• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Cons: Speak!

anomaly said:
This is the normal rant of someone with undying faith in capitalism. What you fail to mention is that the whole concept of inheritance destroys the entire argument of capitalism that goes "under capitalism, people who work hard always are rewarded". With inheritance, you have people (such as GW Bush) that do not work particularly hard, are not naturally 'gifted', and frankly aren't very intelligent making loads of money. Also, people cannot always, as you simplistically suggest, freely move up or down the economic ladder with 'hard work'. Talk to any sociologist in this country about what they call life chances and you will see this.
Some people do start out with an advantage over others, but you can always build at least a decent living for yourself with good effort and hard work. I'm not saying its possible for everyone to be a millionare, but earning a fine living with decent wages is quite possible for almost everyone.
 
Gabo said:
Some people do start out with an advantage over others, but you can always build at least a decent living for yourself with good effort and hard work. I'm not saying its possible for everyone to be a millionare, but earning a fine living with decent wages is quite possible for almost everyone.

Key word: ALMOST ANYONE. And that's now. Just think if your dream comes true and business is given total authority. Social mobility will become nearly impossible.
 
anomaly said:
Key word: ALMOST ANYONE. And that's now. Just think if your dream comes true and business is given total authority./QUOTE]

Let us examine....



-No minimum wage would allow for more employment opportunities and easier access to that ladder of success we all want to climb.

-Without high licensing fees and rediculous regulations on businesses, more small ones will be able to rise up and prosper.

-Those who need help to get on their feet can have it provided by caring charitable organizations funded by people like you and me who believe they deserve a chance too.

-The government will no longer be stealing from its dedicated citizens. It will be unable to use FORCE to break its own laws and violate its own citizens rights.

-People will no longer get great benefits and rewards for doing absolutely nothing with their lives, and will seek out work, becoming valuable members in society.

-Our nation will prosper and grow at a faster pace, increasing the overall condition of the people living here, throughout all classes.
 
gabo i assume you believe totally in the power of the market. do you know much about market failures?

what about regulations that prevent companies from polluting the environment. are these just or should they be done away with, so that firms can grow quicker. how much regulation of firms should there be to prevent exploitation of workers?
 
Global, don't you know anything? Regulations are always bad even when they're good...uh wait. Gabo, you're right in saying that no minimum wage would "lead to more employment opportunities" but it would by no means ease our climb up the "ladder of success". Unemployment would drop but poverty would skyrocket! And how would your capitalism look? Would the teachers and police still be spit on while athletes are praised for contributing hardly anything to society? As for lowering regulations, just look at global's post: many of the regulations are actually there for a reason. Who woulda thunk it!? Charity just doesn't work. I mean, currently how much do you donate in charity each year? And yet the gov't's "stolen" money is used to fund many useful social programs. So you want to not help the jobless? The abolition of the welfare state! So how will the homeless and jobless live inbetween jobs? Charity? It doesn't add up. If people were naturally charitable, there would be little need for taxes. Laissez-faire policies don't add up and they put too much economic power into too few hands, something sociologists have been warning against for years. Besides, you haven't mentioned how inheritance fits into your 'free' policies. They seem to disrupt the idea at the basis of free-market capitalism: People should make what they earn.
 
i agree with what you are saying anomaly, gabo seems to ignore the free rider problem when it comes to a charity based social security, why would i give my money to help others if others don't give there's. it would surely be to my advantage for others to pay and for me to get the benefit for free. as surely we do get a benefit from not seeing people hungry and begging on our streets.
as for inheritance the greatest indicator of an individuals future wealth is given by the wealth of their parents.
 
globalvision said:
what about regulations that prevent companies from polluting the environment. are these just or should they be done away with, so that firms can grow quicker. how much regulation of firms should there be to prevent exploitation of workers?
If individual people or organizations were allowed to own the enviornment, they would care for it as much as they do any property, and would sue corporations for polluting on their property.

