Socialism Creates Monopolies, Capitalism Destroys Them

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Congrats on writing the most Orwellian response in the history of these forums.


Congrats on creating a topic that is naive and untrue


Why do you even wrote it? So you can discuss this topis with people more close to your own perception? Sorry, but capitalism creates more monopolies than any other economic order known to man.




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by Snarf
 


The 150k/year thing.. Come on, thats just absurd (well, unless hyperinflation then it could happen.).

In Utah: We just have Target and Walmart that fit into that classification, I am hesitant to include Sears Grand in it, but it could be as well. The reason is over the last 10 years all the other stores have been run out.

Companies that offer benefits obviously have a greater per head cost on employees. The walmart of the past was something that could be competed against. But todays walmart is a juggernaut of destruction.

According to this there are 52 stores in utah counting Sams Club and distribution centers. The Utah population is about 2.3 million.

Illinois has 181 stores (also includes dist centers and sams club). IL stats

Population in IL is 12,901,563 (on 2009 census).

Look at the ratio of stores to population.

UT: 2.3 mil, 52 stores.
IL: 12.9 mil, 181 stores

Six times the population in IL, but only around 3.6 or so more walmarts. There are 5 more walmarts scheduled to be build in the Salt Lake and provo Valleys before the end of this upcoming summer.

The destruction I see is much more apparent in UT than in IL and is only getting worse.


You see destruction, I see a whole lot of people paying a lot less for consumer products.

I see a lot more labor and capital freed up for use in other areas of the economy.

I see more jobs created in different areas of the economy that aren't involved in retail sales of consumer goods.

Given our current financial crisis which was caused by government massively intervening in the financial markets, don't you think those who are out of work and on unemployment appreciate the fact a wal mart is around so they can buy cheap goods?

What would all those people be paying for goods right now if wal mart wasn't around?

Think their unemployment check would go very far?

Wal mart didn't put those people out of work, our government and a private banking cartel did.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
(snip)


So you're saying Wal Mart should not be allowed to hire part time employees?

Obviously, the employees are willing to work for them.

So, if the government makes it illegal for wal mart to hire part time employees, but not Target, do you think wal mart would remain in business for very long?

If the government said no retailer could hire part time employees, do you think any store but wal mart would be around to do business?

Government regulations only help wal mart, not hurt them.

All their employees ARE part time. The point being they are part time so walmart gets around giving benefits and OT. This is possible because there is nothing to enforce. (Not enough regulations).

The impact of that little gem is more bankruptcies and increased health costs to everyone else. No health insurance means even a visit to a doctor (my HMO doctor charges $130/visit without insurance) would be around 25% of the weeks pay at 10/hour. If an ER visit or expensive med needed then its far far worse.

Of course the employees are willing to work for them, nobody else is able to hire. Any job is better than no job. Given the unemployment rates are increasing I dare say it is possible that they will be creating more sales/CS jobs because the skilled force isn't hiring.

I have been looking for almost 4 months now, my skill set is Posix Services/administration (Linux, Unix, BSD etc.) with a sub in routing and security. I have even offered 10k less than the pitiful Utah median wage for my job description. One interview with on average 5 resumes sent out a day.

At this rate I am considering applying at walmart, unemployment checks barely cover rent.

So yes, of course people are willing to work at walmart.

However this discussion is supposed to be on regulations. I was using walmart as a company that gets around all the regulations. You seem to indicate that regulations are an incentive to find loopholes and thus are bad.

If not, please clarify.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by krzyspmac
Sorry, but capitalism creates more monopolies than any other economic order known to man.


No, socialism does.

Socialism by its very definition is a state owned monopoly.

No incentive to reduce prices, no incentive to improve quality, no incentive to reduce overhead, no incentive to improve efficiency.

That is socialism in a nut shell.

In a free market, competition moves all profits to zero and prevents monopolies from forming.

