10 Steps to Save America!

[MarginOfError]

We've already seen the flaw in absolutist statements about government such as what JBS has proposed: exceptions creep in. In fact, JBS has already admitted certain exceptions to some of his statements (government assistance for veterans, for example). There are reasonable exceptions to everyone's proposed ideal form of government. Following JBS's 10 step plan would ultimately be as catastrophic as letting government have ultimate control.

The trick in governing is finding the right balance. We might need a little socialism from time to time, and we might need a little more republican government here or there, and there may even come a period of time when we need a little more despotism. The beauty of the Constitution was that it can change and adapt to suit the needs of the time. Let's just try to make the best government we can and deal with the issues we face.

JBS, I disagree with about 90% of what you say, but there are some principles in there that I would like to adopt. Keep trying to persuade. We need a lot of persuasions to keep us afloat.

[FunkyTown]

I think you said pretty much what I agree with, Moe. I believe in centrist philosophies - I like capitalism with constraints, taxation with representation, and oversight in to governmental overspending.

When I defend some socialist policies, I'm saying "I don't think socialism is the devil. I think it is necessary to have some governmental control on capitalism because pure capitalism feeds upon greed."

[a-train]

Moksha has hit the nail on the head.

Everyone: Look at your shoes. Go on. Take a look. Now, look on the net to see where your shoes were made. Were they made in your own country? If not, the chances are they were made by near-slave labor in countries where horrible work conditions are king. Look at your shirts, your shoes, your electronics. How many of them were made in your country for a fair wage?

Unrestricted trade(Which is NOT 'Fair trade') and unrestricted capitalism has resulted in an unsustainable economy where companies exploit whoever they can to get whatever product they can.

Henry Ford once said there was one rule for industrialists and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible. We, humanity, have failed at this. That is why unrestricted capitalism doesn't work.

Now this is interesting. Suppose a homeless man approached you in the market place and while you eyed a pair of shoes in the window of a shop he offered you a better price on a pair of shoes he made while living under a bridge. Would it be immoral to buy the shoes from this man? Should we feel like we have done him some dis-service for supporting his only business venture?

Suppose he is a Mexican, and the shoes were made by his Mexican family who lives in poverty in Mexico. The BIGGER question here is not what you should do in this situation, but whether you have the right to make that decision for yourself. Should the federal government deny you the right to buy from this man?

The fallacy of monopolizing government trade regulations is that liberty brings with it grave dangers of inequality. Whereas most trade regulations create and perpetuate inequality. Why is it that one manufacturer is able to sell products in the United States while another is not? They are by definition unequal in their opportunity, and not by any natural classification, but by the very treaties we call "free trade agreements".

Is there any FAIRNESS to that?

The notion that unrestricted capitalism is to blame for "an unsustainable economy where companies exploit whoever they can to get whatever product they can" is unsupported and frankly incorrect. It is government regulation that allows selected groups most connected to DC to gain the upper hand in the market place through legislation. They go on and on about fairness and equality while subjecting it to ruin.

Big businesses use legislation to crush small business. Look around, the last twenty years have been corporatism at its best. And is this equality? This is not a result of free market capitalism as so many suppose. If that were the case, why has corporatism and monopoly increased with federal regulation? It should be decreasing, but it is not. Why? Because the last thing the big corps want is free markets. They want market share and many politicians will deliver for the right benefits.

-a-train

Edited October 18, 2008 by a-train

[JohnBirchSociety]

Now this is interesting. Suppose a homeless man approached you in the market place and while you eyed a pair of shoes in the window of a shop he offered you a better price on a pair of shoes he made while living under a bridge. Would it be immoral to buy the shoes from this man? Should we feel like we have done him some dis-service for supporting his only business venture?

Suppose he is a Mexican, and the shoes were made by his Mexican family who lives in poverty in Mexico. The BIGGER question here is not what you should do in this situation, but whether you have the right to make that decision for yourself. Should the federal government deny you the right to buy from this man?

