(10-15-2014 03:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 01:06 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:56 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We've never had unregulated capitalism. And regulation is the mechanism by which capitalist companies get too big.

I like that line a lot.

What regulations caused Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel to be too big?

One, the verb I used was "is" not "was," present tense, meaning today, not 100+ years ago. The regulatory environment is much more intrusive today than it was then, providing far more opportunities to manipulate regulators and regulations today.
Two, it is not at all clear that Carnegie Steel ever got too big, and the determination that Standard Oil was too big was largely driven by the politics of the day. Taking the Standard descendant companies (Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, Sohio) and combining them today would produce a company that would not rank among the ten largest oil companies in the world (somewhere around 12th, although hard to say for sure because not clear exactly how much of BP is attributable to Sohio).
Three, if you don't understand that both Standard and Carnegie, and indeed every other one of the huge companies of the day, grew in large part by taking advantage of then existing regulations, then I suggest you do some reading.

(10-15-2014 03:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 01:06 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:56 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We've never had unregulated capitalism. And regulation is the mechanism by which capitalist companies get too big.

I like that line a lot.

What regulations caused Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel to be too big?

Those are companies that primarily did one thing. But, look at AT&T, GE, et al, it's not hard to see regulatory bias in making those companies goliaths. In the oil industry, Standard Oil may have been very big, but there were and are a ton of small producers that come and go with market prices. If you impose regulations that act as market barriers to small producers, then you will only wind up with large producers.

Did you ever wonder why ConAgra (or whatever it is) is ubiquitous in the sponsorship of the sunday morning political TV programs?

(10-15-2014 04:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Turkey didn't help us there, and isn't helping us now. How exactly are they an ally of any kind? Why are they in NATO?

Turkey is in NATO because they were a critical barrier to the Soviets. Turkey at the time was still governed by a Secular military still under the influence of Ataturk... a secular military that would periodically depose the civilian government when it became too Islamist. That ended with Erdogan (Obama's BFF among world leaders).

I call fabrics.

(10-15-2014 11:21 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 04:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Turkey didn't help us there, and isn't helping us now. How exactly are they an ally of any kind? Why are they in NATO?

Turkey is in NATO because they were a critical barrier to the Soviets. Turkey at the time was still governed by a Secular military still under the influence of Ataturk... a secular military that would periodically depose the civilian government when it became too Islamist. That ended with Erdogan (Obama's BFF among world leaders).

So what is the situation in Turkey now? Does it still have the secular military?

The short answer is that the situation in Turkey is a mess. Lots of Islamacists have filtered into high ranks of the military and Government. They are a HUGE if usually ignored player

I don't think the military will ever overthrow Islamists again, but I haven't seen much detail about that for years. Turkey and Israel used to have very good military cooperation - that is a proxy for measuring how secular the military was. I think the Turkish military is openly hostile to Israel, and I don't think there has been any cooperation at all for several years.

(10-16-2014 01:19 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I don't think the military will ever overthrow Islamists again, but I haven't seen much detail about that for years. Turkey and Israel used to have very good military cooperation - that is a proxy for measuring how secular the military was. I think the Turkish military is openly hostile to Israel, and I don't think there has been any cooperation at all for several years.

Relations between the two nations hit a major road block after the Gaza Flotilla Raid in 2010 in which Israel attacked ships backed by Turkey sent to break the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. Nine people were killed.

(10-15-2014 04:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Nobody had any idea how the war would really end, that was the problem. They assumed they would simply turn the country into a democracy. There was no Plan B.

Turkey didn't help us there, and isn't helping us now. How exactly are they an ally of any kind? Why are they in NATO?

They are in NATO because they fear the Big Bad Bear, Russia. Those two countries have been at their throat for a long time, as early as the 1700's. That in itself is self serving with a "who cares" about anyone else state of mind. They're no more our friend then any of those Middle Eastern countries including Israel.

(10-16-2014 01:28 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-16-2014 01:19 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I don't think the military will ever overthrow Islamists again, but I haven't seen much detail about that for years. Turkey and Israel used to have very good military cooperation - that is a proxy for measuring how secular the military was. I think the Turkish military is openly hostile to Israel, and I don't think there has been any cooperation at all for several years.

Relations between the two nations hit a major road block after the Gaza Flotilla Raid in 2010 in which Israel attacked ships backed by Turkey sent to break the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. Nine people were killed.

All of the decisions that led to the end of good relations were made before those ships left port. The incident was symptomatic of the breakdown in relations that would follow, it was not the cause.

(10-15-2014 11:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 03:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 01:06 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:56 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We've never had unregulated capitalism. And regulation is the mechanism by which capitalist companies get too big.

I like that line a lot.

What regulations caused Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel to be too big?

One, the verb I used was "is" not "was," present tense, meaning today, not 100+ years ago. The regulatory environment is much more intrusive today than it was then, providing far more opportunities to manipulate regulators and regulations today.
Two, it is not at all clear that Carnegie Steel ever got too big, and the determination that Standard Oil was too big was largely driven by the politics of the day. Taking the Standard descendant companies (Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, Sohio) and combining them today would produce a company that would not rank among the ten largest oil companies in the world (somewhere around 12th, although hard to say for sure because not clear exactly how much of BP is attributable to Sohio).
Three, if you don't understand that both Standard and Carnegie, and indeed every other one of the huge companies of the day, grew in large part by taking advantage of then existing regulations, then I suggest you do some reading.

The point is that whether a company is too big or not is always determined by the government. Back then, Standard was considered too big and got broken up. More recently, AT&T was broken up. Others are kept apart by anti-trust laws. But back then the regulations could be got around if the tycoon of whatever industry had the judges in their back pocket. Money ruled then as much as it does now, if not more so. So it didn't really matter how many regulations there were. They could have gotten as big as they wanted.

Are the companies too big now? Who can determine that?