You know why America is at a tipping point and end of an once free market because of the policies and corruptness of Thedore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, also the youth's beloved Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They are responsible for : Social Security Act, FTC, SEC, 16th amendement, 17th amendment, Prohibition, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, 8 hour work day, Inheritance tax, excessive regulations, money plundering, etc.
So that whole notion of Teddy a-hole Roosevelt being the first to invite a black man to the white house is all garbage. Racism is not a question of disagreement dude; it should be flat out rejected by everyone. Theodore Roosevelt ( 26th US president)=racist, eugenics guy, deceitful president ever. Never forgive a racist. (Look up 1906 Brownsville Incident.) Today's leaders among many (mostly who call themselves clean on race) admire TR and Woodrow Wilson by dismissing their racial views.
"Behind the ostensible government, sits enthroned a government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people"..............."Every immigrant who comes here, shall be required to learn English or leave the country"...............President Theodore Roosevelt 1901- 1909.
Yet, the "modern" progressives have nothing in common with their progressive forebears. Teddy was a "extreme" Christian, and so was the entire Progressive movement. The Social Gospel (Christian) was the main reason why Progressivism was so successful. Roosevelt increased defense spending and built a massive navy. Progressives advocated intervention in WWI and an active "neocon" foreign policy. Furthermore, Progressives started the whole "America is God's messianic nation." Learn some history...
Need a non-revisionist American history lesson in here.
Teddy- racist, eugenics favoring progressive Republican. supported Margaret Sanger, created the wasteful FDA ( railroad subsidies, hostile towards blacks. TR= one of the presidents that should be found on the bottom of the list.
Jackson- forced removal of Native Americans. Big gov't, Patronage, 1st assassination attempt.
@ssingh316 yea lets look at their flaws and completely disregard all they did for this country. how bout instead of being such a pointless critic, focus on the benefit they brought to the united states....
@fitz6351 Whose flaws? The progressives have nothing but flaws and the present is evidence America is suffering from their anti-American ideals. I'm the critic mr fitz? Look to academia and how the founders are portrayed and compare that to the holy presentation the progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Walter Lippman, Margaret Sanger get from those particular ideologues. Answer this who came up with the evil concept of eugenics and propaganda?
@ssingh316 so you would have us go back to the pre-1900 world of monopolies, low wages, and unsafe working conditions? TR obviously wasn't perfect, but he was also a product of his time. You don't have to forgive him for the views he had that you disagree with (yes, he had an element of racism, though he had the first black man for dinner at the white house, too... and clearly eugenics is wrong and he did write in favor of it), but to deny the progressives did any good is to ignore history.
@jazzgtrplayer Who is saying to go back to the dark ages? Besides, this whole low wage unsafe working conditions, and monopolies you speak of was not a national issue as Upton Sinclair had exaggerated in The Jungle. I am ignoring history? Excuse me? Looks like someone other than me needs to get off the academia defense. Who is writing history in schools and universities and making the Constitution and founders irrelevant? Lincoln invited Douglass to the white house.
When he refers to regular Americans as "Plain people of America" he reveals his patrician up-bringing. These patricians get to their positions of extreme wealth through compromise, treachery, and outright soul-selling wickedness and cannot be trusted. Let them be, let them wallow in their money like pigs do in mud. But keep your arms and your rights, sleep with one eye open. If they leave you alone then let them be, but be anathema. This land is yours, you "plain people" of America.
This recording is out of pitch. I wish somebody with some pitch correction software would fix this, so we can hear something closer to what he really sounded like.
@Kalkas53 That's not a real contest. Teddy was a great boxer and the first American to receive a brown belt in judo, not to mention a heroic soldier (rough riders!) and an accomplished hunter. Teddy Badass Roosevelt 2012!!
Good Lord. When you hear about someone like Roosevelt, you expect a big, booming, authoritative voice. Someone that sounds like David Wenham, David Hayter, and Arnold Schwarzenegger put through a gravelly filter and then spoken through a megaphone.
But then he sounds like this.
And it's infinitely more badass than I ever thought possible.
“I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them… The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed…”
Roosevelt, “Twisted Eugenics,” in "The Works of Theodore Roosevelt," op. cit., National Edition, XII, p. 201.
@sayanroy36 He was a socialist. Same with George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Addams, etc.
"Create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property." Thomas Paine.
This is before politicians in the republican party became a bunch of drooling religious nuts who hate science who are bought out by bankers, Corporations, and other special interest groups. Teddy was a conservative be he knew that when to draw the line on how much power a company should have.
It's sad to think that some of his policies and beliefs would make people like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Rielly call him a Socialist or Communist if he was alive and ran for office today.
Saying how big a company should or should not be is corporatism proper. It's people who passed such anti-trust laws and other draconian government intrusions into the private sector that created monopolies in the firstplace.
@regelemihai And how is that corporatism? And it was the prevention of large companies from cornering the market place so small businesses could compete and the public could regain their freedom of choice. I think you're really stretching what Progressive corporatism's definition is. Anti trust laws, along with other legislation, actually prevent monopolies and prohibits unfair practices. IE things that inhibit freedom, not promote it. So anti trust laws are good and on the side of freedom.
All the regulations created big frims that destroyed small businsses--all throughout American histry. Those policies created the corporate bigwigs. When you put on artificial restrictions, the big companies that receive goverment subsedies stand to gain because they can bear the costs while the small firms can't. It destroys competition.
Anti-trust laws create monopolies, not the other way around. Monopolies are a foreign concept to the free market.
@regelemihai No they didn't. In fact such laws prevent companies from price fixing or big rigging that would otherwise have destroyed small businesses. The laws actually encourage competition because it helps make the market place more equal. The laws also protect the consumer by making companies meet a minimum standard so they aren't selling horrible or faulty products for a large profit. And in fact anti trust laws help the consumer most.
@regelemihai Other way around. Anti-Trust laws actually make it illegal for companies to form monopolies and have been enforced on companies that try to make monopolies usually resulting in scandals. And no, monopolies are not a foreign concept to the free market. And as World history will show, Pure Free Markets actually lead to monopolies and in some cases Corporate Oligarchy because successful businesses make it impossible for new businesses to form and compete.
Never has that benn the case.Monopolies were formed when governments posed resitrctions and regulations.Monopolies cannot exist in the free market because they are at the mercy of the consumer.If the consumer find prices to be far too high,competitors will come in and outbid him.When the government outlaws suhc practices, as it did with the NRA,small businesses lose because they can no longer compete. And yes, history has shown it time and again.
"because successful businesses make it impossible for new businesses to form and compete."
That only happens when government issues regulations that corporations actually favor! It keeps competition out because large industries can bear the costs, while the small competitors cannot.
In a free market where competition determines how resources are allocated, and how demand is to be used to gain comperative advantage, is where businesses thrive.
@regelemihai "That only happens when government issues regulations that corporations actually favor!" Corporations favored Anti-trust laws in the early 1900's like Native Americans favored European expansion across the Mississippi in the early 1800's.
If a company can't function on it's own and pay to keep a steady supply of products that meet an acceptable standard than they shouldn't exist in the first place.
@regelemihai Also it favors small businesses because big corporations have the same trouble they have and in some instances gives them the advantage. Company's don't favor any legislation that involves regulation because deregulation means they can feel free to commence in unfair practices. If Anti trust laws were repealed you would see Price fixing and the dismantling of small business and abuse of the consumer, not growth and freedom of choice. Businesses DIE in a Pure free market. Not thrive.
"big corporations have the same trouble they have."
It helps them out because it eliminates competition.Larger profit margins allow you to survive such measures,whereas small companies cannot.
"Company's don't favor any legislation that involves regulation"
Of course they do.Quotas make it easier to make money,and without the trouble of actually worrying about outcomes-ones that end up serving the consumer.That has happened in American history before with Union Pacifc and CP.
" Price fixing and the dismantling of small business and abuse of the consumer"
Nonsense.It never happened prior to the passing of the laws. When you leave businsses to acquire freely capital they have all the incentives to satisfy the consumer, since if they fail,competitors would come in and destory them.They're at the mercy of the consumer in a free market. When government intervenes it stops this process from taking place.
Businsses always thrive in a free market--our history proves it.
@regelemihai "Nonsense.It never happened prior to the passing of the laws"
Are you implying that Monopolies and price fixing didn't exist before Anti Trust laws? You seem to be overlooking that there were monopolies on everything from Tea and Spices to Slaves and Opium through centuries of WORLD history prior to the Sherman Anti Trust act. Before regulations on Business you had unsafe work environments, Child labor, low quality products sold for high prices, ect. Read a history book much?
" there were monopolies on everything from Tea and Spices to Slaves and Opium"
My comment was limited in scope only to American history, but notice that with all of your examples, all of those things were enforced by either strong monarchies or governments.Mercantilism in Britain was dominant for centuries.
"Before regulations on Business you had unsafe work environments, Child labor, low quality products sold for high prices"
...when left unregulated made things cheaper and at a much better quality. I draw my cases from American history mainly, but I'm sure such practices were pervasive.
No need to insult my intelligence. Everything I'm telling you comes from books. Mayebe you're the one using popular belief moreso than historical proofs?
@regelemihai "all of those things were enforced by either strong monarchies"
Who were oligarchies themselves and allowed those companies to perform such actions because 1. There was no law preventing companies from doing that. and 2. Because Companies were heavily ingrained into the Government. The Crown was and always has been essentially a company.
Are you insane? Read Sinclair much? People would lose limbs and die frequently in sweat shops all round the northern states. In fact there were major stories of people dying in sweat shops all the time it was so frequent. That's not evening mentioning all the horrible quality products that were sold even up until WW1. Everything from can openers to Machine guns had horrible quality and sold for much more than they were worth.
@regelemihai Also you are so far gone from the Original topic. Teddy Roosevelt put regulations on big business to make sure that the major industries of the day weren't entirely controlled by one company, thus taking away the public's freedom of choice. Which he succeed in. Because of this regulation he actually HELPED small businesses get off the ground.
