If you read back to my first post, you will see that yes I did join for this thread. As you can see this topic is very important to me. I figured that if someone genuinely wants to understand my perspective (which I care about a lot) then I will join in the debate.

Not using my own screen name? what? Hydrolicious is my screen name....
I'm really confused as to what you mean by that. I already registered and did the whole email thing... what else do I have to do?

It just means that they cannot debate you on any of the points so instead, like angry children, they decide to attack you rather than your message.

Its Obama's fault

__________________
I like to lie..Everything I say here is a lie to make me look cool

If you are correct, then my source is bad. Either way, I really don't know enough about the ins and outs of this industry to debate you on specifics. Don't mean for that to be a cop out.

Seems like we both agree that the lack of competition in certain industries is a serious problem.

First, it is true that the more money you have, the less number of people are in your "class", which sorta makes sense. It's also true that these "classes" are not static. Many people move from one class to another through the course of their life. Many do not. Some move down. However, there does seem to be a force that is actively creating more poverty. I just present this as a possibility, but I think your temptation to classify people in black and white terms may have possibly led you to false conclusions.

Is it possible that our free market (as much as we have) is making our society richer on one end while the government is creating a black hole of poverty on the other end? Central planning and prohibition were government functions. They subsidized the ghettos and created the environment for violence, and thus the cycle of poverty.

World governments have given us tyranny, genocide, wars, gangs, and bondage. The free market has given us automobiles, airplanes, interstates, energy efficient buildings that reach the clouds, computers, the internet, an immense amount food choices, portable communication devices, climate control, light bulbs and wealth beyond our wildest dreams. You seem to ignore the evils of the state while focusing too heavily on trying to attribute every evil to the free market and capitalism. Why don't you have at least an equal amount of skepticism for governments given the sheer amount of violence associated with them?

If you think that the forceful subversion of competition is immoral and damaging like I absolutely do, then you need to open your eyes to the amount of forceful subversion your government is doing to its people and to investors wanting to enter the marketplace.

Businesses are nothing more than a collection of individuals working in concert to provide a product or service for money. You don't see it as just a little demanding for you to try to use the government to force other people to provide you things that they don't necessarily want to provide you? On a slightly different note, don't you think there are many other investors that would love to come along and fill your demand, assuming there are others with your preferences? Is it possible the government has something to do with the market barriers? Given this potential possibility, wouldn't a government caused oligarchy create the environment for unethical corporate manipulation of consumers?


No, I was asking you if that is what you were asserting. I cannot address any of your points if I do not understand them first.

__________________
My BCNL Producer grow journal

Consumers always have the option of NOT purchasing the product. That more than anything will change the way a business, any business, conducts itself.

The govt.'s job is to help negotiate commerce, not dictate it.

__________________
...out
______________________________________
You haven't countered nothing, because the points you made are not valid, you are basing your counter on information you don't understand, regardless the accuracy of the information, because it does not state what you are saying.. (Brazko)

I would contend that the overall force is one that further concentrates the wealth distribution.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say I've classified people in black and white. Could you be more specific as to which part of my (many lol) arguments you are referring to with this?
Absolutely, YES. Capitalism is not a new concept. This system of trade and property rights has been in place longer than humans have been recording history. In each and every example, capitalism has eventually created a skewed distribution of wealth and an elite class of people with financial stranglehold on the masses. It is not until multiple generations of increasingly worse abuse that violent revolution takes place- overthrowing the wealthy aristocrats- and thereby starting over the cycle of capitalism.

Think "pharoh's and slaves"... "serfs and lords"... "Nobles and servants". The significant difference between virtually every capitalism preceding ours and the one we have now, is a mechanism that gives power to every citizen regardless of wealth or class. I think the founding fathers put this in place intending to provide a tool for the masses to ensure fair play in this game we call life.

Those among us who have amassed great finances will always try to increase the power those finances carry by reducing the power of those in a lower class. They will use their money to sway your vote. They will subvert your power as a consumer. They will bribe YOUR public official to oppose your interest in support of theirs.

Certainly, many wealthy/elite are very good people with good morals. But those people will be out-competed by the crooked few unless they adopt the same practices. All I propose is that we band together as voters and agree on fair rules we should all play by. I think there should be stricter rules against practices designed to artificially thwart competition. I think there should be better, stricter regulation on political contributions.

This is minimim requirement if capitalism is to remain as a driving force in our society. Otherwise we will face the eventuality of a bloody revolution, and the next system we get may ACTUALLY BE socialist.

So if you really want to avoid socialism, you would support regulation.

Please elaborate...
So has private industry. If you are going to attack govt in favor of industry, you cannot use atrocities commited by both parties throughout all of history as an argument.

Tyranny- I'm your boss, I say do this. DO IT! (with no room for debate)
Genocide- Slave trade
Wars- War for oil companies
Gangs- Please explain how govt is responsible for gangs... how does this relate to the economy?
Bondage- Again... SLAVE TRADE


Actually, interstates, the internet, and portable communication devices would not be possible without government.