The fallacy of monopolizing government trade regulations is that liberty brings with it grave dangers of inequality. Whereas most trade regulations create and perpetuate inequality. Why is it that one manufacturer is able to sell products in the United States while another is not? They are by definition unequal in their opportunity, and not by any natural classification, but by the very treaties we call "free trade agreements".

Is there any FAIRNESS to that?

The notion that unrestricted capitalism is to blame for "an unsustainable economy where companies exploit whoever they can to get whatever product they can" is unsupported and frankly incorrect. It is government regulation that allows selected groups most connected to DC to gain the upper hand in the market place through legislation. They go on and on about fairness and equality while subjecting it to ruin.

Big businesses use legislation to crush small business. Look around, the last twenty years have been corporatism at its best. And is this equality? This is not a result of free market capitalism as so many suppose. If that were the case, why has corporatism and monopoly increased with federal regulation? It should be decreasing, but it is not. Why? Because the last thing the big corps want is free markets. They want market share and many politicians will delivery for the right benefits.

-a-train

Very well put. Thank you! n/t

[JohnBirchSociety]

I think you said pretty much what I agree with, Moe. I believe in centrist philosophies - I like capitalism with constraints, taxation with representation, and oversight in to governmental overspending.

When I defend some socialist policies, I'm saying "I don't think socialism is the devil. I think it is necessary to have some governmental control on capitalism because pure capitalism feeds upon greed."

Socialism is not the devil. It is a tool of the devil.

Government control of the free market makes it not free.

Pure Capitalism involves the control of Capital. In the pure sense, the ultimate "Capitalist" system is Communism, where the State, rather than individuals, controls all capital.

In a free market nobody can even come close to controlling all the capital, even in their market segment (other than at the very beginning of the market segment where they are the only provider of such goods / services, but in a free market competition would almost immediately arise).

You need to read Adam Smith (as boring and long as it is). A good primer of smith is Henry Hazzlit's "Economics in One Lesson".

[a-train]

A good primer of smith is Henry Hazzlit's "Economics in One Lesson".

I highly recommend that book. Check out this:

Campaign For Liberty

These videos are some great interviews with economists concerning Hazzlit's book and each chapter.

-a-train

[deseretgov]

Capitalism is a tool of the devil. The perfect capitalist system would be business owners getting free labor. That's the direction capitalism naturally moves. It slowly gathers all the wealth to a select group of owners.

There are benefits to capitalism just as there are benefits to other systems. We should take these benefits and put them together to come up with a better system.

[a-train]

Capitalism is a tool of the devil. The perfect capitalist system would be business owners getting free labor. That's the direction capitalism naturally moves. It slowly gathers all the wealth to a select group of owners.

There are benefits to capitalism just as there are benefits to other systems. We should take these benefits and put them together to come up with a better system.

Hmmm.. If the laborers were compelled to work without any monetary compensation, how could the system be known as capitalism? There is no capital being used...

If all wealth in a capitalist system naturally moves to a select group, why did the number of property owners INCREASE during the flourish of capitialism in the United States? Should it not have dwindled?

-a-train

[Moksha]

I think the ultimate example of that Adam Smith capitalism was found in the old mining camps, where the workers toiled 60 hours a week, were paid in company script, of which they were restricted to buying their bare necessities from the company store and ended up owing the company money. As Tennessee Ernie Ford put it, "I owed my soul to the company store".

[a-train]

In what way can we attribute poor work conditions, pay, and benefits to capitalism? There is no connection.

-a-train

[Traveler]

If both countries are completely equal in every way, what would be the purpose of trade at all? The mutual benefit of trade is to extend to each party the advantage of the respective parties. Let us start with the moral and philosophical issue. Should the government decide for you what is moral? Should the government decide for you where to shop and what to buy? And, if it does, is that free trade?

-a-train

I would like to address: Let us start with the moral and philosophical issue. Should the government decide for you what is moral? Should the government decide for you where to shop and what to buy? And, if it does, is that free trade?

