OK Daylight Savings is over… Or it’s started… I can’t remember which it is, all I know is that I somehow have jet-lag from sitting at home on my ass.Now on to more important matters. This TUESDAY is election day, and it’s probably important where you live. These mid-term, local elections are very lightly-attended, so your vote counts more. Some issues are major (NJ has a stem-cell funding bill on the ballot) and some issues are local (school board) but no less important.TAKE SOME TIME this weekend to review what your local issues are, and make time on Tuesday to VOTE
AT
Free market? Nice buzz phrase. Define it? Then show us when and where a free market in an isolated economic system has ever existed. Then define “performs” and show us the proof that the elusive “free market” has performed “very well”.
Do you really think there is significant number of people of voting age that don’t understand this extremely complex (sarcasm alert) notion of the hypothetical “free market”?
atomictesting wrote:
So that leaves me wondering what is included in the “etc”. Because one persons “protecting” could be another persons “overprotection”.
However,
maybe suggests what the motivation is. I have worked for a large regional corporation for many years. The Board of Directors and most of the management have only one thing in mind, how to make the most money. That absolutely includes making the product as cheaply as possible, the quality of the product and the usefulness of the product to the consumer isn’t important. The ultimate goal is to sell nothing for lots of money. At a minimum this produces a lot of waste of natural resources and waste in the landfills.
To me there are problems with letting businesses run wild under our current structure. We have very large corporations that can easily get rid of any competition in various ways. We have consumers that allow themselves to be driven by the best marketing campaign as opposed to the best product or the most product for the best value (it is also quite difficult for the consumer to know which product offers that). What I am trying to point out is that it is easy for businesses to be greedy and they are as greedy as they can be. There was a time when made in the USA had an expectation of quality, that is no more. Hell, businesses own our governemt. The executives at the top don’t care if the businesses self destruct, if they show big profits other businesses will be glad to get those executive so they can do the same for the next business. The shells of the destroyed businesses are purchased by bottom feeders who get rid of the long term employees and start again or shut down and liquidate. No, I don’t believe that business leading the country is a wise choice.
If I’m not mistaken, the largest economy in the world – and the owner of a lot of our debt – is China. Not exactly known for being the home of free-market capitalism. Just sayin.
Rusty, China is not the largest economy in the world. The EU is, followed by the USA, then Japan, then Germany, and then China.
It’s funny you bring up China since Hong Kong prospers on a very free market economy plan. Luckily for them, their most important good is services. They don’t have to worry about things like food supply or pollution.
In an economy that isn’t dominated by services, well…
The whole free-market thing looks great on paper, but it relies on too much perfection in the rest of society.
I’m willing to discuss things like losing minimum wage, or removing most pricing restrictions, or allowing the civilians to decide what substances to put in their bodies, but I still believe we need some government control once social problems erupt (and they will, we humans aren’t perfect).
Simply look to the explosion of corporate scandals resulting in tens of thousands loosing their jobs, their retirement, etc., and explain to me why total control over our economy should be placed solely in the hands of big business and the ?free-market?.
The answer is in balance of power ? just as it is with everything. There are and have been failures on both sides, government and corporate.
Balance of power between corporations and government? Huh? Wrong constitution.
Yet another incorrect assumption about Libertarians: that we somehow don’t care about the environment.
No, most of us do not believe that private business should be able to run amok all over the environment. We need to stop treating companies like they have the rights of individuals and absolutely dismantle companies that break the law.
Alatham is absolutely correct in that Hong Kong is a bastion of free market economics.
Well the prevailing assumption (or deliberate use of misinformation as a tactic, I’m not sure which) is that Libertarianism = anarchy. That’s simply not true. Government should be involved when the concern is protecting people from force and fraud. Nobody is standing behind us forcing us to pay or die. Consumers always have a choice and organized consumers can send a big message. The companies you’re talking about have the most to lose in a boycott – they’ll do whatever it takes to keep making money.
I don’t know where people get the idea that government needs to protect us from these big, bad, corporate “bullies.” The power you need is already in your pocket.
An example:
Sprint will never get a dime of my money because they have the worst customer service record in the industry. Look them up with the Better Business Bureau.
rna2dna,
Sorry, but I’m not falling down the pit of arguing with someone on anecdotal evidence. Some companies make an awful lot of money because their products are known to be high quality. It’s not the government’s job to force consumers to make wise choices. I’m tired of the nanny state and I’d very much like to see our country go back to a time of individual responsibility.
AT, I believe that libertarians care about the environment, or at least that they don’t actively not care.
But the notion that laissez-faire capitalism will not wreck the environment was put to rest when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire in 1969.
Alatham, thanks for the correction re: China.
Rusty,
Environmental protection is a fine cause and an appropriate limitation on business – as long as it’s scientifically advised.
Of course, much of the modern “environmental movement” isn’t really about the environment anymore and it’s really about politics and anti-capitalism. Penn & Teller actually got hundreds of these idiots at one of these rallies (including the rally organizer) to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen (H2) monoxide (O). Yep… Water. They didn’t even bother to ask what it meant.
That may be true, AT, but the “environmental movement” isn’t the government. And it might surprise you just how little influence hardcore environmentalists have in government, even during Democratic administrations.
To the best of my knowledge, there aren’t any environmental laws that aren’t heavily dependent on science.
What,
Maybe I should have wrote… government regulation is often needed to bring balance to corporate power.
Atomic,
That often works, when one isn’t dealing with monopolies. Can you say the same thing to the victims of Enron, for example?
Enron was guilty OF FRAUD. This is, and always has been a crime. Stop being so goddamn disingenuous and dig a little deeper.
DVan
Whew. That was a close one. Thanks for the clarification.
AT,
The point wasn’t the illegal act – the point was that both government and corporate America fail.
Take off your “free-market” rose colored glasses.
AT,
Besides, you did ask where people get this idea they need to be protected from “big, bad corporate bullies”.
I gave you an example.
DVW
And there are countless more.
All this trust in corporations reminds me of the Star Trek aliens called the Ferengi.
HA!
AT,
How about this example (to dig a little deeper as you put it)…
A largely unregulated mortgage industry begins handing out mortgages to any Joe that strolls in the door ? an extension of a new phenomenon in the lending industry of flipping mortgages. This results in a massive influx of home buyers, artificially driving up the price of homes across the country.
Lenders don’t stop there. They begin creating all sorts of tricky mortgages to make a fast buck then sell the mortgage off to some other company – a bit like a hot potato. But who’s going to get stuck with the potato?
Eventually, lenders’ irresponsible practices, in league with home buyers willing to take advantage of lenders’ lapses in judgment, get stuck with the bill when the buyers they approved begin defaulting on the loans.
This causes a huge inventory of homes to flood the market via foreclosures and builders that didn’t see the end coming and continued to crank out homes they thought they’d have buyers for.
This results in huge drops in home values for everyone ? even those who were responsible in buying their home. All because lenders were allowed to give huge sums of money to people that couldn’t afford to pay it back.
Who is going to reimburse me for the 20 percent drop in value of my home? A drop not of my making, or a drop due to normal market conditions, but rather the irresponsible practices of lenders. They held the money. They had the choice in who to lend to. They should be held responsible for a mistake that may result in the worst recession since the mid-80s, especially when you combine what’s going on in the housing industry with runaway oil prices.
Put simply, corporative regulation between the lending industry and the government in setting up standards for home loan qualification would have kept this disaster from ever happening. A disaster that will soon affect us all. It’s already hurt my financial position immensely. You may be next.
DVW
There is another important and unregulated part of the mortgage industry that led to this disaster. The mortgage broker! They make there money by brokering loans with lenders and have wrote a lot of risky loans for their commissions. Enter the “liar’s loan”.