Markus, I don't know anything about Richard Dawkins. I'll have to look him up.

Tobra and others, I regret if have an impression of me as arrogant. Sure, I think my understanding of some of these issues is more 'aware' than yours. And you think the same thing about your understanding. As with most of these discussions, if and when they occur in person, a very different impression is made. I think your impression of arrogance would not survive a face-to-face.

Okay, Tobra. Competition. It is not out of arrogance that I say I have been, and am once again in, the private sector and that I have an MBA. Yeah, I think I understand competition. And part of what I'm saying here is that I can do without a great deal of that competition. You mention banks and credit unions. Good. I do my personal banking with a credit union. That makes me a part-owner. I get better service (I currently have an account with a bank, and that relationship is incredibly frustrating. You should have heard my conversation with that rep this morning. It took me twenty minutes to get him to admit I am, in fact, current on my payments. SHEESH!). I also do not pay a return on stockholders' iinvestment money as part of my fee structure. Quite frankly, for personal banking, banks cannot compete with credit unions. Ultimately, I see a good chance of credit unions absolutly dominating the personal banking business and forcing commercial banks to do corporate banking exclusively. VISA and MC are different companies. I have VISA cards in my wallet that have my credit union's logo on them.

Labor Unions v. Corporations. You are mistaken. These organizations do not compete. they are not in the same market. labor unions are groups of people who provide labor inputs to a company. They are no more in competition with that company than are the companies that supply them with steel or fabric or IT services. Competing with you? ARE you kidding. In your investment portfolio there are companies. Those companies have workers. Those workers are doing the work of earning the dividends you receive. The notion that they are competing with you is wacky, Tobra. You might opine that they earn too much money in wages. But the fact remains that they do the work of earning the profits you receive in the form of dividends. This notion that those workers are your enemy is truly, truly misguided.

Co-ops and group buys. Volume buying gets discounts. distributors offer those discounts. Nobody is taking their money away. They offer them. corporations buy volume and get discounts. Are they doing something wrong? Both the co-op and the corporation are getting group buys and that works fine with distributors. The difference is that corporations have to pay their stockholders. I don't need those stockholders and don't want to give them my money. I would prefer to shop at a co-op where prices are cheaper. Same cashiers. Same stockers. Same trucks delivering. Same distributors. The only difference is the invisible group of stockholders I don't care to fund.

It's funny, though. The competition is still there. It's just that laws need to be kept in place otherwise corporations would be displaced by the non-profits. In the long run, as those legal barriers fall, corporations will struggle more. And eventually lose the battle.

James. The original point of this thread had to do with political strategy. America is not voting today on this issue, so we won't know what their decision is. But I think I know. Again, the point of the thread. I suspect there are high school students that think Dubya's decision is as pathetic as I think it is. I think he has made a GRAVE political error. I think that when the Dems are done pointing to this veto, the vast majority of Americans are going to scowl at Dubya for abandoning those children. It appears to be one of the lamest political decisions I have ever seen. Indeed, the majority of political mis-steps I have seen in my life have occurred in the last seven years.

Bush abandoned those children? He is not shrinking the (Republican) program, so nobody is being abandoned. The parents who refuse to take care of their own children are blameless?

Funny... I never used the words evil, enemy, or in anyway implied that these things were bad. You are reading all of this into the word competition.

Labor Unions v. Corporations: what do you consider it when one party tries for lower wages and the other tries for higher? I call it a competition to see who wins.

The part about being in competition with me is when I purchase something, part of that price is labor. I am trying to get the lowest price while the worker is trying to get paid as much as they can. Again, I am not saying this is wrong or in anyway bad. But the end of this little competition is set by the free market. The product I am buying has a market value. The company can afford to pay a worker X for that product.

Co-ops and group buys: You are missing my point. I did not say they were bad only that there is competition going on. The competition as I see it is between which party has more value to offer. That party gets to set the rules, price, ect.

Supe....But if those workers could be coerced into working for nothing, wouldn't the dividends to the investors increase? Perhaps that should be the capitalist's ultimate goal!!

Oops...wait a minute. Millions think there was a Civil War fought in part to eliminate a similar system!

Oh well, no system is perect.

I don't know how any worker could be coerced into working for nothing. Wouldn't it be easier to stay home for nothing? Try something relevant and realistic.

Rick:

Sometimes you show a commplete lack of a sense of humor.

But, on the serious side, "slave labor" can and does in the short run enhance the bottom line of any business. Businesses before child labor laws knew that when they put kids to work. Plantations knew that as well. If the constitution continues the path toward the erosion of specific "rights", things could change. We could be back to the 19th Century way of taking care of "deadbeats" and create corporate workhouses. (free labor).

Lighten up.

Yes, that did exist. But it doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for a very long time. It's not relevant now.