AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-06-20, 02:23   Link #7881
justinstrife
Queen Sheryl's Protector
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: John Galt Railroad
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to justinstrife Send a message via Skype™ to justinstrife
Quote:
Originally Posted by justsomeguy View Post
You make it sound like this is a bad thing. It's not, it's actually a good thing. If the wealthy just build their wealth "back up," then they really aren't getting hurt at all. (Of course, they never lose their wealth in the first place, so they really aren't getting hurt.) As for poor people "pissing" their money away, at least they get to buy necessities in the meantime. Circulation of money is good for the economy and societal stability, keeping it sequestered in the hands of a few individuals or corporations is not.
Yes I make it sound like it's a bad thing, because IT IS A BAD THING. We should not reward bad behavior and bad planning. Taking from the rich, to give to the poor, sorry but it's not a long-term goal anyone should be fighting for. Eventually, you will run out of other people's money. As they will decide they are tired of you taking it. I'm currently working two jobs so that I can afford the things I want in life. I didn't finish college, I've been working since I was a teenager, and I bust my ass to be apart of the middle class. I'm sick and tired of watching my taxes going to those who don't work. I'm not putting 16 hour work days in, so I can feed someone I've never met, who sits infront of the TV all day long watching Oprah. I put these hours in, because I want a house, a family, a fast car, and the ability to retire when I'm in my 60's. I've been on the fence for the past couple of years whether to start my own performance shop for corvettes. Currently, between California's Political Stupidity, and the risk of hyper-inflation in America, I will be sitting on that fence for awhile longer.

I hope America never truly tries to create financial equality. If it does, there will be a revolution here. And I will be apart of it.
justinstrife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-20, 04:29   Link #7882
JMvS
Rawrrr!
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CH aka Chocaholic Heaven
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinstrife View Post
Yes I make it sound like it's a bad thing, because IT IS A BAD THING. We should not reward bad behavior and bad planning. Taking from the rich, to give to the poor, sorry but it's not a long-term goal anyone should be fighting for. Eventually, you will run out of other people's money. As they will decide they are tired of you taking it. I'm currently working two jobs so that I can afford the things I want in life. I didn't finish college, I've been working since I was a teenager, and I bust my ass to be apart of the middle class. I'm sick and tired of watching my taxes going to those who don't work. I'm not putting 16 hour work days in, so I can feed someone I've never met, who sits infront of the TV all day long watching Oprah. I put these hours in, because I want a house, a family, a fast car, and the ability to retire when I'm in my 60's. I've been on the fence for the past couple of years whether to start my own performance shop for corvettes. Currently, between California's Political Stupidity, and the risk of hyper-inflation in America, I will be sitting on that fence for awhile longer.

I hope America never truly tries to create financial equality. If it does, there will be a revolution here. And I will be apart of it.
For what I understand, the whole point is about ensuring equal opportunities for all citizens, not "rewarding failure" la Robin Hood.

And your worries are precisely were the problem lies: a huge chunk of the middle class, which pays taxes, are entrapped in a system were they hardly see any benefits, those going not only to those too poor for taxes, but also to those who have got "too rich to fail".

Like everybody who is paying taxes, the middle class is funding things such as administration, education and public research. But now, laws were passed to ensure that past their death they still abide the fine print clause of contract they have signed in naive good faith; good schools, college and universities which they fund are simply too expensive for them; and as they have to use the advanced medical facilities and technology developed with their taxes, they go bankrupt, and are now "failures".


But given the disproportionate amount of power some have gained in the meanwhile, removing their special "liberties" and protections will be a tough job. For at least since J.C. (Julius Caesar), oligarchs have been quick to react to any challenge to their "liberties" (of plundering and monopolizing the benefits of the society that is).


Personally, I think the priority should be on removing all those special protections some sectors of the population and economy currently enjoy, at the expense of the middle class and the whole population. That would be one first step, more or less budget neutral.


I am not too familiar with the American Taxing System, but I guess no source of revenue should be less taxed (is it the case for capital revenue, and speculative gains?).


I hardly see a bigger state agenda as part of the solution, as even socialists have failed at that (being keen of promoting culture, opera houses and such were built and funded with public money, but guess who gets to enjoy those?).

