>> ^truth-is-the-nemesis:

what a pinhead, I'm frankly sick of this business is suffering though too much regulation & taxes propaganda pieces. They would like everyone to believe the multinational corporations are the hard done by 'David's' of the economic world, rather than the colossal 'Goliath' they truly are, and all the while getting the very people who are pawns in the system to support the en-slavers as the enslaved.



I'm confused by your post. Taxes and regulation help big business and only serve to stifle competition from small business. In fact, most tax laws and regulations are there because big business put them there. Who do you think employs all those lobbyists living in DC? Big business is always getting special credits and exemptions while the small entrepreneur is getting fucked.

Big business is immune to taxes and regulation. There's always tax shelters, rebates, bailouts, and other corporate welfare. A business too big to fail means other ones too small to succeed.

Taxes and regulation help the Goliaths stay Goliaths. And if it wasn't for the government interfering in the first place, there would've never been any Goliaths.

@DerHasisttot,

Well, if the larger business is more efficient and provides a superior product or service, then they'd certainly continue to profit. And that's a good thing. But usually larger organizations (be it government or corporations) aren't efficient, and there's typically waste at some level. The current government restrictions and corporate welfare (mentioned above) allow them to be profitable despite their waste (Currently, taxpayers subsidizing their losses and in return not allowed to compete on an even playing field with the corporations! How ridiculous is that?).

In a free market, if I opened a small bake shop, I could oversee every aspect of that company fairly easily. If I was the CEO of a large baking company with three warehouses, a corporate office, several baking and packaging facilities, and a slew of brick and mortar shops, I'd probably have a hard time keeping an eye on every element deserved of consideration. Not that it can't be done, but certainly it would be difficult, so most likely I'd start losing profits without government subsidies (and the loss of business from new competitors) and need to shrink my business to something more manageable.

It would be harder for large companies to continue to flourish amid the competition that would arise when the costly restrictions are removed that're currently in place. If you live in the States and ever opened your own business, you'd understand how difficult it is to be a small entrepreneur with very little capital. You're taxed heavily for starters, even if you're showing a loss instead of profit. And some businesses require costly licenses and other regulatory fees to be paid.

>> ^blankfist:

If this was an entrepreneuring fellow, he'd probably have a nice security business idea on his hands here.


Your onto something there. I wonder if the military uses something similar already?

If this was an entrepreneuring fellow, he'd probably have a nice security business idea on his hands here.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, you have to understand also, I'm completely in favor of people having living wages and benefits. I think too often businesses take advantage of their workers. So we're in agreement. We're just not in agreement how we arrive there.

That is true about almost every argument you and I have.

>> ^blankfist:
Unfortunately with the amount of protectionism currently in place so many industries are forcing entrepreneurs out by making it difficult to compete against those companies already rooted in the industry (strict regulations, licensing, permits, taxes, and so on), and as a result competing is too expensive so the number of workers go up while the number of job creators goes down. Soon we'll all be working for Corporations.
That's what people like me want to stop. We won't change this trajectory by going down the same path we've been going down for the last hundred years. We have to face the facts that politicians are more willing to give attention to those with deep pockets than those with barely two nickels to rub together.

I agree with all of that.

>> ^blankfist:
The rich will always prevail within a human government, and no amount of legislation will change that. It hasn't in the past, and it won't in the future.

I'm not so sure they'll always prevail. We'll never have a perfectly egalitarian society, where no man ever rises above another, and I don't think we should. But monarchy and oligarchy should be able to be killed off, or at least sent into long periods of remission. To quote that guy who ran for President in 2008, and then disappeared, no one can stop millions of people calling for change. Just ask Ben Ali, and Hosni Mubarak, maybe even King George III.

My cure for creeping oligarchism is to push for changes in social norms to promote egalitarianism. I want people to realize that nobody's intrinsically superior or inferior to anyone else, that they are their brother's keeper, that we're all in this life together, we're only really different on the outside, etc., etc., etc.

I push for increased deference to basic human dignity and fairness for everyone. When I think I can get away with it, I say we should all love one another, and make sure to forgive people as often as possible.

In terms of politics, this translates into social justice. Not because I have any particular desire to compel people to do things they don't want to, but to at least put forward the notion that it's as wrong to let a homeless man starve as it is to kill someone in cold blood, and that if government can do things to stop the latter, it should also do things to stop the former.

If people would treat people who act purely on self-interest as being morally wrong instead of morally neutral (or even morally virtuous!), then things, big things, would change.

Anyways, I agree with you on protectionism being bad, and I agree all your examples are things that shouldn't be happening. I still don't think eliminating unions does anyone any kind of good, and I think it's antithetical to both of our belief systems, for the reasons I said.

