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: 9
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Guidance.Is.Internal
Well if you like regulated Capitalism, then you'll love it here in the States.


We have gone through two decades of constant deregulation to the breaking point where we find ourselves in corporatism and you refer this as "regulated capitalism"?

Tell me did we have more regulation or less regulation over the last 30 years? Before this administration we essentially had 20 years of conservatism in the whitehouse and 8years of a more liberal-centrist policy and even under that 8years where Clinton was in office, deregulation of the markets still continued. The result was not pritty.

We certainly were in a very free form of capitalism for the last few decades and the result is for all to see.




posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TranscendencyNow
 


Thank you. Being called a citizen in the United States used to mean that the citizen was in charge of their govt, electing representatives to give voice to citizen needs.

The change to disregard 'citizen' in favor of 'consumer', a business model whereby we "consume" govt services and are stakeholders, etc, works where business (big business, corporation, transnational corps) are in charge in Washington. Under corporatism "We the People" have a "Boss", not a POTUS, and "buy" what is "advertised" as being good for us (war, domestic/foreign policy, etc.) but in reality may not be good for us.

Basically, citizen, at least in the US, is active, but consumer is passive. However, it used to be even consumers were "activists", but that's been made out to be a convenient dirty word. Discussion/debate is kept to a minimal, as how much discussion, let alone debate, should take place before buying a product...not much, just buy it because you've been told it works/is good for you/will make your life better.


reply to post by Georgism Through Tolstoy
 


Thank you. "Why" is a most powerful word to use, which probably accounts for it being the most discouraged. "Why" holds the possibility of thinking differently, opening the mind to knew ideas, stopping status quo. Want to control people? Teach them that "why" is bad, discourage its use, and punish them for even daring ask why.


reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Yes. It would be best if the US can be a model for making quantitative gains using 21st, 22cd!, century technology. It would be best if trade does not exploit a country's people or resources.

To me, it seems that after the great corporate gains post WW2, the American corporations turned on Americans in their quest for international dominance, leaving the nation that helped nurture their start emaciated. It seems as if we've forgotten how to be prosperous outside of religion. What has taken decades to achieve will take years to undo. Unfortunately, the window of opportunity is closing.

In this increasingly complex world, we can best help ourselves by helping others. Fair trade and trade that benefits more than the wealthy of a nation is what will advance us all.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Yes, I understand your argument, but you still did not offer a replacement plan. Avoid why it doesnt work, lets take that as a given for the sake of argument. What should we replace it with?

Edit to add; I do note that you propose regulated capitalism, but explain to me what that looks like.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
We have gone through two decades of constant deregulation to the breaking point where we find ourselves in corporatism and you refer this as "regulated capitalism"?


Constant de-regulation? What do you think Congress does every year, year after year? What do you think is in those bills? Less laws? Less spending? Have you ever bothered to look at how the Code of Federal Regulations balloons year after year? Or even your local statutes? And this is just a shadow of the entire body of law in the U.S. In fact, nobody really knows how many laws are on the books any more. Legal experts have literally lost track. Amazing - the whole idea behind the original system of law was to prevent the government from perpetrating atrocities against its own people .. and it was contained in 10 amendments.

Why do you think banks were lending to people they knew couldn't make the payments? You think banks want to be saddled with a #ty house in the ghetto? Don't be an idiot. They were under incredible pressure from progressive groups and the government itself to lend to risky prospects.

You wanted regulated capitalism, and you've got it. Employers have to pay half of your payroll taxes, have to provide unemployment for dismissed employees, have to deal with rediculous tort laws, have to employ lawyers and accountants to wade through the ever-increasing myriad of regulations. Half your state taxes go to education (which is an embarassment), over half the federal taxes go to entitlement programs. If you want to build a new facility, you have to go through a painful permit process including drainage studies, environmental impact studies, zoning requirements .. all in the interest of protecting the community. You've got a government that has been pressuring lending institutions to make bad decisions. Affirmative action laws to ensure that people are hired and promoted based on race rather than ability. Again - you wanted regulated capitalism .. regulated to help the people (or so you thought) how do you like them apples?



