Its funny, people from other countries are dumbfounded when they hear
that US citizens are the most generous of their time and money of
anybody in the world. THis is because when an individual pays less of
their income to government theives, they tend to see charity as an
individual responsibility that comes with greater economic freedom.
>
> > > Won't this corporations have too much power and therefore harming
> > > everyone (the consumers and general public) but themselves?
> >
> > I doubt that they'd have as much power as governments do now,
> > and governments often harm everyone (the consumers and general
> > public) but themselves.
>
> In all your messages there is a hate towards government, I also despise
> politicians but don't corporations 'own' the government, even in the
> U.S.? It's the same thing, the same problem.
THe US economy, despite the claims of politicians, is not a free market,
though it is among the closest of any nation in existence to a free
market. Our economy is a mercantilist economy due to one short little
clause in our Constitution: "congress shall regulate interstate
commerce". Due to this, businesses that grow strong can use their
profits to fund lobbyists and politicians to pass regulations and laws
that aid and protect big business. The so called Anti-Trust laws are
merely to prevent any one corporation from growing larger and more
powerful than the Federal government.
>
> EvMick@aol.com wrote:
> > If any corp starts exploiting...they go broke...(absent government
> > meddling)...monopolies are only possible in a controlled economy...can't
> > happen in a free market...negative feedback..
>
> I'll be honest, I don't know what negative feedback is and I know
> nothing of basic economics but I always knew that "united we stand,
> divided we fall". If a corporation starts achieving a substantial
> advantage towards everyone else, as it grows, it will eventually become
> more efficient, more capable, will be able to have the most competitive
> prices and therefore, will achieve a monopoly status. Right? (I see that
> in Portugal every time, small shops complaining about big commercial
> centers and supermarkets)
And what sort of economy does Portugal have? The negative feedback is
that big business is less capable of innovation and rapid market
response than small business, due to their big investments in current
technology and deep management heirarchy. EXAMPLE: IBM. So the more a
big business tries to dominate, the more it will try to dampen
technological growth, which is opposed by pressure by small businesses
that can offer new technology. EXAMPLES: RAILROADS vs. Ford Motor Co. in
1900, IBM vs. Apple in 1980.
>
> YakWaxx@aol.com wrote:
> > If the consumer wants environmental issues addressed, the consumer will get
> > environmental issues addressed.
>
> I think that this sentence is a good example of a very important detail
> you seem to forget.
> In this list, and even in the internet, the average person is from a
> much higher social scale and much higher intellectual level than the
> rest of the population. IMHO, most persons are stupid, plain stupid.
> Besides, many persons are also selfish and greedy. The consumer, the
> common citizen doesn't know and doesn't care about environmental issues.
> I'll give you an example, one of the first countries to urge for serious
> measures to prevent global warming was Holland. Why? Not for altruistic
> reasons, of course, but because part of Holland is below sea level, land
> conquered to the sea by dams.
So it was the threat to their very lives? I dunno, we in the US have
done some pretty good positive environmental things via market pressure.
EXAMPLES: Recycling, Dolphin Safe Tuna, BGH free milk (which is opposed
by big argri-corps and governments).
> You talk about how the market will control big corporations and the
> millions of consumers will lead the market into the best path, let me
> ask you something, why is government so corrupt? People theoretically
> control government (by voting) and still government is corrupt, why is
> that? What makes you think that indirect control of economy by persons
> is going to improve anything?
Because government concentrates power in the hands of the few,
corrupting the powerful rapidly, while indirect control dilutes power
into digestible, uncorruptible bite sizes for everyone.
>
> EvMick says that free-market works, my question is for whom, for the
> persons who are already wealthy or for the ones who are poor and have
> nothing?
When one uses a dynamic scoring model to measure the effect of taxation
on disposable income, one sees that ANY tax imposed has a far far
greater effect on the poor than on the rich, even when it is as highly
progressive as the Swedish system. Only a system that was scaled such
that the person making an average income paid nothing, with money from
those posessing or earning above average wealth flowing directly to
those below average on a sliding scale, with a 100% efficiency of
redistribution would not have a regressive impact on those below average
more so than on the above average.
Since capital generates a surplus when invested freely, and government
confiscation almost always earns less than is spent (a few notable
exceptions like the space program, etc. had nothing to do with welfare
economics), the fact that the wealthy are getting wealthier faster than
the poor are getting wealthy is unimportant when you simply examine
disposable income against a fixed standard of living. Liberals claim
that income here in the US is shrinking for the poorer people, but they
don't mention that they consistently raise the yardstick of the
"standard of living" while at the same time overstating the real level
of inflation.
> Since unselfish reasons rarely incentives anyone to do anything, let me
> ask you something, do you think that the poorer classes generated by
> free-markets will stand still? My bet is that they'll riot and that is
> what I fear.
In a free capital market, economic growth is mostly restricted by the
rate of expansion of labor resources. If people riot at all, it will be
because they cannot get enough free time. In the late 80's, the biggest
strike in Boeing history occured not because of bad pay or conditions,
but because they were forced to work too much overtime. THe workers had
saved so much money from working so much and not having time to spend it
that they struck for something like 100 days or so. They finally won the
concession from Boeing limiting them to 275 hours of overtime a quarter
each.
>
> Finally, one more, last, thing, Chris R. Tame wrote:
> > Doesn't anyone read books anymore? Why do so many people on the net ask
> > elementary questions which are much more satisfactorily answered by
> > going to the basic literature rather than by a flurry of incomplete or
> > sketchy net responses? Who wants to spend time typing in elementary
> > introductions to basic libertarian thought?
>
> I read books, I find it, however, much less boring and time consuming to
> ask other persons. Or do you read a book every time you have a doubt or
> a question?
Yes I do, usually 3-6 books a week.
-- TANSTAAFL!!! Michael Lorrey ------------------------------------------------------------ mailto:retroman@together.net Inventor of the Lorrey Drive MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering ------------------------------------------------------------ How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?