Also, government is the #1 polluter in America. Yet it is able to take no responsibility by claiming sovereign immunity.

Third, if you can prove a company is effecting the air you breathe by polluting it, you should have every right to sue that company for contaminating.



anomoly said:
Unemployment would drop but poverty would skyrocket!
Not really. That is complete speculation on your part.

Low paying jobs are not meant to be permanent ones. They are, like I said, stepping stones for bigger and better jobs. Someone at a low paying job might not be making much at the time, but they can advance to a higher paying job extremely fast. Not only that, but they could receive aid from a charity if they need it. Also consider that without the government taxing the hell outta their paycheck they could take home much more of it.

And as far as I know, ANY job is better than NO job at all.

Please do explain to me how someone with SOME job is going to be in more poverty than someone with NO job at all. It doesn't follow simple logic.



anomoly said:
Would the teachers and police still be spit on while athletes are praised for contributing hardly anything to society?
It's not like some magic wizard made the world like this.

Athletes receive tons of money because people think watching that athlete is worth spending tons of money.

In a free market society, teachers would be respected and praised as much as they helped people. And because education would be private, the consumer would actually appreciate that the teacher is so valuable to their children.



anomoly said:
Charity just doesn't work. I mean, currently how much do you donate in charity each year? And yet the gov't's "stolen" money is used to fund many useful social programs. So you want to not help the jobless? The abolition of the welfare state! So how will the homeless and jobless live inbetween jobs? Charity? It doesn't add up. If people were naturally charitable, there would be little need for taxes.
I personally donated only $5 this year, but that is understandable considering I have no job and am not yet out of school.

But total charity for 2003 was $241 billion! That's an average of $1,812 for EVERY person in our country!
This is people giving out of kindness, even though the government already takes tons out of their paychecks!
Think how much more this would be if the government didn't rediculously tax us!

Also, the number of unemployed people would decrease drastically if welfare were abolished and wages unregulated.



anomoly said:
Laissez-faire policies don't add up and they put too much economic power into too few hands, something sociologists have been warning against for years.
On the contrary, Laissez-faire puts ALL the power in the hands of the people.

The higher ups would have to treat the common people with kindness and generosity because they get all their money from us!

One bad move and they could lose all their funding, and with that all their power!

But with our current system, the government controls everything. It does whatever it pleases, and we have no choice whether to support it or not. And if we don't support a system that may be failing horribly, we are sent to jail for "tax evasion".

How does that keep the power in the hands of the people?



anomoly said:
Besides, you haven't mentioned how inheritance fits into your 'free' policies. They seem to disrupt the idea at the basis of free-market capitalism: People should make what they earn.
My ideas is that no one, EVER, should be allowed to interfere with a person's life, liberty, or property by FORCE.

Inheritance is a voluntary agreement, consented by the giver and the receiver.
 
well gabo i am sure that when you get out into the big bad world and actually work you will see that things are not as simple as you see them.
 
globalvision said:
well gabo i am sure that when you get out into the big bad world and actually work you will see that things are not as simple as you see them.
Nice job playing the kiddie card, since you have nothing else left.


And things aren't as complicated as YOU see them.

Everyone owns themselves, including their life, liberty, and property.
Nobody violates anyone else's rights.
All interactions are done with mutual consent.


Not complicated, makes perfect sense.
 
dont worry gabo i was not playing the kiddie card on you, i give you a little more respect than that, i just left a reply for you on a different thread. plus i was kinda busy at the time to leave a convoluted reply.

i do feel that maybe you are stuck in your ways, always be open to different views of how the world works, experience informs a man better then anything else
 
globalvision said:
i do feel that maybe you are stuck in your ways, always be open to different views of how the world works, experience informs a man better then anything else
LOL! You're calling ME "stuck in my ways"!


You (and tons of other people on these forums) are the ones who refuse to believe that we could survive and prosper without Big Government. You are the ones who think Big Government needs to be mommy and tell us what to do.

I once believed as you did, until I discovered libertarianism.

The party makes complete sense. Why should anyone be able to tell me what I do? And what gives me the right to tell anyone else what to do?

We are all created equally and thus all deserve the same opportunity in life.
 
i dont think i ever said i was a fan of big government. i think you should check what i said over the last few comments. i am just not a libertarian, although i am probably more liberal then you think. where liberal has a slightly different meaning over here then what it does over there.
 
Gabo said:
LOL! You're calling ME "stuck in my ways"!


You (and tons of other people on these forums) are the ones who refuse to believe that we could survive and prosper without Big Government. You are the ones who think Big Government needs to be mommy and tell us what to do.

I once believed as you did, until I discovered libertarianism.

The party makes complete sense. Why should anyone be able to tell me what I do? And what gives me the right to tell anyone else what to do?

We are all created equally and thus all deserve the same opportunity in life.

Oh I believe we could survive without "big government", but I do think libertarians present an extremely idealized version of what it would be like. Corporations would have no regulations, no obligations to their workers. Some people would prosper, but many many others would not. Most workers would be much worse off than they are now, but that's just what they deserve, right? So Gabo, which occupations are currently 'over paid'? Factory workers? Machinists? Welders? Carpenters? These people were once known as artisans, respected people. You want to reduce them to nothing more than tools of management. You also overestimate the social mobility in laissez-faire capitalism. But let me get back to my question, exactly which occupations are over paid?
 
anomaly said:
Corporations would have no regulations, no obligations to their workers.
Except the fact that they need the workers to survive.

Why would these fat cats bite the hands that feed them?



anomaly said:
Some people would prosper, but many many others would not. Most workers would be much worse off than they are now, but that's just what they deserve, right?
No that's not what they deserve.
That is speculation on your part.

All I'm saying is TONS of jobs would return from overseas, allowing lots of people to go from earning NO wages to earning SOME wages.


anomaly said:
So Gabo, which occupations are currently 'over paid'? Factory workers? Machinists? Welders? Carpenters? These people were once known as artisans, respected people. You want to reduce them to nothing more than tools of management. You also overestimate the social mobility in laissez-faire capitalism. But let me get back to my question, exactly which occupations are over paid?
There is no such thing as 'overpayment'. People that take jobs are paid according to how much they are needed. If there are 10,000 jobs for carpenters and already 20,000 people wanting to be carpenters, DON'T BE A CARPENTER! Instead, go to a different industry where there is a demand for jobs.

And if you can really not find any job but must remain in your field, then you could (although not very easily right now with the tons of rules and regulations we have) create a business of your own. Without the plenty of rediculous rules/regulations we currently have, it would be easier to start and operate a small business.
 
It has been proven in history that these fat cats will indeed bite the hand that feeds them in the name of profit (industrial revolution). Look, Gabo, I don't have a problem with you expressing your opinion that capitalism is superior to other forms of economic systems, but for you to imply that capitalism is for the workers benefit is plain wrong. Again, look at the USA when we had few regulations (1870's-1920's). It is plain fact that capitalism allows some people of lower class to rise to prominence. That is capitalism's virtue, and why it succeeded, or evolved out of, feudalism. The vice of capitalism is that it has a tendency of placing economic power in the hands of very few people. Also, unregulated capitalism creates 2 classes: the working class and the business class. There is no middle class. Unfortunately, the majority of people under capitalism 'suffer', few people prosper, but it is the wide range of people who can and do prosper that makes it far superior to feudalism. I mean, why do you think such ideas as communism and socialism were created? Just to hurt us? No, they were created for workers rights. This is why government regulations exist for the most part: to help workers. I can't stress enough that history has taught us that unregulated capitalism creates huge profits, but it is at the expense of workers rights.
 
anomaly said:
It has been proven in history that these fat cats will indeed bite the hand that feeds them in the name of profit (industrial revolution).
Our quality of life increased so dramatically BECAUSE of the Industrial Revolution (the 2nd one that is). The dirty and poor working conditions were just a product of the times they were living in. But as that wonderful capitalistic system thrived, we went from the poor conditions of the IR to better and better things. With the IR came electricity, cars, subways, airplanes, and plenty of new sciences concentrated on curing disease and sickness. Capitalism saw plenty of problems in life and people sought to fix them. Through experimental techniques and various tries, the quality of life for ALL people increased.

Think about how much better this system would work nowadays since we already know how to avoid bad working conditions and many diseases.



anomaly said:
Look, Gabo, I don't have a problem with you expressing your opinion that capitalism is superior to other forms of economic systems, but for you to imply that capitalism is for the workers benefit is plain wrong.
Refer to previous paragraph.

Just like to add that the time during the IR caused the rise of the middle class.


anomaly said:
It is plain fact that capitalism allows some people of lower class to rise to prominence. That is capitalism's virtue, and why it succeeded, or evolved out of, feudalism. The vice of capitalism is that it has a tendency of placing economic power in the hands of very few people.
Untrue.

Like I said before, they can choose to bite the hands that feed them.
Sooner or later, the hands will find someone else to feed.



anomaly said:
Also, unregulated capitalism creates 2 classes: the working class and the business class. There is no middle class.
The IR, most capitalistic time for us, saw tremendous rise in the middle class.


anomaly said:
Unfortunately, the majority of people under capitalism 'suffer', few people prosper, but it is the wide range of people who can and do prosper that makes it far superior to feudalism.
Actually, everyone prospers.

Look at the increase in quality of life following the IR.



anomaly said:
I mean, why do you think such ideas as communism and socialism were created? Just to hurt us? No, they were created for workers rights. This is why government regulations exist for the most part: to help workers. I can't stress enough that history has taught us that unregulated capitalism creates huge profits, but it is at the expense of workers rights.
Suppose I offer to buy your home for $5 and you accept.
Would you come out and sue me, and go to the government for help because I was bamboozling you and violating your rights with unfairness?

Of course you wouldn't.

Because YOU AGREED to the terms and conditions. There is no such thing as protecting someone's rights when they are interacting with someone else in MUTUAL CONSENT. There are no rights to protect, because those people are CONSENTING to any rights they are giving away.


During the first IR, people wouldn't have had to come to factories to work in poor conditions for long, hard hours making a small amount.

But do you know why they all had to? Because the government passed the Enclousure Act, which allowed fat cats to buy out the family farms by FORCE, in order to have more control over the farmland. Then many families had to work horrible labor in the city BECAUSE of government regulation.
 
Gabo said:
Our quality of life increased so dramatically BECAUSE of the Industrial Revolution (the 2nd one that is). The dirty and poor working conditions were just a product of the times they were living in. But as that wonderful capitalistic system thrived, we went from the poor conditions of the IR to better and better things. With the IR came electricity, cars, subways, airplanes, and plenty of new sciences concentrated on curing disease and sickness. Capitalism saw plenty of problems in life and people sought to fix them. Through experimental techniques and various tries, the quality of life for ALL people increased.

Think about how much better this system would work nowadays since we already know how to avoid bad working conditions and many diseases.




Refer to previous paragraph.

Just like to add that the time during the IR caused the rise of the middle class.



Untrue.

Like I said before, they can choose to bite the hands that feed them.
Sooner or later, the hands will find someone else to feed.




The IR, most capitalistic time for us, saw tremendous rise in the middle class.



Actually, everyone prospers.

Look at the increase in quality of life following the IR.




Suppose I offer to buy your home for $5 and you accept.
Would you come out and sue me, and go to the government for help because I was bamboozling you and violating your rights with unfairness?

Of course you wouldn't.

