| Yes | 54% | 54% - 32 | ||||
| No | 45% | 45% - 27 | ||||
| Total: 59 | ||||||
So you think that government needs to stay out of private business, period and also that without massive government interference into private business in the form of patents, society would collapse into anarchy?JohnG@lt wrote:
I am just as, if not more so, against those forms of handouts as I am of redistribution to the poor. I think government needs to stay out of private business period.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
What do you call companies/individuals lobbying for government contracts? What do you call bailouts?
Sure, social welfare in the form of cash handouts are a quantifiable redistribution and corporate welfare isn't, but the end result is the same - taxpayer money leaving my pocket and going into someone elses. Justifying or providing reasons why that should be so doesn't change that fact.
You're picking out one item and declaring the entire philosophy invalid because of it. What do you believe in? I bet I could drive semi-trucks through the holes in your ideas. Yes, patents are a holdover from Mercantalism rather than a product of pure Capitalistic beliefs. Yes, they are protectionist to an extent but I see no reason to toss them out. As I've repeatedly states they are one of the few ways that a poor man can become wealthy in a single lifetime. Have a great idea, patent it, profit.PureFodder wrote:
So you think that government needs to stay out of private business, period and also that without massive government interference into private business in the form of patents, society would collapse into anarchy?JohnG@lt wrote:
I am just as, if not more so, against those forms of handouts as I am of redistribution to the poor. I think government needs to stay out of private business period.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
What do you call companies/individuals lobbying for government contracts? What do you call bailouts?
Sure, social welfare in the form of cash handouts are a quantifiable redistribution and corporate welfare isn't, but the end result is the same - taxpayer money leaving my pocket and going into someone elses. Justifying or providing reasons why that should be so doesn't change that fact.
That is nothing like the argument for legalising pot. Neither have anything to do with the incentive to break the law. In both cases the incentive is fixed and independent. In one case the incentive is financial gain, in the other inebriation.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The argument is (roughly) you reduce the number of laws and you have less incentive to break the law. Think in terms of the argument to decriminalize pot.DrunkFace wrote:
Yes, because without it, people would do exactly the same shit (if not more) it just wouldn't be 'corrupt'.JohnG@lt wrote:
Ha! Every layer of regulation brings even more corruption and crony capitalism into being.
Your argument is basically we should make thief legal because then crime rates would fall.
The major flaw with that point is that the police don't usually investigate that sort of corruption (that tends to be done by other financial investigation agencies and auditors). You wouldn't be freeing up any resources that could be used to target real criminals on the street.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
edit: As in the police have more time to prevent cases of true criminal action, it keeps people from slipping into a habit of breaking the law, keeps people out of jails in the first place so they aren't as likely to go back, etc.
You make the system as straightforward as possible, and it encourages honest work while leaving people who live mired in the inner-workings of the system out in the cold.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-11-12 11:52:09)
It's not that there is an incentive to break the law, but the law alone is not a significant enough reason to stop people from doing it. If you make shit like that illegal, it kills the respectability of the law and law enforcement.Berster7 wrote:
That is nothing like the argument for legalising pot. Neither have anything to do with the incentive to break the law. In both cases the incentive is fixed and independent. In one case the incentive is financial gain, in the other inebriation.
I was talking in terms of the analogy.Berster7 wrote:
The major flaw with that point is that the police don't usually investigate that sort of corruption (that tends to be done by other financial investigation agencies and auditors). You wouldn't be freeing up any resources that could be used to target real criminals on the street.
I never said they were.Berster7 wrote:
I also reject the notion that criminals on the street are in any way worse than corrupt bankers and the like. Something like the Madoff case is far worse than most cases of "true criminal action".
Government doesn't bail out banks. Government makes it clear it is going to let a bank fail if they fail. Banks invest with caution.Berster7 wrote:
Particularly after recent events, it's pretty clear that more regulation is the way forward, not less - for the following reasons:
1) It is in the best interests of all financial institutions to become as big as they can, because it's then easier for them to make big profits.
2) Huge financial institutions are a risk to the taxpayer as it is too devastating to let them fail. (Lehman being the cautionary tale here - no one will let any big banks fail after the fallout from that)
3) Higher risk in finance generates higher profits. Banks take risks to make profit. When huge banks do so this it is a risk to the taxpayer.