For me the state's function is summed up as: ensure those at the top don't take advantage from those at the bottom, learn the bottom fishing instead of giving it a fish.
__________________
JMvS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-20, 06:54   Link #7883
Joojoobees
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMvS View Post
I am not too familiar with the American Taxing System, but I guess no source of revenue should be less taxed (is it the case for capital revenue, and speculative gains?).
Unfortunately, in America, if you work doing labor, you are taxed at a higher rate than if you earn your money using speculative vehicles. In addition to special rates on Capital Gains, hedge fund operators have a special loophole so most of their income has a tax rate of only 15%, despite the fact that some of them LITERALLY earn over a Billion dollars in a year. So someone who pulls in over a Billion dollars gets taxed at 15% while someone fixing cars, or putting out fires, or educating the next generation pays 35%.
Joojoobees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-20, 09:40   Link #7884
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
I'm certainly not in favor of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Nor am I in favor of the rich taking from the poor/middle class. Unfortunately the latter is the current state of the US. We need to move back towards a free market, less government spending/size, and only then will the manipulation of the massive corporations come to an end. From there, you would see a revival of quality goods from local small businesses rather than the BS we have today.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-20, 12:36   Link #7885
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
I'm certainly not in favor of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Nor am I in favor of the rich taking from the poor/middle class. Unfortunately the latter is the current state of the US. We need to move back towards a free market, less government spending/size, and only then will the manipulation of the massive corporations come to an end. From there, you would see a revival of quality goods from local small businesses rather than the BS we have today.
How does that work exactly? Please explain the mechanism that would lead from decreasing the amount of regulations and government spending to a revival of quality goods from small businesses?
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-20, 13:12   Link #7886
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
It's beyond the scope of a forum post. Essentially, large corporations use lobbying and other means to create regulations and red tape that benefit them and create massive economies of scale to prevent smaller business from becoming more viable. The fed manipulates the interest rate which by definition prevents a free market, prevents perfect competition (we're closer to an oligarchical hierarchy in this country at the present day than to monopolistic competition). When a government has the kind of power that the US government currently does, groups with influence (the ultra-rich), can manipulate that power to their own interest. This is why the ultra-rich have become more and more wealthy and comprise less and less of the population almost directly in parallel to the growth of government spending.

Conversely, a small government is incapable of 'rigging' the market or creating numerous legislation that could benefit a corporation. Even with the ultra rich in a small government, they can't use the gov. as a tool like wall street does today. Would life be perfect with a smaller government? No. Would the viability of small businesses improve? Certainly so. Would mass-produced, cheap, imported goods become less prominent as corporations stopped their stranglehold on the market? Most likely.

Are you just interested in my reasoning, or do you oppose this viewpoint? It's kind of hard to imagine someone in favor of larger gov. given the current state of the union.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-20, 14:02   Link #7887
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
It's beyond the scope of a forum post. Essentially, large corporations use lobbying and other means to create regulations and red tape that benefit them and create massive economies of scale to prevent smaller business from becoming more viable. The fed manipulates the interest rate which by definition prevents a free market, prevents perfect competition (we're closer to an oligarchical hierarchy in this country at the present day than to monopolistic competition). When a government has the kind of power that the US government currently does, groups with influence (the ultra-rich), can manipulate that power to their own interest. This is why the ultra-rich have become more and more wealthy and comprise less and less of the population almost directly in parallel to the growth of government spending.

Conversely, a small government is incapable of 'rigging' the market or creating numerous legislation that could benefit a corporation. Even with the ultra rich in a small government, they can't use the gov. as a tool like wall street does today. Would life be perfect with a smaller government? No. Would the viability of small businesses improve? Certainly so. Would mass-produced, cheap, imported goods become less prominent as corporations stopped their stranglehold on the market? Most likely.

