More government = more corporatism

[jillian]

Depends upon whether governmental actions, pushback, policies, protections, and checks/balances serve the interests of society at large, or merely the aristocracy. But yeah, "both" the "left" and "right" are on the same team and society is being cannibalized.

And the path to getting that power is money. The candidates with the most money are the ones who sell the most influence.

As you say, it's just obvious

In reality, the populace has been sold a bill of goods. The GOP defends corporations to the death and the DNC defends big government to the death. In reality, they are both supporting and fighting different sides of the same coin as both party's laugh at them all.

You guys all have the right idea, and this is indeed a simple concept.

Why is nobody pointing this out? Most of us realize it is true, yet they continue to push their agendas to expand government, fully realizing how everything that goes through the state becomes corrupted.

It should be noted that this does not solely apply to Americans. All over the world the same bill of goods is being sold.

Mass marketed ideas require $$$$$

Now who has access to all the $$$$ I wonder?

There is no solution.

Well, there is no "solution" in the sense that you can't fix it. The more power government has, the more people will use money to influence that. But logically there is a way to minimize the damage. Minimize the size of government. The less of it there is, the less damage they can do

citizens united (decided by the right-wingers on the court) created the strongest bond between money and politicians.

the answer isn't to make government unable to function. it's getting money out of politics.

your kind of magical (e.g., false) thinking is why the right is unable to function.

 

[Tehon]

Expanded government is a symptom of the corporate takeover of government. Not the reverse. The solution is to eliminate corporate influence on the people's government.

That is a pretty old fallacy.

Opportunity creates *insert*. Rarely is it the other way around.

Here is a history lesson. Every government throughout history, no matter how big or small, was dominated by aristocrats and big money. Including the United States during the foundation of the constitution.

We were given a system of government whereby it is within our power to limit the influence of money on our government if the people can recognize the problem and unite on a solution. We can throw off the shackles that corporate america has imposed on us.

 

[Onyx]

the more you privatize the more that is corporatist.

you seem to have things backwards.

That is what your liberal agenda, rhetoric, and propaganda tells you to believe.

The more power the free market has, the more accountable corporations are towards the consumer.

They no longer have tariffs to drive independent capitalists out of commission.

They no longer have taxes to raise, which destroy the profit margins of small business.

They no longer have regulations to employ, making it easy to legally steal from the little guy.

They no longer have a broken legal system to sue everyone that does not comply to their reign of terror.

They no longer have an army at their behest to invade foreign nations for resource deals.

It is not rocket science. More market freedom makes corporations shit themselves, because they know they would no longer be able to sit idly on their asses and collect checks from their mailboxes.

The more competition that exists in society, the more choices consumers are presented with, and the more accountability the markets have towards providing for the consumer. Everyone benefits, besides big money and the ruling class.

 

[Onyx]

We were given a system of government whereby it is within our power to limit the influence of money on our government if the people can recognize the problem and unite on a solution. We can throw off the shackles that corporate america has imposed on us.

That system was a failure.

Welcome to Corporate USA, would you like fries with that?

 

[Tehon]

We were given a system of government whereby it is within our power to limit the influence of money on our government if the people can recognize the problem and unite on a solution. We can throw off the shackles that corporate america has imposed on us.

That system was a failure.

Welcome to Corporate USA, would you like fries with that?

The system didn't fail....we did, but it is not irreversible.

 

[Onyx]

The system didn't fail....we did, but it is not irreversible.

False.

The system accounted for the people when it was created. The purpose of our constitution was to prevent an evil machination of this magnitude from ever forming.

You cannot fix what is inherently broken. I do not wish to join you in your uphill battle.

 

[320 Years of History]

How can you justify expanding the roles of government?

It's not clear to me whether what I would or would not advocate constitutes, in your mind, an expansion of the role of government.

• How do you calculate what constitutes a net expansion of government's role?

For example, were I to have my way, government would remove itself entirely from the role of managing the economic goings-on of our economy. I'm largely content with allowing the "invisible hand" of capitalism to manage the economic fortunes individuals, organizations and nations experience.

I suspect you and most other folks, especially Trumpeteers, don't want that at all. I suspect that because I keep seeing Trumpeteers griping about there not being jobs. The reality is that there are plenty of jobs, but they are available only to folks who have the skills and knowledge the labor market currently desires.

And what do Trumpeteers want the government to do? Take on the role of making there be more jobs for low and unskilled people, in some cases via trade negotiations and in others by offering or subsidizing ever more training programs. This despite the fact that the government isn't and has not ever been the reason why those lowly skilled and unskilled workers are that way. Had those individuals, when they had jobs that were "good," developed and maintained their skills in line with where the economy was headed, and had they instructed their kids to do the same, they wouldn't be "cryin' the blues" now. But they didn't do those things and now they want the government to bail their sorry asses out of the situation in which they find themselves.