@NetRunner, you have to understand also, I'm completely in favor of people having living wages and benefits. I think too often businesses take advantage of their workers. So we're in agreement. We're just not in agreement how we arrive there.

Unfortunately with the amount of protectionism currently in place so many industries are forcing entrepreneurs out by making it difficult to compete against those companies already rooted in the industry (strict regulations, licensing, permits, taxes, and so on), and as a result competing is too expensive so the number of workers go up while the number of job creators goes down. Soon we'll all be working for Corporations.

That's what people like me want to stop. We won't change this trajectory by going down the same path we've been going down for the last hundred years. We have to face the facts that politicians are more willing to give attention to those with deep pockets than those with barely two nickels to rub together. The rich will always prevail within a human government, and no amount of legislation will change that. It hasn't in the past, and it won't in the future.

Just in case you require examples of protectionism that stifles competition, I have a great many. The recent banking coup is a good place to start. A lot of small and midlevel banks closed after the bailouts (WaMu! Fucking WaMu closed!), so now the big banks no longer have to compete against hundreds of banks. This was by design.

After prohibition the government forced a three tiered system onto the alcohol industry which keeps the two major beer manufacturers on top while the smaller brewers are being edged out. On even smaller levels, a lot of small businesses use government to keep new competitors out by pushing licensing and other expensive requirements onto new businesses. This happens often for hair salons, florists, casket manufacturing, and just about every small business industry in America. NY public transit union recently sought legal injunctions against local businessmen who offer cheap minivan rides throughout the city for much less than what the Metro can offer.

Lastly, look at the film industry. It's a mess. The unions and corporations have made it extremely difficult for independent filmmakers to shoot a film and have it distributed (though the internet is changing things a bit). And the cost of production in Los Angeles is through the roof, because of union fees, permit costs, etc. If you choose to use union actors for a non-union film you could face a pricey lawsuit. And not to mention how difficult it is for those who want to join the unions, with catch 22 rules like, "You must work 200 hours on a union film set to be admitted into the union, but you can't work on a union film shoot unless you're in the union." Funny how people still manage to get in.

>> ^ridesallyridenc:

Why would you want to punish the people that actually succeed? How would it help to take away an individual's incentive to get ahead by taking more than half of their earnings when they do?
In 2006, the top 20% of earners in the country brought in 66% of the revenue and paid 85% of federal income taxes. The bottom 40%, on the other hand /consumed/ 3.6% in tax credits and incentives. Cumulatively, the bottom 60% of earners in this country paid only 0.8% of the federal income tax.
So, if you're making over $91k / year (which, face it, isn't rich), you're considered "elite" and should be punished for your success? Government programs that take from the rich and give to the poor disenfranchise people to try to succeed, as they'll be punished for it, while they reward people for doing nothing. And, somehow, it's a big puzzle why the income gap in America is growing? What's the incentive to bridge the gap?
If I can sit on my ass all day and make the same post-tax income as working 50 hours a week, why would I get a job? If I get sick, I just call an ambulance instead of a taxi - Medicare will pay for it after all. I get hungry - food stamps. If I need some extra cash, I sell my food stamps and buy beer. Beats working for a living.
If you want to combat earning discrepancies, provide incentive for people to get off their ass and make a decent living. And you don't do that by "dis-empowering" the rich.

>> ^Truckchase:
If anyone has a good idea as to how to dis-empower the rich in this country then I'm all ears.

Man I've got to be more careful; that's quite a cherry-pick quote. Looks nice without the context.


Your statement assumes anyone is in a position to be successful, and that is exactly what is currently under attack. If that were the case I'd agree with you. My concern doesn't surround the 90th percentile as you've quoted, but rather the 99th percentile. This is the segment that makes enough money to undermine our democracy and needs to be brought under control. This segment is moving to lower working wages across all employment spectrum but their own, and in a position to reap the rewards. We've been slowly and steadily moving towards a system with a much larger income gap, and it's been accelerated over the last few years with both the Republicans and Dems being eager to please the people who get them elected. (old data here)

We want to work for small business owners to be successful. SBOs are the engines of a working economy. Tax rates for the upper 99th percentile have little to do with small business success, and I think the argument against is generally one of principal and not of actual impact. There's a whole other issue here, and that's the impact on small businesses due to a vanishing middle class. The business opportunities afforded to an entrepreneur are much more likely to be upward servicing (corporations) as opposed to downward, (individuals) which has all sorts of easy to outline effects on the already tilted power structure that don't really need spelling out.

Bottom line is this: We're quickly becoming a society divided, a two-tier system. Your assertions are true in the optimal version of the society that we claim to live in, but it's been co-opted to the point where hard work, a great idea, and timing = success increasingly less often.

So, let me change the quote but ask the same question: If anyone has any ideas on practical, tangible steps to take today to resurrect the "American Dream" I'm all ears. I can assure you that the end of collective bargaining is a step in the wrong direction.

