It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unregulated Capitalism does not give opportunity to all

page: 12
42
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
You're taking everything I'm saying entirely out of context.


I am addressing what you are posting.


Firstly, you cannot call something that isn't socialism, socialism. The public good is not socialism.


And what is a public good? One could argue that protection serves as public good, while many others would argue that healthcare is a public good. This is your personal definition here and you are making exceptions in your definition, which doesnt apply. The definition of socialism doesnt limit itself to any specific good or service as it is any government involvement nevertheless. You claim the service of protection and security is a public good but it is still a service managed by the government.

The federally managed postal service, which was among the services given to the federal government to manage in the constitution (1792) is another service. Its another government managed service that can also be found in private sectors. Its the use of socialist elements, even in the constitution, and little exceptions cannot change that fact.


Centralized POWER in government IS a bad thing,


Then what is the point of a central government that has no central power? A disorganized Union? How do we manage the military? Do you think the states manage the military indiviudally? Central powers were allocated to the federal government to manage the country and it was by none other than the constitution. You talk of "unconstitutional" and yet you ignore the constitutional powers directed to the federal government. Limited central powers, by central power nevertheless.

This Union is nothing without a central government with some form of central power.


Our military is not a socialist organization


You dont personally see it as a socialist organization, but the way it is managed and funded is through a socialist concept. It is a service to the american people managed and funded by the government.


The Experiment with socialism is FAILING.


Socialism will always play an important part in government, regardless of whether it labels itself "constitutional" or "republican" or what not. Government will always manage some service and hold some form of central power, otherwise the concept of government is pointless.




posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Ok now you and I are coming up on the same page. I also reference court precedence and previous legislation(counting only legislation bound by the Constitution) To make my case for certain places that the Federal government can exercise discretion. Health is not one of them as court cases have ruled that it is beyond the scope of Federal powers. The Federal Government is central but it is bound by the Constitution and limited in it's scope. The military is among those responsibilities, but the states are, in fact, largely responsible for their defense(hence the 2nd amendment) and the enforcement of their laws. The FBI was created to deal with interstate issues but has since overstepped it's boundaries thanks to recent legislation. Another example can be found in the FCC. They were originally created to maintain separation between civilian, law enforcement, and military communications...Today they tell us what is and is not offensive and take actions against anyone who dares speak plainly or crudely thus violating, at the Federal Level, the first amendment. Socialism is an established concept, but it cannot be applied to all aspects of governance.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by projectvxn]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
Health is not one of them as court cases have ruled that it is beyond the scope of Federal powers.


I had not been addressing your healthcare debate because for the moment I am not interested in that specifically for this thread.


The federal Government is central but it is bound by the Constitution and limited in it's scope.


The government has been granted certain central powers to manage the nation by the original constitution. You clearly stated your standing against the government having any central powers. You also claimed that it doesnt work, even though the concept of have a central government in the country is that very thing.


The military is among those responsibilities, but the states are, in fact, largely responsible for their defense(hence the 2nd amendment) and the enforcement of their laws.


Congress, part of the federal government, has been granted by the original constitution to manage the military:


To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;


To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


Your argument still doesnt change the fact that the military is government managed, publically funding and services to the public is that of the socialist concept. It doesnt matter if its constitutional, it is still a socialist element. Public capital from the people distributed by the government into the military to perform services for the people, just like the police, just the postal service. Its socialist. You are essentially arguing against concept that has formed a basis in our own constitution and in the rest of the worlds governments.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Those aren't "Socialist" concepts though. There is a big difference between Constitutional discretion in public welfare as they pertain ONLY to the scope of authority granted, and assumed authority through arbitrary government mandate which is in fact, a central tenet of Socialism-The socioeconomic theory proper, not the arbitrary meaning you're using to describe certain aspects of Constitutional authority.

In our Constitution, this authority is very limited as it is, in fact, the states responsibility, individually and according to their needs, to manage welfare for the people residing in those states, should they choose. The Constitution also explicitly states that we are to use a Republican form of government, not a socialist structure, not a monarchy, but a Constitutional Representative Republic.

