Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Capitalism      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 101
CapitalismPage 5 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Talk that government is holding back from the market being a free market is true, but most of that comes from the companies themselves.

There are very few business that want a free market.

That is why they have lawyers and lobbyist to create rules and regulations to protect them but as soon as something comes along to protect the consumers interest they cry "government intervention is hurting us", all the time hiding behind their Mikey Mouse patents, trademarks and interstate commerce laws, on top of piles of bureaucracy created to tilt the table in their favor.

The way it s right now, it is a game of monopoly and 1% out there has 2 hotels on every block plus the Rail Roads and the little guy can not even put a house on Mediterranean.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 102
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 3/19/2011 12:20:37 PM

Talk that government is holding back from the market being a free market is true, but most of that comes from the companies themselves.

There are very few business that want a free market.

That is why they have lawyers and lobbyist to create rules and regulations to protect them but as soon as something comes along to protect the consumers interest they cry "government intervention is hurting us", all the time hiding behind their Mikey Mouse patents, trademarks and interstate commerce laws, on top of piles of bureaucracy created to tilt the table in their favor.

The way it s right now, it is a game of monopoly and 1% out there has 2 hotels on every block plus the Rail Roads and the little guy can not even put a house on Mediterranean.

Regulations more effectively bar entry to the market by new businesses and reinforce the larger businesses, actually.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 103
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 4/7/2011 6:14:18 PM
It depends on the exact regulations, dej. There certainly are SOME that were created (sometimes with the direct urging and "help" of the benefiting large corporations), which do limit the ability of small and new businesses to enter the market, but there are also plenty that were specifically written because large corporations were using their size and monetary power to prevent competition. Thus, to have a valid criticism of "government regulation of business," you must specify exactly which regulations you refer to.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 104
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 4/8/2011 10:05:00 AM
That's true. But mostly, things that require submitting paperwork to the government effectively harm small businesses and give larger businesses an edge over them, as they can afford to pay a secretary to make the filings, whereas that cuts into a small business's capital a little more deeply.

I'm actually not sure what regulations you're referring to that are beneficial, but I can hypothetically imagine some (such as anti-trust laws and monopoly laws).
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 105
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 4/8/2011 3:43:23 PM
Those are the big obvious ones. Others include some you might not think of as being beneficial, or at least not injurious to new small businesses: those requiring inspections for quality, as with food stuffs. Others, are the ones that require businesses to compete fairly, such as the prohibition against a big company selling at a loss in one locale, in order to drive a new competitor out of business. That used to be common practice, before the Fed's stepped in, and used their legal authority to regulate interstate commerce to put a stop to it.
I would expect that submitting paperwork would have been helped tremendously by computers, so that putting the right forms in is no longer as much of a challenge as it might once have been.
I do very much appreciate that there are a fair number of very badly done regulations, that add unnecessary work burdens to all businesses, without actually addressing the problems they were meant to fix. I'm not a blank-check "pro regulation" person by any means.
 itechman63
Joined: 7/7/2005
Msg: 106
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 4/20/2011 7:04:11 PM
As I recall history... Empires of old... do all structures/ideologies have a shelf life? With a beginning and an end, has OUR Capitalism neared it's end because all that came in between that corrupted it cannot be undone? Are we clinging to something that no longer applies beyond theory as a true recovery to it's glory days appears less likely?

Just a nagging question and not so much opinion.
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 107
Capitalism
Posted: 4/22/2011 9:55:16 AM
itechman that is a "good" nagging question (so to speak). I am often nagged by the same question in fact.

Return to its glory days or boom time? IMO = not very likely. We may be living through a switch (painful for many people, no doubt) to the new "standard". At the same time I'm not implying that capitalism will collapse or anything like that. It remains strong (apparently even the type that *should* collapse, ie, the casino-style "ultra-capitalism" which largely led to much of the downturn...).

Personally I am essentially a social-democrat, so I'm not in favor of eliminating capitalism entirely (I don't think that's truly possible or arguably even desirable) but I am in favor of serious -- and I mean serious -- changes and reforms to it (and likewise to many other things about this country, from foreign policy to military spending and healthcare and even possibly the Constitution in certain places). My foreign policy and military spending policies, as well as at least a few domestic points, would actually be most similar to a Ron Paul (in fact he's one of the relatively few politicians I truly admire here -- even though he and I would differ greatly on taxation and domestic social spending issues). But if they put someone like me in office, the conservatives around this country would be longing for the days of a centrist mainstream Democrat like Obama.
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 108
Capitalism
Posted: 4/23/2011 1:23:36 AM
Capitalism would have us all sell our labor and skill on the market...

