Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Okay, so you're saying the government favors big businesses. Fair enough, I agree. You say that the government should resist corruption, I agree with that as well. But what is your plan to do so? We already have laws designed to prevent corruption and abuse of power, but that's being circumvented because the people making the laws in the first place are being influenced by lobbyists protecting private interests.

At 3/12/13 10:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Marketing doesn't mean shit if you're product doesn't back it up. Only when you monopolize the industry (through govt favoritism), does quality not matter.

You've got to be kidding, right. Have you even tried to compare Apple iPhones to droids? Betamax to VHS?

Marketing is EVERYTHING. If you have the right formula, like Apple, you could sell a kethcup popsicle to a woman in white gloves. Their products, are FAR inferior to the competition, yet they sell like hotcakes way outdoing Droid products.

Betamax was far superior to VHS in damn near every way, yet because Sony fucked up marketting, VHS was able to only surpass them, but become the primary video viewing medium from over 2 decades.

American consumers are stupid and can be easily fooled by a good commercial campaign. Have you ever heard the political advice featured on many shows: "People don't like numbers, they like stories"? It rings true. People don;t care that much about the merits or quality of their product, so long as they can feel attached to the one they actually get. A quality commercial campaign can create that attachment even prior to purchasing the item. For example, look at how people view TV and Movie stars. My mother cals Vincent D'Nofrio (spelling?) 'Eggar' in everything he's in. She does this with damn near every star. She has now gone about calling Steve Buscemi "Nuckie' (again, sp?) after years of liking his work, just because she likes his Boardwalk Empire role. She so quickly throws out the facts for her comfort story. We all do this. I call tisues 'Kleenex' and occasionally call a copier a 'Xerox'. We as humans are hardwired to go with things we trust or are attached to even if logic and all indications point that otherwise is a better decision.

No, the monsanto example is the exact opposite of how a free market is supposed to operate, because the government is favoring them over the people, by exempting them from basic food/agriculture laws.

A truly free market would never have acknowledge this issue, as the letting Monsanto get by the rules implies that the government has intervened and placed rules there to begin with.

And if the government made it possible to start a business or open a factory here, China wouldn't even be an issue, because American technology and quality will blow it away.

It is possible to open factories here. Japanese companies, having learned from their outsourcing mistakes do it all the time.

And you're right, third world labor makes third rate products. However, if the consumer has only the choice between third rate and third rate, then there's no incentive to provide higher quality, especially if profit margins are aleady high.

You think Wal Mart would even exist if the Clintons weren't creating legislation to keep it afloat (because they're shareholders), and an American company was actually allowed to open factories. Companies export jobs and production because the government has made it nearly impossible to, say, open a factory.

No. Companies export jobs because work is 100 times cheaper in poor countries. You can get away with paying Bangladeshi workers as much in a month as it would cost to pay the daily cost for American workers.

No it's not. it is Walton's choice to do what they want with the money (give it to family, burn it, whatever).

But they have MASSIVE power due to their massive stock of money, and yet you keep saying people only amass wealth and power through hard work.

At 3/12/13 10:54 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Not everyone is in life for money. But plenty of people are.

And yet you expect those who are not in life for the money to treat every transaction as if it were just for the money. That's how pure capitalism and the free market think.

Exactly. So, let market and supply/demand control prices, not the government and corporations.

But a company with enough money (in a free market money = power) can artificially alter supply and demand through destruction of competition, withholding of information, dissemination of false information, or by creating a false shortage thus driving up prices.

It can give them power....that they earn. if they can earn to be at the top, then great. But you have to earn it by actually providing something.

But such accumulation of power can put a complete halt to ANY other person being able to gain power in that industry and thus the consumer loses their last bargaining chip "I'll go elsewhere".

And there was never an era "before government intervened"

Yes there was. Government involvement in business in the 19th Century was minimal and practially nonexistent (they did enforce contracts and state to state disputes, but other than that the government kept its hands off of business).

But let's be honest, no matter how reputable the source, you will dismiss it, as "conspiracy theory" or something, because it doesn't match up with the statist indoctrination you suffer.

You didn;t even make an attempt to find a reputable source. Some random guy's blog is not a reputable source. I seriously think you intentionally find bad sources so you can claim I 'ignore all your sources'. You don't have a history professor, or a newspaper?

Even if it WERE reputable, which it clearly is not, it does NOTHING to disprove the statement that 19th Century American was very lasseix faire and governmetn stayed out of business. It talks about conspiracy theories all dating in the 20th Century. So bad source and not even one on topic.

So, if not for government, then slavery or murder would be a-ok?

The only punishments for either would be societal, not legal.

And why exactly does that matter?

Because you say that no one ould willingly get themselves in a situation to be gouged, yet you're too chicken to see if you're smarter than the landlord. So, man up or shut up.

At 3/12/13 09:54 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I disagree entirely. You're telling me if there was no government, you would see minorities as less than human, for example?

How is that relevant? If there was no government, it would be survival of the fittest, as it would anarchy, would it not? The minorities would be those with traits that are not suitable for their environment whatever that environment is too, so techniticalty speaking racial minorities as we know the may not exist, correct?

Exactly. In no way is that related to out and out anarchy.

Missing my point. "Free markets" have zero government interference, not limited, 0. Z-E-R-O. So where the hell are you getting your definition?

The difference is, those "markets" deprive or infringe the lives of others. Therefore, would not be supported by a free market society.

You didn't read that page at all? Let me summarize it for you since you seem like the lazy type:
Whenever there is a transaction at all, there is always some cost/benefit that occurs upon society. Since it's in society's best interest to minimize its costs and maximize its benefits, society tries to find a way to do so. Most often this way is government because its the only force large enough to compare to the consumer/producer base. This is done through taxes and subsidies typically. Other solutions are harder to come by.

Long story short, a complete "free market" society would be bunk, because it implies no government at all.

At 3/12/13 11:16 PM, Kwing wrote: Okay, so you're saying the government favors big businesses. Fair enough, I agree. You say that the government should resist corruption, I agree with that as well. But what is your plan to do so? We already have laws designed to prevent corruption and abuse of power, but that's being circumvented because the people making the laws in the first place are being influenced by lobbyists protecting private interests.

As said in the OP the system is inherently flawed because in the so called "Freemarket" anything can be bought for a price and that includes your personal liberties and property and even your person. The people with the most money will remain on top and in absolute control of Economy, Social services, Governmental institutions including Politicians, Religion, Pop Cultural beliefs of the time etc .....

The only thing enabling the corruption to keep on rolling is the same thing that keeps a roof over your head and food in your belly etc .. and that is the current monetary based system of Commerce. The only way for the maximum amount of people to experience what freedom truly means we must move forward passed monetary based socioeconomics. The truth is that most people are afraid of real freedom and if they seen what real freedom is they would fear it and attack it but in a free society one should be given the choice which is the underling issue I am trying to expose. Most people enjoy a convenience lifestyle with such corporate luxuries as Starbucks, Red Lobster, Cineplex odeon, Nike, Wal Mart, Ford, GM, etc ...

There's nothing inherently wrong with big corporation however what is wrong is the "free market" model of economics that Big Corporation can afford the wherewithal to manipulate, inflate and maximize the market in any way they choose as they go along which the ultimate outcome being planetary abuse and dehumanization in the name of max profit.

Big Corporation needs a babysitter and the "Freemarket" model of haphazard unscientific anarchy is not it.

At 3/13/13 02:53 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: How is that relevant? If there was no government, it would be survival of the fittest, as it would anarchy, would it not?

It would be survival of the fittest. The difference would be, everyone has equal opportunity to survive, a luxury a current govt doesn't really support

Missing my point. "Free markets" have zero government interference, not limited, 0. Z-E-R-O. So where the hell are you getting your definition?

I'm supporting the idea of zero govt. interference. no favoritism. no bailouts. no favorable legislation. nothing.

Whenever there is a transaction at all, there is always some cost/benefit that occurs upon society. Since it's in society's best interest to minimize its costs and maximize its benefits, society tries to find a way to do so. Most often this way is government because its the only force large enough to compare to the consumer/producer base. This is done through taxes and subsidies typically. Other solutions are harder to come by.

It's that way by design. social engineering. just like tricking you into thinking you need them to take care of you when you're old.

the market is capable of efficiency, if it's unimpeded. but the govt creates hundreds of hoops to jump through, to the point where it's impossible to do it yourself. just like they do with energy, food, medicine, etc.

Long story short, a complete "free market" society would be bunk, because it implies no government at all.

No it wouldn't. it implies a clear, strong separation of industry and the government

At 3/12/13 10:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote: What does our personal view have to do with rights? Rights are merely a construct given to other by those with the power to control others. Workers did not have any universal rights until the government gave it to them.

you're saying the government gives people rights. so in your view, without government, people have no rights, therefore slavery, murder, rape, etc are a-ok. Because you want the government to decide what rights people have.

But you keep on saying that the government should step in and REGULATE in your idea of a free market. That goes 100% against the definition.

No i'm not. I'm proposing the government should stay out of markets altogether, and the law/constitution will keep them out of it (as it's supposed to anyway).

What? Pollution was heavily supported prior to any real government mental involvement in business. Without governmental support for education, it would exist at a minute fraction of the level it is today. Bad externalities are only limited because of government and good externalities are only propogated as much as they are because of government. The free market, by its very nature doesn't limit bad externalities and doesn;t promote good ones.

Pollution is heavily supported NOW. Everything you eat is infected with poisons. The united states consumes 90% of the world's prescription drugs. Hell, there is flouride (a poison) in your fucking water. You're so brainwashed into this rediculous notion that the government is somehow this knight in shining armor that has slain the polluters and evil doers. As if the world became some kind of utopia because of the government, and if not for government, everyone would be eating dirt. it's almost biblical, really. You put so much faith in this mythology, it's quite embarrassing.

At 3/12/13 11:12 PM, Camarohusky wrote: All businesses are businesses.

No, large businesses are govt arms.

That's what we're all getting at. Mega businesses in a free market gain enough power to completely destroy any small business that competes with them. It is the natural end to a completely free market.

No it is not. Mega businesses got to be mega because of govt. protectionism, and legislation that makes competition impossible, and in some cases, illegal.

In a free market, you, or anyone, could devise a competitive product, and *gasp* you'd actually be allowed to sell it!

No. WalMart's size prevents free competition. Among other big stores, there is competition, such as Target, KMart, and regional superstores (see Fred Meyer, wich has the backing of national company Kroger.)

Wal-mart got it's size because of free trade agreements, and legislation that favored imports. This wouldn't be an issue if the environment here in America was so fucked with regulation.

But small businesses cnnot get their prices as low as WalMarts'because they cannot provide the volume so they lose out on bulk discounts, and because they don;t have the bargaining power of national WalMart. So WalMart can essentially go into any town and undercut the local store thus destroying competition. No government involvement needed.

They got to that level of "success" by exploiting government, influencing legislation and loopholes.

Except to stop bad things. Except to enforce legal duties. Except to promote competition. Except to punish bad acts. And so on. Sounds pretty involved to me.

A) Legal duties is 1) prescribed by the constitution, and 2) often executed on a state level (also prescribed by the Constitution)...B) I never said the government should prmote competition, or anything. C) punishing criminals is prescribed in the constitution as well

How?

Over-taxation, price fixing/gouging of essential things like food, fuel, housing, etc.

That was not symbolic for all large businesses. In fact that only represented a very small minority of big businesses.

sure, 23 companies (mostly banks) got flat out handouts. Other large businesses get tax credits and breaks, or legislation in their favor.