My answer is that governments not only should decide what is moral - it is in fact the only real decision that the governments of man are capable of making. Governments cannot decide that the earth is the center of the universe (we know they have tried), they cannot decide to change the universal gravitational constant or that pi ought to be 3. It would also make no sense to determine a universal moral – the only moral the makes sense for a government to decide by the power of law is a moral that is not universally accepted – in other words a moral that some segment of the population does not agree with. If everyone agreed there would be no purpose or need for a law or government intervention.

The only reason for governments or law is for one segment of the population to impose their morals (laws) by the force of law on the rest of the population.

Now this is interesting. Suppose a homeless man approached you in the market place and while you eyed a pair of shoes in the window of a shop he offered you a better price on a pair of shoes he made while living under a bridge. Would it be immoral to buy the shoes from this man? Should we feel like we have done him some dis-service for supporting his only business venture?

Suppose he is a Mexican, and the shoes were made by his Mexican family who lives in poverty in Mexico. The BIGGER question here is not what you should do in this situation, but whether you have the right to make that decision for yourself. Should the federal government deny you the right to buy from this man?

The fallacy of monopolizing government trade regulations is that liberty brings with it grave dangers of inequality. Whereas most trade regulations create and perpetuate inequality. Why is it that one manufacturer is able to sell products in the United States while another is not? They are by definition unequal in their opportunity, and not by any natural classification, but by the very treaties we call "free trade agreements".

Is there any FAIRNESS to that?

The notion that unrestricted capitalism is to blame for "an unsustainable economy where companies exploit whoever they can to get whatever product they can" is unsupported and frankly incorrect. It is government regulation that allows selected groups most connected to DC to gain the upper hand in the market place through legislation. They go on and on about fairness and equality while subjecting it to ruin.

Big businesses use legislation to crush small business. Look around, the last twenty years have been corporatism at its best. And is this equality? This is not a result of free market capitalism as so many suppose. If that were the case, why has corporatism and monopoly increased with federal regulation? It should be decreasing, but it is not. Why? Because the last thing the big corps want is free markets. They want market share and many politicians will deliver for the right benefits.

-a-train

Let me expand your Mexican shoe salesman analogy: Let us say that the person selling you the shoes murdered your brother last week and took his brand new shoes and is now selling them to you. Would you want your government to do something to restrict the trade?

Okay perhaps that is a little harsh – let us say that he just stole the shoes from your brother – should the government still do something to restrict the trade?

Still perhaps a little harsh – let us say that he stole the leather to make the shoes from your brother – should the government still do something to restrict the trade?

Still a little harsh – let us say he had a contract to purchase the leather from your brother but never paid the contract after the leather was delivered and your brother lost his business – should the government still do something to restrict the trade?

Still harsh – let us say that he had a company that competed with your brother and they said that their country would no longer sale rubber to the USA unless they cut off all leather to your brother – should the government still do something to restrict the trade?

Where do you draw the line for government to do something - when it hurts someone in your family? Does it become okay if it does not hurt anyone that you know?

Let me give another example: Let us suppose that a great big software company sold an operating system for personal computers called DOS. Suppose that a very small software company developed a software compression program that would allow a lot more data to be stored to disk. Suppose the big company wanted that compression software but the little company would not sell it because they did not feel that the big company offered enough. So let a suppose that the very big company stole the software from the little company and sold it as part of their system and that they became the biggest software operating system provider and that the president of the very big company became one of the richest men in the whole world. The other company went out of business and 150 software programmers that had done such a wonderful job were put out of business and lost their jobs. And suppose that after 10 years in the courts the president of the little company was awarded $250,000

IS THIS WHAT YOU MEAN BY NO OR LITTLE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION FREE TRADE?

The Traveler

[JohnBirchSociety]

I would like to address: Let us start with the moral and philosophical issue. Should the government decide for you what is moral? Should the government decide for you where to shop and what to buy? And, if it does, is that free trade?

My answer is that governments not only should decide what is moral - it is in fact the only real decision that the governments of man are capable of making. Governments cannot decide that the earth is the center of the universe (we know they have tried), they cannot decide to change the universal gravitational constant or that pi ought to be 3. It would also make no sense to determine a universal moral – the only moral the makes sense for a government to decide by the power of law is a moral that is not universally accepted – in other words a moral that some segment of the population does not agree with. If everyone agreed there would be no purpose or need for a law or government intervention.