"Because of this regulation he actually HELPED small businesses get off the ground"
I dunno if that was the original point. Regardless, he didn't help anyone but big businsses. He regulated the railroad industry and passed the ICC which benefitted a select few who wanted to keep out competition. The ICA and the Hepborn Act under Roosvelt made it illegal for railroad companies or any other occupied in trasporation in cutting prices! These laws did anything but stop businsses from raising...
...prices; they made it illegal for businesses to do that. His grandson followed suit and copied that model during his presidency, thereby hurting many small businsses who were banned from offering their goods at lower prices. James J. Hill is a case in point. Again, it's not just me saying it, it's a historical fact.
"how even the politicians who take a position in favor of small regulation they are called a Communist."
Well yes, it's been polarized; no question. Such vitriol is...
"Now get over yourself and stop trying to force your Conservative Libertarian agenda"
I was merely expressing my views in relation to what you had initially said--I was no more "forcing" anything than you were. A comment like yours might reflect the hostile environment that exists today for people who disagree with their political opponents. Think about it.
@regelemihai "A comment like yours might reflect the hostile environment that exists today for people who disagree with their political opponents"
I'm being hostile because your response had next to no connection to my original post and was simply nitpicking at a point you believed fell under a very broad definition of Progressive Corporatism. It's only slightly above the people who post "Vote for Ron Paul 2012" or "Damn Republican nazis!" on cat videos.
" nitpicking at a point you believed fell under a very broad definition of Progressive Corporatism"
My comment was directed at the implied assertion in your post that when government sees fit, it should overstep its bounderies and intervene in the market. The other claim was that such measures prevent the formation of corporatism, which is false. I didn't mischaracterize anything you said. All of these points are supported by you as is evident now since you did disgaree with me.
@regelemihai "implied assertion in your post that when government sees fit, it should overstep its bounderies and intervene in the market."
I made no such assertion or implication. I merely stated that Teddy was a very big conservative but he wasn't a religious nut job like Conservatives today, that he wasn't bought out by special interest groups, knew that some type of regulation was needed to assure freedom of choice to the people
When more astringent regulations are imposed freedom is directly harmed--especially in the free market.
But yeah, I know he wasn't a religious nutjob. He was a nutjob in many other respects, including in the fact that he had a panchant for war and violence, but that's neither here nor there.
@regelemihai and implied that by not being a religious nut, bought out by corporations, or for a corporations being able to encroach on the peoples freedom to turn a profit that he would be called a Communist or a Socialist by today's Right Wing and that he wouldn't be able to run for office.
YOU are the one who saw that comparison to Yesterday's right wing and Today's and thought it would be a good chance to push your Libertarian ideology. So yes, missed the entire point.
If you're imposing unbelievable restrictions in the market, and increase the Federal government's influence in the private sector to such an extent, yeah, you might deserve some type of label. Although again, I agree with you that the political sphere of our time has been very polarized, and has eroded greatly since TR's time. That much should and I believe can change.
@regelemihai "f you're imposing unbelievable restrictions in the market, and increase the Federal government's influence in the private sector to such an extent, yeah, you might deserve some type of label."
HA if you think anti trust laws deserve the label "Communist" or "Socialist" than you're insane. They are not even half way to that extreme end of the political spectrum. Case and point that was actually a Conservative position not 50 years ago.
"HA if you think anti trust laws deserve the label "Communist" or "Socialist" than you're insane."
You're insane if you're unaware of the harm they did, and what they imply in the context of the free market. Now THAT is spreading misinformation.
I'm not a conservative by the strict sense of the word, btw. Socially, I lean more to the left on many issues, and from an economic standpoint I hardly register to what Republicans nowadays see as the solution to our economic woes.
@regelemihai Calling Anti Trust laws Communist or Socialist is like calling a sling shot a WMD. If you're denying the fact that work environments in the early 20th century were safe and stating it as fact, than yes, you are spreading misinformation. The reason why they were so unsafe is because companies didn't want to spend the profit to put in place protective measures. You're denying highly documented evidence of worker abuse and endangerment.
I was refering to the price fixing by the state that hindered competition and ruined industry; I wasn't talking about the conditions of labor. However, you're mistaken. Working conditions improved as productivity improved. To repeat the nonsense that they were unsafe because people didn't want to invest in their workers is equally as absurd. If your owrker suffers, you pay the price--either by compensation, or by a decrease in productivity. You're confused, btw--nothing is paid for from...
"I was refering to the price fixing by the state that hindered competition and ruined industry; I wasn't talking about the conditions of labor. However, you're mistaken. Working conditions improved as productivity improved. To repeat the nonsense that they were unsafe because people didn't want to invest in their workers is equally as absurd. If your owrker suffers, you pay the price--either by compensation, or by a decrease in productivity. You're confused, btw--nothing is paid for from...
I was refering to the price fixing by the state that hindered competition and ruined industry; I wasn't talking about the conditions of labor. However, you're mistaken. Working conditions improved as productivity improved.
"I was refering to the price fixing by the state that hindered competition and ruined industry; I wasn't talking about the conditions of labor. However, you're mistaken. Working conditions improved as productivity improved. To repeat the nonsense that they were unsafe because people didn't want to invest in their workers is equally as absurd. If your owrker suffers, you pay the price--either by compensation, or by a decrease in productivity. You're confused, btw--nothing is paid for from...
...profts. Profts are the "leftover" after all other outlays and expenditures are factored in.
"and consumers to turn a profit."
The companies that got hurt the most by these laws were the price-cutters, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. It's precisely for that reason that other government sponsored companies sought out the government; they were losing badly in that department and wanted to hinder competition.
@regelemihai If child labor is not made illegal and safety standards are put in place the company doesn't feel compelled to change anything. Why? Because the only thing companies care about is profit and if they don't have to spend money on something, then they wont. And no, profit isn't just the "Leftovers" It's money you get from the consumer as well. If a Company can make people pay more for worse products they will do it. It's all about profit motive and the race to the bottom.
"Because the only thing companies care about is profit and if they don't have to spend money on something."
If they want to maintain a steady flow of cash, they need to rely on their labor. If they alienate their workers just because "they don't feel like paying them," their workers will flock to where productivity is high, and where employers are less likely to exploit them. What happens to that industry then? It loses profits.
" If a Company can make people pay more for worse products they will do it."
Yes, when the government grants them monopoly power through interventionist laws, like the Hepburn Act ! If they're left to compete freely in the marketplace they'd lose by raising prices on the consumers because a competing company would swoop in and outbid them.
@regelemihai All you're doing is showing that when Countries don't give a damn and let Companies take the wheel, that horrible shit happens. Which it always does. If a nation doesn't have laws preventing a company from doing something immoral than they do it with a smile on their CEO's face as the rake in the profits from 7 year olds in sweat shops.
Immoral things happen as a part of our nature. Countries don't let anyone take the wheel. The only time that happens is when Private Public Partnerships are formed, and when government is in bed with these corporations. Otherwise, in a free market, outcomes are better for all. It's why we had prosperity in the 19th century, and it's why we got out of the dark 18th century in a matter of decades. Appealing to emotions doesn't do away with these facts.
@regelemihai " Otherwise, in a free market, outcomes are better for all"
No they aren't. In a completely free market you have companies taking advantage of people. Without any regulations companies are free do use any means to run their competitors out of business including ways that would otherwise be illegal. Do you truly think that if big company would let a smaller business try to steal their customers? If you do you're blissfully ignorant of the world around you.
" In a completely free market you have companies taking advantage of people."
Easy to make unsubstantiated assumptions, but as usual; you're mistaken. In a free market companies provide goods at low prices, and high quality. It's in their intrest to do so because ultimately they're competing for the consumer's support. If they screw up, other companies that can provide the same goods at lower prices will come in and take the old ones apart. That's the restrait! Not government.
"Do you truly think that if big company would let a smaller business try to steal their customers?"
Well no genius, that's what competition is for! They compete to get the consumer's support. If you're just arguing how competition drives other companies to the ground, and how mean they are for oing so, then I suggest you find a better argument.
@regelemihai You're under the belief that companies put in safety measures and things out of the goodness of their hearts, which they don't. Child labor wasn't made illegal and guard rails weren't put in place because production increased. They were implemented because they were forced to. You think it's the government's fault that Companies make monopolies. yeah, because if nothing is preventing you from making a monopoly people don't do it. Because ya know, Greed doesn't exist or something.
"You're under the belief that companies put in safety measures and things out of the goodness of their hearts, which they don't."
I never said out of the goodness of their hearts. I said because it's more profitable to do so than to wantingly destroy their own productive capacity.
"Child labor wasn't made illegal and guard rails weren't put in place because production increased."
In large part yes it did. As productivity grew, they could afford hiring skilled labor in place of...
...the unskilled child labor force that came before.
"Because ya know, Greed doesn't exist or something."
Greed exists anyway, just like lust and anger exist too.No governing body can change human nature.
In a afree market that's exactly why you don't have monopolies--because their greed stops them from behaving like ones!The thing that "prevents you" from becoming a monopoly in a free market is common sense. If you raise your prices beyond what the market demands for a given product...
...you lose! Competitors will come in, offer smaller prices, and consumers will flock to wherever prices are the lowest. If you intend to act on the part of your greed in ways that harm the population, you lose, and therefore your business loses too.
If the government, however, comes in and sets up quotas and price controls, you can safely keep your pirces up, because now your fellow competitors are banned from lowering their costs. Big companies win, others lose. That's the definition of...
@regelemihai "Competitors will come in, offer smaller prices, and consumers will flock to wherever prices are the lowest."
Until the bigger companies that have been around longer and have half a dozen deals set up with other large companies runs the new person out of business. Do you not understand how the free market works at all? Someone with fewer resources comes in and challenges you, you run them out of business. This is like 101 stuff dude. You fall asleep in school or something?
Yeah, like it happens today with Apple. I mean no other company today provides smarphones except Apple, right? After all, they've basically cornered the market on these products. As we can observe from reality, such nonsense remains in the realm of fantasy.
Besides, if they do manage to oust other companies, they do so because the sunsumer grants them that power. Consumers purchase more of their goods than the others--they should fail! Or maybe...
...you'd prefer to have those inefficient companies who make products at much higher prices and lower costs prevail over those who give you better products. One wonders...
"Someone with fewer resources comes in and challenges you, you run them out of business."