Socialism... would have us all sell our labor and skill to the public...

Its just semantics!

Either way, man leaves disconnected from his soul!

Either way... without a true genuine culture with a true genuine leader, humankind is lost!

The true tragedy of this thread is that it has descended into a capitalist vs socialist thread.

Hamiltonian vision was capitalist. Leninist vision was communist. The biggest difference in that one viewed totalitarianism as a foe, the other, a friend. Then there was Jefferson... who thought all men could be great men... and great politics... a true fool. There is either one or the other. We either have to come to the conclusion that great men are to an end... or great politics are.

Great political systems lead to un-noteworthy political figures. Political figures of note mean that good politics failed and a great person prevailed.

Look at history:

Elizabeth
Washington
Napoleon
Hitler
Lenin

Those were the latest greats compared to their respective political systems. Who would rathe have a great person than a great politic?
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 109
Capitalism
Posted: 4/23/2011 9:55:20 AM
Im sorry but some of these posts Im reading regarding what people think Capitalism is just bunk and whole lot of bunk.

As much as I love Capitalism we don't live in a capitalist society, I WISH WE DID, we live in statism society with a mixed economy.

For those that think I want to Eliminate government that's the furthest from the truth, I want responsible government, I want a government that 1) protect my rights and 2) not persecute me as a business man.

Why a lot of you out there think Capitalism is Big Business and Wall street, they are part of the system NOT the system, We don't need more regulations we need some of these regulations and laws repealed IMO, Government intervention is the problem , more laws isn't going to make it better. Some of you should read Ludwig von Mises " human Action" he points facts not myths regarding the damage caused by Government intervention and planned economies,and you will see why big business gets away with the crap they do.

Some of these big corporations are hiding behind special interest groups,powerful lobbyist that has their own interest in hand, Unions and labor leaders blah blah blah.

Some of you complained about Lost jobs to Asia, India so what? the DNA of a company is the make money and if its public its to appease its shareholders.

If the legacy cost weren't so high in North America maybe they wouldn't have to move over seas to make money which is part of the problem, are their greedy business owners, that goes without saying but ask your self WHY?

The one thing I like what Obama is doing is taxing the business and the rich and soon they will get fed up and move their companies to countries like CANADA and Mexico because the taxes in those countries are lower and bring up those countries economies and that's good for future shareholders, now im being facetious but ask your self
what is your politician doing to put money in YOUR pockets?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 110
Capitalism
Posted: 4/24/2011 3:37:24 PM

The one thing I like what Obama is doing is taxing the business and the rich and soon they will get fed up and move their companies to countries like CANADA and Mexico because the taxes in those countries are lower and bring up those countries economies and that's good for future shareholders, now im being facetious but ask your self
what is your politician doing to put money in YOUR pockets?

You might want to ask why Lion's Gate Films moved their head office to the States then.

They started here in Vancouver, moved to Toronto. They've won a Best Picture Oscar. They had no problem doing business in America or California - obviously their LA office was thriving. Yet they moved from Canada to a place where the corporate tax rate is twice as high.

Here's a hint - value for money. Even at the higher tax rate, they still get more in service from the government there than they pay for. Virtually everything the State department does is protect the interests of American companies. Their movies are now released and they have a huge bureaucracy protecting them from piracy. That's just one example.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 111
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 4/24/2011 7:04:42 PM
Thanks Halftime, yet another example of how THIS JUST ISN'T THAT SIMPLE.

