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

[Liriena]

And I say most corporations are corrupt because, like all sensible businessmen, they'll do anything for profit and high stock prices, and when you put no limits on what corporations can do...well...you get some nice things like...say...Repsol-YPF forcing a country to rely on imported oil and destroying countless of towns that depended on the company, for starters.

for argument sake lets say politicians, CEOs, et al are corrupt.

within a free society, if a firm or individual is corrupt -- I dont have to buy!!!!

within a statist society, if government is corrupt --- I dont have a choice !!!!!

and please clarify that undecipherable blurt regarding repsol ??!

And I will debunk that as well.

Well...good thing I support a MIXED MARKET ECONOMY! It means I support there being both corporations and government taking care of the economy.

Repsol? Oh, you never heard? YPF, formerly Argentina's mighty state-owned oil company. It was sold by the anti-statist government of Carlos Saul Menem in 1998. Fourteen years later, the current government (which I don't support) discovered that Repsol, the Spanish company that bought YPF, had been breaking their promises to develop key areas of the country and, to top it off, they had greatly reduced production and stopped scouting for new oil reserves to sell less oil for higher prices, forcing the country to import billions of dollars in oil when it could have been cheaply extracted, refined and consumed in Argentina. One company almost ruined an entire country's economy just to make a few more bucks.

[Vareiln]

for argument sake lets say politicians, CEOs, et al are corrupt.

within a free society, if a firm or individual is corrupt -- I dont have to buy!!!!

within a statist society, if government is corrupt --- I dont have a choice !!!!!

and please clarify that undecipherable blurt regarding repsol ??!

And I will debunk that as well.

Well...good thing I support a MIXED MARKET ECONOMY! It means I support there being both corporations and government taking care of the economy.

Repsol? Oh, you never heard? YPF, formerly Argentina's mighty state-owned oil company. It was sold by the anti-statist government of Carlos Saul Menem in 1998. Fourteen years later, the current government (which I don't support) discovered that Repsol, the Spanish company that bought YPF, had been breaking their promises to develop key areas of the country and, to top it off, they had greatly reduced production and stopped scouting for new oil reserves to sell less oil for higher prices, forcing the country to import billions of dollars in oil when it could have been cheaply extracted, refined and consumed in Argentina. One company almost ruined an entire country's economy just to make a few more bucks.

That's what I find to be the best economy.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

I see nothing wrong with this post.

Sweden had a very free economy up until about the mid 1900's, vast resources relative to their population and a century of peacetime. When the social democrats came in charge and caused the 1990 bubble, Sweden took austerity measures; slashing the budget, taxes and raising interests rate. Despite what many leftist would insist it actually did not ruin the economy, instead it strengthened it.

Or, you know, it was exports.

Yes, and exports increased because of the austerity measures imposed by Sweden that in fact made it a more business friendly environment. The austerity measures spurred economic growth and production.

Congratulations on strengthening his argument

[Liriena]

the way to increase societal efficiency and hence exports is to reduce ridiculous regulations like minimum wage laws, onerous environmental regulations and costs, high energy, high regulatory burdens, burdensome health care requirements, et al.

While it hurts me to say this...you are absolutely wrong...and Peron and Kirchner got it right.

[Vareiln]

the way to increase societal efficiency and hence exports is to reduce ridiculous regulations like minimum wage laws, onerous environmental regulations and costs, high energy, high regulatory burdens, burdensome health care requirements, et al.

While it hurts me to say this...you are absolutely wrong...and Kirchner got it right.

I also find the fact that he wants no environmental regulations... Disturbing...
I knew I said I wouldn't take a side in this, I can't help it. So much negative energy and sheer obstinate behavior somehow provokes a response in me.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

the way to increase societal efficiency and hence exports is to reduce ridiculous regulations like minimum wage laws, onerous environmental regulations and costs, high energy, high regulatory burdens, burdensome health care requirements, et al.

While it hurts me to say this...you are absolutely wrong...and Kirchner got it right.

