New World Order
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
I really dont see how that is true. If you study these topics there is often so much evidence it is overwhelming. This orgy of evidence also works to confuse and compartmentalize people. There have been decades of great work by people like Myron Fagan and people like Orwell and Hucksley have later said books of theirs were true. These are things in the 50s and 60s.
People read history and they cant change that. Pyschologists study people they cant really fix. People can really study anything they want.
Again back to the first part. These things can be understood. Politicians lie. Most wars are started with lies. These arent hard to research and study. If people really believed that in America it would be really hard to get a decent size Army and invade countries. Blair and Bush lied like mad to get this war started. Over 5000 dead soldiers, several thousand mercs, another million dead Iraqis. All empowered by lies that are now understood.
Please explain how. Are you sure you are really them or feel comfortable with what they have told you? The Italians and Japanese felt part of the big Nazi WWII plan, but do you actually think they would later be considered the Master Race? The Nazis would have disposed or imprisoned them once able to. Is being part of them like voting for a politically party you expect to win?
Humanity is not a singular thing. If it does come about most that dont accept it will be killed or imprisoned. Some will persist like Proles in 1984. The rest will be so fucked up they will enjoy the misery. And I really doubt "Thrive" is a plan. Its not a solid platform. It is lies and delusion by control freaks.
Well above you said we should not worry about it and try to understand it. So how will this unrest go away? They cant disclose it fully as it is so messed up and they are such flawed individuals that most of humanity would kill them if they understood what they really are.
Umm no it doesnt. It is opposed to most systems of society, most economic systems, most religions, and most of the people all societies consider heroes. And lots of heroes have a very limited amount of information of what they are really for, and their support of NWO was hidden like Roosevelt. Most democrats consider him a god. And if humans are flawed a few should not be controlling all of society. Decentralization is a key to fighting corruption. People should govern themselves as closely as possible to the governed. The EU is barely working. Think that would work on a large scale for the World? "Adapting to change so it fits our way of life" makes no sense. Do you think the Rockefellers and Rothschilds give a shit about how you fit in the NWO? If the NWO ever comes and you are a pain they will kill you and allow a better slave to take your place on the Insanity Inbred Ark.
Yep but it aint my idea. Its the people you claim to be a part of.
Who said their post would allow one to understand all of it? These people are good liars and charismatic, of course listening to them might make you believe them. The ones that were brought up in that but are not charismatic are not given a lead role. They are trained, tested, and watched. They start to unravel or get a conscious they don't keep progressing. Lots of pretty questionable people have been in programs like Rhodes Scholars. Research Rhodes and then start researching some of the people that have been Rhodes Scholars.
Interesting. I thought it was forum bait from the start but couldn't resist. I dont mind sharing and giving some ideas. I don't spend tons of time on this stuff. For some people it might be overwhelming and waste of time. But if you are thinking of enlisting to kill them damn al quedas or know someone who is, it is a good idea to be informed. Or at the very least ask some Vietnam Vets if they would do it again.
At the end of the day we are all human, and if an alien life form came to our planet whether hostile in nature or not, we would have to unite into some type of "new world order" to sustain our species.
The fact that we are still at war with ourselves is primitive in nature but shows that as a species we still have a long way to go.
The fact that we are still at war with ourselves is primitive in nature but shows that as a species we still have a long way to go.
You've completely contradicted yourself. Capitalism, the one that lots of us here believe in, almost does not require government. It doesn't include government it lets everything work without government and regulation.
You are pointing out how wal-mart manipulates the government, which is not capitalism.
You should really listen a bit and realise that what we are talking about is not the system that you hate, but a completely different system.
How you can assume that someone like guerilla is FOR wal-mart lobbying government shows some serious lack of reading and listening to what he says.
The bigger issue I would raise about Walmart has nothing to do with unions (which I detest having worked in management in the auto industry for years dealing with the UAW's bullshit), nor does it have to do with their ability to lobby Washington since I would expect any business to seek competitive advantage.