Are you just interested in my reasoning, or do you oppose this viewpoint? It's kind of hard to imagine someone in favor of larger gov. given the current state of the union.
Actually we are more interested in your system outline : which is your argument. No point making an argument without proof and pertinence.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-20, 17:13   Link #7888
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
"System outline" and "reasoning" are synonymous in this case.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-20, 17:56   Link #7889
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Exactly what about a small government will push people away from cheap goods? For that matter, what is it about having fewer regulation that will push companies to regulate themselves harder instead so as to produce higher quality goods with less chances of industrial accidents?
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-20, 18:14   Link #7890
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
It will still be up to the consumer. What a smaller government will do is at least give the option; many parts of the US have nothing but large corporate brands. Ideally, a large government wouldn't be this way, but in the US it seems that the corporations have too much influence/power because of the government being large. They have found a way to hijack the system. IF we were to adopt true free market principles the industry should be closer to a perfect competition model, where the consumer always gets the best goods and prices. Additionally, this is assuming the US can also expand its manufacturing and agrarian industries, which isn't guaranteed. That is the hope, though, and at least from my point of view we need some radical changes, one of them being to actually follow our constitution properly.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-20, 18:20   Link #7891
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
It's up to the consumer now. The government, big or small, doesn't force its citizens to buy cheap, low quality, mass produced goods, and it doesn't force companies to make them. He and they just choose to. How is giving companies the right to lower quality still further going to change anything?

It's not the government that's killing small businesses. It's the lack of customers.

I don't know how it is in the US, but it's probably like here: big business are more regulated than smaller ones. They can afford it.
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-20, 18:25   Link #7892
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
I don't believe it is fully up to the consumer now. The corporations have an unfair advantage and thus force viable small businesses that focus on quality out of business. It isn't all about the fact that they are out-competed. It has more to do with economies of scale produced by an oligarchical system. They do not have the incentive to produce as high-quality of goods because there isn't a true free market in the US. The increased competition resulting from market reforms should, according to economic theory, make the product quality higher and at a better price.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-20, 18:25   Link #7893
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
It's beyond the scope of a forum post. Essentially, large corporations use lobbying and other means to create regulations and red tape that benefit them and create massive economies of scale to prevent smaller business from becoming more viable. The fed manipulates the interest rate which by definition prevents a free market, prevents perfect competition (we're closer to an oligarchical hierarchy in this country at the present day than to monopolistic competition). When a government has the kind of power that the US government currently does, groups with influence (the ultra-rich), can manipulate that power to their own interest. This is why the ultra-rich have become more and more wealthy and comprise less and less of the population almost directly in parallel to the growth of government spending.

Conversely, a small government is incapable of 'rigging' the market or creating numerous legislation that could benefit a corporation. Even with the ultra rich in a small government, they can't use the gov. as a tool like wall street does today. Would life be perfect with a smaller government? No. Would the viability of small businesses improve? Certainly so. Would mass-produced, cheap, imported goods become less prominent as corporations stopped their stranglehold on the market? Most likely.

Are you just interested in my reasoning, or do you oppose this viewpoint? It's kind of hard to imagine someone in favor of larger gov. given the current state of the union.
If the federal government doesn't have that power at all, what's to stop large companies from using unfair business tactics to squash small businesses before they can become competitors? Further, how is a small business supposed to match a large business when said large business can use economies of scale to sell the same product cheaper. When you're selling 10,000 TVs you can charge less per tv than the guy selling 100. When you're selling 100,000 TVs, you can sell each for less than the guy selling 100, and you can dictate your cost to your suppliers as they really don't have anyone else to supply the 100,000 TVs you're going to sell to.

Also, considering the current problems with the economy are a direct result of insufficient regulation and oversight, I fail to see how anyone could support less government oversight. These companies have proven that they don't even care about their long term sustainability when they can make greater short term profits, and you want to give them less of a leash?

