Drawing a line.
Posted by Laddius_Maximus 12 years, 2 months ago to Business
So as I understand it, Ayn Rand advocated small government and having them stay completely out of business. Laissez-faire? Or do I have the wrong idea. This would foster more competition and bring down prices for all. But doesn't this idea only work if the corporations are ethical? If they always do the right thing? I don't mean social ethics but in terms of not polluting the environment,(BP) or making food that makes us sick. (monsanto) How do you make sure these companies operate as they are supposed to? I know I'm not phrasing this question correctly because I feel government should shrink and get the hell out of the way, but where does the line get drawn? Where does regulation and oversight become infringement and collusion?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
think infinity
one must critically examine the statistics. $1200 a year has to be adjusted for inflation. Gold was $19/oz. Now it is $1500/oz.
If 90% of the nation was at poverty(relative term) or below, how did we have one of the longest life expectancies in the world. How possibly could the engine of growth happen? If 90% were barely making it-who did the companies sell to?
PBS as a reference on THIS site is a propaganda source. -it has no value when speaking about economics (louis rukeyser is dead).
finally, as much as I love Twain-his piece co-authored was a satirical piece. He was a writer not an economist. Shall we discuss Dickens and how he manipulated populace understanding of economics?
Plus I'm inventive. I do a thorough job in half the time. :)
Okay, I doubt ethics comes into this particular situation but the same principle applies. Do a sh** job, don't expect to keep customers. I strive to be the best, which is why I have customers. :)
Whenever I see this language "X percent of the country's wealth is concentrated in Y percent of the population" as justification for some government action against the Y%, it makes me cringe.
What are the levels that are fair and when do we have a problem, and why?
I love the early Industrialists, but I like to look at history objectively without slant.
http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMo...,,,,
"Both the number of unskilled and skilled workers increased, as their wage rates grew.[5] Engineering colleges were established to feed the enormous demand for expertise. Railroads invented modern management, with clear chains of command, statistical reporting, and complex bureaucratic systems.[6] They systematized the roles of middle managers and set up explicit career tracks. They hired young men ages 18–21 and promoted them internally until a man reached the status of locomotive engineer, conductor or station agent at age 40 or so. Career tracks were invented for skilled blue-collar jobs and for white-collar managers, starting in railroads and expanding into finance, manufacturing and trade. Together with rapid growth of small business, a new middle class was rapidly growing, especially in northern cities.[7]"
https://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE6_... (on anti-trust policies)
finally, Thomas Woods on robber barons of the late 19th century-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbIIPtLEV...
The US rose to the wealthiest nation in the world in a little under 160 years without anti-trust laws, monopoly regulations. It went from a poor agrarian society to the king of the Industrial Revolution.
The more regulation, the more the "middle class" shrinks. I have already stated that the price of goods diminished over 90% in the decade PRECEDING Sherman anti-trust Act.
phrases such as "the gilded age" are manipulative phrases used to gain emotional sympathy and detract from facts.
That’s not my take at all. The early twenty century saw a few giants arise out of the new economy, but there was no middle-class to speak of. Roosevelt was dealing with a country of starving, impoverished people. Ninety percent of the country's wealth was concentrated in less than three percent of the population. It was like a bad episode of Gulch Gone Wrong. It’s why the era is referred to as the Gilded Age. What appeared to be a boom era paved with streets of gold was in reality cheaply painted --it was gilded. The point of the original anti-trust laws was to increase competition. They were meant to deal with corrupt monopolistic practices that destroyed competition and inflated market prices. In the modern-age it gets a bit tricky. We could probably do with some serious pruning of laws on the books.
I also like the "Capitalist Inside " bumper sticker. It sure beats "Baby on board" crud. I always feel like that is an admonition to drive careful around them, or a boast that they can procreate. Big deal...
Now, as to any philosophy will work... I think some philosophies are doomed to failure even if all support it. Could you elaborate?
Respectfully,
O.A.
I like the idea of a capitalist inside bumper sticker. :)
"because nobody checks their premises"- do you mean philosophical arguments or place of business here? lol
I am not sure that moral capitalism is a useful term. Capitalism IS a moral system. If a company mistreats employees, in a pure capitalist society, employees will leave. Quality goes down, fewer goods or services will be purchased. Companies that do well in a free market, retain employees, attract higher quality ones, produce better and more products, increase demand for their superior product.
The CEO and founder of Whole Foods wrote a book about "conscious capitalism." which I find absurd. It implies capitalists are either unawake or without conscience, I can't decide which. Words have meaning. It is important to embrace the word capitalism and spark the debate. saying to others you are a moral capitalist is a tautology at best, already ceding to the other side's argument at worst.
Load more comments...