Guided Capitalism/Defense of Corporations

[Shie]

Corporations receive a lot of heat from the left, heat I don't agree with. It's often said that it's immoral to pay people 10 cents an hour. If the government deflated the currency then 10 cents can be worth a lot of money, justifying the abolition of minimum wage. Another criticism is the fact that the employees are overseas and outsourcing has become common practice. What else would these people in the third world be doing? The first world unemployed are safer than the third world unemployed. It's good that they're working for a living so they don't starve to death. For inflation to stop welfare programs need to be cut so defeat unemployment. We plan capitalism to reach national economic goals. We raise taxes to supply our troops and make sure that everything gets done on time.

Why is the mixed market criticized when it's the best possible economy as proven?

[Regnum Dominae]

Corporations receive a lot of heat from the left, heat I don't agree with. It's often said that it's immoral to pay people 10 cents an hour. If the government deflated the currency then 10 cents can be worth a lot of money. Another criticism is the fact that the employees are overseas and outsourcing has become common practice. What else would these people in the third world be doing? It's good that they're working for a living so they don't starve to death. The currency needs to deflate and rise in value for an economy to work. Solution? We cut welfare programs so everyone can get a job. We plan capitalism to reach national economic goals. We raise taxes to supply our troops and make sure that everything gets done on time.

Why is the mixed market criticized when it's the best possible economy as proven?

This makes absolutely no sense. And what you are describing is not even close to what a real mixed market is.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Corporations receive a lot of heat from the left, heat I don't agree with. It's often said that it's immoral to pay people 10 cents an hour. If the government deflated the currency then 10 cents can be worth a lot of money, justifying the abolition of minimum wage. Another criticism is the fact that the employees are overseas and outsourcing has become common practice. What else would these people in the third world be doing? The first world unemployed are safer than the third world unemployed. It's good that they're working for a living so they don't starve to death. The currency needs to deflate and rise in value for an economy to work. Solution? We cut welfare programs so everyone can get a job. We plan capitalism to reach national economic goals. We raise taxes to supply our troops and make sure that everything gets done on time.

Why is the mixed market criticized when it's the best possible economy as proven?

It's really, really hard to see how you could possibly mean all of this in a serious way and not be trying to spin an elaborate troll.

[Shie]

Corporations receive a lot of heat from the left, heat I don't agree with. It's often said that it's immoral to pay people 10 cents an hour. If the government deflated the currency then 10 cents can be worth a lot of money. Another criticism is the fact that the employees are overseas and outsourcing has become common practice. What else would these people in the third world be doing? It's good that they're working for a living so they don't starve to death. The currency needs to deflate and rise in value for an economy to work. Solution? We cut welfare programs so everyone can get a job. We plan capitalism to reach national economic goals. We raise taxes to supply our troops and make sure that everything gets done on time.

Why is the mixed market criticized when it's the best possible economy as proven?

This makes absolutely no sense. And what you are describing is not even close to what a real mixed market is.

A mixed market is a system where corporations, private entities, and governments work together.

[Shie]

Corporations receive a lot of h[region-tag][/region-tag]eat from the left, heat I don't agree with. It's often said that it's immoral to pay people 10 cents an hour. If the government deflated the currency then 10 cents can be worth a lot of money, justifying the abolition of minimum wage. Another criticism is the fact that the employees are overseas and outsourcing has become common practice. What else would these people in the third world be doing? The first world unemployed are safer than the third world unemployed. It's good that they're working for a living so they don't starve to death. The currency needs to deflate and rise in value for an economy to work. Solution? We cut welfare programs so everyone can get a job. We plan capitalism to reach national economic goals. We raise taxes to supply our troops and make sure that everything gets done on time.

Why is the mixed market criticized when it's the best possible economy as proven?

It's really, really hard to see how you could possibly mean all of this in a serious way and not be trying to spin an elaborate troll.

I need to alter my argument, I'm starting to agree with right-libertarians but I disagree with their corporate criticisms.

[StardustLolita]

This makes absolutely no sense. And what you are describing is not even close to what a real mixed market is.

