|
Would You Agree?? I feel like stirring the economy debate. ;) (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
But then you cannot make the argument that small businesses are good for the economy because of the jobs they provide if you support policies that will force them out of business... ;) |
I don't support anything that will force them out of business. My philosophy is 100% anti-force. That is the definition of capitalism. :) |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I don't support anything that will force them out of business. My philosophy is 100% anti-force. That is the definition of capitalism. :) |
But you can see there is a contradiction in what you are saying?
Does capitalism mean competition, or does it mean businesses can do anything they like?
Monopolies distort competition...
And luckily, no company in the world, not even in America, can break EU anti-trust regulations! |
|
|
| Zild |
| Deregulation leads to monopolies as power is consolidated into fewer and fewer hands hence it forces people out of business way more than a moderate amount of regulation would. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I don't support anything that will force them out of business. My philosophy is 100% anti-force. That is the definition of capitalism. :) |
Laissez-faire capitalism is just as bad as communist socialism. What works is a mixed system of moderate regulation with moderate free markets. This has worked in the US, China, Russia, Vietnam, and other countries. No matter how much we like to call ourselves capitalism, we cannot deny the fact that in our system, there is a heavy dose of socialism, which is needed, otherwise unlimited capitalism runs wild. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
I agree with you guys that a complete lack of government is a disaster...just as a completely authoritarian government is a disaster. Economically, on a scale with capitalism at 0 and socialism at 100, I'd say we are around the 45-50% mark in America right now, and I think the country would be much more prosperous if we knock that back to 10-20%.
A mixed system with moderate regulation is best...but the tricky part here is how you define the word "moderate". ;)
We have gone so far down the road towards big government that a good push towards laissez-faire capitalism would do us a world of good in my opinion. If more people took a strong stand against government power in all areas, even if they fail to implement true libertarian ideals, at least they will give the political pendulum a small push away from the authoritarian side of things..and we really need that right now. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| Unfortunately, it is the capitalists who profit from our blunderous military adventures. This will be disastrous for them politically this 2008 presidential year. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Down with regulation! :) It always distorts supply and demand. It's best to leave people free to buy, sell, and trade with one another voluntarily with no artificial restrictions. Free trade and free markets always allocate resources efficiently and develop a natural equilibrium over time. When government gets involved, it only mucks things up and prevents people (and businesses) from planning effectively for their future. You might score short some term political points by arguing against those "greedy companies", but government controls are very harmful over the long run. |
what a load of absolute nonsense. the free market is almost certain to fall down and fail the people at one time or another. just look at the US' health care system. every single advanced economy that has some form of regulation of the health market has better services delivered at a cheaper price. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Economically, on a scale with capitalism at 0 and socialism at 100, I'd say we are around the 45-50% mark in America right now, |
jesus, and you're an economist? i'll make sure i never listen to you! 45-50% "socialism"? don't make me laugh. the US is the least "socialist" out of ALL the advanced economies. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Unfortunately, it is the capitalists who profit from our blunderous military adventures. This will be disastrous for them politically this 2008 presidential year. |
this blanket statement is incorrect too. take walmart for instance, one the biggest companies in the USA. how are these capitalists benefitting from your blunderous military adventures?
you will find that there are many many many private industries that gain nothing from foreign adventures, even your oil companies would prefer a nice, stable environment in which to do business.
the idea that the "military industrial complex" has more power in washington than all the other capitalist interests has never been supported by the facts. |
|
|
| Krypton |
In the Japanese health care system, healthcare services, including free screening examinations for particular diseases, prenatal care, and infectious disease control, are provided by national and local governments. Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. People without insurance through employers can participate in a national health insurance program administered by local governments. Since 1973, all elderly persons have been covered by government-sponsored insurance. Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice.
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq.
So Capitalizt. What do you think we could spend $2.4 trillion on, if not for the good of society, such as subsidized health care? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
In the Japanese health care system, healthcare services, including free screening examinations for particular diseases, prenatal care, and infectious disease control, are provided by national and local governments. Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. People without insurance through employers can participate in a national health insurance program administered by local governments. Since 1973, all elderly persons have been covered by government-sponsored insurance. Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice. |
how does that refute what i said? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
how does that refute what i said? |
I was agreeing with you. Japan is a good example of a subsidized healthcare system. |
|
|
|
|