My argument against Walmart (and others using the same business model) would have more to do with their role in lowering the standard of living in the neighborhoods they enter. They are able to do what they do because of the economies of scale that only they are able to create due to their vast resources. They got in that position by running an awesome company with a great business model, but they maintain it now simply because nobody can compete with them on price due to their enormous size and purchasing power. Their business model creates a vicious cycle in which they move in with lower prices and more choices (ie convenience) which naturally appeals to consumers. However, there is a price to pay for that which most consumers are unaware of. Very few of the products they sell are produced in the US, so not only are the products people buy at Walmart generally lower quality (resulting in an unseen replacement cost) but the macro effect on the economy is negative because the businesses that can't compete go under resulting in a loss of middle class jobs here, which are replaced with far fewer jobs and a lower pay/benefits package.
Most employees of Walmart are not self-sufficient thus causing an additional drain on the government (they have no health care and make no money) and they sure as hell won't be investing their money (cause they don't have any) or starting additional businesses like the displaced business owners probably would have. Guerilla, you call these poor businessmen that are unable to compete but it is impossible to compete on price with Walmart because a small business owner is not ordering by the trainload. Now, this may create stock value for Walmart, but again - if you're lowering the standard of living in a country there are fewer people able to invest.
In the perfect world that you describe, consumers would consider these hidden costs before shopping at Walmart but that assumes consumers are informed, and I don't think anybody on Wickedfire of all places would argue that consumers are well informed about their purchasing decisions. Walmart's business model is the ultimate rebill with hidden terms that people either don't bother to know or don't want to because as usual they want something for nothing.
We are seeing the accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands - that is indisputable. When you factor in student loans, car loans, mortgages etc, most working people actually have a negative net worth. Between 1981 and 2007, the share of income reported by the top 1% of earners increased from 8.3% to 22.83%. (See Table 5): The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data . Meanwhile, median household income, adjusted for inflation, has decreased from its $52,587 in 1999 to $50,303 in 2008. (See Table A-1, p. 29 here): http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf . The overall standard of living in this country is declining and we are already seeing the negative effects of that in our overall economy. I'm not speaking about the housing bubble which was a creation of government regulation (which is normally a bad thing), but where the fuck are all the jobs? Why do most families have to have 2 working parents now just to pay their bills (leaving children with less supervision and parenting and resulting in a generation of tards), when 30 years ago most homes only needed one parent to work?
This not an argument against capitalism, but just shows what happens when you allow greed to be the only controller of markets. A business has no responsibility to raise the standard of living in a neighborhood, or provide jobs locally or anything else that most people would agree are positives - they only have a responsibility to make money wherever, however and whenever possible. Without any controls on raw capitalism, scary shit can happen for the masses. Some would say "Oh well, fuck 'em. If I can do it, so can they". Agreed - but they can't or won't and in order for any system or market to survive it needs the consent of the masses. If the masses perceive the system to be broken because they aren't seeing a benefit, then they eventually you'll see revolutions (probably not in the classic sense, but more likely in the refusal to play the game sense like with all of the mortgage defaults) and the system will be undone. You can never lose sight of the fact that ultimately you need the consent of the masses or there is no system to take advantage of.
My argument against Walmart (and others using the same business model) would have more to do with their role in lowering the standard of living in the neighborhoods they enter. They are able to do what they do because of the economies of scale that only they are able to create due to their vast resources. They got in that position by running an awesome company with a great business model, but they maintain it now simply because nobody can compete with them on price due to their enormous size and purchasing power. Their business model creates a vicious cycle in which they move in with lower prices and more choices (ie convenience) which naturally appeals to consumers. However, there is a price to pay for that which most consumers are unaware of. Very few of the products they sell are produced in the US, so not only are the products people buy at Walmart generally lower quality (resulting in an unseen replacement cost) but the macro effect on the economy is negative because the businesses that can't compete go under resulting in a loss of middle class jobs here, which are replaced with far fewer jobs and a lower pay/benefits package.