 

[Onyx]

• How do you calculate what constitutes a net expansion of government's role?

Any role given to the government.

For example, were I to have my way, government would remove itself entirely from the role of managing the economic goings-on of our economy. I'm largely content with allowing the "invisible hand" of capitalism to manage the economic fortunes individuals, organizations and nations experience.

That is good.

We are in agreement.

I suspect you and most other folks, especially Trumpeteers, don't want that at all. I suspect that because I keep seeing Trumpeteers griping about there not being jobs. The reality is that there are plenty of jobs, but they are available only to folks who have the skills and knowledge the labor market currently desires.

What's with the strawman?

I have no association with Donald Trump. The majority of those participating in this thread have been anarchists or extreme libertarians.

Is this how you usually participate in discussions? By attacking the person and not the topic?

 

[AntonToo]

The more power the free market has, the more accountable corporations are towards the consumer.

WTF? Are you from planet Earth actually? Have you at least read about ANY economic history out here?

There are actually good reasons why not a single developed country in the world is anywhere near pure free market - it's a rightwing fantasy. An ideology without any basis in reality.

In absence of regulatory framework and consumer protections corporations are anything BUT accountable.

Corporations are beholden to the narrow bottom line, often very short term one. One of the things not good for bottom line is...competing fairly. Corporations often seek to monopolize the market to kill competition and jackup the prices to maximize profits. Externalize the costs of their business, by for example, dumping manufacturing by-products into environment. Misrepresent their products and prey on consumer's weakness - fine print, 30% interest rates and ridiculous late fees anyone?

Consumers being able to effectively leverage their interests in the economy by controlling demand against well organized, well funded, narrowly focused huge corporations is a fantasy.

 

[Onyx]

Corporations are beholden to the bottom line. One of the things not good for bottom line is...competing fairly. Corporations often seek to monopolize the market to kill competition and jackup the prices to maximize profits.

How do corporations monopolize markets? By exploiting their ability to make a profit at their immense size, which is affected by government taxation, regulations, minimum wage, and other legal laws. Big money is also subsidized by the government when the profit margins become too tight.

Why do you think corporations are allowed to jack up profits so easily? The government protects them using tariffs and legal statutes, so foreign businesses and domestic small businesses cannot hurt them by selling cheaper products.

The government never created a fair playing ground. Every interaction into the economy has served to make it more slanted against small businesses and the consumers.

In a completely free market, without the government adding its ridicolous mandatory expenses and regulations, almost every business can be profitable if they have a good product or service. Big money knows this, which is why they make the cost of doing business so high.

No one is saying that corporations would never be dishonest and abusive in a free market structure. It would just be a lot harder since the market is more competitive, and therefore they are more accountable to consumers and clients.

 

[kaz]

Depends upon whether governmental actions, pushback, policies, protections, and checks/balances serve the interests of society at large, or merely the aristocracy. But yeah, "both" the "left" and "right" are on the same team and society is being cannibalized.

And the path to getting that power is money. The candidates with the most money are the ones who sell the most influence.

As you say, it's just obvious

In reality, the populace has been sold a bill of goods. The GOP defends corporations to the death and the DNC defends big government to the death. In reality, they are both supporting and fighting different sides of the same coin as both party's laugh at them all.

You guys all have the right idea, and this is indeed a simple concept.

Why is nobody pointing this out? Most of us realize it is true, yet they continue to push their agendas to expand government, fully realizing how everything that goes through the state becomes corrupted.

It should be noted that this does not solely apply to Americans. All over the world the same bill of goods is being sold.

Mass marketed ideas require $$$$$

Now who has access to all the $$$$ I wonder?

There is no solution.

Well, there is no "solution" in the sense that you can't fix it. The more power government has, the more people will use money to influence that. But logically there is a way to minimize the damage. Minimize the size of government. The less of it there is, the less damage they can do

citizens united (decided by the right-wingers on the court) created the strongest bond between money and politicians.

the answer isn't to make government unable to function. it's getting money out of politics.

your kind of magical (e.g., false) thinking is why the right is unable to function.

Yes, you empty headed twat, I'm a libertarian, not in either party. You both suck. Go lecture your doll, dumb ass

 

[AntonToo]

How do corporations monopolize markets? By exploiting their ability to make a profit at their immense size, which is affected by government taxation, regulations, minimum wage, and other legal laws. Big money is also subsidized by the government when the profit margins become too tight..

IS that seriously ALL that comes to mind for you? There is just NOTHING you can think of in perfectly free market that would allow a corporation to corner the market? Nothing at all?

The real world knowledge gap and lack of any critical thought is just astounding.