Mind you, this was after the country had hit the biggest recession since the 1930s and the government was desperate to do everything it could to keep the recession just a recession, even if it meant helping out bad companies who were only down because of their own mistakes.

And what caused that recession? Govt intervention in the banking market, by price fixing interest rates, and forcing banks to make risky loans under penalty of fines.

No. The CEO can find employees anywhere, especially in an economic situation like today. The employees need the jobs at the company far more than the CEO needs the specific workers to stay. This especially rings true where the job and the workers have little unqiue skills and can be easily replaced.

No, a CEO cannot find SKILLED employees anywhere. But hey, as a CEO, do you need SKILLED people? No, because the govt is on your side, and your consumers are too stupid to know the difference, and if they aren't they have other choice/alternatives.

You're trying to say the same consumers who kept the PT Cruiser alive for 15 odd years, the ones who hoarded Beanie Babies, and the ones who will buy anything with an apple logo on it bypassing better products for half the price will keep a corporation who has ALL of the information and ALL of the control in check? Are you high? The average consumer is a fucking retard. They can;t even leep their own checkbook balanced, let alone a business in check.

Average consumers are fairly dumb. But they do care about money. And if given the choice between posioned beef, and not poisoned beef, I give them enough credit to choose the non-poisoned food. But oh wait, in the current system, you can only get that if you pay a premium, and even then, they can arrrest or fine you for trying to circumvent they're stranglehold (this is referring to the food indusrty, in this particular example)

But in the world of economics, some people are giants and others are mere insects. Some have the power to do almost anything while many others barely have the power to control their own lives.

While that is true, in a free society, you would not be bound to laws about what you can/can't buy, and you would get the same treatment/opportuinity as a billionaire CEO.

Actually, those humans more prone to killing to protect their territory were more likely to surive and propogate, thus murder IS favored by evolution.

No they weren't. Humans are societal animals. Almost since the beginning of humanity, murder has been a crime.

The governmetn exerts power, that's why it's there. But the government at least has SOME (even though it should be A GREAT DEAL) of responsibility to the people of the nation, where as private parties have no responsibility but to themselves.

The government is not there to exert power. One of the reasons we left britain, and formed a republic, over a monarchy, was to PREVENT the government exerting power over the people, and other nations.

As for private parties...i'm glad private parties are greedy. without it, we'd have no cars, gasoline, agriculture, air transit, etc. Thank god for greed.

Fixes the prices to lower than the market rate.

Depends. Banking, yes (look where that got us). Food, and fuel? No. Those are controlled by government backed oligopolies. And I guarantee, your ear of corn is cheaper than one at a grocery store.

You're calling for a regulated market then.

No?

Seeing as $1 billion is going to a local bridge, YES.

According to the white house, over $700 billion was spent on the wars overseas in 2012. So congrats, for every dollar that went to building that bridge that carries food and school children every day, $700 went to blowing up a village in afghanistan. Oh Obama, you're my hero.

the free market allows one of the greatest evils of the world; wealth disparity. thanks to the free market some people have more money than others, that's not fair. everyone should have the same amount of money. human beings are equal and this should also be reflected in their means. abolish class segregation

--supergandhi64

At 3/12/13 11:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote: And yet you expect those who are not in life for the money to treat every transaction as if it were just for the money. That's how pure capitalism and the free market think.

If you don't give a shit about the money you're spending, then that's your own problem...

But a company with enough money (in a free market money = power) can artificially alter supply and demand through destruction of competition, withholding of information, dissemination of false information, or by creating a false shortage thus driving up prices.

Free market =/= power. Only if you can actually compete.

But such accumulation of power can put a complete halt to ANY other person being able to gain power in that industry and thus the consumer loses their last bargaining chip "I'll go elsewhere".

Without favorable legislation, there is nothing holding back more competitive, efficient products. No company can ever make a perfect item/product. There is ALWAYS room for competition...except when the government makes it illegal.

How, actually, in a free market, would a mega corporation halt competition?

Yes there was. Government involvement in business in the 19th Century was minimal and practially nonexistent (they did enforce contracts and state to state disputes, but other than that the government kept its hands off of business).

Are you kidding? The government regulated SLAVERY in 1775 for fucks sake.

You don't have a history professor, or a newspaper?

LOL. I thought you said reputable. But really, i could quote marty Friedman, ron Paul, Thomas Sowell, it won't matter. You'll just dismiss it as "not reputable" anyway.

Even if it WERE reputable, which it clearly is not, it does NOTHING to disprove the statement that 19th Century American was very lasseix faire and governmetn stayed out of business. It talks about conspiracy theories all dating in the 20th Century. So bad source and not even one on topic.

The government has dictated since day one. Import tarriffs was how the government was funded initially, not to mention the institutionalization, defense and regulation of the slave trade (which impacted every other industry as well).

The only punishments for either would be societal, not legal.

That's not what i'm saying. I'm asking, if government did not recognize the rights of minorities, or women, would they have those rights? Are you telling me that you need the government to tell you people have the right to not be enslaved?

Because you say that no one ould willingly get themselves in a situation to be gouged, yet you're too chicken to see if you're smarter than the landlord. So, man up or shut up.

I didn't say people would willingly get in a situation to get gouged. i believe i implied that gouging wouldn't even be possible.

At 3/15/13 02:53 AM, LemonCrush wrote: you're saying the government gives people rights.

No. I'm saying those in power grant people rights. Whether that be a government granting its citizens rights, a business giving its workers rights, a powerful people giving a weaker people rights, a parent giving their child rights. Most people in power do not have ANY obligation to those they control. A business sure as hell does not. A powerful nation does not. A owerful people do not. A government DOES. That is why people turn to the government for help in cases where they have no power, because the government, which has the power, also has an obligation to serve its people. Does it do it all the time? NO. Does it always get it right? NO. But at least it tries which is a hell of a lot better than the vast majority of businesses would do.

No i'm not. I'm proposing the government should stay out of markets altogether, and the law/constitution will keep them out of it (as it's supposed to anyway).