Good conversation; I gotta get back to work.

>> ^NetRunner:


If you don't like that condition (or any of the others), you're free to find work elsewhere.


I love it when statist use the "like it or leave it" argument. Especially when those statists are central planners who pretend to stand behind a virtuous shield of social protections. What their argument really comes down to is "we'll make things better, but we'll do it our way, and you have to love it or get the fuck out."

I agree that workers should have the right to choose their own working conditions, but unions tend to control entire industries and worse they modify legislation and create instances of crony-capitalism. They're no better than the corporations that do the exact same thing. To me, that's not giving the worker a choice, that's limiting choice.

Just because you believe in unions for some perverse ideological reason, I can't understand for the life of me why you think it's okay to push those onto everyone. You think of them as a way of protecting wage earners, but a lot of wage earners don't believe unions protect them at all. They view them as gatekeepers to entire industries. The film industry is probably the worst. They close out small entrepreneurs, like me, from competing in the industry without paying through the nose or being part of their clique.

In fact, I just saw an email (with my own lying eyes) from the Writer's Guild of America that called for its members to support the Wisconsin unioners and stand against, and I quote, those "radical Republicans". We know the unions tend to lean Democratic, but it appears they now are declaring their allegiance to the political party. That doesn't sound dangerous to anyone else? Unions are nothing more than partisan hackery, protectionism and corporatism wrapped in social justice. Fuck the unions.

I haven't read anything on individualism being a root cause of poverty. I did a quick google search and found a couple things. One is the idea of "survival of the fittest", that those in poverty do it to themselves, and it's the individualist ideology that tells everyone "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and as a result those who cannot receive no help. Is that the complaint against individualism?

If so, I completely understand that a self-centric position on society would most likely create an environment where poverty could easily manifest and consume the less-to-do of society. I do think some will allow it to happen to them, while others will resist but their current station in life (specifically class) won't allow them to escape poverty. A couple bad financial decisions and the banks won't make it easier on you. The poor are usually in the financial position where they receive higher interest rates they cannot afford, while the well off with good credit receive lower intrest rates. It seems unfair.

I do believe charitable actions would be higher in an individualist society. We already live in a nanny state which is counter to the individualist society. Sure, the majority of spending tends to go to defense spending, but that doesn't mean we don't currently have excessive social programs already in place to catch the fringe of society. And still we have poverty. Lots of it.

What happened? The government has its hands deeply embedded in the private economy, and restrictions and regulations are steep for startup entrepreneurs, while the larger corporations enjoy crony-capitalism. Translation: regulations and restrictions create a tilted playing field where larger corporations can easily succeed with less competition, thus less jobs are created by budding entrepreneurs. So the number of workers goes up while the number of job creators goes down. Eventually we could all be working for the big corporations, and with less competition they could lessen benefits such as health or vacation pay, they could easily lower wages, and they could then extend the expected work week from 40 hours to something like 100 hours. If that sounds farfetched, I can tell you from first hand experience I've seen this exact thing happen to an industry I know very well. And when I say big corporations, I mean major parent companies that buy large businesses. For instance, let's take the advertising industry. One parent company could own almost all of the major companies in that industry, so if you complain about the 100 hour work week and loss of vacation benefits, your chances of receiving another job in that industry are cut to almost zero. I've seen it. And they do illegal shit like tell women not to get pregnant.

This kind of corporatist entitlement is bad. And we got here through regulations, through a regimented government nanny system that is counterintuitive to free markets. And this makes it very hard on people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", which is what all individualists claim to want of people around them. How can you pull yourself up when you're essentially a slave to corporations? I don't know. But it's not getting better. The nanny system, in my opinion, is making it worse. The more we ask for, the less we get. And I say this because I see a very real connection between system created to help us (welfare) and regulations that help big business. I see it as being connected. Poverty perpetuated by big business and bankers.

If we could peel back the regulations and restrictions on industry, we would see a growth of jobs. We'd see a decline in corporate dominance. Most restrictions or regulations are created to stifle competition, not help the consumer, mind you. From there, I'd like to think people would generally do better, have better lives, and contribute charitably to others. Poverty will never be stricken from the planet, but we certainly could do more to help those in our community. That's where it starts. And when people feel they pay into a nanny system, they feel less generous to help those in front of them. I know, I see it every damn day in LA.

>> ^blankfist:


Corporations exist because government gives them legitimacy. They also receive corporate welfare, subsidies, regulatory favors, enjoy franchise monopolies, etc. In rare occasions the government has even used eminent domain in their favor, i.e. Walmart.
So you tell me why corporations rule the marketplace and why small business entrepreneurs find it tough to compete.