The only reason for governments or law is for one segment of the population to impose their morals (laws) by the force of law on the rest of the population.

Let me expand your Mexican shoe salesman analogy: Let us say that the person selling you the shoes murdered your brother last week and took his brand new shoes and is now selling them to you. Would you want your government to do something to restrict the trade?

Okay perhaps that is a little harsh – let us say that he just stole the shoes from your brother – should the government still do something to restrict the trade?

Still perhaps a little harsh – let us say that he stole the leather to make the shoes from your brother – should the government still do something to restrict the trade?

Still a little harsh – let us say he had a contract to purchase the leather from your brother but never paid the contract after the leather was delivered and your brother lost his business – should the government still do something to restrict the trade?

Still harsh – let us say that he had a company that competed with your brother and they said that their country would no longer sale rubber to the USA unless they cut off all leather to your brother – should the government still do something to restrict the trade?

Where do you draw the line for government to do something - when it hurts someone in your family? Does it become okay if it does not hurt anyone that you know?

Let me give another example: Let us suppose that a great big software company sold an operating system for personal computers called DOS. Suppose that a very small software company developed a software compression program that would allow a lot more data to be stored to disk. Suppose the big company wanted that compression software but the little company would not sell it because they did not feel that the big company offered enough. So let a suppose that the very big company stole the software from the little company and sold it as part of their system and that they became the biggest software operating system provider and that the president of the very big company became one of the richest men in the whole world. The other company went out of business and 150 software programmers that had done such a wonderful job were put out of business and lost their jobs. And suppose that after 10 years in the courts the president of the little company was awarded $250,000

IS THIS WHAT YOU MEAN BY NO OR LITTLE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION FREE TRADE?

The Traveler

Free trade is simple to define. The individual is free to trade with whomever they wish, and anyone can trade with that person.

If one of the parties is exercising unfair competition, whether by government assistance (theft) or collusion of individuals (theft) then it would be appropriate for our government to intervene to prevent / punish such theft.

[Moksha]

In what way can we attribute poor work conditions, pay, and benefits to capitalism? There is no connection.

-a-train

The connection is the maximization of profits by any means that capitalists can get away with.

[a-train]

My answer is that governments not only should decide what is moral - it is in fact the only real decision that the governments of man are capable of making... ...It would also make no sense to determine a universal moral – the only moral the makes sense for a government to decide by the power of law is a moral that is not universally accepted – in other words a moral that some segment of the population does not agree with. If everyone agreed there would be no purpose or need for a law or government intervention.

Woah! We are coming way off topic, I think you misunderstood my question. But, what set of morals should the government enforce? What a Quaker finds immoral may not be to a Mormon, and what the Muslim may find immoral may be fine for a Jew. Washington's treatment of the Saints in their "moral" dictation against polygamy is a good example of their "moral" judgement.

Indeed, some people now claim that the Founding Fathers’ worst fear in connection with religion has been realized; that we have, in fact, a state-sponsored religion in America today. This new religion, adopted by many, does not have an identifiable name, but it operates just like a church. It exists in the form of doctrines and beliefs, where morality is whatever a person wants it to be, and where freedom is derived from the ideas of man and not the laws of God. Many people adhere to this concept of morality with religious zeal and fervor, and courts and legislatures tend to support it. - Boyd K. Packer Oct. 1992 Ensign

The only reason for governments or law is for one segment of the population to impose their morals (laws) by the force of law on the rest of the population.

So then you would be fine to see the revival of Jim Crowe laws? What about the rise of Muslim law? Should we start stoning adulterers?

That is really off topic, my question is with respect to the moral right for me to decide what you do with your money. This is not some trick question where I advocate your "right" to buy a nuclear bomb. It is about your right to privacy and property. Specifically, should you be prevented from buying a product simply because it did not come from a local business? This is the issue of the morality of trade with one country, and not with another. It is the issue of protectionism.

Let me expand your Mexican shoe salesman analogy: Let us say that the person selling you the shoes murdered your brother last week and took his brand new shoes and is now selling them to you. Would you want your government to do something to restrict the trade?

