The conservatives (across party lines) of this country want to privatize everything. This trend is a corporate-funded push to kill government with its pesky regulations and rules and turn the country completely over to big business. Privatize social security and you get anything but social security; pensions turned over to big banking and you get bankruptcy for the investors and big bonuses for the rich bankers. Turn oversight of mining over to the corporations and you get dead miners.Turn agriculture over to big business and you get small farmers and ranchers pushed into bankruptcy and abusive conditions for workers and the animals which go through their "assembly lines."
Strong and fair government regulations protect the people from this piggish grab for power; the emboldened big business community began to dream bigger when the Bush and Clinton administration began to push regulations back to nil. Now we need a grassroots pushback.
Corporations thought that when they got the boost of the radicalized Supreme Court to agree to corporations being people which could vote (can we say two votes for every member of the corporation--one as individuals and one as member of a corporation?) with congressional funding, they forgot that people who knew better didn't need a lot of money to keep this a capitalist democracy. Wake up, people, and stop acting like angry, pitchfork-carrying peasants assaulting your government in the name of big business. You didn't really think that small businesses were going to get an even playing field, did you?
Right now the Republicans are trying to stop government from re-regulating business, and don't look for any help from the Blue Dogs who are owned by big business. We need to tell them that this capitalist system belongs to us, the people.
Privatizing Social Security would have been a horrible mistake. Another one that appears to be spreading is privatizing prisons, also a big mistake. Certain functions may be more appropriately privatized. A lot of school districts are privatizing their school bus transportation and janitorial work to private companies. Others are in effect privatizing public education by closing public schools and replacing them with charter schools. This is a huge mistake in my opinion. Public schools are far from perfect, but they are a basic feature of our democratic society and should not be privatized in my opinion. Many people assume that charter schools will produce better results, but from what I've read the results are quite mixed and don't show that charter schools are superior. Some are doing better because they are cherry picking the better students.
Privatizing social security would be nonsense, indeed. SS shouldn't exist at all! I should be responsible for my own money!
Are the charter schools cherry picking the better students? or are the better students' families cherry picking the charter students?
I don't know who's cherry picking whom. Charter schools are growing in Detroit, and public schools declining. One reason is that charter schools are in a better position to weed out troublesome students and to fire teachers who aren't performing. However, from what I've read charter school results are spotty and not clearly superior to public school results. I don't have any first-hand knowledge about charter schools, only what I've read in the newspapers and other media. I haven't heard of any charter schools popping up in the suburbs in the Detroit metropolitan area. If there are any, I'm not aware of them.
"The conservatives (across party lines) of this country want to privatize everything." No they don't. They want to privatize gains, and socialize losses. That's what happened as a result of the housing crisis, remember? The bankers got incredibly rich trading these highly rated but worthless securities. That was all fine. But when the bubble popped? Oh, we need government assistance to stay in business! Help us! And our government (and dems are just as guilty as the GOP on this) goes and hands them a big bag of money, no strings attached, to get them out of the hole. But does the government do anything to help the people who bought those fraudulent securities? Nope. The folks who got screwed because their home values plummeted? Nope. You can't just give money to individuals. That'd be socialist! But somehow giving money to investment banks isn't.
Privatized gains, socialized losses.
"The conservatives (across party lines) of this country want to privatize everything." No they don't.
Right on. Too bad they don't! It would be nice if they did
They want to privatize gains, and socialize losses.
"You can't just give money to individuals. That'd be socialist! But somehow giving money to investment banks isn't."
I disagree - giving money to investment banks at the cost of tax money is Socialist. Or, at the very least, it's Mercantilist.
Either way, it needs to end. - Once again! Government screws things up! (but we're all yelling at the people who receive the money, not those who give it out...)
Turn everything over to the Government and you get:
"The new hires came from a broad area including parts of South Carolina and Georgia, and unemployment rates have continued to creep upward even since the positions were filled. It was unlikely the jobs would strongly impact rates in any single county, but Obama has said the recession would have been worse without the stimulus and jobs like those at Savannah River.