Resources are not limited in a free market; maybe you're the one spouting off slogans and are ignorant entirely of how the market works. It's how efficient you are at utilizing materials. If you're less efficient, you lose. But to assume that no small business can survive is to deny reality. ALl of the big companies started out that way. And it's funny since they've managed to do without the aid of...
..of government. Read history--it's small companies in the middle to late 19th century in the US that destroyed state financed monopolies. If thay hypothetical monopoly of yours gains a big share of the market, small competitors will run them to the ground because they'll offer the same products at low costs. No two ways about it. That's why all monopolies over the corse of history were the result of government. Without exception.
@regelemihai When there is no laws preventing price setting, trusts, monopolies companies do them because it means more profits. They don't hold back and play nice to make the customer happy. You think Wal-mart gives a damn about the people they sell stuff too? You think that if they McDonalds didn't have to meet health requirements for meat that they wouldn't instantly go to cheaper less health cows?
Again, meaningless phrase. When regulations are set in place, monopolies thrive. The profit motive is still there. The only difference is that competition is stifled too. It's easy to make profits into a dirty word without looking at the bigger picture, but appaels to emotion are not a valid way of arguing a point.
They hold back because when there's a free market you have profits+fear. They want to make money, but they won't engage in self destructive...
@regelemihai "So that they alienate them quicker and drive them away?"
Where else are they going to go if they are allowed do use otherwise illegal business practices to run their competitors out of business because no regulations are in place? How about some critical thinking on your end instead of same "Anarchy works! LALALALALALA" argument?
To other restaurant chains? I dunno? Makes sense? If McD wants to screw me over, I'll head down to the local Burger King, or Five Guys, or Wendy's. The fact that you have a great selection explodes your ridiculous assumptions about the market. The fact that some companies are a head of the game doesn't mean that no other company can thrive. History and bare naked reality is against you.
Which would be giving you the same shit. Do you not understand that companies minimize spending to increase profits? If they can get away with a crap product they will. The fact stands that if no regulations are put in place than you can say goodbye to quality. History shows this to be true. Or did you sit through history class with a pair of Ayn Rand Glasses on with your fingers in your ears?
"Do you not understand that companies minimize spending to increase profits?"
More wrongheaded and simple minded injunctions.Companies seek to increase productivity so that the profit margin increases(the horror), and quality increases correspondingly.You can't offer this sophomoric rant over and over about companies making profits and assume it's a bad thing.It might fly in many liberal circles...
...but in serious scholarship it's no more than hysterical fearmongering.
" If they can get away with a crap product they will."
No they won't. I refuted your McD analogy already. If they intentionally harm their customer simply in order to save money, their popularity will decrease. Doesn't take much to imagine how more and more people getting food poisoning might somehow undermine the credibility of a restaurant chain.
"Or did you sit through history class with a pair of Ayn Rand Glasses."
I wish I would've received something more similar to to that, instead of the falshood that you and many other youngsters are being fed in our schools and colleges. Unlike you I actually do know history. It's why I keep trying to convience you to see the other way, but we all know how open minded liberals are.
@regelemihai "meaningless phrase. When regulations are set in place, monopolies thrive"
FACEPALM! Are you retarded or something? There is legislation put in place to STOP monopolies. In fact there was a case about cell service providers cornering the business that was STOPPED by regulation. So unless you WANTED to pay more for it seems like Regulations saved you from being robbed.
"There is legislation put in place to STOP monopolies."
And it's that type of legislation that creates them! Before these centerpieces of progressives festered the American economy there was no such thing! Only when companies were subsedised by the government! Start to get this through your head already!
"So unless you WANTED to pay more"
Again, you can only afford to enact draconian price fixing when the government...
...finances that practice via quotas! If you're dumb enough to raise prices just for the fun of it, competitors will run you down! Cornering the market in a free market happens only when the consumer has the freedom to choose between one company or another. If that one company gains a greater share and then chooses to screw over the same people who brought them to power (i.e. the consumers), they will drive them away thereby allowing competitors to jump in and replace them. Got it?
@regelemihai What you fail to understand is that the Companies ARE the government and they screw you over by using their new found tool. That's why Taxes are always so low for the rich, Companies are recognized as people, and you can't investigate Banks.
Are you this blind that you can't connect point a to point b?
Governments that AREN'T bought out were affected much less by the recession. But America with next to no regulations Crapped out.
"But America with next to no regulations Crapped out."
It was too much government intervention and regulations that caused that.
Companies, again, gain political favoratism when they receive subsedies from the government. In return, just like the unions, they contribute with their welath and funds to the same politicians who granted them favoratism. Government causes it.
@regelemihai "Companies, again, gain political favoratism"
"Government causes it"
Derp. Are you trying to say that Government pushes companies to corrupt government officials to use the government? Please, that's a conspiracy theory up there with that Free Mason bull shit.
Companies buy out Governments and news outlets so they can manipulate them. Not the other way around. You're contradicting yourself you pathetic loon.
"Are you trying to say that Government pushes companies to corrupt government officials to use the government?"
Yeah, pretty much. Governments give them money so that in turn, when they do start to make profits, they'll return the favor in the form of generous political contributions. Not that complicated. If the only response you can muster is nonchallantly handwaving it away, then I suggest you read up on history.
@regelemihai "They want to make money, but they won't engage in self destructive behavior"
Did you miss the entire reason why the recession happened? Big Companies and Banks risked tons of money to get more profit. Making profit is ALL ABOUT risk and usually the greater the Risk the Greater the Profit. This is BASIC business school shit man. Do you think Companies make money by not rocking the boat? You've lost it.
"Big Companies and Banks risked tons of money to get more profit."
Yeah, thanks you. Via the government, banks and financial institutions were covered by other GSEs who guarantees mortgages, and operated under the assumption that if anything goes wrong they'll be bailed out. The excess risk was caused by government. In a free market companies aren't encouraged to take too much risk because they know they'll bear the costs if they fail.It's almost too easy with you.
@regelemihai "Now I know you're an ignorant leftist troll who's trying to sound smart while failing miserably."
lol Seeing as how I already clarified what my political back ground was several times and you replied to me trying to push your Libertarian agenda on a comment that wasn't dealing with ANYTHING you started talking about it's safe to say that YOU are the troll. Now kindly go back to thumbing up Ron Paul videos and trolling communist forums.
"Seeing as how I already clarified what my political back ground."
You claimed you're more of a center-right person all the while expounding nonsensical leftist garbage. You've done everything BUT clarify your position. I think you yourself are more confused than you realize.
@regelemihai "You claimed you're more of a center-right person all the while expounding nonsensical leftist garbage"
Ah, so because I'm not agreeing with everything you say than I'm not a conservative. This is looking more and more like you trying to pull off the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I'm a moderate conservative who is for the separation of Government and Corporations and thinks Companies shouldn't be able to do what ever they want (For the 4th time now Learn to read.)
@regelemihai "The excess risk was caused by government"
HA so now you think the Government wants companies to get more profit? Which is it retard? Hurt or help? Because you've been flip flopping this entire week without realizing it.
Also, the FED isn't a government institution you dumbass. That's another way how Companies make themselves more powerful than the government. The companies tell the Government what to do. Not the other way around. Or did you miss the last 4 decades?
"HA so now you think the Government wants companies to get more profit?"
They use them in order to acheive their political goals--whether that's public works, or in our latest crisis, getting everyone to own a house. They inadvertently make them rich, which is exactly my point. I didn't flip-flop on anything; you're just too dumb to comprehend even the simplest argument .You look silly the more you talk. But it's fun watching you :)
" the FED isn't a government institution you dumbass."
I see you're using more and more ad hominems. A sure sign of desperation, realizing you're losing the argument.
Well, the Fed is a central bank (a concept that is antithetical to the free market) operating on a government mandate with the centralized power of controlling money supply. It was founded by politicians and big bankers with the help of congress. Your ignorance is astounding.
@regelemihai "I see you're using more and more ad hominems. A sure sign of desperation, realizing you're losing the argument."
That's not an ad hominem you moron. -_- And Ad hominem would be "Because you don't like the colour purple than that means you're wrong about Gay marriage."
@regelemihai And No, the Federal Reserve is not a government made institution. It was created by bankers who made a deal with the Government to control the countries money supply. Much like the First and Second Banks of America. And no, it's not against the Free Market. In fact it's what keeps a nation afloat when there are too many people wanting to withdraw money at one time.
"banker who made a deal with the Government to control the countries money supply."
Yeah exactly. With a government mandate.Government mandate.I'll say it one more time so that maybe you'll get it. GOVERNMENT mandate.Meaning it was granted monopoly powers from the government.Not a free market institution when it gets special treatment from government.
"In fact it's what keeps a nation afloat."
Yeah, by creating recessions, and by devaluing our dollar.It has done nothing but damage.
Sure. Keep drinking that kool-aid. You'll still be a clown, but a happy one at that.
I'll try to educate you one more time: The FED controls the supply of credit. Individual banks are not allowed to control the intrest rates on their loans, but are forced comply with the central bank (starting to sound familiar?) who dictates the intrest rates. Just a tiny nuance.
And you said I was being immature. You're the one who has bought into the big corporations brain washing.
"Everything will be okay if you make it so that we can do whatever we want with not consequences"
You have to be already really rich or really stupid to believe that. All you're doing is creating an Oligarchy. An Aristocracy made up of company executives.
Awesome refutation of my argument! I'll chalk this up to you being your ignorant self. Try again?
"thinks Companies shouldn't be able to do what ever they want."
You think companies should be regulated, you don't believe in the free market (you in fact said that the FED is good!), and you repeat the same asinine arguments that the left uses. You are not a conservative. It's not the "no scotsman" fallacy--it's a logical deducation. If I believe in...
...things that are contrary to a given ideaology, I'm not an adherent of that ideaology. Pretty straighforward, doncha' think? Or would you think it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that I'm a center-left person? If not, than you're committing the no true scotman fallacy.
"That's why you trolled me after reading something you didn't like."
Nah, more like wrote ONE comment in response to yours. I thought that what the comment page was for. No need to cry over it.