Lets take a small example of un-competitive scenarios:

privately owned roads (because your perfect gobamint is too small to run any). I buy up all the roads and charge you through the ass to use them - what the f are you going to do except pay me? How about electricity and water infrastructure?

 

[320 Years of History]

• How do you calculate what constitutes a net expansion of government's role?

Any role given to the government.

For example, were I to have my way, government would remove itself entirely from the role of managing the economic goings-on of our economy. I'm largely content with allowing the "invisible hand" of capitalism to manage the economic fortunes individuals, organizations and nations experience.

That is good.

We are in agreement.

I suspect you and most other folks, especially Trumpeteers, don't want that at all. I suspect that because I keep seeing Trumpeteers griping about there not being jobs. The reality is that there are plenty of jobs, but they are available only to folks who have the skills and knowledge the labor market currently desires.

What's with the strawman?

I have no association with Donald Trump. The majority of those participating in this thread have been anarchists or extreme libertarians.

Is this how you usually participate in discussions? By attacking the person and not the topic?

Red:
That's an identification, not a methodology for calculating/measuring whether government's role has net-net expanded or contracted.

You write that "any role" constitutes and expansion and later note that many of the thread's participants are anarchists and extreme libertarians. I don't know if you consider yourself either of those things, but I don' t need to know. Read on to learn why....

Given a starting point at any time in the recent past, there has existed a U.S. government; thus for one to assert the government has overall expanded its role, one must have a basis for quantifying the expansion. That is, one must have a basis for calculating the expansion. Were it so that there were recently no government at all, then, sure, any role government assumes would indeed constitute an expansion of government's role. But we both know that scenario has been at no point in modern American history been extant.

I've asked you "want is your calculus that shows the net expansion of government's role?" I'm looking for you to "give the teeth" to your remark that "the roles of government [have] expand[ed]." So, are you going to share how you go about determining what constitutes a net expansion of government's role, or are you unwilling to share that information with us?

It may be that it just "looks" or "feels" like, to you, government's net role(s) have expanded. If it's merely that you surmise the role of government has expanded, fine, but then just say so. It may be that you have some sort of calculus that shows that net expansion, and that's fine too, but then please share the calculus with us.

Blue:
I bid you examine the "exception" described here. Then look at how you responded. You should then understand the forensic strategy associated with the strawman.

Green:
The "attack" portion of my comment is the part you left out when you quoted me and made the "green" comment above. I did in fact attack the people who espouse the idea that government should "bail them out" and who simultaneously advocate for government having a reduced role in Americans' lives. There again, however, I bid you examine the exception to invalidity of an ad hominem attack.

 

[jillian]

Depends upon whether governmental actions, pushback, policies, protections, and checks/balances serve the interests of society at large, or merely the aristocracy. But yeah, "both" the "left" and "right" are on the same team and society is being cannibalized.

And the path to getting that power is money. The candidates with the most money are the ones who sell the most influence.

As you say, it's just obvious

In reality, the populace has been sold a bill of goods. The GOP defends corporations to the death and the DNC defends big government to the death. In reality, they are both supporting and fighting different sides of the same coin as both party's laugh at them all.

You guys all have the right idea, and this is indeed a simple concept.

Why is nobody pointing this out? Most of us realize it is true, yet they continue to push their agendas to expand government, fully realizing how everything that goes through the state becomes corrupted.

It should be noted that this does not solely apply to Americans. All over the world the same bill of goods is being sold.

Mass marketed ideas require $$$$$

Now who has access to all the $$$$ I wonder?

There is no solution.

Well, there is no "solution" in the sense that you can't fix it. The more power government has, the more people will use money to influence that. But logically there is a way to minimize the damage. Minimize the size of government. The less of it there is, the less damage they can do

citizens united (decided by the right-wingers on the court) created the strongest bond between money and politicians.

the answer isn't to make government unable to function. it's getting money out of politics.

your kind of magical (e.g., false) thinking is why the right is unable to function.

Yes, you empty headed twat, I'm a libertarian, not in either party. You both suck. Go lecture your doll, dumb ass

It's so cute when someone who is as demonstrably stupid and ignorant as you calls others empty headed.

Too funny. :cuckoo;

 

[kaz]

You guys all have the right idea, and this is indeed a simple concept.

Why is nobody pointing this out? Most of us realize it is true, yet they continue to push their agendas to expand government, fully realizing how everything that goes through the state becomes corrupted.

It should be noted that this does not solely apply to Americans. All over the world the same bill of goods is being sold.

Mass marketed ideas require $$$$$

Now who has access to all the $$$$ I wonder?

There is no solution.

Well, there is no "solution" in the sense that you can't fix it. The more power government has, the more people will use money to influence that. But logically there is a way to minimize the damage. Minimize the size of government. The less of it there is, the less damage they can do

citizens united (decided by the right-wingers on the court) created the strongest bond between money and politicians.

the answer isn't to make government unable to function. it's getting money out of politics.

your kind of magical (e.g., false) thinking is why the right is unable to function.