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
Plus, you can't rely on the consumers to do what is best for the society or country... each man will only do what is good for them. There will be no social conscience or doing what is good for the "common good." Also, consumers are easily fooled by sophisticated advertising and mind-manipulation techniques, such as subliminal messages, and conversational hypnosis. This system breeds the very worst features of mankind, namely self-centered perspective, greed, pride, manipulation, lying, and irresponsible corporatism.

On the other hand, socialism kills the human spirit, and zaps the will to advance or innovate. It does nothing to enable individual progress or reaching one's potential.

The only system that will work over the long-haul is a well-balanced mixture of both extremes, for only that kind of system fulfills the needs of both the individuals and the collective.

Any workable system must highly encourage individual fulfillment and success, in the context of building societal progress, which must also be defined by the people themselves. Once the people decide the framework for how the societal needs should be met, regulations should be in place to ensure compliance. If society wants to change how things are done, there should be an inviolable and accessible mechanism for doing so.

In other words, what kind of society do the people want? Do they want an advanced and beautiful infrastructure? Do they want to give all people the opportunity for advanced education? Do they want to support artistic endeavors for the beautification of the society? Do they want to ensure that all people have a minimum standard of living? Do they want life to be protected? How do they want criminals to be dealt with?

[edit on 10-1-2010 by downisreallyup]


Every transaction in the marketplace under pure capitalism is win-win. Look at any random item in the marketplace. If that item were sold for 25 cents more, chances are, you would still buy it. Therefore, you are getting a fair deal or even a good one. People who purchase something from a capitalist marketplace only do so when they believe they will be better off after the transaction is completed. Likewise, people who sell something at a capitalist marketplace only do so if they believe they will be better off after the transaction. Therefore, capitalism consists purely of win-win scenarios for everyone who is directly involved in each transaction.

There are of course people who may have been effected by creation of the product or service who were not involved however. Perhaps pollution or some other harmful effect on society was done in the process. Well, there is good news. No additional regulations at all are needed to protect those people because of something called lawsuits. If someone is polluting, they can be sued for damages that the pollution caused. That is always the best way to handle each and every bodily harm caused by the marketplace! So if you create a marketplace regulation designed to replace suing, you are replacing something optimal with something less optimal.

You name any market regulation designed for the common good, and I'll quite easily tell you why the regulation actively works against the common good while throwing gum into the justice system since the best method of resolving harmful marketplace activities is always lawsuits rather than additional regulations.

Get it? You don't need all these ridiculous regulations (any at all in fact) because practically everything that should have been made illegal already was made illegal in the USA by 1777. And while you may be offended by the laws of 1777, its because of the laws that DID exist, not those that didn't. Laws like excluding women from the voting process. So again, for any marketplace regulation that is created, I can concisely and clearly prove that the law is harmful to the common good.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Guidance.Is.Internal
Constant de-regulation? What do you think Congress does every year, year after year? What do you think is in those bills? Less laws? Less spending?


The amount of spending from the government does not necessarily have to do with the deregulation. During the Reagan and Bush years spending over military was dramatically increased. Just over the last 8years before this administration over $1 trillion in extra funds were added to the military and this excludes the cost of the Iraq war, and even at that the annual military budget had been increasing. I am not even counting the black ops projects where money just dissappears.

The massive tax cuts from the Bush era alone added anther $850 billion and due to Bushes trickle down system the wealthy gained the most out of it. So the government was during the time of Bush, making it easier for the corporations by lifting much of their obligations in paying their taxes like everybody else in the country.

From the 1970's and so forth with the arrival of Nixon deregulation gained much favourability. Since there has been constant deregulation of the market in all sectors (transportation, finance, communications etc). Even when deregulation wasnt enough, corporations i.e the guys already to the top, recieved corporate tax cuts, like Bush signing the $136 billion corporate tax cuts few years back. So not were the corporations only benefitting from deregulation, they were getting an easier and easier load off in taxes and in their ethical obligations.


Have you ever bothered to look at how the Code of Federal Regulations balloons year after year?