Socialism is a form of governance, it is a centralized socioeconomic theory, as is fascism and communism, and it is a bad one when applied in it's entirety. People use the word socialism to describe Constitutionally mandated and authorized responsibilities of the government, but apparently do not understand what True Socialism entails.

I bring up the Constitutionality of the Military because it is pertinent to this discussion, and you brought it up first.

I used health care only as an example.

I believe the central Federal Government should be limited to it's Constitutional Scope. It is not there to tell me how to live, what to eat, what to drive, what to defend myself with, and what I can do with my body.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by projectvxn]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Those aren't "Socialist" concepts though.


Socialism is any government involvement in goods or services and we have seen examples of the government here managing and executing public funds to some of these services. You argued that "public services" are an acception and I said they are services never the less. The government is using and distributing public funds to maintain a service to the people through defence, through fire protection and through postal services which is socialist. These are legitimate social functions written in the constitution and introduced during the time of the founding fathers.


I believe the central Federal Government should be limited to it's Constitutional Scope. It is not there to tell me how to live


But the federal government does tell you how to live through the form of laws. They may be good laws in your eyes, but they dictating to the public for the greater good and to avoid a state of nature. We can argue the state governments enforce the laws, but the federal government has been granted powers in upholding these laws as well. The government, state or federal, is dictating to you where you can and cannot live, where you can and cannot drive, what you do in public and what you cannot practice for a living.

I will be sure to look back and reply to more of your comments later on projectvxn.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





There is nothing wrong with laws that detail how someone who violates the rights of others is dealt with. That's not telling me how to live, that telling me there are consequences for my actions.


And on the first note, tell that to the Cubans. 100% will agree in polite company, of course.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
There is nothing wrong with laws that detail how someone who violates the rights of others is dealt with. That's not telling me how to live, that telling me there are consequences for my actions.


You are right, there is nothing wrong with that, infact we want the governments to enforce these laws. But the Federal government is limiting us by where we choose to do, so it is limiting our lives and dictating to us in one way or another. The constitution granted those powers to the government to do so for the good of society.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by projectvxn
There is nothing wrong with laws that detail how someone who violates the rights of others is dealt with. That's not telling me how to live, that telling me there are consequences for my actions.


You are right, there is nothing wrong with that, infact we want the governments to enforce these laws. But the Federal government is limiting us by where we choose to do, so it is limiting our lives and dictating to us in one way or another. The constitution granted those powers to the government to do so for the good of society.


Wait...I am a bit confused by this statement. Are you suggesting that the federal government was granted authority by Constitution to limit the rights of the People?



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
In fact, thanks to the efforts of lobbyists we've seen what 0% government control looks like:

Enron
Worldcom
etc.
etc.


I'm trying to imagine your definition of 30% regulation on Enron:

0% = What, 300,000 pages of law for Enron? I'll go ahead and guess that there were 300,000 pages of marketplace regulations telling Enron what to do.
1% = 1.2 million pages of law (4x the 0% figure, assuming you rounded down to 0%)
30% = 36 million pages of law

So in your opinion, 36 million pages of law would be just enough. That would be a truly wonderful ideal world for your typical marketplace regulation lover. Yep, there could be 290 million lawyers, all of whom who would quickly starve to death, bossing around 10 million workers would would all literally die of heart attacks from being told so many contradictory orders.

Or maybe you meant there were not enough people enforcing the regulation. Right...

0% = What, 200,000 regulators
1% = 800,000 regulators (since the 0% must have been a rounded down figure)
30% = 24 million regulators.

Or maybe the problem is that you are not the one and charge and if just you were in charge of the SEC everything would have been great. Uh yeah, those workers of yours who get paid top dollar to leech off taxpayers who would be right under you laugh at your suggestion they have to actually do any real work, given they are in a union and you'd have to go through hell just to get a single one of them to do their job right. And you only get to deal with that problem after you've dealt with the whole fascism problem where in reality as head of the SEC you are merely a figurehead ruled by not-so-shadowy people like Obama, and also shadowy people who are seeing to it you do things their way (or else...).