That's... logic... in this thread...?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Government doesn't bail out banks. Government makes it clear it is going to let a bank fail if they fail. Banks invest with caution.Berster7 wrote:
Particularly after recent events, it's pretty clear that more regulation is the way forward, not less - for the following reasons:
1) It is in the best interests of all financial institutions to become as big as they can, because it's then easier for them to make big profits.
2) Huge financial institutions are a risk to the taxpayer as it is too devastating to let them fail. (Lehman being the cautionary tale here - no one will let any big banks fail after the fallout from that)
3) Higher risk in finance generates higher profits. Banks take risks to make profit. When huge banks do so this it is a risk to the taxpayer.
Making stealing illegal kills the respectibility of the law? What are you on?Flamig_Manic wrote:
It's not that there is an incentive to break the law, but the law alone is not a significant enough reason to stop people from doing it. If you make shit like that illegal, it kills the respectability of the law and law enforcement.Berster7 wrote:
That is nothing like the argument for legalising pot. Neither have anything to do with the incentive to break the law. In both cases the incentive is fixed and independent. In one case the incentive is financial gain, in the other inebriation.
You were talking bollocks. It doesn't fit with the analogy in any way.Flamig_Manic wrote:
I was talking in terms of the analogy.Berster7 wrote:
The major flaw with that point is that the police don't usually investigate that sort of corruption (that tends to be done by other financial investigation agencies and auditors). You wouldn't be freeing up any resources that could be used to target real criminals on the street.
You heavily implied through the use of the analogy. That is a solid reason for legalising weed, which does not apply to corruption in finance.Flamig_Manic wrote:
I never said they were.Berster7 wrote:
I also reject the notion that criminals on the street are in any way worse than corrupt bankers and the like. Something like the Madoff case is far worse than most cases of "true criminal action".
And the banks don't take risks for a while, then some start to gradually, the rest have to follow suit (to keep in touch with their competitors profits), then some fail and the government has to bail them out.Flamig_Manic wrote:
Government doesn't bail out banks. Government makes it clear it is going to let a bank fail if they fail. Banks invest with caution.Berster7 wrote:
Particularly after recent events, it's pretty clear that more regulation is the way forward, not less - for the following reasons:
1) It is in the best interests of all financial institutions to become as big as they can, because it's then easier for them to make big profits.
2) Huge financial institutions are a risk to the taxpayer as it is too devastating to let them fail. (Lehman being the cautionary tale here - no one will let any big banks fail after the fallout from that)
3) Higher risk in finance generates higher profits. Banks take risks to make profit. When huge banks do so this it is a risk to the taxpayer.
No, it's not. It's wishful thinking.JohnG@lt wrote:
That's... logic... in this thread...?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Government doesn't bail out banks. Government makes it clear it is going to let a bank fail if they fail. Banks invest with caution.Berster7 wrote:
Particularly after recent events, it's pretty clear that more regulation is the way forward, not less - for the following reasons:
1) It is in the best interests of all financial institutions to become as big as they can, because it's then easier for them to make big profits.
2) Huge financial institutions are a risk to the taxpayer as it is too devastating to let them fail. (Lehman being the cautionary tale here - no one will let any big banks fail after the fallout from that)
3) Higher risk in finance generates higher profits. Banks take risks to make profit. When huge banks do so this it is a risk to the taxpayer.
Actually I gave a whole list of mechanisms that redistribute wealth upwards, you are the one that picked up on this one only.JohnG@lt wrote:
You're picking out one item and declaring the entire philosophy invalid because of it. What do you believe in? I bet I could drive semi-trucks through the holes in your ideas. Yes, patents are a holdover from Mercantalism rather than a product of pure Capitalistic beliefs. Yes, they are protectionist to an extent but I see no reason to toss them out. As I've repeatedly states they are one of the few ways that a poor man can become wealthy in a single lifetime. Have a great idea, patent it, profit.PureFodder wrote:
So you think that government needs to stay out of private business, period and also that without massive government interference into private business in the form of patents, society would collapse into anarchy?JohnG@lt wrote:
I am just as, if not more so, against those forms of handouts as I am of redistribution to the poor. I think government needs to stay out of private business period.
