Capitalism
Hello,
in my humble opinion: darkcity is absolutely right. We have a saying in germany, that i will try to translate. Doesn't matter if these guys leave the country. The world is round and they are only travelling around the world. They will be quickly back in our country, we just have to be less paid (getting cheaper?). Hope, you will understand.
RSH
Edit, another saying:
Capitalism is as dead as communism is. But capitalism has got a big standalone-toolbox to make you believe, it (he?) is still alive.
On the other hand: has there been something like public domain (AtariST 1980s), open source, gnu, unix, linux or an equivalent to these things in hm.. maybe (we call it: ehrenamtliche arbeit) like unpaid working just for doing good things to other people - in communism? (forgive me, if i am writing english-blabla-nonsense).
in my humble opinion: darkcity is absolutely right. We have a saying in germany, that i will try to translate. Doesn't matter if these guys leave the country. The world is round and they are only travelling around the world. They will be quickly back in our country, we just have to be less paid (getting cheaper?). Hope, you will understand.
RSH
Edit, another saying:
Capitalism is as dead as communism is. But capitalism has got a big standalone-toolbox to make you believe, it (he?) is still alive.
On the other hand: has there been something like public domain (AtariST 1980s), open source, gnu, unix, linux or an equivalent to these things in hm.. maybe (we call it: ehrenamtliche arbeit) like unpaid working just for doing good things to other people - in communism? (forgive me, if i am writing english-blabla-nonsense).
Quite wrong. In many respects, it's become easier for small, independent businesses to create and sell products thanks to the internet (e.g. ebay, amazon, etc.). Small companies can even have an edge over large corporations in that they are far more flexible, have lower expenses, and can focus in on particular niches (microsoft & apple started out in a garage...also google).RSH wrote:
Capitalism is as dead as communism is. But capitalism has got a big standalone-toolbox to make you believe, it (he?) is still alive.
On the other hand: has there been something like public domain (AtariST 1980s), open source, gnu, unix, linux or an equivalent to these things in hm.. maybe (we call it: ehrenamtliche arbeit) like unpaid working just for doing good things to other people - in communism? (forgive me, if i am writing english-blabla-nonsense).
Competing in areas like pharmaceuticals that are heavily regulated, however, is nearly impossible. In general, the largest deterrent is a strong, centralized and overly regulated government that interferes in all aspects of the free market. Almost without exception, the government drives the costs up for everyone, given it's complete lack of efficiency (despite the propaganda of providing "free" services for all).
Free software is not an enemy of free-market at all; it has checked monopolies like Microsoft. Red Hat is doing very well, by offering needed consulting and support as an option.
Atari was always a for-profit company, although with lousy marketing skills (I recall them coming out with the Falcon, but forgetting to distribute it to the retail stores).
-
Dewbie
Crony Capitalism Comes Home
More hereBut, in recent years, some financiers have chosen to live in a government-backed featherbed. Their platform seems to be socialism for tycoons and capitalism for the rest of us. They’re not evil at all. But when the system allows you more than your fair share, it’s human to grab. That’s what explains featherbedding by both unions and tycoons, and both are impediments to a well-functioning market economy.
regulated government that interferes in all aspects of the free market.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you. http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/
The boom years for folks like me. Just the average joe.The American financial industry was regulated from 1940 to 1980, followed by a long period of deregulation.
So where is all this regulation in the USA that interferes with banks free market tactics to hold them accountable for their actions. I don't see it?Top executives of the insolvent companies walked away with their personal fortunes intact. The executives had hand-picked their boards of directors, which handed out billions in bonuses after the government bailout. The major banks grew in power and doubled anti-reform efforts. Academic economists had for decades advocated for deregulation and helped shape U.S. policy.
