Interesting article in The Guardian

[EL Alamein]

. . . business from poisoning me, impoverishing me, exploiting me, working me to death, and robbing me of access to America's natural treasures than in a country where "the business of America is business." . . .

You can always exercise your free willl and walk away from a company whose product you don't like for whatever reason or from an employer whose practices with you are wanting. What do you do when the government commits evil? You can't just walk away from it.

What you describe above sounds a lot more like the old Soviet Union and not a free society. Remember they built walls because they couldn't stop people from trying to leave. Our problem is just the opposite: we can't stop people from coming in. If it's as bad as you describe above why is it that people are trying like mad to get in here or to emulate our way of life by adopting a free market in their own country?

Chris

 

[oc_in_fw]

This. Republicans are in bed with the banking industry. Democrats have stolen our tax dollars through "green" energy. Both let the insurance industry steal from us.

The dems are in bed with the banking industry to- remember the bailout? Pretty bipartisan support on that one.

 

[scottish steve]

But the markets aren't free are they? Look at Agricultural subsidies in The US and EU just for one example. If there was a free market wolrd economy things might work better. But protectionism is still here with us, in every Western society and most others. Which is why it costs more than $40,000 for a VW Golf 1.8l in Japan, where you can get a Nissan Skyline for about $65,000

 

[raisindot]

You can always exercise your free willl and walk away from a company whose product you don't like for whatever reason or from an employer whose practices with you are wanting. What do you do when the government commits evil? You can't just walk away from it.

Umm, no I can't. Even though the power industry was deregulated in my state, I cannot choose an alternative to the horrible electrical company that serves my area. In fact, there was more competition before the industry was regulated. And while I can certainly choose not to purchase products, I cannot choose to simply move to a different town because for decades a local chemical company that had no federal authority like the EPA to regulate its waste disposal processes, illegally dump hazardous chemicals onto its property, which leaked into the wells that supply water for our town and have resulted in increased cancer rates and birth defects.

What do you do when the government commits evil? You can't just walk away from it.

Well, by your logic if you don't like your company, just change jobs--easy to do in this era of 9% unemployment. So, by the same logic, you can change countries. But then again, I don't find that a government that tries (although it often fails) to safeguard my environment, protect my labor rights, keep my food safe, protect my intellectual property, and keep the robber barons of the world from turning me into a wage slave to be evil. But, to each his own.

What you describe above sounds a lot more like the old Soviet Union and not a free society. Remember they built walls because they couldn't stop people from trying to leave. Our problem is just the opposite: we can't stop people from coming in. If it's as bad as you describe above why is it that people are trying like mad to get in here or to emulate our way of life by adopting a free market in their own country?

No, the country I described is not like the Soviet Union at all. The Soviet Union confiscated all private property, abolished all individual rights, committed genocide on a massive scale, and ran the economic on economic planning. The only benefit was that it did move the Soviet Union from a 17th century plough and ox economy to a more modern economy in only 20 years, enough so that it was able to effectively defeat the Nazis. But that's all that can be said for it.

The country I described in no way meant to abolish private property, restrict people's freedom of expression, or dictate where they can live and work or what they worship. Neither ia U.S. regulation of businesses designed to stifle innovation or profitability; it's designed to create a balance that enables companies to profit and grow while protecting the populations against the kinds of abuses greedy businesses committed against the public and the environment through most of our history. Even a staunch pro-business Republican like Theodore Roosevelt was so appalled at abuses committed by businesses that he became the nation's first strong advocate of trust-busting, federal inspections of farms and slaughterhouses, and improved working conditions for laborers.

If it's as bad as you describe above why is it that people are trying like mad to get in here or to emulate our way of life by adopting a free market in their own country?

People go where they perceive opportunity may be in relation to where they are. If you're getting paid 5 cents a hour to pick tomatoes in a dangerous place like Honduras, wouldn't you rather get paid $3.00 an hour for the same work in the U.S.? Most immigrants come for economic opportunity; they don't care about voting or free speech; they want a place where they have more opportunities to build a better life than the hellhole where they live now. For the most part, they don't care whether the water is clean, or whether they get health insurance, or how many hours a day they work; what they get here is better than they'll ever get back home. But that doesn't mean everyone else should be willing to lower their standards to this level just for the sake of letting businesses do what they want.