Well, risk is a part of it, but when government first gives you free money through the FED and then insures your risk taking by bailin you out then it's not really a free market, is it? In a free market no one's giving you that assurence. If you fail, you fail. Knowing that such a truism is implied, companies take less risk. Basic economics.
@regelemihai All you have done is push your libertarian ideology. Look at my original comment. NOTHING having to do with half the shit you talked about. You're just like every single pseudo intellectual conservative out there. You call anyone who disagrees with you a troll, a leftist, and implies that they are a communist. Please, go back to school kid. You make sane conservatives look like brain dead apes when you spread misinformation and propaganda like this.
"All you have done is push your libertarian ideology."
That makes a whole lot more sense than your watered-down leftist perspective.
"You call anyone who disagrees with you a troll, a leftist."
You didn't call me names? You weren't antagonistic? Talk about hypocrisy. At least own up to your own bias and stop acting so shocked when people disagree with your opinions. I call a troll when I see one. Notice I didn't do that at first when I thought you were rational. It's only after the...
...conversation got going that I started to realize who I'm talking too. There are plenty of people who disagree with me on these issues with whom I can have a civil conversation. One of my best friends is an outright marxist. It has nothing to do with ideaology.
@regelemihai "There are plenty of people who disagree with me on these issues with whom I can have a civil conversation."
You mean people who will shut up and agree with you when you call the a "Leftists" a "Troll" and a "Communist" the second they say something you don't like?
Please, this entire discussion has been a "Hello Pot, I'm Kettle" Moment and the fact that you don't see that is pathetic. Now Sod off back too your fantasy world where big companies always do the morally right thing.
"You mean people who will shut up and agree with you when you call the a "Leftists" a "Troll" and a "Communist" the second they say something you don't like?"
Lol, I called you that after we went back-and-forth for a couple of times; it wasn't "the second" I saw your opposing view. It was once I saw how ignorant you are and how fervently you defended your position without understanding mine.
"Now Sod off back too your fantasy world where big companies always do the morally right thing."
And so ladies and gents, we close off by offering another emotionally charged strawman.
Well, I wish you well. I hope you'll get the chance to read any serious dealing with this topic in the future. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about, either on economic issues, or historical ones, and I hope you'll manage to get the necessary education that will allow you to converse with...
@regelemihai And you didn't even take the time to understand mine. You need to learn that the world isn't black and white and that if someone disagrees with you that it doesn't make them a communist.
" And you didn't even take the time to understand mine."
You just rehashed the same old liberal talking point nonsense. Trust me, this isn't the first time I came across it. I understood you well; which is why I refuted you.
" if someone disagrees with you that it doesn't make them a communist."
@regelemihai "You didn't call me names? You weren't antagonistic? Talk about hypocrisy. At least own up to your own bias and stop acting so shocked when people disagree with your opinion"
HA that's a laugh coming from the person who started this entire discussion because you couldn't look over a comment that you didn't like. Please, you're like a racist who when people call him a redneck he spouts off how he's been a victim of prejudice.
"when you spread misinformation and propaganda like this."
The emotionally charged rhtoric and vain sloganeering came from your side, sir.
" don't you have a tea party rally or communist trolling you need to take part in?"
How mature! What was that part you said about how we somehow muddy the debates, create divisions with our crazy rhetoric, and stereotype? moron. I've never been to a tea party, or on these "communist forms(?!)" you keep babbling about. What I know is from doing...
...research and from reading serious scholarship. All the information you've garnered seems to come from the superficial and silly material you've read in HS and have touched since, or from your leftist news networks. I daresay you haven't touched any serious book in your life; and it shows. Both in your incoherent arguments, and in your utter ignorance of *basic* economic theory.
I wish you well. Maybe in the future you'll learn to be more tolerant.
@regelemihai "Maybe in the future you'll learn to be more tolerant."
Uh huh. That's why you trolled me after reading something you didn't like. Yeah, okay. Go copy and paste some more crap you got out of Economics books that have been out of date since the late 1800's. Here in the real world where not every CEO and Wealthy Business man is a Saint ready to help the people, we'll laugh at your mindless fanatical drivel.
"Economics books that have been out of date since the late 1800's."
Lol, the hilarity. Feeling too intimidated, sparky? You feel the need to discredit my scholarship without any basis all the while using weak and long-refuted arguments pulled out of your bum. It's too bad you don't see just how pathetic you are.
"Here in the real world where not every CEO and Wealthy Business man is a Saint."
Talk about strawmanning. I never said they're saints. I just don't think like some...
...uneducated bleeding hearts whose only response to issuing concerning economics is " There are greedy CEOs running our country!" Or some other politcally popular mantras that make them think they know anything beyond what they've learned in middle school. Cute, but inappropriate when you talk to adults.
My overarching theme of this whole exchange was to say how entrepreneurship and political incetives create a dangerous fusion where some receive monopolistic powers over the many, and how...
...those same companies you hate have gotten there due to the favorable terms they are with the government. I've made the clear distinction between such a scenario and the one that a free market stands for where companies and government don't mesh. With your incessant and incoherent railings against the profits some of the companies are making you just proved my point. Those are the monopolies! The ones that receive governemnt aid. The ones who legislate for quotas and price settings and...
...regulations ARE the big companies. Back in the day where companies who did no such thing, and got rich through the market, got villified by do-gooders such as TR and other brainwahsed progressives because they were doing better than their competitors.Start to get the distinction. You're starting to look dumber than you are--and this is for all to see.
"Please, you're like a racist."
You're like those bigots who see racism everywhere simply because people disgaree with their opinions...
...Actually, the analogy the extremely apt. That's exactly what you're doing. Probably because you can't handle the pressure. You can dish it out but you can't take it, and so you go crying hysterically when someone dares to disagree with you. I trust you'll get over yourself one day.
@regelemihai Sorry, but there is no invisible hand to make sure that stupid people in big business don't crash the economy with risky investments. And There is no invisible hand that will pick up the pieces after their investments fall through and tons of people lose their money. You live in a fantasy world if you think that Companies don't do highly risky investments and they actually care about the American people or think of their workers as not being expendable drones.
You know why America is at a tipping point and end of an once free market because of the policies and corruptness of Thedore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, also the youth's beloved Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They are responsible for : Social Security Act, FTC, SEC, 16th amendement, 17th amendment, Prohibition, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, 8 hour work day, Inheritance tax, excessive regulations, money plundering, etc.
ssingh316 1 day ago
So that whole notion of Teddy a-hole Roosevelt being the first to invite a black man to the white house is all garbage. Racism is not a question of disagreement dude; it should be flat out rejected by everyone. Theodore Roosevelt ( 26th US president)=racist, eugenics guy, deceitful president ever. Never forgive a racist. (Look up 1906 Brownsville Incident.) Today's leaders among many (mostly who call themselves clean on race) admire TR and Woodrow Wilson by dismissing their racial views.
ssingh316 1 day ago
Teddy was a boss.
asphyxiafeeling 2 days ago
Our most hardcore president.
spacitydrummer4JC 4 days ago
"Behind the ostensible government, sits enthroned a government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people"..............."Every immigrant who comes here, shall be required to learn English or leave the country"...............President Theodore Roosevelt 1901- 1909.
movement26 4 days ago
On Mt Rushmore, I would swap TR with James Monore. On the 20 dollar bill remove Jackson with Calvin Coolidge.
ssingh316 6 days ago
"...the beneficiaries of privelage..."
TheEndBosko 1 week ago
50 cent got shot, and still whines about it on stage. Teddy Roosevelt got shot mid speech, and didn't leave until he was finished.
BrassController 1 week ago
if you don't play MW3 you have no life
jwafer0 1 week ago
Bully! Got a real Charge out of it!
LandondeeL 2 weeks ago
9gag get me here :)
prekprong 2 weeks ago
9gag.. present!
enilaria 2 weeks ago
9gag? where are you? ):
henriqueaqui 2 weeks ago
Brace yourselves... The 9gaggers are coming.
Shendo34 2 weeks ago 10
@Shendo34 fuck 9gag
monster0n1 1 week ago
I guess you can say it was a "shot" speech.
ApexPredator1998 2 weeks ago
Yet, the "modern" progressives have nothing in common with their progressive forebears. Teddy was a "extreme" Christian, and so was the entire Progressive movement. The Social Gospel (Christian) was the main reason why Progressivism was so successful. Roosevelt increased defense spending and built a massive navy. Progressives advocated intervention in WWI and an active "neocon" foreign policy. Furthermore, Progressives started the whole "America is God's messianic nation." Learn some history...
TheFederalistVoice 2 weeks ago
Teddy Roosevelt... the greatest?????????
Andrew Jackson...tough??????????
Need a non-revisionist American history lesson in here.
Teddy- racist, eugenics favoring progressive Republican. supported Margaret Sanger, created the wasteful FDA ( railroad subsidies, hostile towards blacks. TR= one of the presidents that should be found on the bottom of the list.
Jackson- forced removal of Native Americans. Big gov't, Patronage, 1st assassination attempt.
Find new faces on the 20 and Mt Rushmore.
ssingh316 3 weeks ago
@ssingh316 Just out of curiosity, who would you consider a great President? Who would you place on Mt. Rushmore and the 20 dollar bill?
kraken138 3 weeks ago
@ssingh316 yea lets look at their flaws and completely disregard all they did for this country. how bout instead of being such a pointless critic, focus on the benefit they brought to the united states....
fitz6351 2 weeks ago
@fitz6351 Whose flaws? The progressives have nothing but flaws and the present is evidence America is suffering from their anti-American ideals. I'm the critic mr fitz? Look to academia and how the founders are portrayed and compare that to the holy presentation the progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Walter Lippman, Margaret Sanger get from those particular ideologues. Answer this who came up with the evil concept of eugenics and propaganda?
ssingh316 6 days ago
@ssingh316 so you would have us go back to the pre-1900 world of monopolies, low wages, and unsafe working conditions? TR obviously wasn't perfect, but he was also a product of his time. You don't have to forgive him for the views he had that you disagree with (yes, he had an element of racism, though he had the first black man for dinner at the white house, too... and clearly eugenics is wrong and he did write in favor of it), but to deny the progressives did any good is to ignore history.
jazzgtrplayer 2 days ago
@jazzgtrplayer Who is saying to go back to the dark ages? Besides, this whole low wage unsafe working conditions, and monopolies you speak of was not a national issue as Upton Sinclair had exaggerated in The Jungle. I am ignoring history? Excuse me? Looks like someone other than me needs to get off the academia defense. Who is writing history in schools and universities and making the Constitution and founders irrelevant? Lincoln invited Douglass to the white house.
ssingh316 1 day ago
When he refers to regular Americans as "Plain people of America" he reveals his patrician up-bringing. These patricians get to their positions of extreme wealth through compromise, treachery, and outright soul-selling wickedness and cannot be trusted. Let them be, let them wallow in their money like pigs do in mud. But keep your arms and your rights, sleep with one eye open. If they leave you alone then let them be, but be anathema. This land is yours, you "plain people" of America.