Only through government regulation can a monopoly form.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   



1.) WalMart didn't magically have enough money to become as big as they are for no reason. They started small, and worked their way up. They offered us what Mom & Pop refused to: Good Prices on the items we need/want.

That does not help if you did not have family members that were business people.
It's what I've said , corporations are already formed, there is no place for small people, how is this competition? No one has a time machine.
The main problem today is most of the time is that you can't start small.




2.) If you find that you are 100% unable to compete with something, then you should try something else. Offer something walmart does not sell.

But wal mart at a single snap of the finger can get that, wal mart can bank rupt you and it has every reason if you are selling near wal mart.



Don't open up a grocer next to Walmart and then expect to compete. Its not walmarts fault that customers want to pay lower prices and you can't offer them.

In general small towns are in trouble where everything is near wal mart.



It wasn't Jeremys' fault, it can't be. It never is Jeremy's fault. But in reality, it was Jeremy's fault...its just that Jeremy's too immature to accept responsibility for his own actions at such an early age.

It's the system fault, because X may come from a poor family and has no chance. Social service gives that young boy a chance.

This is what social service provides "A chance"



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0

All their employees ARE part time. The point being they are part time so walmart gets around giving benefits and OT. This is possible because there is nothing to enforce. (Not enough regulations).

The impact of that little gem is more bankruptcies and increased health costs to everyone else. No health insurance means even a visit to a doctor (my HMO doctor charges $130/visit without insurance) would be around 25% of the weeks pay at 10/hour. If an ER visit or expensive med needed then its far far worse.

Of course the employees are willing to work for them, nobody else is able to hire. Any job is better than no job. Given the unemployment rates are increasing I dare say it is possible that they will be creating more sales/CS jobs because the skilled force isn't hiring.

I have been looking for almost 4 months now, my skill set is Posix Services/administration (Linux, Unix, BSD etc.) with a sub in routing and security. I have even offered 10k less than the pitiful Utah median wage for my job description. One interview with on average 5 resumes sent out a day.

At this rate I am considering applying at walmart, unemployment checks barely cover rent.

So yes, of course people are willing to work at walmart.

However this discussion is supposed to be on regulations. I was using walmart as a company that gets around all the regulations. You seem to indicate that regulations are an incentive to find loopholes and thus are bad.

If not, please clarify.


You're acting like wal mart is the only company doing this.

Wal mart is acting like any competitive enterprise would act.

Target, Best Buy, all of them do exactly the same things wal mart does. If they don't, they are going to go out of business. That's the way the market works. As I point out, mandating MORE regulations is only in wal marts best interest. If all of wal marts competitors are forced to provide pay and benefits like you seem to want them too, they will all go out of business and the only retailer left will be wal mart, due to wal marts efficiency of scale and supplier connections.

Then wal mart really would be a monopoly. If that were to happen consumer prices would sky rocket.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   



You see destruction, I see a whole lot of people paying a lot less for consumer products.

I see a lot more labor and capital freed up for use in other areas of the economy.

I see more jobs created in different areas of the economy that aren't involved in retail sales of consumer goods.

Given our current financial crisis which was caused by government massively intervening in the financial markets, don't you think those who are out of work and on unemployment appreciate the fact a wal mart is around so they can buy cheap goods?

What would all those people be paying for goods right now if wal mart wasn't around?

Think their unemployment check would go very far?

Wal mart didn't put those people out of work, our government and a private banking cartel did.



The first point, and I admit-this is a low blow: You just said slave labor is good for everyone. You said earlier that it was tyrannical government that made that possible. Thus: Slavery is good because one pays a bit less at the store. Low blow: but it is what you are saying.

Freed up labor = unemployment. This also means fewer people buying things. In this scenario either costs go up (suicidal) or it becomes cyclic and more people are laid off or more commonly fired because lay-offs give unemployment benefits whereas a typical firing the company pays nothing.