They still opposed reform after the 2008 crisis. Some of the consulting firms involved were the Analysis Group, Charles River Associates, Compass Lexecon, and the Law and Economics Consulting Group (LECG).Tens of thousands of U.S. factory workers were laid off. The new Obama administration’s financial reforms have been weak, and there was no significant proposed regulation of the practices of ratings agencies, lobbyists, and executive compensation.
Geithner became Treasury Secretary. Feldstein, Tyson and Summers were all top economic advisors to Obama. Bernanke was reappointed Fed Chair. European nations have imposed strict regulations on bank compensation, but the U.S. has resisted them.
Regulation is supposed to stop companies doing immoral/harmful things for the profit motive. The trouble comes if you have an international market then one country can get an advantage by removing regulations. Hence, things like export zones where workers have virtually zero rights. Interestingly, the City of London removed regulations on trading in dollars as the British Empire declined - so as the UK could maintain some power internationally. Investors came to London where they could avoid US regulation.
Most of the countries who are now rich used protectionism as their economy developed including the US. It is only now they want to push free-trade on to other countries. One rule for us (US) and another for you.
Most of the countries who are now rich used protectionism as their economy developed including the US. It is only now they want to push free-trade on to other countries. One rule for us (US) and another for you.
1. The trouble with competition is:
(a) It drives down standards as each seller/supplier tries to beat the competition by offering lower price.
(b) The prices [and standards] keep dropping until standards are so low that the customers begin to stop buying in large enough numbers to affect the profits of the seller/supplier.
NOT GOOD!
2. Problem is...
The buyer may not be aware of just how low are the standards [e.g. quality, effectiveness, durability] of the items they are buying/using.
In which case, the standards can sink REALLY LOW.
Think of Politicians and their level of honesty for example.
Do we pay for those?
Does it matter?
(a) It drives down standards as each seller/supplier tries to beat the competition by offering lower price.
(b) The prices [and standards] keep dropping until standards are so low that the customers begin to stop buying in large enough numbers to affect the profits of the seller/supplier.
NOT GOOD!
2. Problem is...
The buyer may not be aware of just how low are the standards [e.g. quality, effectiveness, durability] of the items they are buying/using.
In which case, the standards can sink REALLY LOW.
Think of Politicians and their level of honesty for example.
Do we pay for those?
Does it matter?
Sylvander wrote:1. The trouble with competition is:
(a) It drives down standards as each seller/supplier tries to beat the competition by offering lower price.
(b) The prices [and standards] keep dropping until standards are so low that the customers begin to stop buying in large enough numbers to affect the profits of the seller/supplier.
NOT GOOD!
2. Problem is...
The buyer may not be aware of just how low are the standards [e.g. quality, effectiveness, durability] of the items they are buying/using.
In which case, the standards can sink REALLY LOW.
Think of Politicians and their level of honesty for example.
Do we pay for those?
Does it matter?
I don't think it works that way. Consumers can get reviews on almost anything they buy, and look for quality at a good price. The US auto industry went down because it wasn't listening to consumer demands.
Quality goes down when there's no choice. The government pools things out to the lowest bidder, by law. I've stopped most contract work involving government agencies because they couldn't care less about quality.
Regarding regulation: The government has an important role in ensuring free trade and protecting capital. Unfortunately, due to politics, it's done a lousy job. Look at the rating agencies and the SEC
1. "I don't think it works that way"
Ah, but it does.
Not in every case of course, but this is the general rule, and as my wife's father used to say "It's the few exceptions that prove the general rule".
EXAMPLE
(a) The humble potato.
Not many people know in detail about varieties.
A "potato is a potato" said the manager of my local co-op supermarket.
I know this to be FALSE in a big way.
In the past, people probably spent years of their working lives to develop superior varieties.
But housewives are no longer what they once were.
They go out to work and earn.
Fewer women have the level of expertise related to the things of the home that our mothers and grandmothers had.
My daughters know less than my wife, and my wife is unusual in almost knowing as much [and almost being as skilled in things related to the home] as my mother and her mother.