The cost? Around $500,000 per job — but that money covers overhead and other costs at the site."
That's right $500,000 to create a single job!
The Republicans are not trying to stop govenment from regulating business.
The regulation Team Obama is pushing for would allow the Federal Reserve... which is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT... catching on now with the NOT... a Government Agency.
The very Wealthy Elite that you are arguing against would have complete and total regulatory control.
This would mean the very people you are arguing against would have power to do anything they want to business.
The Federal Reserve is NOT NOT NOT a government agency. They are a select group of private bankers who operate solely for their own benefit. They operate in secret closed door meetings and control the entire money supply. And these Bankers are not disclosed. They may be from Foreign countries, they may even be Foreign Governments.
Boy it sure would be bad if the Republicans put a stop to turning over even more control to the Secret Bankers.
Republicans are pro business and yes they are pro money making... but at least they operate in the light of day out in the open.
I am not completely anti-democrat. But when you look at the way that Team Obama is operating... secret meetings, behind closed doors, you really have to ask yourself if this is the Democratic Leadership you want to support.
Mike, can you provide some links to back up these statements:
I'm not questioning you, just curious about these assertions.
Hey Key -
To Nationalize an industry (business, company, means of production etc) means that the government uses it's legal force to take control of that industry.
To privatize something is the opposite: to let private individuals take control of a previously nationalized industry.
By definition, Nationalizing something is Socialism, and Privatizing something is (more) capitalistic.
Prisons for profit are the worst.
Makes me sick to my stomache.
They trade prisoners on the stock market like cattle.
BabsmamaBush owns stock in the Prison Industry Complex.
When does this horror show end?
Dick Cheney And Alberto Gonzales Indicted For ‘Prison Profiteering’
"Well, it would be nice if these guys ever went to jail for anything, but it seems unlikely that they will go to jail for this. A grand jury in South Texas handed down indictments against various current and former public officials connected with wrongdoing in private prisons — including, most notably, Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales. The prison company, The GEO Group, was charged with three counts of murder and manslaughter. This is an ugly, complicated story, so let’s cut to the chase: how many South Texas prisoners has Dick Cheney had shipped up to his basement dungeon in the Naval Observatory for experiments?
Cheney and Gonzales are both accused of engaging in organized criminal activity and profiting from the prison system. Cheney has investments in The Vanguard Group — you know, that huge financial company that manages like half of America’s investment accounts? — and Vanguard apparently “holds financial interests” in these terrible private prisons where people get beaten to death. Al Gonzales maybe swung his weight around to stop investigations of prisoner abuse while he was Attorney General.
Numerous horrors take place daily in these privately run prisons. In 2001, an inmate was beaten to death with padlocks stuffed into socks. For this, The GEO Group had to pay the family of the deceased $47.5 million."
Read more at Wonkette: http://wonkette.com/404469/dick-cheney- … z0lIZgEaoF
Indeed, prisoners have rights, too. They should not be beaten half to death.
But i couldn't help but notice that in your example, the prison lost $47.5 million in the incident. That's a spicy meatball. I would imagine that these sorts of reparations should reduce the frequency of violence in private prisons.
Cheney is a dirty politician and a criminal. But he's privy to the Wealthy Elite... and nothing will ever happen to him. His heart will finally give up soon and he'll be gone. But anyone that can support anything out of this guys mouth is being deceived.
I'd like to simply point out that inheritance isn't evil.
The incentive to make money is increased if you are able to pass your money on to your next of kin. Anyone who believes in evolution pretty much HAS to accept this.
If the money is gained through a true capitalist means - i.e. gaining money by producing things your fellow man wants to buy - then this is good.
If the money is gained through socialist/mercantilist/fascist means - i.e. the government setting up the laws to benefit you - then it is evil and should be immediately stopped.