The code of federation regulations were a joke under the Bush administration. He didnt even take them seriously when he was young and in his hay days. It was introduced back in 1996 and when Bush came in, contrary to the excuses of conservatives today, deregulation continued on with the code having little effect in balancing it out. The only significant regulations that really came through the code of federal regulations were towards the end of the Bush administration when the economy finally tanked. Your complaining about the regulation in response to the 2008 collapse of the markets following 38 years of constant deregulation and even then Bush to further relaxed laws on the environment and consumer protection.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
You spend a paragraph complaining about spending under Bush, proving my point. Regulations made that spending possible. Those regulations enabled taxation of individuals and their businesses. They permitted the government to leverage itself so that it now has over $100 trillion in unfunded liability. They finally permitted the government to just print cash when all else fails.

You'd have to be living in a cave to believe that the government has undergone DE-regulation in the past 38 years, or any span of time for that matter. The body of law grows every year. Government spending grows every year. The few acts of Congress which supposedly de-regulated were simply crafted to benefit those who payed for the legislation. Again - this is a problem people like you have created. You give the government power to choose favorites, just like Bush did. Just like Clinton did.

Just recently, I can think of the new trucking laws that require truckers to rest after 8 hours of driving, no matter what. Or what about the Sarbannes-Oxley Act of 2002 which imposed a tremendous amount of over. on medium and large-sized companies? EPA regulations on carbon emissions make it nearly impossible to operate coal power plants without securing big financing for scrubber units. The IBC 2009 building codes are going to make fire sprinklers mandatory in practically all new homes (regardless of whether you can afford them or not).

Just look at what you've written. You can't even distinguish Georgie Bush from capitalism. To you, they are the same .. and this is precisely why arguing with you is pointless. Not only that, but the Code of Federal Regulations has been around well before 1996. It used to be known as the Federal Register (iirc) and before that who knows. That's where most of the federal regulations are codified (but not all). Fifty titles each thousands of pages long. Growing by leaps and bounds every year, of course. You call that DE-regulation?

[edit on 10-1-2010 by Guidance.Is.Internal]

[edit on 10-1-2010 by Guidance.Is.Internal]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
This is a fantastic t., and one that really needed to happen. It has mostly taken the course of an honest debate, which occurs when the subject matter is something very important. It's certainly in good hands here.

Although I have found Ayn Rand's literature immensely enjoyable, I would not want to live in an Ayn Rand world.

As I have stated before, I don't believe we need unrestricted capitalism. Our current form is no longer serving it's citizens in the way it was intended.
It has, and continues to destroy so much about our country, that should be good, fair, honest and decent.

Now. I have to decide whether to pick up where I left off in reading this thread, or simply put a hot poker through my eyes.

I'm thinking the poker might be less painful.

Joking....

[edit on 1/10/2010 by ladyinwaiting]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Guidance.Is.Internal
You spend a paragraph complaining about spending under Bush, proving my point. Regulations made that spending possible.


Bush increased debt to manage the size of spending his administration did this is why he rose debt by $5 trillion. Regulation had no part in it as this was debt he was increasing. If you can find me where regulation contributed significantly please be my guest.

The corporations recieved $136 billion in tax cuts from the Bush administration and an addition the wealthy individuals of these firms held the most advantage in gaining from the nearly $1 trillion in tax cuts. How can you argue regulations cause Bush to spend more when he was dead drunk on deregulating the markets? The overspending from Bush administration on the military industrial complex had nothing to do with regulation. Even before that deregulation of the housing industry under Clinton pushing by the Republicans followed on the housing bubble.

In 2001 we all saw the Enron scandal and this was able to happen because senate banking committee chairman Phil Graham relaxed oversight capabilities of the SEC. There are quiet a number of significant examples where massive deregulation has taken place. Ironically before the 1928/29 great depresssion the Republicans had dominated the government and for much that time the government kept away and just allowed businesses to run free.

There are a number a breadcrumbs leading to the major source of these financial crises and that is deregulation. It doesnt work, and the fact none of you could cite be a workable free market system is more the so evidence. You claim its never been done and thats all the more evidence to show your claims of this system being workable is just theory with no facts to them. Its no wonder Reagan, Nixon, Bush and Ford never dared implement this system. They know its BS but they will cater to their audience to get the votes.