Because YOU AGREED to the terms and conditions. There is no such thing as protecting someone's rights when they are interacting with someone else in MUTUAL CONSENT. There are no rights to protect, because those people are CONSENTING to any rights they are giving away.


During the first IR, people wouldn't have had to come to factories to work in poor conditions for long, hard hours making a small amount.

But do you know why they all had to? Because the government passed the Enclousure Act, which allowed fat cats to buy out the family farms by FORCE, in order to have more control over the farmland. Then many families had to work horrible labor in the city BECAUSE of government regulation.

Transnational globalisation today has very few regulations (companies can get up and leave the USA, leaving thousands of people jobless, really anytime they want). How can you honestly say that under a system of free markets all people prosper? Capitalism is no magical device to cure the problem of poverty. It is a very productive economic system that seeks to gain profit, and does this at the expense of whatever it is allowed. Does everyone prosper today? Why do you think Nike and Gap can charge low prices for their products? Internationally, very few prosper. In saying that everyone prospers under capitalism, you are forced to believe in 'trickle down' economics. Unfortunately for these workers, often times we see a trickle up effect. Not much of this great profit is ever seen by the poor sweatshop workers in China. And as regards to the IR, I know that the only time when workers rights did improve in the USA is when Roosevelt created the New Deal, part of which created a minimum wage and maximum hours employees could work. If worker exploitation never happens under capitalism, why were these regulations neccesary? You are right in saying that gov't regulation is sometimes bad for the average American worker, but unrestrained capitalism is almost always bad for the worker. Now, I don't have much info on the enclosure act, but I would like to know who was president at that time, because, unless my mind deceives me, I believe it was a Republican! This would, of course, make sense because Republicans are traditionally pro-business, or to say it another way, pro-fat cat.
You also say that workers have a choice as to whether they work for low wages, they give their consent, as you put it. Well, people have to make money! And if all these businesses offer the same low amount to workers, what choice does the worker have? In your idealized version, you say that the worker would just go to another company offering more money. Now, why would a company give more to its workers, when its competitor is giving less? The latter would inevitably create a larger profit that the former, and thus have the ability to buy out their competitor. This is why there is a tendency in laissez-faire capitalism to see workers salaries drop. Profit is power, and everyone wants power. This is why we DO need minimum wage laws.
 
anomaly said:
Transnational globalisation today has very few regulations (companies can get up and leave the USA, leaving thousands of people jobless, really anytime they want). How can you honestly say that under a system of free markets all people prosper? Capitalism is no magical device to cure the problem of poverty. It is a very productive economic system that seeks to gain profit, and does this at the expense of whatever it is allowed. Does everyone prosper today? Why do you think Nike and Gap can charge low prices for their products? Internationally, very few prosper. In saying that everyone prospers under capitalism, you are forced to believe in 'trickle down' economics. Unfortunately for these workers, often times we see a trickle up effect. Not much of this great profit is ever seen by the poor sweatshop workers in China. And as regards to the IR, I know that the only time when workers rights did improve in the USA is when Roosevelt created the New Deal, part of which created a minimum wage and maximum hours employees could work. If worker exploitation never happens under capitalism, why were these regulations neccesary? You are right in saying that gov't regulation is sometimes bad for the average American worker, but unrestrained capitalism is almost always bad for the worker.
I can see that we are never going to agree upon this subject.
Good luck to you, and I hope that the best way wins, regardless of what it is.



anomaly said:
Now, I don't have much info on the enclosure act, but I would like to know who was president at that time, because, unless my mind deceives me, I believe it was a Republican! This would, of course, make sense because Republicans are traditionally pro-business, or to say it another way, pro-fat cat.
The Enclousure Act was in Great Britain, as it was the leader in the 1st IR.



anomaly said:
You also say that workers have a choice as to whether they work for low wages, they give their consent, as you put it. Well, people have to make money! And if all these businesses offer the same low amount to workers, what choice does the worker have? In your idealized version, you say that the worker would just go to another company offering more money. Now, why would a company give more to its workers, when its competitor is giving less? The latter would inevitably create a larger profit that the former, and thus have the ability to buy out their competitor. This is why there is a tendency in laissez-faire capitalism to see workers salaries drop. Profit is power, and everyone wants power. This is why we DO need minimum wage laws.
If Company A pays more than Company B, all the workers will go to A, giving that company all the profit. Company B, however, will go bankrupt because it doesn't provide good wages.