Most employees of Walmart are not self-sufficient thus causing an additional drain on the government (they have no health care and make no money) and they sure as hell won't be investing their money (cause they don't have any) or starting additional businesses like the displaced business owners probably would have. Guerilla, you call these poor businessmen that are unable to compete but it is impossible to compete on price with Walmart because a small business owner is not ordering by the trainload. Now, this may create stock value for Walmart, but again - if you're lowering the standard of living in a country there are fewer people able to invest.
In the perfect world that you describe, consumers would consider these hidden costs before shopping at Walmart but that assumes consumers are informed, and I don't think anybody on Wickedfire of all places would argue that consumers are well informed about their purchasing decisions. Walmart's business model is the ultimate rebill with hidden terms that people either don't bother to know or don't want to because as usual they want something for nothing.
We are seeing the accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands - that is indisputable. When you factor in student loans, car loans, mortgages etc, most working people actually have a negative net worth. Between 1981 and 2007, the share of income reported by the top 1% of earners increased from 8.3% to 22.83%. (See Table 5): The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data . Meanwhile, median household income, adjusted for inflation, has decreased from its $52,587 in 1999 to $50,303 in 2008. (See Table A-1, p. 29 here): http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf . The overall standard of living in this country is declining and we are already seeing the negative effects of that in our overall economy. I'm not speaking about the housing bubble which was a creation of government regulation (which is normally a bad thing), but where the fuck are all the jobs? Why do most families have to have 2 working parents now just to pay their bills (leaving children with less supervision and parenting and resulting in a generation of tards), when 30 years ago most homes only needed one parent to work?
This not an argument against capitalism, but just shows what happens when you allow greed to be the only controller of markets. A business has no responsibility to raise the standard of living in a neighborhood, or provide jobs locally or anything else that most people would agree are positives - they only have a responsibility to make money wherever, however and whenever possible. Without any controls on raw capitalism, scary shit can happen for the masses. Some would say "Oh well, fuck 'em. If I can do it, so can they". Agreed - but they can't or won't and in order for any system or market to survive it needs the consent of the masses. If the masses perceive the system to be broken because they aren't seeing a benefit, then they eventually you'll see revolutions (probably not in the classic sense, but more likely in the refusal to play the game sense like with all of the mortgage defaults) and the system will be undone. You can never lose sight of the fact that ultimately you need the consent of the masses or there is no system to take advantage of.
^I'm not sure what you're suggesting should be done... some sort of regulation? That doesn't solve greed.. it seems to actually enforce it more often then not.
Broke this up into two posts.
UG, we disagree on ideas when it comes to getting to a goal, but we are on the same side with regard to what the goals are. Peace, prosperity and progress. I hope none of this comes off as insulting or condescending. I'm having this conversation (when I should be working) because I think you are a valuable person to communicate my perspective to.
It is very frustrating in discourse, because people are working from what they have been taught, the issue is that what they have been taught is incorrect.
Trade is a positive sum game (this is going back to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in the 18th century). Every trade makes both parties better off or they would not do it. There may be replacement costs for inferior goods, but that is up to the consumer to decide at the time of purchase. If they are unaware of it, there is an opportunity (particularly on the net) for people to inform others of such important consumer information and profit from it (build lists etc). I really think this is a relatively untapped market.
Every dollar paid for foreign goods is redeemable in the US. If a US dollar buys something in China, it can be exchanged with the government for Renminbi, and the government will sit on it (which helps lower inflation in the US by removing it from circulation), the government or individual can spend it on US dollar denominated goods like oil (thereby passing the choice on to the next non-US party) or the money can come back to the US to purchase goods, services and make investments. When something is bought from another region, there is no loss of wealth. There is an aggregate increase in wealth because both parties have something they desire more;
One, the person who bought the good presumably got an item for a better price, or a unique item not available domestically etc. So they are better off (or they wouldn't have bought it).
