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.

 

Would you trust corporations to self-regulate?

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
In one word: NO! In 3 words: NO! NO! NO!




posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher
I might have said "big government" in the context of your statement instead of just "government" as I am not an anarchist in any way. I advocate what could be termed (or used to intend slander based upon the user) a Confederated Tribal System.


I only posted what you "said" because poet1b adressed "you people" and since we seemed to be the only 4 adding to the thread and no one seemed to be in agreement it sounded odd.

I think business can count on favors from government of all sizes. What you propose is what was supposedly put in place but the truth is that it was corrupted immediately.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Again, I don't deny that it is not something that deteriorates (like all things). However, I am specifically saying that there was enough free-market principles in play (for many reasons) to see that there is adequate and even very good reason to return to fighting for that way which proved itself effective. There is no sense in calling something a ineffective/a failure because people strive to tear it down, or even because it eventually came down. Rather, we should then see that the cause of our current problems and the demise of a better way is rooted in the lack of diligence among the citizens to sustain the better way properly. In fact, it allows us to be better watchmen/women. Instead, it seems that our culture's laziness takes over and we whine and moan and nothing gets done. We get the government we deserve.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


The thing is that it wasn't something that deteriorated. If you look at it from a different point of view you could say that the continental wealthy used the poor (as they tend to do) to get Englands hand out of their pocket in exchange for freedom. Now this freedom could have been just an illusion. The real american experiment is to keep that illusion going so that the people don't revolt while being fleeced.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


I see why you say that and would not deny the evidence to justify there being a conspiracy to that effect.
So then, we see the need for change, and my point is that, even if there are underlying and/or corrupt motives, it would be a plain lie to deny the efficacy of free-market principles.

Having them work for the people instead of wolves is more of a topic for a thread on revolt (to note, I personally only advocate peaceful revolution, but also determined self-defense) or a thread on entering our current political system without embracing the political infrastructure that is in place which rewards selfishness.
edit on 10/2/2011 by Dasher because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


I said strong regulations, as in effective laws that prevent white collar crime, are good for business. Heavy implies over regulation which is bad.

There is no such thing as a free market, never has been, and never will. The U.S. economy was regulated from the beginning, and the constitution grants to fed gov the power to regulate interstate and international commerce. Establishment of measurement standards and protection of intellectual property rights are all part of regulation, as well as laws that establish safety standards.

Of course not all regulations are equal, there are bad and good laws. The good laws should remain, and the bad laws removed. It is far from a perfect process, but we have the best system available.

The way you talk about free markets, I don't think you understand the concept. You should look at what Mises has to say about the matter, as it is their concept.

"You people" would be those who embrace the ideas I pointed as being completely false.

If you think representative government does not work, or want to pretend that our nations economy has not done far better in the past with high taxes on the rich and good regulation of business, then that post was for you.

If you believe in free markets, when no such creature has ever existed, then I was talking to you.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


The tech advancements of the nineties were enabled by government doing its job of preventing the giant ICs from continuing to screw everything up. Once Newt got his dereg plan into play, the tech growth was blown up.

Most manufacturing can now be down in a small facility, with little start up cost. Only really big machines need big facilities these days. The giant ICs are dinosaurs, and they only continue to exist because people have bought into this con of the free market, which puts all the economic power into the hands of the corporate bankers.

If it wasn't for planned obsolescence, we would all be working 20 hour weeks and living the good life with current tech capabilities. Giant corps don't want innovation, because it spells the end of their century long reign of terror.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


But free market principles requires everyone to play nice. The problem is that the first ones to make enough to influence/promote larger government did, do and probably always will it's in their best interest.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Corporations spend a LOT of money convincing people the Government is the problem. Because, as milqutoast as the Government is, they are still the last recognizable defense the people have against total corporate dominance. Those who speak about overthrowing the government are likely spreading the word of corporations, who would swoop in and take final control.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by daskakik
 

"You people" would be those who embrace the ideas I pointed as being completely false.

If you think representative government does not work, or want to pretend that our nations economy has not done far better in the past with high taxes on the rich and good regulation of business, then that post was for you.

If you believe in free markets, when no such creature has ever existed, then I was talking to you.


What if I believe that free markets don't exist because representative government doesn't work?

I agree with much of what you say I just think sending someone who can be bought off, threatened or influenced to vote on your behalf is not a good example of freedom.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 



Under a system which declares human a business entity and endows it with inalienable rights is not a free market. Stockholm syndrome is obviously real as you are defending those who have structured/facilitated your enslavement.

Regulations, taxes and voting should all be done from the bottom up. Defending a centralized system in any way is akin to demanding a king rescue you from the evils he created (whether real [corporations endowed with human rights] or boogeymen [CIA asset bin Laden]).


Say what? This is some wacko post you have made.

I am against the corporate entity, all my post have consistently pushed this fact.

Maybe you are a slave, but I am not. I don't think you have a clue what it means to be a slave. This slave statement is just pure propaganda repeated by people too influenced by right wing talk show nut jobs.