Actually. he's right.

Also, I would like to add. Why do you liberals think that Governments will be any less worse than a corporation? Governments, across the globe have committed crimes that are insurmountable to those crimes committed by corporations.

[AuSable River]

for argument sake lets say politicians, CEOs, et al are corrupt.

within a free society, if a firm or individual is corrupt -- I dont have to buy!!!!(1)

within a statist society, if government is corrupt --- I dont have a choice !!!!!(2)

and please clarify that undecipherable blurt regarding repsol ??!

And I will debunk that as well.

1. No, but if they form a monopoly, well, have fun getting anything you want without buying from them.
2. You know, there is something called a vote. And it's a way to ensure that a government never becomes corrupt. If the government becomes too corrupt to fix, there's something called a gun.
3. Seriously, your attitude and tone don't help your cause at all.

name one oppressive private monopoly in the history of the world other than that imposed by government or insulated by government.

indeed, it is highly illogical that leftist are so fearful of the boogeyman of a private sector monopoly that they will create the mother of all monopolies --- government -- with all the guns, gavels, and regulatory power to police one of these single hypothetical single industry monopoly that would be dispatched in short order in a free society by (1) substitution goods, 2) start up competition, 3) boycotts, 4) bankruptcy, or 5) government legislation as a last resort.


Secondly, in the free market I get to vote many times a day for what I want and generally I am pleased with the result -- If I am not -- I go someplace else or fill a need and compete myself.

in contrast, you get to 'vote' once every 2,4,6 years for the lesser of two evils and try suing a politician if he doesnt do what he promised. moreover, they can engage in corrupt behavior behind the scenes and often times this corruption or money for favors, or special interest votes for favors is unenforcable or legal.

in sum, you have to be nuts to think that you have any appreciable say or impact in a democracy in which you cant buy a seat at the table with the big lobbyists in corporate America or special interests like unions, lawyers, envirnoment,et al.

who cares about my tone -- leftists aren't objective or independent thinking --- I am speaking to those who are.

[AuSable River]

While it hurts me to say this...you are absolutely wrong...and Kirchner got it right.

I also find the fact that he wants no environmental regulations... Disturbing...
I knew I said I wouldn't take a side in this, I can't help it. So much negative energy and sheer obstinate behavior somehow provokes a response in me.

I challenge you to cite the post in which I said I was opposed to environmental regulations !!!

once you return from this futile exercise, I will give you my position on this point.

[Vareiln]

While it hurts me to say this...you are absolutely wrong...and Kirchner got it right.

Actually he's right.

Also, I would like to add. Why do you liberals think that Governments will be any less worse than a corporation? Governments, across the globe have committed crimes that are insurmountable to those crimes committed by corporations.

A fascist government that murders its people doesn't mean that a democratic government can't provide for its citizens and maintain a stable economy with minimal to no corruption.
Because that democratic government can be kept from ever becoming corrupt by the people.

[Mavorpen]

Yes, and exports increased because of the austerity measures imposed by Sweden that in fact made it a more business friendly environment. The austerity measures spurred economic growth and production.

Congratulations on strengthening his argument

I was hoping to find a source somewhere in here showing that exports increased due to austerity.

[Vareiln]

I also find the fact that he wants no environmental regulations... Disturbing...
I knew I said I wouldn't take a side in this, I can't help it. So much negative energy and sheer obstinate behavior somehow provokes a response in me.

I challenge you to cite the post in which I said I was opposed to environmental regulations !!!

once you return from this futile exercise, I will give you my position on this point.

Does this ring a bell?

there is always demand --- I always want a bigger screen tv -- I always want to go on vacation --- I always want to eat out more --- I always want to .......

demand is not important -- what is important is if I have the means to satisfy my demand.

Hence, the reason why nations become more productive is because government becomes less repressive.

and subsidies and tax breaks are simply corrupt measures that lobbyists buy from corrupt politicians in a quid pro quo scheme of tax breaks and subsidies for VOTES AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

essentially what you are advocating with these ridiculous subsidies is polticians picking winners and losers based on who is most effective lobbying or which special interest brings the most bribe money to the table.

the way to increase societal efficiency and hence exports is to reduce ridiculous regulations like minimum wage laws, onerous environmental regulations and costs, high energy, high regulatory burdens, burdensome health care requirements, et al.

indeed, it is no coincidence that has govt. downsized in both canada and sweden -- in the early 1990s --- the dependent variable of increased growth and exports followed.

[Liriena]

While it hurts me to say this...you are absolutely wrong...and Kirchner got it right.

Actually he's right.

Also, I would like to add. Why do you liberals think that Governments will be any less worse than a corporation? Governments, across the globe have committed crimes that are insurmountable to those crimes committed by corporations.

That's a generalization and you know it. Many governments throughout history and worlwide have proven to be efficient and perfectly humane and clean.

Besides, as I said before, I believe in a mixed economy. I don't think everyone is evil. I don't believe all corporations are corrupt. What I do believe is that states have a duty to their citizens, they have human rights to protect and fulfill...and human rights include not only rights which are protected by state laissez faire, but also rights that require a state that provides vital and basic services that all human beings are entitled to due to the very condition of being human.

Corporations don't have a social duty by themselves. The state does. The state is not there for the profit.

And corruption is not a terminal condition. It always comes down to single individuals that can easily be replaced by more efficient and honest ones.

And an economy doesn't necessarily need only big exports to prosper. A strong local demand can foster a great deal of economic prosperity as well...one that is not so dependant on the comings and goings of the international markets. A slightly more stable one.

[AuSable River]

for argument sake lets say politicians, CEOs, et al are corrupt.

within a free society, if a firm or individual is corrupt -- I dont have to buy!!!!

within a statist society, if government is corrupt --- I dont have a choice !!!!!

and please clarify that undecipherable blurt regarding repsol ??!

And I will debunk that as well.

Well...good thing I support a MIXED MARKET ECONOMY! It means I support there being both corporations and government taking care of the economy.

Repsol? Oh, you never heard? YPF, formerly Argentina's mighty state-owned oil company. It was sold by the anti-statist government of Carlos Saul Menem in 1998. Fourteen years later, the current government (which I don't support) discovered that Repsol, the Spanish company that bought YPF, had been breaking their promises to develop key areas of the country and, to top it off, they had greatly reduced production and stopped scouting for new oil reserves to sell less oil for higher prices, forcing the country to import billions of dollars in oil when it could have been cheaply extracted, refined and consumed in Argentina. One company almost ruined an entire country's economy just to make a few more bucks.

my guess is this.

1)the govt originally sold the company because it was predictably losing money hand over fist at great cost to the average argentine

2) the company probably didnt develop areas in argentina because it wasnt cost effective hence they would lose money or make less money than drilling in other regions.

3) a single friggin company manifestly does not dictate the market price of OIL. the price of oil is determine by global supply and demand and not what repsol decides.

4) in a truly free market -- if a company raises prices = declining revenue. unchecked declining revenue = bankruptcy.

in sum, no responsible or rational management would or could raise oil prices in the global economy because there are too many actors (albeit mostly govt managed)

[AuSable River]

I challenge you to cite the post in which I said I was opposed to environmental regulations !!!

once you return from this futile exercise, I will give you my position on this point.

Does this ring a bell?

operative word is ONEROUS

moreover, government actually insulates polluters from prosecution.

you didnt think of that did you???

indeed, government allows a certain amount of pollution in order to grow the economy. the bigger the government, the more pollution -- see china russia et al.

it is no coincidence that the biggest environmental disasters occurred on government managed land and not private property.

in a free society, a private property owner would never allow his land, air, water to be pollute without taking the offending party to either criminal or civil court.

indeed, the free market would have private property owners aggressively protecting their investments from damage by externalities and these problems would be adjudicated by a court system that would be far less susceptible to back room deals that dominate the current lobbyist dominated system.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Yes, and exports increased because of the austerity measures imposed by Sweden that in fact made it a more business friendly environment. The austerity measures spurred economic growth and production.

