This one is for Detroit and all those who lost their Childrens homes to Communist EW.

This one is for Detroit and all those who lost their Childrens homes to Communist EW.
This is an unprofessional Collection cite. That wishes for Speech and Debate with Regards to the topics collected and Special Libraried. I wish for defense of Fair Use Doctrine, not for profit, educational collection. "The new order was tailored to a genius who proposed to constrain the contending forces, both domestic and foreign, by manipulating their antagonisms" "As a professor, I tended to think of history as run by impersonal forces. But when you see it in practice, you see the difference personalities make." Therefore, "Whenever peace-concieved as the avoidance of war-has been the primary objective of a power or a group of powers, the international system has been at the mercy of the most ruthless member" Henry Kissinger The World market crashed. There was complete blame from the worlds most ruthless power on the world's most protective and meditational power. So I responded. Currently being edited. If you have any problem with IP or copyright laws that you feel are in violation of the research clause that allows me to cite them as per clicking on them. Then please email me at US Copy Right Office Fair Use doctrine. Special Libary community common law, and Speech and Debate Congressional research civilian assistant. All legal defenses to copy right infringement.

Monday, October 4, 2010

Purpose of Anti-turst laws.

Chinese Price Fixing Through Individual Re-Captalizing
The lose of economic welfare to the uncompetitive market place create as such. 

"casual observer might believe that, if a merger lowers the price the merged firm pays for its inputs, consumers will necessarily benefit. The logic seems to be that because the input purchaser is paying less, the input purchaser's customers should expect to pay less also. But that is not necessarily the case. Input prices can fall for two entirely different reasons, one of which arises from a true economic efficiency that will tend to result in lower prices for final consumers. The other, in contrast, represents an efficiency-reducing exercise of market power that will reduce economic welfare, lower prices for suppliers, and may well result in higher prices charged to final consumers. Antitrust must distinguish these two situations and pursue enforcement against the latter, but not the former."

This in a nut shell is what I believe, is being applied imporperly to China. Were we allow them to gain monopsony style resource contracts, and then sell back the same unfair anti-trust economic strategies in a manner as dumping, and market sharing.

The problem is with after ever service bell curve that drives the free market business cycle crashes. They lose their economic welfare, like security, schools, systematic job structures etc. Much like we saw in the free markets of the US, UK and especially hightlighted in Greece, which by the way know is pretty much probable going to be devoured by Chinese SOE's and unfair international anti-trustable laws. This is done easily through, such things as SOE's merging and obtaining high market shares at home. In which the government then allows them to be protected from competition domestically through re-capitlisation schemes or congloermations of smaller or medium size soe's into Masssive size Champion SOE's, so called, truly I do not call a company with traning wheels a Champion. A Champion is a entity that is for its owners, and its industry and competes farilty without massive government subsidize. Which by the way we have seen in free marekts because China does it often at home. There has been many cases in which China re-captalizes their SOE's to keep them uncompetitive, through price fixing low prices that any other international business coule not stay afloat during. As such, then this causes other firms and countries to be more reliant on industries that China is not unfairly using their SOE's in or recaptalizing their SOE's in. Much like services which unless free markets keep allowing teh Chinese SOE's into their markets is really one of the only markets that China can't and does not use these unfair anti-trustable strategies.
   It is really simple if you know anything about economics. It  a basic step program. protect domestic marketplacs, use recaptalization strategies to keep price fixed at a low uncompetitive level, so that other international firms can't compete with them because their prices are so low. This then creates an almost have to go to market in which China becomes a huge Green Field Direct Investment country. The only party of my theory so far that I need to finish creating is the how the link between the SOE's and padded markets link into free enteprises. How does China's unfair strategic strategies of shielding lead to free enterprises being able to create the same low prices as their SOE's. The only thing I could think of is that China spends more money on recaptalizing their SOE's and keeping their SOE's high than they do their free enterprises and quality of life. So that CHina is able to keep a low currency based on a small indicator of quality of life. As such most of the other indicators I believe would show that China's economy is on track to be number 1 with no way to compete against it. If their price structure does not level out and stabilize at a competitive rate, and if China is not properly regulated and Checked from using their Centralized strategies of high shielding economics, so as to create massive fueld SOE's to gain power through international contracts. I just need to find that link. The padding of the markets from the SOE's at a high rate of GDP allows then for the free enterprises to be able to compete at the same low rate. This is becasue the market places is so flooded with international contracts and exported jobs that the economy is in a constant state of inflated employment do to the padded economy. As such this allows the circular to keep going on, SOE recaptalization, padded markets in which  (what do I mean by padded markets, ok well lets see. If a country controlls upwards of 40-50% of their GDP through government owned entities. It should be pretty easy to move a calclation here or a strategy there to ripple the economy and create a sort of padded area. That is pretty bad. Ok SO China padds their market and shields it, even those who are for China using neo-mercantalist to run the international economy imbalance, state that China is shielding their economy. House of Levy.
As such the padded market place make it so that foreign countries can't compete through imports. As in a normal competitive market palce importing products creates a higher price for them. However, since China is able to create such high volumes through re-captalizing loans, which I believe I have even found evidence that China does allow for recaptalizing loans from smaller free enterprises just to keep them going. Even though their liqudit level is not right as contracts do not get paid on, or their massive size of their production does not equate to a reasonable amount of marketable competition through resource aquisition, and the line of getting it to the market place. Even though China holds a monopoly on most of the market place line, like resources, shipping, production, and packaging with major SOE's.

Ok so, padded marketplace, creates the ability for China to re-captalize their SOE's and free enterprises to create a low fixed price range. So that their economy is at a constant state of inflated employment. This then ripple's into the international market place as countries can't compete fairly in most industries now. So they rely on high service industries. Which free markets have been able to keep the Chinese out of. Those in conclusion, China is in my economic opinion violating interantional trust laws, which is then creating a reliance on their same economic strategy of re-captalizing industries that fail do to a high reliance on an anti-trust economy.

As such, a proper how many projects do I have on this page.

Re-captalization causes price fixing, and detrements to consumer countries by creating a non competitive availablity of industries to compete in, which in turn cause a loss of economic welfare as Countries also have to recaptalize their industries they do have becasue they are reliant on a international centralized economy in which is predominatley re-captalizing in times of failure in individual cases and not in whole business cycle cases.

So the problem are is re-captalizing to keep prices low. In a recession I would find we have no choice. However, on a constant all part of the national business cycle level, it creates massive abilities through price fixing to cause dumping strategies of exports. Which is then drowns economies in debt, from the dump and economic loss, as the more products are produced the cheaper they become. However, because the system is allowed to go past a detremental red level, it then back fires as the economic welfare ofcountries disolves and can't pay for it as there are no jobs. Which in turn goes right back to China which has to re-capatalize again because no one can afford to pay the contracts they made as no one is buying. As such this price fixing is causing not only Chinese local detrements but huge interntaional economic instability.
That is brain storm for you. Did you see the electricity. have to go. goodnight.

No comments:

Post a Comment