We are not ruled by a king? It seems that this is what you truly want, to be a slave ruled by a king.

Corporations mainly rose to power from the industrial revolution. They were put in check by regulations put in place under FDR, and others after him. In the fifty plus years after those regulations were enacted, the U.S. economy performed phenomenally.

The people who think differently are the ones who are conned by the concept of the free market. They might call it a free market, but it certainly is not.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I can only say so many times that saying/implying free-market ideas failed because corporations were given free reign and caused problems is not actually dealing with the factors involved or using words by their definitions.

Properly and truly deregulating economics would necessitate that there would be no more corporations. Maybe you do not understand the protections offered by the immaterial covering of a corporation, but it is immense and sickening. With that removed, the act of individuals being held liable for their corruption would be facilitated much more quickly and easily.

Within our nationally regulated system, the system props up and protects the corporations. You're defending our abuser and calling a better system the problem because our abuser repeatedly lies to us in their rhetoric.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 



I agree with much of what you say I just think sending someone who can be bought off, threatened or influenced to vote on your behalf is not a good example of freedom.


Unfortunately, it is the best system we got. And I certainly don't trust local governments more than federal government. I like the idea that federal government is far away, instead of nearby, meddling constantly like the local governments.

Personally, I think the answer is first, to use government to shut down the power of the giant ICs, then reduce the size of government.

I believe in producing locally, and selling locally, and I think that will be the wave of the future.

And I think the looming energy crisis, as the Middle East runs out of oil, will collapses our whole oil, disposable goods based economy, shut it all down, and facilitate the end of the giant ICs.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

What a strange way to look at it.
It takes diligent and civilized citizens and sovereign local governments.
Why does it seem that everyone wants things done without having to give something?
Your statement trivializes the matter, but thankfully, in an easily exposed way.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Self regulating corporation are two words that don't mix .... Now we have partial regulation of corporations! I don't want to imagine what the world would be like with no corporate control. The Founding fathers let corportations exist only if they were for the "public good".... How many corporations exist today for the public good?

that is the real problem.....



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
I certainly don't trust local governments more than federal government. I like the idea that federal government is far away, instead of nearby, meddling constantly like the local governments.


Are you serious? Or just typing randomly? You can still affect local government. Federal Government being 'far away' hardly makes it benign.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 



Properly and truly deregulating economics would necessitate that there would be no more corporations.


According to whom?

Do you have some link to where the Mises institute, or the Chicago school of economics, backs up this claim?

I think your heart is in the right place, but you don't realize what the people who push the whole free market agenda support. From all I have read, they fully back the nameless, faceless corporate identities.

Making corporate entities illegal, would in fact be increasing regulations, in ways none of the current free market politicians would support.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican
 


Never heard of the term, "you can't fight city hall"?

Benign is not a term I used or implied.

If the fed gov keeps the local govs into check, hopefully neither has free time to screw with us average citizens.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


Really? Wealthy families have never used their money or influence to get things done? You don't think that it was the captains of industry that pushed for corporations to be given the same rights as people?



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Maybe you are a slave, but I am not. I don't think you have a clue what it means to be a slave. This slave statement is just pure propaganda repeated by people too influenced by right wing talk show nut jobs.

I don't participate in that form of media.


Originally posted by poet1b
We are not ruled by a king?

- I will reply as though that was a statement.

Allegorically and generally effectively, yes, we are. I don't fear the government will get first crack at my new bride, but the sovereignty in "control" over personal lives has continually moved towards the national controllers. I can imagine having less freedoms, but that is not a logical path to declare that individual freedoms are not under great duress in our country.


Originally posted by poet1b
It seems that this is what you truly want, to be a slave ruled by a king.

Well, that is the most backwards accusation, isn't it? Backwards communication such as this always evokes the "aroma" of a shill. There seem to many on this site. Then again, it just may be due to the low common denominator of civility (knowledge, understanding, order, charity, etc).


Originally posted by poet1b
Corporations mainly rose to power from the industrial revolution. They were put in check by regulations put in place under FDR, and others after him. In the fifty plus years after those regulations were enacted, the U.S. economy performed phenomenally.

On the whole, I think you will be hard pressed to ignore the "proof in the pudding" that is our current economy. At the peak of regulations and corporatism, our national system is faltering and on it's face. The most clear evidence will come as local cities, towns, counties, and also states, start to ignore (even if subconsciously or by reason of national economic impotence) the national systems. It is happening now, and will continue to happen. In places in which the infrastructure needs maintenance the most, precedents will be set on how to deal with our needs apart from a failing national system.



Originally posted by poet1b
The people who think differently are the ones who are conned by the concept of the free market. They might call it a free market, but it certainly is not.

I do not fully understand this statement, but I wish to say that we do not live under a free market, so if you don't like the crap piling on us now, we should probably try distilling the portions of our history that made us provably stronger and healthier.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join