Ooblagato said: actually quite well before the 90's hit and corporations were deregulated because "people needed to have faith in the free market" and now, over a decade later theres economic recession like the world hasn't seen since the great depression. We all see how well that works. Ooblagato said: your assuming all private investigators and journalists are honest, uncorruptable people. that can't be bribed or bought by corporations to say what corporations want them to sayIf someone gets busted on a big lie people don't trust them any more. It's in companies' best interest to find dirt on their competitors. Between private investigations and journalists publishing any thing that might be a scandal to the public, underhanded work just wouldn't fly. already we see corporations funding research projects that support things that go against what the general public would like or what is safe to hear. things like stuff against climate change. in your world of corporations rule all, whats to stop all corporations from publishing whatever the hell they like whether its true or false? who would examine all the data to determine which is true and which isn't if all corporations are publishing dirt, true and false, whenever they felt like it? you said so yourself that humans are corruptible, dishonest and selfish, so that's a lot of people that can be bribed to say whatever their corporations tell them to say and the general public won't know what to believe. the woman that spilled hot coffee on herself and sued macdonalds? in her settlement she signed an agreement to not talk about the case afterwards. macdonalds used their resources to spin the story to make her seem greedy and stupid. people believe she won millions of dollars. in reality the woman suffered burns and needed skin grafting... and all she sued for was the amount that her insurance didn't cover. its in the documentary hot coffee, look it up. Ooblagato said: In a free market what's best for the customer is best for the company. When you can very simply switch service providers to the cheaper/better service companies are pushed hard to keep their products on par with their competitors. In a free market when people try to make artificial high prices it spurs new competition like no other. If the cost to produce a cell phone was $1 and the current market price was $200 competitors would flood the market pushing the price down to a stable, reasonable price. oh really? than how to explain the price of diamonds? diamonds aren't rare, they are artificially inflated in price. the reason is because corporations found it more profitable to keep the price artificially high than let competition run the market value. diamonds, cell phone service and internet service (the service, not that actual phone) are all examples of corporations weilding their collective power to stay afloat and make more money than if there was competition Ooblagato said: and most of it is superficial, not real efforts to save the environment. without regulations companies can lie and say whatever the hell they want. a real life example is nestle baby formula in africa... what happened was nestle made some baby formula that had no nutritional value and marketed it in africa, where no regulation exists, they marketed it as nutritious and guess what? babies died. did nestle go out of business? no. i bet you eat nestle productsWhy do you think major companies are 'going green'. Do you think it's because of government restrictions? No, it's because the financial incentives of appeasing common people to raise their name. Ooblagato said: okay, so minimum wage doesn't exist. lets say your doing your job, making seven dollars an hour and someone comes in and offers on the spot to do your job for less. and hes equally qualified as you to do so. in your world unions wouldn't exist because why would they need to? people vote with their dollars, right? a union exists to protect you from getting fired for reasons like that. sure, you could take a pay cut, but then someone else comes, equally qualified that is willing to work for even lower. it gets so bad you need to work three or four jobs just to make a living. having minimum wage is something that we created to safe guard our economies against another great depression. not having minimum wage doesn't protect the individual at all, it just gives corporations power over their employees because now they can force people to work for as little as possible, with hardly any benefits or vacation or anything because people will be too poor to fight against it and theyd want to keep their jobs...And minimum wage? Are you joking? You say that we shouldn't be able to hire someone to watch over an entrance while reading a book or playing around on the internet when only maybe one person comes by an hour for what they're willing to accept for it!? There are so many productive easy jobs that would be available without minimum wage, If someone is willing to work for less than 7 bucks an hour let them. This isn't about corporations benefiting, it's about individuals. Ooblagato said: i think i already covered this with the nestle thing.... people still buy nestle thingsFree markets are regulated by every single individual and every single transaction. There is nothing in a free market that is not regulated by individuals. Ooblagato said: except that didn't happen. i'm talking about things that happen in real life, not what you think would happen. REAL LIFE EXAMPLES! corporations band together every single time its profitable for them to do so. People are responsible for their own decisions, if someone takes out a stupid loan and signs a contract that says they will pay it back, I expect them to do so or lose their investment. As for companies offering good emergency loan services, competitions would drive them to make more reasonable/acceptable terms. the creditors that took on the loans expected them to pay it back too but if theres no money, theres no money, so they defaulted on the loan. it had nothing to do with the people that got the loans and everything to do with the irresponsible lenders. except the lenders got away with it and made tons of money. another example of corporations not competing with each other and instead working together to ensure profits for all would be cable companies. i don't know what cable companies are in texas, but you rarely see cable companies compete in the same region and if they are more than one cable company they charge within the same price range and the reason is because cable companies, like internet and phone, all agreed to do this. car insurance companies do the same thing because car insurance is mandatory if you own a car and any company that tries to get in and compete with the set prices is destroyed by litigation and lobbying so its impossible. companies run by cost benefit analysis, which means they do research to see how profitable something will be before they venture in to it and it isn't always in the best interest of the individual or customer. a real life example would be the ford pinto car. what happened was ford made a car that exploded when hit from the back and instead of not realeasing it at all they did a cost benefit analysis to see how much they would make if they released it and then dealt with the lawsuits that would happen. they released it because it would be profitable. they valued the human life at 200,000 dollars at the time, it was 1970. oh yeah, ford is still around. huh. (oh yeah, people died too. isn't the free market a wonderful thing?) this is the problem with corporations ruling the system. human lives become meaningless dollars, and human speech becomes dollars. the