Why is protectionism demonized? Are you a Protectionist?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


My double think?

This is some amazing pretzel logic you have laid out here.

At least you admit that corporations have been given too much control over government, which is a huge step in the right direction.

Where you fail to connect the dots is in realizing that when corporations control government, they control how government regulates them.

It is corporate control of government regulation that has created this disastrous mess.

Glass Stegal was necessary because history clearly demonstrated that when left to make their own rules the investment industry will turn our banking and investment markets into gambling houses that heavily favor the house.

Without an independent governing body evenly enforcing a fair set of rules, competition goes out the window, and the people who manage to gain control carve up the spoils. The system stagnates, and the economy dies. Thus here we are.




Sir, I'm not the one failing to connect the dots or doublethinking here.

You're claiming corporations are the cause of our problems while at the same time blaming corporate control of government as the cause of our problems.

So which is it? Corporations or government?

Corporations have no power when there is no government.

Glass Stegal is unnecessary when a 100% reserve gold standard of non-centralized free market banking is in place.

Glass Stegal was created to separate the investment banks from the commercial banks, something that would be totally unnecessary in an unregulated market. Investors would never deposit their money into such a combined institution without government backing.

Government created the moral hazard through its creation of the federal reserve system and the FDIC which made Glass Stegal necessary in the first place and enabled the vast looting that has taken place.

Glass Stegal or not, we see from past history that centralized banking leads to the outcome we have today. Glass Stegal is a band-aid on a much larger systemic problem.




posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Hmm, so you are saying when the U.S. government controlled our nations currency, we had a better system than when privately held corporations controlled our currency?

I would say that you are advocating the opposite of what would be a free market system. You are calling for more government control, not less.

The U.S. government still regulated interstate and international commerce in those days, had tariffs and laws to protect public safety. Our economy has never been a free market.

Just like communism, there is no such thing as a free market.

Both are economic systems which claim that without government, economies would function far better under natural social mechanisms. The two ideals are in fact one and the same, just presented from different perspectives.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Hmm, so you are saying when the U.S. government controlled our nations currency, we had a better system than when privately held corporations controlled our currency?

I would say that you are advocating the opposite of what would be a free market system. You are calling for more government control, not less.

The U.S. government still regulated interstate and international commerce in those days, had tariffs and laws to protect public safety. Our economy has never been a free market.

Just like communism, there is no such thing as a free market.

Both are economic systems which claim that without government, economies would function far better under natural social mechanisms. The two ideals are in fact one and the same, just presented from different perspectives.



When the nation founded the Treasury, its sole function was to coin gold and silver brought to it by the public.

The public determined the amount of currency in circulation.

As the economy expanded, gold became more valuable in price. As an economy expands, more money is necessary to facilitate the additional number of transactions taking place, this leads to a simple supply/demand function.

Thus, as gold becomes more valuable, more gold will be mined, and hence gold will come down in value until such time as supply meets demand.

The government played no role in the creation of money, other than to put an official stamp on the gold brought to it.

Today, all money is created out of debt and government has a credit card with no limit. Interest rates are set by the federal reserve f#cking with the money supply. Government now has total control over the supply of money and the interest rates of the market.

When government controls the supply of money and the interest rates, there is no free market. It is impossible to have a functioning free market when government has central control over money, credit, and interest.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by concernedcitizan
 


I would say the GW created reasons to invade Iraq and Afghanistan for corporate economic gain. These countries have moved towards democracy in spite of the goals of the GW admin.. The success is a salute to the capabilities of U.S. Soldiers.

GW didn't try to take control of the financial sectors, he bailed them out with no strings attached. GW simply gave away huge amounts of money to the financial sector after free markets principles resulted in their demise. Thus sticking the U.S. public with the bill, once again, for the failure to make free market economics work.

GW was pretty much like Reagan and his dad. A foolish idealist who pursued a proven failed economic policy.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Bush was a fascist, of that there is no doubt. However Bush represents government action, not corporate action.

Government is the reason why our economy is so f#cked up, not corporations.

If you want a functioning economy, you have to get rid of government.

When there is no government, corporations are forced to compete in an open market. They can't rely on fascist kickbacks from the tax payer, government contracts, government tax breaks, and government regulation to prop them up.

The mega corporations that are looting the tax payer today ALL depend on government for their profits.

Goldman Sachs would be bankrupt

GE would be bankrupt

AIG would be bankrupt

KBR would be bankrupt

etc.. etc.. etc.. etc....

Government is the problem, not the solution.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Somalia=free market utopia, no government, no prohibition. Not to be snarky but...



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It is corporations which have gained too much power.

How many times do I have to repeat my position?

Sorry, but corporations do not need government as their power base. The power of corporations derives from their wealth, and they are quite capable of raising their own private armies. Look up the West Indies Trading Companies. Why raise their own armies when they can bribe the governments that they control to do their dirty deeds for them for far less money.

As to your next reply.

Once again, there is no such thing as a free market.

When you make these claims about how things would be in a free market, you are doing nothing but spinning fantasies.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It is corporations which have gained too much power.