I feel the role of government in business should strictly be a role of providing Justice within business. Prosecuting fraud, theft and collusion. I also believe in environmental laws to a certain extent because outright dumping in rivers or smokestacks spewing clouds of acrid smoke are not good for anyone. Do I think people are going too far with their environmental protection ideas? Yes, very much so. I think we've found a happy medium right now and don't need things like cap and trade or carbon taxes or any other such nonsense. Smokestack filters good, banning smokestacks bad. Get it? Business in general needs just a very light, delicate touch from government, not the heavy-handed measures and regulations that people seem to want out of fear or jealousy or outright hatred.
Last edited by PureFodder (2009-11-12 13:01:31)
So basically you're a socialist who is afraid to say it or you're a lazy piece of shit that covets what other people have. Which is it?PureFodder wrote:
Actually I gave a whole list of mechanisms that redistribute wealth upwards, you are the one that picked up on this one only.
I think that we should have a system not too unlike the present one, but actually admit that there are strong mechanisms in place that redistribute wealth upwards, hence the need for a mechanism to redistribute wealth downwards to even the playing field somewhat.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-11-12 15:35:41)
I'm a capitalist who is a callous piece of shit who covets what other people have.JohnG@lt wrote:
So basically you're a socialist who is afraid to say it or you're a lazy piece of shit that covets what other people have. Which is it?PureFodder wrote:
Actually I gave a whole list of mechanisms that redistribute wealth upwards, you are the one that picked up on this one only.
I think that we should have a system not too unlike the present one, but actually admit that there are strong mechanisms in place that redistribute wealth upwards, hence the need for a mechanism to redistribute wealth downwards to even the playing field somewhat.
Do you have a desire to 'redistribute' the wealth so that people who didn't earn it have more money?Macbeth wrote:
I'm a capitalist who is a callous piece of shit who covets what other people have.
Anyone can be a piece of shit.
No, in the eyes of a lot of people making pot illegal kills the respectability of the law. Laws against stealing/rape/murder are the only laws we should have.Bertster7 wrote:
Making stealing illegal kills the respectibility of the law? What are you on?
Corruption in finance is not the same as deregulation. Fraud is and should be illegal - preemptive laws to keep people from committing fraud in the first place are bullshit.Bertster7 wrote:
You heavily implied through the use of the analogy. That is a solid reason for legalising weed, which does not apply to corruption in finance.
I don't know where you get the link between banks failing and the government "having" to bail them out. What is far too damaging in the long term is bailing them out.Berster7 wrote:
And the banks don't take risks for a while, then some start to gradually, the rest have to follow suit (to keep in touch with their competitors profits), then some fail and the government has to bail them out.Flamig_Manic wrote:
Government doesn't bail out banks. Government makes it clear it is going to let a bank fail if they fail. Banks invest with caution.Berster7 wrote:
Particularly after recent events, it's pretty clear that more regulation is the way forward, not less - for the following reasons:
1) It is in the best interests of all financial institutions to become as big as they can, because it's then easier for them to make big profits.
2) Huge financial institutions are a risk to the taxpayer as it is too devastating to let them fail. (Lehman being the cautionary tale here - no one will let any big banks fail after the fallout from that)
3) Higher risk in finance generates higher profits. Banks take risks to make profit. When huge banks do so this it is a risk to the taxpayer.
There is no unregulated scenario where it is remotely likely the government will not have to bail out some banks. It is far to damaging not to bail out banks, so it has to be done.
Only if it stops my car from getting stolen or my house robbed.JohnG@lt wrote:
Do you have a desire to 'redistribute' the wealth so that people who didn't earn it have more money?Macbeth wrote:
I'm a capitalist who is a callous piece of shit who covets what other people have.
Anyone can be a piece of shit.
So teaching people that money is valueless by handing it to them and showing them they can live comfortably by taking the easy path in life doesn't in fact encourage them to steal instead of working a 9-5? Please.Macbeth wrote:
Only if it stops my car from getting stolen or my house robbed.JohnG@lt wrote:
Do you have a desire to 'redistribute' the wealth so that people who didn't earn it have more money?Macbeth wrote:
I'm a capitalist who is a callous piece of shit who covets what other people have.
Anyone can be a piece of shit.
