Finding Consensus On Economic Policy (Participation Encouraged)

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Donny Walker Blaq

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Donny Walker Blaq

It goes back to my few people cornering the market thing i mentioned earlier.

In a free market with little intervention the wealthiest organizaions will unite. So an OPEC-like situation will arise 

alternative energy firms will be aquired in a hostile manner or alternative energy innovators will sell/license their ideas to the big conglomerate like OPEC


Furthermore, If there is little government intervention. In your case only defense of our counry. Who will prevent a scenerio like that from arising.

You told fox that you want only defense from the government but then you told me that Manopolies would be sued.

Who is gonna sue the mono and olligopolies to prevent the from being to powerful if government is only there for the purpose of defense?

  

Before I answer, what is your definition of a Monopoly?

My bad, I mean having enough resources to control a markets regulation and supply. I was kinda citing you tho.

I just want to know who is gonna prevent some powerful dudes with shared interest from cornering a large part of any product market(it doesnt have to be oil)if there isnt any government intervention.

Although our gov has caused some mkt failures i believe their intervention has prevent far more mkt failures 

That's why I asked what your definition of a "monopoly" is. Standard definition will say "exclusive control, ect., ect.". My definition of a monopoly is someone e.g. cartel using force with violence in order to protect their monopoly. Which what it really means...

With that being said "exclusive" control cannot happen without the governments help via Copyrights, patents, and protecting "intellectual property". All of which are counter to Free Market principles. They use government to create artificial scarcity.



Now to your concern.

There is nothing wrong with individuals coming together to create a more efficient enterprise for their industry. The Robber Barons catch a lot of flack throughout history, but they made things so efficient and made prodcuts so cheap that it was putting small local companies out of business. These small businesses could not compete with the price of labor/production ratio. These small companies lobbyied their Congressman to make the Sherman Act and forcing those companies to be broken up because the smaller companies could not compete. Why should the government intervene on something where nobody is being hurt? Would you be hurt by low gas prices?


It would be impossible for a group of individuals to force people to buy their product. People wouldn't buy products at exceedingly high prices, too many people would have access to resources, or alternatives to create a scenario like that. This hypothetical company would lose, and lose big quick.

The ten of us can manipulat the free market with our 100 million by: paying bribes, creating barriers of entry, etc

What do yo do when the rich guys pay off or own the acredidation agencies

If the accredidation agencies were paid off and the business was producing a mediocre product, then that accreditation agency would lose credibility among the public and go out of business.

OPEC doesn't have sole possession of petroleum prices. Petro is high and scarcity is high because its artificial, this country isn't utilizing its own natural resources. There is no reason why we are depending on countries half way around the world to supply us with oil. Honestly, if it was declared open season tomorrow on onshore/offshore oil mines, you honestly think oil would be $90 a barrel?


As one of my heroes Ludwig von Mises once said:

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action.... Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.[/font]

 

[donny walker blaq]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Donny Walker Blaq

Originally Posted by rashi


Before I answer, what is your definition of a Monopoly?

My bad, I mean having enough resources to control a markets regulation and supply. I was kinda citing you tho.

I just want to know who is gonna prevent some powerful dudes with shared interest from cornering a large part of any product market(it doesnt have to be oil)if there isnt any government intervention.

Although our gov has caused some mkt failures i believe their intervention has prevent far more mkt failures 

That's why I asked what your definition of a "monopoly" is. Standard definition will say "exclusive control, ect., ect.". My definition of a monopoly is someone e.g. cartel using force with violence in order to protect their monopoly. Which what it really means...

With that being said "exclusive" control cannot happen without the governments help via Copyrights, patents, and protecting "intellectual property". All of which are counter to Free Market principles. They use government to create artificial scarcity.



Now to your concern.

There is nothing wrong with individuals coming together to create a more efficient enterprise for their industry. The Robber Barons catch a lot of flack throughout history, but they made things so efficient and made prodcuts so cheap that it was putting small local companies out of business. These small businesses could not compete with the price of labor/production ratio. These small companies lobbyied their Congressman to make the Sherman Act and forcing those companies to be broken up because the smaller companies could not compete. Why should the government intervene on something where nobody is being hurt? Would you be hurt by low gas prices?


It would be impossible for a group of individuals to force people to buy their product. People wouldn't buy products at exceedingly high prices, too many people would have access to resources, or alternatives to create a scenario like that. This hypothetical company would lose, and lose big quick.

The ten of us can manipulat the free market with our 100 million by: paying bribes, creating barriers of entry, etc

What do yo do when the rich guys pay off or own the acredidation agencies

If the accredidation agencies were paid off and the business was producing a mediocre product, then that accreditation agency would lose credibility among the public and go out of business.

OPEC doesn't have sole possession of petroleum prices. Petro is high and scarcity is high because its artificial, this country isn't utilizing its own natural resources. There is no reason why we are depending on countries half way around the world to supply us with oil. Honestly, if it was declared open season tomorrow on onshore/offshore oil mines, you honestly think oil would be $90 a barrel?


As one of my heroes Ludwig von Mises once said:

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action.... Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.[/font]




Rashi, I know Im late responding... 

Its weird I dont disagree with what your reasoning for your platform. However, I beleive your platform is one dementional. My stance on everything is that your philosophy is not realistic because it operate on a cause and effect logic. In the real world all things are not held constant so an action may result in 3 reactions. Your logic doesn't account for multiplie effects.

Multiplier effects is the reason why I feel that government intervention is needed. Take the rubber barrons for example, They got us cheap rubber but it was on backs of poor south americans They also killd tons of trees.

 



I remeber ow the rubber barons did their thing in the south
  

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by nestasprotege

If I were POTUS for a day I could end most of our troubles.

1) Institute a flat tax at 18-22% as quickly as possible.

2) Bring all of our troops home immediately.

3) Spend as much money as possible on solar energy innovation.

4) Ban professional lobbyists.


  

1. It is impossible to institute a new form of taxation after we have had the same kind for a century...  In order to start a flat tax, you basically have to start from scratch... Because revenues and spending would become even further out of sync... Our problem is more so the lack of revenue through loopholes created ever so slowly into a cluster %$+$... And the unwillingness to go after tax cheat millionaires, billionaires, and corporations..  While your method would make it far less complicated because you are paying a specific rate.. Taxes on those in the top bracket have not been this low in over a generation.. Lowering further would be further  toward a breaking point... Simply ending a majority of the loopholes, and going after people trying to 1 up the system would be sufficient enough to fix the issues..Nor would it create the jobs people argue it would.. Those jobs are gone, and will not be coming back no matter what we do.. On individual income it won't change much of consumption patterns.. When you make it over a certain income there is not many things that the extra money saved from taxes would be used for that would intiate growth in the economy... I think it is a novel idea of just doing it at a flat rate... I just don't think it would work for the reasons I've listed, and the fact that we already are set in our way for taxing and completely up-ending that would require draconian spending cuts that would defeat the purpose of the flat tax for the middle class.. 

2. Don't disagree.. I think you have to do it carefully though... Not like "General Careful" where it takes 20 months, but it has to be done in a safe manner..

3. Been saying this since I was in high school... If we make a real push for alternative energy (put aside the belief of climate change or not), but do it because it is the innovation of the future, and a business investment that is guaranteed to see massive growth the amount of jobs we could create would tremendous..

4. I disagree as Donny Walker said it is not the lobbyist but the Campaign finance laws... Citizens United just made a *@#+%# system even worse.. There is nothing wrong with lobbyists as many offer a insight into the matter they know best... What is wrong is that the lobbyist can dangle millions in front of a candidates re-election fund to vote in his interest...