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.
Location: I currently exist only in a state of mind. one too complex for geographic location.
4,196 posts, read 5,845,681 times
Reputation: 670
Advertisements
both provide services at a price. corporations need your money, the federal government takes your money. both dine on your dime. both fly on private jets. why are corporations worse than the federal government or vice versa?
It's a balance, both exist in our present system and neither should have an excessive amount of power. As the more power either one has limits power of individuals.
Government is supposed to be guided by people, and thus their decisions are based on some level of morality. The problem is that in some cases the government is inefficient. Private corporations are inefficient in other cases and this is why we have public goods.
Corporations are amoral and generate wealth. The best way to produce wealth is to take advantage of individuals. Basically what I'm trying to point out here is that while corporations produce wealth they act as an externality machine and thus can cause unintended consequences. The advantage is that in many cases corporations are more efficient at producing wealth.
The role of government should be to protect its people from said consequences and I'd personally prefer the government provide services that we require that private industry can not. Especially if it is MORE efficient as a public good than as a private good.
It also really depends on what you mean by corporations. I don't think people have a problem with small operations (at least I don't). The problem is when mega corporations are running the show.
Location: I currently exist only in a state of mind. one too complex for geographic location.
4,196 posts, read 5,845,681 times
Reputation: 670
they already are friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinkieMcGee
Well, given that the OP is incredibly evenhanded.
It's a balance, both exist in our present system and neither should have an excessive amount of power. As the more power either one has limits power of individuals.
Government is supposed to be guided by people, and thus their decisions are based on some level of morality. The problem is that in some cases the government is inefficient. Private corporations are inefficient in other cases and this is why we have public goods.
Corporations are amoral and generate wealth. The best way to produce wealth is to take advantage of individuals. Basically what I'm trying to point out here is that while corporations produce wealth they act as an externality machine and thus can cause unintended consequences. The advantage is that in many cases corporations are more efficient at producing wealth.
The role of government should be to protect its people from said consequences and I'd personally prefer the government provide services that we require that private industry can not. Especially if it is MORE efficient as a public good than as a private good.
It also really depends on what you mean by corporations. I don't think people have a problem with small operations (at least I don't). The problem is when mega corporations are running the show.
Yeah, I don't think anyone would really argue with that. Just trying to highlight the motivations of a lot of people and isolate what type of corporations/power people are really against.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,461,442 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefinalsay
who's worse, the US federal government or US corporations? both provide services at a price. corporations need your money, the federal government takes your money. both dine on your dime. both fly on private jets. why are corporations worse than the federal government or vice versa?
Since they're obviously designed to do different things, it's a typical strawman question.
So "worse" at what, what are we comparing.... return on investment?
Since they're obviously designed to do different things, it's a typical strawman question.
So "worse" at what, what are we comparing.... return on investment?
Yeah its sort of like asking which is worse? A gun shot wound to the groin or a big nasty tumor on your face? Both are pretty nasty but not all that comparable.
Location: I currently exist only in a state of mind. one too complex for geographic location.
4,196 posts, read 5,845,681 times
Reputation: 670
mam, I just wanted to thank you so much for your use of the word strawman. I also wear a tin foil hat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mateo45
Since they're obviously designed to do different things, it's a typical strawman question.
So "worse" at what, what are we comparing.... return on investment?
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.
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.
