A few drinks in, and I immediately start talking about the inevitable collapse of humanity in the hands of capitalism.
A few drinks in, and I immediately start talking about the inevitable collapse of humanity in the hands of capitalism.
You're viewing a single thread.
Strengthen governments? Corporations have been specifically sowing distrust in government so that they can convince voters to weaken regulations and vote against their own interests. How are corporations strengthening governments when they benefit from weak government?
Corporations benefit from Capitalist governments. Larger Capitalists benefit when it is more difficult to compete, such as with strong IP laws or high startup costs, giving them free reign for monopoly.
They also love large militaries, as the MIC makes a ton of money off the suffering of people worldwide.
A strong government could take down corporations, but it has to want to do it first.
Perhaps if we invent some sort of system where a temporary voice-person or policy-person, with a career in legal matters who are chosen by asking each individual of a fairly defined district until a consensus is formed, gets sent to a meeting hall for other district's persons to meet and discuss broad policies. Then, if that that person fails to meet expectations of constituents they don't get their contract renewed and somebody else gets sent.
We could call it a "Vote-archy." Idk, just spit-balling here.
Nah. That would never work.
People would be immediately disillusioned when they didn't immediately get their need met and corporations would swoop in and capture regulatory bodies.
They’re not weaker they’re captured. It’s a concept called inverted totalitarianism and it’s terrible.
Controlled opposition.
yeah, the corporations have been doing that, not the shitty behavior of the governments.
Regulations help to protect large corporations from competition, and then the larger the government is the more contracts it gives out. Are you saying we need a bigger stronger government?
Regulations help protect people from corporations. This libertarian take is total nonsense. What makes competition difficult for new entrants is the overwhelming size of modern day multinational corporations and the capital investment required to wage any sort of real competition which is something that is only going to be fronted by other extremely wealthy interests. So, yes, we do need bigger, stronger governments in relation to those very powerful corporations, specifically strong enough to break them up. Or ideally nationalize them entirely.
People who say stuff like this have never tried. You'll never hear a person who actually starts a business say anything of the sort. Usually insane tax rates is their gripe.
taxes and the immense burden of regulatory compliance
That is kind of true but it also protects corporations from small businesses. For example min wage harms small businesses much more than large corporations. You can like the "protection" but then you will get what you get with corporations and costs. If you opt for the bigger government then you will get things like unaffordable houses and inflation, so dont complain when you get what you asked for.
In fact, minimum wage earners tend to put a greater portion of their earnings back into the local economy vs. savings and increases help or at least don't impact particularly negatively small business. Neoclassical economics is a joke.
It was a populous example and if you want to get into the weeds on it we could, but it wasnt the important part of the comment.
I love how you guys claim that sort of economics is dumb as you cant afford a house and to feed yourselves. Modern monetary policy is working great!!
Our current economic situation is the product of decades of regulation cutting supply side (aka neoclassical) economics championed by the likes of Thatcher and Reagan, which still dominates today. You know where housing is not unaffordable? Vienna, Austria. A place where better than half the residents live in social housing. The product of a strong government and regulation.
So your theory is that housing is so expensive because of less regulation? And if we had more regulations in how houses are built housing would be cheaper?
Yes, of course. Banning short term rentals for example is a regulation that would put downward pressure on housing prices. Banning investment companies such as Blackrock, Blackstone, etc from purchasing single family homes, duplexes, 4-plexes and the like would do the same. Whereas the lack of regulation around these things has contributed to home price inflation. The idea that people are unable to afford homes because there is too much regulation holds water like a sieve.
That is hillarious, I can tell you dont know anything about how housing built. Have a great day!
It's really frustrating that you read the comment outlining the kind of regulation that would help, yet you somehow think the only kind of regulation possible is "make houses harder and more expensive to build" and dip out of the conversation with a "wow ur dumb lol". It's almost as if you've been arguing in bad faith and have no information to back up any of your takes.
Yeah, all that housing in Vienna appeared from nowhere.
But sure, you have a great day as well.
Ok but without regulation you get poverty wages, 12 hour shifts, 6 day work weeks, and food with no nutrition unless you think lead is a vital mineral.
This is not 1812 anymore. If it were like that why wouldnt you just work for yourself or an employer that treats you well?
Lmao
Just among so many other things, like the lead poisoned baby food from March this year, you clown, the FDA was established in 1906, and Republicans are, right now, trying to abolish child labor laws and hiring 12 year olds in meat packing plants.
Sure thing bro!