Off Topic > Off Topic
Obama, the attention whore
Ronin:
lol
I have no intention to get into that debate.
Duckmeister:
--- Quote from: Ronin on May 11, 2009, 07:06:03 PM ---lol
I have no intention to get into that debate.
--- End quote ---
Eh, now that I think about it, me neither. Good times, good times.
FlyGuy45:
--- Quote from: Duckmeister on May 11, 2009, 07:02:43 PM ---What is wrong with Laissez-faire? Capitalism is meant to work a certain way, and messing with it isn't going to do you any good. Yes, moderate regulation is necessary, but there's certainly a line.
Do you think it's wrong because the rich get richer? In any form of economic policy, the rich are necessary in order to keep the money flowing. In fact, poverty rates would go down if the people did not have a hatred of the rich, and did not vote for anti-rich tax policies, etc.
--- End quote ---
Trickle Down Economics Ft....l.
Laissez cannot work. Regulation is fine and dandy, but it is not laissez-faire, it is so contradictory. With Big Business, you are no longer run by the government, you are run by Business. Look at the late 1800's and early 1900's and you will see whats wrong. Trust busting by Roosevelt and Taft were pivotal to it. The country is unable to understand the boom and bust cycle. When Roosevelt busted some businesses, a recession occurred and got people angry at him. Busting trusts won't really affect the economy, if anything it would help you with lower prices. I am no economist, so I am just speculating.
It would probably work better now then earlier, because of the more companies. But, history repeats its self and we may have monopolies causing you to pay 13$ for a loaf of bread. Look at the NIRA and the New Deal, they tried to monopolize businesses to make the economy start, and the war toke over and that went down the drain.
Duckmeister:
--- Quote from: FlyGuy45 on May 11, 2009, 07:20:25 PM ---Trickle Down Economics Ft....l.
Laissez cannot work. Regulation is fine and dandy, but it is not laissez-faire, it is so contradictory. With Big Business, you are no longer run by the government, you are run by Business. Look at the late 1800's and early 1900's and you will see whats wrong. Trust busting by Roosevelt and Taft were pivotal to it. The country is unable to understand the boom and bust cycle. When Roosevelt busted some businesses, a recession occurred and got people angry at him. Busting trusts won't really affect the economy, if anything it would help you with lower prices. I am no economist, so I am just speculating.
It would probably work better now then earlier, because of the more companies. But, history repeats its self and we may have monopolies causing you to pay 13$ for a loaf of bread. Look at the NIRA and the New Deal, they tried to monopolize businesses to make the economy start, and the war toke over and that went down the drain.
--- End quote ---
Well, I think you are taking the idea of laissez-faire too far, almost to the point of setting up a straw man. In reality, laissez-faire doesn't mean you give up all ideas of regulation so that business rules the country, it doesn't mean that you give up anti-monopoly regulations. It means that you prevent business from controlling the government while you prevent the government from ruining business.
It's kinda hard to understand exactly what it is you are saying, no offense, but I also think that you are contradicting yourself in that you are against monopolies (or for them?) and against laissez-faire, but that maybe because you have a distorted view of what laissez-faire truly is.
Yes, I know I am breaking the "me neither", just give me break.
Muffinmix:
--- Quote from: Duckmeister on May 11, 2009, 07:33:12 PM ---It means that you prevent business from controlling the government while you prevent the government from ruining business.
--- End quote ---
So basically the businesses can't control the government, yet the government is still very much dependent on it's countries businesses no matter what system you implement. Why? Because business drives a country and is directly linked to that country's wealth, which then correlates to how much cash the government has to play with by the end of the year. The government also can't ruin any businesses, ok that sounds fair, but then how would you interpret a business? Trade is business, so if the government gets in the way of trade then that business is destroyed. This system easily suggests the government has no control over any of the dealings in businesses, it can't interfere otherwise it's ruining business. This has also extended to potential business many times as well.
Laissez-faire is self contradictory, that's why it eventually leads to huge forget ups. It's also a system that is very open to all kinds of bad dealings which can cause major instability in a country, like say economic depressions. You say a country needs very rich people for the poor to hate, I guess the poor have a good amount of reasons to hate the rich especially since those asses managed to forget up the country twice now and all the poor are paying deeply for it.
--- Quote from: FlyGuy45 on May 11, 2009, 06:53:48 PM ---Lassiez-faire is anything but fair.
--- End quote ---