Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Never said it wasn't capitalism, just said it wasn't  unencumbered, free range as I quoted. Of course we live in a capitalistic society, it's just one where all of the government checks and balances have been corrupted and big money/corporate influence has overtaken any sense of a free market. When huge businesses get tax breaks and tax and other governmental privileges it's not free range capitalism at all, it's a marketplace bought and paid for with the government protecting the big players.


So what's your solution?

There's no such thing as a free and unencumbered market-something or someone will consolidate wealth and power and use that to influence both the market and the surrounding society that enables the market. That could be government (communism at the extreme) or individual actors (corporate monopolies or individuals), or anywhere between.

Since we don't live in a society that controls businesses directly, how does government incentivize the behaviors it wants to see? Attracting a large business to a city brings people, and if those people are paid well, it injects money into other industries and businesses in the city, as well as increased tax revenue in and screaming other businesses.

But there aren't many carrots a city has to attract an industry or business. It's mainly financial benefits, such as reduced taxes (whether it's on profits or on property taxes), or funding infrastructure for the business (like funding a stadium for a sports team, or public transportation like a metro stop).

If a business gets large enough, it gains influence through it's wealth, both directly and indirectly. It gives them negotiating power when dealing with government (particularly lower levels), particularly if their industry isn't dependent on location. Just like AF pilots, a business can vote with their feet to go somewhere they feel better appreciated.

If a business can influence government and laws, why shouldn't it do so to make conditions favorable for themselves to make more money? Arguably, for a publicly traded company, it's their fiduciary responsibility to do so.

So why is corporate influence on government bad? Is it because they might not be acting in the best interests of society at large?

So then what? Well, government can enact laws/regulation to curb certain actions or behaviors, but this often gets played as "attacking the free market" and/or being socialist/communist.

The only real way to reduce corporate influence in government is to reduce their ability to influence, which is through limiting how much wealth they can accumulate. And the way that's done it's through taxes.

However, this creates a danger with government overreach, especially if the ideals elected government officials hold do not match the people they represent. That tax money has to go to funding what society wants or needs, otherwise, the problem just gets shifted from undue business influence to some other segment of society having undue influence (like the 2 major political parties...).
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Complete and utter malarkey. ONE mainstream network went after Obama, Foxnews, some of it unwarranted Political tripe, some of it valid.  Meanwhile ALL of the remaining mainstream networks suppor

Want to slash American carbon?  Build nuclear power plants.  

When MSNBC announced Trump's win in Iowa, there was an audible grunt from Rachel Madow. By the sound of it, she apparently sat on her sack wrong. Happens to the best of us.

Posted Images



Shack.
It's absolutely insane that Amazon can hold a nationwide contest for which city can provide it the most tax breaks while any one of us would be laughed out of the room for asking for similar treatment of we started a small business.
As long as conservatives keep reflexively defending the globalization of American jobs and the asymmetrical treatment of immensely powerful corporations, millennials and Gen Zers will continue flocking to the bankrupt and dangerous philosophies of Marx/Bernie/progressives.


That's because Amazon has enough money to influence outcomes and brings enough jobs that site selection can have significant impacts to that site. A small business bringing maybe 100-200 people won't have the same impact as Amazon bringing several thousand jobs.

Coincidentally, that's similar to why labor unions work: an individual worker can't negotiate as well as a large organization, unless they have unique/rare abilities. Same goes for businesses- a small business won't be able to negotiate with government as well as a large business, unless they possess something the government is interested in.

I'd bet younger people are flocking to the far left because there's no real middle ground when it comes to voting. I don't think younger people necessarily care if large businesses are treated better than small businesses, they care about making end meet and getting paid well enough to do the things they want. Republicans have doubled down on backing business interests, particularly when wages have been stagnant for so long when compared to productivity expected from workers.

So yeah, if you're in a position where you feel financially squeezed, you're going to vote for someone who will at least consider a minimum wage increase, or better worker protections like sick leave or access to healthcare. They're going to vote for someone who will help them meet basic needs, all the other politics don't really matter if you're struggling. And since Republicans won't even entertain any debate on those subjects (and use the "free market" as an excuse to not engage in meaningful debate, or to acknowledge that there might be a problem), of course they'll vote Democrat, even if they don't fully agree with their platform. The unfortunate byproduct of that is that it enables the far left to push their agenda on many other unrelated fronts.
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jazzdude said:

So what's your solution?

Reduce the power of the government.  Less ability for overreach and less ability/incentive to buy favor.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Reduce the power of the government.  Less ability for overreach and less ability/incentive to buy favor.
The challenge I see is that someone or some group will step in to fill that power gap, and they might not be accountable to the citizens.

Look at speech on the internet (facebook, twitter, get al). Government doesn't really have much in the way of laws or regulations here (there is some, but largely seems to be extensions of rules for older media rather than addressing unique qualities of social media). So largely it was left up to the tech companies to self regulate behavior. Their incentive to self regulate was to prevent actual laws being put on the books, which could hurt their business model. That was great, right up to the point where the tech companies started acting in their own interests based on their views of society.

