduct is common between buyers and suppliers. " 

 
Exclusive dealing isn't any form of force or imposition. If HP agrees only to carry Intel processors because it makes sense for them to do so, their freedom has not been attacked nor has anything been imposed. 
 
 "Sometimes the conduct is prohibited outright"
 
Doesn't mean it should be (naturalistic fallacy ftl). 
 
" other times it is subject to a test on whether it has substantially lessened competition in a market."  
 
There is no such thing. 
 

  

 "When it is subject to a substantial lessening of competition test, it is not enough to merely show that an individual business has been damaged. In this context the term 'substantial' is interpreted to mean an effect that is real or of substance. To determine whether a substantial lessening of competition occurs the overall market for the particular product and its substitutes, as well as whether or not the refusal would substantially restrict availability of that type of product to consumers, must be analysed. When territorial restrictions have been imposed as a condition of supply, it must be determined whether consumers are severely restricted in their ability to buy a product or its substitutes within the territory.

As a general guide, the more exclusive the product and the more powerful the supplier, the more likely it is that competition will be affected." 

 
How is competition affected? If there is a monopoly on a product, and we only have one to choose from, that does not mean that competition doesn't exist. Competition exists as long as firms are not formally or systematically barred from entry. If Intel was the only CPU company in existence and no other firm was moving into the market, it's because they are dealing at the market price. If they deviate from what the market desires, competitors will enter the market. That is competition. 



"Full line forcing involves a supplier refusing to supply goods or a service unless the intending purchaser agrees not to:

  • buy goods of a particular kind or description from a competitor
  • resupply goods of a particular kind or description acquired from a competitor
  • resupply goods of a particular kind acquired from the company to a particular place or classes of places.

However, for a full line forcing arrangement to contravene the Trade Practices Act it must have the effect of substantially lessening competition in the relevant market." 

Yup, I definitely do not see a problem with that. And no, it does not remove competition by doing any of those things.  


"Third line forcing is a specific form of exclusive dealing prohibited outright by the Trade Practices Act." 

  What's your point here? The fact that the law exists does not validate its existence. Just as this lawsuit existing does not validate the lawsuit.  

  

 It is not subject to the substantial lessening of competition test." 

 There is no such thing. Human action (or cattallactics in general) is not some science experiment with constant and where substances react to stimuli. 

   

You haven't really made any conclusion here whatsoever. In fact, I'm not even sure you are arguing against my points here. Giving definitions of terms and saying that certain laws exists isn't enough.   "Now it is your turn to post something ridiculous"  oldschool has a brain    "tell us how smart you are" I have a degree in economics from UW-Madison   "how dumb we all are" You don't     "and then insult me and call me a name. "     Fucktard "
Hand clap.  There is a career going for you at Fox News somewhere.   You already have a catch phrase - Fucktard!  Perfect for Fox.  "Illburton Boy tonight, interviews another Fucktard"  It will never get old. I love how you think you are smarter than the highly educated and trained legal people who frame these laws.  It is a very endearing trait.  You must be very popular at parties and be a magnet for chicks.    However, all you say fails completely on this massive point:  consumers.  Yes, you can make grand statements surrounding catallactics, but theory is not reality and as long as you are so fixated on theory, you will continue to be nothing more than a joke or curiosity piece.  "
Why would I work at Fox News? I thought they only like conservatives there. I don't get it.  
 
I am highly educated, but not as much as the people who framed those laws. That doesn't make them right, not by any stretch. In fact, they are wrong, just as over 80% of economists in acedemia are.  
 
As for being a magnet for chicks, I don't think that many girls are attracted to married men.  
 
And for the last part, I am not fixated on theory at all. Economic laws is not theory, and drawing conclusions from those laws is purely deductive. It's not just abstract theory. 
#50 Posted by jim_dandy (891 posts) -
@lilburtonboy7489: Pics or it didn't happen.