IsMackinac 3 weeks ago
Sounds like J. Peterman from Seinfeld.
super3man1 1 month ago
This recording is out of pitch. I wish somebody with some pitch correction software would fix this, so we can hear something closer to what he really sounded like.
kraken138 1 month ago
in a contest of toughest president i believe there there would be a tie for first between Andrew Jackson and TR
Kalkas53 1 month ago
@Kalkas53 What about George washington?
kraken138 1 month ago
@Kalkas53 That's not a real contest. Teddy was a great boxer and the first American to receive a brown belt in judo, not to mention a heroic soldier (rough riders!) and an accomplished hunter. Teddy Badass Roosevelt 2012!!
Iketimko 4 weeks ago
you think barack obama would do a speech with a bullet in his chest like teddy did?
lpboy96 1 month ago
Where is the modern-era Teddy?!?
TrueFreedom001 1 month ago
Teddy Roosevelt was one of the last greatest Republican Presidents.
Budnipper82 1 month ago
@Budnipper82 Why don't you move to Cuba?
painin2teeth 1 month ago
@painin2teeth . Because I like where I live. Why don't you move to K Street in Washington?
Budnipper82 1 month ago
teddy roosevelt is needed today this is why glenn beck attacked him.
we need a Teddy again we need him so badly to bring back my wing of the republican party we need teddy roosevelt
sfafasfasfsa 2 months ago
@sfafasfasfsa If you don't like living in a fee country you are free to leave
painin2teeth 1 month ago
@painin2teeth i do like living in a free country im just tired of not having a choice. i am a radical moderate
sfafasfasfsa 1 month ago
Very good diction, kind of that pseudo-theater British that American actors were taught and which you can hear in movies of the '30s and '40s.
philotimos923 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thank you for sharing this piece of history with us.
George Vreeland Hill
GeorgeVreelandHill 2 months ago
this guy is my all-time fave president...and the fact he looks like Ron Swanson from Parks and Recreation doesn't hurt! ;)
heatherjhice 2 months ago
that was his real voice? cool
LordKaisen 2 months ago
Teddy is my all time favorite President.
AGuyInAHat 2 months ago
This man was fantastic!
xFruitsBasket 2 months ago
Good Lord. When you hear about someone like Roosevelt, you expect a big, booming, authoritative voice. Someone that sounds like David Wenham, David Hayter, and Arnold Schwarzenegger put through a gravelly filter and then spoken through a megaphone.
But then he sounds like this.
And it's infinitely more badass than I ever thought possible.
TerminusEst13 2 months ago 5
T.R. would pimpslap half the government and arrest the other half at gunpoint.
Motive11331 2 months ago
This was a real man's man!
CesarManiaX 3 months ago
"sit on the seats of reaction" strikingly precise description of todays republicans
scholz9876 3 months ago
Teddy was 8 years old when Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 and he witnessed the Lincoln carriage pass through
PapagenoJuan2 3 months ago 19
“I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them… The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed…”
Roosevelt, “Twisted Eugenics,” in "The Works of Theodore Roosevelt," op. cit., National Edition, XII, p. 201.
procommenter 3 months ago
today's repukes will throw this man away as a socialist....amazing, the greatest
sayanroy36 3 months ago 30
@sayanroy36 well need to remember he left the Republican party for awhile cause he wasn't happy with either. he rejoined the Reps later
Dogmeat1950 3 months ago
@sayanroy36 He was a socialist. Same with George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Addams, etc.
"Create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property." Thomas Paine.
kittennotebooksuprem 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kittennotebooksuprem do you even know what that word means
sfafasfasfsa 1 month ago
@sayanroy36 Yeah, and today's Demoncats would throw him away as a war mongering, racist fascist.
kraken138 1 month ago 3
BOOBS
estolle0918 3 months ago
(Insert smart thoughtful comment here)
ihatewebkinz1234 3 months ago
This is before politicians in the republican party became a bunch of drooling religious nuts who hate science who are bought out by bankers, Corporations, and other special interest groups. Teddy was a conservative be he knew that when to draw the line on how much power a company should have.
It's sad to think that some of his policies and beliefs would make people like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Rielly call him a Socialist or Communist if he was alive and ran for office today.
Jamez773 4 months ago
@Jamez773
Saying how big a company should or should not be is corporatism proper. It's people who passed such anti-trust laws and other draconian government intrusions into the private sector that created monopolies in the firstplace.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai And how is that corporatism? And it was the prevention of large companies from cornering the market place so small businesses could compete and the public could regain their freedom of choice. I think you're really stretching what Progressive corporatism's definition is. Anti trust laws, along with other legislation, actually prevent monopolies and prohibits unfair practices. IE things that inhibit freedom, not promote it. So anti trust laws are good and on the side of freedom.
Jamez773 4 months ago
"companies from cornering the market"
All the regulations created big frims that destroyed small businsses--all throughout American histry. Those policies created the corporate bigwigs. When you put on artificial restrictions, the big companies that receive goverment subsedies stand to gain because they can bear the costs while the small firms can't. It destroys competition.
Anti-trust laws create monopolies, not the other way around. Monopolies are a foreign concept to the free market.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai No they didn't. In fact such laws prevent companies from price fixing or big rigging that would otherwise have destroyed small businesses. The laws actually encourage competition because it helps make the market place more equal. The laws also protect the consumer by making companies meet a minimum standard so they aren't selling horrible or faulty products for a large profit. And in fact anti trust laws help the consumer most.
Jamez773 4 months ago
@regelemihai Other way around. Anti-Trust laws actually make it illegal for companies to form monopolies and have been enforced on companies that try to make monopolies usually resulting in scandals. And no, monopolies are not a foreign concept to the free market. And as World history will show, Pure Free Markets actually lead to monopolies and in some cases Corporate Oligarchy because successful businesses make it impossible for new businesses to form and compete.
Jamez773 4 months ago
"Pure Free Markets actually lead to monopolies"
Never has that benn the case.Monopolies were formed when governments posed resitrctions and regulations.Monopolies cannot exist in the free market because they are at the mercy of the consumer.If the consumer find prices to be far too high,competitors will come in and outbid him.When the government outlaws suhc practices, as it did with the NRA,small businesses lose because they can no longer compete. And yes, history has shown it time and again.
regelemihai 4 months ago
"because successful businesses make it impossible for new businesses to form and compete."
That only happens when government issues regulations that corporations actually favor! It keeps competition out because large industries can bear the costs, while the small competitors cannot.
In a free market where competition determines how resources are allocated, and how demand is to be used to gain comperative advantage, is where businesses thrive.
regelemihai 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@regelemihai "That only happens when government issues regulations that corporations actually favor!" Corporations favored Anti-trust laws in the early 1900's like Native Americans favored European expansion across the Mississippi in the early 1800's.
If a company can't function on it's own and pay to keep a steady supply of products that meet an acceptable standard than they shouldn't exist in the first place.
Jamez773 4 months ago
@regelemihai Also it favors small businesses because big corporations have the same trouble they have and in some instances gives them the advantage. Company's don't favor any legislation that involves regulation because deregulation means they can feel free to commence in unfair practices. If Anti trust laws were repealed you would see Price fixing and the dismantling of small business and abuse of the consumer, not growth and freedom of choice. Businesses DIE in a Pure free market. Not thrive.
Jamez773 4 months ago
"big corporations have the same trouble they have."
It helps them out because it eliminates competition.Larger profit margins allow you to survive such measures,whereas small companies cannot.
"Company's don't favor any legislation that involves regulation"
Of course they do.Quotas make it easier to make money,and without the trouble of actually worrying about outcomes-ones that end up serving the consumer.That has happened in American history before with Union Pacifc and CP.
regelemihai 4 months ago
" Price fixing and the dismantling of small business and abuse of the consumer"
Nonsense.It never happened prior to the passing of the laws. When you leave businsses to acquire freely capital they have all the incentives to satisfy the consumer, since if they fail,competitors would come in and destory them.They're at the mercy of the consumer in a free market. When government intervenes it stops this process from taking place.
Businsses always thrive in a free market--our history proves it.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai "Nonsense.It never happened prior to the passing of the laws"
Are you implying that Monopolies and price fixing didn't exist before Anti Trust laws? You seem to be overlooking that there were monopolies on everything from Tea and Spices to Slaves and Opium through centuries of WORLD history prior to the Sherman Anti Trust act. Before regulations on Business you had unsafe work environments, Child labor, low quality products sold for high prices, ect. Read a history book much?
Jamez773 4 months ago
" there were monopolies on everything from Tea and Spices to Slaves and Opium"
My comment was limited in scope only to American history, but notice that with all of your examples, all of those things were enforced by either strong monarchies or governments.Mercantilism in Britain was dominant for centuries.
"Before regulations on Business you had unsafe work environments, Child labor, low quality products sold for high prices"
Again,not true (except child labor).Emerging industries...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...when left unregulated made things cheaper and at a much better quality. I draw my cases from American history mainly, but I'm sure such practices were pervasive.
No need to insult my intelligence. Everything I'm telling you comes from books. Mayebe you're the one using popular belief moreso than historical proofs?
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai "all of those things were enforced by either strong monarchies"
Who were oligarchies themselves and allowed those companies to perform such actions because 1. There was no law preventing companies from doing that. and 2. Because Companies were heavily ingrained into the Government. The Crown was and always has been essentially a company.