Otherwise: I am sorry, profits do not usually get reinvested in the economy. They go into someones bank account.

If walmart creates jobs, how do you see those jobs as going into non sales/grunt work jobs?

The financial crisis was made because of LACK of regulation. The regulation was laxed and allowed banks to mix investment banking with normal banking. Thus tieing people's savings and retirements to super risky investments for banking gain. Had that regulation been left in place (was first done in 1933) this problem would not have happened.

It was then exacerbated by the bailout necessity. I say necessity because of the institutions involved defaulted it would have been hundreds of billions of dollars-essentially vanishing. I am under the opinion that is a company is too big to allow to fail-it is too big to allow to exist and should be broken up into independent segments.

Walmart is obviously not tied to the investment crisis. Their impact is more local. The relationship is similar to a drug dealer.

Seduces and moves in, then the ripples make it so it is difficult to afford going elsewhere.

Personally I only buy two things from walmart: Generic Excedrin and dog food. Otherwise I go to local grocery stores. The amount I would save on groceries by going to a walmart are less than $10 a trip.

Here are some interesting articles, pro and con for walmart.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by krzyspmac
Sorry, but capitalism creates more monopolies than any other economic order known to man.


No, socialism does.

Socialism by its very definition is a state owned monopoly.

No incentive to reduce prices, no incentive to improve quality, no incentive to reduce overhead, no incentive to improve efficiency.

That is socialism in a nut shell.

In a free market, competition moves all profits to zero and prevents monopolies from forming.

Only through government regulation can a monopoly form.


You are talking about Communism. Socialism is when the society takes care of the people. Communism is when everything is communal/state owned.

Food stamps, unemployment benefits, CHIP, Medicaid, Medicare, Pell Grants and Laws that require companies to pander to the consumer base..are all examples of socialist policies

State owned businesses that pay "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.". When the government controls all business and runs everything: Communism.


BTW: a Capitalist is someone who makes a living off of their capital. Business owners are a prime example. If you make a wage: You are not a capitalist.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   



You're acting like wal mart is the only company doing this.

Wal mart is acting like any competitive enterprise would act.

Target, Best Buy, all of them do exactly the same things wal mart does. If they don't, they are going to go out of business. That's the way the market works. As I point out, mandating MORE regulations is only in wal marts best interest. If all of wal marts competitors are forced to provide pay and benefits like you seem to want them too, they will all go out of business and the only retailer left will be wal mart, due to wal marts efficiency of scale and supplier connections.

Then wal mart really would be a monopoly. If that were to happen consumer prices would sky rocket.



No I am not. This discussion was supposed to be about regulations and how they impact. Walmart was simply my example of how lack of regulations destroy communities. Obviously all companies use similar tactics.

There are some differences though: Target goes out of it's way for it's employees. Walmart... not so much.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0

The first point, and I admit-this is a low blow: You just said slave labor is good for everyone. You said earlier that it was tyrannical government that made that possible. Thus: Slavery is good because one pays a bit less at the store. Low blow: but it is what you are saying.

Freed up labor = unemployment. This also means fewer people buying things. In this scenario either costs go up (suicidal) or it becomes cyclic and more people are laid off or more commonly fired because lay-offs give unemployment benefits whereas a typical firing the company pays nothing.

Otherwise: I am sorry, profits do not usually get reinvested in the economy. They go into someones bank account.

If walmart creates jobs, how do you see those jobs as going into non sales/grunt work jobs?

The financial crisis was made because of LACK of regulation. The regulation was laxed and allowed banks to mix investment banking with normal banking. Thus tieing people's savings and retirements to super risky investments for banking gain. Had that regulation been left in place (was first done in 1933) this problem would not have happened.

It was then exacerbated by the bailout necessity. I say necessity because of the institutions involved defaulted it would have been hundreds of billions of dollars-essentially vanishing. I am under the opinion that is a company is too big to allow to fail-it is too big to allow to exist and should be broken up into independent segments.

