Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your two points are contradictory. You start off by saying corporations don't like regulations, but then you say corporations own politicians. The politicians are the ones that create and pass the bills. The bills mostly include regulations in them.
So either your #1, or #2 is false. Which one is it?
Pinch yourself and wake up or make some coffee, both are true. Politicians are bought and paid for.
Corporations hate regulations. Especially the coal industry, which is why it contributes so heavily to politicians, hoping to overturn or eliminate EPA regulations.
There's no possible way for a new company to compete with these mammoth corporations, even if there were no government regulations. Try reading up on the history of Standard Oil for example.
As another poster stated, the problem is we failed to enforce our anti-trust laws (the government "overlooked" these mergers, which in itself screams the lack of regulation).
You read up on the history of Standard Oil. It had lost considerable market share by the time the Feds got around to take it to court. It was down to 80% and losing more every day. And it was never found guilty of monopolistic practices.
You don't need anti-trust laws because it is impossible to maintain a monopoly without government intervention. This is proven by the fact that none have ever existed. Except for a few years when a new product comes out. Most Western nations thinks it ridiculous to have anti-trust laws since monopolies don't exist in a free market. They are impossible.
You don't know if a new car company could compete with existing ones or not. Maybe if new companies hadn't effectively been outlawed then we could find out. And who said they have to compete anyway? Maybe I would start a car company and be happy with 1-2% of the market. I don't need billions and billions to get that started. I just need to get the government out of the way to free up resources.
Your basically saying we need more trickle down economics trickle down economics is the signal biggest lie republicans have ever told it is 1million% bs
Nope. I'm saying the government should stay out of economics altogether. It has no business being involved, including printing money. I'm saying people should be allowed to enter into economic transactions of their own free will without government interference. It's a radical idea. Letting people do as they please as long as they aren't harming or robbing others.
I'm not a Republican either. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. You are basically saying anyone that anyone that doesn't think like you is a Republican? Typical of the lefties.
And we never used "trickle down" economics. Our government is Keynesian and has been for decades. Result: 20 trillion in debt. Massive under and unemployment. Dollar lost around 97% of it's purchasing power since WW1. Perpetual war since 1941.
Maybe we should let the private sector handle things instead?
It's quite simple. Government taxes & regulations can be avoided by large corps. Or the extra costs can be absorbed. They can't be absorbed by the "mom & pops". So if you want more govt rules then you want more and more market share in the hands of a few.
I notice no one has been able to prove me wrong. They just say things like "trickle down' or talk about monopolies that never existed.
How does government regulation and taxes help smaller companies? How does it help new companies get off the ground?........So why do we want more government? To discourage competition?
Why do you think these CEOs from large corporations always end up on some committee in D.C.? Or one some regulatory board? Why do you think people on government regulatory boards end up as CEOs?
Watch how many people that helped write Obamacare end up in jobs with Big Pharma. And how many Big Pharma employees will end up in D.C. for a year or two. And who's the biggest winner of Obamacare? Big Pharma, of course.
this thread reminds me why it's never useful to explain economics and such to liberals... they just don't get it, and won't until they have a life changing experience, which may never happen
Your two points are contradictory. You start off by saying corporations don't like regulations, but then you say corporations own politicians. The politicians are the ones that create and pass the bills. The bills mostly include regulations in them.
So either your #1, or #2 is false. Which one is it?
Not only that, but didn't that incredibly low IQ 0bama say he was going to do away with lobbying?
Maybe if we got rid of all the unnecessary taxes and regulations imposed by government on corporations some smaller ones could use the extra resources to grow market share. And some new companies could start from scratch. Big companies love regulations. They can absorb the extra costs and the small cannot. Government creates monopolies. It does not bust them.
Ever wonder why we haven't seen a new car company start in the U.S. in decades even though we have thousands of unemployed engineers and auto workers in Detroit? Good luck raising enough capital to get past all the initial government imposed rules.
If you want more government you want private-sector monopolies and should not complain when you have less options in the marketplace.
I think all progressives should be forced to take a basic economics class. Very basic.
Exactly....the OP doesn't even realize this was possible BECAUSE of government.
What a super fail thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.