Of course not. The trade is not the illegal thing, it was the murder/robbery. If I took a hundred dollar bill from a man buying from me some shoes, have I done something wrong even though I unknowingly took a bill he murdered a man to obtain? What a strange transfer of culpability!!!! It was not the purchase of my shoes that was illegal, it was the murder/robbery. This is still off topic.

Where do you draw the line for government to do something - when it hurts someone in your family? Does it become okay if it does not hurt anyone that you know?

Trade doesn't hurt. The man who murdered my father inflicted no more pain on me or my family when he sold the coins stolen from the scene, the murder and the loss of the coins was already complete. You are trying to connect two unconnected things.

Let me give another example: Let us suppose that a great big software company sold an operating system for personal computers called DOS....

Now, can you give an example without a crime? Certainly, if a company stole a product, it should be liable for damages in a court of law. This has nothing to do with free markets and everything to do with prosecution of theft.

The question is this: Is it moral for the government to decide what product you buy or where you buy it strictly based on who profits from the sale? Now don't start saying: "What if it supports Osama bin Laden?" I am talking about protectionism. The idea is that if American's are allowed to freely buy product X from Mexico, American workers will not be able to compete with Mexican prices. Should our government make that distinction and prop up the American workers by limiting free trade?

-a-train

[a-train]

The connection is the maximization of profits by any means that capitalists can get away with.

Are you aware of the free-market solution? Competition is what solves the problem, and it does so faster and more effectively than any government ever could.

-a-train

[deseretgov]

Because the theory behind business operation is to get the most profit for the least amount of cost. Wages are a cost. Thus the perfect systemn for a business would be one where they would have to pay no wages but still get the same or more labor, a.k.a. slavery.

And competition works for a while until the better businesses start to win out. They earn more money and can then buy out their competition, thus increasing their profits. Eventually there will only be one business owning everything else(a monopoly).

Edited October 20, 2008 by deseretgov

[a-train]

Because the theory behind business operation is to get the most profit for the least amount of cost. Wages are a cost. Thus the perfect systemn for a business would be one where they would have to pay no wages but still get the same or more labor, a.k.a. slavery.

And competition works for a while until the better businesses start to win out. They earn more money and can then buy out their competition, thus increasing their profits. Eventually there will only be one business owning everything else(a monopoly).

Can you give some examples where this has occurred without government assistance or criminal activity? There is a fatal flaw in consolidation that is often overlooked because consolidation is so rare. The flaw is this: As consolidation increases, difficulty to manage and vulnerability to competition also increases.

Take for example GM, this monster is being eaten alive by competition and wants bailouts from uncle Sam. Why? It is huge! It was number one in the global market for years. Under your theory, it should be closing down every competitor through buy-outs. Instead, it is looking for help from the FEDs just to survive!

My father in-law works for a company that makes explosives such as those in the patriot missile and in air-bags. A larger competing company bought the one he worked for and then laid him off. He then went to another competing explosive manufacturer and it was eventually bought by that same company laying him off a second time! He now works at yet a third company and makes more money than ever. The larger company is now hurting as many of the better workers have left to competing companies offering better wages and benefits.

The trouble is that much of the government intrusions into the market place under the guise of equality and freedom are actually the exact opposite.

-a-train

[FunkyTown]

Can you give some examples where this has occurred without government assistance or criminal activity?

Wait... Wait... So your question is 'Can you give examples where slavery has occurred with it neither being illegal nor being legal'? Because... If it's legal, the government will necessarily step up to the plate and place legal limitations on slavery. Read the old testament for some examples on redress for slavery. If it's illegal, then it will by nature be criminal activity.

That means that you're looking for... What? An example of a decriminalized slavery system akin to what the Canadian Marijuana trade is? If that's the case, then no. It is impossible to come up with an example.

Y'know what? You're being absurd. I don't even know why half of us are in this conversation. You clearly have your opinions that will never change. That's fine. I'm simply going to vote away anything that is remotely close to what you're suggesting. Huzzah for freedom.

