Govt is corrupt, so why do liberals want bigger govt !?!?

[AuSable River]

source ??!!!

what is the source for 2+2 = 4 ???

indeed, are you aware that thousands, if not millions of free market firms fail yearly ?

And many people died outside of the USSR during Stalin's reign.

again for the 20th time, explain the process whereby a firm can crush competition without satisfying consumer preferences.

until you answer this challenge --- dont bother with these inane strawman diversions.

Oh, hey, I want it less involved in my life too! I don't want social conservatives controlling what I can and can't do with myself or my lover either!

But a free market wouldn't recycle it. A free market would result in a corporation that controls all, toppling all opposition, and stealing all innovation.
Let's say that in a few years, America slowly develops into a free market society. Some business would, yes, immediately collapse due to lack of support from the government(GE comes to mind...). But a few large corporations would still remain. And these large corporations suddenly found themselves without regulation.
Before you know it, these large corporations are launching corporate espionage attacks into the competition to see what the competition is capable of. Once they know that, sabotage or other attacks may be launched. Hell(What I'm going to say mostly applies only to anarcho-capitalism, but I feel it needs to be said), what would stop these corporations from assassinating the heads of other corporations, or even hiring mercenaries and conducting violent and deadly attacks against the other corporations? Even if violence is never resorted to, they'll try to smear and tarnish the competition in other ways(What I'm about to say applies much more to a free market society). Whether it be through public awareness campaigns into the competition's products or operations, or smear campaigns against other corporations, or perhaps the bribing of a scientist to produce studies with, say, results like "Product X of Corporation Y May Cause Cancer". They'll change the public perception of another corporation to drive it into the ground, all the while perhaps trying to sway public perception favorably towards them using similar tactics.
Now, say the competition has been eliminated for a certain corporation. This corporation now controls the entire market for a certain product or something. It will now try to increase the dependency of the public upon its product, and try to stifle all new competition. Any start-up corporations or ventures would likely be spied on. Any sort of "innovation" by the new ventures will be ransacked and copied, likely to, say, be sold at a lower price. Once the new venture is driven into the ground, expect prices to raise back to normal or even higher, a la Walmart.
Of course, people can't afford much at higher prices. But this corporation is the sole provider of Product X. You can't go long without Product X, or perhaps Product X is important to you in another way. You can try going against the corporation, but the corporation would likely launch smear campaigns against your cause, say, claiming you are just a competitor using false facts to back your business with smear tactics. This corporation is powerful, its smear tactics are effective, and even though the prices are high, public opinion turns against you.
Now if the prices are raised too high, people won't be able to afford Product X. So what will the corporation do? I'm going to bring up two solutions for the corporation, on De Beers style, the other, Apple style:
For the De Beers solution, the corporation will start withholding Product X, perhaps start producing less of it, claiming that the materials are expensive and/or rare, or that it is difficult and tedious to make, and thus expensive. Having less of the product will artificially increase the demand, although this is less effective than...
The Apple solution. Marketing. Start creating an entire area of pop culture around Product X, like Apple has done with the iPods and etc., despite their cost. I don't think I have to explain this one.
Of course, what would be even more effective than either? Using them both!(And of course, these aren't the only two tactics a corporation would use, these are just two that are most familiar to me)
I wanted to touch on how this corporation might branch into other areas of the market, but I feel that would be splitting into a tangent.
So now, the corporation doesn't have competition, has a high-priced and high-demanded product, and is large and powerful. But what can it do to gain even more power?
It would try contacting other corporations. Trying to form a group that could enforce what policies it wanted, stifle all competition, and control even those who aren't involved in the market. A government of sorts. An oligarchy.
Now, you're back at square one. A government that can piss on the rights of the people and keep giving money back to the corporations while stifling all competition. Except now, unlike the current US, the people would have no say. Only the corporations and their shareholders, whose only motive is profit.
This is why I consider a government to be superior to a corporation. While yes, the scenario I just brought up, and indeed our current problem, stems from a government, the government is not the cause. It is the corporation. The corrupting force upon the government to secure its hold upon the market even further. And yet, you say we should trust the corporation more than the government, because the government is the corrupter, and despite the corporation's motive being profit, it will do better for us than the government. I do not think that will be the case.