Those regulations enabled taxation of individuals and their businesses. They permitted the government to leverage itself so that it now has over $100 trillion in unfunded liability.


$100 trillion? Thats a big figure to require a rather large source. Wheres your source?


They finally permitted the government to just print cash when all else fails.


Damn straight they printing cash like heck because this financial crises caught everybody off guard. It aint right but its an example of how the financial crises finally hit everybody when we least expected it.


You'd have to be living in a cave to believe that the government has undergone DE-regulation in the past 38 years,


Denial denial denail. When all else fails, just demand it was peoples fault because they didnt move any further right.


Just recently, I can think of the new trucking laws that require truckers to rest after 8 hours of driving, no matter what. Or what about the Sarbannes-Oxley Act of 2002 which imposed a tremendous amount of over. on medium and large-sized companies?


Which was inacted as a response to Enron. You see the regulations when responding to the faults of unregulated capitalism.


Federal Register (iirc)


Which was proposed in response to the great depression. There have not been significant efforts to regulate in comparison to the massive deregulation of the financial industries and other markets. This is why alot of the times the bills, acts concerning regulation have only been implemented in response to the failiures of unregulated capitalism, and even then theres no significant effort to enforce these laws. When Reagan took office he cut the pages of the federal register to nearly half per years greatly allowing the markets to go about with less oversight.

Bush snr and Bush jnr followed on by Reagan to change and lessen the powers of those new rules that were released by the federal register during the 70's, 80's.
sundaygazettemail.com...

So you see, you either reference me regulations in response to financial crises as the result of deregulation, only for the most part to be either weakened/ modified or removed.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
After reading through the whole thread OP, I will have to ask, exactly what regulations have caused the problems in the economy right now?

What regulations do you think need to be instituted?

Do you think more regulations of small business is necessary?

Do you feel the Federal Regulations of immigration need to be enforced?

Do you feel the actions of the Congress over the last few years had anything to do with the predicament we are in right now-in regards to mandated loans for people unable to pay off said loans?

Do you feel the Federal Reserve and it's control of the monetary system have any faults in regard to the situation?

Do you feel the unsustainable debt referred to by President Obama has anything to do with the problems we are facing? If so, a balanced budget requirement by our congress, good or bad idea?

Has the bail outs of unprofitable companies such as the car companies and banks further the problem or has it helped?

Can a government borrow money and then inject it into an economy with a loss of 50% value due to the interest and the management of that infusion help an economy or hurt it?


Just a few questions to touch base on to see your point of view.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Source:

www.usatoday.com...

That article quotes $59 trillion in unfunded liability, which is one of the lower numbers I've seen.

Anyway, did you not read anything I wrote? Regulation has everything to do with overspending. Where on Earth do you think they got the money in the first place? Taxes = regulation

Regarding ENRON: Ever wonder how one company could have so much influence over a state's power production? Simple. The state doesn't have much power production. They haven't built a new power plant there in over 30 years, and their electricity demand has become unquenchable. That's why they built the DC intertie from Cali up to the PNW. REGULATION made it impossible to build a nuclear plant, let alone a hydro or coal unit anywhere within their borders. The result? A company like Enron can shut off the lights because there is NO COMPETITION. You've got regulation to thank for that. An independently operated power plant would have made a fortune selling to Californians when generation dropped off. Stop looking at the politics and start looking at the root cause. The technology is there to prevent blackouts from ever occuring again .. the government just has to get out of the way.

You've already lost the battle. Capitalism is just free men trading with one another. Examples like Enron only prove my point. Regulation created an environment where corporate monsters could operate unchallenged by adversaries. Enron thrived on inefficiency. They thrived on an artificially imposed shortage of energy.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Guidance.Is.Internal
 


Guidance, I heard that Enron was where the whole carbon credits scam was hatched.

Do you think that the next bubble is going to be created with that, to try and maintain the economy by the government?

I cannot see how trading something that has no production value, is going to help anything but the redistribution of wealth possible by our government.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





www.politico.com...


Good thread...although I'm not going to read all 9 pages.


