Dear People Scared Of The (Big) Government

[jp]

I'm not surprised that the individual's user name would be would be mocked first...without disputing what he wrote.

This little nugget made me laugh out loud: "[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Why is it that the slimy disgusting sleeze that is liberals and their destructive policies and laws that destroys all that is good and right...[/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]"[/background]

 

[PhilinBSAS]

I expect there are still people on here that actually believe capitalism has and will continue to help them

The evidence is plainly otherwise. Capitalism has fatally abandoned the middle classes while making the super-rich richer

And this over used and distorted use of the word "libertarian" as a code word - if you examine some of these arguments for what they are actually talking about they range from pro-private sector corporatism to anarchism

Is there something special about Argentina that attracts these nuts or actually are they a strong and growing force from whence they come?

 

[PhilinBSAS]

Compare and contrast

Big Corporations work hand-in-hand with Big Government to benefit each other.

with

With corporations you don't have to buy their products, they can't tax you and they can't take you off to the gulag - governments on the other hand...

One small but edifying example of incontinent muddled thinking that characterises the pseudo-libertarian

Let's have a coherent plan to turn us into ..... what?

It is purely reactionary anti everything - a distorted version of hippyism mixed in with some half remembered reaganite rhetoric a bit of Herbert Spencer social darwinism and whatever with some snatched undergrad economics and some historical myths about something that never existed.

Harmless enough you might say but behind it are some profoundly anti democratic Nietzschian beliefs in the will to power behind some of this even if they dont recognise it

We could discuss further

 

[EricLovesBA]

Joe's point seemed fairly straightforward to me. Big government, powered by fiat currency printing and the votes it can buy, hands power over to the FED to obfuscate that spending waste. Bankers buy politicians to move regulations in their favor. Intensive regulation in general favors corporations who can afford lobbyists and lawyers to find all the loopholes. A limited government is restrained in its power to overstep the constitution.Small business can be more competitive when it is not over-regulated and overtaxed. A properly limited central government with balance of power to keep things in line with the constitution cannot micromanage society or even afford to do so as it should not be in the business of colluding to "create" (move) unlimited money. A government with strictly limited power would not attract the attention of corporations as there would be little to power to buy there. Without pulling the strings of a puppet big government the corporations cannot do much of anything to you, and if you don't like a corporation's ethics, you can boycott them.

 

[Joe]

This discussion reminds me of a quote from John Kenneth Galbraith:

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."

 

[clooz]

The continual growth of large corporations to challenge the power of governments has been in the making for at least 2 hundred years, with joint Anglo-Dutch multinationals in the previous century taking the lead. The Washington Post journalist Morton Minzt in the book America Inc in the 70's documented this history with integrity and accuracy.

American corporations were focussed on the growth of the domestic US market, and US banks were largely provincial with limited international reach in the early 60's. The mergers and growth of the now massive US multinationals started when they discovered the need to export and compete with the integrated Japanese zaibatsu, such as Mitsubish Heavy Industries, and old European multinationals and international investment banks, particularly when China started to open for business. You can remember the failures of the US auto, electronics, steel, ship building, and clothing sectors to compete globally. In the resulting tooth and nail competition between the largest US banks and European banks to aquire everything left in private hands, size matters, and politically was seen as an issue of financial national security and survival. Governments take their own national economic interests as their first priority, and in the international competition for control of global markets and resources they see this as a security issue. Thus the US deregulated their investment banks, allowing them to grow so that the could compete with non-US investment banks.

The alternative could have been for international governments to make agreements to regulate multinationals and limit the size of global investment banks.

Listening to the Bank of America CEO waffling at the Davos media event on prime time cable last week was indicative of the influence that banking now projects into all financial PR media. For alternative channels we have to look elsewhere.

I don't see how Washington can return fiduciary integrity to the political and judicial parts of it's government, for example to hold themselves accountable for their actions illustrated in Steve's post above. It seems in part to be an issue of the US electorate's values; freedom of action for individuals is preferred over fairness for individuals. This to me seems to be a preference based on the electorate's wishful view of the world as still a very large place where the consequences of actions will not come home, or can be prevented from coming home with lots of hardware.

 

[Joe]

The ideal role of government is to act as a referee. To make sure laws are enforced equitably and justly and to prevent monopolies.

Government does not serve well as a provider of services because monopolies do not offer a good value for either goods or services.

People have posted that the USA is the classic capitalist state - the pinnacle of Capitalism. That was perhaps true - 100 years ago. Now it is more a classic plutocracy. Bailing out big banks is NOT capitalism - it's Socialism for the Rich, aka fascism.

Unfortunately the USA is heading further and further towards fascism. With the Supreme Court ruling that "corporations are people" and that unlimited corporate contributions to politicians are constitutional, the USA will continue to head in the direction of plutocracy and fascism and away from true capitalism.

The future of the USA is Big Government providing drone technology to Big Business and the continuation of endless wars to advance corporate interests. The bulk of the disenfranchised will be bought off with food stamps. We are already 50% of the way down that road. And believe me this Big American Government will be scary - for Americans and unfortunately everyone else in the world.

 

[che]

These real causes of the financial crisis have now been well documented, in such books as The Great American Bank Robbery, by Paul Sperry, Reckless Endangerment, by New York Times reporter Gretchen Morgenson, Getting Off Track, by Stanford Economics Professor John Taylor, The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure: Why Pure Capitalism is the World Economy’s Only Hope, by Cato Institute President John Allison, and Bad History, Worse Policy: How A False Narrative About the Financial Crisis Led to the Dodd-Frank Act, by Peter Wallison, Senior Fellow for Financial Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.