Why Obama is wrong when he says business needs the government

[saveliberty]

The wiggle dance should prove entertaining.

 

[oreo]

I've seen several posts bemoaning what Obama said about businesses.

I just haven't seen where he was, specifically, talking about government.

He merely said they didn't get there on their own.
They didn't.
Without a demand and a customer base there wouldn't have been a reason to start their business.

I've been wrong before.....ask my wife.
But I just don;t see where he was giving government the credit.

Obama has been trashing business for the last 4-1/2 years--insulting them with his most recent statement that "they didn't do it by themselves." And in response--Frank Luntz- top pollster says this is the best ad of the season that is now being shown in all battleground states. It unites EVERYONE--blue and white collar--and it's in response to Obama's statement. It's going to SLAM-DUNK Barack Obama.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNHeTwoy5vI]These Hands - YouTube[/ame]

 

[8537]

Tell that to AT&T.

Eh, yes - Tell that to AT&T. For the first fifty years or so of their existence they were guaranteed a monopoly in order to take advantage of the economies of scale involved in brining phone service to rural areas.

Also government passed legislation allowing one utility to provide power to a customer on another company's transmission lines. Your point is incorrect.

Eh, yes - Government intervened in a market in order to force one company to carry another company's power on its lines. Let me check: Do you find that to be proof that markets will naturally break up a monopoly?

You retracting that the only way these services can be provided is by monopoly then? That is what you said.

No, you aren't reading what I wrote. You're reading what you wish I wrote.

The provision of these services create a natural monopoly. Government sometimes breaks up that natural monopoly. The government sometimes decides instead to either regulate or own that service. You claimed that the government breaking up a monopoly was evidence the market wouldn't lead to natural monopolies, which is absurd of course. The government intervention is not a market activity.

natural monopolies exist and the government controls them because society wants more phones and electricity than an attempt at competitive markets will provide efficiently.

Have you ever wondered why most towns only have one option for water and one option for cable television? It's not because people who sell Cable TV hate competition.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Eh, yes - Tell that to AT&T. For the first fifty years or so of their existence they were guaranteed a monopoly in order to take advantage of the economies of scale involved in brining phone service to rural areas.


Eh, yes - Government intervened in a market in order to force one company to carry another company's power on its lines. Let me check: Do you find that to be proof that markets will naturally break up a monopoly?

You retracting that the only way these services can be provided is by monopoly then? That is what you said.

No, you aren't reading what I wrote. You're reading what you wish I wrote.

The provision of these services create a natural monopoly. Government sometimes breaks up that natural monopoly. The government sometimes decides instead to either regulate or own that service. You claimed that the government breaking up a monopoly was evidence the market wouldn't lead to natural monopolies, which is absurd of course. The government intervention is not a market activity.

natural monopolies exist and the government controls them because society wants more phones and electricity than an attempt at competitive markets will provide efficiently.

Have you ever wondered why most towns only have one option for water and one option for cable television? It's not because people who sell Cable TV hate competition.

Just because Edison convinced the government that Tesla was crazy doesn't mean wires are the only way to transmit electricity.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD8OkbumcY0"]Transmission of Power Without Wires (Scalar Waves) - YouTube[/ame]

The reason most towns have only one cable company is that town made a law that only the company that gave them the largest kickback would get the exclusive contract.

 

[PratchettFan]

Business -- more accurately, commerce - pre-exists government, and some commerce exists in opposition to it.

Thus, it is impossible to argue that commerce -requires- government.

No. Government pre-existed commerce.

Nope. Not even close. There was commerce before there was the -idea- of government.

No. There wasn't. There was government when human beings were in small clans of hunter gatherers. Commerce came much later. Despite the old saw, it is government that is the oldest profession - with religion right on its tail.

 

[PratchettFan]

If that was your concern you shouldn't have jumped in and tried to argue that the public sector is more knowledgeable than the private sector.

I didn't. "Knowledgeable" is a meaningless term in this context. People are knowledgable, not business or government. Knowledgable people can be in either, and are.

You didn't make this post?

What issues does the public sector know best?

Other than making life hard for the private sector.

Well, off the top of my head, water and sewer services, roads, fire, police, courts, defense, international relations, border control, health inspections, quality control for food, inspections of commericial vehicles and operators, air traffic control, inspections of commericial airplanes. Would you like more?

Want to just admit you stuck your nose into the wrong conversation? It even includes the part where I specifically asked the idiot what does the public sector know best, and you tried to assert all sorts of things that you now admit are wrong.

My apologies. I understood the point the poster was making that you were responding to and I assumed you did as well. My mistake.

 

[8537]

You retracting that the only way these services can be provided is by monopoly then? That is what you said.

No, you aren't reading what I wrote. You're reading what you wish I wrote.

The provision of these services create a natural monopoly. Government sometimes breaks up that natural monopoly. The government sometimes decides instead to either regulate or own that service. You claimed that the government breaking up a monopoly was evidence the market wouldn't lead to natural monopolies, which is absurd of course. The government intervention is not a market activity.

natural monopolies exist and the government controls them because society wants more phones and electricity than an attempt at competitive markets will provide efficiently.

