(February 24, 2011 at 2:01 am)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: Are you denying that companies and businesses are just as inefficent, corrupt, and irresponsible?
Please. As if the profit motive made companies better and more altruistic and responsible...
Business spending is far more efficient than government spending, not as efficient as personal spending.
Corrupt businesses (save for those involved in the fraud of price fixing, something that is still illegal) can only really effect the public if they have an opportunity to gain unfair advantage through back door deals and favourable legislation - most of the corruption in business is isolated to the scope of the company, it is ultimately the share holders that suffer from business corruption, they are the ones who's resources are being stolen, very unlike the massive scope available to a corrupt government that can quite seriously effect everything.
As far as responsibility is concerned I must ask, regarding what?
I don't care about business being altruistic, it's not their responsibility, they exist to make profit. Altruism should be in the domain of the individual as much as is possible, we shouldn't expect corporations to fork out money and when they do we should praise them for it, reward them by giving them our business, if we can make these actions something that will assist in their public image and customer base it will give more businesses incentive to do the same.
In New Zealand right now there is a round table of the 30 biggest corporate bodies providing altruistic services to the people in Christchurch such as free phonecalls, food, shelter, manufactured goods, rental cars, properties etc. To say that the big corporates don't have the potential for altruism is plain wrong.
Your drawing all of this back to corporate interests is a red hearing, what is more important is personal spending, giving people their taxes back so they can buy their own health, home, contents insurance, letting people build homes without the red tape forcing the prices up, letting people come to their own decisions about the risks they want to take and making them ultimately responsible for their decisions.
DOA Wrote:So it's fine when some rich blowhole blows millions on the maintainance, purchase, and storage of a corperate (not personal) machine that's utterly unnecessary other than getting past airport security but when the government blows a relatively similar investment - such as that line of military jets that was also brought to light as being a waste of funds - the government is inefficient and people and businesses are the ones who spend money appropriately?
There is a BIG difference between someone being exuberant with their own money that was earned legitimately and government taking that money on penalty of imprisonment only to squander a good portion of it, if they take money from someone who has obtained it through force, fraud or coercion then FINE I'm more than happy to see it taken from them, but just because someone earns a ton of money through a business that sells goods and services at a great quantity or at a great margin does not mean they should be stolen from by the state. It's even worse when government are talking 25% (through income and sales tax) of the money available to those who aren't wealthy and funnelling it through their wasteful system. Make the first $50,000 tax free, that way no broke people will have to pay any taxes, they'll have their own money to spend their own way, personal spending is FAR more efficient, they'll get far better value for money.
People are not obligated to help others, we may judge their character based on such things, but it would still be wrong to steal from a wealthy person to give to others, especially when his only "crime" is being a successful entrepreneur - Call them selfish or a money hoarder if you like, that's not a crime, it just makes them a selfish and a bit of an ass. Does someone being selfish give me an ethical imperative to take from them? Is it ethical to steal from someone just because they're an ass? Fuck no.
Quote:... and I wonder how many pockets were greased by lobbists for those companies in order to enact those laws so allow the US citizens to foot the bill if their housing scheme failed...
Um... That's part of the fucking problem, if the government doesn't have that power then you CAN'T buy off politicians to get them to create taxpayer supported market conditions in favour of corporate interests. This is an argument for LESS government, not more...
Quote:The government bailed them out (hindsight nonwithstanding) because jobs were at stake during a recession in which job losses were mounting - just as with the auto industry and I'm not just talking about the CEOs, but rather everyone else involved in those major banks that could have lost their jobs if they went bankrupt.
The banks that should have failed are now richer than before, it clearly didn't work.
Yeah more jobs would have been lost short to mid term, but there would also be a more balanced economy right now, instead it's even more twisted as a result of the bailouts and job losses being a slight number less than otherwise will not make a better long term picture - Governments think in terms of election cycles, there is no doubt that the stimulus and bailouts had a short term impact but they are going to make things worse long term, for starters the teaser interest rates on the new set of loans are going to expire soon, the government debt will start climbing faster and faster than before - Countries will have to cut more services, jobs, raise taxes, print money and lower the value of savings etc to a GREATER extent if they had let the economy rebalance the first time, If Bush had let the NASDAQ and DotCom bubble burst the first time there would have been no housing bubble and the outlook right now would be FAR better - What does Obama do? The same damn thing that bush did to cause the housing bubble, only 4 fold MORE spending - Shit is going to hit the fan in a few years, wait and see.
Quote:You're damn right he is, so what makes you think that the customer and worker protections brought about by the government's hand in the economy makes us worse off to help protect us from the more malicious folks like him whose goals of power and money over human health, life, and dignity allow him to become the criminal that he is?
*Sigh*
1. Criminals don't give a shit about regulations so it doesn't matter how many you put in place, people like Bernie are going to try and rip people off all the same. Government regulations or the lack there of are COMPLETELY irrelevant in that case.
2. Giving government the power to regulate is the same thing that creates the opportunity for businesses to influence politicians and get favourable conditions. A business with a tilted playing field can do far more damage than a business in a free market.
Quote:What makes you think that the balance of power in a society is better served when a purely capitalist society is just as bad as its opposite?
Just as bad? Bullshit. Capitalism is how the USA became the most powerful nation in the world while retaining all of the liberties it was founded upon. It was only with the increased interference that both the liberties and the prosperity has dissipated.
Quote:You're in a daydream if you think people become more efficient and produce higher quality products if their job is in the private sector over the public sector.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME????
Firstly, Name me ONE state manufacturer that, tax funding included, creates better and cheaper products than a corporate rival. Doesn't mean shit if Pr (private) Sells product x for $3.99 and Pu (public) sells product x for $3.50 when Pu has also received tax funding greater than the difference - It's like saying Public General Practitioners are cheaper by 20% even when you take into account the fact that half of their costs are subsidised - All you do is make it untenable for people to use a private GPs because the government is already taking their wages to subsidies Pu GPs and the money being used by the government suffers the typical 20-30% waste.
Secondly, If you actually believe that public jobs are better why aren't you a full blown communist?
.
