Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yeah, but what kind of oversight? Do you go straight for the state-owned company, or just go for some tighter anti-trust laws? What are you supposed to do to "solve" this problem?

State-owned is bad. We've seen how well that goes. The advantage of well-regulated capitalism is that it prevents economic power from resting in the hands of the state, who would then proceed to get drunk off of their newfound power and make Bad Things happen (See: Every Communist Republic ever.). There has to be a balance. The State cannot control Industry, and, as we are dealing with now, Industry cannot control the State.

So yes, tighter definitions of what makes a trust would be good.

[Heron TSG]

"Capitalism, real free and open capitalism" is exactly what leads to monolithic corporations. You need at least some level of government oversight to prevent it. Your (as in the USA's) problem lies in that the oversight has been lacking, misdirected, or directly blocked. Fix the oversight, and you'll start to fix the problem.

This right here is the problem. Our elected officials are supported largely by corporate backers, and this is how they become the nominees for our two parties. People who are not in the two parties are usually marginalized. Therefore, it's almost a certainty that a politician will have corporate backing and may be loathe to remove his/her own support base.

Then there are the politicians people like.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Then there are the politicians people like.

Who?

[SalmonGod]

You described it yourself, though.  Business.  Spending money on things that make more money, including other businesses.  The behavior is internally consistent with the nature of property and capitalism.  Eventually that includes spending money on the state, even if it's in the form of illegal transactions that eventually become legal.  Communism just skips to the end of the game.

These dynamics are fundamental to the nature of property ownership.  The only way to break the cycle is to set different boundaries regarding what a person is allowed to own, which is what I've been proposing for forever.

Then there are the politicians people like.

Who?

Nader?... he's the only one who's ever had my full support.

[Dwarf]

Are you suggesting banning ownership of means of production?

[SalmonGod]

Are you suggesting banning ownership of means of production?

I don't believe a person should be able to claim ownership of anything they don't directly relate to.  Productive resources used by many people would be owned by the people who use them.

[Osmosis Jones]

"Free and open" meant "you can start a business without being drowned with money to sell it to a corporation". I completely agree on the need for regulation to prevent this sort of situation.

So, "free and open" means "constrained and limited" capitalism?  (I kid, I kid)

I should point out that many start-up businesses dream of being drowned with cash. They don't *have* to sell, but it sure is nice when doing so sets them up for life, and a wily businessman will reinvest that cash to bootstrap themselves even further.

The issue here is more that free capitalism, while offering more choice to producers (within certain limits; monopolies will undercut and starve insufficiently differentiated start-ups instead buying them out), comes at the cost of choices for the consumer; monopolies and oligarchies are the usual outcome of an unconstrained capitalistic market directly lead to a worse deal for consumers. Your use of free seems to relate more to consumer choice than to the freedom for a producer to act in his own best interests, which is a somewhat unorthodox way of labelling it.

Regarding the ninja posts, the issue with communism is it's basically a government enforced monopoly. Which is bad, because it has all the powers of both a capitalist monopoly, coupled with the legislation to prevent any attempt at breaking said monopoly.

Also good oversight is many things; having regulatory watchdogs that identify and prevent potential monopolies, consumer rights advocates to ensure you get what you pay for, law enforcement to prevent intimidation or limit abuse of privileged knowledge, even legislating for a minimum wage and healthcare level play a part. All of these things and far far more are required for a 'fair' society.

[Dwarf]

Are you suggesting banning ownership of means of production?

I don't believe a person should be able to claim ownership of anything they don't directly relate to.  Productive resources used by many people would be owned by the people who use them.

I'm glad to see what seems like more leftist consciousness on these forums.

[Nadaka]

You described it yourself, though.  Business.  Spending money on things that make more money, including other businesses.  The behavior is internally consistent with the nature of property and capitalism.  Eventually that includes spending money on the state, even if it's in the form of illegal transactions that eventually become legal.  Communism just skips to the end of the game.

These dynamics are fundamental to the nature of property ownership.  The only way to break the cycle is to set different boundaries regarding what a person is allowed to own, which is what I've been proposing for forever.

Then there are the politicians people like.

Who?

Nader?... he's the only one who's ever had my full support.

Ross Perot, but he ran a very limited issue campaign. I don't know how he would deal with other issues.

I voted for Nader, but there are parts of the Green party agenda that I absolutely disagree with (the anti-nuclear part is the biggest one).

[Jake]

Soo... what happens when nothing happens?

Probably the same thing as happened in London a few months ago; people get tired of being blithely ignored by everyone in power and resort to throwing bricks at the cops and setting fire to buildings just to get the government to acknowledge the fact the protests are happening at all. Only in the US it will be much worse -or much more effective, depending on your point of view- because it's considerably easier to get hold of a serious firearm.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Soo... what happens when nothing happens?

Probably the same thing as happened in London a few months ago; people get tired of being blithely ignored by everyone in power and resort to throwing bricks at the cops and setting fire to buildings just to get the government to acknowledge the fact the protests are happening at all. Only in the US it will be much worse -or much more effective, depending on your point of view- because it's considerably easier to get hold of a serious firearm.

It's easier, but the majority of people don't own firearms, it's just that the ones who do usually have a few of them.

[Heron TSG]

I voted for Nader, but there are parts of the Green party agenda that I absolutely disagree with (the anti-nuclear part is the biggest one).

I've been doing research lately on this, and I wonder why they are against it. Nuclear fission power plants that are maintained are safe and less radioactive than coal plants. Nuclear fission plants, once fully operational, will turn helium and oxygen into power with no chance of a meltdown at all. They don't want to fund this.

Only in the US it will be much worse -or much more effective, depending on your point of view- because it's considerably easier to get hold of a serious firearm.

And this is why conservatives want to keep the right to bear arms. Generally, they don't like protesting. But if they do want to protest, they want guns to do it with. (If necessary.)

Honestly, if we get to the point where we need armed militias of civilians to protect ourselves from our own government, we're fucked. I'll run to Canada. I could probably make it there in a day on foot...

[Osmosis Jones]

I've been doing research lately on this, and I wonder why they are against it. Nuclear fission power plants that are maintained are safe and less radioactive than coal plants. Nuclear fission plants, once fully operational, will turn helium and oxygen into power with no chance of a meltdown at all. They don't want to fund this.

You mean fusion, fission is the current generation of uranium splitters. Also, look into thorium reactors; they're fission, but a lot safer and cleaner than uranium ones.

[Truean]

There's really nothing inherent in capitalism that says workers can't own the means of production. The trick is, those workers have to really understand what they're doing on a far higher level than "I punch a timeclock." In the same breath, it can't be this bullshit of:

Perverse incentives:
1.) Great job working hard, now we're assigning you MORE shit as a reward for working hard.... Same pay though....
2.) Great job coming up with that idea drone, I, your overlord boss am stealing it and firing you....
3.) Great job working hard, now the company can afford to outsource this entire department, don't worry everything's fine, I still have my job.... You.... eh....

In simple sum, the current system doesn't give a damn about productivity just like no one cares about a boat. They like the IDEA of it, the appearance of it, but as for the real thing of it and dare I say the QUALITY and upkeep of it.... Screw that.... [sigh].

Exceptionally poorly run banks are too big to fail; give them more money than you can count. The youth of America can fail, screw them....

O, and while I'm at it, why not condition CEO pay on company performance by only giving them stock as payment at intervals in the future IF they meet a wide range of targets in addition to the bottom line, like... not gutting or ruining the company....?

Protester supplies:
Forget the obvious you can probably think of, you guys should really stock up on swimming goggles (screw pepper spray).

[Nadaka]

The greens are against nuclear power because its scary. They have an irrational fear that has become a nearly instinctual reaction. Same reason democrats want to limit the right to bear arms and the republicans want to limit gay marriage.

4th generation nuclear reactors are intended to be far, far safer, cleaner and more effective than the older generations. And the older generations are already better than coal power. There is only one solution to the nuclear waste problem created by 2nd and 3rd generation nuclear reactors. And that is to use 4th generation reactors to consume the waste as fuel and produce waste materials that are manageable.