Big business or big government: Chicken or Egg?

[Lootifer]

Do you loath big business as much as you loath government Scotty/TGD? Because to me they are (in the American context) just as bad as one another as far as I am concerned, but thats pretty uninformed rambling; feel free to enlighten me.

Did America get to where it is right now because of big government exploiting central/legislative power or as a result of big business exploiting market power?

[nietzsche]

As I was checking vouchers and bank statements last night to make sure all off the payments received were credited to the bank account, I was thinking man, these dudes of visa and mastercard have found the philosopher's stone, from every transaction they get 3%. It's like another tax. But from all the world. And they don't fund welfare, roads.

Immediately I thought the government could take over these transactions, to make 'em free. Then I thouhgt that without the profit incentive government would f*ck up 1 of every 3 transactions, and it would probably get fucked so bad by "hackers" that it would ask their citizens pay for the money the hackers stole.

So evidently big government is worse. It redistributes riches from middle class to poor but also from middle class to rich and those who know how to exploit it.

But it's also evident we need to put a fucking break to corporations. I fucking hate to say an equilibrium is needed because this is obvious, it's a cliche, and the question is where is the point of equilibrium.

[warmonger1981]

I feel in the beginning of this country USA it was neither it was freedom. This country is so saturated with big biz and big government they go hand in hand. Big biz now has the government in their back pocket making laws to strangle the small guy so they never have a real chance of getting big. We will all look at at either big government or big biz to make us happy. Government is our savior and big biz is our cushion. Look at big biz sloagans alot have to do with them saying you will live better or be happier if you buy from us ie: walmart, kmart,homedepot, lowes to name a few.. save more live better is crap. propaganda is so entrenched in our lives its hard to decifer. live free or die trying and break free from the corporate and government matrix. So to answer the question they are one in the same. Both can go to hell.

[DoomYoshi]

Big Government enables Big Business and Big Business in turn enable Big Government through campaign funding etc.

[Night Strike]

Citizens are not forced to buy from Big Businesses, but they are forced to live under whatever the Big Government dictates, therefore Big Government is way worse.

[Phatscotty]

I feel in the beginning of this country USA it was neither it was freedom. This country is so saturated with big biz and big government they go hand in hand. Big biz now has the government in their back pocket making laws to strangle the small guy so they never have a real chance of getting big. We will all look at at either big government or big biz to make us happy. Government is our savior and big biz is our cushion. Look at big biz sloagans alot have to do with them saying you will live better or be happier if you buy from us ie: walmart, kmart,homedepot, lowes to name a few.. save more live better is crap. propaganda is so entrenched in our lives its hard to decifer. live free or die trying and break free from the corporate and government matrix. So to answer the question they are one in the same. Both can go to hell.

There are reasons

[thegreekdog]

Do you loath big business as much as you loath government Scotty/TGD? Because to me they are (in the American context) just as bad as one another as far as I am concerned, but thats pretty uninformed rambling; feel free to enlighten me.

Did America get to where it is right now because of big government exploiting central/legislative power or as a result of big business exploiting market power?

I don't loathe big business. I'm fine with big business. What I'm not fine with is big business using big government to exploit people/markets/other companies.

I'd probably be fine with big government too, but it is anathema to my thinking (for whatever reason).

In other words, America got to where it is right now because of big business teaming with big government. There is no exploitation going on between those two parties.

[CreepersWiener]

The BIGGER the Government the better! How else will we ever obtain eternal life? JEsus?

[nietzsche]

Do you loath big business as much as you loath government Scotty/TGD? Because to me they are (in the American context) just as bad as one another as far as I am concerned, but thats pretty uninformed rambling; feel free to enlighten me.

Did America get to where it is right now because of big government exploiting central/legislative power or as a result of big business exploiting market power?

I don't loathe big business. I'm fine with big business. What I'm not fine with is big business using big government to exploit people/markets/other companies.

I'd probably be fine with big government too, but it is anathema to my thinking (for whatever reason).

In other words, America got to where it is right now because of big business teaming with big government. There is no exploitation going on between those two parties.

