I've been thinking lately. Capitalism. Out of all the people that I've heard complain about it, they usually all complain about one thing, Corporatism. Corporatism is when giant corporations have monopolies over all the markets and they work with each other to stagnate the market with no competition and they price as high as they want since there is no one to stop them since they paid off the government to look the other way. Corporatism is the ultimate jew tactic, buy everyone else out and have total control over the market and unfortunately Corporatism can easily take place in a Capitalistic market if they are left unchecked and not stopped, which happens often. So that leads me to this, is there a way to restrict and heavily tax corporations while leaving smaller businesses with almost no regulations letting them flourish and stand up to giant Corporations?
In history no other economic system has proven itself to spark fast and innovative growth than Capitalism and in that time of fast growth, its in its purest form of companies competing against each other while innovating and leading to companies paying higher wages, offering cheaper prices of goods, and advancing technological growth just to get the leg up on the other company while everyone else is benefiting off of the growth. However Corporatism is the total opposite as I mentioned. So to prevent this what if corporations was in a different category than small businesses? For example in the US, corporations and small businesses are generally in the same category and this leads to a problem. If you was to target the corporations, you would also target the small businesses since they are in the same category and group. What if the government was to target only the corporations to regulate and tax while leaving small businesses in their own category to flourish and grow with barely and regulations in place for them? Is this even possible? Would this hurt or harm the economy? What is the threshold for when a business becoming a corporation and when is it time to be fit into the corporation category?
In this thread we can discuss this and get as many ideas as possible about this. I know how you guys love a good Capitalism thread so I figured this would be interesting to discuss.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): FDD6963E5A2F86ECFD92EF31AE4EE5CA-273255.png (266.9 KB, 1280x720, 85647654873.png)
This is what Keynesian social democracy is about and it fails miserably. You have to realize that while government attempts to provide services it saves no money and thereby costs the people more than if they were left to their own devices. Same for regulation, which can be considered a "bad" as it restricts behavior. These bads are not pushed onto the populace equally but rather those who have political influence: (((special interest groups))), (((plutocrats))), and (((lobbyists))) will be given less real pressure (no matter how the government says they're redistributing wealth). These companies are given an unfair advantage through less pressure from regulations as well as receiving favors and contracts. Small businesses do not have the capital, time, or know-how to secure favors and so they are harmed. You can attempt to counter-act this, but as politicians are inherently self-interested they will court favors in new and creative ways.
It's ultimately a fault of government. Government is a monopoly of law and order and, unlike any other monopoly, keeps itself in a monopolistic position through force and coercion. As such, government lacks the pressures firms face in the private sector and unscrupulous people can congregate through a combination of networks, favors, and demagoguery. These people in a democratic system do not consider the fate of their country after their tenure and will engorge themselves personally on political favors. Successful businesses realize that they cannot be successful forever if new and brighter competition comes along so they lobby for regulations and favors that provide a means of security.
It's ultimately a fault of government. Government is a monopoly of law and order and, unlike any other monopoly, keeps itself in a monopolistic position through force and coercion. As such, government lacks the pressures firms face in the private sector and unscrupulous people can congregate through a combination of networks, favors, and demagoguery. These people in a democratic system do not consider the fate of their country after their tenure and will engorge themselves personally on political favors. Successful businesses realize that they cannot be successful forever if new and brighter competition comes along so they lobby for regulations and favors that provide a means of security.
>>148593
>It's ultimately a fault of government.
Ok, but we aren't going to get rid of the government or we will become vulnerable to another state.
>It's ultimately a fault of government.
Ok, but we aren't going to get rid of the government or we will become vulnerable to another state.
>>148593
>>148731
It's my (flawed?) understanding that the USA was originally intended for the states to have the most power in their state. The Federation was just for mutual defence. A citizen can then move between competing governments that are mostly independent. This government competition might be a solution?
The problem of course is that some humans are predators/psychopaths who seek more power, and nature naturally seeks to unite smaller elements into larger complex systems.
>>148731
It's my (flawed?) understanding that the USA was originally intended for the states to have the most power in their state. The Federation was just for mutual defence. A citizen can then move between competing governments that are mostly independent. This government competition might be a solution?
The problem of course is that some humans are predators/psychopaths who seek more power, and nature naturally seeks to unite smaller elements into larger complex systems.
>>148803
I've been watching this debate and it is related to the issue. www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUtj9dSkzII
What you are describing is the Articles of Confederation that were (sadly) repealed because of the federalization of debt and the free-riding from states that resulted. Another historical example was the Holy Roman Empire, which was practically the ideal decentralized nation until it was plagued by religious and political struggles between the Prussian and Austrian factions.
You are quite right in your statement of the problem. Although balance of power does work to some extent and America undoubtedly has preserved more freedoms than the comparatively unitary European states, power will centralize as ice crystallizes around a kernal. There are several reasons for this: 1) smaller states will ultimately disagree and an arbiter will be sought, 2) times of crisis produce demand for a strong state, 3) central governments can claim tacit support from the bulk of the country and therefore wield far more resources than rebellious states, and 4) the power-hungry will almost always go to federal government where they see the most potential and will aggrandize authority there.
I've been watching this debate and it is related to the issue. www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUtj9dSkzII
What you are describing is the Articles of Confederation that were (sadly) repealed because of the federalization of debt and the free-riding from states that resulted. Another historical example was the Holy Roman Empire, which was practically the ideal decentralized nation until it was plagued by religious and political struggles between the Prussian and Austrian factions.
You are quite right in your statement of the problem. Although balance of power does work to some extent and America undoubtedly has preserved more freedoms than the comparatively unitary European states, power will centralize as ice crystallizes around a kernal. There are several reasons for this: 1) smaller states will ultimately disagree and an arbiter will be sought, 2) times of crisis produce demand for a strong state, 3) central governments can claim tacit support from the bulk of the country and therefore wield far more resources than rebellious states, and 4) the power-hungry will almost always go to federal government where they see the most potential and will aggrandize authority there.
>>148825
So the problem is not so much which system is best, but rather what has been put in place to stop the psychopathic gang from taking over.
Maybe all positions of power are short term, say 5 years. They can have full time experts to call upon, but decision making is by a person who was formerly an ordinary citizen and will be again soon.
So the problem is not so much which system is best, but rather what has been put in place to stop the psychopathic gang from taking over.
Maybe all positions of power are short term, say 5 years. They can have full time experts to call upon, but decision making is by a person who was formerly an ordinary citizen and will be again soon.
5 replies | 1 files | 1 UUIDs | Archived