Two, the person who sold the good now has foreign currency, which he can only dispose of in foreign markets, so now they have to come back to the US (eventually) to redeem that currency in some real purchase. This creates an export transaction.
What causes an imbalance is that the FED increases the money supply of one nation, a chunk of which goes overseas and becomes foreign reserves. While that helps prevent inflation from all the money the FED creates, it also creates a one way trade flow. Excess dollars that never come back to buy things in the US. If they did, there would be hyperinflation.
So the individual buying Made in China over Made in the USA goods is not the culprit (nor if the party selling those goods). He's actually helping prevent hyperinflation cause being initiated by the government.
It all starts at the top, with the money shenanigans.
People buy the cheapest good. They should buy the cheapest good, it is a rational decision to do so. It extends their purchasing power. The reason why American goods are not as cheap as Asian goods (forget Walmart, let's talk about furniture, TVs, stereos, computers, cell phones, appliances) is because there are lower wages and (most importantly) less capital controls, lower taxes and less regulation. Those key factors make it much more profitable to make goods in other markets, and then offer those goods at lower prices because the margins are so flexible.
All of that "regulation" that is supposed to protect consumers, protects big firms, and makes all the start ups (the low price, dynamic firms) move to other markets. It diminished the local competition that would keep those particular jobs in that domestic market. Eventually, the big firms have to follow and then they practice the art of using their domestic monopoly to sell goods made overseas in their foreign divisions.
That bumper sticker, "Out of a job yet? Keep buying foreign" is strictly union propaganda. The Big 3 for example moved their plants to the south and Mexico. Plants in Alabama and Tennessee have lower wages because there are no unions. The Big 3 have developed parts of Mexico, because again, there is no union, and with international quality standards like ISO9000 they can make the case that a good made by Mexicans conforms to the same standards of quality as a good made by Americans. They could have put that money into Michigan. It was unprofitable for them to continue to do so (as they had done in the past).
Economies of scale are why we have families with two cars. Why we went from some people having a cell phone, to every member of the family having a cell phone. It is why most middle class homes now have several laptops, when only 10 years ago, many homes did not even have one desktop.
Are we going to argue that Dell and Whirlpool are also making people worse off? Because they do the same thing.
Here is how the division of labor works (free market order). If someone has a dominant position, and serves the consumer best (low prices, good service) such that there is not an arbitrage opportunity for a competitor to enter the market, then instead of competing where there is no room for competition, that businessman should go into producing an industry where there is still room for competition. That's how resources like capital and labor get dynamically allocated in a free market (without bureaucrat overseers directing the economy). Money chases profit opportunities. If there are no opportunities where Walmart is, then for the time being at least, the capital would be best used elsewhere in the economy.
Nothing is static. Walmart grew to its size. It is not inconceivable that Walmart could be gone in 10 years. Things change. Big firms get so large, that they have agent-principal problems, that is the ends of the principals (investors) are different from the agents (employees) and the firm begins to act in line with the employees interests and less in line with the principals as the firm expands. This is what happened to the Big 3. It is why they have fallen behind. Now they have to cannibalize their operations and fight for a shrinking share of a shrinking market. The same thing could happen to Walmart. I wouldn't put my money on them being the dominant retail business for the next 50 years. I wouldn't even put my money on Google being the dominant search engine in 10 years.
As soon as a firm doesn't serve its customers as well as possible, someone will come in and perform arbitrage. That is the history of markets to the beginning of time.
UG, we disagree on ideas when it comes to getting to a goal, but we are on the same side with regard to what the goals are. Peace, prosperity and progress. I hope none of this comes off as insulting or condescending. I'm having this conversation (when I should be working) because I think you are a valuable person to communicate my perspective to.
This latter point is not correct. It is based on a zero sum understanding of trade. That's what I was talking about with the labor theory and subjective theory (marginal revolution). People are still taught the labor theory, and see economics as a zero sum game, even though that theory false. Government practices Keynesian economics, follows the labor theory of value, and implements mercantilist economic policies. All of which are the antithesis of capitalism. Then people say, "Capitalism failed!"
