The 10 companies that OWN so much they probably own YOU.

extremely scary.... especially when you realize that the same people own vast amounts of each company's stock, either through personal investment or through so called "mutual funds".

There are some like 7-UP (owned by Dr. Pepper/Snapple) B
UT distributed in most areas by Pepsi bottlers (as is Dr. Pepper in most areas) , Nestea (again owned by Nestle BUT distribution rights owned by Coca Cola), Kit Kat, Reese's, Rolo all owned by Nestle but distributed and licensed to Hershey. These raise questions to me and have for years.

Why would one company license like Nestle license Reese's and Kit Kat to one of their biggest competitors?

So there are monopolies without us even truly realizing it.

Oh and RC/Diet Rite are owned by Dr. Pepper/7-Up/Snapple which is a spin off of Cadbury Schweppes and Kraft/Nabisco which is owned by Altria which was Philip Morris before they rebranded to distance themselves from tobacco and cigarettes. Kraft/Nabisco were owned by RJ Reynolds the other major cigarette company before Philip Morris/Altria took over.
It makes the head just spin.......

 

I can't answer that, but I can tell you this sort of thing is not as rare as you think. I used to work for a maker of larger diameter electrical cable (The smallest cable we made would be slightly smaller than what you see coming to your house from the power poles.) We also made a wire for one of our major competitors and even printed their name on it. It was a very low error tolerance product that is very difficult to make and they (apparently) just couldn't do it, at least not as well as we could. But, their customers needed it and they didn't want to give up those contracts to us so they bought it from us and sold it at a loss.

I've seen that chart before and one of the things that's interesting, as well as somewhat of a relief, is that while there are a lot of food products on it but there is almost no real food on it. Basically if you eat mostly real fruits and vegetables from, lets say, the local farmers' market, then you aren't giving these companies much, if in any, money.

 

..or 8 companies to avoid if you want to lose some weight.

 

The US is a country where the small business is at an extreme disadvantage. The rules are staked against the little guy, and yet Obama attacks small business owners and targets the most successful with big tax increases.

In many cases a small producer can not get self space. In some cases independent retailers, those without the backing of big franchisors, can not get prime retail space. No doubt it is tough, and entrepreneurs know what they sign up for - it would just be nice if we had a guy in the WH understood the issues.

 

I have never been to Europe, Asia, Australia or Africa if that is your question. I have been to all countries in North America, a few in South America, some Gulf Coast and Pacific Ocean Islands. I have a family member in the Peace Corp in Africa.

 

I think it depends. I believe when governments move to free'er markets, generally, national wealth increases. I believe when governments restricts or limits competition, as is the current trend in the US (illustrated by the chart and a read of any financial publication of ever growing large corporate profits) wealth gets concentrated.

 

When was there ever a President who understood small business or starting a business? Donald Trump should have doubled down on this topic instead of the stupid birth certificate.

And I also put some blame onto the small business owners for a lack of effective advertising. I would support more small businesses if I knew they existed. And I've seen this show Hotel Impossible and see that 'free' on-line classes on how to improve your business and get government permits easily would do a lot.

And Obama didn't attack small businesses. Right wing radio spun it that way.

 

Harry Truman, the haberdasher.

Unless you count Bush and his failed oil companies, included one with the Bin Laden family.

 

Typos come from my phone, I'm not drunk.

 

I am not sure what the best way is to explain how best to explain the problem in the point of view presented above. I will say this - when the free is presented with a loss of freedom it comes with strong resistance, when the restricted is presented with increased freedom comes with celebration.
--- merged: Aug 5, 2012 at 11:22 AM ---

I am looking at trends.
--- merged: Aug 5, 2012 at 11:35 AM ---

Ronald Reagan.

This is an industry by industry question. Given the context of the original post, consumer goods. If you go down your grocer's isles, the space is subject to cut throat competition. A P&G, Coke, etc. can easily put a small competitor out of business, or force some grocers into restricting space for competitors. this is not mostly the fault of government, what the problem is in the context of government is that you have the type of competition I describe above and you have excessive regulations that put an exceptional undue burden on small business. For example big business has an army of people available to address regulatory issues, and small business does not. So when a regulator get a burr up his butt, about some silly method for labeling, for example, coke can get it done and not miss a beat - the small can not - then they change it again and again and again. So a small producer has to fight in the market, has to fight on the regulatory front, has to fight tax policy, fight labor issues, etc., etc, before they can even think about improving advertising.

What I write is not spin, it is real.

Small business owners have very little confidence in Obama, a few months ago I saw a statistic where his approval in this category was about 30% (going by memory), what is he doing about it?

 

I think we are more like stallions.