Now, of course, you must still be wondering why I support a government, even though it is the last stage of oppression and corruption. That is because oligarchy is merely one type of government. There is one type, called a democracy, that, if the people remain vigilant, can remain free from corruption(Of course, there could be no government at all, but in anarcho-capitalism, that wouldn't result well). Our current situation stems from the people not remaining vigilant.
You claim you may not want the government to be big, as you claim, but it does a lot for you. It paves the roads and maintains them. It, in other countries, provides healthcare for you. It passes regulations that keep the water and air clean for you. It defends(Or at least, does its best to) you from immediate threats to your life, liberty, and property. It passes regulations and does its best to restrict businesses that would exploit people. You claim you don't want a big government, but I'm damn sure you want a government that does something to provide for its population in some way. Yes, corruption can creep in, but this happens when the people aren't vigilant, and elect politicians who are bought by corporations. Corporations are the corrupting force onto a democracy, and thus, I don't see why they should be trusted with more freedom.

If you're looking for a TL;DR, there is none. I cannot really sum this up(It's late), and I'd advise you to read this post. Even if you disagree with everything I said, please, try to consider my words. This is all my opinion, formed using my logic and my thoughts. Feel free to disagree, and if you do, I hope you provide a rebuttal.

come down tex

I dont see a question in the preceding post.

if you have one that you want me to answer --- then take an aspirin and present it.

Paraphrased: "If corporations corrupt the state, why do you trust them?"

dont Don't waste your time. -- he's I'm a troll

If you go back and read his my posts, you will see that I exposed him embarrassed myself several times.

Corrected.

please expand on this fantasy --- I enjoy a good laugh.

hence, you have to explain the process by which this occurs. provide a hypothetical case study so I can debunk it in short order as I have numerous times in this thread.

- De Beers
- Microsoft
- AT&T
- Comcast

More Taxes + Less Spending = More Poverty
Less Taxes + Less Spending = Capitalist Utopia- Well, all the money gets concentrated into a small elite.
Less Taxes + More Spending = Bankrupt Government
More Taxes + More Spending = Communist Utopia- Well, unless some corrupt guy like Stalin ruins it and it gets concentrated into a small elite.

Mixed Economy= It eventually goes in one of the directions (right or left)

It's official. You don't know shit about communism.

for example, in the 1990's sweden collapsed under the weight of its unsustainable welfare state with 500% interest rates.

What alternate universe do you live in? The one where Cliff Burton is a pornstar?

communism is a joke anyway

nobody is going to forego personal gain for some freeloader.

it defies human nature

Then the internet as we know it and underground music shouldn't exist.

Go back and read my posts -- I have addressed your illogic and debunked it ad nauseam.

[Khadgar]

First: Of course, I must ask for a source.

Second: That's pretty fucking illogical, especially in your ideal world with no welfare.

you dont seem to understand the obvious fact that if you pay someone not to work --- you will have more people not working.

when you legislate minimum wage laws --- you will see low wage workers on the margins lose their jobs.

when you tax productive firms and individuals --- you will see capital flight and declining growth and standards of living.


essentially, like all statists, you have put emotions and your egalitarian goals ahead of logic, rational thinking and economic reality.

there is a path to greater equality of outcome --- but entrusting a group of ambitious and self-serving politicians will not get you there.

Indeed, there are more lobbyists in washington then ever before spending more money then ever before, and corporate interests closely tied to washington are making more money then ever before --- all while poverty levels are approaching record levels not seen since the 1960's

Are you drunk? Also, source every one of those statements.

[Liriena]

Well, El Pescado Frio's cynicism disgusts me, and the nihilism that "life isn't meant to be good" oozes offends me.

Are you an Atheist?

No. Raised Catholic, and still have not quite reached the point where I'd leave for another religion.

