Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 63
Thanks Tree83Thanks

Thread: The perceived superiority of the private sector...

  1. #41
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    29,811
    Thanks
    23572

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by fenrir View Post
    That would be hundreds of boardrooms and thousands of company heads compared to "one" central planning committee. BTW, there is little to no "democratic" input into the U.S. government these days. It doesn't really "serve" the masses anymore and hasn't since FDR, at least according to some of the good folks over there at that right wing organization, Harvard.

    Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy
    Isn't that a danger inherent in a republic?

  2. #42
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    29,811
    Thanks
    23572

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    The goal of big government is to control all, and never answer for it, as they make themselves immune from the laws which they impose on others.
    Depends on the government.
    Thanks from Panzareta

  3. #43
    Veteran Member Panzareta's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29,800
    Thanks
    17769

    From
    On a happy trail
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Depends on the government.
    That poster seems to have grown up in a dictatorship.
    Thanks from labrea and Ęthelfrith

  4. #44
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    29,811
    Thanks
    23572

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Panzareta View Post
    That poster seems to have grown up in a dictatorship.
    Or maybe he grew up in a free country but was raised by libertarians who told him it was a dictatorship.
    Thanks from Ęthelfrith and Panzareta

  5. #45
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,750
    Thanks
    2570

    The free market is an obsolete concept. It doesn't exist. Competition should be encouraged, monopolies and cartels busted up as often as needed. It seems a fair rule of thumb to me that no institution should become so large and powerful and interconnected that its failure would threaten the nation's economy. We are surrounded by corporations not only that big, but so big that if they screw up, they threaten the world economy.

    It just shouldn't be tolerated. Ever. Not only is it bad for competition, the middle class, and the overall health of a republic, it's intolerable to just sit and live with a threat like that. JP Morgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs...they can literally tell the government what they're going to do, or else. You don't cede sovereignty like that!! I can't even believe that's not immediately obvious and offensive to anyone who sees it. Truly baffling.

    Left vs right, the real answer is that you use the left to maximize the benefits of the right, of course. Competition is awesome as long as it's legit, fair, honest. Where you draw the line in a particular circumstance I would say would move and shift depending on the lay of the land. If something stays state controlled for a long time it's liable to grow fat, and maybe should be analyzed for possible privatization. An industry that has been unregulated for too long will grow corrupt in its own right, and maybe should be taken in hand, to some degree. Back and forth. Manage the situation.

    Fundamentalism is the bane of good problem solving.
    Thanks from Ęthelfrith, Panzareta and StanStill

  6. #46
    Junior Member Claudius the God's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,881
    Thanks
    1158

    From
    California
    One of the things that creates market imbalances is that pure capitalism is a race to gain a monopoly position. Without the government intruding, a capitalist economy will result in monopoly power in each sector. We are seeing it today in many sectors that once had many dueling competitors without any of them having more than a 40 or 50% market share. We allow this to happen to reward shareholders which is nothing but a sales pitch to reward officers of the companies, board members and the few who hold all the stock. Even within the mutual fund industry, the fund managers and their associates make most of the money. When we let companies like Pepsi buy every food company in site, we lose competition. cisco is almost a monopoly within the USA for routers even though Juniper is hanging in there. Apple is fast becoming a monopoly for phones, google for search engines, Amazon for shopping, EBAY for auctions, the list goes on and on and on. While our traditional sense of a monopoly is one company owning a market, the reality is that once a company gets over 50 or 60% of the market, they are the monopoly within that market insofar as limiting competition. As this plays out, millions of jobs are destroyed, each time a merger or acquisition is approved, one company loses half the workforce almost immediately, soon after, another 25% leave and then finally the ones left endure usually with less pay and more workload.

  7. #47
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,750
    Thanks
    2570

    I remember reading about pharma mergers that led to 300,000 lost jobs, literally half of the workforce getting dumped within a couple years of each merger. They were always sold as these wonderful synergistic things that would carry us all to nirvana, but in the end the mergers meant one company paid off the ownership of another to acquire its drugs, and pretty much fired everybody. And so one less company will exist to pursue its own strategy, which might have led to different approaches, different ideas. Just employing different people might have meant research that uncovered something new. And the competition between those two companies is ended permanently.

    This rush to monopoly will happen on its own, but it's actually worse than that, because as the monopolies and cartels rise, their economic power distorts politics in their favor like a black hole.
    Thanks from labrea

  8. #48
    Anarquistador StanStill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    9,207
    Thanks
    9110

    From
    Home
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    The goal of big government is to control all, and never answer for it, as they make themselves immune from the laws which they impose on others.
    Sounds like a good description of modern capitalism and a good argument for workplace democracy.
    Thanks from Ęthelfrith

  9. #49
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1457

    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    Sounds like a good description of modern capitalism and a good argument for workplace democracy.
    Good point. Always found Austrian economics a weird one, given its focus on the wonders of avoiding coercion. Worker ownership is needed for that! The higher productivity levels gained could be classed a celebration of libertarianism!

  10. #50
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,750
    Thanks
    2570

    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    Good point. Always found Austrian economics a weird one, given its focus on the wonders of avoiding coercion. Worker ownership is needed for that! The higher productivity levels gained could be classed a celebration of libertarianism!
    At some point, though, coercion becomes one of those blurry, fuzzy, meaningless philosophical concepts. Because ultimately people have to do things they do not want to do in order to pitch in for the common good, and if the system is built right we all get a hell of a lot more out of it than we put in. But only if we all do the stuff that is not directly for our own benefit. We all have to do something that does not directly benefit ourselves... this is basically what the free market fundies call "coercion".

    It's meaningless. Unless they actually want to live off the grid, out in the woods, with no assistance of any kind from anyone that they do not directly pay for, coercion is such a broad concept that it's impossible to even imagine any sort of society without it. And the meaninglessness of their effort to avoid coercion is most easily revealed in the hypocrisy of their day-to-day politics: coercion is evil, but of course we have to have taxes for a fire department. Coercion is evil but of course we have to have taxes to pay for our military. Coercion is evil but of course we have to have taxes...

    Coercion is obviously evil... except when they think it is not, which obliterates the fundamental premise of their ideology.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Public sector versus private sector unions
    By Amelia in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 10th March 2015, 07:48 PM
  2. The Private Sector Always Gets It Right.
    By HenryPorter in forum Current Events
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 27th December 2013, 01:55 PM
  3. Harry Reid has NEVER had a private sector job.
    By mrfurleylives in forum Current Events
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 7th August 2012, 05:32 PM
  4. A question of private sector ethics
    By Cicero in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 4th November 2011, 02:04 AM
  5. Private Sector Jobs Grew By Only 38,000 in May
    By Six in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2nd June 2011, 02:27 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed