Rand Paul Genuflects Before Corporate Masters

[blueapplepaste]

But with unfettered capitalism, the argument goes that there would be free trade, which would bring in more competition and discourage monopolies. There would also be a lack of regulation which makes startup costs artificially high and protects those who are in business and established, but makes it harder for new places of business to enter the market.

And the counter argument would be that in complete unfettered capitalism, a few monopolies could easily emerge. They'd be so big that they could just buy out their competition, or artificially lower their prices temporarily to the point where a newer company can't compete and goes bankrupt. Now, if you had several companies all of equal footing, then yeah, unfettered capitalism might work. But that's a big might. Once you get to the point where a monopoly or only a couple of companies emerge in an industry, then capitalism fails because the big companies are too powerful.

They would be, and they would become the defacto government - but remember, if you wouldn't want a business to have the kind of power you're talking about, why would you want a government to have that power. They're both power monopolies, and the government has the power to make you pay for stuff and throw you in jail if you don't do what it likes - which businesses do not have the power to do.

What you're talking of sounds more like a dictatorship. If our government makes a law we don't like, then theoretically at least, we can put in a new government that would undo said law(s). But while businesses don't have the power to throw you in jail, they can definitely hurt you in other ways. For example, lets say a big power company is really polluting the air quality or a company is dumping waste into water ways. Without regulation, who's to stop them?

Now, government does have its legitimate functions, which it must perform, but we must think twice and three times about just handing the government more power, because it's more dangerous than businesses.

In your opinion. But I disagree. I can elect a new government. I can't just build a new business if one is doing something I don't like.

Agreed.

See, liberals and conservatives can agree on some things!

In our present system of government, that's true, except for the special interests. Which are fueled in a significant part by the government regulating their sector of the market. This brings their lobbyists to the table when drafting the regulation, and thus we have unfair regulations which protect them from competition (such as buy health insurance or pay a fine).

Well, that's a whole other topic of discussion. In this case its not regulations as a whole, but certain regulations (or lack of regulations) that businesses want. Goes back to them having making money as their number one priority; not necessarily putting out the best product or putting the public's interest 1st.

I personally would like to see publicly funded campaigns. Get the special interests (corporations, unions, etc) out of it and have a level playing field. Each candidate gets X amount to spend, no more.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

There is no "Heil" to it.... just "Thank You"
Capitalism is what built the United States and made us The Greatest Nation on the planet. It covers all forms from the little mom and pop shops all the way up to the (so-called) evil rich guys. Rand Paul stands for American Liberty. This covers all Americans at all pay levels.... and yes... even the evil rich guys....lol

ROFL.

Yeah, you go right on ahead and believe that...for just as long as the food and toilet paper hold out.

Me, I don't believe the rich have my best interests at heart. I don't trust them any further than I could throw Bill Gates' mansion. Capitalism is designed to benefit the rich and stick it to people like me.

So, as soon as the sun goes down on this so-called civilization, I'll be waiting with a pig-sticker to get mine.

 

[Sketcher]

And the counter argument would be that in complete unfettered capitalism, a few monopolies could easily emerge. They'd be so big that they could just buy out their competition, or artificially lower their prices temporarily to the point where a newer company can't compete and goes bankrupt. Now, if you had several companies all of equal footing, then yeah, unfettered capitalism might work. But that's a big might. Once you get to the point where a monopoly or only a couple of companies emerge in an industry, then capitalism fails because the big companies are too powerful.

It could happen, but again, we haven't seen truly unfettered capitalism in practice. We haven't had the free trade combined with a lack of regulation. In both those ways, government helps corporate monopolies to come about in the first place.

What you're talking of sounds more like a dictatorship. If our government makes a law we don't like, then theoretically at least, we can put in a new government that would undo said law(s). But while businesses don't have the power to throw you in jail, they can definitely hurt you in other ways. For example, lets say a big power company is really polluting the air quality or a company is dumping waste into water ways. Without regulation, who's to stop them?

It is the government's job to regulate that and protect the property rights of those who would be victimized by the pollution. BP's spill, for example, has infringed on the property rights of millions, destroying the value of their homes and fishing boats. Many, many people are out of work because of what happened, and we don't even know the long-term health implications for people who live down there when it's all said and done.

But all that said, the state can do the exact same thing with a state-owned industry. What happened in the Soviet Union, Chernobyl aside, is nothing less than horrible from an environmental standpoint. And the people who lived there didn't have a government to run to because the government was doing it!

In your opinion. But I disagree. I can elect a new government. I can't just build a new business if one is doing something I don't like.

How many people does it take to elect a new government? Hundreds, thousands, millions, depending on whether it's a small town, a city, a district, a state, or a nation. How many people does it take to build a successful business? Fewer people than that. A lot fewer people than that.

Well, that's a whole other topic of discussion. In this case its not regulations as a whole, but certain regulations (or lack of regulations) that businesses want. Goes back to them having making money as their number one priority; not necessarily putting out the best product or putting the public's interest 1st.

Well, in the case of the spill, it's certain regulations plus lobbying, and botched federal inspections, but if the government had a strictly lassiez-faire attitude, we wouldn't have any of that.

I personally would like to see publicly funded campaigns. Get the special interests (corporations, unions, etc) out of it and have a level playing field. Each candidate gets X amount to spend, no more.

Sounds good to me. Under such conditions, Obama wouldn't have been elected.

 

[Kroger99]

ROFL.

Yeah, you go right on ahead and believe that...for just as long as the food and toilet paper hold out.

Me, I don't believe the rich have my best interests at heart. I don't trust them any further than I could throw Bill Gates' mansion. Capitalism is designed to benefit the rich and stick it to people like me.

So, as soon as the sun goes down on this so-called civilization, I'll be waiting with a pig-sticker to get mine.

Your first mistake is the fact that you are even worried about the rich. Your second mistake is thinking that the rich owes you anything. The rich don't want to stick it to anyone. The rich could care less about you just like you could care less about the rich. You might try getting rich yourself like they did and realize what it is all about. With capitalism, that is posible.

 

[Ringo84]

"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Paul said

Why? BP caused this mess, and they should be held responsible for it.

It's not "anti-business" to hold a business accountable for their mistakes.
Ringo

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Your first mistake is the fact that you are even worried about the rich. Your second mistake is thinking that the rich owes you anything. The rich don't want to stick it to anyone. The rich could care less about you just like you could care less about the rich. You might try getting rich yourself like they did and realize what it is all about. With capitalism, that is posible.

Yeah...and so is winning the lottery. So is the prime minister of Israel giving the leader of Hamas a big sloppy kiss. It's probabilities, not possibilities, that I go by. And the odds of me ever getting rich under this system? Not worth considering.

 

[DaisyDay]

[/size]Why? BP caused this mess, and they should be held responsible for it.

It's not "anti-business" to hold a business accountable for their mistakes.
Ringo

But, but, but Obama is doing it - therefore it's horrible, despicable.

 

[Kroger99]

Yeah...and so is winning the lottery. So is the prime minister of Israel giving the leader of Hamas a big sloppy kiss. It's probabilities, not possibilities, that I go by. And the odds of me ever getting rich under this system? Not worth considering.

Your probably right... at least with that outlook.