 

[StillShaving]

..Capitalism is pretty simple. Those with the capital get the profits +(and losses) because they are the ones who have money to invest +(and risk)...

Apologies for not reading everyone's posts more carefully but the posts were getting ideological from the jump. ...Regarding capitalism, I think going back to to some of its foundations like Adam Smith or von Mises, to whom Liberalism had a totally different meaning than it does today, can be very instructive regardless of one's political bent, though you will agree with these authors more if you are coming from a conservative or libertarian ideological perspective. Not trying to imply that today's capitalism system with all of its tailored regulations, cozy lobbyists, preferred players, etc, is pure or doesn't need some kind of reform.

Could someone re-post the article in the Guardian? It sounded interesting.

 

[scottish steve]

Yout post highlights a crucial aspect of recent events. Because the people who messed up didn't pay the price and the managers and conmen who came up with this scheme didn't seem to lose at all. That's the reason for the anger. Rover UK is a classic case in point. Four guys "bought" the business from BMW for literally $5 or something, on the preimse that they cared about the local community and would keep everyone in a job. A few years later, when they had all become multimillionaires from syphoning off everything they could, including gvt money, they sold the whole thing to a Chinese company and left hundreds of people without a job....all perfectly legally of course.
If it were real capitalism and businesses couldn't behave as though they were doing us a favour when putting prices up, reducing quality and the rights of their workers, things might be different. Remember when bank charges were being legally challenged? More than once a rep of the banking industry stated on BBC radio that if it turned out these charges had been illegal from the start, then the banks would "obviously have to recoup the money from other sources". They've utterly lost touch with reality and only severe, criminal measures will do at this point.

 

[StillShaving]

While banks hold a special place in our modern economies, an therefore warrant some special protections, I agree that much more should have been done to hold the high placed managers, profiteers, shareholders, etc accountable for their real losses.

There was a very illuminating Frontline show on PBS which focused on some of the seeds of the financial crisis which occurred in the late 1990's and then compounded by later government polices. Here is a short excerpt Interview: Brooksley Born. She gave testimony before congress and was berated by some of the same people that ended up in later administrations and in charge of cleaning up the mess.

This is not quite the same as your Rover UK example, but I found it interesting that US government is pouring money into GM to "save jobs" while GM opens new state-of-the-art diesel engine plant in Rayong, Thailand

Germany seems to be doing a bit better. Here is one article, but I am not sure if it is representative of things or a special example: How Germany Became the China of Europe

 

[jmorris]

Apologies for not reading everyone's posts more carefully but the posts were getting ideological from the jump. ...Regarding capitalism, I think going back to to some of its foundations like Adam Smith or von Mises, to whom Liberalism had a totally different meaning than it does today, can be very instructive regardless of one's political bent, though you will agree with these authors more if you are coming from a conservative or libertarian ideological perspective. Not trying to imply that today's capitalism system with all of its tailored regulations, cozy lobbyists, preferred players, etc, is pure or doesn't need some kind of reform.

Could someone re-post the article in the Guardian? It sounded interesting.

Good job highlighting something that almost never gets mentioned. Every company aims to earn a profit, that is how they continue their business, pay their employees, pay their rent, and continue on with their attempt to create a product or service that consumers want. A major problem that occurs when government becomes involved is that it picks winners and losers and allows companies that would have otherwise become insolvent to be allowed to continue doing business. Remove government from the process and you'll see less companies being "rewarded" and a much higher level of competition.

 

[bamafan64]

Good job highlighting something that almost never gets mentioned. Every company aims to earn a profit, that is how they continue their business, pay their employees, pay their rent, and continue on with their attempt to create a product or service that consumers want. A major problem that occurs when government becomes involved is that it picks winners and losers and allows companies that would have otherwise become insolvent to be allowed to continue doing business. Remove government from the process and you'll see less companies being "rewarded" and a much higher level of competition.

The phrase "crony capitalism" comes to mind. That phrase is being used more and more often lately. When we have high ranking government officials, including Presidents and business people being sentenced to twenty years in the pen for their shenanigans, I think we will all be better off.