The interstates were a govt project.
The internet is a govt creation.
Virtually all of our forms of telecommunication are only possible due to satteites in space; which was advanced as a technology by government-funded NASA

The point here is that govt CAN get things right. Govt CAN advance society... its all about what we want to DO with govt. Smart leadership will yeild good results- regardless of mechanism. Repubs would have you believe that govt is incapable of anything but waste.

I'm here to refute that.
Because I live in an environment where govt is being attacked constantly. Does govt commit abuses? YES! But we have mechanisms in place to correct those abuses.

No one has yet refuted my examples of abuses by private industry where "consumer regulation" has FAILED.

Voters should regulate govt, who in turn should regulate business. If you remove govt from that chain, capitalists will consume your rights. Your simple right to choose where to buy a cell phone is just the tip of the iceberg...


You claim competition is a sufficient regulater on its own...
...Then you agree that subversion of that regulator is taking place in industry today (or at least fail to refute my example of it)...

Can you at least acknowlege that govt regulation is necessary, and GOOD for everyone if properly applied?

Please provide specific examples where govt regulation has a negative impact on society. Very likely the regulation was placed for a reason, and the consequense of repealing that law is far worse than the law itself(glass-steagall act)... with very few exceptions (MJ being one of them... mmmmm hydrolicious).

Once again, my stance is... if the regulation is bad, lets talk about the regulation. I take issue with conservatives who want to avoid the issues and talk about big govt, socialism, yadda yadda yadda..
Avoiding the issue tells me that person is not being honest about their motives.

Everybody has to answer to someone. You claim that my right to choose who I do business with is the regulatory force that businesses must cope with.

You dont see it a little demanding that they wont do business (at any cost) with me unless I sign a commitment to do more business with them?
That if I give them my business for wireless service, they REQUIRE I also give them EXCLUSIVELY my business purchasing a handset?

Once again, I dont want to tell them what to sell and how much to sell it for... only that they can charge me money- but not my right to choose. THAT SHOULD NEVER BE FOR SALE

Unfortunately, only govt can step in and make them stop that practice. They will never do it on their own.
This sounds like speculation. Please give some examples.


Okay, do then do you understand?

I think the insurance industry is LEAST vulnerable to an increase in overhead. Insurance industry is a sham... they produce nothing and have little to no costs.

The irony is that if a true catastrophe happened, all insured people would bankrupt the insurance company and they would never be able to fulfill the promises they have been basing ALL their income on.

Either the "insured" would get screwed, or the govt would step in and honor the insurance companies' promises with taxpayer money... in which case, why are we allowing insurance companies to collect profits in the first place?

See? the same reason Ponzi schemes are illegal.... eventually someone is guaranteed to be screwed

Perhaps, but it many instances a product or service is essential to a persons livelihood...

I guess I could go without a cell phone, but that would put me at a severe disadvantage conducting my business. I should not be forced to decide between my consumer rights and my effectiveness at competing within my own industry.


Also, what about the business of the cell phone manufacturer? They make phones and are free to sell them directly to consumers throughout most of the world EXCEPT

in the biggest market- the U.S.- the service provider Verizon (and others) would refuse to activate any phone unless it was bought from their store initially. They would not do it even if you offered to pay the cost of the most expensive phone they have just let you use the one you bought elsewhere instead.

By doing this, the carrier maintains a stranglehold on the phone manufacturer's ability to compete in the marketplace within the U.S.....
....and furthermore they are able to dictate, by mandate- exactly which features or capabilities those phones would have.... and threaten not to carry phones by the manufacturer if they didn't comply.

They exercise these rights on your behalf... but in their interest not yours...

hydrolicious- in response to goverment regulation failling

Mortgage crisis, caused from idealistic dems and republicans who get so focused on "everyone deserves to own there own home" which some folks simply are not responsible enough. The goverment regulated the failier with fannie mae and freddie mac. The goverment was influiencing the banks and mortgage insurance companies to practice bad buisiness to advance their goal, the banks don't have anything to lose because if they play ball then fannie and freddie will buy the loans.

I never said govt regulation is infallible. Only that we can do it right if we want to.

But anyways, I'll address your specific example...

Thats a common misconception. It was actually the repeal of the glass-steagall act in 1999 that let to the mortgage crisis.

If you read about the glass-steagall act and still dont agree,

You dont think its a strange peculiarity that a law that was written in response to huge financial calamity; a law with authors who stated the intent is to stabalize the economy; a law that was followed by almost 70 years of relative economic stability; would have a huge financial calamity follow shortly after its repeal....

looks like a duck
sounds like a duck

It was the govt. getting involved in home ownership which was the overriding factor. Not the private sector.

Anytime the govt. assumes a position in business... failure follows. At the very least....sustainability at an ever increasing costs.

__________________
...out
______________________________________
You haven't countered nothing, because the points you made are not valid, you are basing your counter on information you don't understand, regardless the accuracy of the information, because it does not state what you are saying.. (Brazko)