How many times do I have to repeat my position?

Sorry, but corporations do not need government as their power base. The power of corporations derives from their wealth, and they are quite capable of raising their own private armies. Look up the West Indies Trading Companies. Why raise their own armies when they can bribe the governments that they control to do their dirty deeds for them for far less money.

As to your next reply.

Once again, there is no such thing as a free market.

When you make these claims about how things would be in a free market, you are doing nothing but spinning fantasies.




corporations have no power.

explain how a corporation would loot me if there was no government involvement?

would they come to my house and put a gun to my head?

no?

Guess who does?

Oh that's right, the IRS!

Go ahead, explain your position to me. Explain how a corporation could possibly loot me if there was no government involvement. They might be able to defraud me, but I could sue them and win. It would also be my fault for not doing my homework on whatever investment I got defrauded on.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



If you want a functioning economy, you have to get rid of government.


Spoken like a true communist.

This is the whole concept of communism.

GW is what you get when corporations are allowed to gain control of government. Government stops working for the people, as our constitutional fathers intended, and instead works only to support the profits of legal entities like a corporation which criminals are able to hide behind.

When corporations control government, it is the same as government controlling the corporations, and in both example it is fascism.

The aim is high, but the result is a disaster when a free market is attempted.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



would they come to my house and put a gun to my head?


Yep, well, they would send employees/mercenaries to your door to put a gun to your head. No government interference means the government isn't going to do anything to protect you from the corporation.

Like I said, look up the Indie Trading Companies. They hired their own private armies. They were the original corporations.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



would they come to my house and put a gun to my head?


Yep, well, they would send employees/mercenaries to your door to put a gun to your head. No government interference means the government isn't going to do anything to protect you from the corporation.

Like I said, look up the Indie Trading Companies. They hired their own private armies. They were the original corporations.



Don't be ridiculous.

Even if they did send mercenaries to loot me, I have my own firepower.

I'm talking about no government involvement in the markets obviously. Prosecuting people for fraud does not require market regulation or intervention on the part of government. Fraud can be considered a form of theft. All the laws in the world will not prevent theft from taking place, just as all the laws in the world will not prevent fraud from taking place.

When it occurs, you punish it.

You don't create laws to prevent it.

So go on, explain how a corporation would loot me with no government involvement.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Here's a question for you poet, do you consider the following theft?

being forced to pay at gun point for:
-illegal wars
-someone else's bad investments
-someone else's mortgage
-someone else's healthcare
-someone else's car
-someone else's steel
-someone else's drug habit
-someone else's corn
-someone else's fuel

Because that's what's happening right now, courtesy of your criminal government.

Corporations play no role in this theft other than lobbying for it and being the beneficiaries of it.

Corporations could not carry out this theft without the force of government.

Corporations are not evil, the government is evil.

The government is the muscle, it is what enables all the looting. Corporations have no power to loot you without government.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The corporations with more money and more men will have more firepower. Even if they choose not to simply take you out in your home or place of business, they can ambush you. This how things are done in a world without government.

Just as in a lawsuit, the corporations with their big law firms have considerable advantage over any individual. Rarely is justice gotten in civil courts. I know you will claim the opposite, but if you do some research you will find that you have once again been sold on mythology.

I am not sure what you mean by laws to prevent fraud?

Do you mean standards, like accounting standards?

Lets say you are practicing medicine. Shouldn't you have some specific requirements to claim you have the legal right to practice medicine?



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

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The corporations with more money and more men will have more firepower. Even if they choose not to simply take you out in your home or place of business, they can ambush you. This how things are done in a world without government.

Just as in a lawsuit, the corporations with their big law firms have considerable advantage over any individual. Rarely is justice gotten in civil courts. I know you will claim the opposite, but if you do some research you will find that you have once again been sold on mythology.

I am not sure what you mean by laws to prevent fraud?

Do you mean standards, like accounting standards?

Lets say you are practicing medicine. Shouldn't you have some specific requirements to claim you have the legal right to practice medicine?


Here you go again with "firepower" which is a ridiculous argument all around. No corporation is going to run around looting people at gun point. None. It will never happen in a country where half the people own guns. Its a totally ridiculous argument that doesn't even merit a response on my part.

As to your claim that I would loose in a corporate fraud suit, Bernie Madoff shows us that's a ridiculous argument as well. When a jury sees a clear cut case of fraud, they will prosecute it. Period.

We saw the same with the prosecution of Enron executives. When someone commits fraud, the juries will convict them.

Sarbanes Oxley is the greatest example of laws that try to prevent fraud, but instead do nothing to prevent fraud while at the same time giving a competitive advantage to large corporations.

It costs a tremendous amount of overhead to comply with Sarbanes. This gives large corporations a huge economy of scale advantage over smaller competitors.

Not only does Sarbanes give the big boys a competitive advantage, it does absolutely nothing to prevent fraud. See ENRON as example number one. Because the people committing the fraud are going to cook their books anyways, it doesn't matter how many accounting rules you put in place.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Yes, I do consider them theft.

