Who wants bigger gov't??? Please help me understand liberals.
- Thread starter kappainf
- Start date
undertheice
Well-Known Member
the lie of the ballot box consists of the illusion that the voters can maintain control of government. with some few small exceptions, our elected representatives do as they please and have little care for the will of the people. occasionally there is enough popular support for some position to sway those political animals with the fear of uncovering their deceptions, but such moments are fleeting and it's business as usual on the hill as soon as the tide has passed. the last such tide was the outcry against amnesty for illegals. our representatives quickly buried their plans and postponed that particular agenda until a later date. don't think their plans have died, they merely bide their time.
the money that any industry puts into public campaigns is nothing compared to what they spend convincing our leaders to go against the will of the people. each senator, representative and even president waits none too patiently for that gravy train to reach their station, knowing that the power they will demand in return for their services makes the fact that they are betraying the people of little concern. they will make their deals and build their fiefdoms and, when election time rolls around again, they will lie once more to the gullible fools that still believe.
are you trying to pull more of that "wealth is made off the backs of the poor" crap on me? how cliche. all that wealth you claim gives the ceo his advantage had to come from somewhere and it most likely wasn't from abusing the poor. with very few exceptions, someone down the line had to work to start that fortune. it didn't magically appear, it was created by someone's effort and risk and they are entitled to hand it down however they see fit. begrudging the children of such people the reward handed down to them is nothing more than the petty envy of of the mob. the price has been paid for those fortunes.
after many years in commercial construction, i left to go out on my own. now i make quite a bit more than minimum wage and often work much less than that burger flipper. do you begrudge me what little wealth i may be able to retain? we all put a price on our labors. if we settle for low pay in a dead end job, we are not underpaid but we under-utilize our talents. the goal of the employee is to work as little as possible for as much compensation as possible and the goal of the employer is the opposite. somewhere between the two, a balance is struck and work commences. those that settle for less than they are worth have no one to blame but themselves.
your entire position carries the stench of failure and excuses. we all aspire to wealth, but few have the luck and forbearance to achieve it. of the ones who fail, there will always be a few who search for someone else to blame and those that succeed are ready scapegoats. the tales of men who built something from nothing are innumerable, but what they built required more than just settling for a job flipping burgers.
ancap
Active Member
Sorry, forgot to answer this question (assuming it was directed towards me).
No, I think the government is far superior at starting wars and enslaving the population than the free market.
ancap
Active Member
Again, I don't know much about the nuance of this industry, so I cannot make a super informed argument. I do know that mobile number portability had the effect of increasing costs at the retail level at the time. This was probably the main resistance against MNP. Whatever the motivation, it was an economic one, not necessarily an evil one. They could have easily believed at that time (a very young industry) that increased retail prices would shrink their potential customer base from the lower income side of the scale. Again, I present this as a possibility because I don't have a good understanding of all the factors that came into play at that period of time.
I don't doubt that in a free market businesses will attempt to push the ethical envelope for their own benefit. I think that's what you might be seeing in this case (again, only knowing a fraction of the details). Its a case of contracts and tricky language from a business in a very young industry that hasn't been fully sorted out. What they are risking is losing a percentage of their customers who see their tricky behavior and look to a competitor to fill their needs. It's the same principle of consumer driven "regulation" that applies to blatantly corrupt businesses, just on a lesser scale.
So let me clarify my question. Are you saying that these insurance companies are hiking their premiums because the market is forcing them to (ie higher associated costs due to less customers), or are you saying that the revenues are down, so they compensate by hiking rates to please their shareholders? Do you see the distinction?
CrackerJax
New Member
The ethical envelope is not a private sector only application.
It is human nature.... corruption is everywhere, ESPECIALLY in the govt.
Ppl that think the govt. will protect the sheep have no idea that the wolves are guarding them from other wolves.
The best protection is free market forces and an informed public. Govt. doesn't enhance either.
It is human nature.... corruption is everywhere, ESPECIALLY in the govt.