While your reasons are coherent, your attitude perfectly sane, and your outlook on life should give you great peace of mind, we always need to fight against the forever expanding reach of government and corporations, otherwise they will expand in ways that, even with that attitude, it will be impossible to live and still call oneself a free man.

I'm perfectly clear that my attitude gives me a rather grim outlook on life, as I see government specially as the enemy, yet I understand I can see the charade and cannot close my eyes anymore. I'm not an activist, but I speak my mind whenever I'm allowed on the evil ways of our governments.

I just don't have the energy to be an activist, but I would be a rather agressive one, could not pact with politicians. At least it's what it think.

[thegreekdog]

Do you loath big business as much as you loath government Scotty/TGD? Because to me they are (in the American context) just as bad as one another as far as I am concerned, but thats pretty uninformed rambling; feel free to enlighten me.

Did America get to where it is right now because of big government exploiting central/legislative power or as a result of big business exploiting market power?

I don't loathe big business. I'm fine with big business. What I'm not fine with is big business using big government to exploit people/markets/other companies.

I'd probably be fine with big government too, but it is anathema to my thinking (for whatever reason).

In other words, America got to where it is right now because of big business teaming with big government. There is no exploitation going on between those two parties.

While your reasons are coherent, your attitude perfectly sane, and your outlook on life should give you great peace of mind, we always need to fight against the forever expanding reach of government and corporations, otherwise they will expand in ways that, even with that attitude, it will be impossible to live and still call oneself a free man.

I'm perfectly clear that my attitude gives me a rather grim outlook on life, as I see government specially as the enemy, yet I understand I can see the charade and cannot close my eyes anymore. I'm not an activist, but I speak my mind whenever I'm allowed on the evil ways of our governments.

I just don't have the energy to be an activist, but I would be a rather agressive one, could not pact with politicians. At least it's what it think.

I think we've talked about this before maybe, but I am not in enough pain and I will not get enough benefit from doing anything more than voting and occasionally participating in other ways in the political process. I think most people in the United States are like that. Unfortunately, history has shown this could be a recipe for disaster (i.e. people not doing enough before it was too late).

[Juan_Bottom]

Government was meant to be powerful, businesses were not. Neither were corporations or banks, but IMO there weren't enough checks put in place over them. British business' and banks' control of America's industry and finances were as much responsible for the Revolution as the British government's direct action was. In fact, New England joined to protect themselves from the Bank of England. Or whateva it's called.
John Adams' design for our government allowed for America's "natural aristocracy" to corrupt and control our legislature, but also for the public to take the power back through the executive. And it's happened this way several times throughout our history.
I just don't think he anticipated this.
All in all though, it's an insanely brilliant design to credit anyone with.

[Phatscotty]

the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen

[Symmetry]

the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen

So you're going chicken on the "Chicken or Egg" front. Controversial.

[Phatscotty]

the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen

So you're going chicken on the "Chicken or Egg" front. Controversial.

Time for you to earn another university credit

[Lootifer]

Citizens are not forced to buy from Big Businesses, but they are forced to live under whatever the Big Government dictates, therefore Big Government is way worse.

One could argue that while the Big Businesses may not force us, they certainly trick or coerce us into doing what they want us to do.

At least in that respect the government is mostly transparent in its methods (they screw you, but at least you're being knowingly screwed). That is assuming you can get the information (in NZ we have the OIA).

[Phatscotty]

Citizens are not forced to buy from Big Businesses, but they are forced to live under whatever the Big Government dictates, therefore Big Government is way worse.

One could argue that while the Big Businesses may not force us, they certainly trick or coerce us into doing what they want us to do.

True. And there is still just as big a difference between force/non force as Strike pointed out before.

[Symmetry]

the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen

So you're going chicken on the "Chicken or Egg" front. Controversial.

Time for you to earn another university credit

Well that took a surprisingly small amount of time for this to become obvious that this was a life lesson from a crazy right wing youtube video stream you watch while thinking you're attending university.