[United Marxist Nations]

Poor people can contribute. Some of them are only poor because they don't wish to contribute.

First: Of course, I must ask for a source.

Second: That's pretty fucking illogical, especially in your ideal world with no welfare.

Actually, the person you're replying to is pretty accurate. (see lumpenproletariet) In the Marxist world the lumpenproletariet (given their own group because Marx didn't think they should be included in the proletariet) are long term unemployed who lack work-ethic, and cannot participate in revolution due to their lack of desire to contribute.

[Frisivisia]

And many people died outside of the USSR during Stalin's reign.

Paraphrased: "If corporations corrupt the state, why do you trust them?"

Corrected.

- De Beers
- Microsoft
- AT&T
- Comcast

It's official. You don't know shit about communism.

What alternate universe do you live in? The one where Cliff Burton is a pornstar?

Then the internet as we know it and underground music shouldn't exist.

Go back and read my posts -- I have addressed your illogic and debunked it ad nauseam.

Congrats on knowledge of debating terms. Sadly, knowledge of terms doesn't make you good at debating. Or you right.

[Priory Academy USSR]

First: Of course, I must ask for a source.

Second: That's pretty fucking illogical, especially in your ideal world with no welfare.

you dont seem to understand the obvious fact that if you pay someone not to work --- you will have more people not working.

when you legislate minimum wage laws --- you will see low wage workers on the margins lose their jobs.

when you tax productive firms and individuals --- you will see capital flight and declining growth and standards of living.


essentially, like all statists, you have put emotions and your egalitarian goals ahead of logic, rational thinking and economic reality.

there is a path to greater equality of outcome --- but entrusting a group of ambitious and self-serving politicians will not get you there.

Indeed, there are more lobbyists in washington then ever before spending more money then ever before, and corporate interests closely tied to washington are making more money then ever before --- all while poverty levels are approaching record levels not seen since the 1960's

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3qeko3/

[Alaje]

AuSable, I'm still having a hard time understanding exactly what it is you're advocating. According to you, you're not an anarchist, but in all the posts I've seen in this thread you constantly go on about how "evil" or "corrupt" the State/Government is.

If you believe the state is so evil, what manner of social organization would you consider ideal?

[Liriena]

First: Of course, I must ask for a source.

Second: That's pretty fucking illogical, especially in your ideal world with no welfare.

you dont seem to understand the obvious fact that if you pay someone not to work --- you will have more people not working.

when you legislate minimum wage laws --- you will see low wage workers on the margins lose their jobs.

when you tax productive firms and individuals --- you will see capital flight and declining growth and standards of living.


essentially, like all statists, you have put emotions and your egalitarian goals ahead of logic, rational thinking and economic reality.

there is a path to greater equality of outcome --- but entrusting a group of ambitious and self-serving politicians will not get you there.

Indeed, there are more lobbyists in washington then ever before spending more money then ever before, and corporate interests closely tied to washington are making more money then ever before --- all while poverty levels are approaching record levels not seen since the 1960's

While right now I ain't got the time or the inclination to keep responding to your circular logic, I have an interesting link here.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-38042869/record-corporate-profits-still-no-jobs/

[United Marxist Nations]

you dont seem to understand the obvious fact that if you pay someone not to work --- you will have more people not working.

when you legislate minimum wage laws --- you will see low wage workers on the margins lose their jobs.

when you tax productive firms and individuals --- you will see capital flight and declining growth and standards of living.


essentially, like all statists, you have put emotions and your egalitarian goals ahead of logic, rational thinking and economic reality.

there is a path to greater equality of outcome --- but entrusting a group of ambitious and self-serving politicians will not get you there.

Indeed, there are more lobbyists in washington then ever before spending more money then ever before, and corporate interests closely tied to washington are making more money then ever before --- all while poverty levels are approaching record levels not seen since the 1960's

While right now I ain't got the time or the inclination to keep responding to your circular logic, I have an interesting link here.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-38042869/record-corporate-profits-still-no-jobs/

Hold on, you think AuSable will admit he is wrong?