Jamez773 4 months ago
"Who were oligarchies themselves"
Well, yeah! They gave them unfettered support. My point exactly.
" Because Companies were heavily ingrained into the Government"
Again, absolutely!
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai "Again,not true (except child labor)"
Are you insane? Read Sinclair much? People would lose limbs and die frequently in sweat shops all round the northern states. In fact there were major stories of people dying in sweat shops all the time it was so frequent. That's not evening mentioning all the horrible quality products that were sold even up until WW1. Everything from can openers to Machine guns had horrible quality and sold for much more than they were worth.
Jamez773 4 months ago
@regelemihai Also you are so far gone from the Original topic. Teddy Roosevelt put regulations on big business to make sure that the major industries of the day weren't entirely controlled by one company, thus taking away the public's freedom of choice. Which he succeed in. Because of this regulation he actually HELPED small businesses get off the ground.
Jamez773 4 months ago
"Because of this regulation he actually HELPED small businesses get off the ground"
I dunno if that was the original point. Regardless, he didn't help anyone but big businsses. He regulated the railroad industry and passed the ICC which benefitted a select few who wanted to keep out competition. The ICA and the Hepborn Act under Roosvelt made it illegal for railroad companies or any other occupied in trasporation in cutting prices! These laws did anything but stop businsses from raising...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...prices; they made it illegal for businesses to do that. His grandson followed suit and copied that model during his presidency, thereby hurting many small businsses who were banned from offering their goods at lower prices. James J. Hill is a case in point. Again, it's not just me saying it, it's a historical fact.
"how even the politicians who take a position in favor of small regulation they are called a Communist."
Well yes, it's been polarized; no question. Such vitriol is...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...emanating from both the left and right.
"Now get over yourself and stop trying to force your Conservative Libertarian agenda"
I was merely expressing my views in relation to what you had initially said--I was no more "forcing" anything than you were. A comment like yours might reflect the hostile environment that exists today for people who disagree with their political opponents. Think about it.
regelemihai 4 months ago
** they made it illegal for businesses to cut prices.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai "A comment like yours might reflect the hostile environment that exists today for people who disagree with their political opponents"
I'm being hostile because your response had next to no connection to my original post and was simply nitpicking at a point you believed fell under a very broad definition of Progressive Corporatism. It's only slightly above the people who post "Vote for Ron Paul 2012" or "Damn Republican nazis!" on cat videos.
Jamez773 4 months ago
" nitpicking at a point you believed fell under a very broad definition of Progressive Corporatism"
My comment was directed at the implied assertion in your post that when government sees fit, it should overstep its bounderies and intervene in the market. The other claim was that such measures prevent the formation of corporatism, which is false. I didn't mischaracterize anything you said. All of these points are supported by you as is evident now since you did disgaree with me.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai "implied assertion in your post that when government sees fit, it should overstep its bounderies and intervene in the market."
I made no such assertion or implication. I merely stated that Teddy was a very big conservative but he wasn't a religious nut job like Conservatives today, that he wasn't bought out by special interest groups, knew that some type of regulation was needed to assure freedom of choice to the people
Jamez773 4 months ago
@Jamez773
When more astringent regulations are imposed freedom is directly harmed--especially in the free market.
But yeah, I know he wasn't a religious nutjob. He was a nutjob in many other respects, including in the fact that he had a panchant for war and violence, but that's neither here nor there.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai and implied that by not being a religious nut, bought out by corporations, or for a corporations being able to encroach on the peoples freedom to turn a profit that he would be called a Communist or a Socialist by today's Right Wing and that he wouldn't be able to run for office.
YOU are the one who saw that comparison to Yesterday's right wing and Today's and thought it would be a good chance to push your Libertarian ideology. So yes, missed the entire point.
Jamez773 4 months ago
"would be called a Communist or a Socialist"
If you're imposing unbelievable restrictions in the market, and increase the Federal government's influence in the private sector to such an extent, yeah, you might deserve some type of label. Although again, I agree with you that the political sphere of our time has been very polarized, and has eroded greatly since TR's time. That much should and I believe can change.
"to push your Libertarian ideology"
As you're pushing your liberal...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...one on me. Try as you might, you will not succeed in painting me as an ideaologue while exonerating yourself from the same charge. Sorry.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai "f you're imposing unbelievable restrictions in the market, and increase the Federal government's influence in the private sector to such an extent, yeah, you might deserve some type of label."
HA if you think anti trust laws deserve the label "Communist" or "Socialist" than you're insane. They are not even half way to that extreme end of the political spectrum. Case and point that was actually a Conservative position not 50 years ago.
Jamez773 4 months ago
"HA if you think anti trust laws deserve the label "Communist" or "Socialist" than you're insane."
You're insane if you're unaware of the harm they did, and what they imply in the context of the free market. Now THAT is spreading misinformation.
I'm not a conservative by the strict sense of the word, btw. Socially, I lean more to the left on many issues, and from an economic standpoint I hardly register to what Republicans nowadays see as the solution to our economic woes.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai Calling Anti Trust laws Communist or Socialist is like calling a sling shot a WMD. If you're denying the fact that work environments in the early 20th century were safe and stating it as fact, than yes, you are spreading misinformation. The reason why they were so unsafe is because companies didn't want to spend the profit to put in place protective measures. You're denying highly documented evidence of worker abuse and endangerment.
Jamez773 4 months ago
I was refering to the price fixing by the state that hindered competition and ruined industry; I wasn't talking about the conditions of labor. However, you're mistaken. Working conditions improved as productivity improved. To repeat the nonsense that they were unsafe because people didn't want to invest in their workers is equally as absurd. If your owrker suffers, you pay the price--either by compensation, or by a decrease in productivity. You're confused, btw--nothing is paid for from...
regelemihai 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I was refering to the price fixing by the state that hindered competition and ruined industry; I wasn't talking about the conditions of labor. However, you're mistaken. Working conditions improved as productivity improved. To repeat the nonsense that they were unsafe because people didn't want to invest in their workers is equally as absurd. If your owrker suffers, you pay the price--either by compensation, or by a decrease in productivity. You're confused, btw--nothing is paid for from...
regelemihai 4 months ago
I was refering to the price fixing by the state that hindered competition and ruined industry; I wasn't talking about the conditions of labor. However, you're mistaken. Working conditions improved as productivity improved.
regelemihai 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I was refering to the price fixing by the state that hindered competition and ruined industry; I wasn't talking about the conditions of labor. However, you're mistaken. Working conditions improved as productivity improved. To repeat the nonsense that they were unsafe because people didn't want to invest in their workers is equally as absurd. If your owrker suffers, you pay the price--either by compensation, or by a decrease in productivity. You're confused, btw--nothing is paid for from...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...profts. Profts are the "leftover" after all other outlays and expenditures are factored in.
"and consumers to turn a profit."
The companies that got hurt the most by these laws were the price-cutters, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. It's precisely for that reason that other government sponsored companies sought out the government; they were losing badly in that department and wanted to hinder competition.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai If child labor is not made illegal and safety standards are put in place the company doesn't feel compelled to change anything. Why? Because the only thing companies care about is profit and if they don't have to spend money on something, then they wont. And no, profit isn't just the "Leftovers" It's money you get from the consumer as well. If a Company can make people pay more for worse products they will do it. It's all about profit motive and the race to the bottom.
Jamez773 4 months ago
"Because the only thing companies care about is profit and if they don't have to spend money on something."
If they want to maintain a steady flow of cash, they need to rely on their labor. If they alienate their workers just because "they don't feel like paying them," their workers will flock to where productivity is high, and where employers are less likely to exploit them. What happens to that industry then? It loses profits.
regelemihai 4 months ago
" If a Company can make people pay more for worse products they will do it."
Yes, when the government grants them monopoly power through interventionist laws, like the Hepburn Act ! If they're left to compete freely in the marketplace they'd lose by raising prices on the consumers because a competing company would swoop in and outbid them.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai All you're doing is showing that when Countries don't give a damn and let Companies take the wheel, that horrible shit happens. Which it always does. If a nation doesn't have laws preventing a company from doing something immoral than they do it with a smile on their CEO's face as the rake in the profits from 7 year olds in sweat shops.
Jamez773 4 months ago
Immoral things happen as a part of our nature. Countries don't let anyone take the wheel. The only time that happens is when Private Public Partnerships are formed, and when government is in bed with these corporations. Otherwise, in a free market, outcomes are better for all. It's why we had prosperity in the 19th century, and it's why we got out of the dark 18th century in a matter of decades. Appealing to emotions doesn't do away with these facts.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai " Otherwise, in a free market, outcomes are better for all"
No they aren't. In a completely free market you have companies taking advantage of people. Without any regulations companies are free do use any means to run their competitors out of business including ways that would otherwise be illegal. Do you truly think that if big company would let a smaller business try to steal their customers? If you do you're blissfully ignorant of the world around you.
Jamez773 4 months ago
" In a completely free market you have companies taking advantage of people."
Easy to make unsubstantiated assumptions, but as usual; you're mistaken. In a free market companies provide goods at low prices, and high quality. It's in their intrest to do so because ultimately they're competing for the consumer's support. If they screw up, other companies that can provide the same goods at lower prices will come in and take the old ones apart. That's the restrait! Not government.
regelemihai 4 months ago
"Do you truly think that if big company would let a smaller business try to steal their customers?"
Well no genius, that's what competition is for! They compete to get the consumer's support. If you're just arguing how competition drives other companies to the ground, and how mean they are for oing so, then I suggest you find a better argument.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai You're under the belief that companies put in safety measures and things out of the goodness of their hearts, which they don't. Child labor wasn't made illegal and guard rails weren't put in place because production increased. They were implemented because they were forced to. You think it's the government's fault that Companies make monopolies. yeah, because if nothing is preventing you from making a monopoly people don't do it. Because ya know, Greed doesn't exist or something.
Jamez773 4 months ago
"You're under the belief that companies put in safety measures and things out of the goodness of their hearts, which they don't."
I never said out of the goodness of their hearts. I said because it's more profitable to do so than to wantingly destroy their own productive capacity.
"Child labor wasn't made illegal and guard rails weren't put in place because production increased."