[warmonger1981]

Sorry but if you think we are free to choose from big biz or small biz when a person is poor your wrong. Most of the time small biz charges a little more for a product or service since they do not have huge quantities to make it cheap. Example: big biz sells 100000 widgets at a dollar a piece compared to small biz who has to sell 10000 of them at three dollars a piece. Small biz cant afford to buy in huge quantities to pass the cost onto the customer. We will be funneled into the big biz sooner or later.

[Lootifer]

Citizens are not forced to buy from Big Businesses, but they are forced to live under whatever the Big Government dictates, therefore Big Government is way worse.

One could argue that while the Big Businesses may not force us, they certainly trick or coerce us into doing what they want us to do.

True. And there is still just as big a difference between force/non force as Strike pointed out before.

Yeh but this is where we differ; you my man are an idealist: Big Government is Bad; Freedom is Good; and you have perfectly good reasons for that stance (most of the time ).

However I only care about the pragmatics of the situation: How do you convert your ideal into a intellectually defendable and robust plan? I think your ideals are preventative to you guys working out such a plan; the right wont budge on socialised healthcare and the left wont ease up on over-regulating business (and likewise the conservatives wont shut up about pro-life and the liberals wont end their ranting on gay rights). In the end no one compromises and you end up with half arsed solutions that end up being the worse than all other alternatives.

[Phatscotty]

Citizens are not forced to buy from Big Businesses, but they are forced to live under whatever the Big Government dictates, therefore Big Government is way worse.

One could argue that while the Big Businesses may not force us, they certainly trick or coerce us into doing what they want us to do.

True. And there is still just as big a difference between force/non force as Strike pointed out before.

Yeh but this is where we differ; you my man are an idealist: Big Government is Bad; Freedom is Good; and you have perfectly good reasons for that stance (most of the time ).

However I only care about the pragmatics of the situation: How do you convert your ideal into a intellectually defendable and robust plan? I think your ideals are preventative to you guys working out such a plan; the right wont budge on socialised healthcare and the left wont ease up on over-regulating business (and likewise the conservatives wont shut up about pro-life and the liberals wont end their ranting on gay rights). In the end no one compromises and you end up with half arsed solutions that end up being the worse than all other alternatives.

Listen. I don't think you have the proper perspective or experience for the analogy I am about to make (maybe you do), but I am going to make it anyways.

Our government is going to do the exact same thing that the banks and the mortgage sellers and investors and public officials did here concerning the real estate bubble. TO THE MOON BABY! They are ignoring all the fundamentals, based on doubled down and then quadrupled down (trillion dollar annual deficits) over the past couple years. They aren't going to stop spending trillions, instead, their goal is to take trillions more out of the economy. Because they are still hoping yesterdays bets are going to pay off tomorrow. Sure they can put it off just a little bit longer, but the intervals between "emergencies" is growing shorter and shorter, and sure they are going to politic it to death and score as many points as possible blaming the other side. That's about all they can do.

Real Estate ALWAYS goes up!!!

[thegreekdog]

Citizens are not forced to buy from Big Businesses, but they are forced to live under whatever the Big Government dictates, therefore Big Government is way worse.

One could argue that while the Big Businesses may not force us, they certainly trick or coerce us into doing what they want us to do.

True. And there is still just as big a difference between force/non force as Strike pointed out before.

Yeh but this is where we differ; you my man are an idealist: Big Government is Bad; Freedom is Good; and you have perfectly good reasons for that stance (most of the time ).

However I only care about the pragmatics of the situation: How do you convert your ideal into a intellectually defendable and robust plan? I think your ideals are preventative to you guys working out such a plan; the right wont budge on socialised healthcare and the left wont ease up on over-regulating business (and likewise the conservatives wont shut up about pro-life and the liberals wont end their ranting on gay rights). In the end no one compromises and you end up with half arsed solutions that end up being the worse than all other alternatives.

In my opinion, you are thinking about this the wrong way. You are under the assumption that the political left (i.e. those with jobs in government) are by-and-large actually left-leaning and those on the politicla right are by-and-large actually right-leaning. I disagree with that characterization. I'll use your examples to illustrate.