When corporations lobby for this, they do play a role in the theft. You are trying to deny reality here.

Corporations do in fact engage in theft, regularly, without any government involvement. They always have.

What would make you make such a fantastical claim that corporations do not engage in theft without government involvement?

Corporations always have engaged in illegal activities, and probably always will. When government does its job, they minimize the amount of corporate crime just like they should minimize the amount of personal crime.

It all takes a reasonable set of checks and balances.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Yes, I do consider them theft.

When corporations lobby for this, they do play a role in the theft. You are trying to deny reality here.

Corporations do in fact engage in theft, regularly, without any government involvement. They always have.

What would make you make such a fantastical claim that corporations do not engage in theft without government involvement?

Corporations always have engaged in illegal activities, and probably always will. When government does its job, they minimize the amount of corporate crime just like they should minimize the amount of personal crime.

It all takes a reasonable set of checks and balances.


Corporations do not engage in looting.

A handful might engage in fraud, but they aren't running around putting a gun to anyones head.

Also, those who are defrauded are partially to blame for not doing their homework on whatever investment they were defrauded on.

Corporations are free to lobby for whatever they like, such action harms no one. No one is harmed by the act of lobbying. EVERYONE is harmed by the politician that accepts the bribes and then uses the force of government to engage in looting the tax payer.

Should you be barred from lobbying your congressman? Should you be barred from demanding he represent your interests? That's all corporations are doing. Such an act is not harmful in and of itself. Its only the governments actions that result from it that cause harm.

When you eliminate government from taking fascist actions, you end the looting.



[edit on 10-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



No corporation is going to run around looting people at gun point. None. It will never happen in a country where half the people own guns. Its a totally ridiculous argument that doesn't even merit a response on my part.


Yes it does happen, all the time, and not all societies have gun rights. This goes to the heart of the thread. When corporations are completely able to usurp peoples rights in other nations, some level of protectionism should be put into place. This is the reason the U.S. constitution authorized our federal government the power to conduct treaties.

Seriously, you are clinging to a fantasy on this matter.

You rip off people with enough power to defend themselves as in the cases you mention, of course you are going to get slammed. Joe nobodies have been getting their 401k plans robbed over the last 15 years, and the government has yet to do anything about it. These rip offs have nothing to do with government regulation or aid.

All you have to do with Sarbanes is hire an independent auditor. The auditing requirement has always existed, it is the independency requirement that has changed. The cost is in relation to the size of the business. Once again, you have been sold a bill of goods.

I don't normally use Wiki as a reference, but this should do at this time. You can find other sources if you don't believe me.

en.wikipedia.org...


By 1669, the VOC was the richest private company the world had ever seen, with over 150 merchant ships, 40 warships, 50,000 employees, a private army of 10,000 soldiers, and a dividend payment of 40% on the original investment.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



No corporation is going to run around looting people at gun point. None. It will never happen in a country where half the people own guns. Its a totally ridiculous argument that doesn't even merit a response on my part.


Yes it does happen, all the time, and not all societies have gun rights. This goes to the heart of the thread. When corporations are completely able to usurp peoples rights in other nations, some level of protectionism should be put into place. This is the reason the U.S. constitution authorized our federal government the power to conduct treaties.

Seriously, you are clinging to a fantasy on this matter.

You rip off people with enough power to defend themselves as in the cases you mention, of course you are going to get slammed. Joe nobodies have been getting their 401k plans robbed over the last 15 years, and the government has yet to do anything about it. These rip offs have nothing to do with government regulation or aid.

All you have to do with Sarbanes is hire an independent auditor. The auditing requirement has always existed, it is the independency requirement that has changed. The cost is in relation to the size of the business. Once again, you have been sold a bill of goods.

I don't normally use Wiki as a reference, but this should do at this time. You can find other sources if you don't believe me.

en.wikipedia.org...


By 1669, the VOC was the richest private company the world had ever seen, with over 150 merchant ships, 40 warships, 50,000 employees, a private army of 10,000 soldiers, and a dividend payment of 40% on the original investment.


In this society, we are armed.

No corporation is going to run around putting guns to peoples heads.

None.

Auditors costs money, lots of money, money that small businesses don't have to spare because they aren't getting government kick backs or selling millions in revenue each year.



[edit on 10-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


So your economic principles are based on the fantasy that corporations do not commit crimes.

That is extremely naive.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Its simply the way things have been directed for a long time. Make no mistake, economics have not shaped the direction that the country has taken (not that you're saying as such).

I think the fundamentals of our monetary system need to be corrected first. You will never hear a talking head (Beck, Limbaugh, Mathews e.c.t) bring up our worthless currency, the fed and the environment it creates along with purposefully placed policy that chokes American small business. The established wrench on our prosperity and closing shackles of oppression go hand in hand.

Yes, I believe protectionism is valid to an extent, but not if it encroaches upon personal freedom, such as importing a fruit, material e.c.t. quantity limits on imported items in economic proportion and on a sliding scale seems possible after economic restructuring of the United States.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join