I agree that capitalism needs a cap...i've posted it many times. You know as well as I do that the complete lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws has severely hurt this country...as well as our TERRIBLE trade laws. To me that is the largest issue causing the problems...that and not prosecuting those who have been responsible for the massive fraud that has happened of the last 9 years plus.

Things are going to change soon. The middle class (what is left of it) cannot handle much more of a beating. The middle class is supposed to be the most powerful voting block...as without a strong middle class this country is nothing.

Fair trade laws/increased tariffs on imports/enforce anti-trust laws.

That will kill the stranglehold international corporations have on our country and force them to either

A: Bring factories back here with decent wages.

or

B: Watch as small business thrive as they will be able to compete again and new large businesses will arise...making the middle class, wealth, and country stronger.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Honestly, you can only think of capitalism as a giant roulette wheel, sometimes through hard work or the luck of the draw you get lucky and get a.. Sometimes you can bust your A** and get nowhere, take all the classes you want, but in the end fail...but isn't that the basic structure of existence anyway? it just mimics the nature of the world. That is the truth. Some people just get extrememly lucky in life. I just got lucky and landed a peachy job with a fortune five hundred company, and it was really luck, let me tell you, and I have struggled all my life doing minial jobs all along the way. Just saying in the end I have come to realize it is just all a gamble. Plain and simple and that's how it will always be whether or not it's in capitalism, socialism, communisim or whatever else we would invent.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by ldyserenity]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
We need a hybrid system that MAXIMIZES freedom, opportunity and happiness!

Best,
Skunknuts

Hello,
My wife finds interesting stuff for me to read...
www.constitutionparty.com...
I haven't done all my homework on this site, but it seems kinda okee doree? Maybe I'm posting foolishly, I hope not...



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
[edit on 10-1-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest

Originally posted by downisreallyup
Plus, you can't rely on the consumers to do what is best for the society or country... each man will only do what is good for them. There will be no social conscience or doing what is good for the "common good." Also, consumers are easily fooled by sophisticated advertising and mind-manipulation techniques, such as subliminal messages, and conversational hypnosis. This system breeds the very worst features of mankind, namely self-centered perspective, greed, pride, manipulation, lying, and irresponsible corporatism.

On the other hand, socialism kills the human spirit, and zaps the will to advance or innovate. It does nothing to enable individual progress or reaching one's potential.

The only system that will work over the long-haul is a well-balanced mixture of both extremes, for only that kind of system fulfills the needs of both the individuals and the collective.

Any workable system must highly encourage individual fulfillment and success, in the context of building societal progress, which must also be defined by the people themselves. Once the people decide the framework for how the societal needs should be met, regulations should be in place to ensure compliance. If society wants to change how things are done, there should be an inviolable and accessible mechanism for doing so.

In other words, what kind of society do the people want? Do they want an advanced and beautiful infrastructure? Do they want to give all people the opportunity for advanced education? Do they want to support artistic endeavors for the beautification of the society? Do they want to ensure that all people have a minimum standard of living? Do they want life to be protected? How do they want criminals to be dealt with?

[edit on 10-1-2010 by downisreallyup]


Every transaction in the marketplace under pure capitalism is win-win. Look at any random item in the marketplace. If that item were sold for 25 cents more, chances are, you would still buy it. Therefore, you are getting a fair deal or even a good one. People who purchase something from a capitalist marketplace only do so when they believe they will be better off after the transaction is completed. Likewise, people who sell something at a capitalist marketplace only do so if they believe they will be better off after the transaction. Therefore, capitalism consists purely of win-win scenarios for everyone who is directly involved in each transaction.

There are of course people who may have been effected by creation of the product or service who were not involved however. Perhaps pollution or some other harmful effect on society was done in the process. Well, there is good news. No additional regulations at all are needed to protect those people because of something called lawsuits. If someone is polluting, they can be sued for damages that the pollution caused. That is always the best way to handle each and every bodily harm caused by the marketplace! So if you create a marketplace regulation designed to replace suing, you are replacing something optimal with something less optimal.

You name any market regulation designed for the common good, and I'll quite easily tell you why the regulation actively works against the common good while throwing gum into the justice system since the best method of resolving harmful marketplace activities is always lawsuits rather than additional regulations.