This is how a free market achieves the constant battle for higher wages and lower prices.
 
Gabo said:
I
If Company A pays more than Company B, all the workers will go to A, giving that company all the profit. Company B, however, will go bankrupt because it doesn't provide good wages.

This is how a free market achieves the constant battle for higher wages and lower prices.

This seems to be all wrong gabo, a very over simplification. companies will normally attempt to reduce wages rather then increase them. your also assuming that company A has sufficient capacity to take on all of campany B's workers. your forgetting that there is unemployment in the economy. this means that companies do not need to increase wages as there is not a labour shortage. free markets achieve efficiency, this has nothing to do with higher wages and lower prices.
 
globalvision said:
This seems to be all wrong gabo, a very over simplification. companies will normally attempt to reduce wages rather then increase them. your also assuming that company A has sufficient capacity to take on all of campany B's workers. your forgetting that there is unemployment in the economy. this means that companies do not need to increase wages as there is not a labour shortage. free markets achieve efficiency, this has nothing to do with higher wages and lower prices.
A free market economy allows an unlimited amount of businesses in an industry.

And when there are more job slots than there are available workers, the workers have control of the market and the companies must compete.

But when there are more workers than jobs, the companies have control.

This happens when there's a minimum wage, which makes companies want to go overseas, taking thousands of job opportunities with them. This also happens when businesses are overregulated and overtaxed, which makes small businesses drop out of the market.
 
Gabo said:
A free market economy allows an unlimited amount of businesses in an industry.

And when there are more job slots than there are available workers, the workers have control of the market and the companies must compete.

But when there are more workers than jobs, the companies have control.

This happens when there's a minimum wage, which makes companies want to go overseas, taking thousands of job opportunities with them. This also happens when businesses are overregulated and overtaxed, which makes small businesses drop out of the market.

Gabo, where do you get your view from? Is this what all libertarians are like? You oversimplify laissez-faire capitalism, you overestimate its benefits, and you refuse to look at history. Laissez-faire policies were indeed practiced from the 1870's to the 1920's in America. They are to the benefit of the business, not the worker. Hence the rise of socialism and communism. If you don't believe me, crack open a history book. This is why we in the USA has regulations, because history has told us that we need them! Where are you getting your opinion that workers wages actually rise because of laissez-faire economics? If this is true, why did the USA need a law to ensure workers a minimum wage? Your views just don't add up. I'm sorry if I sound angry, but for a laissez-faire capitalist to come in here and say that workers' rights will improve under a system of no regulations capitalism is just plain false. I have no problem with you expressing your views. There are plenty of reasons to be a supporter of the capitalist system, just read some Ayn Rand to discover this. But capitalism is not a system under which workers will prosper, even the greatest capitalist thinkers admit this. Ayn Rand never talks of the fair treatment of workers in her books. This is the philosophy of capitalism: People are not all equal, and should therefore make as much money as they deserve. The capitalist philosophy has nothing to do with the treatment of workers. So please, please stop using this as an argument for capitalism.

