EPTOn October 21 2011 11:00 caradoc wrote:
I can't decide if you actually believe what you're saying, or if you're just ideologically attached to it for pragmatic reasons.
Free markets do not and have never existed.
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 08:58 Kiarip wrote:
Yeah it is great. and people have power when the government doesn't.
The government isn't ruled by people in general, it's ruled by few, and has a few checks/balances with the general population, but like I said the general population have way less bargaining power wiht the government than they do with businesses in the free market, so the power that the government is given should be minimized so that it has just enough to do it's job of protecting people's rights.
Americans disregard the Constitution all the time because it is so vaguely written. Example: everyone interprets freedom of speech, freedom of assembly in different ways. And this problem with the document has been debated ever since we had a Federalist Party.
The problem now is that there isn't enough stuff around to make our life crap. We have climate controlled shelters, all the entertainment we could short of interactive porn, and machines that can transport us anywhere in 2 days. Brave New World happens, and everyone in power just has to promise to keep Jersey Shore on the air and pretend to be the savior of the world to get into power and we wonder why our life is crap.
Yeah well this is true, but it's all about the mentality. If people are reminded to believe in and love Liberty once again then they can still par-take in the semi-democratic process that remains today to try to change things for the better, and convince the government to once again follow the rules.
I didn't conveniently ignore the part about the water... I said that the banks will lend people the money to start businesses in areas where a monopoly is mistreating them. Or groups of people will pool their resources. You asked me how the people are supposed to compete against water/energy/health care monopolies, and I gave you the answer, they can do that by starting their own companies. Where there is a government un-assisted monopoly, there's a profit to be made by competing with it.
The government stopped being in control of the peopel the moment it was given so much power. The government's power isn't the people's power. Do you feel empowered by the government? ... maybe as a group and only sometimes... The government's power all the legislation that they can is all the stuff that takes power AWAY from the people. Think about it... if there's no laws you have ultimate power, you can go around and do whatever you want/can (i'm not supporting this, I'm just giving you an extreme example.) The government comes in and simply tells you what you can't do, or what you need special permission to do...
and obviously when companies start bribing the government guess who it grants these special permissions to? ... yeah those that give them the most money which tends to be NOT the people... The solution is that the government shouldn't have the power to grant anyone special permissions, it should simply protect its citizens' human rights, and it should stay the hell away from the economy, because the moment it is given power over economy those who are in charge get bribed special interest groups from wealthy organizations.
You are still not getting it. Why are you blaming the government for this? Isn't it the corporations who bought the government? The government at this point in time allows the tiny amount of people in control of the world to do what they want because they own it just like they own the corporations. If I shoot you, is it your fault? If the corporations take over government, is it reasonable to say government is to blame?
The corporations will ALWAYS buy the government as long as there something the government can do for them... Because it's profitable for them to do so, and the whole point of a business is to make money, so if you don't go and try to bribe the government whoever does will drive you out of business because you'll suffer fiscal losses, it is inevitable as long as you give the government ANY power to pick winners and losers amongst businesses in the marketplace.
LOL? If the people in the government were literal saints, yes we wouldnt' be having this problem, but no one is a saint, and everyone has a price. The government are the ones who are accepting the bribes... isn't accepting bribes as big a crime as offering them? I would say it's even a bigger one.
And wars, I have no idea what I'm talking about? Why not? You don't want limitations on corporations and/or don't want to admit they are bad because they are infinitely selfish entities that will want to get power, which is the exact reason they want to control the government. IF we allow them to take over the government they will. If the government exists only for protection of the rights you mentioned, they will STILL take over the government IF WE ALLOW THEM TO, and they will use it do get more profit. And if we have no limits, then what stops them from being the law and starting a war against another corporation, literally? After all they are infinitely selfish, it is their definition!
Corporations are no less infinitely selfish than the government. People in the government use their position to extract money from corporations in exchange for helping them out. The government will always be offerred money under the table by wealthy businesses as long as there is something that the businesses want from the government. The real solution is to not give the government any power that is capable of helping one business in the marketplace over another.
What the hell do you "IF WE ALLOW THEM TO" why would they offer the government any money to try to buy them if there's nothing they want from the government?
You're saying there needs to be regulations and strong government, but if the government is "strong" it just means that it has even more power, so that gives corporations even MORE incentive to buy the government... you can't "NOT ALLOW THEM TO." You can only make it so it's not desirable for them to do so, either that or you have to give the government so much power that their executives don't even need money, because they can literally take whatever they want (that way the corporations will have nothing to actually offer them,) but that would be trampling all over human property rights, and would in fact be total communism/socialism.
more @caradoc
The government isn't ideally structured to provide for the needs of society. That's not even possible. Yes it's more or less well structured to protect our rights and freedoms, and that's what they should do.
But we have so many needs, and each need requires its own infrostructure, the federal government isn't ideally designed to deliver to us any product that we buy for money.
THat's why there's a free market, where in each industry businesses can compete with each other and those best designed at providing us with products of the highest possible quality and lowest possible price are the ones that are able to survive. Free market competition is what causes businesses to strive to structure themselves in the most efficient way possible, the government doesn't really have any incentives to do that because a government doesn't have any competition.
If you impose stifling regulations on corporations they will stop hiring people here, and will increase the costs of their products in response to the increase of their internal expenses that is caused by the new-found constricting regulations.
You have to realize that the DICK that the corporations are screwing us WITH is the strap-on called government legislative power, which allows them to create a bunch of unnecessary licenses and regulations with loopholes for businesses that paid them the most money, and as a result these businesses are no longer bound by the rules of the free market competition that normally drives businesses to increase quality and lower prices, because their competitors to have to increase prices or lower quality by increasing their production costs via targetted regulations created by the government.
So government is being influenced by big corporations. Corporations are influencing the government.
...and the conclusion here is that the government's power to govern is at fault just because it exists? It's not the part where the big corporations "influence" the government (in less than legal ways) that rings the alarm bells in this story, it's the part where government has powers that can be abused.
I must be going crazy here.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that outside of this theoretical world, powerful corporations we have today will have no trouble at all to find a way to ensure that there is never any real competition. Just face it - at the end of the line, everyone wants one thing. And it's not money. It's control. And control without social responsibility is the most appealing kind.
Last edit: 2011-10-21 08:07:15
@Talin
How do you propose corporations lose control over the government? You have people being placed into positions of insane amount of power, and corporations have a lot of money, it's a fiscally smart investment for corporations to have lobbyist groups that bribe politicians...
how is this gonna be prevented? The politicians want to be bribed, and the corporations want to bribe them...
@hoi
It's not the people's fault per-say that they can't find jobs, but it IS the government's. Deregulation would increase employment.
The rate of growth and ponzi scheme you're talkign about is nonsense, do you even understand what you're saying?
THe only thing that's failed is the government, it failed by continuously intervening in our economy by picking winners and losers.
On October 21 2011 04:28 caradoc wrote:
People should have power. Power is fine if it doesn't screw over society. Power is great if its held by the many.
On October 21 2011 04:18 Kiarip wrote:
science and industry doesn't effect how the government is run. there were always peopel taht had al ot of money and those people always had the opportunity to try and bribe government officials, the only difference is back then people still followed the constitution adn believed that government doesn't ahve unlimited power, but today people disregard teh constitution because they think the government will save them from evil corporations if you give ti enough power... which simply corrupts it more and gives more incentives for corporations to bribe the government.
those things are equivalent to unions, but once again unions have more power...
by the way don't think that I'm saying tehre should be government supported unions... that's another no-no.
On October 21 2011 04:16 BlueBird. wrote:
I actually went to the archives and saw the constitution last week, you can't even read the original document anymore just a bunch of scribbles and smudges(been like this for quite some time), the people that worked on it didn't really know how science/industry/population growth would make this country change.. it's a different world, and a different time. The document itself is magnificent, and stands for some really awesome stuff, but to say that it's not a little outdated? That's why the constitution allows the supreme court to mess with it, it's pretty much in the constitution that they get to interpret it, and for quite some time( at least as long as I've been alive, not a history major) we've been using the government to regulate, or even help big business and the economy.
We also can make amendments, etc. Fun
On October 21 2011 03:44 Kiarip wrote:
Yeah... I know there's a ton of literature about how free market fails.
But ALL of that literature relies on the idea that the government should be the supreme legislative power of the nation.
But any time you give the government supreme legislative power nothing good will come of it. This is why a government needs a consitution the rules of which it can not cross.
This is why a Constitution is so important. It defines the role of the government as a body whose purpose is to protect the Human rights defined/established in it, and managing the economy is NOT in the scope of protecting human rights in fact it directly VIOLATES property rights.
On October 21 2011 03:34 caradoc wrote:
I encourage you to go read about the industrial revolution. Particularly, the plight of the working class.
On October 21 2011 03:32 Kiarip wrote:
yeah we are on the same page.
You want to give the governmetn so much power that it doesn't need anything from the corporations.
And I want to limit the government's power that the corporations don't need anything from the government.
The problem with the first is that since government officials are still people, you can't have them not need anything from the market without them having the right to take whatever they want with no reprecussions.
You think that the problem with my idea is that without the government the corporations will run amuck, however you're ignoring pretty much all historical evidence, that the only time that corporations HAVE been able to run amuck is when they are able to manipulate legislature to give them unfair competitive advantages in the marketplace.
Without the unfair competitive advantage that they get from the government they will be forced by the rules of the free market to improve quality and reduce prices in order to not be out-competed.
You can't make generalized statements about human nature that not everyone would agree with, and then use those as the foundation of your argument-- nobody will agree with you, and the argument will go around in circles. This is not an ideological assertion, its simply good practice in having a discussion.
In general, we are on the same page in one sense-- we don't want oligarchs and corporations controlling society
In general, we are on the same page in one sense-- we don't want oligarchs and corporations controlling society
yeah we are on the same page.
You want to give the governmetn so much power that it doesn't need anything from the corporations.
And I want to limit the government's power that the corporations don't need anything from the government.
The problem with the first is that since government officials are still people, you can't have them not need anything from the market without them having the right to take whatever they want with no reprecussions.
You think that the problem with my idea is that without the government the corporations will run amuck, however you're ignoring pretty much all historical evidence, that the only time that corporations HAVE been able to run amuck is when they are able to manipulate legislature to give them unfair competitive advantages in the marketplace.
Without the unfair competitive advantage that they get from the government they will be forced by the rules of the free market to improve quality and reduce prices in order to not be out-competed.
I encourage you to go read about the industrial revolution. Particularly, the plight of the working class.
Yeah... I know there's a ton of literature about how free market fails.
But ALL of that literature relies on the idea that the government should be the supreme legislative power of the nation.
But any time you give the government supreme legislative power nothing good will come of it. This is why a government needs a consitution the rules of which it can not cross.
This is why a Constitution is so important. It defines the role of the government as a body whose purpose is to protect the Human rights defined/established in it, and managing the economy is NOT in the scope of protecting human rights in fact it directly VIOLATES property rights.
I actually went to the archives and saw the constitution last week, you can't even read the original document anymore just a bunch of scribbles and smudges(been like this for quite some time), the people that worked on it didn't really know how science/industry/population growth would make this country change.. it's a different world, and a different time. The document itself is magnificent, and stands for some really awesome stuff, but to say that it's not a little outdated? That's why the constitution allows the supreme court to mess with it, it's pretty much in the constitution that they get to interpret it, and for quite some time( at least as long as I've been alive, not a history major) we've been using the government to regulate, or even help big business and the economy.
We also can make amendments, etc. Fun
science and industry doesn't effect how the government is run. there were always peopel taht had al ot of money and those people always had the opportunity to try and bribe government officials, the only difference is back then people still followed the constitution adn believed that government doesn't ahve unlimited power, but today people disregard teh constitution because they think the government will save them from evil corporations if you give ti enough power... which simply corrupts it more and gives more incentives for corporations to bribe the government.
This is true to an extent, and I agree with you to a degree.
This is why we need grassroots organization/mobilizing and why we need to build an alternative set of structures that are participatory in nature.
This is why we need grassroots organization/mobilizing and why we need to build an alternative set of structures that are participatory in nature.
those things are equivalent to unions, but once again unions have more power...
by the way don't think that I'm saying tehre should be government supported unions... that's another no-no.
People should have power. Power is fine if it doesn't screw over society. Power is great if its held by the many.
Yeah it is great. and people have power when the government doesn't.
The government isn't ruled by people in general, it's ruled by few, and has a few checks/balances with the general population, but like I said the general population have way less bargaining power wiht the government than they do with businesses in the free market, so the power that the government is given should be minimized so that it has just enough to do it's job of protecting people's rights.
Americans disregard the Constitution all the time because it is so vaguely written. Example: everyone interprets freedom of speech, freedom of assembly in different ways. And this problem with the document has been debated ever since we had a Federalist Party.
The problem now is that there isn't enough stuff around to make our life crap. We have climate controlled shelters, all the entertainment we could short of interactive porn, and machines that can transport us anywhere in 2 days. Brave New World happens, and everyone in power just has to promise to keep Jersey Shore on the air and pretend to be the savior of the world to get into power and we wonder why our life is crap.