So when it comes to potatoes sold by my local Tesco...
How many women know the good varieties?
Just enough so that so far those golden oldies are still being sold.
But then the quality of those good varieties is not what it should be.
The supermarket buys from the farmer by weight.
They no longer insist on good quality, as the [socialist] "Potato Marketing Board" did.
So the potato grower is rather free with the inorganic feed...
Heavy crops are produced...
The farmer manages to survive on the low price per ton, only by producing high tonnage per acre.
Pity about the quality, but hey, they've got to do it to survive.
And what motive is there to produce higher quality lower yielding varieties if the end customer in the supermarket thinks "a potato is a potato"?
And through lack of knowledge and understanding won't pay the higher price for the superior varieties.
(b) I got a bad batch of potatoes from my local grocer.
Next time I went back for more I told him about the bad batch.
He sold me my next lot at 1/2 price.
The next lot are of good taste and texture, but the skins have scab [Maris Piper is a good variety but must be grown in good soil or else the skins develop scab].
If this persists I'll 1st warn, then stop buying from my grocer.
Hopefully my grocer, who is the one who buys the stock, will do the necessary to stop buying poor stock.
If I get bad potatoes from Tesco, I feel there's little point in feeding that info back.
e.g. I used to phone the co-op head office to tell them about such stuff.
But they are miles away.
The chain of communication is long, has many links, and less likely to be effective.
Once in a while it did work, but that's the exception rather than the rule.
2. "Consumers can get reviews on almost anything they buy, and look for quality at a good price"
And what proportion of purchasers do that?
If EVERYONE did it, perhaps we'd be OK, but they don't.
EXAMPLE
(a) Goods with "fatal flaws":
DEFINITION
A fatal flaw is something built into an item that is near certain to fail prematurely, that guarantees a resale before too long.
e.g. I bought a battery-powered stainless steel pepper grinder.
A nice looking thing, worked well, delighted with it...
Until the [after only a year or so] little PLASTIC part underneath that holds the grinding mechanism failed.
So we went back to using the the Teak, manually operated pepper grinder we've owned and used for decades.
No fatal flaws in that.
3. "Quality goes down when there's no choice"
I AGREE.
The Supermarkets...
By way of competition...
Are driving all the small businesses to the wall.
[Almost] All the local have gone out of business.
They made superb bread...
Much better than supermarket bread.
My local grocer sells MUCH better quality of good varieties of potato.
How much longer he'll manage to remain in business I don't know.
My local butcher is still thriving thank goodness.
4. "Capitalism is exploitation"
I AGREE.
I see it as a Predator->Prey relationship.
It wasn't nearly so much like that when businesses were small and worked closely with their customers.
They were providing a service in return for payment.
They didn't make unearned income.
Then the [more predatory] big businesses move in on their territory, and eliminate them.
These big businesses are in less close contact with their customers.
They don't speak to them face-to-face every day.
Ah, but it does.
Not in every case of course, but this is the general rule, and as my wife's father used to say "It's the few exceptions that prove the general rule".
EXAMPLE
(a) The humble potato.
Not many people know in detail about varieties.
A "potato is a potato" said the manager of my local co-op supermarket.
I know this to be FALSE in a big way.
In the past, people probably spent years of their working lives to develop superior varieties.
But housewives are no longer what they once were.
They go out to work and earn.
Fewer women have the level of expertise related to the things of the home that our mothers and grandmothers had.
My daughters know less than my wife, and my wife is unusual in almost knowing as much [and almost being as skilled in things related to the home] as my mother and her mother.
So when it comes to potatoes sold by my local Tesco...
How many women know the good varieties?
Just enough so that so far those golden oldies are still being sold.
But then the quality of those good varieties is not what it should be.
The supermarket buys from the farmer by weight.
They no longer insist on good quality, as the [socialist] "Potato Marketing Board" did.
So the potato grower is rather free with the inorganic feed...
Heavy crops are produced...