[AuSable River]

I have already addressed this scandanvain fallacy in this thread.

AHEM. No, you haven't addressed Scandinavia and Fennoscandia (Finland isn't Scandinavian). Not adequately enough to believe you've won, you haven't. We're not to the point where you get to call my argument fallacious yet.

go back and read it.

I made a very thorough reply to the "points" you believe you've made. And now I continue to do so. You're drowning in counter arguments, you'd better start addressing them.

for example, in the 1990's sweden collapsed under the weight of its unsustainable welfare state with 500% interest rates.

...this establishes that Sweden's government is corrupt, or that it has a low standard of living (which are the arguments you've made)? No, it doesn't substantiate either point. What do you think you're proving? Well, I'll tell you what you're proving but you won't like it.

That banking crisis that you keep bawking about? It was caused by the pop of a housing bubble which was promoted by Governor of the Central Bank of Sweden Bengdt Dennis' abolition of a slough of financial regulations. That's right: the foolhardy deregulation of credit markets led by Bengdt Dennis led to the bubble, and after it popped Bengdt Dennis was the man who made the final call to set his target rates at 500% (a target which was soon retracted).

So...yeah. Deregulation led to a banking crisis spurred by unregulated credit, baseless property valuations, and irresponsible loans generated by the private sector. Impossible according to you, reality according to history. You just committed suicide by citing that 500%. You probably ought to have looked into it more deeply before bringing it up.

since then a center right government has reduced govt spending as a % of GDP, lowered taxes and significantly downsized welfare largesse.

Public benefits such as universal healthcare and universal tertiary education still exist in Sweden, as do countless other programs. In fact, the percentage of the Swedish GDP spent on healthcare has been relatively stable since the 1980s, hovering around 9% (recently it was close to hitting 10%), with real terms health spending on the rise at a rate of 3.9% between 2000 and 2009 and 2.0% in 2010. Hate to break your heart, but I have sources to back me on this.

http://www.oecd.org/sweden/BriefingNoteSWEDEN2012.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/sw.html

You lose. Again.

you dont understand how the housing crisis occurred and it wasnt deregulation in scandanavia and it wasnt deregulation in America.

pay attention:

1) the Fed intentionally lowered interest to artificially low levels to spur spending and investment.

2) by lowering these interest rates below their natural level --- firms and consumers were incentivised to engage in unsustainable long term investment that were interest rate sensitive ---- coincidently like housing !

3) this race to buy and build houses, led to an unsustainable bubble that ultimately burst leading to the financial collapse

4) other secondary influences was the mortgage interest deduction, community reinvestment act, fannie mae and other govt guaranteed loans to risky buyers.

5) but the most important factor was that the financial actors who acted most recklessly knew that they would get bailed out because they and the government regulators and politicians are essentially one in the same.

hence, there was no moral hazard guiding the market that would have been present within a free market system in which societal actors who failed would lose the money they so recklessly risked.

there you have it.

now you can rationalize liberal talking points to your heart's content.

[Priory Academy USSR]

While right now I ain't got the time or the inclination to keep responding to your circular logic, I have an interesting link here.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-38042869/record-corporate-profits-still-no-jobs/

Hold on, you think AuSable will admit he is wrong?

Do you think anyone has ever convinced anyone else (older than a 5 year old) to change their political views on this forum?

[Mavorpen]

you dont understand how the housing crisis occurred and it wasnt deregulation in scandanavia and it wasnt deregulation in America.

pay attention:

1) the Fed intentionally lowered interest to artificially low levels to spur spending and investment.

2) by lowering these interest rates below their natural level --- firms and consumers were incentivised to engage in unsustainable long term investment that were interest rate sensitive ---- coincidently like housing !

3) this race to buy and build houses, led to an unsustainable bubble that ultimately burst leading to the financial collapse

4) other secondary influences was the mortgage interest deduction, community reinvestment act, fannie mae and other govt guaranteed loans to risky buyers.