Then how will powerfull businesses not be able to completely take advantage of their employees and customers?

Pollution is heavily supported NOW.

There is pollutipn now. I won't deny that. But at least the skies in Pittsburgh are now blue. At least industrial waste isn't dumped into the rivers (legally). There are numerous highly effective chemicals that are not in use because the government stepped in and stopped their use. If you think today's pollution even compares to that of the 19th Century, you're completely uninformed. See how bad it is in China right now? THAT'S HOW BAD IT WAS HERE.

At 3/15/13 03:18 AM, LemonCrush wrote: No, large businesses are govt arms.

Mircosoft is an arm of the government? Really? That's absurd.

No it is not. Mega businesses got to be mega because of govt. protectionism, and legislation that makes competition impossible, and in some cases, illegal.

No. They got big because of better business tactics, better timing, and being able to get over the hump.

In a free market, you, or anyone, could devise a competitive product, and *gasp* you'd actually be allowed to sell it!

Are you actually trying to say that intellectual property laws are keeping the little guy down?

Wal-mart got it's size because of free trade agreements, and legislation that favored imports. This wouldn't be an issue if the environment here in America was so fucked with regulation.

Are you REALLY trying to say FREE TRADE agreements are an example of government intervention!? HAHAHAHA. You're so out of your league here it's hilarious.

A) Legal duties is 1) prescribed by the constitution, and 2) often executed on a state level (also prescribed by the Constitution)...B) I never said the government should prmote competition, or anything. C) punishing criminals is prescribed in the constitution as well

But they're all forms of government intervention. Are you wanting a free market or not?

sure, 23 companies (mostly banks) got flat out handouts. Other large businesses get tax credits and breaks, or legislation in their favor.

Less than 5 PERCENT of the Fortune 500. Those rest of the 500 large corporations sure did fine on their own.

And what caused that recession? Govt intervention in the banking market, by price fixing interest rates, and forcing banks to make risky loans under penalty of fines.

No. Actually, it was the banks who saw a way to make a quick buck and shoot up thei stock price at the expense of long term stability and profits. Nothing the government did had ANYTHING to do with this. Except for the Fed lowering the interest rate, which is more of a deregulation than anything else.

No, a CEO cannot find SKILLED employees anywhere. But hey, as a CEO, do you need SKILLED people? No, because the govt is on your side, and your consumers are too stupid to know the difference, and if they aren't they have other choice/alternatives.

Look at who's hurting in the CEO-emplyee relationship. Is it the high end white collar workers who have advanced degrees? NO. Is it mid level workers who have low end BAs and AAS? a little. The workers hurting the most is th emassive glut of people with no degree and no marketable skills. Those are the ones who get the short end of the power stick. They're a dime a dozen and any idiot with a month's training can operate a mass production machine, or put bolts in a sheet of metal, or serve food, or work at a gocery store, and so on. this is where the power differential hurts the most. Now with the massive glut of college educated peple entering the market the power differential, even among skilled workers is widening like crazy. WHen you have people who spent tens of thousands of dollars to get a certification and now can't find work, they're desperate to get any job they can, and so the employers have all the power to deny benefits and lower pay. That's the power of supply and demand for you.

Average consumers are fairly dumb. But they do care about money. And if given the choice between posioned beef, and not poisoned beef, I give them enough credit to choose the non-poisoned food. But oh wait, in the current system, you can only get that if you pay a premium, and even then, they can arrrest or fine you for trying to circumvent they're stranglehold (this is referring to the food indusrty, in this particular example)

If you were a business and sold poisoned beef, would you tell your customers? NO. You would let them buy it, blame the sickness on something else, use your money to stop any group from reporting on it and go on with your poisonous beef. Mind you, it is the government who actually monitors and halts food production when the food is deemed bad.

While that is true, in a free society, you would not be bound to laws about what you can/can't buy, and you would get the same treatment/opportuinity as a billionaire CEO.

Only if the billionaire CEO deems you worthy, as the billionaire would have all the power and you would have none. The only merit you would recieve would be by the graces of those with the power to judge it.

No they weren't. Humans are societal animals. Almost since the beginning of humanity, murder has been a crime.

But war has not. And war is 100% instinctual. Those who can murder like crazy, but with a unifrom on, are not deemed mass murderers, but heroes. So yes, evolution has definitely prized and promoted humans who have the strength to kill other humans.

The government is not there to exert power. One of the reasons we left britain, and formed a republic, over a monarchy, was to PREVENT the government exerting power over the people, and other nations.

The very nature of a government is to exert power. How much and for what purpose is the difference between American and Georgian England. But all government are purpose built to exert power. Even the smallest tribal governments are there to exert power. The government is built to exert its power to promote a stable society and to exert its power against others to ensure the society's safety.

As for private parties...i'm glad private parties are greedy. without it, we'd have no cars, gasoline, agriculture, air transit, etc. Thank god for greed.

And yet you assume greed will play no part in a free market.

Depends. Banking, yes (look where that got us). Food, and fuel? No. Those are controlled by government backed oligopolies. And I guarantee, your ear of corn is cheaper than one at a grocery store.

My ear of corn only costs as much as the seeds, the land and the labor. Fuel is VASTLY cheaper because of the government. Wonder why we have some of the chepest fuel in the world? Because the government subsidizes a great deal of it.

No?

You keep on saying the government will NEVER intervene, but when you get confronted with a clearly unconscionable situation, you turn right around and say, well the government will stop it. Which is it? Government regulation, or not?

At 3/15/13 03:32 AM, LemonCrush wrote: If you don't give a shit about the money you're spending, then that's your own problem...

And then you saying people aren;t going to get fucked by the free market.

Free market =/= power. Only if you can actually compete.