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
you are absolutely correct. Unregulated Capitalism is a very distructive force. Properly regulated industries is good for the populous and gives a level playing field for those engaged in the industry.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


Well brother, finally I am responding to your most excellent post a few pages back. So good was it that it required I think about it some and even go back to Smith's Wealth of Nations, (still as boring as it ever was) and a few other materials so that I could reply intelligently and offer a reasonable response.

Before I do so, I can't help but first comment on the feeling of kinship I have felt with you since the first time you and I locked horns. Coming to learn you are in Ireland I think explains the kinship I feel with you. I have never been to Ireland, the home country of my ancestors but hope to get over there some day. Not to rely upon their health care packages, of course, but to see the beautiful landscape and to share a pint or two with those who tend to all have a touch of the poet in them.

Now, to your post. First let me say, that I am pleased to know that you do not have to worry about the expense of health care, like we here in the States do. I do not have health care at the moment, and it has been rare exceptions when I did have health care. I worked for a large casino in Nevada for a while and they supplied full dental and medical as a perk and that was nice. Of course, I was much younger then and didn't really need the insurance, but it was nice of the casino to give it to me.

This casino did not give me health insurance because they were required to do so by law or regulation and apparently they just thought it was sound business practice to take care of their employees and do what they could on their part to keep their employees healthy. Go figure, a business that would engage in such practices without being forced to do so. Hell, a corporation no less. Of course, corporations are in a far better position to make such practice than smaller businesses which is where I had spent the majority of my time working.

Health care in the U.S. is now an expensive proposition and dental alone has become a thorn in my side as I age and require more work done, for quite a pretty penny. Not that I find penny's all that pretty, except for when they are all spent on dental work with none left over to eat and pay other bills with. One of the things I have noticed, not having health or even dental insurance, is that many dentist seem to have less interest in cash paying customers who lack insurance. All most as a matter of course, the receptionist will ask, if I am new to that office, what insurance have.

There is a look of disappointment and even skepticism when I inform her, it is almost always a her, that I have none. In fact, they will always give me a chart that lists what insurance policies they expect and recommend I consider getting some insurance. I am taking the time to explain this, because I have long suspected that one of the reasons health care has skyrocketed in the U.S. is because so many people have insurance, and since the direct relationship between doctor and patient has been replaced with a middle man, the cost has risen.

I also think there is a real problem of overcharging for services when the perception is that it is a major corporation that can more than afford to pay the cost. Conversely, there is also a problem where insurance companies will deny essential programs as not viable, but this is a different issue, as just because an insurance company won't pay for something doesn't mean a patient can't find other options to fund the option.

Insurance companies won't pay for cosmetic applications in dentistry, and this can be expensive. Insurance is insurance and for the longest time, the industry as a whole was viewed as usury. It is a form of speculation which is a complex issue that many people don't take the time to understand or consider. Indeed, there are many who have invested in the stock market through 401k's and other programs that are now incensed that their investments have waned rather than yield a profit, somehow thinking that risk was not at all a factor in such an investment.

One of the greatest problems, at least in the U.S., and what led to so many people opting for IRA's and 401k's, was that the Fed had for so long suppressed interest rates, below the rate of inflation, that it was not at all prudent to save ones money in a bank. Savings for many years was considered to be the surest and smartest way to build equity, that along with purchasing bonds and treasury notes, but that all changed after '72 when Nixon took the dollar off of the "gold standard" and allowed the Federal Reserve to begin issuing fiat money.

The fiat money that has so undermined the U.S. currency coupled with suppressed interest rates encouraged people to stop saving, invest in riskier prospects or buy goods as consumers and not worry about savings, instead mortgaging homes and living life in debt. Hardly sound business practices, but it is what happened none the less.

Anyway, on to the self destructive nature of business. I continue to argue in this thread that capitalism is predicated on massive competition which lends itself to smaller and midsized businesses than it does multinational conglomerates in the form of corporations. Before getting into the bubbles you mentioned and the bailouts that should have never happened, I will first jump to pointing out the plenty of small to midsized businesses that do work and responsibly so. Mostly because I have limited space in this post and addressing the bubbles and bailouts will require more space than I have left in this post.