Walmart is obviously not tied to the investment crisis. Their impact is more local. The relationship is similar to a drug dealer.

Seduces and moves in, then the ripples make it so it is difficult to afford going elsewhere.

Personally I only buy two things from walmart: Generic Excedrin and dog food. Otherwise I go to local grocery stores. The amount I would save on groceries by going to a walmart are less than $10 a trip.

Here are some interesting articles, pro and con for walmart.



I never said slave labor was a good thing, you're putting words in my mouth. In fact I said our government could take numerous steps to correct the situation that don't involve additional regulation, but they don't because the big businesses benefiting from that labor lobby government to keep it that way - regulation is making this slave labor possible. The result of this slave labor is the American consumer benefiting by having lower prices. This is not my opinion, this is a fact.

If foreign slaves made all our goods, America would be benefiting enormously from this.

I don't condone slave labor, but the facts are we DO benefit from this in the form of lower consumer prices.

As for your assertion that freed up labor = unemployment, if the government suddenly decided to end the wars we are in, do you think people in the military industrial complex would be out of work?

Do you think America should wage endless wars to ensure those people keep their jobs?

Of course not!

Capital, jobs and resource merely shift to other sectors of the economy. The reason we have such massive unemployment right now is because government controls the financial sector.

You blame the repeal of glass-stegal for our economic situation, I blame the fact our banking and monetary system is run by private banking cartel.

In a free market, banks would have no lender of last resort and would not engage in the insane lending practices that brought us into this situation in the first place.

In a free market, interest rates would have sky rocketed under the enormous debt accrued and lack of capital savings.

In a free market, banks wouldn't be able to lend 90% over their reserves by creating money out of nothing.

The very fact we have a federal reserve bank that artificially suppresses interest rates and bails out banks creates a MASSIVE moral hazard.

This total economic collapse could never have occurred without the federal reserves existence and government regulation of the financial markets.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by lordtyp0
 



but if I had a business and was after the quick money grab (as most are) I cannot say for certain if my methods would be different.


this is where i fail to understand you & those who think the same way (don't take this as an insult)...i just don't understand

The purpose of owning your own business is to be successful. You just claimed that if you did own your own business, that you would most likely strive to be the same thing: Successful


So my question is - why "hate" on those who can be successful?

Is it Jealousy?
resentment?
Rage?

Honestly - im not trying to be a prick...i honestly am trying to understand why it is that you hate on someone just because they're successful.

Walmart didn't go into business with the sole purpose of screwing over mom & pop.

Mom & Pop were causalities of retail war. Do you seriously expect WalMart to say "We will raise our prices to match yours, so that you don't go out of business" ???


Sorry, just spotted this. I've been enjoying the flurry of posts/enjoying the debate. Decided to go back and look over.

I am all for profits. But more important: I am more civic centered. Just because I could probably sell something in my garage for 10 times it's worth doesn't mean I should.

To me success isn't simply a number in a bank account. Businesses hold somewhat of a sacred trust in a community. They assist the community by services-certainly, but that is the community helping them more than the opposite. The part where I view the business helping the community is general quality of life.

If I had a multi-billion organization I would insist all my employees had benefits from a retirement plan to healthcare. I would also ensure they had a wage that would make it so multiple family members did not have to work multiple jobs to simply cover living expenses-even if it meant my own paycheck would have a couple less zeros.

Walmart is destructive on several fronts, many of which I have obviously commented on. But I have to ask: Will they still have 'low low prices' when the closest competitor is a 2 hour round trip drive?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 



All their employees ARE part time.