It is very frustrating in discourse, because people are working from what they have been taught, the issue is that what they have been taught is incorrect.
Trade is a positive sum game (this is going back to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in the 18th century). Every trade makes both parties better off or they would not do it. There may be replacement costs for inferior goods, but that is up to the consumer to decide at the time of purchase. If they are unaware of it, there is an opportunity (particularly on the net) for people to inform others of such important consumer information and profit from it (build lists etc). I really think this is a relatively untapped market.
Every dollar paid for foreign goods is redeemable in the US. If a US dollar buys something in China, it can be exchanged with the government for Renminbi, and the government will sit on it (which helps lower inflation in the US by removing it from circulation), the government or individual can spend it on US dollar denominated goods like oil (thereby passing the choice on to the next non-US party) or the money can come back to the US to purchase goods, services and make investments. When something is bought from another region, there is no loss of wealth. There is an aggregate increase in wealth because both parties have something they desire more;
One, the person who bought the good presumably got an item for a better price, or a unique item not available domestically etc. So they are better off (or they wouldn't have bought it).
Two, the person who sold the good now has foreign currency, which he can only dispose of in foreign markets, so now they have to come back to the US (eventually) to redeem that currency in some real purchase. This creates an export transaction.
What causes an imbalance is that the FED increases the money supply of one nation, a chunk of which goes overseas and becomes foreign reserves. While that helps prevent inflation from all the money the FED creates, it also creates a one way trade flow. Excess dollars that never come back to buy things in the US. If they did, there would be hyperinflation.
So the individual buying Made in China over Made in the USA goods is not the culprit (nor if the party selling those goods). He's actually helping prevent hyperinflation cause being initiated by the government.
It all starts at the top, with the money shenanigans.
People buy the cheapest good. They should buy the cheapest good, it is a rational decision to do so. It extends their purchasing power. The reason why American goods are not as cheap as Asian goods (forget Walmart, let's talk about furniture, TVs, stereos, computers, cell phones, appliances) is because there are lower wages and (most importantly) less capital controls, lower taxes and less regulation. Those key factors make it much more profitable to make goods in other markets, and then offer those goods at lower prices because the margins are so flexible.
All of that "regulation" that is supposed to protect consumers, protects big firms, and makes all the start ups (the low price, dynamic firms) move to other markets. It diminished the local competition that would keep those particular jobs in that domestic market. Eventually, the big firms have to follow and then they practice the art of using their domestic monopoly to sell goods made overseas in their foreign divisions.
That bumper sticker, "Out of a job yet? Keep buying foreign" is strictly union propaganda. The Big 3 for example moved their plants to the south and Mexico. Plants in Alabama and Tennessee have lower wages because there are no unions. The Big 3 have developed parts of Mexico, because again, there is no union, and with international quality standards like ISO9000 they can make the case that a good made by Mexicans conforms to the same standards of quality as a good made by Americans. They could have put that money into Michigan. It was unprofitable for them to continue to do so (as they had done in the past).
Ok, I think I addressed the lowering the standard of living bit above. Lower priced goods benefit consumers. People line up in droves to work at Walmart. Walmart is not using slave labor, or forcing people to work for them at gunpoint. If there were better jobs, people would take them. Any firm coming in, can hire all of Walmart's rejects for a margin under what Walmart pays, and have lower labor costs as well. Or if they want to steal Walmart's best employees, they can come in and pay more for targeted personnel.
Economies of scale are why we have families with two cars. Why we went from some people having a cell phone, to every member of the family having a cell phone. It is why most middle class homes now have several laptops, when only 10 years ago, many homes did not even have one desktop.
Are we going to argue that Dell and Whirlpool are also making people worse off? Because they do the same thing.