Yeah well this is true, but it's all about the mentality. If people are reminded to believe in and love Liberty once again then they can still par-take in the semi-democratic process that remains today to try to change things for the better, and convince the government to once again follow the rules.
You conveniently ignored the part about water, health care and electricity companies and decided to focus on the bank part instead, hmm...
Banks will indeed want safe loans if the government won't bail them out, but the effect is the same. Banks steal wealth by interest, it's simply a money moving scheme from poor to rich which will eventually concentrate every last bit of wealth on a tiny amount of people. Also, the problems in the banking sector are much more because of CEOs going for quick money that will destroy the bank in the long run, because this allows them to give themselves a big bonus.
Banks will indeed want safe loans if the government won't bail them out, but the effect is the same. Banks steal wealth by interest, it's simply a money moving scheme from poor to rich which will eventually concentrate every last bit of wealth on a tiny amount of people. Also, the problems in the banking sector are much more because of CEOs going for quick money that will destroy the bank in the long run, because this allows them to give themselves a big bonus.
I didn't conveniently ignore the part about the water... I said that the banks will lend people the money to start businesses in areas where a monopoly is mistreating them. Or groups of people will pool their resources. You asked me how the people are supposed to compete against water/energy/health care monopolies, and I gave you the answer, they can do that by starting their own companies. Where there is a government un-assisted monopoly, there's a profit to be made by competing with it.
They are not supported by the government. THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Government existing is not the problem, the problem is that it's no longer in control of the people. Competing with them is irrelevant because it will have the same destructive results regardless of what corporation is doing things. Money is disconnected from what matters, look at the big earners and look at what they do for society: nothing. If I invent a cheaper way of treating a disease, then why would I use it if it gives me less money? Monopolies are the direct effect of a "free" market.
The government stopped being in control of the peopel the moment it was given so much power. The government's power isn't the people's power. Do you feel empowered by the government? ... maybe as a group and only sometimes... The government's power all the legislation that they can is all the stuff that takes power AWAY from the people. Think about it... if there's no laws you have ultimate power, you can go around and do whatever you want/can (i'm not supporting this, I'm just giving you an extreme example.) The government comes in and simply tells you what you can't do, or what you need special permission to do...
and obviously when companies start bribing the government guess who it grants these special permissions to? ... yeah those that give them the most money which tends to be NOT the people... The solution is that the government shouldn't have the power to grant anyone special permissions, it should simply protect its citizens' human rights, and it should stay the hell away from the economy, because the moment it is given power over economy those who are in charge get bribed special interest groups from wealthy organizations.
You are still not getting it. Why are you blaming the government for this? Isn't it the corporations who bought the government? The government at this point in time allows the tiny amount of people in control of the world to do what they want because they own it just like they own the corporations. If I shoot you, is it your fault? If the corporations take over government, is it reasonable to say government is to blame?
The corporations will ALWAYS buy the government as long as there something the government can do for them... Because it's profitable for them to do so, and the whole point of a business is to make money, so if you don't go and try to bribe the government whoever does will drive you out of business because you'll suffer fiscal losses, it is inevitable as long as you give the government ANY power to pick winners and losers amongst businesses in the marketplace.
LOL? If the people in the government were literal saints, yes we wouldnt' be having this problem, but no one is a saint, and everyone has a price. The government are the ones who are accepting the bribes... isn't accepting bribes as big a crime as offering them? I would say it's even a bigger one.
And wars, I have no idea what I'm talking about? Why not? You don't want limitations on corporations and/or don't want to admit they are bad because they are infinitely selfish entities that will want to get power, which is the exact reason they want to control the government. IF we allow them to take over the government they will. If the government exists only for protection of the rights you mentioned, they will STILL take over the government IF WE ALLOW THEM TO, and they will use it do get more profit. And if we have no limits, then what stops them from being the law and starting a war against another corporation, literally? After all they are infinitely selfish, it is their definition!
Corporations are no less infinitely selfish than the government. People in the government use their position to extract money from corporations in exchange for helping them out. The government will always be offerred money under the table by wealthy businesses as long as there is something that the businesses want from the government. The real solution is to not give the government any power that is capable of helping one business in the marketplace over another.
What the hell do you "IF WE ALLOW THEM TO" why would they offer the government any money to try to buy them if there's nothing they want from the government?