A mixed market is a system where corporations, private entities, and governments work together.

I think that's corporatism. Which is kind of a mixed economy... I guess

[Shie]

A mixed market is a system where corporations, private entities, and governments work together.

I think that's corporatism. Which is kind of a mixed economy... I guess

That's what I consider sensible, I think corporations should either be taxed more or government officials could sit at the board of directors.

[Orham]

Let's break this down. First of all, you seem to be concerned with commercial for-profits, so that's what I'll address. With that in mind, we proceed to your problem/solution proposals.

It's often said that it's immoral to pay people 10 cents an hour. If the government deflated the currency then 10 cents can be worth a lot of money, justifying the abolition of minimum wage.

Your proposed alternative solution to the problem of cost of living growing faster than wages is to artificially induce extreme and sudden deflation? Wouldn't that almost assuredly halt investment and induce a deflationary spiral?

Another criticism is the fact that the employees are overseas and outsourcing has become common practice. What else would these people in the third world be doing?

Building a domestically-controlled industrial and consumer base spurred along by loans from the World Bank and financial aid from public and private actors in the developed world, I suppose.

The first world unemployed are safer than the third world unemployed. It's good that they're working for a living so they don't starve to death.

I can't dispute either claim, though things are more complicated than you're making them out to be. For example, developing countries' governments frequently lack the ability to enforce workplace safety regulations (if such are even present at all), and so it might be reasonably proposed that while the jobs people in developing countries are obtaining are more lucrative, they're also unduly dangerous.

The currency needs to deflate and rise in value for an economy to work. Solution? We cut welfare programs so everyone can get a job.

Neither the unemployment rate nor the labor participation rate dictates currency value, so the problem and solution aren't tied to one another. In addition, welfare programs can generate positive economic multipliers. Finally, remember how you said that unemployed persons in the developed world are safer than their counterparts in the developing world as a way to support the idea that increased unemployment rates brought about by outsourcing wasn't such a problem? You just shot the reason why in the foot.

I mean, if the reason people are unemployed is because their jobs have been outsourced, the solution is to train and educate those people to facilitate their entry into new career fields. It's most certainly not to encourage them to get jobs and take away their food, housing, and unemployment support as a way to force them to do so faster.

We raise taxes to supply our troops and make sure that everything gets done on time.

Among about a billion other reasons, if by "raise taxes" you mean "have taxes". If you mean "increase taxes", that's a possible response to budget shortfalls in general, not just those relevant to maintaining national defense.

Why is the mixed market criticized when it's the best possible economy as proven?

...who are you talking about? Who is "the left" you're trying to debate with? I'm center-left, and I support a mixed market economy.

[Emile Zola]

I think your mistaken that the left knock corporations for the sake of it. The left criticize corporations for successfully lobbying governments around the world for lower taxes, deregulation, subsidies and overturning workers hard earned rights. If that meant a better economy for all great but it doesn't. In fact while corporate profits and executive pay has soared workers wages and economic growth has stagnated. That corporations and their shills claim that what's better for themselves is better for the economy as a whole is untrue and that is what we are specifically against, being ripped off.

[Vissegaard]

The only solution is laissez faire, everything else is just a plain exploit of the corporations.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

This is impossibly dumb.

[Bombadil]

Ha ha, I love it.. minimum wage a problem, make 10c worth a million and everyone will be rich!!

Rich I tell you..

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Corporations receive a lot of heat from the left, heat I don't agree with. It's often said that it's immoral to pay people 10 cents an hour. If the government deflated the currency then 10 cents can be worth a lot of money, justifying the abolition of minimum wage. Another criticism is the fact that the employees are overseas and outsourcing has become common practice. What else would these people in the third world be doing? The first world unemployed are safer than the third world unemployed. It's good that they're working for a living so they don't starve to death. For inflation to stop welfare programs need to be cut so defeat unemployment. We plan capitalism to reach national economic goals. We raise taxes to supply our troops and make sure that everything gets done on time.

Why is the mixed market criticized when it's the best possible economy as proven?