I've come to a point where i think im beyond wanting a civil, intelligent discussion, becuase you're simply not willing to meet anyone 1/2 way to obtain such a discussion.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You just made a bold claim that all of Wal-Marts employee's are part time - and oh my dear God how wrong you are:

Wal Mart Description

Wal-Mart's average, full-time hourly wage for Wal-Mart stores is $10.83 and is even higher in urban areas. The average full-time hourly wage is $11.62 in Atlanta, $12.57 in Boston, $11.52 in Chicago, $11.26 in Dallas, $11.49 in San Francisco and $11.48 in New York City. Associates also receive performance-based bonuses.





In fact - if you just google it you'll find a wealth of information pertaining to full time positions available at walmart


Out of ignorance breeds hate.

You, and your thread, are 100% proof of it. If there were an industry for pointless threads, yours would be Wal-Mart

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Snarf]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by krzyspmac
Sorry, but capitalism creates more monopolies than any other economic order known to man.


No, socialism does.

Socialism by its very definition is a state owned monopoly.

No incentive to reduce prices, no incentive to improve quality, no incentive to reduce overhead, no incentive to improve efficiency.

That is socialism in a nut shell.

In a free market, competition moves all profits to zero and prevents monopolies from forming.

Only through government regulation can a monopoly form.


You are talking about Communism. Socialism is when the society takes care of the people. Communism is when everything is communal/state owned.

Food stamps, unemployment benefits, CHIP, Medicaid, Medicare, Pell Grants and Laws that require companies to pander to the consumer base..are all examples of socialist policies

State owned businesses that pay "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.". When the government controls all business and runs everything: Communism.


BTW: a Capitalist is someone who makes a living off of their capital. Business owners are a prime example. If you make a wage: You are not a capitalist.


Socialism is a state owned monopoly on business.

That is the definition of socialism.

Communism is a political system of control over these socialist state owned monopolies.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I only have 2 comments.

1) we've never had a free market.
2) Patents drive creativity in the marketplace because without protection the "big guys" would steal your idea every time (now it's just the chinese that do it)

Read Naomi Klein's book "Shock Doctrine" if you want an education on economics in the world marketplace.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   




I never said slave labor was a good thing, you're putting words in my mouth. In fact I said our government could take numerous steps to correct the situation that don't involve additional regulation, but they don't because the big businesses benefiting from that labor lobby government to keep it that way - regulation is making this slave labor possible. The result of this slave labor is the American consumer benefiting by having lower prices. This is not my opinion, this is a fact.

If foreign slaves made all our goods, America would be benefiting enormously from this.

I don't condone slave labor, but the facts are we DO benefit from this in the form of lower consumer prices.

As for your assertion that freed up labor = unemployment, if the government suddenly decided to end the wars we are in, do you think people in the military industrial complex would be out of work?

Do you think America should wage endless wars to ensure those people keep their jobs?

Of course not!

Capital, jobs and resource merely shift to other sectors of the economy. The reason we have such massive unemployment right now is because government controls the financial sector.

You blame the repeal of glass-stegal for our economic situation, I blame the fact our banking and monetary system is run by private banking cartel.

In a free market, banks would have no lender of last resort and would not engage in the insane lending practices that brought us into this situation in the first place.

In a free market, interest rates would have sky rocketed under the enormous debt accrued and lack of capital savings.

In a free market, banks wouldn't be able to lend 90% over their reserves by creating money out of nothing.

The very fact we have a federal reserve bank that artificially suppresses interest rates and bails out banks creates a MASSIVE moral hazard.

This total economic collapse could never have occurred without the federal reserves existence and government regulation of the financial markets.



Well you actually did say that regulations paved the way for sweat shops and the like. Then said that regulation is bad. Then said consumers pay less because of the Chinese labor pool. Then lastly: It is a good thing because we pay less... You realize I did not imply slavery was not beneficial for some. If it were not the concept would never have come about. The ones who profit though are the owners, the consumer benefit is marginal at best-regardless of morality and ethics involved.

