Is government broken?

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3240412
I disagree and think this makes absolutely no sense. The pure act of competition creates a winner and a loser. Eventually the winner takes it all sort of like a national championship. Gov't control is not what causes the lack of competition, and in a lot of cases gov't control, i.e. anti-trust law, is what keeps competition going. The only way that a market will correct a monopoly situation is when the monopolist charges outrageous prices in the name of the profit motive, but even then the barriers for a competitor to enter the market are usually extremely high and therefore implausible.
Also, what does gov't tax and regulation have to do with outsourcing? I can think of a few rare situations where that might happen, but overall it has to do with comparative wage rates.
Competition is what made ours probably the greatest country in history in a relatively short period of time. Capitalism doesn't make the foolish assumptions Progressives/marxists/Socialists do regarding human nature. Call it competitive spirit or greed but given the opportunity people will tend to push themselves to do better than others. On the other hand we are not totally unlike a cat. You hand feed them long enough they lose the incentive to hunt their own food.
Yacht builders, steel industry, heavy equipment manufacturing, electronics. None of these are particularly labor intense other than the yacht builders which left because of a foolish luxury tax. You telling me they like paying to ship their products from overseas?

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3240514
Competition is what made ours probably the greatest country in history in a relatively short period of time. Capitalism doesn't make the foolish assumptions Progressives/marxists/Socialists do regarding human nature. Call it competitive spirit or greed but given the opportunity people will tend to push themselves to do better than others. On the other hand we are not totally unlike a cat. You hand feed them long enough they lose the incentive to hunt their own food.
Competition is good, and should be promoted, I'm not disagreeing with you there, I am disagreeing with your assertion that the only way to absorb all the competition is by gov't intervention, which is a possible way but it is far more likely the act of competition itself will absorb the competition. Look at many of the large companies in this country if you need examples.
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3240514
Yacht builders, steel industry, heavy equipment manufacturing, electronics. None of these are particularly labor intense other than the yacht builders which left because of a foolish luxury tax. You telling me they like paying to ship their products from overseas?
Ok, I'll take your word on Yacht builders....but the rest? The rest have to do with the price of inputs regardless of what the gov't has done. Even if they are not labor intensive doesn't mean the input prices as a whole aren't lower.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3240606
Competition is good, and should be promoted, I'm not disagreeing with you there, I am disagreeing with your assertion that the only way to absorb all the competition is by gov't intervention, which is a possible way but it is far more likely the act of competition itself will absorb the competition. Look at many of the large companies in this country if you need examples.
The Standard oil monopoly didn't wipe out "mom and pop" competition. It only prevented them from becoming large. With just simple legal protections on trade marks, copyrights and patents you are always going to have competition, one company couldn't take over a single industry, let alone all of them. Just look at GE.
Ok, I'll take your word on Yacht builders....but the rest? The rest have to do with the price of inputs regardless of what the gov't has done. Even if they are not labor intensive doesn't mean the input prices as a whole aren't lower.
Raw materials are a world wide commodity. No real advantage in processing that in a 3rd world country based on input price.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3240756
With just simple legal protections on trade marks, copyrights and patents you are always going to have competition.
=A type of gov't regulation. For those that think capitalism can't operate with gov't, I would argue that capitalism can't operate without gov't.
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3240756
Raw materials are a world wide commodity. No real advantage in processing that in a 3rd world country based on input price.
"However, it is much more likely to be much worse given current trends (described above). U.S. Steel (X) is over priced. It is losing money heavily. It has rapidly growing competition, which has a lower cost structure. The competition also has generally newer equipment as many more of its factories have been recently built. U.S. Steel is not in a position to take business away from the Chinese, Russians, or Ukrainians. In fact it is the other way around."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1774...-and-overhyped

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3240772
=A type of gov't regulation. For those that think capitalism can't operate with gov't, I would argue that capitalism can't operate without gov't.
I am not arguing that capitalism shouldn't be regulated, simply over regulation hurts worse than under regulation. If the government were to just enforce the patent and copyright laws (along with wage and basic employment laws) it would be much better than having them step in and trying to dictate how businesses are ran and what percentage of the market they control.
"However, it is much more likely to be much worse given current trends (described above). U.S. Steel (X) is over priced. It is losing money heavily. It has rapidly growing competition, which has a lower cost structure. The competition also has generally newer equipment as many more of its factories have been recently built. U.S. Steel is not in a position to take business away from the Chinese, Russians, or Ukrainians. In fact it is the other way around."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1774...-and-overhyped
And why is it that US Steel is "over priced"? It isn't a particularly labor intense business so despite the fact it's unionized workers hurt the bottom line that isn't the reason. It's raw materials costs are the same as the others for the most part. Why is it they don't add modern equipment to their factories?

