raj_o

This makes no sense. A person who studies medicine, knows what his comparative advantage is, or should be. A business that makes springs, knows where to focus their energy in order to compete. The idea that a country doesn't know is because a country doesn't have an over-seeing rule-maker (a government) defining the rules of play.

Outside of a regulatory framework, in modern economics, comparative advantage won't work. It will be those with the most power (derived from success or money or something else) will win. Those with the most resources wins. And yes those who can game the system will win. Otherwise you'd take the 'capital' out of capitalism. After all, who wouldn't capitalize over the stupidity of another country that let you take advantage of it?

Outside of natural resources, can you please tell me how an area on this earth can have an advantage over another area. I am befuddled by this argument for free trade, in regards to countries.

They are a problem now. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is a one sided contract. Can you ever envision a contract solely drafted by one side to be beneficial to both sides?

The only contradictory 'evidence' is talk about why it's better; that is, companies claim it's an easier and cheaper process. They fail to mention that what they mean is, it's easier and cheaper to them.

As a consumer, I want the laws to be written by my elected politician, don't you? Sure, there's a lot of unfairness to it. But I can't imagine a selfish corporation, one that keeps claiming their only loyalty is the the share holder, will do much better.

Just one example. You know VWs recent emission scandal? In the USA those people signed not only an arbitration agreement, but one that disallows class actions. You won't hear the problems that arbitration is causing because those problems won't make it to a court of law to be a problem.

I am very familiar with arbitration agreements and how they both are enforced and came about. For years companies have tried in vain to get theses clauses accepted by the courts and failed, until recently when SCOTUS chimed in with their decision: Congress wanted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) of the 1920s to be the law of the land and forced arbitration was considered statutorily okay.. The FAA [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act, 1925] originally was a maritime law, where two parties in different countries would rather pick an arbiter to decide their dispute rather than in any one country.

What may surprise people is it's not just the signing of a contract, which enables this clause to be enforced, but also just a business' intent to settle cases arbitrarily. For instance, opening up a package of something you just bought might show intent that the contract therein is what you agree to. One nurse wasn't going to sign her rights away to an arbitration agreement, so she told her company 'no' to renegotiating her employment contract. But the courts upheld that she knew the intent of her employer and forced her into arbitration.

These companies are hiring their own judges, basically. What's scary is that these just aren't private contracts, and private court systems we are dealing with -- but private law!

SCOTUS ruled recently that even if the parties do not like the outcome of the arbitration decision, they have no legal recourse. Imagine going into a situation where a company knows the history of a judges decision and you do not? How incredibly unfair, let alone intimidating. I wouldn't even bother to sue, would you?

I won't go on about this. I can write a lot. Here's a list of links I collected about companies shorting the normal process of laws that protect citizens. The area is non-compete agreements:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/more-firms-requiring-non-co...

http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/labor-employment/b/l...

http://rickmasseyblog.com/2010/10/04/are-you-trapped-by-a-no...

http://www.romingerlegal.com/floridacourts/court_opinions2/5...

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/adr/articl...

http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/19905.htm

http://www.flacorplaw.com/Non-Competes.html

http://thenoncompeteblog.com/2013/01/18/prominent-florida-ch...

http://floridamediationgroup.com/articles/spero/2000_Employe...

http://www.noncompetenews.com/?tag=/Arbitration

http://www.franczek.com/frontcenter-Nitro-Lift_Arbitration_N...

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-01/jobs/sns-20120...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quZL7WKLXt4

He missed talking about our massive trade deficit, which is the cornerstone of many of the other financial problems we have. Obviously cheap prices is a valid goal for an economy to work well but without good paying jobs then it barely aids the economy as a whole. Is it any wonder our fiscal problems are so great including, but not limited to, our currency being devalued internationally.

How many dollars can you pack into foreign FOREX reserve accounts?

Do we know for sure Groupon was offered $6 billion? I doubt Google would be that stupid to offer that much for a startup. Hell, why not just offer VC money and own part of the company for far less money. That story sounds like hype.

Groupon's real problem is their business model is too easily copied. It's also heavy on the service end, where it relies on a person to person business experience, something Google is kind of adverse to.

Around here all I see is advertisements for Living Social. I haven't counted but I am sure there are hundreds of other copy cats out there. It's hard to guess which company is going to have the best business model in a new business type, or really if the business model has staying power at all.

Doesn't this business model attract people that want a great deal for almost nothing? It introduces people to a business they might not know about which is good. But can't people just visit local businesses if they care to get to know them? I don't get the business model at all.