In large part yes it did. As productivity grew, they could afford hiring skilled labor in place of...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...the unskilled child labor force that came before.
"Because ya know, Greed doesn't exist or something."
Greed exists anyway, just like lust and anger exist too.No governing body can change human nature.
In a afree market that's exactly why you don't have monopolies--because their greed stops them from behaving like ones!The thing that "prevents you" from becoming a monopoly in a free market is common sense. If you raise your prices beyond what the market demands for a given product...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...you lose! Competitors will come in, offer smaller prices, and consumers will flock to wherever prices are the lowest. If you intend to act on the part of your greed in ways that harm the population, you lose, and therefore your business loses too.
If the government, however, comes in and sets up quotas and price controls, you can safely keep your pirces up, because now your fellow competitors are banned from lowering their costs. Big companies win, others lose. That's the definition of...
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai "Competitors will come in, offer smaller prices, and consumers will flock to wherever prices are the lowest."
Until the bigger companies that have been around longer and have half a dozen deals set up with other large companies runs the new person out of business. Do you not understand how the free market works at all? Someone with fewer resources comes in and challenges you, you run them out of business. This is like 101 stuff dude. You fall asleep in school or something?
Jamez773 4 months ago
"runs the new person out of business."
Yeah, like it happens today with Apple. I mean no other company today provides smarphones except Apple, right? After all, they've basically cornered the market on these products. As we can observe from reality, such nonsense remains in the realm of fantasy.
Besides, if they do manage to oust other companies, they do so because the sunsumer grants them that power. Consumers purchase more of their goods than the others--they should fail! Or maybe...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...you'd prefer to have those inefficient companies who make products at much higher prices and lower costs prevail over those who give you better products. One wonders...
regelemihai 4 months ago
"Someone with fewer resources comes in and challenges you, you run them out of business."
Resources are not limited in a free market; maybe you're the one spouting off slogans and are ignorant entirely of how the market works. It's how efficient you are at utilizing materials. If you're less efficient, you lose. But to assume that no small business can survive is to deny reality. ALl of the big companies started out that way. And it's funny since they've managed to do without the aid of...
regelemihai 4 months ago
..of government. Read history--it's small companies in the middle to late 19th century in the US that destroyed state financed monopolies. If thay hypothetical monopoly of yours gains a big share of the market, small competitors will run them to the ground because they'll offer the same products at low costs. No two ways about it. That's why all monopolies over the corse of history were the result of government. Without exception.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai When there is no laws preventing price setting, trusts, monopolies companies do them because it means more profits. They don't hold back and play nice to make the customer happy. You think Wal-mart gives a damn about the people they sell stuff too? You think that if they McDonalds didn't have to meet health requirements for meat that they wouldn't instantly go to cheaper less health cows?
Jamez773 4 months ago
" because it means more profits."
Again, meaningless phrase. When regulations are set in place, monopolies thrive. The profit motive is still there. The only difference is that competition is stifled too. It's easy to make profits into a dirty word without looking at the bigger picture, but appaels to emotion are not a valid way of arguing a point.
They hold back because when there's a free market you have profits+fear. They want to make money, but they won't engage in self destructive...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...behavior because they know they'll lose.
"McDonalds didn't have to meet health requirements for meat that they wouldn't instantly go to cheaper less health cows?"
Erm, no! Why would they intentionally harm their consumers? So that they alienate them quicker and drive them away?
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai "So that they alienate them quicker and drive them away?"
Where else are they going to go if they are allowed do use otherwise illegal business practices to run their competitors out of business because no regulations are in place? How about some critical thinking on your end instead of same "Anarchy works! LALALALALALA" argument?
Jamez773 4 months ago
"Where else are they going to go"
To other restaurant chains? I dunno? Makes sense? If McD wants to screw me over, I'll head down to the local Burger King, or Five Guys, or Wendy's. The fact that you have a great selection explodes your ridiculous assumptions about the market. The fact that some companies are a head of the game doesn't mean that no other company can thrive. History and bare naked reality is against you.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai "To other restaurant chains?"
Which would be giving you the same shit. Do you not understand that companies minimize spending to increase profits? If they can get away with a crap product they will. The fact stands that if no regulations are put in place than you can say goodbye to quality. History shows this to be true. Or did you sit through history class with a pair of Ayn Rand Glasses on with your fingers in your ears?
Jamez773 4 months ago
"Which would be giving you the same shit."
So you didn't refute my initial point. Sweet.
"Do you not understand that companies minimize spending to increase profits?"
More wrongheaded and simple minded injunctions.Companies seek to increase productivity so that the profit margin increases(the horror), and quality increases correspondingly.You can't offer this sophomoric rant over and over about companies making profits and assume it's a bad thing.It might fly in many liberal circles...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...but in serious scholarship it's no more than hysterical fearmongering.
" If they can get away with a crap product they will."
No they won't. I refuted your McD analogy already. If they intentionally harm their customer simply in order to save money, their popularity will decrease. Doesn't take much to imagine how more and more people getting food poisoning might somehow undermine the credibility of a restaurant chain.
Think. Use your noodle.
regelemihai 4 months ago
"Or did you sit through history class with a pair of Ayn Rand Glasses."
I wish I would've received something more similar to to that, instead of the falshood that you and many other youngsters are being fed in our schools and colleges. Unlike you I actually do know history. It's why I keep trying to convience you to see the other way, but we all know how open minded liberals are.
regelemihai 4 months ago
"How about some critical thinking."
Ironic, coming from you. Seriously...
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai "meaningless phrase. When regulations are set in place, monopolies thrive"
FACEPALM! Are you retarded or something? There is legislation put in place to STOP monopolies. In fact there was a case about cell service providers cornering the business that was STOPPED by regulation. So unless you WANTED to pay more for it seems like Regulations saved you from being robbed.
Jamez773 4 months ago
"FACEPALM!"
Faceplam harder--maybe you'll head start to work.
"There is legislation put in place to STOP monopolies."
And it's that type of legislation that creates them! Before these centerpieces of progressives festered the American economy there was no such thing! Only when companies were subsedised by the government! Start to get this through your head already!
"So unless you WANTED to pay more"
Again, you can only afford to enact draconian price fixing when the government...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...finances that practice via quotas! If you're dumb enough to raise prices just for the fun of it, competitors will run you down! Cornering the market in a free market happens only when the consumer has the freedom to choose between one company or another. If that one company gains a greater share and then chooses to screw over the same people who brought them to power (i.e. the consumers), they will drive them away thereby allowing competitors to jump in and replace them. Got it?
regelemihai 4 months ago
*maybe your head...
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai What you fail to understand is that the Companies ARE the government and they screw you over by using their new found tool. That's why Taxes are always so low for the rich, Companies are recognized as people, and you can't investigate Banks.
Are you this blind that you can't connect point a to point b?
Governments that AREN'T bought out were affected much less by the recession. But America with next to no regulations Crapped out.
Jamez773 4 months ago
"But America with next to no regulations Crapped out."
It was too much government intervention and regulations that caused that.
Companies, again, gain political favoratism when they receive subsedies from the government. In return, just like the unions, they contribute with their welath and funds to the same politicians who granted them favoratism. Government causes it.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai "Companies, again, gain political favoratism"
"Government causes it"
Derp. Are you trying to say that Government pushes companies to corrupt government officials to use the government? Please, that's a conspiracy theory up there with that Free Mason bull shit.
Companies buy out Governments and news outlets so they can manipulate them. Not the other way around. You're contradicting yourself you pathetic loon.
Jamez773 4 months ago
"Are you trying to say that Government pushes companies to corrupt government officials to use the government?"
Yeah, pretty much. Governments give them money so that in turn, when they do start to make profits, they'll return the favor in the form of generous political contributions. Not that complicated. If the only response you can muster is nonchallantly handwaving it away, then I suggest you read up on history.
regelemihai 4 months ago
"Companies buy out Governments and news outlets so they can manipulate them."
So I'm dabbling in cospiracy theories...Okay.
regelemihai 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@regelemihai "They want to make money, but they won't engage in self destructive behavior"
Did you miss the entire reason why the recession happened? Big Companies and Banks risked tons of money to get more profit. Making profit is ALL ABOUT risk and usually the greater the Risk the Greater the Profit. This is BASIC business school shit man. Do you think Companies make money by not rocking the boat? You've lost it.
Jamez773 4 months ago
"Big Companies and Banks risked tons of money to get more profit."
Yeah, thanks you. Via the government, banks and financial institutions were covered by other GSEs who guarantees mortgages, and operated under the assumption that if anything goes wrong they'll be bailed out. The excess risk was caused by government. In a free market companies aren't encouraged to take too much risk because they know they'll bear the costs if they fail.It's almost too easy with you.
Also, the FED...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...slahsed intrest rates to 1% allowing banks to take more risks by providing liquidity into the market--all the result of government.
At first I thought you were an intelligent dissenter. Now I know you're an ignorant leftist troll who's trying to sound smart while failing miserably.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai "Now I know you're an ignorant leftist troll who's trying to sound smart while failing miserably."
lol Seeing as how I already clarified what my political back ground was several times and you replied to me trying to push your Libertarian agenda on a comment that wasn't dealing with ANYTHING you started talking about it's safe to say that YOU are the troll. Now kindly go back to thumbing up Ron Paul videos and trolling communist forums.
Jamez773 4 months ago
"Seeing as how I already clarified what my political back ground."
You claimed you're more of a center-right person all the while expounding nonsensical leftist garbage. You've done everything BUT clarify your position. I think you yourself are more confused than you realize.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai "You claimed you're more of a center-right person all the while expounding nonsensical leftist garbage"
Ah, so because I'm not agreeing with everything you say than I'm not a conservative. This is looking more and more like you trying to pull off the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I'm a moderate conservative who is for the separation of Government and Corporations and thinks Companies shouldn't be able to do what ever they want (For the 4th time now Learn to read.)
Jamez773 3 months ago
@regelemihai "The excess risk was caused by government"
HA so now you think the Government wants companies to get more profit? Which is it retard? Hurt or help? Because you've been flip flopping this entire week without realizing it.