The biggest problem Capitalism has ALWAYS had, is that it is utilized by HUMAN BEINGS. Humans do not behave in the ideal ways that basic Capitalism expects them to. If they did, we could get along with far less government involvement in business than we do.
Although I disagree with some of what CDN Iceman says, I agree with him that we do not have basic Capitalism here, nor have I seen it in use anywhere else in the world. This is because when it IS tried, it immediately causes problems for it's participants, and gets artificially modified. Where I disagree with most people who argue for LESS regulated capitalism, or more actual capitalism (depending on your point of view), is that most of them look at only the small part of the picture that bugs them, for whatever reason, and ignore the rest of the very complicated interactions and forces that will ALSO require modification when what THEY want is changed.
I suspect that PART of the real set of reasons we are in the financial mess we are in right now, is because some people have indulged in partial "fixes" to the economy, without addressing the many other elements that are necessarily involved. One of the big fights is so intense, because each subgroup of participants is eager that "sacrifices must be made," but they want to be sure that it's one of the OTHER participants who MAKES those sacrifices.
One thing that seems to be impossible, is to ignore the mathematics of economics. If you reduce wages, profits are helped..but the ability of the working class to buy what is produced falls, and so all the industries that they DO spend on, suffer retraction in turn. On the other hand, if employers are forced to raise wages, or spend more on health care, then profits fall, and the ability of the companies to PAY for those wages and health care goes down in turn, reducing how many they can employ. Everything effects something else. I sometimes visualize it like a balloon, where if you squeeze in one place, the thing just gets fat in another place, but if you try to puncture it in one place to fix THAT part being too big, the whole thing goes flat.
It seems to me that we are plagued both in our governments, and in many debates, by an inability or a refusal on almost everyone's part to recognize this. Hence we have things like the "tax the rich because they can afford it" on one side, and the "don't tax the rich, tax everyone else, because the rich are the paymasters" on the other side, neither of whom realize that the two groups are economically linked, so that EITHER simple approach will simply be "squeezing the balloon."
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 112
Capitalism
Posted: 4/25/2011 8:29:24 AM

You might want to ask why Lion's Gate Films moved their head office to the States then.

They started here in Vancouver, moved to Toronto. They've won a Best Picture Oscar. They had no problem doing business in America or California - obviously their LA office was thriving. Yet they moved from Canada to a place where the corporate tax rate is twice as high.
Probably because it does most of its business in Santa Monica California, perhaps you should ask the CEO of Lions Gate he's in a better position to answer that question.

Here's a hint Halftime dad, EVERYTHING is done for money, whether is a small business owner to the big corporation trying to please share holder its always about the money/profit or in some cases " losses"

Sorry Igor, I dont agree with what you said, you're basically saying we need more regulations because Humans cannot regulate themselves therefore the answer is have more government intervention and laws that dont make sense on top of other laws that equally doesn't make much sense? I dont see the logic behind that.

You seem to forget even under Socialism , the money has to come from some where, even a socialist government has to have money to distribute, lets say it happens and the government redistributes the wealth, so tell me where is the incentive for the business man to produce? governments dont create jobs except for government jobs, the private sector is the one that creates jobs.

Look at the Country of Greece, 48% of people dont pay taxes, highest number of Government employees is that the system you want to have in America?

Dont kid yourself in believing the rich doesn't pay taxes, they are just smart on how they pay the taxes.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 113
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 4/25/2011 4:03:05 PM
"you're basically saying we need more regulations because Humans cannot regulate themselves therefore the answer is have more government intervention and laws that dont make sense on top of other laws that equally doesn't make much sense?"
Nope, that's not what I'm saying. First of all, the Government ARE humans. So are the businesspeople. Second, humans CAN regulate themselves, and they CREATED government specifically to do just that.
What I was referring to, is the basic version of capitalism that is most commonly taught: that it is SELF-REGULATING, because of things like:
- that when a product is bad, or not good enough, then a competitor will bring out a better one, and all will benefit.
- that if someone nefariously tries to get away with selling bad meat, for example, that this will become known, and they will quickly be forced to go out of business, or start selling the GOOD stuff.
- that if the entrepreneur wants work done, and has not offered high enough wages to attract the people he needs, that he will find a way to provide that pay, by adjusting his product or processes etc.
- that when there is more demand for something than production, that the profit motive will lead others to begin or increase production which will fill that demand.

I could go on, but I expect you know this sort of thing. And it all WOULD be true, in a perfect world. But whenever we've tried to rely on that self-regulating aspect of capitalism, we've always found that some humans are clever enough and unscrupulous enough to opt to NOT play fair. Instead of improving their product, they will sabotage the competitors. Instead of raising wages or improving processes, they will get the government, paid for by the taxes on their workers, to help them import cheaper workers form other countries. Instead of improving the working places and making them safe for their employees, they will hire much less expensive ruffians to attack any employees who fail to work under the bad conditions.
All of these kinds of things have happened in the past, and this is WHY we have so many government regulations. Again, I have never said that ALL regulations are good.
Nor have I ever said that ONLY the government should control businesses..that's another common "boo!" fantasy that anti-regulation people pretend is a real threat.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 114
Capitalism
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:37:17 PM

But whenever we've tried to rely on that self-regulating aspect of capitalism, we've always found that some humans are clever enough and unscrupulous enough to opt to NOT play fair. Instead of improving their product, they will sabotage the competitors. Instead of raising wages or improving processes, they will get the government, paid for by the taxes on their workers, to help them import cheaper workers form other countries. Instead of improving the working places and making them safe for their employees, they will hire much less expensive ruffians to attack any employees who fail to work under the bad conditions.
This I dont agree with, the reason why we have monopolies and unscrupulous business people is because of government intervention in the first place.