5) but the most important factor was that the financial actors who acted most recklessly knew that they would get bailed out because they and the government regulators and politicians are essentially one in the same.

hence, there was no moral hazard guiding the market that would have been present within a free market system in which societal actors who failed would lose the money they so recklessly risked.

there you have it.

now you can rationalize liberal talking points to your heart's content.

Observe the OP's method of debating: Addressing nothing in the person's post.

[United Marxist Nations]

Hold on, you think AuSable will admit he is wrong?

Do you think anyone has ever convinced anyone else (older than a 5 year old) to change their political views on this forum?

No, but it would be nice.

[Priory Academy USSR]

you dont understand how the housing crisis occurred and it wasnt deregulation in scandanavia and it wasnt deregulation in America.

pay attention:

1) the Fed intentionally lowered interest to artificially low levels to spur spending and investment.

2) by lowering these interest rates below their natural level --- firms and consumers were incentivised to engage in unsustainable long term investment that were interest rate sensitive ---- coincidently like housing !

3) this race to buy and build houses, led to an unsustainable bubble that ultimately burst leading to the financial collapse

4) other secondary influences was the mortgage interest deduction, community reinvestment act, fannie mae and other govt guaranteed loans to risky buyers.

5) but the most important factor was that the financial actors who acted most recklessly knew that they would get bailed out because they and the government regulators and politicians are essentially one in the same.

hence, there was no moral hazard guiding the market that would have been present within a free market system in which societal actors who failed would lose the money they so recklessly risked.

there you have it.

now you can rationalize liberal talking points to your heart's content.

Observe the OP's method of debating: Addressing nothing in the person's post.

Isn't that a straw man fallacy? I thought people would be all over him for that now.

[Liriena]

you dont understand how the housing crisis occurred and it wasnt deregulation in scandanavia and it wasnt deregulation in America.

pay attention:

1) the Fed intentionally lowered interest to artificially low levels to spur spending and investment.

2) by lowering these interest rates below their natural level --- firms and consumers were incentivised to engage in unsustainable long term investment that were interest rate sensitive ---- coincidently like housing !

3) this race to buy and build houses, led to an unsustainable bubble that ultimately burst leading to the financial collapse

4) other secondary influences was the mortgage interest deduction, community reinvestment act, fannie mae and other govt guaranteed loans to risky buyers.

5) but the most important factor was that the financial actors who acted most recklessly knew that they would get bailed out because they and the government regulators and politicians are essentially one in the same.

hence, there was no moral hazard guiding the market that would have been present within a free market system in which societal actors who failed would lose the money they so recklessly risked.

there you have it.

now you can rationalize liberal talking points to your heart's content.

Observe the OP's method of debating: Addressing nothing in the person's post.

Fascinating indeed. What a wonderful creature.

And that's without speaking about how he accused many of those speaking on this thread of trolling when the only one even close to trolling would be him and his constant name-calling, ad hominems, irrelevancies and circular logic.

[AuSable River]

While right now I ain't got the time or the inclination to keep responding to your circular logic, I have an interesting link here.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-38042869/record-corporate-profits-still-no-jobs/

Hold on, you think AuSable will admit he is wrong?

corporate profits are from government bailouts and preferential regulatory policies in many cases -- hence no need to hire more workers. Indeed, GM has taken the money that obama gave them in a quid pro quo union votes for bailouts to build and sell more cars in china than the USA . they are also trying to get approval to build a $1 billion plant in china next year.

also, the majority of US firms are concerned about the future precisely because of excessive govt control of the economy that is primarily based on political considerations rather than economic reality.

lastly, most American firms make money the old fashioned way --- they earn it by satisfying consumer preferences -- the only difference from past practices is that these firms are making more money overseas in friendly pastures than the high tax, high regulatory USA that chases away productive firms and rewards failing politically connected firms who spend money lobbying politicians in washington instead of increasing productivity.

you can stop laughing now -- it reflects more on your shortcomings than anyone else.

[Frisivisia]

Observe the OP's method of debating: Addressing nothing in the person's post.