My parents owned restaurants since I was eight years old and did so for a number of years. I worked for them when I was a child and when I got old enough to establish my own independence, and being the rebel I was, by the time I was 14 years old, I began working for their competitors. Mostly because they paid better than my parents did. (damn slave wages!) Not that my parents didn't offer competitive wages for non family members, just us kids who were the serfs.


I worked as a bus boy and graduated to a waiter, and became a bartender when I turned 21 years of age. Every restaurant and bar I worked for were small to midsized businesses that acted responsibly and the owners did not strike me as being greedy at all. However, I did work with many waiters, waitresses and other bartenders who often stole food or from the till, justifying their actions because they viewed our employers as greedy and evil. Businesses have a serious problem with theft, much of it coming from their own employees.

When I first moved to L.A., it was during a recession and bartending work did not come as quickly as I would have liked, so I found myself in sales, telemarketing mostly, which could lead to greedy employers who would many times decide that their salesman were making too much and reduce the amount of commissions paid. Any time this happened, I and many other salesman/women would walk away. Most of those owners and proprietors would usually come crawling our way begging us to return and agreeing to pay or meet our demands. Capitalism baby!

With the remaining characters I will list small to midsized businesses that act responsibly and that far outweigh the list you provided to counter your claim that business are prey to greed that leads to collapse.

1.) Cafe's, restaurants, and saloons
2.) Landscaping and pool services
3.) Plumbing
4.) Auto mechanics and body shops
5.) Shoe sellers, repairs and cobblers
6.) Book sellers
7.) Carpentry and furniture stores
8.) Electricians
9.) Bakery's
10.) Neighborhood grocers and farmer's markets
11.) Private schools, and private tutors
12.) Doctors of general practice and vetenarians
13.) Jewelers
14.) Clothiers
15.) Florists
16.) Computer repair shops, and other such repairs
17.) Tobacco shops and liquor stores

I'm out of space, but this should do.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


The only thing that doesn't give equal opportunity to all is "regulated" capitalism.

Capitalism by definition requires an equal playing field to work correctly.

The only people that can make the playing field unequal is government.

By definition, "regulated" capitalism is making markets unequal.

It is an oxymoron to say you are for equality then demand markets be made unequal through the playing of favorites or redistribution of wealth.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

The only thing that doesn't give equal opportunity to all is "regulated" capitalism.



Adam Smith never intended capitalism to be completely unregulated.

I also wonder how he would have dealt with multinational corporations and the move to globalism. After all, the "Wealth of Nations" assumes that the fate of a business and its owners is tied somehow to the nation it is operating in.

The selective pressure of the invisible hand only really applies if everyone in the market is operating by the same rule set. Globalization is allowing larger companies to operate by the laxer rules of third world developing nations, where they may or may not have used force or bribery to influence the government there to create favorable rules for them.

I dont think the problem is as simple as "regulate" "dont regulate." Of course there needs to be regulation, even Adam Smith recognized this, the question is what kind of regulation, by whom, and how can we make it apply to everyone equally, so that the "perfect competition" is allowed to flourish. How can this be made to work in a global economy? Can it? Or does it require a New World Order, (one governing body) and if it does, it that what is best for people, humans, as well as businesses?



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Adam Smith isn't Mises or Heyak.

A clear understanding of property rights and money is critical to seeing the big picture of unregulated natural free markets.

A simple way to look at their arguments is to eliminate the use of force from everything.

If something requires the force of government it is bad, unless its to protect civil or property rights, such as to prosecute fraud or remove trespassers.

"Regulation" isn't necessary anywhere, only the prosecution of fraud.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


The only thing that doesn't give equal opportunity to all is "regulated" capitalism.

Capitalism by definition requires an equal playing field to work correctly.

The only people that can make the playing field unequal is government.


So then you assume that the corporations and the wealthy, in the business of making profits can be more trusing in maintaining opportunity for the minority classes below to join their ranks, as opposed to the government that is elected by the people, and held accountable by them? Im sorry but I pritty sure that assumption is flawed. And no, the people in government are not the only ones that can make the playing field unequal. When you have afew competitors left over from an economic state of nature to dictate the market prices and competitor barriers, they will dictate as much or more as any government can do.