This created a dilemma. On one hand, social media/tech companies are private organizations and should be free to censor whatever they want, since the first amendment only prevents government from restricting speech. On the other hand, since social media companies can have broad influence in controlling narratives and what gets promoted or seen, they can sway how people think and potentially vote, giving social media companies undue influence on our laws and social norms.

I doubt less regulation (reduction in scope of government power) would fix this particular problem. The challenge is, if laws or regulations are soght, the same large companies who are the cause for needing those new laws are also the same ones with money to lobby for their interests.

Basically, it all just comes down to "don't be a dick to other people." The difficult part is that statement encompasses a wide range of definitions for what constitutes acceptable behavior, which is amplified by how diverse our country is (and not just race/ethnicity, but also regional norms/beliefs, religions, and the wide range of upbringings). And there's only a few ways to deal with people/groups being dicks: laws and a system to enforce those laws (which consolidates authority/power in those who enforce the laws), social norms and unwritten standards enforced by shame and ridicule, or just straight up violence (power through strength).
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Is Biden’s travel ban on India due to bigotry/racism?  Asking for a friend...

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-biden-set-ban-most-travel-us-india-limit-covid-19-spread-2021-04-30/

Is spilling classified information to Iran still a federal crime?  Asking for another friend of this friend...

 

Is falsely attesting to drug use and flavor of military discharge on a Form 4473 when buying a gun still a felony?  Asking for the son of that first friend...

 

Is being orange now a felony?

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Is spilling classified information to Iran still a federal crime?  Asking for another friend of this friend...

 

Is falsely attesting to drug use and flavor of military discharge on a Form 4473 when buying a gun still a felony?  Asking for the son of that first friend...

 

Is being orange now a felony?

Only if someone will hold them accountable.  Earliest would be 2023 that it could happen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NKAWTG said:

Only if someone will hold them accountable.  Earliest would be 2023 that it could happen. 

It would be nice if this could be true, but Leviathan/Deep State/entrenched bureaucracy/good taxpayer-funded deals demonstrated pretty vividly from 2017-2021 that this isn't the case.

 

The IRS, among others, used its power to punish wrong-thinking Americans who held contrarian political views.  They hid/destroyed evidence, lied under oath about it.  Not one person was punished, charged, or lost a sweet government pension.

The FBI and at least parts of the Intelligence Community intentionally spied on a presidential candidate, a President, and willfully lied about it multiple times.  Those are now facts.  And the FISA courts said, "Tsk, tsk."  And recently appointed one of the key DOJ participants as one of the watchdogs.

Comey/Brennan/McCabe/Powers, et al did really heinous things against a President they didn't like.  One elected by the American people.  And not one person saw the inside of a jail.  One low-level lawyer pled down to a single charge and received a suspended sentence.  Didn't even lose his law license.

Cities are literally burning and it's called "mostly peaceful" and miscreants are either not charged or provided bail via elected officials.  

Protesters at the Capital are relentlessly pursued and charged with fairly minor crimes.  An Air Force veteran was shot and killed by a cop because of....?

All fun and political games until those powers are turned against us little guys because we believe/think/speak a different tune.

So Leviathan proved its power pretty clearly. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jazzdude said:

The challenge I see is that someone or some group will step in to fill that power gap, and they might not be accountable to the citizens.

Of course "they" wouldn't be. 

If you're seriously looking for a nice tidy answer, there isn't one.  Everything is a compromise of trade-offs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course "they" wouldn't be. 
If you're seriously looking for a nice tidy answer, there isn't one.  Everything is a compromise of trade-offs. 
I agree. Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats don't want to compromise, and both sides are happy to fuel the fire and polarize politics, largely on single issues to try and get a majority and push things through unilaterally.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jazzdude said:
3 hours ago, busdriver said:
Of course "they" wouldn't be. 
If you're seriously looking for a nice tidy answer, there isn't one.  Everything is a compromise of trade-offs. 

I agree. Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats don't want to compromise, and both sides are happy to fuel the fire and polarize politics, largely on single issues to try and get a majority and push things through unilaterally.

Of course they're intransigent jerks.  The government has too much power.

My statement has nothing to do with political compromise.  The point is someone who views the government's role to make a better society will try to figure out which policy levers to pull to get closer to their vision of a better future without negative consequences.  That lever is a myth.  There are always negative consequences.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, NKAWTG said:

Only if someone will hold them accountable.  Earliest would be 2023 that it could happen. 

To explain my snark a bit more, I don't believe any part of the executive branch will investigate any misconduct by someone with a (D) by their name.  So when it comes to Kerry selling out the Israelis, the media will turn a blind eye.  Doubtful Israel will share any intel on how many of their people were compromised/killed because of Kerry.  The only reasonable thing would be the House switching hands, and committees doing their own investigation.  As we saw during the Obama years, the committees will be high on rhetoric, and low on ability to compel testimony from the Justice Department and the IRS, to name a few.  