Fodder seems to be arguing against the upwards redistribution rather than for downward redistribution. From what I've read his argument is that downards redistribution is necessary to try to balance the upwards. If there was no upwards redistribution I don't think he'd be advocating downwards redistribution.JohnG@lt wrote:
Do you have a desire to 'redistribute' the wealth so that people who didn't earn it have more money?Macbeth wrote:
I'm a capitalist who is a callous piece of shit who covets what other people have.
Anyone can be a piece of shit.
No, he specifically said that he wanted upward redistribution 'outed' so it would justify his call for downward redistribution.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Fodder seems to be arguing against the upwards redistribution rather than for downward redistribution. From what I've read his argument is that downards redistribution is necessary to try to balance the upwards. If there was no upwards redistribution I don't think he'd be advocating downwards redistribution.JohnG@lt wrote:
Do you have a desire to 'redistribute' the wealth so that people who didn't earn it have more money?Macbeth wrote:
I'm a capitalist who is a callous piece of shit who covets what other people have.
Anyone can be a piece of shit.
Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2009-11-12 16:46:59)
I don't advocate any redistribution either up or down (I'm still puzzled about 'upward' redistribution btw).Diesel_dyk wrote:
Wow this thread is still going and it looks like a good debate.
I was looking a fodder's idea that redistribution is a two way street upward and downward, and of course in the past few months we really have seen corporate welfare hit new highs. It a very good point.
But I was also thinking about Galt's idea of a completely unfettered free market and some of the unintended consequences such a market would bring. If you look at the history of industry and the rise of labor movements and unionization I think its pretty clear that its been govt interference, especially in "right to work states" that has resulted the decline of unions. If govt were to use a "soft hand" and stay out of the way of how markets form then IMO unions would start to flourish and here is why.
If hypothetically markets became "free" from all regulation, there would be a concentration of wealth and power caused by the consolidation of corporations growing larger and larger. With no govt regulation to block the growth of these entities or the misuse of consolidated power, we would see a return to labor unions and collective bargaining. After all if the govt is out of the market, it should stay out, right. So the vacuum left by removing regulation and removing the redistribution of wealth would IMO cause that vacuum to be filled by active participants in the market through unionization, and they would in fact re-establish a form of downward redistribution by contract. In other words I don't think you can get away from the concept and in fact the rise of the welfare state was a counter to the rise in unionism. Remove the redistribution and unions will become necessary again.
Unless of course you're advocating for the govt to be involved in the preservation of upward redistribution, while at the same time preventing downward redistribution, because in that case then you are simple and actively stripping people of not only their democratic powers, but also their power to be free to contract as they want and at that point people really start to look more like human resources and ultimately property instead of human beings
EDIT That should read simply, not simple oops
What I'm referring to is the robber barons like JP morgan and John D Rockefeller with standard oil, the pinkertons and all of that history. Which is the time when the country believed strongly in the freedom of contract and unregulated markets and there was no welfare state or employment standards or polution standards. At that time practically every aspect of what we would consider to be "modern" society was absent. In that time unions were born out of necessity and they earned the right to exist by spilling blood in the street despite the opposition to their existence from industrial leaders and the govt. They are the ones that fought for the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, helath and safety standards. and of course as each no legislative standard was passed, the need for the unions diminished. Radicalism was muted by the rise of the welfare state and the regulation of unionism. Unions became co-opted to serve as a outlet for radical idea through a statutorially created regulatory regime for the purposes of stabilizing industrial relations. Later, the pendulum may have swung a little to favor unions but as the welfare state has grown so has the view that unions are no longer necessary. Remove the welfare state and the redsitribution of wealth and close to a hundred years of progress and IMO unionism will rise again. Its an unintended consequence that a really free market will have.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't advocate any redistribution either up or down (I'm still puzzled about 'upward' redistribution btw).Diesel_dyk wrote:
Wow this thread is still going and it looks like a good debate.
I was looking a fodder's idea that redistribution is a two way street upward and downward, and of course in the past few months we really have seen corporate welfare hit new highs. It a very good point.
But I was also thinking about Galt's idea of a completely unfettered free market and some of the unintended consequences such a market would bring. If you look at the history of industry and the rise of labor movements and unionization I think its pretty clear that its been govt interference, especially in "right to work states" that has resulted the decline of unions. If govt were to use a "soft hand" and stay out of the way of how markets form then IMO unions would start to flourish and here is why.