Get it? You don't need all these ridiculous regulations (any at all in fact) because practically everything that should have been made illegal already was made illegal in the USA by 1777. And while you may be offended by the laws of 1777, its because of the laws that DID exist, not those that didn't. Laws like excluding women from the voting process. So again, for any marketplace regulation that is created, I can concisely and clearly prove that the law is harmful to the common good.


Uh... not quite. Take the shop owner who sells a good product to the local town. He is happy and the people are happy. But, one day Wal-Mart builds a big super store a mile away, and guess what... no more shop owner. Capitalism is "Economic Evolution," which is really "Economic Anarchy" and in both evolution and anarchy you have "winners" and "losers"... you have survival of the fittest.

When you talk about capitalism you are only talking about the "eating and defecating" of the "consumer" organism, but you are not addressing the issues of species survival, namely the businesses themselves.

It is a proven fact that in any system of unregulated competition, where the most desirable traits out-live those that are not as desirable, there will be casualties as the stronger (luckier, smarter, brasher, better connected, richer) individuals launch a..

Both evolution and anarchy are systems that favor the fewer elite at the expense of the more numerous weaker. When it comes to the human race, we like this, because we can benefit directly from this slow process of improvement, and the losers are long dead, so there are no casualties. In anarchy, those who are strongest, with the best strength of words and guns, will dominate the rest, and since this process can happen quickly, there will be casualties along the way.

In like manner, unbridled capitalism does not favor the general population, but rather it favors those who are smartest, more cunning, and best connected with money and people. These then convince the masses to earn as much as they can, spend as much as they can, save as little as they can, and be happy all along the way... all for the purpose of "capitalizing" on the life, labor, and time of those weaker masses.

You are assuming that capitalism is played by benevolent people that know how to say "enough is enough", but that is just not the case by actual experience. I really don't care about your idealistic capitalism, because such a thing cannot exist as long as mankind has the heart he now has. Competition is good... for the winner... and the loser just has to suffer, which in reality makes the entire world suffer.

Only a system that allows for individual competition balanced by societal responsibility and benefit can work for any length of time... any other system will in fact self-destruct within a few hundred years or less.

This is not open to debate, since it is a law of logic and reason:

1) What is BEST for the individual in the short term is usually not BEST for the group in the long term. Maximizing local optimums usually cause a degradation in overall system performance.

2) Any degradation in overall group performance will have a negative impact on the individuals that make up that group.

Connect those two previous ideas logically and think about what it means.

It's like the example of a group of boy scouts walking on a path. If you put the fastest walker in front of the group, and the slowest walker in the back, which is the best case for the individuals, the group will suffer as it naturally spreads out. As time goes along, they will not be a group any more, and all the benefits of a group will be lost.

On the other hand, if you put the slowest walker in the front, which is not best for each individual, the group will stay together naturally. The group dynamics will be that the entire group will prodded along by the guy in the back to go as fast as they can, while still remaining a group over the long haul. Nobody, however, will be able to go faster than the slowest guy.

This is only an extreme illustration in order to show the principle of why regulation is needed in order to maintain a society.

Even in sports, you have competition with rules. What kind of game would it be if there was just competition but no rules at all? Without moral rules, a different kind of regulation will spring forth... a set of rules that are not moral at all...



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 





I have all ready answered your demand that I name one time in history where capitalism didn't need a working class in an earlier post by stating that there never has been a time in history where capitalism has been able to operate under its own tenets. There is no time in history when there was a free and unregulated market place. Certainly not in the U.S. since from the beginning, and the value of gold was fixed by government edict from that start. Your complaints are against oligopolism or corporatism and have nothing to do with capitalism except for the bill of goods you were sold by Marx. Furthermore, the "working class" is not bound to indentured servitude and can at any time break free of this "class" and strike out on their own and do business.