1) That sort of thing is nearly impossible to prove, the viability of a type of market depends entirely around who makes it and where.

2) I think mixed markets exist along a continuum, so there might be many configurations that fall under that banner.

[Dejanic]

This makes absolutely no sense. And what you are describing is not even close to what a real mixed market is.

A mixed market is a system where corporations, private entities, and governments work together.

Corporations are private entities, and what you're describing is more similar to Corporatism.

[Shie]

Ha ha, I love it.. minimum wage a problem, make 10c worth a million and everyone will be rich!!

Rich I tell you..

I'm not sure if you're trolling or not but that's pretty much what I mean.

[Shie]

This is impossibly dumb.

What's your plan?

[Shie]

Let's break this down. First of all, you seem to be concerned with commercial for-profits, so that's what I'll address. With that in mind, we proceed to your problem/solution proposals.

It's often said that it's immoral to pay people 10 cents an hour. If the government deflated the currency then 10 cents can be worth a lot of money, justifying the abolition of minimum wage.

Your proposed alternative solution to the problem of cost of living growing faster than wages is to artificially induce extreme and sudden deflation? Wouldn't that almost assuredly halt investment and induce a deflationary spiral?

Another criticism is the fact that the employees are overseas and outsourcing has become common practice. What else would these people in the third world be doing?

Building a domestically-controlled industrial and consumer base spurred along by loans from the World Bank and financial aid from public and private actors in the developed world, I suppose.

The first world unemployed are safer than the third world unemployed. It's good that they're working for a living so they don't starve to death.

I can't dispute either claim, though things are more complicated than you're making them out to be. For example, developing countries' governments frequently lack the ability to enforce workplace safety regulations (if such are even present at all), and so it might be reasonably proposed that while the jobs people in developing countries are obtaining are more lucrative, they're also unduly dangerous.

The currency needs to deflate and rise in value for an economy to work. Solution? We cut welfare programs so everyone can get a job.

Neither the unemployment rate nor the labor participation rate dictates currency value, so the problem and solution aren't tied to one another. In addition, welfare programs can generate positive economic multipliers. Finally, remember how you said that unemployed persons in the developed world are safer than their counterparts in the developing world as a way to support the idea that increased unemployment rates brought about by outsourcing wasn't such a problem? You just shot the reason why in the foot.

I mean, if the reason people are unemployed is because their jobs have been outsourced, the solution is to train and educate those people to facilitate their entry into new career fields. It's most certainly not to encourage them to get jobs and take away their food, housing, and unemployment support as a way to force them to do so faster.

We raise taxes to supply our troops and make sure that everything gets done on time.

Among about a billion other reasons, if by "raise taxes" you mean "have taxes". If you mean "increase taxes", that's a possible response to budget shortfalls in general, not just those relevant to maintaining national defense.

Why is the mixed market criticized when it's the best possible economy as proven?

...who are you talking about? Who is "the left" you're trying to debate with? I'm center-left, and I support a mixed market economy.

The libs that want regulation instead of supervision within the market.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Corporations receive a lot of heat from the left, heat I don't agree with. It's often said that it's immoral to pay people 10 cents an hour. If the government deflated the currency then 10 cents can be worth a lot of money, justifying the abolition of minimum wage. Another criticism is the fact that the employees are overseas and outsourcing has become common practice. What else would these people in the third world be doing? The first world unemployed are safer than the third world unemployed. It's good that they're working for a living so they don't starve to death. For inflation to stop welfare programs need to be cut so defeat unemployment. We plan capitalism to reach national economic goals. We raise taxes to supply our troops and make sure that everything gets done on time.

Why is the mixed market criticized when it's the best possible economy as proven?

Pretty dumb, and little coherence. You're simultaneously arguing against the minimum wage and welfare, but at the same time advocating higher taxes and higher warfare spending.

You're completely right, though, about sweatshops and globalisation. The alternative to working in a sweatshop is living on the street. Frickin' Paul Krugman has argued this repeatedly.