Free marekt doesn't equal power (wow you finally got something right). In a free market, MONEY and SIZE equal power. A multinational corportion who operates gas stations can easily kill every competing gas station if they wanted. How? They open up a gas station near every local competition and lower their prices to below wholeslae rate. The massive income from all their ther markets can easily fund this regional loss. By severely undersutting the local station they deprive the local competition of customers. Once the local competition goes belly up, the national business is now free to raise prices to wherever they wish as there is no other option. After doing this several times in a speicial locale the message gets sent that your investment in a gas station will be fruitles as the national corporation will simply undercut you and drive you out of business, and thus all attempts to compete soon die out.

Without favorable legislation, there is nothing holding back more competitive, efficient products. No company can ever make a perfect item/product. There is ALWAYS room for competition...except when the government makes it illegal.

But if that company has enough power they can even beat out far superior products. Or, they can steal them. Or they can buy them out. There is no panacea to this except for an equally powerful entity prohibiting the company from doing so.

How, actually, in a free market, would a mega corporation halt competition?

Read above. I outlined it a couple paragraphs up.

Are you kidding? The government regulated SLAVERY in 1775 for fucks sake.

So the regulation of slavery has WHAT to do with the late 19th Century?

LOL. I thought you said reputable. But really, i could quote marty Friedman, ron Paul, Thomas Sowell, it won't matter. You'll just dismiss it as "not reputable" anyway.

Do it then. So random blog by some nodoby is not reputable.

The government has dictated since day one. Import tarriffs was how the government was funded initially, not to mention the institutionalization, defense and regulation of the slave trade (which impacted every other industry as well).

Again, how did those two things affect the late 19th Century. They didn't. The government barely was involved in business back then.

That's not what i'm saying. I'm asking, if government did not recognize the rights of minorities, or women, would they have those rights? Are you telling me that you need the government to tell you people have the right to not be enslaved?

Are you tring to say that there are inalienable rights? You know, that are taken away by those in power left and right?

Slavery is only deemed bad because we as a society have said it is bad. Yet people still have slaves, even in the US today. It;s not legal, but they still do it. The right to not be enslaved in only given by those who would otherwise enslave, and those who control the enslavers. So, yes, if the government had no law on slavery the right to be free from slavery would only exist if those who had the power to enslave decided to grant that right. Otherwise, they could exrcise their power and such a right would not exist.

I didn't say people would willingly get in a situation to get gouged. i believe i implied that gouging wouldn't even be possible.

Then answer the question. $500 pet deposit, or $100 pet deposit and $25/mo/pet pet rent? And then tell me how you would not be able to be gouged.

At 3/15/13 11:51 AM, Camarohusky wrote: And then you saying people aren;t going to get fucked by the free market.

They won't, because they will be free to make choices and will have alternative to getting fucked over.

Free marekt doesn't equal power (wow you finally got something right). In a free market, MONEY and SIZE equal power. A multinational corportion who operates gas stations can easily kill every competing gas station if they wanted. How? They open up a gas station near every local competition and lower their prices to below wholeslae rate. The massive income from all their ther markets can easily fund this regional loss. By severely undersutting the local station they deprive the local competition of customers. Once the local competition goes belly up, the national business is now free to raise prices to wherever they wish as there is no other option. After doing this several times in a speicial locale the message gets sent that your investment in a gas station will be fruitles as the national corporation will simply undercut you and drive you out of business, and thus all attempts to compete soon die out.

What you describe here, is what actually happened in America, and it happened with government protectionism. In your example, the giant corporation WILL lose if they cannot keep their quality competitive. This company can be as you describe, and I will bet anything that if they had shitty customer service, the place looked like a dump, and the food and sundries kept inside were a shamble, the smaller company would win. People pay more for quality and/or safety.

But if that company has enough power they can even beat out far superior products. Or, they can steal them. Or they can buy them out. There is no panacea to this except for an equally powerful entity prohibiting the company from doing so.

No they can't. How could they "beat out superior products". When companies get too big, quality suffers, and efficiency goes down the toilet. That's just the way of the world, and you can see it almost everywhere. McDonalds is a good example. I used to work for a MAJOR food conglomerate for a couple years, and it's definitely true in that case. True with Microsoft. Ben & Jerry's is a good example. Small independent owned ice cream company with great ice cream. Big chunks of candy or fruit. Real cream from organic cows....then they get bought by a huge multi national company, and what happened...now they outsource milk, ice cream is now "aerated", and you get less fruit/candy in each tub. When companies get too big, they get bloated. So let them get as big as they can. Then they get bloated, and leave a nice little hole for companies that can produce quality goods, to come in and undercut them.

Read above. I outlined it a couple paragraphs up.

Which were eroneous, because what you described actually happened...in a heavily regulated market.

So the regulation of slavery has WHAT to do with the late 19th Century?

What i'm saying is, you're notion of "it was all free market before the 19th century" is false. i was providing an example of govt involvement in industry prior to the 19th century.

Do it then. So random blog by some nodoby is not reputable.

If you want the information, it's out there. You don't actually WANT information about it, you want to set up some sort of trap or try to catch me in some type of cognative dissonance. I'm not going to go through all my books and the whole internet to provide example on something you will likely discredit anyway. it isn't worth it to me.

BTW, the blog post was filled with citations to various papers and books

Again, how did those two things affect the late 19th Century. They didn't. The government barely was involved in business back then.

You mean the late 19th century when the govt. regulated the railroads and construction industries during reconstruction?

Are you tring to say that there are inalienable rights? You know, that are taken away by those in power left and right?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Rights are inherent upon birth. I don't need laws to legislate morality, i know, just by being human, that murder is wrong. I don't need a law telling me blacks have the same rights as whites do.

Slavery is only deemed bad because we as a society have said it is bad. Yet people still have slaves, even in the US today. It;s not legal, but they still do it. The right to not be enslaved in only given by those who would otherwise enslave, and those who control the enslavers. So, yes, if the government had no law on slavery the right to be free from slavery would only exist if those who had the power to enslave decided to grant that right. Otherwise, they could exrcise their power and such a right would not exist.