And if true capitalism was ever to take place, how do you suppose it would operate without a working class under the owners of the means of production? While every individual worker could potentially be a business owner, not everyone could own their own business at the same time. The majority under capitalism will also be subjected to exploitative wage slavery. It's true that a worker could stop working at any point but if they have to support a family and don't have any state or inherited money to burn on returning to school or looking for another job, is that still really a choice? A choice between homelessnes and starvation and wage slavery is not freedom. Some may have the money to invest in a business thus opening up a third option but the vast majority won't.

All economies are built on the backs of the workers no matter how the cake is sliced and therefor we should look towards an socio-economic system that favors the workers and not one that favors private owners of the means of production.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   
There's so many holes in the "no regulations" crowd's argument:

How would the military work?

What would happen is you were mentally handicapped?

An orphan?

If the military is a private industry what's to stop it from launching (even more) wars?

If business IS the law, what's to stop business from becoming tyrannical?

If business is the law what's to stop it from (further) stopping competition? How long until there's only 3-4 businesses controlling all of consumption?

If a drug kills 10% of people, but still makes an incredibly healthy profit, why would business worry about the 10%?

Who fixes roads and bridges that cost more to maintain than they make profit for a company?

What business would've helped the people after Katrina?

It's soooooo easy to think of situations where government IS the ONLY solution and so hard to get any of the people that argue for NO REGULATION to answer ANY of these questions...

You know why?

Because they have no real answers.

If profit is your leadership's ONLY MOTIVE then all but a few at the very very top will suffer enormously.

There's some that think society is just a little mental exercise. Those people would gladly let you freeze to death instead of offering you help.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


There has always been a clear delineation between what is private and what is public. What is private should not be regulated what is public should only be regulated in as far as it does not abrogate nor derogate the rights of individuals.

As to your ludicrous assumption that military's would be privatized under free market principles, in the United States, to give just one example, it is made perfectly clear in the Preamble, that one of the many reasons that government was ordained by the people was to provide for the common defense.

Thus, the military is a public property regulated by the government. It is further made clear in the 2nd Amendment, that the government has the right to regulate militia's as they as well are not private but public.

What do you mean what would happen if one were mentally handicapped? What does this have to do with free market principles?

A free and unregulated market has nothing to do with the legislative process. Indeed, if you had bothered to read the entirety of the posts in this thread you would have read many who do advocate a market place free of regulation but have great concerns for the lobbying process in the U.S. and have called for laws that would prohibit such lobbying.

Not that I am advocating such a thing myself as I believe such prohibition would be tantamount to prohibitions on freedom of speech, but I have certainly read many who have declared their valid concerns for this kind of lobbying.

I can't believe I actually have to explain this, but lobby groups lobby Congress who legislates law. It is not businesses who legislate law, but Congress, and no one in this thread, no have any free market advocates ever argued that a free market means no Congress or Parliament. Hello!

Here's the thing about a free and unregulated market place being one of the tenets of capitalism. Another tenet of capitalism is massive competition. In order for the second to hold true, there would have to be some form of regulation preventing companies or corporations from becoming monopolistic as such an act would contradict the second tenet. While there may seemingly be a contradiction to the first tenet by regulating the second so that massive competition is what holds true, but there is no contradiction.

What is being regulated is not the market place but those companies who are acting contrary to capitalism, and as such they are the ones who are regulating the market place not any government who would prevent those businesses from doing so.

This is why there are anti-trust laws and the reason these anti-trust laws are not enforced is due to the corruption of government and the influence that anti-capitalistic corporations have over government officials, which is exactly why many posters in this thread have spoken to that very issue.

Many businesses, as well as many individuals did help people after Katrina and many more tried but were prevented from doing so by FEMA. This is well documented and you need not take my word for it you can find this information for yourself. Of course, given that you have presumably never read the Constitution for the United States in order to know that a clear delineation between what is private and public has been made, it is hard to imagine that you will actually take the time to read the well documented stories of people and businesses from across the country who actually did help victims of Katrina, and the documentation of those who attempted to but were turned away by FEMA.

You have made absolutely nothing but fallacious arguments and arrogantly claim that no one will answer your silly claims, but here is your answer plainly stated and easy to understand and read.

It is just not true that only the top percentile benefit from making a profit. Many people who are no where near rich, run and operate their own business at a profit and live comfortable lives.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join