Corporations in themselves are not bad, but many of them are parasitic entities that leach off the state to provide them advantages through regulations and subsidises.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Ha ha, I love it.. minimum wage a problem, make 10c worth a million and everyone will be rich!!

Rich I tell you..

Nobody ever said this. He communicated it poorly, but his point was that wage-rates have been depreciated due to devalued currency and activist monetary policies, which is true, and that wages would likely be worth sustainably more for everybody if price and money controls were released.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

I think your mistaken that the left knock corporations for the sake of it. The left criticize corporations for successfully lobbying governments around the world for lower taxes,

Source, please. It's funny how it's often the biggest corporate bosses such as Warren Buffet and Ted Turner who are always the ones calling for higher taxes - or should I say, more loopholes.

deregulation,

HAHAHAHAHA no. In the overwhelming majority of cases regulations stifle free competition and benefit corporations.

and overturning workers hard earned rights.

Monopolistic unions and corporations are increasingly working together to 'improve' these 'rights', if anything. Why do you think Costa, Walmart, Ben & Jerry's and Starbucks have all lobbied at some time or another to increase the minimum wage?

If that meant a better economy for all great but it doesn't.

Well actually it does, except for the subsidies part.

In fact while corporate profits and executive pay has soared workers wages and economic growth has stagnated. That corporations and their shills claim that what's better for themselves is better for the economy as a whole is untrue and that is what we are specifically against, being ripped off.

The depreciation of workers' wages is neither a negative nor a positive market consequence. Take-home pay has stagnated in America as real compensation has risen.

Face it, the Democratic Party is every bit as neo-corporatist as the Republican Party, but is even worse for masquerading as anti-corporate and pro-worker.

[Orham]

The libs that want regulation instead of supervision within the market.

Ah, I see. That being the case, why did you devote so little attention to deregulation in your OP?

[Bombadil]

Ha ha, I love it.. minimum wage a problem, make 10c worth a million and everyone will be rich!!

Rich I tell you..

Nobody ever said this. He communicated it poorly, but his point was that wage-rates have been depreciated due to devalued currency and activist monetary policies, which is true, and that wages would likely be worth sustainably more for everybody if price and money controls were released.

Don't speak for others when, just a few posts above you, they can clearly speak for themselves..

Ha ha, I love it.. minimum wage a problem, make 10c worth a million and everyone will be rich!!

Rich I tell you..

I'm not sure if you're trolling or not but that's pretty much what I mean.

I captured it perfectly.

[Shie]

The libs that want regulation instead of supervision within the market.

Ah, I see. That being the case, why did you devote so little attention to deregulation in your OP?

That would imply anarcho-capitalism.

[Shie]

I think your mistaken that the left knock corporations for the sake of it. The left criticize corporations for successfully lobbying governments around the world for lower taxes,

Source, please. It's funny how it's often the biggest corporate bosses such as Warren Buffet and Ted Turner who are always the ones calling for higher taxes - or should I say, more loopholes.

deregulation,

HAHAHAHAHA no. In the overwhelming majority of cases regulations stifle free competition and benefit corporations.

and overturning workers hard earned rights.

Monopolistic unions and corporations are increasingly working together to 'improve' these 'rights', if anything. Why do you think Costa, Walmart, Ben & Jerry's and Starbucks have all lobbied at some time or another to increase the minimum wage?

If that meant a better economy for all great but it doesn't.

Well actually it does, except for the subsidies part.

In fact while corporate profits and executive pay has soared workers wages and economic growth has stagnated. That corporations and their shills claim that what's better for themselves is better for the economy as a whole is untrue and that is what we are specifically against, being ripped off.

The depreciation of workers' wages is neither a negative nor a positive market consequence. Take-home pay has stagnated in America as real compensation has risen.

Face it, the Democratic Party is every bit as neo-corporatist as the Republican Party, but is even worse for masquerading as anti-corporate and pro-worker.

Why do you think corporations are anti-worker?

[Vetalia]

Why do you think corporations are anti-worker?

Well, we here in the United States have enacted a ton of laws to protect workers from the actions of their employers...