Not to sidestep the whole Capitalism=utopia/anything else=evil thing, but I'm interested in this assertion:
"The incentive to make money is increased if you are able to pass your money on to your next of kin. Anyone who believes in evolution pretty much HAS to accept this."
I'm not entirely sure that this works out. Look at the rampant hemophilia and other congenital defects among the nobility of Europe. The nobility of Europe exists specifically because of the ability to pass wealth and power down to one's offspring. I'd argue that evolution is the best argument against inherited wealth.
Further, a true capitalist, that is, one who believes that it's bad to take wealth that Joe earned and give it to Bill, who didn't earn it, should have no problem with an inheritance tax. Joe earned the wealth, true, but he's certainly not using it anymore. He's dead! Bill didn't earn the wealth. If he had, it'd already be his. So Bill can't really argue, "Hey, I earned that wealth! No fair taking it away from me!" Because he didn't earn it. Joe did.
If Bill wants to be wealthy, he should go and earn some wealth, shouldn't he? Or is being born to the right person enough to make someone deserve wealth without earning it?
"a true capitalist, that is, one who believes that it's bad to take wealth that Joe earned and give it to Bill, who didn't earn it, should have no problem with an inheritance tax."
No, a true capitalist would be starkly against any tax whatsoever, and then insist that a better idea to giving it to your children would be charity. (that is, if the person in question doesn't like inheritance)
If a person works hard, makes money, and then wants to give the money to their next of kin, then that's totally fine. I don't see how "letting people choose how to spend their money" means "tax the money and prevent them from spending it on what they want". That makes no sense.
Yes, just like a true Christian would be against killing and torturing people - yet Christianity gave us the inquisitions, the Crusades, justified the genocide of First Nation peoples around the world, and helped enslave the minds of African slaves.
I believe it's called the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
This is nonsense - privatizing everything would be the best thing for this country to do.
I have yet to hear of a single TRUE monopoly or cartel being formed without the help of government.
I have yet to hear of a single profitable public operation that does not rely on outside money (from taxes or from other sources).
I have yet to see FEMA lose any money or the Army Corp of Engineers lose any money from the horrible mistakes they made that were highlighted for all the world to see when Katrina hit.
If we ignore the political aspects, and focus only on the economic aspects of Fascism, we see that government regulation of an industry is fascist. I back this up with the Miriam Webster's Dictionary - do not start calling me a lunatic who doesn't know what a word means.
(Fascism: often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
I'm seeing a lot of familiar faces, so I'm only going to say this once: When the government controls an area of the economy, it's socialism (once again, using miriam-webster). (: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
But these arguments aside -- what type of system would you rather have running an aspect of the economy?
A capitalist system? --One that goes bankrupt or at least loses a lot of money if it makes mistakes; has tremendous incentives to increase productivity; has incentives to innovate; and can only make money by actually providing a service that people are willing to pay for.
A governmental system? -- one that can only go bankrupt through hyperinflation; has no real incentives to manage an industry productively; has no real incentive to innovate; gains more funding if a mistake is made ("something bad happened! we need more money to make sure it doesn't happen again!"); and can make money by simply forcing the people who live under its control to pay at the point of a gun (what gun? try not paying taxes for a while and see where you end up).
The answer is obvious - pure, true, laissez-faire capitalism.
*I've had this argument on the "who would defend socialism and why?" forum. I was unable to convince anyone who read that forum of my views, and spent quite a bit of time there. If anyone ACTUALLY wants to try to debate, and willing to change their mind -- I am -- about the topic, then I'll debate. But that's highly unlikely, so I'll just make this my last post.
If you want further information regarding my arguments, check out my hubs. The vast majority of them discuss this problem
Western Union was criticized as a price gouging monopoly in the late 19th century.
Standard Oil; broken up in 1911, two of its surviving "baby companies" are ExxonMobil and the Chevron Corporation.
