Guest Posted July 29, 2013 #101 Share Posted July 29, 2013 (edited) The courts protect us from corporations abusing citizens. <-- Addressing a fundamental. Who sets up and empowers the courts, who creates and pays for the enforcement wing of the administration, who defines the laws by which corporations are policed. You haven't though about it at all - more dodging the issue. Br Cornelius Edited July 29, 2013 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted July 29, 2013 #102 Share Posted July 29, 2013 Who sets up and empowers the courts, who creates and pays for the enforcement wing of the administration, who defines the laws by which corporations are policed. You haven't though about it at all - more dodging the issue. Br Cornelius That's a good question and I'm glad you've asked. The Constitution put the federal government into existence and so empowered the courts. The Constitution defines the law by which the entire federal government operates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 30, 2013 #103 Share Posted July 30, 2013 That's a good question and I'm glad you've asked. The Constitution put the federal government into existence and so empowered the courts. The Constitution defines the law by which the entire federal government operates. More side steps Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted July 30, 2013 #104 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Power should be decentralized, markets should be free. The US did quite well in the 19th century when it had relatively free markets. Communism on the other hand is a near universal failure. That was in large part due to the explosive growth going on in the country? .. Free land For both citizens and RAILROADS and LUMBER COMPANIES tends to boost an economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted July 30, 2013 #105 Share Posted July 30, 2013 That was in large part due to the explosive growth going on in the country? .. Free land For both citizens and RAILROADS and LUMBER COMPANIES tends to boost an economy? That's not the point. Reasons for growth don't substitute for the freedom to grow. You need both. The free markets didn't stop the early growth that made everything else that came later in this country possible. Capping or banning profits bans growth because there's no incentive for capitalists to take risks with their own capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2013 #106 Share Posted July 31, 2013 That's not the point. Reasons for growth don't substitute for the freedom to grow. You need both. The free markets didn't stop the early growth that made everything else that came later in this country possible. Capping or banning profits bans growth because there's no incentive for capitalists to take risks with their own capital. Regulation of industry is not capping or banning profits - where did you get that bizarre idea. Regulation is to ensure that corporations behave in socially acceptable ways and all the evidence shows that regulation of corporations is essential to a correctly functioning market. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted July 31, 2013 #107 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Regulation of industry is not capping or banning profits - where did you get that bizarre idea. Regulation is to ensure that corporations behave in socially acceptable ways and all the evidence shows that regulation of corporations is essential to a correctly functioning market. Br Cornelius Regulation might be capping or banning profits, e.g. Cap and Trade. It is bizarre, you're right. How do you feel about Cap and Trade? A socially acceptable way to cap profits? How much carbon is "essential to a correctly functioning market". You want to regulate/socialize corporate losses with force control instead of letting bad companies leave the market naturally through the rule of law. It's a tragedy to me that people think like this because we throw our freedom away so unnecessarily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2013 #108 Share Posted July 31, 2013 (edited) Regulation might be capping or banning profits, e.g. Cap and Trade. It is bizarre, you're right. How do you feel about Cap and Trade? A socially acceptable way to cap profits? How much carbon is "essential to a correctly functioning market". You want to regulate/socialize corporate losses with force control instead of letting bad companies leave the market naturally through the rule of law. It's a tragedy to me that people think like this because we throw our freedom away so unnecessarily. Cap and trade has no intent to cap profits - its intent and outcome is to cap emissions. You can make more profits by lowering your emissions under cap and trade. this is a socially beneficial outcome, which is the purpose of regulation. Cap and trade is by design revenue neutral and any excess that is generated goes to support carbon lowering initiative which the companies failed to implement themselves. Cap and trade is not about profits - its about insensitivising environmentally progressive industry. How do you propose that the market would self regulate for emissions reductions, or do you not think climate change is a problem worthy of intervention ?? Bad companies tend to be more profitable (they wouldn't break the regulations if it wasn't profitable to