Oh yeah, where are these american slaves?

Then answer the question. $500 pet deposit, or $100 pet deposit and $25/mo/pet pet rent? And then tell me how you would not be able to be gouged.

It would depend on how long my lease is.

But again, you're creating a point that I'm not even trying to make, as a pet deposit is not really a gouging issue.

At 3/15/13 11:39 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Mircosoft is an arm of the government? Really? That's absurd.

Well, no. microsoft was built, by Bill Gates, in an unregulated (at the time) industry.

I was referring to actual necessity industries, like food, energy, etc.

No. They got big because of better business tactics, better timing, and being able to get over the hump.

So free trade agreements had nothing to do with wal-marts success?

Are you actually trying to say that intellectual property laws are keeping the little guy down?

No, i'm saying bullshit bureucracy is keeping the little guy down, because they create so many legal hoops and paperwork to jump through, it's impossible to even create a store front based business. Yes, internet businesses exist, and people go there, but again, unless you have billions, it's very difficult to use that to your advantage.

Are you REALLY trying to say FREE TRADE agreements are an example of government intervention!? HAHAHAHA. You're so out of your league here it's hilarious.

Yes, they absolutely are.

But they're all forms of government intervention. Are you wanting a free market or not?

You seem to misunderstand what the actual role of government is, which, in the context of citizens, is to protect rights. That means stopping crime.

Again, free market does not mean anarchy. Nor does government presence mean "regulated".

Less than 5 PERCENT of the Fortune 500. Those rest of the 500 large corporations sure did fine on their own.

so it's okay then? "No officer, I only stabbed him twice, but i didn't kill him. no big deal right?"

No. Actually, it was the banks who saw a way to make a quick buck and shoot up thei stock price at the expense of long term stability and profits. Nothing the government did had ANYTHING to do with this. Except for the Fed lowering the interest rate, which is more of a deregulation than anything else.

The fed lowering the interest rate is exactly what I'm referring to. They price fixed (regulated) not just housing, but anything related to loans, and that was the major issue. And yes, the CRA absolutely had something to do with it. i know democrats like to pretend all of their fuckups weren't actually fuckups, or more recently, pretend it's everyone else's fault, but yes, the CRA had a lot to do with the housing market crash.

Look at who's hurting in the CEO-emplyee relationship. Is it the high end white collar workers who have advanced degrees? NO. Is it mid level workers who have low end BAs and AAS? a little. The workers hurting the most is th emassive glut of people with no degree and no marketable skills. Those are the ones who get the short end of the power stick. They're a dime a dozen and any idiot with a month's training can operate a mass production machine, or put bolts in a sheet of metal, or serve food, or work at a gocery store, and so on. this is where the power differential hurts the most. Now with the massive glut of college educated peple entering the market the power differential, even among skilled workers is widening like crazy. WHen you have people who spent tens of thousands of dollars to get a certification and now can't find work, they're desperate to get any job they can, and so the employers have all the power to deny benefits and lower pay. That's the power of supply and demand for you.

i'm not disagreeing here. Of course you also have to realize America is now a service-based economy. So yes, most jobs out there are ones that any idiot can do. But this is a deeper problem that no one in DC seems to give a fuck about anyway.

If you were a business and sold poisoned beef, would you tell your customers? NO. You would let them buy it, blame the sickness on something else, use your money to stop any group from reporting on it and go on with your poisonous beef. Mind you, it is the government who actually monitors and halts food production when the food is deemed bad.

Of course, which is why the government should do it's actual, legally deemed job, and protect the rights of consumers to know what's in their food supply. Oh but wait, politicians don't follow the law anymore, so they look the other way for companies like monsanto.

As for you last statement, don't make me fucking laugh. Bad food is only halted AFTER people get sick and/or die. You would be disgusted if you saw the backed up sewage, mold, sneezing, coughing, and general uncleanliness that is present in food factories. You're so fucking naive.

Only if the billionaire CEO deems you worthy, as the billionaire would have all the power and you would have none. The only merit you would recieve would be by the graces of those with the power to judge it.

The billionaire CEO's would not have power, because they could not write legislation in their favor.

But war has not. And war is 100% instinctual. Those who can murder like crazy, but with a unifrom on, are not deemed mass murderers, but heroes. So yes, evolution has definitely prized and promoted humans who have the strength to kill other humans.

in the name of territory and food rights.

The very nature of a government is to exert power. How much and for what purpose is the difference between American and Georgian England. But all government are purpose built to exert power. Even the smallest tribal governments are there to exert power. The government is built to exert its power to promote a stable society and to exert its power against others to ensure the society's safety.

Which is exactly why the founders, and the pre-american settlers, tried out new concepts of a more neutral government, that did not favor churches or industry.

And yet you assume greed will play no part in a free market.

No, it will. And that's a good thing, becuase it will lead to greater market efficiency/quality, and will allow a check/balance for super corporations

My ear of corn only costs as much as the seeds, the land and the labor. Fuel is VASTLY cheaper because of the government. Wonder why we have some of the chepest fuel in the world? Because the government subsidizes a great deal of it.

No, it's cheap because the middle eastern countries give us breaks on it, because we fund/support their wars.

You keep on saying the government will NEVER intervene, but when you get confronted with a clearly unconscionable situation, you turn right around and say, well the government will stop it. Which is it? Government regulation, or not?

Again, you seem to misunderstand the role of government.

I have never, anywhere in this forum, ever, have proposed a abolition of government, nor have i said it will "never" intervene. I've been saying, the entire time, that the government should stick to the constitution, and it's amendments, and leave everything else outside that realm, to individual states. My stance has always been, that the government's sole job, in a citizen capacity, is to protect/enforce our rights, and from an industrial/commercial capacity, maintain total neutrality. I'll say it again. The government's existence is not an example of "regulation".

At 3/15/13 11:20 AM, Camarohusky wrote: No. I'm saying those in power grant people rights. Whether that be a government granting its citizens rights...