Congratulations on strengthening his argument

I was hoping to find a source somewhere in here showing that exports increased due to austerity.

You don't need a source, it's called common sense. If Sweden's austerity measures had a negative effect you wouldn't see a surge in exports and vital economic growth, instead you'd see the opposite.

When the United States went the opposite direction, that is to create more inflation. You saw imports and deficit grow. It should be obvious to anyone that this isn't the sign of a healthy economy.

A fascist government that murders its people doesn't mean that a democratic government can't provide for its citizens and maintain a stable economy with minimal to no corruption.
Because that democratic government can be kept from ever becoming corrupt by the people.

A democratic government wouldn't work, because people by nature are flawed. The democratic process is too arbitrary, and oppresses the minority. Example: Joe and his friends vote to hang to Tom,Tom is the minority so he loses. In order to limit the instance of corruption government must be shrunk.

[Mavorpen]

indeed, government allows a certain amount of pollution in order to grow the economy. the bigger the government, the more pollution -- see china russia et al.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country

[Liriena]

Does this ring a bell?

operative word is ONEROUS

moreover, government actually insulates polluters from prosecution.

you didnt think of that did you???

indeed, government allows a certain amount of pollution in order to grow the economy. the bigger the government, the more pollution -- see china russia et al.

it is no coincidence that the biggest environmental disasters occurred on government managed land and not private property.

in a free society, a private property owner would never allow his land, air, water to be pollute without taking the offending party to either criminal or civil court.

indeed, the free market would have private property owners aggressively protecting their investments from damage by externalities and these problems would be adjudicated by a court system that would be far less susceptible to back room deals that dominate the current lobbyist dominated system.

You can't be serious. You are just trolling us all, aren't you?

[Yuktova]

for argument sake lets say politicians, CEOs, et al are corrupt.

within a free society, if a firm or individual is corrupt -- I dont have to buy!!!!

within a statist society, if government is corrupt --- I dont have a choice !!!!!

and please clarify that undecipherable blurt regarding repsol ??!

And I will debunk that as well.

Well...good thing I support a MIXED MARKET ECONOMY! It means I support there being both corporations and government taking care of the economy.

Repsol? Oh, you never heard? YPF, formerly Argentina's mighty state-owned oil company. It was sold by the anti-statist government of Carlos Saul Menem in 1998. Fourteen years later, the current government (which I don't support) discovered that Repsol, the Spanish company that bought YPF, had been breaking their promises to develop key areas of the country and, to top it off, they had greatly reduced production and stopped scouting for new oil reserves to sell less oil for higher prices, forcing the country to import billions of dollars in oil when it could have been cheaply extracted, refined and consumed in Argentina. One company almost ruined an entire country's economy just to make a few more bucks.

All because of scarcity, wether make believe or actual. The biggest and easiest way to make a buck.

I say, if someone supports a corporcratic, free market, they are most likely neurally bankrupt.

[AuSable River]

Actually he's right.

Also, I would like to add. Why do you liberals think that Governments will be any less worse than a corporation? Governments, across the globe have committed crimes that are insurmountable to those crimes committed by corporations.

That's a generalization and you know it. Many governments throughout history and worlwide have proven to be efficient and perfectly humane and clean.

Besides, as I said before, I believe in a mixed economy. I don't think everyone is evil. I don't believe all corporations are corrupt. What I do believe is that states have a duty to their citizens, they have human rights to protect and fulfill...and human rights include not only rights which are protected by state laissez faire, but also rights that require a state that provides vital and basic services that all human beings are entitled to due to the very condition of being human.

Corporations don't have a social duty by themselves. The state does. The state is not there for the profit.

And corruption is not a terminal condition. It always comes down to single individuals that can easily be replaced by more efficient and honest ones.

And an economy doesn't necessarily need only big exports to prosper. A strong local demand can foster a great deal of economic prosperity as well...one that is not so dependant on the comings and goings of the international markets. A slightly more stable one.

you will find that government that is the most 'clean' is that government that has the most constitutional restictions.

for example, government that is intentionally limited, decentralized, balanced, and made transparent (ie constitutional federal republicanism or any variation of liberal democracy) is the most effective.

Why?

because it is INTENTIONALLY made less powerful and efficient.

hence government is chained by the people and the constitution -- however, our founding fathers (and subsequent experiments that copied the 1787 compact) have been imperfect because government has no check on economic coercion.

you will see that when private property --- indeed, individual rights and responsibilities --- are protected by an economic bill or rights or some similar protections from government economic coercion (always in the name of some bogus social goal like equality)......

society will flourish.

[Mavorpen]

You don't need a source, it's called common sense. If Sweden's austerity measures had a negative effect you wouldn't see a surge in exports and vital economic growth, instead you'd see the opposite.

Yes, I need a source. In most cases, devaluations cause surges in exports. Sweden did it in 1982 and exports and profits in Sweden soared. This is also why Europe's austerity failed.

At the heart of the euro system problem now is that most of the rest of the countries are no longer competitive with Germany. They are running large current-account deficits, and the existence of the euro means they cannot devalue their currencies to make their exports cheaper and their companies more competitive.

[Avalar]

That's a generalization and you know it. Many governments throughout history and worlwide have proven to be efficient and perfectly humane and clean.

Besides, as I said before, I believe in a mixed economy. I don't think everyone is evil. I don't believe all corporations are corrupt. What I do believe is that states have a duty to their citizens, they have human rights to protect and fulfill...and human rights include not only rights which are protected by state laissez faire, but also rights that require a state that provides vital and basic services that all human beings are entitled to due to the very condition of being human.

Corporations don't have a social duty by themselves. The state does. The state is not there for the profit.

And corruption is not a terminal condition. It always comes down to single individuals that can easily be replaced by more efficient and honest ones.

And an economy doesn't necessarily need only big exports to prosper. A strong local demand can foster a great deal of economic prosperity as well...one that is not so dependant on the comings and goings of the international markets. A slightly more stable one.

you will find that government that is the most 'clean' is that government that has the most constitutional restictions.

for example, government that is intentionally limited, decentralized, balanced, and made transparent (ie constitutional federal republicanism or any variation of liberal democracy) is the most effective.

Why?

because it is INTENTIONALLY made less powerful and efficient.

hence government is chained by the people and the constitution -- however, our founding fathers (and subsequent experiments that copied the 1787 compact) have been imperfect because government has no check on economic coercion.

you will see that when private property --- indeed, individual rights and responsibilities --- are protected by an economic bill or rights or some similar protections from government economic coercion (always in the name of some bogus social goal like equality)......

society will flourish.

-_- Society is already flourishing

[AuSable River]

indeed, government allows a certain amount of pollution in order to grow the economy. the bigger the government, the more pollution -- see china russia et al.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country

dude, china (communist china) is the biggest polluter on the planet.

bar none.

before that, the soviet union was a prolific polluter -- see chernobil

also, eastern europe was notorious for pollution.

your wiki source notwithstanding.

[Vareiln]

1. No, but if they form a monopoly, well, have fun getting anything you want without buying from them.
2. You know, there is something called a vote. And it's a way to ensure that a government never becomes corrupt. If the government becomes too corrupt to fix, there's something called a gun.
3. Seriously, your attitude and tone don't help your cause at all.

name one oppressive private monopoly in the history of the world other than that imposed by government or insulated by government.(1)

indeed, it is highly illogical that leftist are so fearful of the boogeyman of a private sector monopoly that they will create the mother of all monopolies --- government -- with all the guns, gavels, and regulatory power to police one of these single hypothetical single industry monopoly that would be dispatched in short order in a free society by (1) substitution goods, 2) start up competition, 3) boycotts, 4) bankruptcy, or 5) government legislation as a last resort.(2)


Secondly, in the free market I get to vote many times a day for what I want and generally I am pleased with the result -- If I am not -- I go someplace else or fill a need and compete myself.(3)

in contrast, you get to 'vote' once every 2,4,6 years(4) for the lesser of two evils(5) and try suing a politician if he doesnt do what he promised(6). moreover, they can engage in corrupt behavior behind the scenes(7) and often times this corruption or money for favors, or special interest votes for favors is unenforcable or legal. (8)

in sum, you have to be nuts to think that you have any appreciable say or impact in a democracy(9) in which you cant buy a seat at the table with the big lobbyists in corporate America or special interests like unions, lawyers, envirnoment,et al.(10)

who cares about my tone(11) -- leftists aren't objective or independent thinking(12) --- I am speaking to those who are.(13)

1. Hmm... It seems I cannot point to an oppressive natural monopoly, other than natural monopolies that keep competition away and/or low, such as those within industries with high barriers of entry, like railroads, or these 4 companies. I shall ponder this further and do more research.
2. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. One moment, you're completely against all government intervention, the next, you're fine with it, when only you seem to deem it necessary-when free market tactics fail.
3. What if there are no other places, or the industry has a high barrier of entry, or the monopoly does everything(And I do mean everything) to keep competition away.
4. I would like to see voting as more frequent than 6 or 4 years, and with the possibility of impeachment should a politician be suspected of not fulfilling his/her duties or being corrupt . Just because someone ascribes to the left wing of economics and politics doesn't mean that they support such an inefficient structure as the American government.
5. Once again, this is almost exclusively limited to America.
6. Which honestly, should happen more often.
7. All the more reason for the people to actually structure a government around transparency in the first place.
Look, I don't think you quite understand. Just because someone prefers the concept of a government to the concept of anarcho-capitalism does not mean that they support such a terrible and inefficient government as the one found in America. One government(Or several, really) is not representative of all governments, existing or possible.
8. See 7.
9. Ah, but you do. The democracy in America is the result of previous generations becoming complacent and dropping the ball. Perhaps, were the people more vigilant, they would have structured a government with far more transparency and would have monitored the government's activity.
10. And where do those lobbyists and special interests come from, hmmm? Where do they get their money and power in the first place?
11. Well, I do, considering I don't like seeing someone else try to insult others.
12. Great way to end your post. Label all opposition to your argument as completely biased and close-minded.
13. Or, as I'm guessing they are to you, people who think the same as you. Yeah, the point of an argument isn't to circle-jerk, but I'm not sure whether you've grasped that or not.

[Vareiln]

I was hoping to find a source somewhere in here showing that exports increased due to austerity.

You don't need a source, it's called common sense. If Sweden's austerity measures had a negative effect you wouldn't see a surge in exports and vital economic growth, instead you'd see the opposite.

When the United States went the opposite direction, that is to create more inflation. You saw imports and deficit grow. It should be obvious to anyone that this isn't the sign of a healthy economy.

A fascist government that murders its people doesn't mean that a democratic government can't provide for its citizens and maintain a stable economy with minimal to no corruption.
Because that democratic government can be kept from ever becoming corrupt by the people.

A democratic government wouldn't work, because people by nature are flawed. The democratic process is too arbitrary, and oppresses the minority. Example: Joe and his friends vote to hang to Tom,Tom is the minority so he loses. In order to limit the instance of corruption government must be shrunk.

That's a direct democracy. Not at all a representative democracy.
But, I get it. You're just another misanthrope.

[Mavorpen]

dude, china (communist china) is the biggest polluter on the planet.

bar none.

before that, the soviet union was a prolific polluter -- see chernobil

also, eastern europe was notorious for pollution.

your wiki source notwithstanding.

Because they are developing countries.

Also, lol. Guess who's number 2.