do so) so they gain market advantage, they tend to grow bigger and more successful (look at Monsanto as and example). Your logic is again flawed, history fails to support your belief. Where have I ever advocated socializing corporate losses ?? You will search a very long time before you find that. Br Cornelius Edited July 31, 2013 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted August 1, 2013 #109 Share Posted August 1, 2013 (edited) You have pointed out one of the myriad flaws. However the more fundamental flaws are what it does to the economy in that it causes much more serious boom and bust cycles. There is a huge body of research on why the Gold standard is inadequate for a modern money supply. Yamoto's hatred of the Fed blinds him to the possibility that there are other alternative than Gold. RAW was not so naive. Br Cornelius I'm going to go have to read that 15 page discussion between you and Yamato so I'll have at least an inkling of what I'm talking about. I really don't want to post too much here because I have a feeling I'm way over my head. (Economics is not my strong suit.) I think you and Yamato both seem to have some really good points so I'm trying to sort it out if I can. (Knowing me I probably won't be able to sort it out lol.) However, I do have one question for you, Br Cornelius: Before 1913, when the Fed was established, were there any booms or busts that could be attributed to the gold standard? I know there was the tumult and chaos of the Civil War, but afaik, that had nothing to do with the money supply, it was more politics (keeping the states all in the Union). I know you've mentioned several times that booms and busts are more severe under the gold standard, but I don't recall that happening in American history, not before 1913. And after 1913 we can blame the Fed . edited for clarity Edited August 1, 2013 by Gummug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2013 #110 Share Posted August 1, 2013 There were boom bust cycles on the gold standard - and if I could only find the graph I could demonstrate that they were damped down after we left the gold standard. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted August 1, 2013 #111 Share Posted August 1, 2013 There were boom bust cycles on the gold standard - and if I could only find the graph I could demonstrate that they were damped down after we left the gold standard. Br Cornelius If you get a chance, like I said, I'm still learning about economics, and it seems really complicated to me. No wonder there seems to be so much disagreement, even among the experts. Well, if you get a chance and find the graph, if not, no problem. I think I spend too much time here myself, it's addicting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted August 2, 2013 #112 Share Posted August 2, 2013 The free market isn't perfect (I'm assigned the thesis that it is perfect quite often), in fact, it's brutal. But it metes out justice to each according to what they deserve most of the time. The reason we have corporatism is because corporations don't want to fail, and they have developed an entitlement complex to the peoples' money in this country. Nixon Shock was the final nail in the coffin of monetary sanity in this country. It's been a manufactured spending frenzy starting out in the Jimmy Carter era and accelerating ever since, ballooning into what we're doing today under the Obama administration. Natural cycles in the market shouldn't be cowered away from. The life and death cycles in the economy happen for a reason. Our corporations don't deserve taxpayer-funded immortality! Let the zombie (banks) die, Hershel! But Lo! The banks are making money hand over fist! The tentacles that have grown between big corporations and the federal government should be severed well and truly. When government has infinite money to share, every business in the business of making money clings to the sides of that money pool, and the people get ignored while the biggest organizations are cared for first. Since when did the taxpayer become beholden to and responsible for the banker? Let the corporations live or die by the justice of the marketplace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 2, 2013 #113 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Its called Fascism, and all markets eventually drift towards right wing extremism. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted August 2, 2013 #114 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Its called Fascism, and all markets eventually drift towards right wing extremism. Br Cornelius You may be right about that, but "right wing" is incidental. Corporatism can gravitate to either wing. The left has no shortage of corporate playboys!. It's a veritable cash cow for politicians on both sides of the spending spectrum so it's little wonder we see our entire government is rotten with it. Left or right is such a false paradigm because it only argues about two different federal solutions to a problem. Just watch Fox News Channel if you want to see what I'm talking about. Everything gets politicized directly to the White House. Our media, left and right, has our people believing that the the White House is the answer to all our prayers or the source of all that is evil in the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now