So where do go from here? I haven't a clue at this point. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course they're intransigent jerks.  The government has too much power.
My statement has nothing to do with political compromise.  The point is someone who views the government's role to make a better society will try to figure out which policy levers to pull to get closer to their vision of a better future without negative consequences.  That lever is a myth.  There are always negative consequences.
 


Political compromise helps mitigate/resolve those negative consequences through facilitating debate from multiple viewpoints. And yes, for any policy/law there will likely be at least some negative consequences that affect someone. But that's just a fact of life with any form of government, at least with a representative government you get input into the process, and it's the price that's paid to live in the society being governed.

My point is the people that wanted to pull those government levers to effect a change will find other levers elsewhere within society to do so if that lever is removed from government. Those negative consequences don't go away just because a different organization is now controlling the lever.

Really, the only way to reduce government power (in a functioning representative government) on an issue is if we as a society agree on that issue and use informal (i.e. non-governmental) methods and power to enforce that norm or standard. However, this still creates negative consequences for people in the minority, and can leave them with no recourse except to appeal to government to protect them through laws if their basic rights are being violated.

So if you're in the majority in the country on an issue, removing government power has no effect on you, and may be a benefit since removing power removes the costs associated with enforcement of that power. But if you're in the minority and that government power was protecting you from the majority, you'll lose out. So the question becomes to what extent do we protect the rights of the minority from the majority? Otherwise, it just turns into mob rule, which negates any benefit of democracy or representative governments.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If only there was a system of government where there were individual smaller governments (let’s call them states in this example), and they could largely be sovereign as long as they adhered to very basic principles (like no slavery, allowing people to have their own religion, not stop people from being able to protect themselves, etc)...and then people could pick and choose which state better reflected their own values and priorities.  This way the national government would have less influence on people’s everyday lives when compared to these state governments.  If only such system existed...

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jazzdude said:

people that wanted to pull those government levers to effect a change will find other levers elsewhere within society to do

their basic rights are being violated.

if you're in the minority and that government power was protecting you from the majority, 

You assume that the minority is inherently fucked without big brother to step in an help/protect them.  Why?  Historically it has been the government that has been the one doing the fucking by actively enforcing violations of liberty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You assume that the minority is inherently ed without big brother to step in an help/protect them.  Why?  Historically it has been the government that has been the one doing the ing by actively enforcing violations of liberty.


A minority isn't always in need of protection from the government. But it requires the majority to not abuse power to harm the minority. Otherwise, the minority could be left to either suffer, or turn to violence to fight back.

And at times, a minority can violate the majority as well. History is full of examples of individuals or small groups, and not just governments, inflicting their will on a larger population after they have consolidated some means of power, often through force/violence, technological advantage, or through control of key resources. Any number of groups can and have consolidated and abused power throughout history, such as religions, organized crime, businesses, terrorists/freedom fighters, etc. And that ignores outside forces like rival countries.

So the real problem is how to manage power within a society. That power can reside in either a majority or minority, though within our form of government, it largely rests with the majority for government matters.

I'd rather see power reside at lower levels of government, since they are closer to the people they represent. At the same time, issues that affect all Americans should be handled at the federal level.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Man you really just waffle around the middle of the conversation don't you.
Well, that's where I think the solution lies, so yeah.
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jazzdude said:

History is full of examples of individuals or small groups, and not just governments, inflicting their will on a larger population after they have consolidated some means of power, often through force/violence, technological advantage, or through control of key resources.

BLM, teachers unions,Twitter, Facebook, ANTIFA, the media, etc...   

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, busdriver said:

You assume that the minority is inherently fucked without big brother to step in an help/protect them.  Why?  Historically it has been the government that has been the one doing the fucking by actively enforcing violations of liberty.

Exactly. And when the federal government steps it it's usually well after the tide has shifted. Gay rights, civil rights, the legalization of weed, women voting, prohibition, unprohibition... All driven by the lower levels of society with national politicians jumping in front of the parade at the finish line to pretend like they were leading it the whole time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Exactly. And when the federal government steps it it's usually well after the tide has shifted. Gay rights, civil rights, the legalization of weed, women voting, prohibition, unprohibition... All driven by the lower levels of society with national politicians jumping in front of the parade at the finish line to pretend like they were leading it the whole time.

It wasn't lower levels of society that escorted those black girls to school in Arkansas...

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, busdriver said:

But it was the state enforcing segregation.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Which was a more local government than the federalized troops who ensured desegregation. After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students. 

Not exactly a case of the locals fixing a problem. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is it was enforced violation of individual liberty by government.

Arguing about which government body gets to be big government misses the point that big government is a danger to individual rights.

The state having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is (I think) necessary, but it carries risk that must be mitigated.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...