Thankfully, the majority of North Americans agree with me.

[a-train]

Wait... Wait... So your question is 'Can you give examples where slavery has occurred with it neither being illegal nor being legal'? Because... If it's legal, the government will necessarily step up to the plate and place legal limitations on slavery. Read the old testament for some examples on redress for slavery. If it's illegal, then it will by nature be criminal activity.

That means that you're looking for... What? An example of a decriminalized slavery system akin to what the Canadian Marijuana trade is? If that's the case, then no. It is impossible to come up with an example.

Y'know what? You're being absurd. I don't even know why half of us are in this conversation. You clearly have your opinions that will never change. That's fine. I'm simply going to vote away anything that is remotely close to what you're suggesting. Huzzah for freedom.

Thankfully, the majority of North Americans agree with me.

What? The question is not about slavery at all, it is about monopoly.

The statement was:

And competition works for a while until the better businesses start to win out. They earn more money and can then buy out their competition, thus increasing their profits. Eventually there will only be one business owning everything else (a monopoly).

Can you give some examples where that occurred with no criminal activity (such as burning down the competitor's warehouse or killing the CEO), and without any government intervention such as regulations on the products or new tariffs. What examples do we have of certain businesses growing so large that they buy out all their competition and inflict monopoly pricing on the market with no help from the government or sabotage of their competitors?

-a-train

[Moksha]

Are you aware of the free-market solution? Competition is what solves the problem, and it does so faster and more effectively than any government ever could.

-a-train

I know what you mean by competition. Back in the old minings camps, they would at times import new workers from the old world who were so happy to have a job, they would work for less wages. Sort of like our Mexican guest workers of today.

On the macro side of things, unregulated free-market solutions will inevitably be conglomerated into monopolies. Even with slight regulations they will eventually plunge themselves into a crash.

[JohnBirchSociety]

The connection is the maximization of profits by any means that capitalists can get away with.

You confuse theft (government assisted, as well) with capitalism.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I know what you mean by competition. Back in the old minings camps, they would at times import new workers from the old world who were so happy to have a job, they would work for less wages. Sort of like our Mexican guest workers of today.

On the macro side of things, unregulated free-market solutions will inevitably be conglomerated into monopolies. Even with slight regulations they will eventually plunge themselves into a crash.

There has never been an unregulated monopoly.

[a-train]

On the macro side of things, unregulated free-market solutions will inevitably be conglomerated into monopolies. Even with slight regulations they will eventually plunge themselves into a crash.

What makes you think that? Why do you believe that without the government preventing a company from consolidation, it will ruin all competition and secure itself a perpetual monopoly? Have you seen some good examples? Also, if unregulated economies produce monopolies, why are so many of the monopolies created by government mandate? Shouldn't they be able to monopolize without government intervention?

-a-train

Edited October 21, 2008 by a-train

[Moksha]

What makes you think that? Why do you believe that without the government preventing a company from consolidation, it will ruin all competition and secure itself a perpetual monopoly? Have you seen some good examples?

-a-train

US economic history. Think of our country before Ida Tarbell's crusade and Teddy Roosevelt's help. Think back to when the Railroad Trust, The Steel Trust and the Oil Trust held sway. These are prime examples of where a consolidation of ownership created powerful monopolies. John D. Rockefeller of the oil trust was able to block his competitors shipping their oil via an exclusive arrangement with the railroad trust, to drive his competitors out of business and then buy up their oil properties for cheap - thus strengthening his monopoly.

He would have earned a salute from Adam Smith and Gordon Gekko. To his credit, Rockefeller always threw silver dimes to the destitute street children whenever he took a walk.

[deseretgov]

Moshka don't forget the bank trust that eventually (and secretly) became the Federal Reserve and now has a monopoly on our money.

But to the questions addresses before, I'm discussing the tendancies of captialism. Obviously government regulations and interference would alter this. Basicly what I'm saying is that the driving force of capitalism is greed and every man for himself. We need an economic system that is about helping each other, but also that doesn't turn ownership of property and industry over to the government.

Edited October 21, 2008 by deseretgov