You're saying there needs to be regulations and strong government, but if the government is "strong" it just means that it has even more power, so that gives corporations even MORE incentive to buy the government... you can't "NOT ALLOW THEM TO." You can only make it so it's not desirable for them to do so, either that or you have to give the government so much power that their executives don't even need money, because they can literally take whatever they want (that way the corporations will have nothing to actually offer them,) but that would be trampling all over human property rights, and would in fact be total communism/socialism.
I don't think he did. I think you misread what he said. Its okay.
Government is problematic, but it is at least construed as a structure that is responsible for providing for the needs of society as a whole. That construal in the minds of the public is a powerful thing, because the public can hold it accountable.
Of course the public can also hold the corporation accountable, but I think we're all just in favour of gutting their ability to screw us all over by imposing stifling regulations on them, and the obvious means of doing this is through the vehicle of government.
Last edit: 2011-10-21 04:47:01
Government is problematic, but it is at least construed as a structure that is responsible for providing for the needs of society as a whole. That construal in the minds of the public is a powerful thing, because the public can hold it accountable.
Of course the public can also hold the corporation accountable, but I think we're all just in favour of gutting their ability to screw us all over by imposing stifling regulations on them, and the obvious means of doing this is through the vehicle of government.
Last edit: 2011-10-21 04:47:01
more @caradoc
The government isn't ideally structured to provide for the needs of society. That's not even possible. Yes it's more or less well structured to protect our rights and freedoms, and that's what they should do.
But we have so many needs, and each need requires its own infrostructure, the federal government isn't ideally designed to deliver to us any product that we buy for money.
THat's why there's a free market, where in each industry businesses can compete with each other and those best designed at providing us with products of the highest possible quality and lowest possible price are the ones that are able to survive. Free market competition is what causes businesses to strive to structure themselves in the most efficient way possible, the government doesn't really have any incentives to do that because a government doesn't have any competition.
If you impose stifling regulations on corporations they will stop hiring people here, and will increase the costs of their products in response to the increase of their internal expenses that is caused by the new-found constricting regulations.
You have to realize that the DICK that the corporations are screwing us WITH is the strap-on called government legislative power, which allows them to create a bunch of unnecessary licenses and regulations with loopholes for businesses that paid them the most money, and as a result these businesses are no longer bound by the rules of the free market competition that normally drives businesses to increase quality and lower prices, because their competitors to have to increase prices or lower quality by increasing their production costs via targetted regulations created by the government.
So government is being influenced by big corporations. Corporations are influencing the government.
...and the conclusion here is that the government's power to govern is at fault just because it exists? It's not the part where the big corporations "influence" the government (in less than legal ways) that rings the alarm bells in this story, it's the part where government has powers that can be abused.
I must be going crazy here.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that outside of this theoretical world, powerful corporations we have today will have no trouble at all to find a way to ensure that there is never any real competition. Just face it - at the end of the line, everyone wants one thing. And it's not money. It's control. And control without social responsibility is the most appealing kind.
Last edit: 2011-10-21 08:07:15
@Talin
How do you propose corporations lose control over the government? You have people being placed into positions of insane amount of power, and corporations have a lot of money, it's a fiscally smart investment for corporations to have lobbyist groups that bribe politicians...
how is this gonna be prevented? The politicians want to be bribed, and the corporations want to bribe them...
Why is it someones fault if he/she is unemployed? Unemployment rates, the official ones NOT changed to make it sound better are above 20% (USA). It's not their bad decisions, it's a problem of the system. The system is obviously wrong and here is why: in order to have every person working we need to get more jobs, which means more growth. Can we grow infinitely? No, we cannot but this is what the economy wishes to do and thus it is a ponzi scheme. Not only the growth, but also the rate of growth is limited. It's simple math, ponzi schemes crash.
The current system and ideology has already failed, it's time to move on.
The current system and ideology has already failed, it's time to move on.
@hoi
It's not the people's fault per-say that they can't find jobs, but it IS the government's. Deregulation would increase employment.
The rate of growth and ponzi scheme you're talkign about is nonsense, do you even understand what you're saying?
THe only thing that's failed is the government, it failed by continuously intervening in our economy by picking winners and losers.
I can't decide if you actually believe what you're saying, or if you're just ideologically attached to it for pragmatic reasons.
Free markets do not and have never existed.
We were pretty close early in the history of United States, and it played a huge role in us catching up to the rest of the world economically. Our constitution was established back when a lot of European countries were still rather strict monarchies, and everyone was a hell of a lot more anti-federalist in this country than they are now, and as a result we've had tons of immigration and America really once was the land of opportunity.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WBkns.jpg)