Here is how the division of labor works (free market order). If someone has a dominant position, and serves the consumer best (low prices, good service) such that there is not an arbitrage opportunity for a competitor to enter the market, then instead of competing where there is no room for competition, that businessman should go into producing an industry where there is still room for competition. That's how resources like capital and labor get dynamically allocated in a free market (without bureaucrat overseers directing the economy). Money chases profit opportunities. If there are no opportunities where Walmart is, then for the time being at least, the capital would be best used elsewhere in the economy.
Nothing is static. Walmart grew to its size. It is not inconceivable that Walmart could be gone in 10 years. Things change. Big firms get so large, that they have agent-principal problems, that is the ends of the principals (investors) are different from the agents (employees) and the firm begins to act in line with the employees interests and less in line with the principals as the firm expands. This is what happened to the Big 3. It is why they have fallen behind. Now they have to cannibalize their operations and fight for a shrinking share of a shrinking market. The same thing could happen to Walmart. I wouldn't put my money on them being the dominant retail business for the next 50 years. I wouldn't even put my money on Google being the dominant search engine in 10 years.
As soon as a firm doesn't serve its customers as well as possible, someone will come in and perform arbitrage. That is the history of markets to the beginning of time.
That is a consequence of inflation. It destroys the "middle class". Capitalism only works if you can own the fruits of your labor, and accumulate savings for investment, which can lift you up from your current economic position. Inflation is a tax on savings, it erodes deferred purchasing power, and low interest rates encourage people to speculate and borrow.
Consider the interest rate is the price of borrowing money. It reflects not just a risk premium that the money will be paid back, but the relative abundance or scarcity of savings to borrow. If people want to borrow $1000 and there is only $100 in savings available, the price will go up. Basic supply and demand.
Interest rates also reflect a premium on time. Time is the missing element in most economic schools of thought, but primary to the Austrian school (Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers). Interest is the rate paid on money set aside for future consumption, versus the obvious benefit of consuming now. If you saved money and bought yourself a computer which makes you more productive, what is the ROI? So if you loan it out, you want to make sure that you are getting a better return on investment, than if you used it to invest yourself (possibly in yourself). Again, this is the price system, directing capital to where it will fetch the highest price (greed), making sure it is allocated to the areas where there is the most potential for benefit. Prices are an important piece of information, and by any Central Bank arbitrarily setting interest rates to intervene in the economy, they disrupt and undermine natural capital flows.
It seems to me that 90% of your issues with the economy are based around the FED and poor monetary policy. Since you already don't trust the FED, please pick up Tom Woods' Meltdown [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879"]Amazon.com: Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse (9781596985872): Thomas E. Woods Jr., Ron Paul: Books[/ame] , you will really get a lot out of it.
In a market, greed can only be satisfied by making your fellow man better off. So it is only possible to generate a positive return by doing those noble things you outlined above.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCPDQsEC0fI"]YouTube - Walter E Williams - The Function of Profits[/ame]
You are correct that a business has no responsibility. Neither do you. But they do it because it is in their best interest, and you do it because it is in your best interest. Society is not filled with people who rape their mothers and eat their young. Those are the exceptions, not the norms. Ironically, they are the people who usually end up running for political office.
If you don't believe people can act in their best interest (basically all of the arguments I read on this forum about "human nature" from a variety of posters), how can you trust them to elect people to act in their best interest? How can you trust people with the same human nature to do a better job?
You keep asserting this without proving it. I'm not saying that it is wrong (although I believe it is) but that you aren't proving it.
The videos I posted make historical cases for raw capitalism working, and state interference messing it all up to benefit the privileged few.
That is what happens when socialist revolutions happen.
And then people understand the painful lesson that there is no such thing as a free ride because they trade their fundamental liberties to act voluntarily, in return for the security of someone stealing wealth from producers for them. And that security becomes a noose, and the system becomes economically non-viable as we are seeing all over the west today. As government grows, as welfare grows, as debt grows, the system is less productive and more unstable.
The idea that more regulation is needed to go back to a time when there was less regulation (manufacturing, growing "middle class", low debt etc) doesn't seem very logical.