Yes, you empty headed twat, I'm a libertarian, not in either party. You both suck. Go lecture your doll, dumb ass

It's so cute when someone who is as demonstrably stupid and ignorant as you calls others empty headed.

Too funny. :cuckoo;

You say I'm a conservative because of my positions, then you argue I support positions I don't support because I'm a conservative. So yeah, I'm calling you empty headed.

Then there's your belief government can make better decisions over your life than you can. Your realization you're empty headed doesn't make you not empty headed ...

 

[Onyx]

IS that seriously ALL that comes to mind for you? There is just NOTHING you can think of in perfectly free market that would allow a corporation to corner the market? Nothing at all?

There are always ways to corner the market. By producing a superior and popular product at a lower cost, for example.

There are no dishonest ways to monopolize the market. Big money is hardly challenged because the profit margins of small businesses are so stringent, and the ruling class at behest of big money makes sure it stays that way through government policies.

privately owned roads (because your perfect gobamint is too small to run any). I buy up all the roads and charge you through the ass to use them - what the f are you going to do except pay me? How about electricity and water infrastructure?

You already have to pay to use the federal highway system, get electricity, and get water.

I have no problem paying money to a business supplying me with electricity and water at a reasonable cost. If a business is not offering those services at a reasonable cost, then chances are someone is going to challenge them at a fair and competitive rate.

I do not consider roads as being private property, so I would view any corporations attempt to profit from tolls as being illegitimate.

 

[Onyx]

You say I'm a conservative because of my positions, then you argue I support positions I don't support because I'm a conservative. So yeah, I'm calling you empty headed.

You must be new at this.

I get called a liberal by conservatives, and a conservative by liberals. I get called a socialist by capitalists, and a capitalist by socialists.

The sheep that constitute our society are trained to view politics in a very black and white spectrum. You are either left or you are right. If you disagree with a liberal position, you are immediately accused of being a conservative, and vice versa.

I learned a long time ago to just shrug off the label others give you.

 

[AntonToo]

IS that seriously ALL that comes to mind for you? There is just NOTHING you can think of in perfectly free market that would allow a corporation to corner the market? Nothing at all?

There are always ways to corner the market. By producing a superior and popular product at a lower cost, for example.

There are no dishonest ways to monopolize the market. Big money is hardly challenged because the profit margins of small businesses are so stringent, and the ruling class at behest of big money makes sure it stays that way through government policies.

privately owned roads (because your perfect gobamint is too small to run any). I buy up all the roads and charge you through the ass to use them - what the f are you going to do except pay me? How about electricity and water infrastructure?

You already have to pay to use the federal highway system, get electricity, and get water.

I have no problem paying money to a business supplying me with electricity and water at a reasonable cost. If a business is not offering those services at a reasonable cost, then chances are someone is going to challenge them at a fair and competitive rate.

I do not consider roads as being private property, so I would view any corporations attempt to profit from tolls as being illegitimate.

You don't consider roads and other critical infrastructure as being private because our government IS BIG ENOUGH TO RUN/REGULATE THEM. If they weren't, they'd be run by private corporations looking to maximize the profits by charging every single penny they could possibly squeeze out.

 

[Onyx]

You don't consider roads and other critical infrastructure as being private because our government IS BIG ENOUGH TO RUN/REGULATE THEM.

The government neglected the roads that it hired others to build, and it did so by stealing from the American populace.

If they weren't, they'd be run by private corporations looking to maximize the profits by charging every single penny they could possibly squeeze out.

The government is already squeezing Americans out of every penny to use the federal highway system. That is extortion by the government.

If a corporation tried to impose itself on infrastructure, I would tell them to fuck themselves. Unless their practice was made legal by the same government whose existence I curse.

Anyways, you are getting way off topic. The privatization of roads has nothing to do with whether the free market creates more competition.

 

[kaz]

You say I'm a conservative because of my positions, then you argue I support positions I don't support because I'm a conservative. So yeah, I'm calling you empty headed.

You must be new at this.

I get called a liberal by conservatives, and a conservative by liberals. I get called a socialist by capitalists, and a capitalist by socialists.

The sheep that constitute our society are trained to view politics in a very black and white spectrum. You are either left or you are right. If you disagree with a liberal position, you are immediately accused of being a conservative, and vice versa.

I learned a long time ago to just shrug off the label others give you.

Actually if you try reading my post more carefully, I made a more specific point than that. So your snotty aside, you missed it.

She did as you said and said your positions make you a Republican. Then she turned around and incorrectly said since you're a Republican you think this. She didn't label me, she turned around and used the label.

And as for shrugging it off, I usually do, sometimes I don't. It's not on me to follow your rules