U.S. Steel; anti-trust prosecution failed in 1911.
Major League Baseball; survived U.S. anti-trust litigation in 1922, though its special status is still in dispute as of 2009.
United Aircraft and Transport Corporation; aircraft manufacturer holding company forced to divest itself of airlines in 1934.
National Football League; survived anti-trust lawsuit in the 1960s, convicted of being an illegal monopoly in the 1980s.
American Telephone & Telegraph; telecommunications giant broken up in 1982.
De Beers; settled charges of price fixing in the diamond trade in the 2000s.
Microsoft; settled anti-trust litigation in the U.S. in 2001; fined by the European Commission in 2004 for 497 million Euros, which was upheld for the most part by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in 2007. The fine was 1.35 Billion USD in 2008 for noncompliance with the 2004 rule.
Monsanto has been sued by competitors for anti-trust and monopolistic practices. They hold between 70% and 100% of the commercial seed market.
GameStop has a near exclusive control over the sale of used games, and frequently buys out competing companies.
I've already done this like 15 times, so i'll give you the quick and easy response.
1- read the book "The Myth of the Robber Barons"
a)Western union - http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr … 94649FD7CF ... gov't intervention.
b)Standard oil - still had hundreds of competitors, prices were falling (58c per gallon to 8), and Rockefeller revolutionized the business and helped so many people (and whales! -- the alternative before his kerosene was whale oil). AKA, he wasn't a monopoly. even though the government said he was.
c)US Steel - http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=43
d)MLB - ... not quite sure how this can be a monopoly... G'head and start up a baseball league. ... not only is there nothing preventing you from doing so, you still can... how is that a monopoly? you mean they give a great product and no one bothers to compete with them? ...
e)UATC had competitors, and prices were falling... so it couldn't have been a monopoly, even if Sir Government said so...
f)NFL, same thing as MLB.
g)Microsoft... really? you actually think that was a monopoly? really? lol... it's not. It never has been. And it's competitor, IBM, back in the day was being tried for monopolistic practices from 1969-1982 (!!!! 13 years of legislation!!! jeeeeezzzuuuuussss). And, while IBM was being accused of being a monopoly, microsoft chewed them up.
Microsoft was being tried (at least in the US) for doing things like 'giving their customers Internet Explorer, microsoft word, excel, office etc etc.'... that really isn't a bad thing: why aren't car companies thrown in jail for giving their customers car tires? -- it's the same thing, just with a different product.
h)ATT- had government fingerprints all over it. the fact that you're claiming this didn't have gov't involvement shows that you didn't bother looking up the facts.
i)De Beers - Diamond cartel - has african government fingerprints all over it. The fact that you thought this was not government related is kind of telling...
j)"Monsanto has been sued by competitors"... your very sentence defines the claim of monopolization as ludicrous.
k)Gamestop has competitors - good ones that are healthy. here's the biggest and most popular (probably better than gamestop) http://store.steampowered.com/
In the words of my fellow gamers: "PWNT"
So, that was easy - got any more?
A monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
What is so difficult about understanding about this? The MLB has a monopoly over baseball and the NFL has a monopoly over football.
Before its break up by the government it owned over 50% of the United State's airline and aircraft business.
Show me the government involvement. You know the history on their website even admits they a monopoly.
A monopoly doesn't mean that you have no competitors. In 2001 their market share was 81%. That qualifies for the definition of monopoly.
Again, a monopoly doesn't mean you have no competitors. It owns over 25% of the market.
Epic fail noob.
This image should be taken both metaphorically and literally.
Your argument about monopoly is idiotic. If a provider of a service is able to generate so much business that other groups get pushed out of the market, then it isn't in anyway beneficial to punish that business.
In just about every one of the supposed monopolies you list, the group in question was benefiting society in a substantial way. Prices were falling in just about every example (except those that were boosted by gov't).