Fascinating indeed. What a wonderful creature.

And that's without speaking about how he accused many of those speaking on this thread of trolling when the only one even close to trolling would be him and his constant name-calling, ad hominems, irrelevancies and circular logic.

Let us hear his mating call:

MORALITYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!

So beautiful.

[The UK in Exile]

Observe the OP's method of debating: Addressing nothing in the person's post.

Isn't that a straw man fallacy? I thought people would be all over him for that now.

its not really a straw man fallacy.

more like an invisible strawman.

its weird.... whatever it is.

[Liriena]

Do you think anyone has ever convinced anyone else (older than a 5 year old) to change their political views on this forum?

No, but it would be nice.

"When you're stupid, there's nothing that can be done."-Eric Idle

[Priory Academy USSR]

lastly, most American firms make money the old fashioned way --- they earn it by satisfying consumer preferences -- the only difference from past practices is that these firms are making more money overseas in friendly pastures than the high tax, high regulatory USA that chases away productive firms and rewards failing politically connected firms who spend money lobbying politicians in washington instead of increasing productivity.

The main reason firms move away from the USA is because they have to pay workers a reasonable wage, a terrible sin by the government to make people have happier, more productive lives.

[United Marxist Nations]

Hold on, you think AuSable will admit he is wrong?

corporate profits are from government bailouts and preferential regulatory policies in many cases -- hence no need to hire more workers. Indeed, GM has taken the money that obama gave them in a quid pro quo union votes for bailouts to build and sell more cars in china than the USA . they are also trying to get approval to build a $1 billion plant in china next year.

also, the majority of US firms are concerned about the future precisely because of excessive govt control of the economy that is primarily based on political considerations rather than economic reality.

lastly, most American firms make money the old fashioned way --- they earn it by satisfying consumer preferences -- the only difference from past practices is that these firms are making more money overseas in friendly pastures than the high tax, high regulatory USA that chases away productive firms and rewards failing politically connected firms who spend money lobbying politicians in washington instead of increasing productivity.

you can stop laughing now -- it reflects more on your shortcomings than anyone else.

You know, half the time you make perfect sense, the other half your attacking of the wrong actor in the association of government corruption makes you look really stupid. I see where you are coming from, you just don't have the correct source of the corruption; it's the corporations, not government.

[United Marxist Nations]

No, but it would be nice.

"When you're stupid, there's nothing that can be done."-Eric Idle

I love that quote; I use it in my personal life all the time; love Monty Python.

[AuSable River]

Like what capitalist economies?

Well, it's hard to give names like Saudi Arabia or anarchy-bordering countries in Africa or countries that existed before Capitalism was a term, mainly because the term of Capitalism itself is unstable and now applied more freely than ever. My examples probably wouldn't pass as capitalist to you, so I won't bother.

no nation is strictly capitalist --- all have some level of government.

however, those with the least government interference in the economy experience far greater growth and increased standards of living than socialist or crony capitalist nations.

[Frisivisia]

Well, it's hard to give names like Saudi Arabia or anarchy-bordering countries in Africa or countries that existed before Capitalism was a term, mainly because the term of Capitalism itself is unstable and now applied more freely than ever. My examples probably wouldn't pass as capitalist to you, so I won't bother.

no nation is strictly capitalist --- all have some level of government.

however, those with the least government interference in the economy experience far greater growth and increased standards of living than socialist or crony capitalist nations.

Mmm, tasty. Could use some Tabasco or something.

[United Marxist Nations]

Well, it's hard to give names like Saudi Arabia or anarchy-bordering countries in Africa or countries that existed before Capitalism was a term, mainly because the term of Capitalism itself is unstable and now applied more freely than ever. My examples probably wouldn't pass as capitalist to you, so I won't bother.

no nation is strictly capitalist --- all have some level of government.

however, those with the least government interference in the economy experience far greater growth and increased standards of living than socialist or crony capitalist nations.

It's funny because during Stalin's 5-year plans, the USSR had some of the largest economic growth in the history of civilization.