No, not "grant". Protect. That is what government should do. Protect the rights of the people. That IS the whole purpose of the bill of rights, yeah? "Everyone has these rights. And according to this document, no one can touch them". In fact, the government even says that one of it's purpose is to make sure those rights are guaranteed.

Then how will powerfull businesses not be able to completely take advantage of their employees and customers?

Because employees and customers will be able to take their labor, or money, elsewhere, because competition (choice) will be rampant, and readily available.

There is pollutipn now. I won't deny that. But at least the skies in Pittsburgh are now blue. At least industrial waste isn't dumped into the rivers (legally). There are numerous highly effective chemicals that are not in use because the government stepped in and stopped their use. If you think today's pollution even compares to that of the 19th Century, you're completely uninformed. See how bad it is in China right now? THAT'S HOW BAD IT WAS HERE.

Sure, skies are blue, and industrial waste isn't dumped into rivers. But drugs are peteled to your kids. Forest are massively eradicated. RADIATION leaks into rivers because the government is too busy dicking around with shit that doesn't matter, instead of fixing waste containers.

The pollution is still there, it's just changed it's face.

At 3/15/13 02:16 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Because employees and customers will be able to take their labor, or money, elsewhere, because competition (choice) will be rampant, and readily available.

Sounds nice, but I really don't see this.

How is a free market is going to lead to rampant readily available competition in the long run. In the short run you might have some people willing to lose their money on this risk, and it will be awesome at first, but the market will die down and will stagnant. That's not a problem of regulation or free-market, it's a problem of the market in general. Making it suddenly a freer-market is not going to solve the problem in the long-run.

"Corporate greed" is a real thing, and it harms society in many ways all the time. Where people falter is in their proposed solution to this problem. People tend to overthink it; assuming that we need to make laws and regulations to scrape off almost every blemish.

Here are the four things we need to solve the problem of corporate and company greed and recklessness.

1: Competition
A company will generally choose to do the worst job it can possibly get away with, right? Pretty much. So the goal is to make that 'bottom minimum requirement' as high as possible! If a company will lose its sales to other companies who do better, they will be forced to do better themselves. And any company stupid enough to not improve will simply disappear into debt. How convenient! We don't (DON'T) need a law forcing them to do one thing or another to improve.
But wait, what if company X is way better and cheaper than company Y, but the consumers still buy from company Y? Well...

2: An informed consumer base
Here's an idea, instead of spending all that time and money you put into supporting politicians who exploit the emotions of corporate America to win votes ("I will stop those evil corporations! I will save you, innocent damsel!"), spend that time instead on learning about which companies do things you don't approve of, and, informing others about what you learn.
The reason we need politicians and bureaucrats to look into our companies and products to see if there's pee in our steaks is because WE'RE generally too lazy to do the work ourselves.
Well guess what? We can't trust politicians and bureaucrats to inspect our products and services for us. They can afford the nice shit (oh, and they tend to work WITH big corporations anyway), and typically care about the citizenry about as far as it takes to obtain votes.
We HAVE to do it ourselves.

But what about worker's conditions?

3: Unions
Negotiation is the lifeblood of the free market. I want more money, you want a sandwich. I give you my sandwich for some of your money, and we BOTH walk away richer people than before we made the transaction. But what if I have an extreme advantage over you? What if I have billions of dollars and own half the city you live in, and you're just a normal person in an apartment? Obviously, when we negotiate your employment to me, I have the upper hand.

Sure, there are plenty of other people you could work for (go see point #1 again), and that does help greatly all the time! People in China willingly work in cramped, smelly assembly lines for 16 hours a day because they like it BETTER than scavenging through the garbage like they used to. And because of competition, sweatshops are getting progressively less sweaty.

But still: I am a corporation with great power, and you are just a guy. You can't come up and negotiate terms with me; I can just brush you aside. You're expendable.

That's where unions come in. If all, or most, of workers band together, they become a collective entity that is actually big and valuable enough to negotiate with even the biggest of corporations.

But we can't just have workers standing around saying "we're united!", right? We have to actually have laws that protect unions, right? Well we do. Here is the law we have to have to protect unions:

Make them NOT illegal.

...and that's (pretty much) it. Minimum wage laws? Those laws are wretched. If the workers of America want to make no less than eight dollars an hour, then they make that a required term of work. But if someone wants to make LESS, because they want to be more attractive to employers (the same way a store lowers its prices), they should be able to!

But no; you're shit out of luck if you can't be productive enough. You'll have a harder time getting a job if you FORCE any company to pay you a large amount of money. Imagine if a store was FORCED to sell milk for ten dollars a gallon. Far less people would buy milk, right? Unfair to the stores, right? Well, same goes for inexperienced workers and minimum wage.

That's just one small example a midst an ocean of thousands. Point is; to protect workers, we DON'T need the government. They just need to work together. It'll be easier and cheaper than a presidential campaign anyway!

And with that, we garnish this societal reform cake with the cherry...

4: Law and enforcement of law
BASIC law. SIMPLE, straightforward, universal law. Do not steal? Yes. Do not harm innocent people? Certainly. Pay a fixed amount of taxes? Yes. Do not lie or cheat the system? Indeed.

Always provide each of your workers with a certain amount of healthcare benefits? If you're a certain type of business? But only if you have a certain number of workers, and depending on whether or no the workers are part time or full time and other numerous variables relating to the worker's pre-existing conditions and--FIVE HUNDRED PAGES LATER--so that basically covers all the specifics of what you have to do. Anyway, is THIS a good law?

Probably not. But the obvious, consistent laws are. Stick with the basics; the laws that people can actually FOLLOW. Obamacare is 2,700 pages long. Do you think it's even POSSIBLE to live without violating a law that specific?

And that's it people. That's all we need.

At 3/18/13 08:37 PM, UltraHammer wrote: Here are the four things we need to solve the problem of corporate and company greed and recklessness.

