Re: Of The World's 100 Largest Economic Entities, 51 Are Now Corps. And 49 Are Countr
Should I be impressed that he is a lawyer?
Your fundamental problem is that you consistently make assumptions. I have seen you do this repeatedly on this board.
The problem here is that I am not a lawyer nor have I even alluded to being one. I do not know why that poster assumed that.
However, as opposed to verifying, you just assumed he was right. Thus, you ERRONEOUSLY littered your entire response with law-based references in an attempt to be clever.
However, when doing so, you take the risk of having the oppposite effect when your fundamental assumption is erroneous.
I can assume what ever and I do based on the events that have taken place over the last 9 years.
Unless you have several reports or your own analysis that illustrates that the last 9 years produced growth at the large cap level of companies in the 40-50 billion dollar range that outpaces the necessary growth for nations at that GDP level, you have nothing to base your assumption on. Period. Otherwise you are just guessing and not even making educated guesses at that.
I already gave you the pre-requisites by which to base your analysis.
You are making assumtions that are not logical. You say both nations, my post made reference to many nations...
Let me clear this for you.
I said BOTH nations and companies. It was not a reference to TWO companies as in both. It was a reference to BOTH all nations and all companies in the possible reference group.
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. Otherwise, that was a horrible attempt at a straw-man. However, you have been prone to making logical fallacies, so it could just be another one to add to the list.
"News flash, the
US economy crashed as well as other countries within the last 15 months. GM and Chrysler went bankrupted. Wal Mart is now the worlds largest corporation, Home Depot is the third largest retailer in the
US and China is now the third largest economy in the world."
I base my assumtion on the shift of wealth during the last 9 years.
source:
Consortiumnews
What statement does this make about a change in the MAKEUP of the top 100 largest economic industries and not just the ORDER of the list.
This shows declines and increases in revenues at certain companies. Which only illustrates that at a micro-level, the world economy has had various effects on different markets and thus different companies. This does not help your claim. It HURTS your claim is it illustrates that these events dont allow for sweeping generalizations about the overall market and the effects on large companies.
Showing China is the third largest economic entities does not help your claim. It only shows that nations can also rise on the chart as well and change the ORDER or even potentially ENTER the list and replace a company.
Actually, posting the above HURTS your argument as it shows that one of the fastest growing entities was a NATION. Thus it opens up the possibilities that other nations could have posted signigicant growth over the last decaded and also ENTERED the list.
Please be able to understand what you need to support your argument.
I find it a bit ironic that you made a reference to common sense..but you are struggling with comprehending the material you are posting and determing IF the actual information is not only relevant to your premise but actual supports it.
"Only two years ago, Steve Forbes, CEO of Forbes magazine, declared 2007"the richest year ever in human history." During eight years of the Bush Administration, the 400 richest Americans, who now own more than the bottom 150 million Americans, increased their net worth by $700 billion."
How did you deduce from an argument about NATIONS and CORPORATIONS to a Steve Forbes statement about the growth in net worth of the richest AMERICAN INDIVIDUALS.
That is relevant to the worlds largest nations and corportions how.....
This illustrates that corporations are most likely to replace anyone that falls off the bottom 10 of that list how
But lets list your logical fallacies.
Causal Reductionism - Using an irrelevant piece of data as a cause
Appeal to Authority - The opinion of Steve Forbes means nothing.
Dont have lots of time but that illustrates, just in two quick example, how your post is littered with bad logic.
Yes, before the Bull market, but after GW's 2001's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and 2003's Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act that caused the greatest shift of wealth in the US since the Great Depression. Also, remember that Great Britain for example was operating with the same financial mentality as the US was and as such suffered the same catastrophic meltdown we did last year.
I am not going to continue to list logical fallacies.
But I am going to reiterate. This is a different argument altogether. We are not arguing about the shift of wealth from individuals to other individuals.
We are arguing about the 100 largest entities in the world.
This data does NOTHING to illustrate why or how the percentage of companies in this group would increase beyond the 51 that are already there.
Do you have any data that suggests during the last few years, the entities at the bottom of the list (the 8 out of 10 that are corporations) would be replaced with more corporations.
Where is your data that would suggest that those two nations would be replaced with corporations.
Please only post relevant data or reports.
I am not interested in irrelevant arguments about the shift of wealth in the general public. It is irrelevant to the argument in question.
This is just gibberish, clarify.
If you understand the law of large numbers, it is no gibberish.
The reality of the matter is that when you get into the range of 10s of billions in revenue and even larger in GDP, you run into the law of large numbers or the law of diminishing returns.
We dont need to be general. There are VERY FEW companies that can even hope to draw into the range of 50 Billion dollars in revenue annual.
For example, there are a very small amount of numbers in the 30 Billion dollar range...VERY small amount. For them to get into the range needed to make this list. They would almost need to double their revenue. That means that would need to CREATE and entity in a few years that rivals the current size of Google to their internal revenue growth. Google is the fastest growing company in the history of the world. You should get the point.
A company with 30 Billion dollars in revenue has to add 3 Billion dollars in revenue just to get a 10 percent increase in revenue growth. Take a look at the companies that are in the 3 billion dollar revenue range and consider how difficult it would to add that in growth in just one year..much less consistently for 10 years to be able to jump from 30 Billion dollars in annual revenue in 2000 to make this list at the end of 2009.
There are few companies that even reach 3 billion dollars in revenue much less can add 3 billion in revenue in a year.
With every advance in revenue numbers at that stage, it becomes even more difficult to find markets to add that can provide the additional revenue capabilities to expand to these every larger figures.
That is why companies tend to max it out in very defineable revenue spheres. But this is another argument altogether and beyond the scope of this thread.
The reality of the matter is that you dont need to get guess.
But more oils companies for example, have been created. You assume that the pool of corporations being absorbed spun off and created remained static.
For example: Largest Oil Companies 2009
At least one private oil company that is larger than Exxon Mobil has entered the list of largest oils companies within the last 3 years. Number 15, Lukoil (Russia) which is a private company that just happened to recently purchase Getty Oil in the US.
I did not assume anything. I tend to stay away from assumptions.
This list is meaningless. I can post all types of company lists.
Post the companies not on the current list of top 100 entities that now have revenues in the 50-55 Billion dollar range annual that could possibily make this list.
Then show me which entities that would replace. I
f they arent replacing a NATION, it does not change the makeup of the list.
This is not very complex.
My opinions are based on hard evidence. Yes, they are from my point of view, but as you can see I go to great lengths to back up my arguments based on facts.
Well, would you please post the hard evidence. You do know what hard evidence means right.
Why are you keeping this hard evidence from the rest of us. It is very simple. Post the couple of nations that would fall off the list and post the two companies that would replace them.
Nothing you have posted qualifies. In my previous post, I already illustrated what exactly need to be posted .
Yes compaies have fallen off over the last few year, however have you concider compaines like Microsoft, China Mobile, Google, Time Warner and New Corp. just to name a few that are not on the list that didn't exist or have risen greatly over the last 10 years?
Why dont you stop playing the guessing game.
Google has approximately 25 Billion dollars in annaul revenue.
They are ONLY 30 BILLION DOLLARS short of making the list.
Microsoft is 15 Billion short of making the list.
Time Warner has DECLINING revenue this year and on pace for less than 30 Billion...putting them 10s of billions short.
etc
So again, would you provide a list of which NATIONS would fall off this list and which companies are going to replace them.
With your advanced lawyerly reasoning skills you should be able to extrapolate my postulate above.
I am not a lawyer.
However, I can extrapolate that you have still not given ONE piece of evidence to support your guess.
I can extrapolate that you gave 4 erronious guesses as I have stated their revenue numbers and they arent even close to making the list.
Again, you thought of the first large companies that came to mind, and assumed that would be large enough to make the list
You keep on ASSUMING. You still havent corrected your first and most reckless mistake. You arent going to make any progress on this until you stop assuming and actual search out the factual information about the possible nations and corporations that could possibly squeeze into the bottom 10 of this list.
My assumptions have basis in fact. The privatization of profits and the socialization of risks are real.
Your witness council.
As I have show, they most certainly dont
The privatation of profits and socialization of risk has nothing to do with this post.
That is another one of your problems. You are arguing about topics completely irrelevant to the main premise.
I am not sure if you have have a problem with logic and/or you are just very knowingly attempting to inject irrelevant smokescreens into your argument.