Have you ever wondered why most towns only have one option for water and one option for cable television? It's not because people who sell Cable TV hate competition.

Just because Edison convinced the government that Tesla was crazy doesn't mean wires are the only way to transmit electricity.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD8OkbumcY0"]Transmission of Power Without Wires (Scalar Waves) - YouTube[/ame]

Oh gawd. If only it was available 120 years ago.

The reason most towns have only one cable company is that town made a law that only the company that gave them the largest kickback would get the exclusive contract.

Lol. Right, that's the ticket!

Actually, no - you're wrong. The reason is that most people see no sense in having their entire town dug up a second time so that some company can lay another round of cables, thereby diluting the value of the original firm. The fixed costs are too high.

 

[Sallow]

No. Government pre-existed commerce.

Nope. Not even close. There was commerce before there was the -idea- of government.

No. There wasn't. There was government when human beings were in small clans of hunter gatherers. Commerce came much later. Despite the old saw, it is government that is the oldest profession - with religion right on its tail.

Add in to say..no commerce ever created a state. Commerce without a secure environment does not last very long.

 

[naturegirl]

The wiggle dance should prove entertaining.

Well according to Obama, the founding fathers didn't build this country, no matter how smart they were.

 

[PratchettFan]

The wiggle dance should prove entertaining.

Well according to Obama, the founding fathers didn't build this country, no matter how smart they were.

Oh, this is a fun game. According to Ron Paul the founding fathers were all islamic terrorists. Ok, your turn to completely make stuff up.

 

[Bfgrn]

Good government protects the rights of its citizens without imposing winners and losers in the process.

Air head talking point alert...

 

[Bfgrn]

Sales tax is an interesting example of government gone wrong. I probably make a $500 profit on a new car or truck. My commission: $150.

That vehicle might sell for $30,000. At 6% sales tax, the state makes $1,800. I'd love to see the justification(s) from the left on that.

Write a letter to your STATE and COUNTY representatives and ask them.

 

[saveliberty]

Sales tax is an interesting example of government gone wrong. I probably make a $500 profit on a new car or truck. My commission: $150.

That vehicle might sell for $30,000. At 6% sales tax, the state makes $1,800. I'd love to see the justification(s) from the left on that.

Write a letter to your STATE and COUNTY representatives and ask them.

Nice deflection. I asked the left to give their justification(s).

 

[8537]

Your state sales tax applies to cars? You really need to talk to your state reps.

 

[P@triot]

I would love to see the business climate if government didn't enforce physical or intellectual property rights.

Rightwing nirvana!

The government doesn't enforce those rights. They determine who has them and what damages are due through litigation brought by businesspersons.

So when someone breaks into a store and steals physical property, the people you call to reclaim your merchandise and catch the thief, the ones carrying guns and tasers, aren't government employees?

I'm not sure which country you live in, but here in the United States the police are government employees funded by tax dollars. YRMV.

Once again we see that the idiot liberal is completely incapable of understanding the difference between FEDERAL government and LOCAL goverment.

God almighty you people are so STUPID!!!!

 

[bripat9643]

. The reason utilities are monopolies is that government declared it, not because there is no way to actually compete.

Utilities are monopolies because society wants the services they provide but the service would not be provided without a monopoly.

That's a classic liberal myth.

 

[P@triot]

Your state sales tax applies to cars? You really need to talk to your state reps.

And you really need to understand that your city police department is not paid for by the federal government (not that Barack Hussein wouldn't love that to be the case).

 

[regent]

False. Your local drug dealer and gun runner - all of whom conduct their business in direct oppoition to the rules regulating society - disprove your notion.

Do the gun runners and drug dealers have rules and regulations regarding their transactions? Usually if a business is illegal and wants to last it will eventually make rules and regulations sort of creating their own governments. The ultimate of that kind of business is probably found in our own prohibition era, Capone and the South side was one such government and the Bugs on the North side. Each had a government with rules and regulations--and stiff penaltys.

Nothing yuo posted here in any way negates what I said.

So what nations have no rules regarding commerce? What nations have no penalties for not obeying their rules of commerce? Why did our founders give the national and state governments the power to regulate commerce? Government is heavily involved in commerce. It is one of the main reasons America changed from the Articles to the Constitution.

 

[saveliberty]

Your state sales tax applies to cars? You really need to talk to your state reps.

You really are clueless. 46 states have sales tax on the sale of motor vehicles.

 

[8537]

The government doesn't enforce those rights. They determine who has them and what damages are due through litigation brought by businesspersons.

So when someone breaks into a store and steals physical property, the people you call to reclaim your merchandise and catch the thief, the ones carrying guns and tasers, aren't government employees?

I'm not sure which country you live in, but here in the United States the police are government employees funded by tax dollars. YRMV.

Once again we see that the idiot liberal is completely incapable of understanding the difference between FEDERAL government and LOCAL goverment.

God almighty you people are so STUPID!!!!

You can't be this stupid. Oh, wait - yes you can!

When Britain attempted to invade the United States during the War of 1812, was it local government that organized the protection of our property?

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor was it local governments that took up arms to defend the rights of Americans?