The farmer manages to survive on the low price per ton, only by producing high tonnage per acre.
Pity about the quality, but hey, they've got to do it to survive.
And what motive is there to produce higher quality lower yielding varieties if the end customer in the supermarket thinks "a potato is a potato"?
And through lack of knowledge and understanding won't pay the higher price for the superior varieties.
(b) I got a bad batch of potatoes from my local grocer.
Next time I went back for more I told him about the bad batch.
He sold me my next lot at 1/2 price.
The next lot are of good taste and texture, but the skins have scab [Maris Piper is a good variety but must be grown in good soil or else the skins develop scab].
If this persists I'll 1st warn, then stop buying from my grocer.
Hopefully my grocer, who is the one who buys the stock, will do the necessary to stop buying poor stock.
If I get bad potatoes from Tesco, I feel there's little point in feeding that info back.
e.g. I used to phone the co-op head office to tell them about such stuff.
But they are miles away.
The chain of communication is long, has many links, and less likely to be effective.
Once in a while it did work, but that's the exception rather than the rule.
2. "Consumers can get reviews on almost anything they buy, and look for quality at a good price"
And what proportion of purchasers do that?
If EVERYONE did it, perhaps we'd be OK, but they don't.
EXAMPLE
(a) Goods with "fatal flaws":
DEFINITION
A fatal flaw is something built into an item that is near certain to fail prematurely, that guarantees a resale before too long.
e.g. I bought a battery-powered stainless steel pepper grinder.
A nice looking thing, worked well, delighted with it...
Until the [after only a year or so] little PLASTIC part underneath that holds the grinding mechanism failed.
So we went back to using the the Teak, manually operated pepper grinder we've owned and used for decades.
No fatal flaws in that.
3. "Quality goes down when there's no choice"
I AGREE.
The Supermarkets...
By way of competition...
Are driving all the small businesses to the wall.
[Almost] All the local have gone out of business.
They made superb bread...
Much better than supermarket bread.
My local grocer sells MUCH better quality of good varieties of potato.
How much longer he'll manage to remain in business I don't know.
My local butcher is still thriving thank goodness.
4. "Capitalism is exploitation"
I AGREE.
I see it as a Predator->Prey relationship.
It wasn't nearly so much like that when businesses were small and worked closely with their customers.
They were providing a service in return for payment.
They didn't make unearned income.
Then the [more predatory] big businesses move in on their territory, and eliminate them.
These big businesses are in less close contact with their customers.
They don't speak to them face-to-face every day.
re: the humble potato: In my neck of the woods, many people have turned to organic fruits/vegetables, so the local supermarkets stock them. Local farmers also set up markets on the streets several times a week. They cost more, but many people are willing to pay for the quality.
I remember the old food coop. After years of endless bitter meetings and inept management, it finally went out of business. Whole Foods has cheaper prices, fresher produce, a much cleaner and well organized environment, provides far more jobs with better wages, and donates more to the community. They're thriving (personally I avoid Whole Foods and shop at a local produce market that supports local farmers ).
re: working women: Most I know are happy to be out of the homemaker role. They're happy running companies, being artists, writers, and scientists (although they may not know much about potatoes...then again, some might know more about them than your grandmother).
I remember the old food coop. After years of endless bitter meetings and inept management, it finally went out of business. Whole Foods has cheaper prices, fresher produce, a much cleaner and well organized environment, provides far more jobs with better wages, and donates more to the community. They're thriving (personally I avoid Whole Foods and shop at a local produce market that supports local farmers ).
re: working women: Most I know are happy to be out of the homemaker role. They're happy running companies, being artists, writers, and scientists (although they may not know much about potatoes...then again, some might know more about them than your grandmother).
Just like here, nooby!Even our most conservative Party is now a Workers Party. Times change!
That is its advertised purpose. Its true purpose is to benefit the big corporations (who write the regulations) by denying market entry by their smaller competitors.Regulation is supposed to stop companies doing immoral/harmful things for the profit motive.