If there was no government interference these so called business people heck even people on Wall street wouldn't make it a free market.

What you are referring to is back in the early days of the industrial revolution, and all these silly laws ( anti trust, wagner act etc)
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 115
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/3/2011 4:13:45 AM
I'm willing to listen (read). Please explain how monopolies only happened because of government interference? And how there were no unscrupulous business people before government stepped in? I have studied history for fifty years, and have seen only the opposite, but if you have evidence I missed, I would like to know it.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 116
Capitalism
Posted: 5/4/2011 12:09:20 AM


I'm willing to listen (read). Please explain how monopolies only happened because of government interference?


It might be interesting to list all the monopolies that have existed and then determine if they arose in the (relatively) free market, or if they were creatures of the government. Okay, there's probably too many to list here, but we can make a start.

Federal Reserve: This monopoly was created through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The member banks existed before 1913, but they didn't have the monopoly powers that they do now until the Federal Reserve Act was passed.

US Postal Service: This was created in 1775 by the Second Continental Congress and legally has a monopoly on delivering the mail to boxes marked "US Mail".

AT&T: AT&T never had a complete monopoly on telephone communications, except for in 1918 when the entire telecommunications industry was nationalized. That was short lived and when it was privatized state governments banned independent companies from laying down new telephone wires, and either highly regulated competition or prohibited it.

Amtrak: Amtrak has a near monopoly on passenger rail. Railroads were originally owned by many private corporations. However due to high taxes on railroads and subsidizes for the highway system and airports, passenger trains were quickly becoming obsolete. When Amtrak was formed in 1971 (and getting subsidies in the process), most existing railroads joined up with it.

Standard Oil: This is commonly viewed as a monopoly or near monopoly. In 1880 Standard Oil had 90% of the refining capacity in the US. It was able to get such a huge market share through very low prices (consumers loved Standard Oil for this, but the competitors hated it) and better efficiency than the competitors. The reason why people oppose monopolies is the fear that they will charge overinflated prices. Standard Oil's market share would steadily drop to about 60% in 1911 due to competition with other oil companies. In 1911 it was broken up into smaller companies. Standard Oil is usually held up as an example of a failing of the free market to prevent monopolies, but what it really shows is that even if a monopoly appears the free market doesn't let it survive as a monopoly for long. Incidentally, while most oil companies at the time would dump their gasoline into the rivers (since that automobile hadn't become popular yet), evil Standard Oil didn't, opting instead to use it to power their machines.

Robert Fulton Steamboat: New York bestowed upon Robert Fulton monopoly control over all steamboat traffic for 30 years. Thomas Gibbons, in violation of state law, starting ferrying people in New York at rates below those or Robert Fulton. Gibbons was sued, and lost the case. Then he appealed to the Supreme Court and won.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 117
Capitalism
Posted: 5/4/2011 7:59:57 AM
well sorry I came a little late to the party but CountIbli beat me to the punch so need to repeat what he has said.
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 118
Capitalism
Posted: 5/4/2011 10:05:18 AM

You seem to forget even under Socialism , the money has to come from some where, even a socialist government has to have money to distribute, lets say it happens and the government redistributes the wealth, so tell me where is the incentive for the business man to produce?

The fallacy that people will only start business when their income level is not caped is a weak argument at best and can not be back up with any data.




...governments dont create jobs except for government jobs, the private sector is the one that creates jobs.

Right and he private secotor does not create jobs other than the private sector jobs.




Dont kid yourself in believing the rich doesn't pay taxes, they are just smart on how they pay the taxes.

If you think the top 1% pay even close to their fair share you really should cut back on the kool-aid.
 4rumninja
Joined: 11/30/2009
Msg: 119
Capitalism
Posted: 5/4/2011 10:59:19 AM

If you think the top 1% pay even close to their fair share you really should cut back on the kool-aid.
Can Liberals not do math? The "Rich" pay more than taxes they provide jobs and the American dream for millions of Americans...

"Fair" share?...I hear you all say this all the time, I think what it boils down to is "Sour Grapes" you and people like you think that the "Rich" should be punished because it is not "Fair" that they have so much and some have little....

This is not Politically Correct to say but "Life is not Fair"..remember being raised hearing that? Unfortunately for all of you disillusioned Libs, Life isn't fair and everyone isn't the same. We all are unique good and bad..trying to make us all the same doesn't benefit anyone.

Think about it, my Son has a Dress code at School the logic behind it is that its not "Fair" that some kids get Hollister while others wear Walmart...

What people like you are doing is sending a message that you and those like you are the only capable of determining what is "Fair"...Personally I don't think that is "Fair'
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 120
Capitalism
Posted: 5/4/2011 12:58:00 PM
Can Liberals not do math?...

Is it possible that when someone post a point of view that differs from your own you do not assume their political affiliation?




The "Rich" pay more than taxes they provide jobs and the American dream for millions of Americans...

More is still not their fair share as they pay much less as a % of take home pay in comparison to all others.




"Fair" share?...I hear you all say this all the time, I think what it boils down to is "Sour Grapes" you and people like you think that the "Rich" should be punished because it is not "Fair" that they have so much and some have little....

Is that not what a society is all about. Everyone working together for the good of everyone else and not everyone?

I do not think the rich should be punished, I do think the poor should stop being used as the scape goat though, with respect to the current economic situation.




This is not Politically Correct to say but "Life is not Fair"..remember being raised hearing that?

Yep heard it all the time.




Think about it, my Son has a Dress code at School the logic behind it is that its not "Fair" that some kids get Hollister while others wear Walmart...

So what does that have to do with the fact that people like John Paulson how made over 9billion in hedge fund market yet paid $0 taxes on those earnings, Is that fair?




What people like you are doing is sending a message that you and those like you are the only capable of determining what is "Fair"...Personally I don't think that is

No, I am just going by the facts to determine what is fair and unfair.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 121
Capitalism
Posted: 5/4/2011 1:34:10 PM

The fallacy that people will only start business when their income level is not caped is a weak argument at best and can not be back up with any data.<
That is not what I said man, try re reading what I said S L O W L Y this time.



>Right and he private secotor does not create jobs other than the private sector jobs.
Not sure what your point is there? anyways.... nobody gets rich working for the government.


If you think the top 1% pay even close to their fair share you really should cut back on the kool-aid.<
Don't know if you're trying to be funny here, are you saying that because I dont like fried chicken and watermelon Good Lord.

Anyways they do pay taxes the 1% wealthy its deferred that's all.



So what does that have to do with the fact that people like John Paulson how made over 9billion in hedge fund market yet paid $0 taxes on those earnings, Is that fair?<
WRONG , WRONG, WRONG.... he does pay taxes ,its deferred taxes

You want to blame guys like him for taking advantage of a law that was set up by these idiotic politicians

This is how it works and why its " seems" like he pays no taxes.

Hedge fund managers are supposed to pay 15 percent tax , because profits from hedge funds is considered capital gains, not ordinary income.

Most Hedge fund managers don't even pay 15 % at least not right now so long as they leave their money, known as "carried interest," in the hedge fund, their taxes are deferred. They only pay taxes when they cash out, which could be mega years from now.

When ever Hedge fund managers Needs money to live on or what ever they do that By borrowing against the carried interest, most times at absurdly low rates which is currently about 2 % This is it " seems" like they are paying no taxes, and their firms are paying taxes on the retained earnings .

And the best part is?????? Congress was the one that passed that law for the hedge fund managers in the first place, isn't politics wonderful? and you think life isnt fair for the poor and we need more legislation? Cant blame the guy for taking advantage of the laws these bozo put out there .

 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 122
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/4/2011 2:48:43 PM
Ibli's list had very little, if anything to do with answering my questions. The monopolies he mentioned were not CREATED by the government. The Postal service does NOT QUALIFY!! It was created as a GOVERNMENT SERVICE. The federal Reserve is ALSO not a 'monopoly,' any more than the Army is.
AT&T was self-created. Supports my concern.
Standard Oil was self-created.

