Affiliate Marketing Secrets

If a person owned all or most of the tv satalite and radio stations,NEWSPAPERS, could you win in an election against them?
ELECTING A PERSON WITH NO COWS IN A COW TOWN; IF THE TOWN ONLY HAD 10,000 COWS NO WAY ? AFTER THERE IS 1 MILLION COWS MAYBE FUN HUH? It is usually difficult to practice anti-competitive practices unless the parties involved have significant market power or government backing. Monopolies and oligopolies are often accused of, and sometimes found guilty of, anti-competitive practices. For this reason, company mergers are often examined closely by government regulators to avoid reducing competition in an industry. Although anti-competitive practices often enrich those who practice them, they are generally believed to have a negative effect on the economy as a whole, and to disadvantage competing firms and consumers who are not able to avoid their effects, generating a significant social cost. For these reasons, most countries havecompetition laws to prevent anti-competitive practices, and government regulators to aid the enforcement of these laws. The argument that anti-competitive practices have a negative effect on the economy arises from the belief that a freely functioning efficient market economy, composed of many market participants each of which has limited market power, will not permit monopoly profits to be earned…and consequently prices to consumers will be lower, and if anything there will be a wider range of products supplied. Some people[who? ] believe that the realities of the marketplace are sometimes more complex than this or similar theories of competition would suggest. For example, oligopolistic firms may achieve economies of scale that would elude smaller firms. Again, very large firms, whether quasi-monopolies or oligopolies, may achieve levels of sophistication e.g. in business process and/or planning (that benefit end consumers and) that smaller firms would not easily attain. There are undoubtedly industries (e.g. airlines and pharmaceuticals) in which the levels of investment are so high that only extremely large firms that may be quasi-monopolies in some areas of their businesses can survive. Many governments regard these market niches as natural monopolies , and believe that the inability to allow full competition is balanced by government regulation . However, the companies in these niches tend to believe that they should avoid regulation, as they are entitled to their monopoly position by fiat. In some cases, anti-competitive behavior can be difficult to distinguish from competition. For instance, a distinction must be made between product bundling , which is a legal market strategy, and product tying , which violates anti-trust law . Some advocates of laissez-faire capitalism (such as Monetarists , some Neoclassical economists , and the heterodox economists of the Austrian school ) reject the term, seeing all “anti-competitive behavior” as forms of competition that benefit consumers.

Just a little curiosity here.
As the world changes, and definitely not for the better, I often find myself asking “what is the easiest way to restore stability?” Global warming caused by both citizens and corporations not giving a ****, people and companies like Bill Gates, Tim Horton’s, or Valve (the video game company) abusing the free markets for their explicit monopolization, so called activists intentionally attempting to trample on other peoples rights while crying about their own, and especially an economy which suffers a devastating recession approximately every seven to thirteen years. The list goes on and on.
Of course everybody says “we just need more freedom”, but do we really? I mean, the government never steps in to man handle the economy back together no matter how desperate the situation is because we are free to choose where we work, if we work at all. When all the major oligopolies were collapsing and entire cities worth of people were losing their jobs through no fault of their own our government refused to change the structure to adapt and survive. A totalitarian government, ideologically driven to perpetuate a stable economy, would go through great lengths to maintain civil order and economic growth… or at least stability. The police, always accused of brutality whenever the most minor of protests begins, are actually told NOT to attack groups such as the hells angels, scientology, and the KKK even though the entire planet knows they are guilty of all the most horrible crimes. The police could (and probably should) have just shot Carla Homolka but they didn’t.
But say a realistic and practical totalitarian political party with ideals based on what we hold dear in the present reality presents itself and somehow gathers enough power to actually do something. Would you be able to support them when they attempt fixing the economy by simply saying “inflation doesn’t exist” and they hard mark all prices at a fixed number (bread, for example, will forever cost $2.00). When they ship all the organized crime groups off to their secret prisons would you complain at all? How about when they force an employer to give you a job you wanted because everyone should have the right to employment. Would you side with them or defend the employers right to hire who he/she wishes?
Now I know everyone just defaults to hating totalitarianism and to explain why people feel that way would require a full essay of its own. But it has worked well in the past (and most of what we do know about cold war era ones is based on what our own media told us. Not that reliable of information is it?) Remember, one of the goals of totalitarianism is to attempt to enforce a preconceived idea of utopia. If this government were founded in, say, Canada, it is certain that they wouldn’t want freedom of association to disappear.
So I ask, if a totalitarian regime could present answers to our worlds problems would you be able to consider and maybe accept them?
No delusions of illogically and impractically random and omnipresent oppression please. This is a serious question asking for serious consideration. Yes we are all concerned about Big Brother but we all know how absurd that kind of depiction of totalitarianism is. It’s called fiction for a reason.