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3240327
As long as there is more than one plantation owner there will always be competition.
"As long as" is a HUGE caveat. The ultimate goal of Capitalism is Monopoly (hence the popularity of the game.)
"Competion is a sin." John D. Rockefeller.
Only way to absorb all competition is through government control ie; socialism.
Not true. Alternatives to that theory are:
1) Private enterprises can buy the competition up. The Supreme Court and SEC are supposed to regulate the marketplace, but largely (mostly since Reagan, but under Clinton as well) both have ignored or approved anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions.
2) The larger company can bury the upstart competition through the policy of "We're bigger than you are and can afford to lose money in this market for longer than you can."
Outsourcing is a direct result of over reaching tax and regulatory policies placed on the plantations where it becomes more economically feasible to share profits with an overseas owner plus pay shipping costs to freight your product from thousands of miles away than produce it in our country. Our government couldn't possibly be so stupid as to tax and regulate our industrial base overseas could they?
They should. Just like private citizens (whose Constitutional rights corporations seek for themselves) they should be subject to US law on foreign soil.
Outsourcing is a combination of over reaching tax and regulatory policies and the EVERPRESENT need of Capitalism to lower costs. Some of the policies which cost corporations money are publically beneficial. For example, regulating the permissible amount of adulterations to your food - which should be 0, but I digress... The easy way out of that is to grow the food elsewhere, where regulation, whether rational or not, can be bought off. Eat all the Mexican grown tomatoes or Chinese farm raised shrimp you want. "Organic" or not - I won't...
The point is, because regulation costs money does not make it wrong, except to Capitalists.
Ultimately, an enforceable balance needs to be struck. Part of the purpose of Government must be to regulate greed for the public good. If anarchy is to be the rule of the day - not just in the marketplace, but in any segment of society - then what do we need government for at all?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3241331
"As long as" is a HUGE caveat. The ultimate goal of Capitalism is Monopoly (hence the popularity of the game.)
"Competion is a sin." John D. Rockefeller.
Not true. Private enterprises can buy the competition up. The Supreme Court and SEC are supposed to regulate the marketplace, but largely, mostly since Reagan, they have ignored or approved anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions. The other way around that is the larger company can bury the upstart competition through the policy of "We're bigger than you are and can afford to lose money in this market for longer than you can."
They should. Just like private citizens (whose Constitutional rights corporations seek for themselves) they should be subject to US law on foreign soil.
Outsourcing is a combination of over reaching tax and regulatory policies and the everpresent need of Capitalism to lower costs. Some of the policies which cost corporations money are publically beneficial. For example, regulating the permissible amount of adulterations to your food - which should be 0, but I digress... The easy way out of that is to grow the food elsewhere, where regulation, whether rational or not, can be bought off. (Eat all the Mexican grown tomatoes or Chinese farm raised shrimp you want. "Organic" or not - I won't...)
The point is, because regulation costs money does not make it wrong, except to Capitalists.
Ultimately, an enforceable balance needs to be struck. Part of the purpose of Government must be to regulate greed for the public good. If anarchy is to be the rule of the day - not just in the marketplace, but in any segment of society - then what do we need government for at all?
I am not saying the government shouldn't regulate, I am saying they need to get their noses out of the internal workings of corporations but given the choice less is better than more.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3241404
I am not saying the government shouldn't regulate, I am saying they need to get their noses out of the internal workings of corporations but given the choice less is better than more.
If it's not to determine what is or isn't criminal behaviour, what is the purpose of government?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3241461
If it's not to determine what is or isn't criminal behaviour, what is the purpose of government?
So what does that have to do with regulations? Investigating criminal activity is a completely different situation from meddling in day to day operations.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3241501
So what does that have to do with regulations? Investigating criminal activity is a completely different situation from meddling in day to day operations.
You make it sound like the employees are stumbling over regulators.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3241506
You make it sound like the employees are stumbling over regulators.
No but complying with certain regulations takes a large enough army of employees they certainly stumble over each other.
Instead of hiring a fleet of government workers to pour over a company's records, and requiring a company to hire a fleet of accountants to create the records how bout we just lower corporate income taxes to a reasonable rate and cut out all the gimmicks, loopholes and other needless crap.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3241509
No but complying with certain regulations takes a large enough army of employees they certainly stumble over each other.
Instead of hiring a fleet of government workers to pour over a company's records, and requiring a company to hire a fleet of accountants to create the records how bout we just lower corporate income taxes to a reasonable rate and cut out all the gimmicks, loopholes and other needless crap.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3241501
So what does that have to do with regulations? Investigating criminal activity is a completely different situation from meddling in day to day operations.
It has everything to do with it. Government is the sole determinator of what is criminal in the first place.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3241538
It has everything to do with it. Government is the sole determinator of what is criminal in the first place.
So if the cops decide you look like a drug dealer they can just walk in and toss your house based on that alone.
If the government thinks you spend your money foolishly do they have the right to come in and dictate how you spend it?