And that is how you have civil fucking discourse. We would be a far better nation if the majority of policy was debated in such a manner.
We agree on most points, but:
No offense, but if you think there are less capital controls and less regulation in foreign markets you are sadly mistaken. The barriers to entry in countries like China are prohibitively high and the bureaucracy is thick so that argument is based on a false assumption.
The most important factor in interest rates is the time value of money. The need for an investor or firm to recoup their investment sooner rather than later affects the interest rates they are able to earn. If a firm is overcapitalized they can afford to leave their money out there longer thereby earning greater interest rates. It's like buying traffic - some guys can't afford to get into media buys because they don't have the initial money to invest and can't leave the money they do have out there too long before realizing a profit. Ryan Eagle can buy traffic spots for June 2013 because he's like Walmart and doesn't need money. Or Jon can just have his buddies at the Federal Reserve print up a special run for him. But you get the point.
No offense, but I think that statement is a little naive. I have satisfied my greed in all kinds of ways that didn't leave my fellow man (or overweight housewife with yellow teeth) better off. I took advantage of them and market inefficiencies to arbitrage my bank account into a better position and there was nothing noble about it. I was able to do that because the government hadn't stepped in to regulate anything and so I (and many others) had free reign to "love" my fellow man. And by "love" I mean they got jailsexed.
Basically, I think a lot of the regulations the government puts in place do more harm than good, but there are times when they have to step in, in the interest of competition.
Look at what Enron was able to do once the regulations in gas markets were lifted in 2000 (the Enron loophole) which exempted from government regulations most OTC energy trades and trading on electronic commodity indices. The thinking was that all commodities could be packaged and sold over online trading forums. Unfettered markets (ie raw capitalism) would then bring down prices for everyone. What resulted though was excessive price volatility, fraud and manipulation. And, they were able to get away with it longer due to a loosening of accounting regulations.
Greed kicked in and made some people a lot of money, but would you argue that the people on the other side of Enron's capitalist ventures benefited as well (California got screwed pretty hard). Anyway, that's just one example of many of where some regulation is needed to make sure certain rules are adhered to, because people have proven that if given the opportunity they will step on their fellow man to make an extra buck. I'm guilty of it to, particularly when there was less regulation in our industry. Now that the government has taken notice I play by a fairer set of rules, and my customers may be less taken advantage of. But it's not because I'm a nice guy, it's because the government makes me play fair.
No offense, but if you think there are less capital controls and less regulation in foreign markets you are sadly mistaken. The barriers to entry in countries like China are prohibitively high and the bureaucracy is thick so that argument is based on a false assumption.
The most important factor in interest rates is the time value of money. The need for an investor or firm to recoup their investment sooner rather than later affects the interest rates they are able to earn. If a firm is overcapitalized they can afford to leave their money out there longer thereby earning greater interest rates. It's like buying traffic - some guys can't afford to get into media buys because they don't have the initial money to invest and can't leave the money they do have out there too long before realizing a profit. Ryan Eagle can buy traffic spots for June 2013 because he's like Walmart and doesn't need money. Or Jon can just have his buddies at the Federal Reserve print up a special run for him. But you get the point.
No offense, but I think that statement is a little naive. I have satisfied my greed in all kinds of ways that didn't leave my fellow man (or overweight housewife with yellow teeth) better off. I took advantage of them and market inefficiencies to arbitrage my bank account into a better position and there was nothing noble about it. I was able to do that because the government hadn't stepped in to regulate anything and so I (and many others) had free reign to "love" my fellow man. And by "love" I mean they got jailsexed.
Basically, I think a lot of the regulations the government puts in place do more harm than good, but there are times when they have to step in, in the interest of competition.
Look at what Enron was able to do once the regulations in gas markets were lifted in 2000 (the Enron loophole) which exempted from government regulations most OTC energy trades and trading on electronic commodity indices. The thinking was that all commodities could be packaged and sold over online trading forums. Unfettered markets (ie raw capitalism) would then bring down prices for everyone. What resulted though was excessive price volatility, fraud and manipulation. And, they were able to get away with it longer due to a loosening of accounting regulations.