Capitalism is one of those words that have become useless through abuse (although since Marx, an enemy of it coined the word, maybe it was doomed from the start). It can mean almost anything. I tend not to use it due to potential misunderstanding, and prefer to say that people should be able to do business with each other without interference, without a government gun to their heads. I don't mind that some people get rich; minding this is a vice known as "envy". It is the fairest system: those who work hard and work smart, thus producing the most wanted stuff, get the most money (yes I'm not talking about crony capitalism). It relies on self-interest, something evolution has put into all of us; self-interest is not a bad thing. It is a survival strategy.Capitalism is exploitation.
It makes few people rich and the majority work hard for low wages.
It is not fair and relies on competition and selfishness.
When you criticize it, some people will call you communist, their worse enemy.
Crony capitalism, I would agree. People being free to do business without interference - I wouldn't agree. To me, the exploiters are the parasites in government. Only they live off theft and violence. Only they (and their cronies) find it profitable to kill innocent Libyans, Iraqis and Afghans."Capitalism is exploitation"
re: government regulations; a bureaucrat doing her job:
"Nancy Belanger-Clocher, 81, was upset to learn she couldn’t bake her usual array of sweets this year for the annual Senior Center Election Day bake sale.
The Salem native, known for her biscotti, blueberry breads and oatmeal cookies, keeps an extra freezer in her basement to accommodate the large amounts of goodies she makes this time of year.
The sale was cancelled for the first time in 40 years after the city’s Board of Health said it violated a state food code."
"Salem Health Agent Joanne Scott said it’s her job to interpret the food code for the city"
"When Scott was alerted to the Senior Center bake sale by an e-mail asking for donations, she felt it was her job to notify them of the code. Because the Broad Street center does not have a permitted Out house — in fact it has no Out house at all — they were forced to cancel the sale."
"When Scott realized there was a conflict between her view and the state’s, she brought the issue before Salem’s Board of Health. “I wanted to see what they thought,
"Nancy Belanger-Clocher, 81, was upset to learn she couldn’t bake her usual array of sweets this year for the annual Senior Center Election Day bake sale.
The Salem native, known for her biscotti, blueberry breads and oatmeal cookies, keeps an extra freezer in her basement to accommodate the large amounts of goodies she makes this time of year.
The sale was cancelled for the first time in 40 years after the city’s Board of Health said it violated a state food code."
"Salem Health Agent Joanne Scott said it’s her job to interpret the food code for the city"
"When Scott was alerted to the Senior Center bake sale by an e-mail asking for donations, she felt it was her job to notify them of the code. Because the Broad Street center does not have a permitted Out house — in fact it has no Out house at all — they were forced to cancel the sale."
"When Scott realized there was a conflict between her view and the state’s, she brought the issue before Salem’s Board of Health. “I wanted to see what they thought,
1. "I don't mind that some people get rich"
For each person who becomes excessively richer than the average, MANY people become poorer than the average.
NOT GOOD!
The effect is the movement of money UP the hierarchy to concentrate it in fewer and fewer hands...
So that the bulk of the worlds' population get poorer and poorer until they are on the edge of death from starvation.
Any sensible financial predator will go no further than that, but maintain that as the status quo..
Today, huge numbers of the worlds' population are starving...
In a world where everyone would be fed if the available resources were evenly/equitably distributed.
This is not a new phenomenon.
(a) Around 1790...Robert Burns commented that in the region of Dumphries, "people are dying of starvation in a world of plenty".
(b) In the Bible...
The "Miracle of the loaves and fishes" illustrated the solution to such a problem [how socialist!]
For those who don't know about this:
In a huge gathering to hear Jesus Christ speak...
Everyone was asked to contribute, to a common fund, the food they had brought.
[From each according to his means]
And it was then distributed according to need.
[To each according to his need]
And there was plenty to go around with some to spare.
This was obviously a guiding principle of Jesus and his followers.
Each person who joined contributed all of his resources [money and possessions] to the common fund.
So how come people don't call Chistians = socialists or communists?
2. "Nancy Belanger-Clocher, 81, was upset to learn she couldn’t bake her usual array of sweets this year for the annual Senior Center Election Day bake sale"
What if someone contributed goodies that were not fit for consumption?
Further...
What if they dosed them with a type of poison with effects that took a long time to show?
The poisoner could be long gone by the time people began getting sick and dying!
For the sake of sensible security it's necessary to be sure that food and drink is wholesome.
For each person who becomes excessively richer than the average, MANY people become poorer than the average.
NOT GOOD!
The effect is the movement of money UP the hierarchy to concentrate it in fewer and fewer hands...
So that the bulk of the worlds' population get poorer and poorer until they are on the edge of death from starvation.
Any sensible financial predator will go no further than that, but maintain that as the status quo..
Today, huge numbers of the worlds' population are starving...
In a world where everyone would be fed if the available resources were evenly/equitably distributed.
This is not a new phenomenon.
(a) Around 1790...Robert Burns commented that in the region of Dumphries, "people are dying of starvation in a world of plenty".
(b) In the Bible...
The "Miracle of the loaves and fishes" illustrated the solution to such a problem [how socialist!]
For those who don't know about this:
In a huge gathering to hear Jesus Christ speak...
Everyone was asked to contribute, to a common fund, the food they had brought.
[From each according to his means]
And it was then distributed according to need.
[To each according to his need]
And there was plenty to go around with some to spare.
This was obviously a guiding principle of Jesus and his followers.
Each person who joined contributed all of his resources [money and possessions] to the common fund.
So how come people don't call Chistians = socialists or communists?
2. "Nancy Belanger-Clocher, 81, was upset to learn she couldn’t bake her usual array of sweets this year for the annual Senior Center Election Day bake sale"
What if someone contributed goodies that were not fit for consumption?
Further...
What if they dosed them with a type of poison with effects that took a long time to show?
The poisoner could be long gone by the time people began getting sick and dying!
For the sake of sensible security it's necessary to be sure that food and drink is wholesome.
Big companies spend a lot of money lobbying for de-regularisation or to have voluntary rules instead of laws. If they are ineffective it is because government won't stand up to the big corporations. Many lives have been saved through regulations. edit: Although, I agree some companies could try to make life difficult for small companies, and some regulations don't make sense.PaulBx1
That is its advertised purpose. Its true purpose is to benefit the big corporations (who write the regulations) by denying market entry by their smaller competitors.Regulation is supposed to stop companies doing immoral/harmful things for the profit motive.
@jpeps
Governments tend to only support free trade when it gives their country an advantage, especially the US. The Government should not be ensuring free trade in foreign countries to benefit its finance industry 'cronies'. What do you mean by protecting capital, whose capital?Regarding regulation: The government has an important role in ensuring free trade and protecting capital. Unfortunately, due to politics, it's done a lousy job. Look at the rating agencies and the SEC
Since we are giving local govt. examples. Here in Pecos, TX. A street vendor is not covered by any rules or regulations."Nancy Belanger-Clocher, 81, was upset to learn she couldn’t bake her usual array of sweets this year for the annual Senior Center Election Day bake sale.
We have lot's of bake sales, Burrito stands, Beer being sold and served without a liquor license. One can set up a Stand in ones driveway, (as long as the cooker/barbecue is outside and not indoors), No food heath inspections or liquor license is required. This is done all over my town and is common practice in the deserts of the South West of Texas. It is a carry over from Mexico.
So I guess/know local govt. is different from area to area, with certain elected officials with pre set agendas.