Here's the point you're missing when you say let the companies fail. It's not going to hurt the people running the firms, it's only going to hurt the people employed by them. The CEOs? Other than regulations, they have no reason to care if their decisions might lead to the collapse of a company. Their personal finances are laregly insulated against that failure, and most likely by the time it happens they're long gone and in the process of plundering another firm. It is simply not in their interest to go for that long term sustainability if it means making slightly less money now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
I don't believe it is fully up to the consumer now. The corporations have an unfair advantage and thus force viable small businesses that focus on quality out of business. It isn't all about the fact that they are out-competed. It has more to do with economies of scale produced by an oligarchical system. They do not have they incentive to produce as high-quality of goods because there isn't a true free market in the US. The increased competition resulting from market reforms should, according to economic theory, make the product quality higher and at a better price.
You do realize there comes a point where you simply can't improve quality/cost without some sort of technological breakthrough, right? We're pretty much at that point. If you want to sell a higher quality product, you're going to have to charge more. Hell, if you're a small business and you want to sell the same quality product you're going to have to charge more. It can't be helped, even if you use "that". "That" being a Laissez-faire approach to the free market.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-20, 18:36   Link #7894
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
I'm not saying to get rid of anti-trust and monopoly laws. I'm talking about free market reform, and the aim would be to uphold the free market. I'm not saying Laissez-faire - I would like the government to intervene, but specifically for the purpose of upholding the free market. Unfair business tactics should still be monitored. Laissez-faire and free market reform are not one in the same. Instead, I think the government should shrink in size in the way of federal agencies such as the department of energy or the DEA which incur wasteful spending and unproductive jobs. Shrink from all those areas the government, according to our constitution, should not be involved. Shrink our empire of military bases, as well, so we can spend less and focus our resources where they count: making sure the capitalist system works the way it is supposed to. Contrary to how you have perceived my argument, I suggest the government focus solely on regulations that uphold a free market and perfect competition.

And quality certainly does matter, just not in the industries you are thinking about. Food being the main one. Look at the obesity epidemic here in the US. Then look at the food options in many parts of the country.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-20, 20:28   Link #7895
Joojoobees
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Chain, I agree with you that Big Business has its tentacles so deep in the current governmental structures that small businesses can no longer compete in a "free market". I am not convinced, however, that a reduction in the size of Government will necessarily correct the situation. My guess is that the oligarchs would preferentially dismantle those things that are a threat to them, not the things that give them an unfair advantage. To sum up, I think we're f%%%ed.

Take Big Oil, as an example. These are the most profitable companies in the world. Somehow they have twisted the tax code so they get incentives to explore for more sources of oil. If this were a "free market" and they decided it wasn't worth the effort to explore, then they wouldn't do it. And the people insisting they need those special tax loopholes are just as likely to be "free market" Republicans as Democrats.

Same thing with subsidies to Big Agri-business. The existing power structure is under control of large corporate interests, who would rather destroy America, all of Mankind, or even Life itself, than give up a little bit of their wealth and power. I wish I could be optimistic enough to believe there is a solution, but I honestly don't see it happening. I think it is far more likely that greed, ignorance, and fear will combine to destroy civilization as we know it, and possibly destroy the habitability of the planet.
Joojoobees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-20, 21:06   Link #7896
justsomeguy
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinstrife View Post
Yes I make it sound like it's a bad thing, because IT IS A BAD THING. We should not reward bad behavior and bad planning. Taking from the rich, to give to the poor, sorry but it's not a long-term goal anyone should be fighting for. Eventually, you will run out of other people's money. As they will decide they are tired of you taking it. I'm currently working two jobs so that I can afford the things I want in life. I didn't finish college, I've been working since I was a teenager, and I bust my ass to be apart of the middle class. I'm sick and tired of watching my taxes going to those who don't work. I'm not putting 16 hour work days in, so I can feed someone I've never met, who sits infront of the TV all day long watching Oprah. I put these hours in, because I want a house, a family, a fast car, and the ability to retire when I'm in my 60's. I've been on the fence for the past couple of years whether to start my own performance shop for corvettes. Currently, between California's Political Stupidity, and the risk of hyper-inflation in America, I will be sitting on that fence for awhile longer.

I hope America never truly tries to create financial equality. If it does, there will be a revolution here. And I will be apart of it.
We were discussing the fallacy of trickle-down economics, which has demonstrably increased the wealth of very rich people and left everybody else (including the middle class) behind, not communism. If you wish to argue that letting corporations and their CEOs take everything without letting currency flow back into the community so that customers can afford to buy their products, go ahead. The economic contribution by the spending of lots of average consumers is greater than that of a few billionaires buying some stuff every now and then. This has nothing to do with rewarding idiots; it has to do with ensuring the circulation of money, without which the corporations themselves will die.
__________________
Currently watching: Kamen Rider Gaim, Ressha Sentai ToQger, Garo: Makai no Hana, Captain Earth, SAO, Prisma Illya 2wei, Glasslip, Aldnoah.Zero, Ao Haru Ride

Currently playing: Atelier Iris 3 Grand Phantasm, Knights in the Nightmare
justsomeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-21, 01:20   Link #7897
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
I don't believe it is fully up to the consumer now. The corporations have an unfair advantage and thus force viable small businesses that focus on quality out of business. It isn't all about the fact that they are out-competed.
What is it about, then? The way I see it, big businesses use their "unfair advantages" to buy better locations for their stores or advertise their brands, and sell cheaper, thus taking customers away from small ones. In other words, it's out-competing them.

Quote:
It has more to do with economies of scale produced by an oligarchical system.
Yes! And how is deregulation going to take away that advantage? It's that point you've so far failed to explain. Other than that, I'd love to pay less taxes and have cheaper, better goods. Oh, and big businesses also often have the advantages of being oligopolies and oligopsonies. Deregulation isn't going to take away those either.

Quote:
They do not have the incentive to produce as high-quality of goods because there isn't a true free market in the US.
They do not have the incentive because customers aren't buying them, preferring the cheaper alternatives. AFAIK, there's no law against making and selling expensive, high-quality products. It just happens to be a niche market.

Quote:
The increased competition resulting from market reforms should, according to economic theory, make the product quality higher and at a better price.
Yeah, but what about economic practice? And, again, how is deregulation going to result in "increased competition"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
I'm not saying to get rid of anti-trust and monopoly laws. I'm talking about free market reform, and the aim would be to uphold the free market. I'm not saying Laissez-faire - I would like the government to intervene, but specifically for the purpose of upholding the free market. Unfair business tactics should still be monitored. Laissez-faire and free market reform are not one in the same.
What unfair tactics? The big businesses advantage is that... they're big. Forbidding economies of scale would be pretty interventionist. So, for that matter, would forbidding malls and supermarkets, and the convenience they bring (one place for many products).

Quote:
Instead, I think the government should shrink in size in the way of federal agencies such as the department of energy or the DEA which incur wasteful spending and unproductive jobs. Shrink from all those areas the government, according to our constitution, should not be involved. Shrink our empire of military bases, as well, so we can spend less and focus our resources where they count: making sure the capitalist system works the way it is supposed to. Contrary to how you have perceived my argument, I suggest the government focus solely on regulations that uphold a free market and perfect competition.
And what regulations would those be? Because so far, your posts read:
1. Shrink the government.
2. ????
3. Profit!

I'd like you to expand of step 2, please.
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-21, 09:29   Link #7898
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
I've already explained their unfair advantage. If you do not want to accept/believe my reasoning that is fine but I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Big business/the ultra-rich should not have the government on their team, and that IS the way things are in the US. Joojoobees has already provided some information regarding that fact, if you want more look it up yourself.

Not every industry would change. Malls, electronics distribution centers, etc are industries that inherently gravitate towards large businesses. All I'm saying is, SOME industries (food, clothing, general stores) are not accurately represented because of collusion between the gov. and big business. The economies of scale are directly exacerbated by the government providing advantages to these industries. So yes, cutting down on the gov. regulations that provide these inherent advantages to corporations would change this state.

I'm not saying they would get rid of economies of scale, or that a small government is some kind of magical cure like the last bit of your post states. But currently, as the US is right now, the government helps out/is controlled by large businesses, and how else do you stop that issue other than to cut down on the government's influence? As I said earlier, large government does not necessarily mean that big business will wield the kind of power it does here in the US, but here, currently in 2010, IT DOES. They have hijacked the system. Either we limit their ability to manipulate the system, or create an entirely new one. I think the former is at least worth a try before we are forced into a revolution to accomplish the latter.

And of course customers aren't buying the alternative goods I've suggested - the alternatives are suffocated by advantages corporations shouldn't have. Yes, economies of scale exist in a free-market, but not to the extent we see today. These are abnormally powerful economies of scale and they exist even in industries where they shouldn't. You're French, right? I've been to France before once, and though I didn't stay long enough to get to know the country very well, I do remember there being some pretty awesome options in terms of locally grown foods. Lots of the US has NO such option, and have nothing other than a Wal-Mart running their local economy. So where is their choice? You claim the consumer will just choose what they want most, but how is this true when the consumer is deprived of alternatives, and when the alternatives exist, they are at a higher price than they should be according to the free market?