The MLB and NFL does not prevent you from starting your own league. That's why it isn't a monopoly - just because people like the NFL more than LHL (legendary hero league), doesn't mean they have a monopoly, it just means that no one likes the services your LHL are producing.
"it owned over 50%" ... so... it wasn't a MONOpoly? good job on that one, noob.
If you really need me to show you the links, then that means that you won't believe what I show you. You clearly just want to show you're right and not argue the point. I've already stated that I've shown these things upwards of 15 times before... I suppose I should just type this all out and copy paste... Sounds good! I'll put that together for you all.
So here we go: number 16!!!
ATT-- http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_2_3.pdf page 14-16 of the pdf. pwnt.
diamonds-- http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=5 pwnt
GAMESTOP HAS OVER 25% OF THE MARKET SHARE?!?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! THAT MEANS THAT 75% OF THE MARKET IS CONTROLLED BY COMPETITORS!!! THAT... MEANs... it's... not ... a monopoly... by ... any stretch ... of the imagination... unless you're crazy.
A MONOpoly does mean that you have a exclusive (mono) rights to an industry. It's interesting to note that the word POLY is in there: poly/polis is a direct showing that government is involved.
These monopolies you point out to me aren't actually monopolies, and I'm sure that I won't be able to convince you otherwise. If there are two competitors in a market then a MONOpoly can't exist. You're just listening to what Uncle Sam says, and ignoring logic. Just about every "antitrust" legislation is filed by a competitor in the same market who's crying that the big bully is providing consumers with what they want for a cheaper price. by your definition Henry Ford, one of the greatest helpers of the poor and someone who revolutionized the world, should have been torn to pieces for monopolistic behavior
So, in conclusion, way to suck. I've made my case, you've made yours. I think it's up to the readers to decide who won. You can reply if you want, but I'm done with this forum - these forums usually turn into a "me vs. everyone", and no one is convinced by my arguments that (all together) take me more than a few hours to write, all of which don't produce anything.
Yeah, we're not arguing that. We're arguing whether any real monopolies have ever existed.
In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. That perfectly describes the MLB and the NFL. It's not about being people liking one more than another, its about a group having so much control that you would never be able to compete against them. Anyone can go out and start another baseball or football league but they will ulimately fail because they in no way can compete against the MLB and NFL.
Again, a monopoly doesn't have to have total control, just enough to determine significantly whether others can access it.
You're the one who was adding in other things that were not the point. We're not arguing about the benefits or anything else about monopolies, just if one was ever created.
OMG! The government nationalized all diamond mines and "the only licensees turned out to be either DeBeers itself or other firms who were willing to play ball with the DeBeers cartel"! Bribing the liceners goes a long way.
Yes, the deinition does cover exclusive rights to an industry, because the defition means that it has enough control over an industry to significantly determine others access to it.
I noticed you conveniently ignored Monsanto and Standard Oil, which have and had control over almost the entire market...
Yes it can, and no I'm not. It doesn't matter how many competitors you have just that you basically control the access to your product.
Appeal to emotion...nice try. I'm not advocating anyone be torn to pieces or that Ford was not a good person, I'm just arguing about what a monopoly is.
Thanks! That always helps an arguement!
Ok, this will be my last reply and I appreciate the time you have taken to write these replies all out.
"these forums usually turn into a "me vs. everyone", and no one is convinced by my arguments"
Don't you wonder why? Did it occur to you that you may be way out on the right fringe in your extreme anti-government views and in your support for privatizing everything?
hmmmm GOOD question! So it would seem Capitalism is about protecting wealth FROM workers!!
There is no limited supply of wealth in the world. Wealth is created through trade. Rich people facilitate trade - that's why they get wealthy. They also risk their own livelyhood trying to make a buck.
It's insane - everyone wants to be rich, but they hate rich people. Make up your mind.
"At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. "
Teddy Roosevelt made up his mind and expressed it exceedingly well.
Capitalists do more exploitation than risking. The "Black Box" magic!