That being said, Gabo, I too wish you good luck in your search for the 'best way'. I am indeed weary of debating economics so vigorously. I suppose I should search for allies. So, is there anyone out there who agrees with me, and if not, you probably agree with Gabo. But if you do agree with what I have to say, lemme know. For me, that would be a much more favorable discussion.
 
anomaly said:
Gabo, where do you get your view from? Is this what all libertarians are like? You oversimplify laissez-faire capitalism, you overestimate its benefits, and you refuse to look at history.
Actually, you overcomplicate capitalism.
You make things seem unfair when they are derived from a MUTUAL AGREEMENT.
You look at history the way the Republicrats want you to look at history.



anomaly said:
Laissez-faire policies were indeed practiced from the 1870's to the 1920's in America. They are to the benefit of the business, not the worker. Hence the rise of socialism and communism. If you don't believe me, crack open a history book. This is why we in the USA has regulations, because history has told us that we need them!
While life for a certain individual did not increase, both IR's resulted in an overall increase in living conditions. Look at how we live today compared with that of before the IR's!

History showed that the current system wasn't working, because people had their rights violated against their will. But instead of assuring that rights were not violated, we chose instead to use more aggression. We fought fire with more fire, only adding to the blaze.



anomaly said:
Where are you getting your opinion that workers wages actually rise because of laissez-faire economics? If this is true, why did the USA need a law to ensure workers a minimum wage?
If you look at statistics, the percentage of people on minimum wage is infinitesimal.

A job is worth how much it is worth. Minimum wage laws try to rewrite the economy into something it isn't. It doesn't work. Instead, the businesses take their production elsewhere, someplace where they pay what the job is worth.

Minimum wage laws are huge causers of unemployment.



anomaly said:
Your views just don't add up. I'm sorry if I sound angry, but for a laissez-faire capitalist to come in here and say that workers' rights will improve under a system of no regulations capitalism is just plain false. I have no problem with you expressing your views. There are plenty of reasons to be a supporter of the capitalist system, just read some Ayn Rand to discover this. But capitalism is not a system under which workers will prosper, even the greatest capitalist thinkers admit this. Ayn Rand never talks of the fair treatment of workers in her books. This is the philosophy of capitalism: People are not all equal, and should therefore make as much money as they deserve. The capitalist philosophy has nothing to do with the treatment of workers. So please, please stop using this as an argument for capitalism.

That being said, Gabo, I too wish you good luck in your search for the 'best way'. I am indeed weary of debating economics so vigorously. I suppose I should search for allies. So, is there anyone out there who agrees with me, and if not, you probably agree with Gabo. But if you do agree with what I have to say, lemme know. For me, that would be a much more favorable discussion.
Like I said before, we are never going to agree on this.

If you feel obligated to continue throwing arguements at me, I have no problem with responding. But it would save us both some time, energy, and frustration if we just stop trying to convince each other.
 
Gabo said:
Like I said before, we are never going to agree on this.

If you feel obligated to continue throwing arguements at me, I have no problem with responding. But it would save us both some time, energy, and frustration if we just stop trying to convince each other.

Well said. Our views are complete polar opposites. I know I'm right, and you know I'm wrong (although, I hope you will one day see it my way). Again, I would like to make a call out to someone who actually shares my views on economics. It would be much more rewarding for me to talk to an ally rather than an ideological enemy.
 
I think we'd both be happier if we set our differences aside.

We could probably strike up a warmer conversation concentrating on our similarities.




So, what don't you like about government?
 
Gabo said:
A free market economy allows an unlimited amount of businesses in an industry.

And when there are more job slots than there are available workers, the workers have control of the market and the companies must compete.

But when there are more workers than jobs, the companies have control.

This happens when there's a minimum wage, which makes companies want to go overseas, taking thousands of job opportunities with them. This also happens when businesses are overregulated and overtaxed, which makes small businesses drop out of the market.

Gabo a free market certainly does not allow for an unlimited amount of business in an industry there are always natural limits! when there is a labour shortage do you not think that most companies would move to a location where there is abundant labour supplies rather then increase their wages. i am not denying that overregulation and overtaxing affect business, i am simply stating that it is not as simple as you perceive.
 
Back
Top Bottom