Greed kicked in and made some people a lot of money, but would you argue that the people on the other side of Enron's capitalist ventures benefited as well (California got screwed pretty hard). Anyway, that's just one example of many of where some regulation is needed to make sure certain rules are adhered to, because people have proven that if given the opportunity they will step on their fellow man to make an extra buck. I'm guilty of it to, particularly when there was less regulation in our industry. Now that the government has taken notice I play by a fairer set of rules, and my customers may be less taken advantage of. But it's not because I'm a nice guy, it's because the government makes me play fair.
I'm protesting the outcome of unregulated competition.
One of the side-effects of Wamart's "massive inventory and low prices" is aggressive killing-off of mom-and-pop stores and grassroots competition.
This is equivalent to killing off free markets.
This monopoly eventually reaches all the way to the government. In fact, it already has, with marketing lobbyists who influence legislation in order to benefit their businesses.
What's stopping corporations from taking over government? Regulation.
Without regulation, no civil politician would be able to compete with a McDonalds or Google-backed political candidate.
So you want to regulate them to freedom?
If your priority in business is sentimentality then you will probably not like free markets unless people's priorities change heavily soon(if buying local comes into style, Walmart will fade. By the will of the people).
If your priority in business is innovation, cheaper prices, and efficiency then you will like free markets.
Businesses are not rewarded for doing the same old thing.
...yes, which is why you get government the fuck out. You make the businesses compete on even playing field.
This is absolutely ridiculous. "Our government is so in bed with corporations (by choice) that our only hope to stop the corporations is that same corrupt government?"
Beyond that
- Most regulations have nothing to do with restricting lobbying(you seem to have switched topics).
- You can't stop lobbyists with the very people they're paying.
- Regulation is HOW businesses take over. Or do you think the health/auto insurance industries HATE having a product that's mandatory to purchase? Or that Pharmaceutical companies hate having a multi-million(billion?) dollar barrier for entry in legal fees alone? Or that broadcasting companies really loathe having the FCC own the airwaves? In the short term, some of this may hurt. But they're the ones writing the legislation, so they ensure their long-term goals(no new competitors) outweigh the short term loss (a bit of the capital they already have)
I really enjoy that you've managed to take 'regulation' and define it as 'the 2-3 campaign finance reform bills that have been passed in the last century'
If government wasn't interfering in the markets all the time, there'd be no benefit to lobbying.
So the solution is no government right?
Yeah, Somalia is really playing out well.
No government, no laws = law of the jungle prevails.
We need government period. But it needs to be as minimal as possible and only for police, courts i.e. basically the protection of property and rights.
Seriously, this is your example?
A country's who government collapsed because of civil war and remains in chaos because of it??
Government or not, place is fucked up.
It has to be a lot worse than no govt and laws for things to turn to anarchy. Usually has to involve No govt, laws ,morals, hope, income, pride, history of civility and then it turns into a shit storm.
Have you ever gone mountain climbing, camping or hunting out in the middle of nowhere? Its amazingly civil. Even when some people have guns and knives.
Out there, there is no govt (unless someone is a govt employee) and no real law enforcement.
But I agree we need some government but just to mint money, minimal law enforcement and the courts.
Somalia has done far better without a central government than with. However, it is not "anarchy". It is statelessness. True anarchy would be a system of voluntary relations. Like exists between the free countries of Europe (prior to formation of the EU). Somalia is simply between governments of local warlords or UN warlords.
Somali Anarchy Is More Orderly than Somali Government
Stateless in Somalia | Foundation for Economic Education (VIDEO)
Store this one in the "popular myth" file.
Somali Anarchy Is More Orderly than Somali Government
Stateless in Somalia | Foundation for Economic Education (VIDEO)
Store this one in the "popular myth" file.