We do not accept sweat shops or child labor camps-at least there is backlash when we hear about a company using them. Fact is: Without regulation to prohibit that behaviour it will always be tempting to a company. Worst case scenario they make millions for a year or two, get caught, donate a slight percentage of what they made to some cause and get instant redemption. Usually to repeat later. The lack of the U.S. Governments regulations in this area is what allows companies to profit off of it.

But: you realize the very definition of a government taking action to curb or alter a practice is in fact regulation, yes?

As for the rest: The government is to blame for the unemployment because they control the financial sector. Yet: Our banking and monetary system (ie: The financial sector) is run by a private banking cartel. And this private banking cartel is responsible for the recent financial woes. The answer to these issues is to... give more power to the private sectors that control everything and ... encourage 'free market'. The contradiction here is: If the companies control the government-you can't get any more freedom than that.

The Laissez-faire concept is noble and all that. But it fails because of inerrant corruption if there is no regulation. You seem to imply that if I force all competition out, or have the money muscle to buy them and the result is I am the last one standing: Awesome, I win, I control it all because I played by the rules.

But the Government placing regulations so I can't buy smaller companies to become the only provider of Service X, well that is bad because it is an artificial monopoly (somehow), I am guessing this logic is because the regulation would favor a smaller company and halt takeovers.

This is akin to a schoolyard bully. Stronger, faster-whatever, beating all the kids around. He wins, he is DA BOMB YO!!! Until a teacher comes over and thumps him. Giving the other kids an unfair advantage and allowing them to prosper.

That is, if I am interpreting your thesis statement right, it's getting difficult to tell.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The federal reserve bank is a private banking cartel established by, guess who?, our government!

Our system of banking is COMPLETELY communist, it has nothing to do with the free market at all.

Marx felt central control over interest rates and lending was so important he made it a plank in his communist manifesto!

There is nothing free market about our tyrannical system of banking.

I would argue that Marx's form of banking IS LESS destructive than our current form! At least Marx has the sense to keep the bank fully under the control of government politicians rather than let it be run by a bunch of private cartel leaders.

The systemic failure of our economy can be directly blamed on the existence of the federal reserve. Its very existence as a lender of last resort and its setting of interest rates made the wild lending and speculation possible. Without the central bank and our 10% reserve requirements, this economic collapse would not have occurred.

The moral hazard created by the fed is so massive it can not be understated.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
I only have 2 comments.

1) we've never had a free market.
2) Patents drive creativity in the marketplace because without protection the "big guys" would steal your idea every time (now it's just the chinese that do it)

Read Naomi Klein's book "Shock Doctrine" if you want an education on economics in the world marketplace.


True, but patents are now toxic. The big guys are patenting everything from things that occur in nature (proteins) to concepts (ala: business methods and software). To the point that all innovation is threatened. From patent trolls to overly broad redundant patents that are so complex it can take thousands of man-hours to fight even with an ample amount of prior-art.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The federal reserve bank is a private banking cartel established by, guess who?, our government!

Our system of banking is COMPLETELY communist, it has nothing to do with the free market at all.

Marx felt central control over interest rates and lending was so important he made it a plank in his communist manifesto!

There is nothing free market about our tyrannical system of banking.

I would argue that Marx's form of banking IS LESS destructive than our current form! At least Marx has the sense to keep the bank fully under the control of government politicians rather than let it be run by a bunch of private cartel leaders.

The systemic failure of our economy can be directly blamed on the existence of the federal reserve. Its very existence as a lender of last resort and its setting of interest rates made the wild lending and speculation possible. Without the central bank and our 10% reserve requirements, this economic collapse would not have occurred.

The moral hazard created by the fed is so massive it can not be understated.



Hey! Guess what? We agree on something


Well, most of what you wrote I agree with. At least: I blame the bankers but the Fed being there with promises was certainly too tantalizing for the crook investors to ignore.

As for the definitions of socialism and communism: looks like I fell victim to vernacular usage. (how most people use vs. true definition.)

However: I don't think the "free market" is possible. Given the share-holder system and investment options. It is too common for investors to have a conflict of interest, if they hold sway in the company it can go six ways till sunday.

(edit, I didn't want to add another separatepost for this):
How can the banks be communist? I mean: Either the bankers own the government or the government owns the banks. You can't really have an evil communist/socialist government if they are owned by the private sector. That is more of a fascist setup.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by lordtyp0]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Well you actually did say that regulations paved the way for sweat shops and the like. Then said that regulation is bad. Then said consumers pay less because of the Chinese labor pool. Then lastly: It is a good thing because we pay less... You realize I did not imply slavery was not beneficial for some. If it were not the concept would never have come about. The ones who profit though are the owners, the consumer benefit is marginal at best-regardless of morality and ethics involved.

We do not accept sweat shops or child labor camps-at least there is backlash when we hear about a company using them. Fact is: Without regulation to prohibit that behaviour it will always be tempting to a company. Worst case scenario they make millions for a year or two, get caught, donate a slight percentage of what they made to some cause and get instant redemption. Usually to repeat later. The lack of the U.S. Governments regulations in this area is what allows companies to profit off of it.

But: you realize the very definition of a government taking action to curb or alter a practice is in fact regulation, yes?


You argue regulation is necessary to stop the abuse of labor in China, I argue that its not our business to regulate the Chinese economy. If the people of China get fed up with the tyranny, they will act to change it themselves.

In the mean time, our government could do a lot to discourage the labor abuses that don't involve regulating business. In fact deregulating production industry here would help enormously by drastically reducing domestic production costs. Tax cuts would also be a huge benefit to domestic producers. Allowing interest rates to rise so the country can capitalize its savings would be huge.

Right now our country is buying everything it needs on a gigantic credit card. All this credit is another massive cause of our depressed manufacturing sector. When you buy everything you need on credit, you don't have to make it yourself. Inflated dollars is the US primary export.

We give China inflated debt, they give us real goods and services in return. We aren't forced to make anything ourselves.



Originally posted by lordtyp0
As for the rest: The government is to blame for the unemployment because they control the financial sector. Yet: Our banking and monetary system (ie: The financial sector) is run by a private banking cartel. And this private banking cartel is responsible for the recent financial woes. The answer to these issues is to... give more power to the private sectors that control everything and ... encourage 'free market'. The contradiction here is: If the companies control the government-you can't get any more freedom than that.

The Laissez-faire concept is noble and all that. But it fails because of inerrant corruption if there is no regulation. You seem to imply that if I force all competition out, or have the money muscle to buy them and the result is I am the last one standing: Awesome, I win, I control it all because I played by the rules.

But the Government placing regulations so I can't buy smaller companies to become the only provider of Service X, well that is bad because it is an artificial monopoly (somehow), I am guessing this logic is because the regulation would favor a smaller company and halt takeovers.

This is akin to a schoolyard bully. Stronger, faster-whatever, beating all the kids around. He wins, he is DA BOMB YO!!! Until a teacher comes over and thumps him. Giving the other kids an unfair advantage and allowing them to prosper.

That is, if I am interpreting your thesis statement right, it's getting difficult to tell.


There is aboslutely nothing Laissez-faire about our banking and financial system.

Nothing.

Free markets demand sound money, interest rates that are controlled by the market, and money creation that is controlled by the market.

Free market banking has no moral hazards.

Our system of banking is completely Marxist in every sense of the word.


[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Inflation is taxation, without legislation. ~ a wiseman

Karl Marx gets into Communism and Capitalism.

I find Capitalism just as bad as Communism, because of its subtly it uses to remove people from their homes at the end of a "Market Cycle" and steals all the money they put into a home-mortgage.

The democracies, capitalism, communism, facism, imperialism....

I don't know about you but i am getting tired of all the ism's we have around the world, something needs to change.



[edit on 29-12-2009 by Quickfix]





top topics
 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join