Yes, capitalists do more exploitation than taking risks. You see we can not talk of a capitalist in an egalitarian World. Capitalists exist in a World of two; on one side we have the "haves" and "have-nots." So the "haves" is going to own an estate and is going to have laborers. For him to realize variable capital (profits) he has to get out of the laborers an extra output and this he does out of exploitation.
this haves vs. have-nots is nonsense.
The have nots (like me, I'm mostly a has not) are bums who like to play it very safe and try to keep our livelihood in tact as best as possible.
The haves go out there and risk their future to try to provide a service that people can enjoy and want. When they fail, they lose their money, go into debt, and usually end up being screwed pretty hard. (that is, unless government steps in and steals money from the innocent to give to the capitalists)
What would you rather do? Go work for a company? or be the man who created the company? --- obviously you'd rather be the guy who created the company, because he's the one that's rollin' in dough!
... but you chose to work for the company. Because 1- you probably don't have what it takes to be a CEO (the same way that I, honestly - no matter how hard I'd like to believe otherwise - don't have what it takes to be a porn star) and 2- you want to play it safe: you want to be able to know that you won't be in horrendous debt.
We can all sit around here talking about "the evil monocle-wearing long-suspenders-having money-bag-carrying capitalist fat-cat"... but the honest truth is that any single one of us could go out there and try starting a business. And, as illustrated by just about every second of every day, I - amongst millions of others - choose not to risk my future.
"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war,
and we're winning." --Warren Buffett, CNN Interview, May 25 2005
I ran across this quote on Mahablog.com today.
“We stand for the maintenance of private property… We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”
Decide from the context which formum crowd the speaker would fit in with. The quote is a reliable translation of Adolph Hitler.
So? This is no different from the shrill tea-party rhetoric about how Obama is a fasci-soci-communist.
Oh, Hitler said "gesundheit" when Goebbels sneezed one time, therefore anyone who says gesundheit is an evil fascist!
Hitler was an evil mass murdering bastard. We pretty much all agree on that.
But just because an evil mass murdering bastard liked the idea of (for the sake of argument) a speed limit, doesn't mean that a speed limit is bad.
If you want to dog on capitalism (and it has its problems, I agree) do so on its merits, and not on what a dead psychotic Austrian had to say about it, okay?
And hmm. It's called the Austrian school... Hitler was Austrian! OMG!
The Austrian School has about as much to do with Austria as I have to do with Italy; yes, some of my descendants came from italy hundreds of years ago, but that don't mean I can speak italian. (too bad for the ladies!)
That statement was breathtakingly ignorant? That absolute stupidity of that statement is amazing. You'd equate all things Austrian with Hitler?
Ever hear of sarcasm? Maybe you should read in context.
All bow down and heil the superior intellect.
You sometimes aggravate me but lately I have been agreeing with you more and more.
That damn Hitler!
Berndt, we all know that what you wrote here is nonsense.
For, didn't jesus once say: "yay, brethren, we shall all judge the merits of an Economic System through the blessings of a mad psycho; Lo, that which he once said, through lying venomous teeth, is to be revered as truth. Be it that his actions grossly show that he were but a Tyrannical Dictatorial Socialist Bastard who murdered millions of people, he spoke in favor of Capitalism Once... Thus we shall say un to the Lord: Capitalism can only be evil. Amen."
I think i saw that in Genesis somewhere... ...
Hey, can we say Black Water, Halliburton, and the privatization of war? Cheney, Bush, and their pals privatized everything to give themselves and their friends an opportunity to make money out of their trumped- up war. What we have gotten is a bunch of thugs who suffer no oversight while they rape, murder, kill our soldiers with their bad contract work and piss off everyone in the Middle East who didn't already hate us.
If Bush had gotten his way, there would be no social security, and every pension would have disappeared down the rabbit hole of Wall Street. The Grannies would be moving into your spare bedrooms because they sould have lost their only source of income. And, by the way, we can practice capitalism in this country and take care of our own, too, you know, like civilized countries everywhere else do. If that is socialism, so wha?