industrial revolution was before regulations and unions existed. there was child labour and death and plague and disease and poverty because it suited the rich and bourgeoisie fine, but some people were treated like dirt. that is why democracy cannot be run on dollars because that is not free speech or equality. you are putting way too much faith into the consumer being aware of everything, especially in a world where there is no regulation and there is nothing to protect anyone from spreading lies and deciet about other companies (or people in general) Ooblagato said: i considered your points and i concluded that free market solutions are stupidI believe that should conclude just about every one of your points/arguments. Before moving on with the conversation I recommend you seriously consider every one of these points and honestly (with your own mind, not something someone told you) come to a logical conclusion on them. ford pinto cost benefit analysis data http://www.safetyxchange.org/tools/cost-benefit-analysis-the-ford-pinto-example nestle baby formula thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott cable companies don't compete http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2001/06/are_cable_companies_scared_to_compete.html googling collateralized debt obligation and subprime mortage crisis will give you more information about the the other thing i talked about or you could just wiki it too and a link just cuz im nice http://useconomy.about.com/od/economicindicators/tp/Subprime-Mortgage-Primer.htm so there you have it. facts. history. real examples of corruption in the free market. |
GilgakiJun 12, 2012 2:39 AM
| Looks like GH0STSMILES nailed it, so no need to go into everything. Ooblagato said: You just described exactly what your free market solution would do, not how a democratic government works. You should see your hypocrisy as well.Humans are corruptible, dishonest and selfish. Let's make a system where a small group of particularly corruptible, dishonest and selfish humans have a monopoly on power and the use of violence and label it 'government'. Either way, a free market solution is indeed immensely more corruptible than a democratic government could be, that much is readily obvious. Plus, the checks and balances and huge amount of laws regulating the government's power exist specifically to lessen the impact of their authority. A democratic government absolutely needs to thread lightly in order to retain their legitimacy, and are limited by laws, the other powers and the watchful eye of the media. A purely market based model on the other hand, would have absolutely no constraints, and the plutocratic elite would use their money to become tyrants. You should really look up political structures and democratic governments a bit before you argue like this. Ooblagato said: Well, people are free to go settle somewhere in a non regulated wilderness area if they so wish. You are focusing solely on the negative aspects of governance, the social contract only puts some limits on people's independence and lists some rules they have to follow, and in return they get protection, a stable and safe environment and untold benefits provided or guaranteed by the state.No one has signed the imaginary 'social contract' nor if there was a document that you were told to sign that was backed by the threat of violence would I hold it legitimate. Even if it was an "optional" thing in order to allow you to function in society they would still be pointing guns at employers and such saying that they can't hire you or they get thrown in jail and such. The state is an entity that claims a monopoly on violence. To ask of it to stop violence is hypocritical flawed thinking. How on earth is it hypocritical and flawed to ask the state to stop violence? They have a monopoly on legalised violence, which is precisely why they are the ones best suited to stopping it. Leave it to the people themselves and they will inevitably escalate their issues and destroy all semblance of safety and security in society, and leave it to mercenaries like you propose and the plutocratic elite will crown themselves tyrants.Now, I don't know what state you are thinking as your example, but it surely must be a failed on for you to only focus on the negatives. The success of a democratic government obviously differs from case to case, but take a socialist paradise like Norway, and I cannot possibly see a single argument that a free market mercenary security solution would be better. |
| Sorry for being late, Baman! Baman said: jal90 said: Then again, other more accepted drugs, like tobacco and alcohol, can be just as, and sometimes even more harmful than some of the commonly banned drugs. Obviously with these, years of common use have rendered them normal and generally acceptable in the eye of the public, whereas newer forms of drugs are frowned upon whether they are more dangerous or not.I find it surprising to see the comparison between the case of drugs and the case of prostitution. The laws against drugs are based on the fact that they are potentially harmful products and what is pursued in most cases is the distribution (trafficking), that is, the ability to harm other people by doing the activity. Still, it's a individual choice on whether to take them. And there are obviously positive effects with them, otherwise, no one would use them in the first place. Who what about unhealthy food then? It too trades it long term health issues for short term satisfaction. And here, we've even gotten a proposition of making stuff like Happy meals and Kinder eggs illegal due to them being unhealthy food clearly marketed towards children with complimentary toys. Pretty retarded if you ask me. As far as I am concerned, the state should be required to ensure everyone knows the risks involved with unhealthy food as well as drugs, and even go to some lengths to attempt to help junkies, but making anything that's unhealthy illegal is ridiculous, it's like treating us all like children. If we deem it acceptable to destroy our bodies in exchange for momentary pleasures, then so be it, individual choice. I actually agree with your line of thought. My comment was more directed towards the comparison between prostitution and drug dealing, and the idea that the prohibition would avoid certain behaviours. In the case of drug dealing it's a direct effect (drug consumption); in the case of prostitution it's an indirect, not necessarily reached, effect (slavery and abuse). The comparison of drug trafficking with fast-food restaurant chains or bars which sell booze makes more sense than that. They are all about the distribution of products that are potentially harmful for the organism and can cause addictive behaviours, after all. |
| law is not used for morality in this age even if law is supposed to be the manifestation of the governments morality this is not what is moral objectively or moral subjectively for its subjects. for instance the reason why some drugs are banned in america is so the government can have ties with south american drug lords so they sell their countries resources (mainly drugs and farmland) to america on favorable terms. Objectively there is no moral stance on drugs and the populace will probably have a conflicting view but that is not the stance of the government here also, america has set forth lots of coups (which are objectively bad considering the genocides that have resulted) and even if the government says democracy is good it won't necessarily follow its ownadvice |
| ~"The place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands." (Pirsig) |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |