Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 6/1/09 02:27 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

At 5/23/09 09:22 AM, Korriken wrote:

If you want socialism so bad go to Norway. Oh wait... Wait... FUCK NORWAY HAS MORE GPA PER CAPITA THAN THE U.S.

The standpoint can be reversed, Korriken.

I retract my earlier statement slightly because Norway is a mixed economy, only PART socialism.

---

At 6/1/09 02:33 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

The standpoint can be reversed, Korriken.

I retract my earlier statement slightly because Norway is a mixed economy, only PART socialism.

As is every economy in the world. There aren't any pure capitalisms or socialisms, just a different ration. While the US has a large amount of capitalism and very little socialism (if you ask me, who is kind of socialistic), norway has a far more balanced amount of each.

---

At 5/31/09 06:44 PM, Generalissimus wrote: Unfortunately, free trade does lead to the development of monopolies. Trust-busting by the government can break up these monopolies with success though. Look at the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt or William Howard Taft for good examples. The problem that I see is, when a government takes control of a business industry or sector, it often create a non-competitive monopoly. If a government can break up a privately owned monopoly, who can break up a government controlled monopoly?

Why would you consider a public monopoly to be bad? Why would you consider a private monopoly to be bad?

At 5/28/09 03:26 PM, Asteraith wrote: I think that this topic is probably more significant to Americans than for other countries. We have been raised in a government with a long and very public history of incompetence, corruption, and general screw-ups.

Quite on the contrary, the US Govt (more precisely, the US State) has a long-established history of low corruption, reliability and efficiency.

The private sectors of business are another matter. The problem, again in America, is that free trade has consistently led to the development of monopolies, which in turn destroy free trade far more efficiently than government can. It is nearly impossible to start and be competitive in any industry or consumer goods service other than the trade of illicit drugs, largely because huge corporations already have done so and completely control the market.

And you believe the US is the only country that has big companies in its market. Wouldn't you think that, given the size of the US market as a whole, big companies are relatively smaller in comparison (and therefore, face higher level of competition) that the same companies in smaller markets? Or that the low bureaucratic level to start a company in the US, by foreigners and nationals, make companies face a lot of potential competition if they abuse the market?

At 5/24/09 07:02 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

At 5/24/09 12:15 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

I agree. I feel, though, that federal assistance to the private sector is what creates so many problems there. If there wasn't the safety net of 'too big to fail', or government supported business initiatives - maybe the private sector would be privy to the consequences of their decisions, for once. What if making shitty cars and charging way too much of them meant your business went away, and your customers and market-share split between your competitors?

A government bail out has not been in the mind of GM before it started to run losses, just until recently, ie, 2008. GM's problems and lack of solving of them, come from a much earlier date, so moral hazard is not to blame.

Not worried about that at all, though? Not worried that maybe it's more (and it's always more) than just 'the government wants to help people'?

No, not really.

Don't you think, even at all, the the government having a mandated and legal leverage over the private sector - the heart and soul of this country - would be a dangerous and slippery road?

Nope. Actually, the government already has legal leverage of the private sector, the "greater good" is always above individual interests, legally speaking. The most clear example is when the government wants to build a highway, and your house is in the middle. Your right to property is then overridden, although you are compensated for it. The US government also controls the private sector by taxing and spending, diverting production of private goods to public goods, and also redistributes income through progressive taxation and spending.

At 5/29/09 10:11 AM, ProphecyofLife wrote: Well, technically the government does have a part in every business. He gets a part of the money from every single one, think of taxes! So apparently he can. Either way whether people like it or not you are giving the government money. That's why whenever you buy something it is the cost plus tax. Isn't that running a businesses from afar? lol

You remind me of Friedman:

"... in Russia almost all enterprises are public or governmental; in the US, most are private, in the sense that the residual income recipient - the body of persons entitled to receive or required to pay any differences between receipts from sales and expenditures on the purchase of resources - is the body of politic in the USSR, identifiable private individuals in the US.1

1. Even this statement is oversimplified. With a US federal corporate tax rate of 48% on income over $25,000, the US government in effect owns 48% of all US corporations and is a residual income recipient to that extent."

Friedman, Milton, Price Theory, 1976

At 5/31/09 09:14 PM, RDSchley wrote:

At 5/23/09 01:51 AM, animehater wrote: I agree also. Government is too incompetent and power hungry to do any good in most cases.

and a privately owned business is not? what is the difference between a corperation and a government? think about it.

They are both organizations. End.

At 6/1/09 05:44 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: As is every economy in the world. There aren't any pure capitalisms or socialisms, just a different ration. While the US has a large amount of capitalism and very little socialism (if you ask me, who is kind of socialistic), norway has a far more balanced amount of each.

Yeah, 50/50, lulz.

---

The one thing that I would like to point out here is that some things really do do better under government control. British Rail cost the taxpayer approximately half what we pay today (after correction for inflation). Also so far none of the PFI hospitals in England have done very well. Sometimes governments can run businesses better than business people.

---

At 5/28/09 03:26 PM, Asteraith wrote: One area that I think America has made a huge mistake NOT socializing is health care. By making health a consumer item, we have sacrificed a great deal of our humanity. We are one of very few industrial, 1st world nations where people with life-threatening illnesses can be turned out on the street untreated because they can't pay for care.

If the medical sector were truely exposed to the free market, with no controls or puppet strings or funding from the government, they would be forced to offer prices that people could actually afford. If a hospital had the choice of lowering prices and wages or going bankrupt - guess what they'd do.

The private sectors of business are another matter. The problem, again in America, is that free trade has consistently led to the development of monopolies, which in turn destroy free trade far more efficiently than government can. It is nearly impossible to start and be competitive in any industry or consumer goods service other than the trade of illicit drugs, largely because huge corporations already have done so and completely control the market.

That's not a bad thing, though. That's what a 'free market' is. A company that does it better, faster, and cheaper is not suppossed to suffer competion from people with higher prices and lower quality. Why would they? Isn't the most efficient business the one that deserves to be at the top?

In that sense, I feel that more government control is appropriate in many areas, so long as that government is controlled by people's best interest, not the best interest of whoever has the biggest wallet.

And which way do you feel America is leaning, today?

At 5/31/09 09:14 PM, RDSchley wrote:

At 5/23/09 01:51 AM, animehater wrote: I agree also. Government is too incompetent and power hungry to do any good in most cases.

and a privately owned business is not? what is the difference between a corperation and a government? think about it.

A corporation is subject to the direct dollar vote of a free market (assuming the government doesn't get involve and limit trade, punish success, and abolish failure), while a government is subject to nothing but their own arbitrary laws.