What's the Best Economic/Political System?

[Carthage]

It's not right if it benefits the few over the majority. What about the concept of "society" don't you get? It's not all about the privileged few. Heads have rolled in the past over this issue. And I'm not advocating everyone being equal, just being fair.

Me too! If you work harder under pure capitalism, you become wealthier. If you don't, you don't get as much money. That's fair. To quote a t-shirt, "The only faire is laissez-faire!"

Second, It's more then just the privileged few, it's the few who worked harder then everyone else. Why shouldn't they be privileged?

And how do you define society? I define it as a group of individuals who trade with each other voluntarily. There can be no society without individual minds to make it up, and if trade isn't voluntary, then it's forced, and initiating force is a great evil. And if it isn't trade, then you assume the role of a slave driver or a beggar.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Me too! If you work harder under pure capitalism, you become wealthier. If you don't, you don't get as much money. That's fair. To quote a t-shirt, "The only faire is laissez-faire!"

Second, It's more then just the privileged few, it's the few who worked harder then everyone else. Why shouldn't they be privileged?

And how do you define society? I define it as a group of individuals who trade with each other voluntarily. There can be no society without individual minds to make it up, and if trade isn't voluntary, then it's forced, and initiating force is a great evil. And if it isn't trade, then you assume the role of a slave driver or a beggar.

Let me ask you something:

Have we not already worked our way towards "forced trade"?

Look at our business relationship with China, Japan, we get little return in trade with them, but rather American companies heading that way to manufacture cheaper, and still reap the whirlwind of the migthy American dollar without heavy taxation, or need for labor laws or fair compensation.

 

[Carthage]

Let me ask you something:

Have we not already worked our way towards "forced trade"?

Look at our business relationship with China, Japan, we get little return in trade with them, but rather American companies heading that way to manufacture cheaper, and still reap the whirlwind of the migthy American dollar without heavy taxation, or need for labor laws or fair compensation.

How on earth does that involve force?
And why is it wrong that they do that?

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

How on earth does that involve force?
And why is it wrong that they do that?

Implied force and actual force are two very different things.

And it's wrong for one reason, it ruins the free market, unless companies are put on a fair and competitive playing field, comeptition goes away leaving the spoils to a chosen few.

That in turn forces monopoly, or forces me to chose between two manufacturers rather than many.

 

[gLing]

In a pure capitalism system, the corporations would have no power over the competition. The quality of everything goes down while prices go up is because of taxes, countries like china, global economic decline, war, etc. etc. There are a lot more reasons then just corporations saying so. Read Adam Smith.

Yes they do. Their sheer size gives them power over the competition. For example a small tire shop company opens up in your town. Well here comes the giant mega corp to snuff them out by opening 5 tire shops at lower prices but lesser quality. Once the smaller shop is snuffed out that is the end of the competition.
The whole idea of free market and capitalism wasn't meant for these massive corporations to corner and control everything in the market.

China does not have a real capitalist system. It has a system where the corporations and the government are in cahoots to have total power over the country split between them. In a real capitalist system, the government would not have any part in the economic sphere WHAT SO EVER.

They are extremely capitalist in their economic policies in that they have little to no restrictions as long as they get their kickbacks. And even if they didn't touch the market do you really think things would be better? Without some kind of regulation what is to stop business from dumping pure poison into the water or using child labor or ignoring safety etc. ? which by the way the Chinese do.

 

[Carthage]

Yes they do. Their sheer size gives them power over the competition. For example a small tire shop company opens up in your town. Well here comes the giant mega corp to snuff them out by opening 5 tire shops at lower prices but lesser quality. Once the smaller shop is snuffed out that is the end of the competition.
The whole idea of free market and capitalism wasn't meant for these massive corporations to corner and control everything in the market.

Well, if the quality isn't low enough to discourage buyers, then it's okay. I'm talking about coercive monopolies - monopolies that play by the rules of the market are fine. Now, if the quality is that low, the 5 new shops can't last for long - people will stop buying. That's when the small guy starts a lot of advertising and gets people to buy from him.
Read Adam Smith and Ayn Rand (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal)

They are extremely capitalist in their economic policies in that they have little to no restrictions as long as they get their kickbacks.

The point is that the government is in bed with them. This upsets the market. In a real Capitalist system, the government would have absolutely no place in the market, except to stop the initiation of physical force.

And even if they didn't touch the market do you really think things would be better?

This depends a lot on social and political policies too. But yeah, things would be better in some ways.

Without some kind of regulation what is to stop business from dumping pure poison into the water

If it's their water, why should we tell them they cant? It's their water. If it isn't, then the property owner will sue the hell out of whoever dumped posion into his water (keep in mind that there would be no public property)

or using child labor

Why is child labor bad?

or ignoring safety etc

.

The fact that their workers will leave, or will join the union, or sue them.

 

[Carthage]

Implied force and actual force are two very different things.

I'm talking about iniation of physical force. "Forcing" you to choose is not physical force, and is fine.

And it's wrong for one reason, it ruins the free market, unless companies are put on a fair and competitive playing field, comeptition goes away leaving the spoils to a chosen few.

No, it's laws and regulations that ruin the market. Letting the companies just go at it is the fair and competitive way. The market will put them on the fair playing field, not the government.

That in turn forces monopoly, or forces me to chose between two manufacturers rather than many.

If they're coercive monopolies, then they'll be out done by competitors who don't have to go through red tape or fight government monopolies, which are hard to drag down.
If they aren't coercive, why is it bad?