Who ever said capitalism was good? It's just better for the rich and powerful who exploit our public lands and wealth, our schools, our technical expertise, our roads and highways, our infra-structure, and our defense and legal systems to maintain their businesses. Done right, it should provide an opportunity for people to start up businesses. Good government in a capitalistic society provides a level playing field and protects the nation's consumers from fraud.
Capitalists owe us; we don't owe them. We have seen what unbridled capitalism has done. Your old saw of "Trickle-down economics-all- bow- to- the- rich" has lost us control over our own government and damned near bankrupted us. Good government has a role to play in maintaining your precious capitalism, and our government has a right to expect cooperation and respect for the people of our country who offer capitalists an opportunity to get rich. Not everyone wants to be rich, and rich is relative.
If you want to play bully capitalism, go start up a company in Somalia. They don't have much government to get in your way; of course, they have no infra-structure to support your business, but I'm sure you can figure something out.
"Who ever said capitalism was good? " I'll say it. Capitalism is good.
Unbridled capitalism, however, is not.
"Good government has a role to play in maintaining your precious capitalism, and our government has a right to expect cooperation and respect for the people of our country who offer capitalists an opportunity to get rich."
Agreed. With emphasis on the "good" part of "good government," which has been rare in the past several decades.
Jeff, until you can show me how, when government interferes in the economy, you can keep business from corrupting government; I'll agree with your statement. The problem with government interference in the economy is that those with money and power will use that government to protect their money and power.
I'm curious as to why you think unbridled free market is such a bad idea. Capitalism only describes the fact that capital goods; money, land and labor are in private not public hands. Free markets describe a market that has no outside influences, the only people involved in the market are the buyers and sellers in that market.
"The problem with government interference in the economy is that those with money and power will use that government to protect their money and power." Of course: those with money and power will use them to protect them. No argument there.
But government does not answer only to one corporation, or one wealthy family (though those entities do have a lot of influence, again, no question). Government must answer to the people at large, all citizens, who all have an equal interest in the country. This means that even if a congressman gets paid off by monied interests, he still must convince entirely other people (the people of his district) to re-hire him.
We Americans tend to agree that the concentration of political power is a bad thing, and subject to abuse. So did the framers, hence the checks and balances in the Constitution. But we tend not to think about the abuse possible with the concentration of economic power, or else regard such abuse as the prerogative of those who have achieved a high concentration of wealth. This is misguided.
"Free markets describe a market that has no outside influences, the only people involved in the market are the buyers and sellers in that market."
And there's no such market in existence today.
by Steven Escareno 2 years ago
According to CNN, Betsy DeVos was picked to be President Trump's Secretary of Education. If you want to know more about her, then click on the link below:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D34AJ2gCzxcAssuming you saw the video, what are your thoughts on this choice? I would LOVE to hear...
by ptosis 23 months ago
Remember Reagan firing all those ATC's when they were on strike? Please discuss if this is a good thing or a bad thing.Should air traffic controllers be privatized? - Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have private ATC. Delta Air Lines, says separating air traffic control...
by Doug Hughes 8 years ago
From Paul Krugman yesterday"More when we have some details. But two key points: 1. Privatizing and voucherizing Medicare does nothing whatsoever to control costs. We’ve seen that from the sorry history of Medicare Advantage. I’m sure that the Republicans will claim savings — but those ...
by Ralph Deeds 8 years ago
Charter schools are being oversold as a way of solving public education problems. "Waiting for Superman" is a prime example of the propaganda efforts promoting charter schools.http://www.thenation.com/article/154986 … g-superman
by ngureco 6 years ago
What’s The Difference between Charter Schools and Traditional Public Schools?
by Sarah Johnson 6 years ago
Do charter schools help or hurt public education in the United States?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|