The Affordable Care Act is very similar to a plan proposed by the Republicans in the 1990s (when Clinton was president). It is also a plan that rewards the health insurance industry at the expense of patients. If healthcare costs go down in the long-term, I will admit I was wrong, but I don't think they will. I think the Affordable Care Act will result in health insurance companies making more money than ever and costs will continue to increase.

In terms of regulation of business, there is an element of regulation on both sides. But I'll point to the latest banking and financial instrument regulation law (the name escapes me) which, most people (real left-leaning and real right-leaning people) think isn't anything more than pretend regulation of business.

I've talked about both of these items in other threads. My overall point is that big business and special interest (i.e. those big entities other than big business) run our government. I suspect big business came before big government (to answer Juan's sort of thing), but I think Juan is right that the writers of the Constitution still wanted their landed "aristrocracy" to retain control of government.

[PLAYER57832]

Do you loath big business as much as you loath government Scotty/TGD? Because to me they are (in the American context) just as bad as one another as far as I am concerned, but thats pretty uninformed rambling; feel free to enlighten me.

Did America get to where it is right now because of big government exploiting central/legislative power or as a result of big business exploiting market power?

The Government is just a responsive entity.. it has no real purpose or mind other than what the people within decide it should be. If people decide a monarchy is OK, then it is. Early on, our countrymen decided on freedom and opportunity, but neglected to ensure that a remote entity designed SOLELY for the purpose of making money and shielding its investors and owners from the full impact of their business decisions, namely corporations, would not have the same power as individuals and thus effectively winding up eliminating individual power.

The government is just a name. Corporations have a driven purpose to do nothing but make money. As the Bible says, pursuit of money [to the exclusion of all else] is the root of evil. Look at all the compromises people here and around the world have and are willing to make in the name of making a living. Evil always starts small.

Compromise itself is not bad, but compromise of purpose and value for mere economic gain is wrong.

[thegreekdog]

neglected to ensure that a remote entity designed SOLELY for the purpose of making money and shielding its investors and owners from the full impact of their business decisions, namely corporations, would not have the same power as individuals and thus effectively winding up eliminating individual power.

Wait... what?

The word "corporation" derives from corpus, the Latin word for body, or a "body of people." By the time of Justinian (reigned 527-565), Roman Law recognized a range of corporate entities under the names universitas, corpus or collegium. These included the state itself (the populus Romanus), municipalities, and such private associations as sponsors of a religious cult, burial clubs, political groups, and guilds of craftsmen or traders. Such bodies commonly had the right to own property and make contracts, to receive gifts and legacies, to sue and be sued, and, in general, to perform legal acts through representatives. Private associations were granted designated privileges and liberties by the emperor.[9] Entities which carried on business and were the subjects of legal rights were found in ancient Rome, and the Maurya Empire in ancient India.[10] In medieval Europe, churches became incorporated, as did local governments, such as the Pope and the City of London Corporation. The point was that the incorporation would survive longer than the lives of any particular member, existing in perpetuity. The alleged oldest commercial corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347. Many European nations chartered corporations to lead colonial ventures, such as the Dutch East India Company or the Hudson's Bay Company, and these corporations came to play a large part in the history of corporate colonialism.

During the time of colonial expansion in the 17th century, the true progenitors of the modern corporation emerged as the "chartered company". Acting under a charter sanctioned by the Dutch government, the Dutch East India Company (VOC) defeated Portuguese forces and established itself in the Moluccan Islands in order to profit from the European demand for spices. Investors in the VOC were issued paper certificates as proof of share ownership, and were able to trade their shares on the original Amsterdam stock exchange. Shareholders are also explicitly granted limited liability in the company's royal charter.[11] In the late 18th century, Stewart Kyd, the author of the first treatise on corporate law in English, defined a corporation as,

a collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence.
—A Treatise on the Law of Corporations, Stewart Kyd (1793-1794)

Corporations have a driven purpose to do nothing but make money.

Wait... what?

Environmental impact
Grounds for your GardenIn 1999, Starbucks started "Grounds for your Garden" to make their business environmentally friendlier. This gives leftover coffee grounds to anyone requesting it for composting. Although not all stores and regions participate, customers can request and lobby their local store to begin the practice.