Also, the FED isn't a government institution you dumbass. That's another way how Companies make themselves more powerful than the government. The companies tell the Government what to do. Not the other way around. Or did you miss the last 4 decades?
Jamez773 4 months ago
"HA so now you think the Government wants companies to get more profit?"
They use them in order to acheive their political goals--whether that's public works, or in our latest crisis, getting everyone to own a house. They inadvertently make them rich, which is exactly my point. I didn't flip-flop on anything; you're just too dumb to comprehend even the simplest argument .You look silly the more you talk. But it's fun watching you :)
regelemihai 4 months ago
" the FED isn't a government institution you dumbass."
I see you're using more and more ad hominems. A sure sign of desperation, realizing you're losing the argument.
Well, the Fed is a central bank (a concept that is antithetical to the free market) operating on a government mandate with the centralized power of controlling money supply. It was founded by politicians and big bankers with the help of congress. Your ignorance is astounding.
regelemihai 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@regelemihai "I see you're using more and more ad hominems. A sure sign of desperation, realizing you're losing the argument."
That's not an ad hominem you moron. -_- And Ad hominem would be "Because you don't like the colour purple than that means you're wrong about Gay marriage."
Jamez773 3 months ago
@regelemihai And No, the Federal Reserve is not a government made institution. It was created by bankers who made a deal with the Government to control the countries money supply. Much like the First and Second Banks of America. And no, it's not against the Free Market. In fact it's what keeps a nation afloat when there are too many people wanting to withdraw money at one time.
Jamez773 3 months ago
"banker who made a deal with the Government to control the countries money supply."
Yeah exactly. With a government mandate.Government mandate.I'll say it one more time so that maybe you'll get it. GOVERNMENT mandate.Meaning it was granted monopoly powers from the government.Not a free market institution when it gets special treatment from government.
"In fact it's what keeps a nation afloat."
Yeah, by creating recessions, and by devaluing our dollar.It has done nothing but damage.
regelemihai 3 months ago
"The companies tell the Government what to do."
Sure. Keep drinking that kool-aid. You'll still be a clown, but a happy one at that.
I'll try to educate you one more time: The FED controls the supply of credit. Individual banks are not allowed to control the intrest rates on their loans, but are forced comply with the central bank (starting to sound familiar?) who dictates the intrest rates. Just a tiny nuance.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai "Sure. Keep drinking that kool-aid."
And you said I was being immature. You're the one who has bought into the big corporations brain washing.
"Everything will be okay if you make it so that we can do whatever we want with not consequences"
You have to be already really rich or really stupid to believe that. All you're doing is creating an Oligarchy. An Aristocracy made up of company executives.
Jamez773 3 months ago
"or really stupid to believe that."
Awesome refutation of my argument! I'll chalk this up to you being your ignorant self. Try again?
"thinks Companies shouldn't be able to do what ever they want."
You think companies should be regulated, you don't believe in the free market (you in fact said that the FED is good!), and you repeat the same asinine arguments that the left uses. You are not a conservative. It's not the "no scotsman" fallacy--it's a logical deducation. If I believe in...
regelemihai 3 months ago
...things that are contrary to a given ideaology, I'm not an adherent of that ideaology. Pretty straighforward, doncha' think? Or would you think it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that I'm a center-left person? If not, than you're committing the no true scotman fallacy.
"That's why you trolled me after reading something you didn't like."
Nah, more like wrote ONE comment in response to yours. I thought that what the comment page was for. No need to cry over it.
regelemihai 3 months ago
" BASIC business school shit man."
Business scholl shit. Wow. Eloquent.
Well, risk is a part of it, but when government first gives you free money through the FED and then insures your risk taking by bailin you out then it's not really a free market, is it? In a free market no one's giving you that assurence. If you fail, you fail. Knowing that such a truism is implied, companies take less risk. Basic economics.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai All you have done is push your libertarian ideology. Look at my original comment. NOTHING having to do with half the shit you talked about. You're just like every single pseudo intellectual conservative out there. You call anyone who disagrees with you a troll, a leftist, and implies that they are a communist. Please, go back to school kid. You make sane conservatives look like brain dead apes when you spread misinformation and propaganda like this.
Jamez773 4 months ago
"All you have done is push your libertarian ideology."
That makes a whole lot more sense than your watered-down leftist perspective.
"You call anyone who disagrees with you a troll, a leftist."
You didn't call me names? You weren't antagonistic? Talk about hypocrisy. At least own up to your own bias and stop acting so shocked when people disagree with your opinions. I call a troll when I see one. Notice I didn't do that at first when I thought you were rational. It's only after the...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...conversation got going that I started to realize who I'm talking too. There are plenty of people who disagree with me on these issues with whom I can have a civil conversation. One of my best friends is an outright marxist. It has nothing to do with ideaology.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai "There are plenty of people who disagree with me on these issues with whom I can have a civil conversation."
You mean people who will shut up and agree with you when you call the a "Leftists" a "Troll" and a "Communist" the second they say something you don't like?
Please, this entire discussion has been a "Hello Pot, I'm Kettle" Moment and the fact that you don't see that is pathetic. Now Sod off back too your fantasy world where big companies always do the morally right thing.
Jamez773 3 months ago
"You mean people who will shut up and agree with you when you call the a "Leftists" a "Troll" and a "Communist" the second they say something you don't like?"
Lol, I called you that after we went back-and-forth for a couple of times; it wasn't "the second" I saw your opposing view. It was once I saw how ignorant you are and how fervently you defended your position without understanding mine.
regelemihai 3 months ago
"Now Sod off back too your fantasy world where big companies always do the morally right thing."
And so ladies and gents, we close off by offering another emotionally charged strawman.
Well, I wish you well. I hope you'll get the chance to read any serious dealing with this topic in the future. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about, either on economic issues, or historical ones, and I hope you'll manage to get the necessary education that will allow you to converse with...
regelemihai 3 months ago
...adults. For now, shallow and midless sloganeering will have to suffice.
Cheers!
regelemihai 3 months ago
@regelemihai And you didn't even take the time to understand mine. You need to learn that the world isn't black and white and that if someone disagrees with you that it doesn't make them a communist.
Now then. I'm done with you.
Jamez773 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" And you didn't even take the time to understand mine."
You just rehashed the same old liberal talking point nonsense. Trust me, this isn't the first time I came across it. I understood you well; which is why I refuted you.
" if someone disagrees with you that it doesn't make them a communist."
Of course not. I never said so.
" I'm done with you."
Have a good one.
regelemihai 3 months ago
@regelemihai "You didn't call me names? You weren't antagonistic? Talk about hypocrisy. At least own up to your own bias and stop acting so shocked when people disagree with your opinion"
HA that's a laugh coming from the person who started this entire discussion because you couldn't look over a comment that you didn't like. Please, you're like a racist who when people call him a redneck he spouts off how he's been a victim of prejudice.
Jamez773 3 months ago
"when you spread misinformation and propaganda like this."
The emotionally charged rhtoric and vain sloganeering came from your side, sir.
" don't you have a tea party rally or communist trolling you need to take part in?"
How mature! What was that part you said about how we somehow muddy the debates, create divisions with our crazy rhetoric, and stereotype? moron. I've never been to a tea party, or on these "communist forms(?!)" you keep babbling about. What I know is from doing...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...research and from reading serious scholarship. All the information you've garnered seems to come from the superficial and silly material you've read in HS and have touched since, or from your leftist news networks. I daresay you haven't touched any serious book in your life; and it shows. Both in your incoherent arguments, and in your utter ignorance of *basic* economic theory.
I wish you well. Maybe in the future you'll learn to be more tolerant.
regelemihai 4 months ago
*haven't touched since
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai "Maybe in the future you'll learn to be more tolerant."
Uh huh. That's why you trolled me after reading something you didn't like. Yeah, okay. Go copy and paste some more crap you got out of Economics books that have been out of date since the late 1800's. Here in the real world where not every CEO and Wealthy Business man is a Saint ready to help the people, we'll laugh at your mindless fanatical drivel.
Jamez773 3 months ago
"Economics books that have been out of date since the late 1800's."
Lol, the hilarity. Feeling too intimidated, sparky? You feel the need to discredit my scholarship without any basis all the while using weak and long-refuted arguments pulled out of your bum. It's too bad you don't see just how pathetic you are.
"Here in the real world where not every CEO and Wealthy Business man is a Saint."
Talk about strawmanning. I never said they're saints. I just don't think like some...
regelemihai 3 months ago
...uneducated bleeding hearts whose only response to issuing concerning economics is " There are greedy CEOs running our country!" Or some other politcally popular mantras that make them think they know anything beyond what they've learned in middle school. Cute, but inappropriate when you talk to adults.
My overarching theme of this whole exchange was to say how entrepreneurship and political incetives create a dangerous fusion where some receive monopolistic powers over the many, and how...
regelemihai 3 months ago
...those same companies you hate have gotten there due to the favorable terms they are with the government. I've made the clear distinction between such a scenario and the one that a free market stands for where companies and government don't mesh. With your incessant and incoherent railings against the profits some of the companies are making you just proved my point. Those are the monopolies! The ones that receive governemnt aid. The ones who legislate for quotas and price settings and...
regelemihai 3 months ago
...regulations ARE the big companies. Back in the day where companies who did no such thing, and got rich through the market, got villified by do-gooders such as TR and other brainwahsed progressives because they were doing better than their competitors.Start to get the distinction. You're starting to look dumber than you are--and this is for all to see.
"Please, you're like a racist."
You're like those bigots who see racism everywhere simply because people disgaree with their opinions...
regelemihai 3 months ago
...Actually, the analogy the extremely apt. That's exactly what you're doing. Probably because you can't handle the pressure. You can dish it out but you can't take it, and so you go crying hysterically when someone dares to disagree with you. I trust you'll get over yourself one day.
regelemihai 3 months ago
@regelemihai Sorry, but there is no invisible hand to make sure that stupid people in big business don't crash the economy with risky investments. And There is no invisible hand that will pick up the pieces after their investments fall through and tons of people lose their money. You live in a fantasy world if you think that Companies don't do highly risky investments and they actually care about the American people or think of their workers as not being expendable drones.
Jamez773 4 months ago