 

[gLing]

Well, if the quality isn't low enough to discourage buyers, then it's okay. I'm talking about coercive monopolies - monopolies that play by the rules of the market are fine. Now, if the quality is that low, the 5 new shops can't last for long - people will stop buying. That's when the small guy starts a lot of advertising and gets people to buy from him.
Read Adam Smith and Ayn Rand (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal)

People often shop with their wallets. They go with what they can afford. A giant copr can out price any small business any day.

The point is that the government is in bed with them. This upsets the market. In a real Capitalist system, the government would have absolutely no place in the market, except to stop the initiation of physical force.

The government is ALWAYS in bed with them. Theory is one thing, reality is another.

This depends a lot on social and political policies too. But yeah, things would be better in some ways.

What ways?

If it's their water, why should we tell them they cant? It's their water. If it isn't, then the property owner will sue the hell out of whoever dumped posion into his water (keep in mind that there would be no public property)

A river is not thier water and even if it was they should not be allowed to dump whatever and whenever. The reason is pollution seeps into everything. It effects everything around it BEYOND their property.

Why is child labor bad?

If you don't see the dangers of exploiting children then nothing I can say will explain it to you.

.

The fact that their workers will leave, or will join the union, or sue them.

No, when you have a huge population, such as China, the worth of the individual worker is little to nothing. So if they all left or joined a Union then the company can simply hire from a pool of millions willing to take their place in a heartbeat. No need for the company to raise standards of safety or wages.

 

[Minor Axis]

Why is child labor bad?

There goes your argument right down the toilet.

China, a humongous polluted communistic haven of low cost labor brought to you by U.S. Corporations. Something we can be proud of.

No, it's laws and regulations that ruin the market. Letting the companies just go at it is the fair and competitive way. The market will put them on the fair playing field, not the government.

You apparently know nothing of U.S. history in the 1800s. Your answer is not equitable as it's wonderful for owners but god awful for the workers.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

There goes your argument right down the toilet.

China, a humongous polluted communistic haven of low cost labor brought to you by U.S. Corporations. Something we can be proud of.



You apparently know nothing of U.S. history in the 1800s. Your answer is not equitable as it's wonderful for owners but god awful for the workers.

Well put, very solid.

I'm warning you though......He reads a lot

 

[Mase]

In my honest opinion, no government is favourable.

 

[Obdurate]

Word, Mase.

 

[dazner]

too much typing in this thread i'm outta here..

 

[Minor Axis]

And btw--I'm not saying a person is right or wrong to support a union--but call it what it is--if you support it, don't rationalize it as though its some noble organizating fighting for the little guy--its a microcosm of communism within a capitalistic free enterprise system--anyone who doesn't acknowledge that is simply does not understand economics or free market enterprise.

And what do you and others of like mind call the Robber Barrons- noble capitalists? I don't begrudge owners wealth, like you detest workers who have good pay and benefits. That's your problem, not mine.

You guys like listening to Mulder whine on a weekly basis about the POOR corporations and the EXORBITANT taxes they pay? The report came from the Government Accountability Office. Representation Without Taxation: Study Says Most Corporations Avoid US Income Tax:

"WASHINGTON — Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress. The study by the Government Accountability Office released Tuesday said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period. Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO's estimate."

The goal if you let them, with full cooperation of the Republican Party, is to allow individual U.S. citizens pay the bulk of taxes in the U.S. and allow Corporations to pocket as much as possible. Deficit problems? Just another piece in the puzzle. Now, standby for the yowls of horror from certain contributers regarding this characterization.

We Can't allow the Gap between the Rich and Super Rich to Widen!

"You can't allow the gap between the Rich and Super Rich Grow to Wider!! You know who I mean...

 

[Minor Axis]

China, a humongous polluted communistic haven of low cost labor brought to you by U.S. Corporations. Something we can be proud of.

From The Onion:

YouTube - The Onion: China Celebrates Status As Number One Polluter

China Celebrates Its Status As The World's Number One Polluter.

 

[Sdrawkcab]

In a perfect world we would have anarchy.

 

[Minor Axis]

In a perfect world we would have anarchy.

I'd really like to know why is anarchy perfect?

 

[Minor Axis]

The report came from the Government Accountability Office. Representation Without Taxation: Study Says Most Corporations Avoid US Income Tax:

No rebuttal. Amazing!

 

[Strauss]

No rebuttal. Amazing!

Maybe because if you knew anything about corporations in the United States, the 2/3rds they discuss are mom and pop operations that don't generate enough in profit to pay a tax. By the time they make payroll, health care costs and other benefits for all the workers there isn't any profit to pay a tax on. The other thing you may have not considered and which wasn't addressed in the study nor the article is the methodology used to determine profit and loss for a corporation for purposes of taxation. I speak specifically to GAAP and the accural method of accounting. A decent accountant can, using deprecation, continually reflect a loss year after year after year.

Now please explain to me why the top 20 corpoarations in the United States pay so much in taxes? Also, please tell me which country in the world has the second highest corporate tax rate? (Hint: the highest is Japan). Please explain to me how taking corporate profit to pay to a federal bureauacy helps employ people?

 

[Obdurate]

I'd really like to know why is anarchy perfect?

It's not perfect, nothing is. You'll still have problems, that are unavoidable in any system, but it efficiently eliminates some major problems of the world that we all seem to hate but don't seem to do anything about.

So way to go Sdrawkcab, live the dream. There are now two, lol