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.
I think people aren't being precise enough when they say we've had "too much" government interference or regulation in the economy vs. "not enough." It's possible to have both at the same time, and I think that is what happened.
For example, look back to Phil Gramm-authored bills like the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, or Sarbanes-Oxley. These might seem like contradictory bills on their face (one de-regulated the financial sector, while the other purported to regulate businesses more heavily), but they are both complementary in one sense - they made it easier for large businesses and corporations to keep smaller potential rivals on the fringes. First, by allowing all sorts of mergers and demolishing traditional walls between "personal" and "investment" banking, and second, by imposing such huge costs on companies seeking to go public that many simply chose not to do so.
So we created a system where there were very burdensome and unaffordable regulations on smaller business, while the ever-expanding conglomerates gained more and more power - particularly over the political system.
What I'd like to see is targeted deregulation for upstarts and challengers, combined with strong curbs on the systemic abuses carried out in recent years by the corporate behemoths.
Large corporations know that their “Rainy Day Money “is a bail out. They operate to some extent with that knowledge. I am not an economist by any stretch of the imagination, but I see many of the building blocks for our capitalistic system were put in place during slavery. Slavery by its definition was not a capitalist system, but one thing that is consistent between the two is the hodgepodge of laws and regulations that politicians were willing to pass to keep the slave baron’s (billionaires of that period) investment in labor intact. When people have lots of cash, then people with billions of dollars have less. They need to get us to transfer our cash to something that the politicians can regulate in to capital; corn, oil, real estate etc. Each politician will jockey for regulation or deregulation for whatever his state has that can be “capitalized”, corn, tobacco, automobiles, industrial and agricultural products. We can all try to place blame on who ever had the “the last clear chance” to avoid this collision, but when none of the cars (our political and banking systems) are made with brakes no one is to blame. Is it a coincidence that still today just like 200 years ago the riches companies are the ones with the most slaves (labor?).George Fitzhugh wrote in “Cannibals all “(1854?) that capitalism is slavery for white people.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
The term capitalism is being abused, to the benefit of those who can, and supported by corporatist self-defeaters. Capitalism only works if those at top are held accountable to every step and misstep, not laden with golden parachutes regardless of the direction. The concepts behind capitalism is fine and dandy but not in an era where there is no ownership of mistakes, but reward is guaranteed. Not in an era where failure still gets you golden parachutes as you leave a failed business behind and move on to your next endeavor. This is not your typical mom and dad business any more. This is an era of big business, large enough where they are considered to big to fail and large enough to use government as a means to propagate their agenda.
The term capitalism is being abused, to the benefit of those who can, and supported by corporatist self-defeaters. Capitalism only works if those at top are held accountable to every step and misstep, not laden with golden parachutes regardless of the direction. The concepts behind capitalism is fine and dandy but not in an era where there is no ownership of mistakes, but reward is guaranteed. Not in an era where failure still gets you golden parachutes as you leave a failed business behind and move on to your next endeavor. This is not your typical mom and dad business any more. This is an era of big business, large enough where they are considered to big to fail and large enough to use government as a means to propagate their agenda.
Agreed - but please remember, there is no bigger corporation than Government Inc.
The very same rules you have applied to "big business" should also be applied to the biggest business of all...
While Wall Street certainly hung itself with its own avarice, this development has been supported, nay demanded, at times by certain members within the federal government.
And yet, those same figures who share in the responsibility for creating much of the current economic crisis are now acting as the brave and knowledgeable stewards of our economic salvation.
And a youtube video that has been out for some time now does a pretty good job of tying together certain politicians with the policies leading to the mortgage meltdown that precipitated the current economic crisis. While the video is clearly slanted against Democrats, and somewhat for Republicans, the general case being made is legitimate. The Democrats as a whole were persistently supportive of Fannie and Freddie - particularly Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd who pushed away attempts at toughening regulatory standards on those institutions in 2005 and 2007.
Agreed - but please remember, there is no bigger corporation than Government Inc.
The very same rules you have applied to "big business" should also be applied to the biggest business of all...
While Wall Street certainly hung itself with its own avarice, this development has been supported, nay demanded, at times by certain members within the federal government.
You betcha. I'm not quick to jump on a business or a government and call it bad, or good. They have to prove themselves. Neither is "evil" as many choose to project, the proof ends up in the pudding.
And while you went on to blame "certain members", remember, two people with a lot of peers and someone above them, can't take a nation into a ride, or else we should question the competency of the rest of them.
Capitalism is an economic system based on a completely free market composed of an infinite number of sellers and an infinite number of buyers meeting in a open market place where the trade determines the price. In such a market the products are sold for cost without profit because businessmen subvert the market by selling for below cost until the number of suppliers is reduces and the survivors can charge a profit. Monopoly is the ultimate subversion of a market and the goal of any businessman participating.
Socialism is a system where the market is controlled to prevent domination by any single business and the basic needs of the society are met by control and taxation of the businessmen.
I'm going to venture that *any* economic system has it's woes. For example:
Capitalism:
Pro: Rewards individual effort and initiative
Con: Exceptionally successful individuals or groups (the elite) can exploit weaker or less successful groups or individuals
Communism:
Pro: (On paper) seeks to provide for all
Con: (In reality) it becomes a race to see who can work the least and sponge the most. Additionally, the gov't becomes the de facto elite.
I suspect similar pro/cons can be found for socialism, libertarianism, Anarcho-Capitalism, et al. and possibly even producerism.
As I think I've said elsewhere, the fundamental problem is that our ideals are expressed as group-think, but the reality of survival is that it is often individual in nature. So survival often causes one to "sin" against one's ideals, so to speak.
To repeat a line from a corny old Sci-Fi series... "Survival cancels programming! That! was the equation!"
So to my eyes, ubiquitous wealth, or an overarching threat are the only two peaceful situations. When you have what we have now... multiple tiers of individuals all competing against each other to claw to the top... then you have conflicts.
Which of course is inherent in the design, since it is set up as a *competition*.
Whether that's good or bad is of course, at the heart of the debate.
if this were true (the diabetes cure), how would it make you feel?
For those that believe in a total hands off by govt, what if a company could make a cure for a disease, but decides not to cause its not as profitable as selling medicines for the patients life time
Is that ok in your opinion?
I doubt that would happen.
I know people who would pay thousands of dollar (actually much more) if they could be 100% cured of diabetes. It would a major money maker for the company. Worst case scenerio, the government would probably pay many millions or even a couple billion for righs to the cure since it would probably be cheaper to buy and use the cure than to conventionally treat diabetes.
i think this brings up a good point. there doesnt seem to be as strong a work ethic at the top anymore. its all about, let me get mine, screw everyone else.
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.
