Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But the question is, do Americans want rubbish jobs with rubbish wages?
Why would any American want any job? Why would any American want to start a business.
On the one hand, no reason for a job when government will give you all you need plus a free Obamaphone?
On the other, why start a business when government will take all the fruits of your labour to give to laggards who suckle at The Great Teat?
The banks were already "Regulated" but it made no difference. Creating a law does not prevent something from happening it just establishes a punishment should something happen or forces extra costs on to an industry which ultimately forces out smaller competition. They should have let the banks fail that chose the practices they chose then let the people sue for their money. The result would be other banks being more careful not to make the same mistake and hopefully a more careful consumer on choosing a bank. But government also contributed to that crisis through laws forcing banks to make riskier loans as well. Laws against murder dont stop murders. Laws against guns dont stop people from having guns. Laws against prostitution dont stop prostitution. The regulations that are meant to stop e coli in the food industry at the end doesnt prevent it from happening. At the end regulation is just a costly tactic that at the end just helps big business kill small business competition.
As for the free trade, Im stating free trade in countries where American companies are moving to in order to pay lower wages would stop if you made it less beneficial to do so. At the end, America is the worlds consumer driven by our desire to own stuff and spend every dollar we earn. So Im just saying that by using a tax to equalize American industry would help slow companies from fleeing the countries high labor costs. But at the end it wont happen anyways so the point is mute. This has been an issue since before the civil war and will be an issue long into the future as well.
Why go after ACA, medi-cal, medicaid? Other more advanced and freer countries than ours have national health care and they're not going broke. But these other countries, Germany, Japan, Scandinavians etc. also don't have an out of control military spending problem or a huge unequal distribution of wealth going to the fabulously rich either.
First, those other countries are going broke. Second, I said provide money instead for free clinics and hospitals for those that cant or dont want to pay for health care. Almost all the other countries that provide a so called national health care also have private health care and health insurance available as well.
But those countries aren't going broke. Some countries have both private and public insurance but only in America among the first world countries, can you die or go broke from lack of health insurance, at least until ACA came along.
But the question is, do Americans want rubbish jobs with rubbish wages?
Why would any American want any job? Why would any American want to start a business.
On the one hand, no reason for a job when government will give you all you need plus a free Obamaphone?
On the other, why start a business when government will take all the fruits of your labour to give to laggards who suckle at The Great Teat?
But then the US is one of the easiest places to start a business, and do business. Welfare is necessary, but yes, it is also important to make sure it isn't a crutch.
But if you start a business, you still need to pay taxes, and your fair share. Often business pushes for much lower taxes than is actually fair.
The banks were already "Regulated" but it made no difference. Creating a law does not prevent something from happening it just establishes a punishment should something happen or forces extra costs on to an industry which ultimately forces out smaller competition. They should have let the banks fail that chose the practices they chose then let the people sue for their money. The result would be other banks being more careful not to make the same mistake and hopefully a more careful consumer on choosing a bank. But government also contributed to that crisis through laws forcing banks to make riskier loans as well. Laws against murder dont stop murders. Laws against guns dont stop people from having guns. Laws against prostitution dont stop prostitution. The regulations that are meant to stop e coli in the food industry at the end doesnt prevent it from happening. At the end regulation is just a costly tactic that at the end just helps big business kill small business competition.
As for the free trade, Im stating free trade in countries where American companies are moving to in order to pay lower wages would stop if you made it less beneficial to do so. At the end, America is the worlds consumer driven by our desire to own stuff and spend every dollar we earn. So Im just saying that by using a tax to equalize American industry would help slow companies from fleeing the countries high labor costs. But at the end it wont happen anyways so the point is mute. This has been an issue since before the civil war and will be an issue long into the future as well.
No, creating a law doesn't do anything. You have to actually create GOOD LAW and make sure it's being implemented.
Yes, if it were less beneficial for companies to go somewhere else, they might think about it. At the same time, Americans want to buy stuff and not have to pay through the nose for it because you have to pay wages that are too high.
The thing is, the US govt needs to decide what sort of country the US is. Is it one where people earn good wages by having skilled people, ie, the need for better education, and targeting of skills towards this sort of thing, or one where people produce rubbish for low wages and stuff education, that gets in the way of making money.
You ask the impossible. Moneyed interest runs everything and always has and will. Heck even when this country was founded it was founded by the rich. The trick is to take away their ability to control things by shrinking the government.
I agree with your premise that the rich use the concentrated power of government - and I also think this is why libertarians worry about concentrated power, because they think that once it exists, it will be abused by the most powerful forces.
I think corporations used an ideology of "making government smaller" to remove anti-trust laws that use to prevent energy, health care and internet (telecom) from anti-competitive forms of consolidation which gave them de facto monopoly control over domestic markets. In short, Washington is no longer run by Brownshirts who steal from the rich and give to the lazy; rather, it is run by puppets who do the bidding of monopolists.
I think if we could start to tear away the party system you would find that the people and those in power have nothing in common. The political parties have become similar to sports teams and their followers more like fans than voters. That has created a huge problem seeing someone complain about what one party does but then when their party does the exact same thing it is all of a sudden just fine.