If the food is bad or poisoned. Word gets around fast here, (people love to gossip), and that vendors name becomes mud in this town. It is why I like living in the desert southwest We are free and easy here, (except for ICE).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immig ... ration_law
Notice something about where I live?
http://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/maps/gisx/mapg ... 202011.jpg
People with access wealth generally invest it or donate it (it's a tax write-off).Sylvander wrote:1. "I don't mind that some people get rich"
For each person who becomes excessively richer than the average, MANY people become poorer than the average.
Without invested capital, there are no new businesses, etc. I guess you would see that as a good thing.....just give it all to the government where everyone is "equal." Perhaps after the second coming.
Sylvander wrote:
My wife came to the US with hardly anything but the shirt on her back, and she is doing very well now because all her life she has worked hard (much harder than makes sense to me) and because she is very smart. You seem to be maintaining that her hard work was actually harming others. No wonder the old joke in the Soviet Union was, "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."
I think the best thing for everyone involved is separation. Socialists can live together and have whatever society results from the policies that they support, using theft and violence on no one. "Capitalists" (i.e., people who think it is ok for people to do business without interference) can live together and have whatever society results from the policies they support, also using theft and violence on no one. There is no need for theft and violence. It benefits neither socialists nor capitalists. It only benefits the ruling class.
In the old says I would have said, "prove it", or I would point out you are assuming there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and that it is never created. Nowadays I would just say that I don't mind you have this incorrect opinion of wealth, but what is "NOT GOOD!" as you put it, is that you have rationalized state theft and violence against people.1. "I don't mind that some people get rich"
For each person who becomes excessively richer than the average, MANY people become poorer than the average.
My wife came to the US with hardly anything but the shirt on her back, and she is doing very well now because all her life she has worked hard (much harder than makes sense to me) and because she is very smart. You seem to be maintaining that her hard work was actually harming others. No wonder the old joke in the Soviet Union was, "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."
I think the best thing for everyone involved is separation. Socialists can live together and have whatever society results from the policies that they support, using theft and violence on no one. "Capitalists" (i.e., people who think it is ok for people to do business without interference) can live together and have whatever society results from the policies they support, also using theft and violence on no one. There is no need for theft and violence. It benefits neither socialists nor capitalists. It only benefits the ruling class.
No they don't. Sure, there is some propaganda out there that maintains this is so, but it is exactly that, propaganda. If you actually follow the legislative process in detail, and follow the money, you will find that ordinary people do not by and large call for more regulation. It is all driven by the very largest corporations, and the largest unions too, the ones that put the money in the politicians pockets. You have to understand that regulation is no burden to large corporations. Why? Because they already have large internal bureaucracies to deal with the paperwork. Small companies cannot afford to have such things - I once worked for a computer company where the president regularly swept the floor. By putting regulations in place, large corporations can very effectively strangle competition from their smaller, more nimble competitors. This means goods that we buy are priced higher than they need be, because there is less competition to drive down the price. I have seen this happen over and over. It is unknown to the general public because the same large corporations also own the gateways to information (until the Internet appeared anyway). BTW you can be sure that the money behind Internet regulation is from large corporations and cronies of the ruling class. It's sure not for "protecting the children" or "fighting terrorism".Big companies spend a lot of money lobbying for de-regularisation or to have voluntary rules instead of laws.
Most of the money is in the financial economy, only a tiny fraction exist in the real economy (the economy providing goods and non-financial services).jpeps wrote:The capital of it's citizens. The right of a citizen to acquire savings from their work.darkcity wrote: What do you mean by protecting capital, whose capital?
You or I have to work to acquire money, banks however create money whenever they lend it out (it is a misconception that the money they lend is tied to what savers have in put). It is supposed to be a 'fractional reserve' system (that is they are supposed to typically lend out ten times as much as they have in reserve). In reality they keep lending more money to the economy and increasing the debt.
Also, they lend money to speculators who bet on the price of food, which in turn inflates the value of food. These speculators are part of the dominant financial economy, not producing any useful goods or services.
