Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
truly pathetic how you keep flogging a dead horse long after it's been proven that not only is it dead, but its also really a dead elephant
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
truly pathetic how you keep flogging a dead horse long after it's been proven that not only is it dead, but its also really a dead elephant
Sooo myopic, this is a description of market dynamics [[Econ 101), yet you think that Obama is about to reinvent the wheel...while we sink into Marxist despair under his statist agenda.
your response had nothing to do with my reply, bats.
yes, market fluctuations are necessary in any natural supply/demand situation. fluctuations that create a bubble arise when the market regulators are stripped away, and when significant numbers of people try to go for the quick buck via speculation. that creates a speculative market, not a natural market. it is a market based on nothing but a belief in perpetual increase, which is based on the mistaken model of infinite goods. that is why capital gains taxes must be raised to 40% on items held 366 days or less, gradually dropping to 10% over 10 years. it creates a stable, reality-based, long-term oriented market
Speculation is part of investing and the market...it can't be eliminated or controlled justly, and "not a natural" market only applies to markets that are manipulated by government [[or some entity) with the threat of force behind said manipulations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
certainly it can. when rampant speculation creates bizarro securities no one [[not even their creators) can fully understand, when it irrationally drives up costs creating a bubble, etc., etc., it threatens the economic security of the nation and therefore can and must be regulated and moderated. it creates nothing but paper wealth and problems
Explain why Anti-trust Regulations were seen as needed to protect the general populace from Capitalists.
Very simple, antitrust laws preserve sole ownership of the only type of remaining monopoly to the government...coercive [[backed by the threat of the use of force) monopolies...meaning immense power to the government [[guess who wrote those laws....the inmates run the asylum).
Ah, Bats.
Your lack of historical perspective is quite boring. You couldn't be more wrong.
we need to resurect Teddy the Trustbuster, the last truly great Republican president
A prime example is the bundling of bad mortgages and assets by the lending companies that brought us this current financial crisis, or as it really is, this Republican Recession.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
Rb...you should take your own advise and go back to the 1800s when the initial antitrust legislation became law....read about that history.
Yes, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was signed into law by Republican president Benjamin Harrison in 1890, and was designed to break up the Standard Oil Trust, which did nothing to affect the bottom line of the Rockefeller family, since JDR died nearly 40 years later, nearly 100 years old, and was still the richest man on earth.
Breaking up Standard Oil was a defining moment in the history of the robber barons, and of business in the US. It paved the way to sane taxation on the wealthiest Americans, which we enjoyed through Carter, but was systematically disassembled by Reagan and his successors.
The final rape and pillage of the US Treasury happened last fall by the three stooges, Tush/Cheney/Paulson, and got us where we are today.
We should all make use of those rape kits, but we know who did it, the Bush Crime Family with a little help from their Rethugnican friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
like you've ever read a real history text in your life. I have studied the history of Sherman and the subsequent modifications. If you believe in competition, as you claim, you would back the anti-trust laws and enforcement of them. it is clear in your comments, and those of other randians, that what you really want is monopolies, which, of course, leads directly to corporate feudalism.
How is it competitive to put in place a set of laws that limit individual/corporate freedom in favor of government coercive monopoly and control over the means of production?
The ends justify the means?
interesting how you equate corporate freedom with individual freedom. corporations are NOT individuals. until you can throw a corporation in jail for murder [[starting, of course, with United Health), they should not have rights that supercede the individual. of course, Bats wants to take away individual rights - like the right of workers to come together in a union, but that is a different storyQuote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
Your post couldn't be more right-on. Republicans have fought for the idea of giving corporations the same rights as individuals for years now, and thankfully have failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
This is one area that needs special vigilance in keeping the fascist leanings of Republicans away from our personal rights as individuals. Our democracy needs constant maintenance and participation, not the neglect that it has been shown for so many years now.
Obama's election, whether or not any of us voted for him, was such a repudiation of the corporatist ideals which have dominated our politics these last years.
Corporations ARE individuals organizing their efforts in a particular business venture.
ah, organized labor
So you would advocate for Unions having the rights of individuals as well. Super! Glad to know you see it both ways. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
Organized labor and unions have a place if they are vehicles of efficiency and productivity. Sadly, in the US, they have become the exact opposite and need to go.
Freedoms, like those of speech and assembly, allows participation in unions and other non-related entities like health care plans and religious institutions in a free market society. However, when such institutions severely harm their host, participants pay the consequences and sometimes both the sometimes unwilling host and the organization it is hosting die. I support the right to form unions and don't think they have to go. However, they should be careful not to overreach.Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
Batts is advocating for the elimination, perhpas by legislation the freedom of assembly.
It'll be a cold day in hell before unions are not allowed to exist.
We almost got there, though, under the Bush Regime, as our rights were gradually being stripped away under the so-called Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions Act.
If we did go all the way with this fascist dictate, then we would be living under the Rethugnican ideal of authoritarianism.
We need to dust off Sherman and go after Walmart, Exxon, AIG, United Health Scare, and a few others. Trust busting is a favorite pastime of mine, and I have advocated for it for years.
Assemble all you want freely, just don't illegally restrict trade and the rights of others to the ownership of the fruits of their labor in the form of organized labor demands.
Without that labor, there would be no "fruits" to enjoy.
This doesn't give employers the right to enslave their workforce.
Government serves a purpose here in establishing a minimun wage, which without one, employers would be paying 1.00 and hour, much as they are allowed to do with wait staff in restaurants, since it's assumed they get tips, which are also taxed, by the way, thanks to Ronald Reagan's fascist dictates.
You can just forget about unions going away. In fact, by consistently trying to cheat their employees, employers will never garner any loyalty, and will rightfully suffer through the theft and abuse of their workplace until a little more respect is earned.