If hypothetically markets became "free" from all regulation, there would be a concentration of wealth and power caused by the consolidation of corporations growing larger and larger. With no govt regulation to block the growth of these entities or the misuse of consolidated power, we would see a return to labor unions and collective bargaining. After all if the govt is out of the market, it should stay out, right. So the vacuum left by removing regulation and removing the redistribution of wealth would IMO cause that vacuum to be filled by active participants in the market through unionization, and they would in fact re-establish a form of downward redistribution by contract. In other words I don't think you can get away from the concept and in fact the rise of the welfare state was a counter to the rise in unionism. Remove the redistribution and unions will become necessary again.
Unless of course you're advocating for the govt to be involved in the preservation of upward redistribution, while at the same time preventing downward redistribution, because in that case then you are simple and actively stripping people of not only their democratic powers, but also their power to be free to contract as they want and at that point people really start to look more like human resources and ultimately property instead of human beings
EDIT That should read simply, not simple oops
The problem with your theory is that while unions may have been powerful in the past, it was only because of legislation that was written during FDR's administration that made it so that labor had all the negotiating chips stacked in it's favor. While I don't agree with strike breaking via violence by any means, I also don't agree with the violent and verbal abuse heaped on 'scabs' when a union chooses to strike. They're both in the wrong. Laws that make union membership in the job place a requirement are an abortion of civil liberties.
However, I think the one flaw in Right to Work states is that there is a law requiring the union to represent a workplace even if the vast majority of those working there don't pay dues. So on the one hand you have states like Michigan where the union is king of the roost and essentially runs the state where laws promoting unions have run amock, and then you have right to work states where there is almost too much inhibiting unions from forming. I think unions should be organic outside of the realm of government as well. There shouldn't be laws expressly favoring them, nor laws making it overly difficult to form and conduct business. Most people in this country happen to despise unions because they see the UAW lining it's own pockets at the expense of other Americans. The fact that they represent completely unskilled labor making ridiculous wages also inspires a lot of hatred.
Lehman, duh!Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't know where you get the link between banks failing and the government "having" to bail them out. What is far too damaging in the long term is bailing them out.Berster7 wrote:
And the banks don't take risks for a while, then some start to gradually, the rest have to follow suit (to keep in touch with their competitors profits), then some fail and the government has to bail them out.Flamig_Manic wrote:
Government doesn't bail out banks. Government makes it clear it is going to let a bank fail if they fail. Banks invest with caution.
There is no unregulated scenario where it is remotely likely the government will not have to bail out some banks. It is far to damaging not to bail out banks, so it has to be done.
Robert Peston wrote:
Here's Sir John Gieve, who at the time was a deputy governor of the Bank of England: "it was clearly a disastrous decision not to save Lehman".
The economic fallout from letting a major bank like Lehman fail is more costly than bailing them out - which is what they would've done, if they hadn't screwed it up by waiting too long. Everyone knew it would be a disaster to let Lehman fail, Paulson would've bailed them out, but he was pushing for a private rescue package to avoid sinking loads of taxpayers money into it - which almost worked, till Barclays pulled out at the last minute and it was too late to do anything about it.Robert Peston wrote:
Or Sheila Bair, the US banking insurer and regulator as head of the FDIC: "sure, it was a mistake".
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-11-13 11:22:11)
Exactly. I think that most people will agree that mechanisms that distribute wealth upwards can have be better than not having them at all. For example government spending on research which almost exclusively ends up in the hands of the wealthy, despite being paid for at public expense. To balance these upwards redistributions of wealth, it's necessary to have mechanisms to redress this imbalance by sending some of the wealth back down again.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Fodder seems to be arguing against the upwards redistribution rather than for downward redistribution. From what I've read his argument is that downards redistribution is necessary to try to balance the upwards. If there was no upwards redistribution I don't think he'd be advocating downwards redistribution.JohnG@lt wrote:
Do you have a desire to 'redistribute' the wealth so that people who didn't earn it have more money?Macbeth wrote:
I'm a capitalist who is a callous piece of shit who covets what other people have.
Anyone can be a piece of shit.