Business should be allowed to fail, and they shouldn't have the government on their side. This isn't about taxes. Our taxes will fall in a free market, but it is a secondary issue because the main problem is what we have today is NOT a free market and our country does not follow its constitution. Is suggesting we return to these philosophies really so radical an idea?
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-21, 09:36   Link #7899
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
I've already explained their unfair advantage. If you do not want to accept/believe my reasoning that is fine but I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Big business/the ultra-rich should not have the government on their team, and that IS the way things are in the US. Joojoobees has already provided some information regarding that fact, if you want more look it up yourself.

Not every industry would change. Malls, electronics distribution centers, etc are industries that inherently gravitate towards large businesses. All I'm saying is, SOME industries (food, clothing, general stores) are not accurately represented because of collusion between the gov. and big business. The economies of scale are directly exacerbated by the government providing advantages to these industries. So yes, cutting down on the gov. regulations that provide these inherent advantages to corporations would change this state.

I'm not saying they would get rid of economies of scale, or that a small government is some kind of magical cure like the last bit of your post states. But currently, as the US is right now, the government helps out/is controlled by large businesses, and how else do you stop that issue other than to cut down on the government's influence? As I said earlier, large government does not necessarily mean that big business will wield the kind of power it does here in the US, but here, currently in 2010, IT DOES. They have hijacked the system. Either we limit their ability to manipulate the system, or create an entirely new one. I think the former is at least worth a try before we are forced into a revolution to accomplish the latter.

And of course customers aren't buying the alternative goods I've suggested - the alternatives are suffocated by advantages corporations shouldn't have. Yes, economies of scale exist in a free-market, but not to the extent we see today. These are abnormally powerful economies of scale and they exist even in industries where they shouldn't. You're French, right? I've been to France before once, and though I didn't stay long enough to get to know the country very well, I do remember there being some pretty awesome options in terms of locally grown foods. Lots of the US has NO such option, and have nothing other than a Wal-Mart running their local economy. So where is their choice? You claim the consumer will just choose what they want most, but how is this true when the consumer is deprived of alternatives, and when the alternatives exist, they are at a higher price than they should be according to the free market?

Business should be allowed to fail, and they shouldn't have the government on their side. This isn't about taxes. Our taxes will fall in a free market, but it is a secondary issue because the main problem is what we have today is NOT a free market and our country does not follow its constitution. Is suggesting we return to these philosophies really so radical an idea?
If businesses are allowed to fail, it would collapse the world economy because of globalisation. Money, in a sense, doesn't solely flow through just one country : it flows through the entire world in terms of revaluation and credit. It is the private business sectors that provide jobs AND money for the country, and that private sectors generate more value than government owned companies due to natural competition of prices, supply and demand of products, services or employment.

Regarding businesses manipulating the government, it is due to the "legalisation" of coffee money through a process called lobbying, where politicians get their money by through promises to benefit the companies in exchange for money to fund their campaigns. That is the real problem, not the Keynesian structure people have been harping about. Creating a new system creates more problems in the short term, and exponentially into the long term because there isn't as much idealism as compared to our "free market" right now.

If you fancy a change, please present a new system outline. The other choices possible would be either state capitalism like China or Ugandan Military controlled economy. In Macroeconomics, the only three possible economy types are Free, Mixed or Controlled, so it is either one of the "lesser evils".
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-21, 09:57   Link #7900
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
The hyperinflation that will result from our overuse of printing the dollar will also negatively affect countries around the world that peg their currency to the dollar. What we have done by bailing the businesses out (which, by the way, failed because they are inefficient) with our current state of debt is guarantee some kind of crisis down the road that will affect the world as you said. It wasn't worth it.

Yes that is part of the problem. If the government isn't capable of giving the businesses the benefits, then lobbying wouldn't be worth it anymore. It would eliminate the problem. And I do believe China is closer to a free market than the US right now and economically we should become more like them, but with the system set in place by our constitution. They are not mutually exclusive, we have just strayed from it.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.