Ah, absolutely true, but this bias enables those large businesses to stomp small competition out of the market with marketing and buyouts. The problem is the money in the entire system. The politicians and corporations have developed a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" partnership. The politicians funded by these large corporations then turn around and pass legislation favorable to the corporation in question. In this environment the worker class has no control, which is what the majority are rapidly becoming. Since government rules and regulations are still somewhat under our control via the democratic process, we need to join together to take the money out of politics and then elect competent leaders. If we solely vilify government and seek to destroy its power, we'll have no way to limit the government.

We can do this now through the democratic process if we join together before it's too late. While we may hold somewhat different political beliefs, we need to put those aside for now to focus on electing leaders whose sole platform is to take the money out of politics. When our voice is restored to the nation's government we can discuss other topics further in a civil manner.

Mind you, when I say money out of politics I mean we need to vote for controls to ensure money stays out of politics indefinitely. I would propose a smartly worded constitutional amendment.

I do want to encourage innovative business management, but when large corporations can wipe up their worker's conditions and poor customer service with advertising and political bribes, we need to lower the volume to make our voices heard. Internet discussion groups like this are one of our last remaining avenues for civil discussion of this nature. Let's work together to figure out what our priorities are.

>> ^Truckchase:

But yet large corporations rule the market in most established consumer sectors; why?
How do non-successful small business entrepreneurs factor into this?

Corporations exist because government gives them legitimacy. They also receive corporate welfare, subsidies, regulatory favors, enjoy franchise monopolies, etc. In rare occasions the government has even used eminent domain in their favor, i.e. Walmart.

So you tell me why corporations rule the marketplace and why small business entrepreneurs find it tough to compete.

>> ^blankfist:

There's nothing efficient about corporations. Nothing. There's also nothing efficient about government. Nothing.
Successful small business entrepreneurs, however, are incredibly efficient. Always.
Now suck these balls.


But yet large corporations rule the market in most established consumer sectors; why?

How do non-successful small business entrepreneurs factor into this?
>> ^quantumushroom:

Capitalism (minus failouts) has a way of weeding out the foolish and inefficient. Your company is filling a need for someone right now. When a leaner, more efficient company comes along...
Government is a necessary evil, and most of the time it's more evil than necessary.


As an example of your principal, please name IBM's last product that was profitable due to it's functionality edge over the competition.

There's nothing efficient about corporations. Nothing. There's also nothing efficient about government. Nothing.

Successful small business entrepreneurs, however, are incredibly efficient. Always.

Now suck these balls.

We have discussed this ad nauseum, yet I still feel miscategorized. I believe in free markets, yes, but that's not to mean my flavor of liberty is free market liberty. It sounds to me like you're trying to shoehorn my politics into a nice neat label so you can pick apart a particular aspect of it: particularly the free market approach to business.

Liberty to me is the freedom for people to voluntarily engage in activities and consensual agreements without coercion. That's pretty much it. My only caveat, which I agree is a modification of pure freedom, is that your exercise of liberty cannot aggress against other people. That makes it subjective, I agree. It's subjective because it adds an arbitrary parameter to an otherwise pure ideology.

But your idea of democratic liberty, if that's what you believe, would seem to be a very focused and extremely arbitrary freedom to be democratic. But, subjectively speaking of course, that would mean you use the apparatus of government as force to influence others violently. Your system of 'liberty' is not freedom at all, because you only have the freedom to democratically vote, but if you disagree with the majority then you have no freedom to go against their will, which is coercion and morally wrong.

It was because of majority rule, or democratic liberty if that's what you want to call it, that the US has experienced intrusive acts of aggression against minorities, the working class, the poor, women, etc. It was this monolithic process of growing government that created the corporation as it stands today. It was this process that is systematically squeezing the small business entrepreneur into nonexistence and shrinking the middle class.

>> ^jwray:

Yeah, I know about Keynesian economics, but that's not sustainable. It's a short term thing to avoid deflation. You have to balance the budget eventually, or at least keep the debt around a constant fraction of the GDP.

Right, Keynesians say that too. Do temporary deficit spending to get out of the slump, and then balance budgets during the expansion.

To return to your original point, I don't understand how raising taxes and balancing the budget would change the thinking of investors when it comes to private investment.

Is the idea to try to starve the supply of long-term treasury bonds, and therefore drive their interest rates even lower? They're not going to totally disappear anytime soon, even if we miraculously start having government surpluses next year.

I don't see how that changes the thinking of investors -- the long term bond rates are already unusually low, and still they aren't going after more lucrative (yet more risky) private investments.

It seems like an expectation of disinflation or deflation would only increase the risk to entrepreneurs looking for an investor to borrow from, and therefore reduce their supply, therefore reducing employment...

In other words, it seems like it'd make our problems worse, not better.