Blackwater, the numerable "green" energy companies, Standard Oil(and the Rockefeller family), and on and on.
Not to mention that corporate person hood should not exist.
Blackwater was a bunch of washed up wanna be green berets before bush came along and integrated it into the government. Is this where your going?
No, I don't believe the government should be doing nation building in the first place.
Better to not allow them to exist, by not doing stupid military incursions.
I'm not talking about nation building. I'm talking about the government making its duties subject to private contract.
Monopolies happen because the corporation is more efficient then small business. That’s just the way it is.
By saying this, you are agreeing that government interference is a necessary ingredient in the formation of monopolies. Corporations are distinguished from other entities because of certain legal protections/exemptions.
It's formal duties that are expressly written as duties of the government, should be left to the government.
Nation building isn't really a government duty.
There for Blackwater would have no use.
It is not true that the big old monopolies formed because of government involvement. That is a complete misreading of history.
It is true that most businesses will run more efficiently if they are consolidated, but it is not always true. Where it is true, monopolies will form, unless the government steps in to stop them or break them up.
Monopolies form most easily and stay in place longer where the barriers to entry are high. Government can indeed form high barriers to entry, and can therefore induce the creation of monopolies. But, to make the wild leap that Gov't interference is the only cause, or even the primary cause, of monopolies is simply that: A wild leap.
Blackwater isn't nessesary in anyway.. but the move away from a public military to a private military is a free market ideal.
Corporations come first from free market and government is forced to deal with them it is a natural progression.
Depends on what system you believe in.
I do not believe in anarcho-capitalism, so that isn't true for me.
I believe in a market free from subsidy and privilege, with a legal system that prevents fraud and force.
No.
The term "Corporation" is a legal one, defined by government policymakers. Corporations are government-sanctioned entities, regulated and enforced by law.
Private for profit is more expensive then doing work at cost.. simple stuff. Efficiency is always a matter in both situations but the added cost of profit makes this sort of enterprise for the state an unacceptable expense when they can do it internally.
They are a natural progression of free marketing.
Government can't operate efficiently most of the time.
They act as a middle man scraping off additional revenue because there is no demand to control costs.
Profit exists but cutting costs is a part of the market because competitors are always trying to gain an edge over each other.
When the government has a monopoly there is no incentive to cut costs in competition.
There are some places where that is marginally acceptable but the public should be more aware of how their money is being spent.
what do you mean by this?
If you are trying to say that they form "naturally" without outside interference (ie. from some third party not directly involved in markets but with power to use force over them--such as governments) then you are incorrect. Corporations are created through policy. That is simple and undisputable fact. Legal protection/exemption is part of the definition of a corporation.
Says who? Healthcare that covers 100% of the people in .. say Canada costs ~5% less gdp then it does in the US.
Private enterprise works hard on cost because it needs to offset the profit taking which is sometimes more efficient but in many cases like education and healthcare for example they only end up costing more.
Government is limited in a balanced budget. However you can work this model in times when it is bad by saving and being frugal in times when they are good. Simple math makes Keynesian economics perfectly acceptable. The trick is cutting spending in good times.
Yes monopoly capitalism leads to monopolies. That is what it does..
then after the monopoly develops it makes itself a part of the system which is fascist.
Yea yea, UHC the heralded block buster of all government programs.
The Canadian government has the authority to approve/disapprove/delay treatments.
The U.S. government, as well as the states, have been regulating the medical system for years on end, only to have the prices go up.
That should let you in on something right there.
Not to mention the control and limiting of doctors produced every year by the states, feds and the AMA.
It's so not a valid comparison on so many levels.
It's not more efficient.
Extending lifespans comes from using cutting edge medications and treatments, that may only increase the average by less than a year but they build on each other.
It's a slow process.
Education can be cheaper in the private market.
It costs less than $1000 a year to home school an elementary school child but the government pays over $10k a year on average.
That doesn't include the plethora of other private education options that could be developed.
Think outside the box.
No it's not.
As our most recent history has shown, government will borrow at will to placate the masses.
We have not followed the Keynesian style system because it requires politicians to be angels.
It's best to not have them intervene in the first place.
monopoly capitalism leads to monopolies. right. got it.
so what leads to monopoly capitalism?
...If the government is fascist, you mean. Right?
Really so you are an expert on the Canadian healthcare system are you? The Canadian system is far and away better in terms of cost and overall health of the population compared to the US. Overall it costs less for Canadian healthcare and it covers all the people compared to the US privatised system. Your exaggerating the effect of the government on what is covered.. I guarantee you a privatised system with privatised healthcare is much more expensive and inefficient when compared to a public system with equal coverage.
Privatised education would not be more cheap this is a straight up lie and it would hit the lowest income people the most hard.
I will make the concession with regards to keynesian econmoics that it needs to reign itself in. But otherwise it is a perfectly good example to follow in terms of countercyclical economics.
Not an expert but I guarantee that I have studied this subject extensively.
Cheaper ≠ better
I'm not exaggerating anything.
Mandatory minimum coverage, limits on doctor creation, limits on scope of practice, crony partnership between the big pharma and the FDA, Medicare, Medicaid and so much more.
Public Medical systems are cheaper because they can limit and deny care.
Life extension treatments and medications are expensive and the development is slow.
You have absolutely no proof for this.
It won't be followed because no one wants a moderate economy.
I guarantee your insurance companies deny more then the Canadian government does by far and away. Under a public system no one goes bankrupt because they can't pay their doctor. You are exaggerating and I know you are. No mention of death panels yet…. to your credit.
Regarding education clearly it is a fact that the poor benefit from a public system that pays mainly from the wealthy.
It won't be followed because the financers of the economy want a more exciting/profitable job gambling with the publics funds.
Free markets lead to monopoly capitalism.
A capitalist democracy matures to fascism naturally.
Well I know that Medicare denies more claims than all but one insurance company.
As far as bankruptcy goes, most people file bankruptcy because they have missed work while sick, not because of the medical bills.
I'm not exaggerating in the least.
This was my pet issue during the whole health care debate.
That isn't necessarily true at all.
It assumes that "the poor" would not receive any type of education outside of the schooling environment.
Funny you mention that because the financiers were behind the creation of the modern American school system.
I wonder why...
There was a less pleasant, underlying reason for that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?