While I agree government isnt perfect, by the least they are watched and held to scrutiny over their actions, as for the corporations that control and dictate alot of the markets, in an unregulated capitalistic system nobody can hold them accountable or simply "vote them out". In an unregulated capitalist system the corporations dimishing opportunities and reserving their spot in the top by creating barriers cannot be held accountable.



By definition, "regulated" capitalism is making markets unequal.


When opportunities are protected for all, and regulation applies to all, its not unequal.

The corporations are no more trusted to dictate to the people.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


You have effectively pointed out the difference between the current plethora of regulations that have plagued the U.S. market place and the regulations that Smith was referring to when you bring up the "rule set". It is not business that should be regulated but the rules of the game. All games come with rules and all rules serve as regulation, and this is what Smith was referring to.

Since Smith laid out three major tenets of capitalism, one of them being massive competition, it is doubtful that Smith would have viewed multinational corporations as playing within the same rule set as small to midsized businesses do. Some will call anti-trust laws a regulation of business but they are not, they are a regulation of the rules of capitalism. This is where regulation should be focused, and not on the businesses themselves.

We have businesses that have become "too big to fail" because the rules of the game have been discarded in favor of a different game, that isn't capitalism and it is highly disingenuous to call a market place riddled with thousands of regulations a free market. The bogus licensing schemes local and state governments engage in are highly regulatory practices that work in favor of the corporation and against the small business. It is, in fact, the rise of the corporation, that has so diluted and polluted the playing field, and changed the game.

Corporations are fictitious statutory entities that exist by grant of the state, and as such, the state has every right to regulate these corporations, as the corporations themselves have no natural right to existence. Not so, for the individual business person who endeavors to operate in a market place, who has every right to do so, and should not have to ask any state or government permission to do so.

As long as it is merely the rules of the game that serve as regulation, then the playing field remains level and all players have the same opportunities to win or loose depending upon their own skills and determination. When those regulations become something different, and instead of keeping the rules well established and understood, act in ways that constantly change the rules and favor entities that are by their very nature anti-capitalistic, that the game becomes something entirely different and is no longer capitalism.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
So then you assume that the corporations and the wealthy, in the business of making profits can be more trusing in maintaining opportunity for the minority classes below to join their ranks, as opposed to the government that is elected by the people, and held accountable by them?


yep.

Government is the tool of the wealthy, not the tool of the working man.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

If something requires the force of government it is bad, unless its to protect civil or property rights, such as to prosecute fraud or remove trespassers.



If gross inequity already exists, due to the systems we have had in the past and present, how would allowing force to be used to protect property rights work to promote a free market? Particularly since some property we recognize as being "owned" was originally unfairly taken?

I do understand that property rights can help avoid the "tragedy of the commons" and other issues that make regulation necessary, but how do we begin with a level playing field by enforcing past inequities and thefts?



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Lets take a couple of case studies.

General Electric.

Where would GE be today without government?

WSJ reports
GE has high hopes for the strategy. It says that over the next three years or so it could bring in as much as $192 billion from projects funded by governments around the globe, such as electric-grid modernization, renewable-energy generation and health-care technology upgrades.

They'd be bankrupt and out of business if it wasn't for government.

How about GM?

Oh yeah, they got bailed out too.

How about McDonald Douglas / Ratheyon / General Dynamics / etc..

yep, total fascist powerhouses. All big due solely to government.

How about Goldman Sachs?

They just looted the public for 13 billion by having the Fed bailout AIG and then having AIG pay them back with tax payer loot for 100 cents on the dollar for their worthless CDOs. - all government approved. Such a deal would have been impossible without government.

How about Fannie and Freddie?

800 billion requested in tax payer loot

Oil companies?

No one can drill for oil - no one - without government approval. No one is allowed to compete against US oil companies. If you want to start drilling for oil under your own oil company banner, good f'n luck. They are huge due solely to government.

Go try to get a permit to drill for oil once. My friend has a massive track of oil land out in OK. He can't touch a lick of the oil there. Totally locked off by federal regulations. This is true all over the US. No drilling allowed.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Fixing gross inequities is not the job of government.

Fixing gross inequities is the job of the market.

In a free market, all profits are reduced to zero over time.

Always.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join