The constitution says "the government" doesn't get to be the sole determinator (what ever that means) of what is criminal. They get to create the laws. If they think one has been broken they must show just cause before a judge to get permission to go into your personal item. Then make a case before a jury who will determine whether the law has been broken or not.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3241586
So if the cops decide you look like a drug dealer they can just walk in and toss your house based on that alone.
I've been "arrested" for less. Bear with me, this is a long story.
The last time I visited my former state of residence (WI) I was hauled out of my mother's house for an alleged traffic warrant. (We'll get back to that part.) I was asked to step outside, but I refused, so I was grabbed and pulled outside. I was cuffed and shoved into the back of the police car. I was not Mirandized, nor was I formally placed under arrest. The cop, on the way to the station, explained to me that if I was found guilty of the violation, then my CA driver's license would be considered invalid in WI. I was hauled into the station, fingerprinted, photographed and was given a bill for $137.00. I paid in cash. The cops then drove me home while telling me there was no problem with my CA license, so I was free to drive a car in WI.
Here's the sitch. The community which "arrested" me did not file the violation with the State (that's a crime, btw. because the community, in not having reported my violation was attempting to avoid revenue sharing with the State.) Under the Clinton administration a law was passed which said that if I had an outstanding violation in State A, I could not get a driver's license in State B. I had a valid CA driver's licence. If any WI violations had existed, I could not have gotten one under Federal law.
Now, it is possible that the Fed screwed up and cleared me to get a license anyway. The likelier probability however, is that the local cops did not report my violation to the State. They do so because then they don't have to share revenue with the State as is required by law.
In recounting the story, I am not attempting to excuse myself from guilt in the original crime.
The problem is this: I was improperly "arrested" for something I did. How the local police department handled the entire situation was entirely Unconstitutional. I was not Mirandized, charged with any crime, there was no warrant for my arrest shown to me, there was no warrant to search the property, I was forcibly removed from private premises, the violation was not reported to the State (as required by law), etc.
Constitutional rights? Yeah. I'm gonna fight that how?
If the government thinks you spend your money foolishly do they have the right to come in and dictate how you spend it?
Non-sequitur. How does A correspond to B?
The constitution says "the government" doesn't get to be the sole determinator (what ever that means) of what is criminal.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/determinator Sorry to have used unconventional English. Would "determinor" better suit your etymological needs?
So, having framed an argument based on a statement containing a word you admittedly don't understand, I'm not exactly sure what any point you make beyond that could be. I cannot respond to the remainder of your statement without further elucidation.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3241999
I've been "arrested" for less. Bear with me, this is a long story.
The last time I visited my former state of residence (WI) I was hauled out of my mother's house for an alleged traffic warrant. (We'll get back to that part.) I was asked to step outside, but I refused, so I was grabbed and pulled outside. I was cuffed and shoved into the back of the police car. I was not Mirandized, nor was I formally placed under arrest. The cop, on the way to the station, explained to me that if I was found guilty of the violation, then my CA driver's license would be considered invalid in WI. I was hauled into the station, fingerprinted, photographed and was given a bill for $137.00. I paid in cash. The cops then drove me home while telling me there was no problem with my CA license, so I was free to drive a car in WI.
Here's the sitch. The community which "arrested" me did not file the violation with the State (that's a crime, btw. because the community, in not having reported my violation was attempting to avoid revenue sharing with the State.) Under the Clinton administration a law was passed which said that if I had an outstanding violation in State A, I could not get a driver's license in State B. I had a valid CA driver's licence. If any WI violations had existed, I could not have gotten one under Federal law.
Now, it is possible that the Fed screwed up and cleared me to get a license anyway. The likelier probability however, is that the local cops did not report my violation to the State. They do so because then they don't have to share revenue with the State as is required by law.
In recounting the story, I am not attempting to excuse myself from guilt in the original crime.
The problem is this: I was improperly "arrested" for something I did. How the local police department handled the entire situation was entirely Unconstitutional. I was not Mirandized, charged with any crime, there was no warrant for my arrest shown to me, there was no warrant to search the property, I was forcibly removed from private premises, the violation was not reported to the State (as required by law), etc.
Constitutional rights? Yeah. I'm gonna fight that how?
Non-sequitur. How does A correspond to B?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/determinator Sorry to have used unconventional English. Would "determinor" better suit your etymological needs?
So, having framed an argument based on a statement containing a word you admittedly don't understand, I'm not exactly sure what any point you make beyond that could be. I cannot respond to the remainder of your statement without further elucidation.
Ever watch Cops? That stuff is real and unedited in most cases. The cops don't have to mirandise you until they are going to question you as a suspect in the case. If they crack you on a traffic warrant they don't have to show or tell you jack. Now if they came to your mother's house solely to pick you up on an outstanding warrant then that might be different, that would be up to WI law but I assume they issue a bench warrant which means the cops are acting on behalf of the court and the rules are different.
I assumed you meant determiner and responded accordingly. If that was not your intent please, feel free to enlighten me.

 

[bigarn]

I'm Spartacus!!

 

[beth]

Originally Posted by bigarn
http:///forum/post/3242051
I'm Spartacus!!

Ok, enough with the Spartacus nonsense...

 

[bigarn]

Hey, I'm responding to posts ... not hurting anyones feelings or being nasty.
You need to chill for a change, or turn in your mod-ship IMO.
I'm Spartacus!!

 

[reefraff]

You sure that isn't Sucatraps