Ppl that think the govt. will protect the sheep have no idea that the wolves are guarding them from other wolves.
The best protection is free market forces and an informed public. Govt. doesn't enhance either.
Hydrolicious
Member
Actually, MNP drove the cost of wireless service DOWN because it allowed consumers to make choose their wireless carrier with less of an artificially manufactured barrier. You see, businesses only want "free markets" when it serves their interests.... but when a "free market" presents the easy choice for their customer to leave to a competitor... OOOOOH NOOOOO!
If the economy is a game, then any attempt to subvert the will of the consumer is cheating at that game. This is my view.
You propose that consumers will be a sufficient regulator for businesses- yet there are tons of examples of businesses succeeding at intentionally hindering the consumer's options. The customer's choice is ineffective if the only options are those that the merchant presents. Most of the time, businesses are very subtle in the ways they screw the consumer- but it happens way more than it would if consumers had better options.
Unfortunately, the basic mechanisms of capitalism dictate the concentration of wealth will consistently reduce the number of potential new competitors to the marketplace (you need money to start up).
This is why it takes 15 years for a NEW COMPETITOR to offer service with no contract. You might think thats okay but I say thats not good enough. I'm all for businesses and I do want to see them succeed, but do it honestly and in a way that actually SERVES your CUSTOMER'S interest. I dont think its unreasonable to force businesses to tear down artificial barriers they have built to competition. Subverting competition in ANY way falls under the antitrust category in my book.
Should I be able to buy my phone from any manufacturer and use it on the carrier of my choice? YES!
Why not? I pay for my service in full. It is not subsidized in any way whatsoever. I would understand if the service was being subsidized so they make little profit and depended on me buying the phone, but the opposite is true. Its actually the service contracts that are priced to factor in the subsidy most new customers get on their handset when they join for service. I still pay that full rate even though I dont take the subsidy on the phone. I want to buy my phone untampered from a phone manufacturer.
What right do they have to limit my choices to phones they sell?
By hampering my options, they are not only affecting the consumer, but they are also affecting the phone manufacturer's business. They restrict the consumer from being able to tell the manufacturer (with their unfettered choices) what phone features they want.
This is the reason cell phones are WAAAAAY more advanced in the rest of the world than they are in the US. (this is VERY true, I urge you to do research if you dont know)
The customer walks into the Verizon store and says "give me your best phone" they present a model that is two years old in Japan that they got at a heavy discount from the manufacturer. They charge you full price like its the hottest new technology to ever be invented, and use their "subsidy" to make it affordable (so now you pay what the phone is actually worth) and factor this subsidy into the pricing of their plans regardless of whether you took the subsidy of not.
Technology companies are supposed to ADVANCE technology. Instead they are intentionally holding back this entire country in the name of profit.
Its crooked, and its got to stop.
You are asking whether an increase in the overhead costs effected the insurance business? Really?
What overhead costs do insurance companies have? Very little.
There cannot be anything that would reasonably cause a 50% increase in overhead... cmon
Most overhead is associated with labor, materials, and energy. Labor has not gone up in cost (except for minimum wage) in YEARS.
What materials associated with insurance industry do you suppose raised their overhead so much? You have got to be kidding me...
CrackerJax
New Member
Plainly speaking, what makes you think you should have any say over a private corporation?
Wanna complain? Buy some stock first.
Wanna complain? Buy some stock first.
Hydrolicious
Member
I only wish to thwart their efforts to have a say over my decisions as a consumer. It is THEM who are committing the offense.
If they didn't try to subvert my "consumer regulation", I would have no want or desire for government to intervene with law or mandate.
Actually, I do own stock. Not in Verizon because I dont agree with their practices but yes I am an investor.
Once again, I'm not anti-business- as long as they play fair.
Hydrolicious
Member
So you're saying its okay to abuse the poor if you're doing it with riches you got by not abusing the poor?
By any means, the main point of my argument is that taxation is and should be relative to the amount of work you put into that income.
Yes, and that person was already compensated for that work. Income being generated today purely by the possession of that wealth is new income, and is not directly related to any actual work done today. I'm not going to propose a method to establish how much of said person's income is actual work today, but there is a fair number and it should not be that much greater than if that person had squandered all that wealth instead of investing it. THAT PORTION should be taxed the same as everyone else. Income generated by prior income? Sorry but IMHO not the same in terms of obligation to tax.
Remember the whole point of an economy is the DIVISION OF LABOR. Do your equal share TODAY and you should be taxed equally ON THE PORTION OF INCOME derived purely from YOUR WORK TODAY.
OR
you can choose to exploit others with your wealth but you should not and will not get the same tax rate.
I dont begrudge anyone of the wealth handed down to them. They can keep it, have it, spend it as they will... but if you use it to exploit the labor of others do not expect to be on an equal playing field with those people when tax time comes around.
I, in fact, turned down the wealth of my father to go out on my own and EARN my place in this world
Not so. I am actually quite successful.
I WORKED my way through college. I did not allow my rich father to pay my tuition.
In fact my father has not supported me at all since high school.
I currently work full time as a computer tech making a decent wage.
AND
I run my own part-time business as a computer tech. I'm very successful at this and I am constantly booked, too.
Dont judge me or assume my stance to be self-serving or envious. I only know what is right and fair.
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
How much credibility do you expect to have when you can't even use your own screen name? You have 14 posts under this name and not only are all of them in this forum, they are in this thread. Did you join riu for this thread? Who do you think you're kidding?
Hydrolicious
Member
If you read back to my first post, you will see that yes I did join for this thread. As you can see this topic is very important to me. I figured that if someone genuinely wants to understand my perspective (which I care about a lot) then I will join in the debate.
Not using my own screen name? what? Hydrolicious is my screen name....
I'm really confused as to what you mean by that. I already registered and did the whole email thing... what else do I have to do?
Cloud City
New Member
It just means that they cannot debate you on any of the points so instead, like angry children, they decide to attack you rather than your message.
ancap
Active Member
If you are correct, then my source is bad. Either way, I really don't know enough about the ins and outs of this industry to debate you on specifics. Don't mean for that to be a cop out.
Seems like we both agree that the lack of competition in certain industries is a serious problem.
First, it is true that the more money you have, the less number of people are in your "class", which sorta makes sense. It's also true that these "classes" are not static. Many people move from one class to another through the course of their life. Many do not. Some move down. However, there does seem to be a force that is actively creating more poverty. I just present this as a possibility, but I think your temptation to classify people in black and white terms may have possibly led you to false conclusions.
Is it possible that our free market (as much as we have) is making our society richer on one end while the government is creating a black hole of poverty on the other end? Central planning and prohibition were government functions. They subsidized the ghettos and created the environment for violence, and thus the cycle of poverty.
World governments have given us tyranny, genocide, wars, gangs, and bondage. The free market has given us automobiles, airplanes, interstates, energy efficient buildings that reach the clouds, computers, the internet, an immense amount food choices, portable communication devices, climate control, light bulbs and wealth beyond our wildest dreams. You seem to ignore the evils of the state while focusing too heavily on trying to attribute every evil to the free market and capitalism. Why don't you have at least an equal amount of skepticism for governments given the sheer amount of violence associated with them?
If you think that the forceful subversion of competition is immoral and damaging like I absolutely do, then you need to open your eyes to the amount of forceful subversion your government is doing to its people and to investors wanting to enter the marketplace.
Businesses are nothing more than a collection of individuals working in concert to provide a product or service for money. You don't see it as just a little demanding for you to try to use the government to force other people to provide you things that they don't necessarily want to provide you? On a slightly different note, don't you think there are many other investors that would love to come along and fill your demand, assuming there are others with your preferences? Is it possible the government has something to do with the market barriers? Given this potential possibility, wouldn't a government caused oligarchy create the environment for unethical corporate manipulation of consumers?
No, I was asking you if that is what you were asserting. I cannot address any of your points if I do not understand them first.
CrackerJax
New Member
Consumers always have the option of NOT purchasing the product. That more than anything will change the way a business, any business, conducts itself.
The govt.'s job is to help negotiate commerce, not dictate it.
The govt.'s job is to help negotiate commerce, not dictate it.
Hydrolicious
Member
I would contend that the overall force is one that further concentrates the wealth distribution.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say I've classified people in black and white. Could you be more specific as to which part of my (many lol) arguments you are referring to with this?
Absolutely, YES. Capitalism is not a new concept. This system of trade and property rights has been in place longer than humans have been recording history. In each and every example, capitalism has eventually created a skewed distribution of wealth and an elite class of people with financial stranglehold on the masses. It is not until multiple generations of increasingly worse abuse that violent revolution takes place- overthrowing the wealthy aristocrats- and thereby starting over the cycle of capitalism.
Think "pharoh's and slaves"... "serfs and lords"... "Nobles and servants". The significant difference between virtually every capitalism preceding ours and the one we have now, is a mechanism that gives power to every citizen regardless of wealth or class. I think the founding fathers put this in place intending to provide a tool for the masses to ensure fair play in this game we call life.
Those among us who have amassed great finances will always try to increase the power those finances carry by reducing the power of those in a lower class. They will use their money to sway your vote. They will subvert your power as a consumer. They will bribe YOUR public official to oppose your interest in support of theirs.
Certainly, many wealthy/elite are very good people with good morals. But those people will be out-competed by the crooked few unless they adopt the same practices. All I propose is that we band together as voters and agree on fair rules we should all play by. I think there should be stricter rules against practices designed to artificially thwart competition. I think there should be better, stricter regulation on political contributions.
This is minimim requirement if capitalism is to remain as a driving force in our society. Otherwise we will face the eventuality of a bloody revolution, and the next system we get may ACTUALLY BE socialist.
So if you really want to avoid socialism, you would support regulation.
Please elaborate...
So has private industry. If you are going to attack govt in favor of industry, you cannot use atrocities commited by both parties throughout all of history as an argument.
Tyranny- I'm your boss, I say do this. DO IT! (with no room for debate)
Genocide- Slave trade
Wars- War for oil companies
Gangs- Please explain how govt is responsible for gangs... how does this relate to the economy?
Bondage- Again... SLAVE TRADE
Actually, interstates, the internet, and portable communication devices would not be possible without government.
The interstates were a govt project.
The internet is a govt creation.
Virtually all of our forms of telecommunication are only possible due to satteites in space; which was advanced as a technology by government-funded NASA
The point here is that govt CAN get things right. Govt CAN advance society... its all about what we want to DO with govt. Smart leadership will yeild good results- regardless of mechanism. Repubs would have you believe that govt is incapable of anything but waste.
I'm here to refute that.
Because I live in an environment where govt is being attacked constantly. Does govt commit abuses? YES! But we have mechanisms in place to correct those abuses.
No one has yet refuted my examples of abuses by private industry where "consumer regulation" has FAILED.
Voters should regulate govt, who in turn should regulate business. If you remove govt from that chain, capitalists will consume your rights. Your simple right to choose where to buy a cell phone is just the tip of the iceberg...
You claim competition is a sufficient regulater on its own...
...Then you agree that subversion of that regulator is taking place in industry today (or at least fail to refute my example of it)...
Can you at least acknowlege that govt regulation is necessary, and GOOD for everyone if properly applied?
Please provide specific examples where govt regulation has a negative impact on society. Very likely the regulation was placed for a reason, and the consequense of repealing that law is far worse than the law itself(glass-steagall act)... with very few exceptions (MJ being one of them... mmmmm hydrolicious).
Once again, my stance is... if the regulation is bad, lets talk about the regulation. I take issue with conservatives who want to avoid the issues and talk about big govt, socialism, yadda yadda yadda..
Avoiding the issue tells me that person is not being honest about their motives.
Everybody has to answer to someone. You claim that my right to choose who I do business with is the regulatory force that businesses must cope with.
You dont see it a little demanding that they wont do business (at any cost) with me unless I sign a commitment to do more business with them?
That if I give them my business for wireless service, they REQUIRE I also give them EXCLUSIVELY my business purchasing a handset?
Once again, I dont want to tell them what to sell and how much to sell it for... only that they can charge me money- but not my right to choose. THAT SHOULD NEVER BE FOR SALE
Unfortunately, only govt can step in and make them stop that practice. They will never do it on their own.
This sounds like speculation. Please give some examples.
Okay, do then do you understand?
I think the insurance industry is LEAST vulnerable to an increase in overhead. Insurance industry is a sham... they produce nothing and have little to no costs.
The irony is that if a true catastrophe happened, all insured people would bankrupt the insurance company and they would never be able to fulfill the promises they have been basing ALL their income on.
Either the "insured" would get screwed, or the govt would step in and honor the insurance companies' promises with taxpayer money... in which case, why are we allowing insurance companies to collect profits in the first place?
See? the same reason Ponzi schemes are illegal.... eventually someone is guaranteed to be screwed
Hydrolicious
Member
Perhaps, but it many instances a product or service is essential to a persons livelihood...
I guess I could go without a cell phone, but that would put me at a severe disadvantage conducting my business. I should not be forced to decide between my consumer rights and my effectiveness at competing within my own industry.
Also, what about the business of the cell phone manufacturer? They make phones and are free to sell them directly to consumers throughout most of the world EXCEPT
in the biggest market- the U.S.- the service provider Verizon (and others) would refuse to activate any phone unless it was bought from their store initially. They would not do it even if you offered to pay the cost of the most expensive phone they have just let you use the one you bought elsewhere instead.
By doing this, the carrier maintains a stranglehold on the phone manufacturer's ability to compete in the marketplace within the U.S.....
....and furthermore they are able to dictate, by mandate- exactly which features or capabilities those phones would have.... and threaten not to carry phones by the manufacturer if they didn't comply.
They exercise these rights on your behalf... but in their interest not yours...
laughingduck
Well-Known Member
hydrolicious- in response to goverment regulation failling
Mortgage crisis, caused from idealistic dems and republicans who get so focused on "everyone deserves to own there own home" which some folks simply are not responsible enough. The goverment regulated the failier with fannie mae and freddie mac. The goverment was influiencing the banks and mortgage insurance companies to practice bad buisiness to advance their goal, the banks don't have anything to lose because if they play ball then fannie and freddie will buy the loans.
Mortgage crisis, caused from idealistic dems and republicans who get so focused on "everyone deserves to own there own home" which some folks simply are not responsible enough. The goverment regulated the failier with fannie mae and freddie mac. The goverment was influiencing the banks and mortgage insurance companies to practice bad buisiness to advance their goal, the banks don't have anything to lose because if they play ball then fannie and freddie will buy the loans.
Hydrolicious
Member
I never said govt regulation is infallible. Only that we can do it right if we want to.
But anyways, I'll address your specific example...
Thats a common misconception. It was actually the repeal of the glass-steagall act in 1999 that let to the mortgage crisis.
If you read about the glass-steagall act and still dont agree,
You dont think its a strange peculiarity that a law that was written in response to huge financial calamity; a law with authors who stated the intent is to stabalize the economy; a law that was followed by almost 70 years of relative economic stability; would have a huge financial calamity follow shortly after its repeal....
looks like a duck
sounds like a duck
CrackerJax
New Member
It was the govt. getting involved in home ownership which was the overriding factor. Not the private sector.
Anytime the govt. assumes a position in business... failure follows. At the very least....sustainability at an ever increasing costs.
Anytime the govt. assumes a position in business... failure follows. At the very least....sustainability at an ever increasing costs.