So again, show me where it's recorded that no businessmen cheated or lied or misled their customers before the government stepped in? That is the contention I am questioning. That, and the claim that the government CAUSED monopolistic behavior.
It is my contention that that is backwards. The government created regulations in RESPONSE to abuses by business. They didn't always do a good job of regulating, but they didn't respond to a wonderland of fair competition and happy citizens by out-of-the-blue, regulation and limitations, just for the fun of it.

So my questions are as yet unanswered.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 123
Capitalism
Posted: 5/4/2011 7:05:36 PM
Igor, come on man you cant be serious? the government owns the biggest monopoly The US Postal service, no person can set up a business to go against the US postal service to compete for its " first class" mail service.

Someone tried that in 1976 and was charged, I cant recall the name but Im sure it will come to me.

I will give you one example , look at the history of the American railroad, the early railroads the Union Pacific, Central pacific as they were known then as the big four out of California, held a monopoly for years, thanks to the Californian legislation

There is a good book that talks about it in detail called " the story of American Railroad" by Stewart Holbrook , if you can find it in your local library you should read it , pages 231 and 235 to 236 gives good details and facts about government intervention in the railroad industry and the damages it caused, and How Real capitalist like J.J.Hill ( A Canadian ) built a railroad enterprise the "right" way with no government subsidies, hand outs etc, and how early crap of the Big four in California and how it led to the passing of" Interstate commerce act " in 1887

We wont get into Utilities companies , save that for another day and the B astard " anti trust" laws.

You talk about unscrupulous business men out there, there will always be unscrupulous business people out there but they get help or special favors from their friends in the government, just like certain politicians and bureaucrats that are not unscrupulous? If there was a truly free market no government interference/special favors etc, do you really think these unscrupulous people can survive? half of Wall street wouldn't survive in a free unregulated market, most of these unscrupulous people has special friends in the government to help them by.

I remember you talking about its the nature of man to be greedy? and I thought what a cynical view, there will always be dishonest people out there yes, but they take advantage of things that are available to them because of bad laws, and friends in the government that they can corrupt, that's not true capitalism, but capitalism tends to get the blame for everything that goes wrong? most of you dont want to hear the truth, its easier to blame vs to actually see what and where the problem lies?

There will always be a gap between rich and poor, and that's not capitalism fault, look at the government and its programs to see the real problem.

Igor, the government didnt create legislation because of the practice of business, the government created legislation to control the businesses and make the business man/woman their private contributors to there welfare statism.

As much as I admire America I sometimes shake my head when I see the silly laws these friggen politicians and law makers comes up with and wonder why any body would want to start a business and prosper when they are sometimes threatened with Anti trust laws, Unions, and other stupid and dangerous acts
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 124
Capitalism
Posted: 5/4/2011 7:24:00 PM
In order for capitalism to function, there has to be a civil society. That means government to provide roads and water and police, etc.

The rich and powerful will always manipulate government to get advantages. It's happening right now with the Republicans trying to neuter Elizabeth Warren. However, you keep focusing on the times when the government has tried to rein in the power of the very rich and saying that these instances are the problem.

We all contribute to the common good. Those who have more, get more from the civil society. It's not unreasonable for them to pay disproportionately more, since they get disproportionately more.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 125
Capitalism
Posted: 5/4/2011 10:22:45 PM


Ibli's list had very little, if anything to do with answering my questions.


I was only attempting to open up discussion on the first one. Clearly governments have created monopolies. I think it would be great if you or others could post examples of monopolies that weren't created by the government. The only one I could think of was Standard Oil, and the free market was killing it's monopoly status long before the government stepped in and broke it up.



The Postal service does NOT QUALIFY!! It was created as a GOVERNMENT SERVICE.


Of course it qualifies, since no other company delivers the mail. It's a legally created monopoly.



The federal Reserve is ALSO not a 'monopoly,' any more than the Army is.


These are both monopolies. The FED has certain powers granted to it that were previously handled by the market.



AT&T was self-created. Supports my concern.


AT&T was self-created, but its monopoly status wasn't. States made laws prohibiting competition with AT&T.



Standard Oil was self-created.


Yes, and the market also got rid of its monopoly status before the government broke it up.



That, and the claim that the government CAUSED monopolistic behavior.
It is my contention that that is backwards. The government created regulations in RESPONSE to abuses by business.


Okay, so aside from Standard Oil which monopolies came into existence without government interference?
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Capitalism