1: Competition

The natural path of any completely, or even almost completely free market is toward the destruction of competition. Once a company reaches monopoly size competition becomes a non-issue as the monopoly organization can break and deter competition.

2: An informed consumer base

First off, an informed consumer base is a complete pipe dream. Sure, half of th consumer base could become informed about certain specific parts of the economy, but even expecting the smartest among us to be knowledgable about every signle detail of the economy? That's way too much to ask. A doctor may know the ins and outs of what constitutes good medical care, but they're not going to know whether the computer repair guy is milking nothing to screw them.

spend that time instead on learning about which companies do things you don't approve of, and, informing others about what you learn.

But I thought you just talked about competition? Now you're saying the consumers will not follow basic competition? If they think one company is better for the environment they will buck the lowest price trend and pay a premium for the environmental company? So instead of focusing on low prices companies should focus on pet projects instead? See how this simple idea just got extremely complicated?

3: Unions

Unions only exist today because regulations make it so. WHile the idea of striking is still scary, without regulation a company can take a hard tack against any employee who even thinks about unionizing, thus nipping the problem in the bud. Under current regulations it is illegal to punish an employee for talking about unionizing. Not a free market concept.

Make them NOT illegal.

That's not a law at all. All that is is a promise not to intervene. It also does little to protect workers as I just showed above.

4: Law and enforcement of law
BASIC law. SIMPLE, straightforward, universal law. Do not steal? Yes. Do not harm innocent people? Certainly. Pay a fixed amount of taxes? Yes. Do not lie or cheat the system? Indeed.

So what you're advocating is that it should be A-OK to pay workers pennies a day in terrible conditions, with child labor, not providing any sick leave, and firing people for being different, and not providing any health care at all, and so on and so forth. In short, you're advocating for something that is only pennies a day away from slavery. You put far too little trust in those with power and a stated obligation to help the people, and far too much trust in those with power and absolutely no obligation to help people.

In your last paragraph you ignore point number 1. Overall competition is the leading driving force innovation and lower prices, and points 2 and 3 are functioning as supplements, covering the rest.

At 3/19/13 01:45 PM, UltraHammer wrote: In your last paragraph you ignore point number 1. Overall competition is the leading driving force innovation and lower prices, and points 2 and 3 are functioning as supplements, covering the rest.

Competition is derived from greed and ego when what needs to be done is to simply develop the most efficient product. Competition ends in monopoly or duopoly etc which is proven fact every time. The best product will not be the outcome of competition but price wars and the holding back of innovation will.

Proven fact?

At 3/19/13 03:00 PM, UltraHammer wrote: Proven fact?

The current fucked up socioeconomic system and worthless dollars.

What does that have to do with competition and monopolies? America already has a buttload of legislation stopping preventing and punishing monopolies, most notably the Sherman Antitrust Act which passed in Congress over 100 years agoutip.Sl

At 3/19/13 03:22 PM, UltraHammer wrote: What does that have to do with competition and monopolies? America already has a buttload of legislation stopping preventing and punishing monopolies, most notably the Sherman Antitrust Act which passed in Congress over 100 years agoutip.Sl

Take nvidia corporation and AMD they represent the epitome of why the freemarket sucks.

At 3/17/13 12:31 PM, MOSFET wrote: How is a free market is going to lead to rampant readily available competition in the long run. In the short run you might have some people willing to lose their money on this risk, and it will be awesome at first, but the market will die down and will stagnant. That's not a problem of regulation or free-market, it's a problem of the market in general. Making it suddenly a freer-market is not going to solve the problem in the long-run.

Because it will allow an environment free of hindrance to explore new technologies and efficient methods of production. Go work at a factory of a multi national company. They are the most inefficient, antiquated, ridiculous excuses of a "business" you can ever imagine.

But because the government favors the billionaires and the CEO's, etc, they make it impossible for more efficient, higher quality, etc companies to compete. The current method of govt control creates an environment where you can make money...IF you have the money to play the game.

If you want some examples, look at the early auto or aviation industry. Or the early tech industry. Nearly totally unregulated industries. In the space of ~70 years, we went from a plane that didn't even stay airborne for 20 seconds, to going to the moon. In technology, we went from punch cards and floppy disks, to having gigs worth of data on something the size of your pinky nail. Thank god the govt is behind when it comes to tech stuff, otherwise who knows where we'd be.

The proof of unregulated market success is evident in your car, or everytime you fly to visit grandma, it's in your cell phone, it's the fucking computer you're typing on now.

At 3/19/13 03:08 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The current fucked up socioeconomic system and worthless dollars.

Now you're getting it. The current system sucks in just about every aspect, and that is the strongest case against govt intervention in the lives of citizens and their rights to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness, etc.

At 3/19/13 06:54 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Now you're getting it. The current system sucks in just about every aspect, and that is the strongest case against govt intervention in the lives of citizens and their rights to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness, etc.

It's not been certified that Gov is at fault for that condition.

At 3/19/13 07:43 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: It's not been certified that Gov is at fault for that condition.

it's called common sense. you know, 2+2=4?

The government has intervened in the liberties of individuals as well as meddling in the private and/or industry sectors, and here we are. i think you can safely say that the government is at fault. Like if you see a dead body, with multiple stab wounds, and a dude with a bloody knife is standing next to it, and is admitting he did it, are you gonna be like "that guy isn't at fault".

i mean, we can witness that things are shitty right now. And any basic person who even pays attention even liberal news sources can see that the government intervenes. this administration even takes pride in it. So, what in your brain is causing you to think the two things are unrelated?

At 3/19/13 03:28 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Take nvidia corporation and AMD they represent the epitome of why the freemarket sucks.

Elaborate.

In case my posts are getting too short for people's tastes, I'll explain why elaboration is important even if the reason is obvious.
Anyone can simply site names and say "there is my argument" and call it a day. But you're not actually making any sort of case until you explain.