In 2004, Starbucks began reducing the size of their paper napkins and store garbage bags, and lightening their solid waste production by 816.5 t (1,800,000 lb).[117] In 2008, Starbucks was ranked No.15 on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's list of Top 25 Green Power Partners for purchases of renewable energy.[118]

In October 2008, The Sun newspaper reported that Starbucks was wasting 23.4 million liters (6.2 million US gal) of water a day by leaving a tap constantly running for rinsing utensils in a 'dipper well' in each of its stores,[119] but this is often required by governmental public health code.[120]

In June 2009, in response to concerns over its excessive water consumption, Starbucks re-evaluated its use of the dipper well system. In September 2009, company-operated Starbucks stores in Canada & the United States successfully implemented a new water saving solution that meets government health standards. Different types of milk are given a dedicated spoon that remains in the pitcher and the dipper wells were replaced with push button metered faucets for rinsing. This will reportedly save up to 150 US gal (570 l) of water per day in every store.[121][not in citation given]


A bin overflowing with Starbucks cups[edit] RecyclingStarbucks began using 10% recycled paper in their cups in 2004, which they claimed was the first time that recycled material had been used in a product that came into direct contact with a food or beverage.[122] In 2005 Starbucks received the National Recycling Coalition Recycling Works Award.[123] Allen Hershkowitz of the Natural Resources Defense Council called the 10% content 'miniscule' but Starbucks claimed they only used 10% recycled material because it is more expensive.[122]

Starbucks bought 2.5 billion cups for stores in North America in 2007. The 10% recycled paper cups used by Starbucks are not recyclable, because the plastic coating that prevents the cup from leaking also prevents it from being recycled. The plastic cups used for cold drinks are also non-recyclable in most regions. Starbucks cups were originally made using plastic No.1 (polyethylene terephthalate, PETE) but were changed to plastic No.5 (polypropylene, PP). The former type of plastic can be recycled in most regions of the U.S. whereas the latter cannot. Starbucks is considering using biodegradable material instead of plastic to line the cups, and is testing composting of the existing cups. The exception to this is stores in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, where paper cups are recycled to a local company called "Wriggler's Wranch", where they are composted. The majority of Starbucks stores do not have recycling bins; only 1/3 of company-owned stores recycled any materials in 2007;[124] however, improvements have since been made and recycling bins are popping up in more stores (the only thing hindering Starbucks' ability to have bins in every store is the lack of facilities for storage and collection of recycling in certain areas.)[citation needed]

Starbucks gives customers a 10-cent discount when they bring their own reusable cup, and it now uses corrugated cup sleeves made from 85 percent post-consumer recycled fiber, which is 34 percent less paper than the original.[124]

[edit] Fair trade
Starbucks coffee beansIn 2000, the company introduced a line of fair trade products.[125] Of the approximately 136,000 metric tons (300 million pounds) of coffee Starbucks purchased in 2006, only about 6% was certified as fair trade.[126]

According to Starbucks, they purchased 2,180 metric tons (4.8 million pounds) of Certified Fair Trade coffee in fiscal year 2004 and 5,220 metric tons (11.5 million pounds) in 2005. They have become the largest buyer of Certified Fair Trade coffee in North America (10% of the global market). Transfair USA,[127] a third-party certifier of Fair Trade Certified coffee in the United States, has noted the impact Starbucks has made in the area of Fair Trade and coffee farmer's lives:

Since launching its FTC coffee line in 2000, Starbucks has undeniably made a significant contribution to family farmers through their rapidly growing FTC coffee volume. By offering FTC coffee in thousands of stores, Starbucks has also given the FTC label greater visibility, helping to raise consumer awareness in the process.

All espresso roast sold in the UK and Ireland is Fairtrade.[128]

Groups such as Global Exchange are calling for Starbucks to further increase its sales of fair trade coffees.[129]

Beyond Fair Trade Certification, Starbucks argues that it pays above market prices for all of its coffee.[citation needed] According to the company, in 2004 it paid on average $1.42 per pound ($2.64 kg) for high-quality coffee beans, 74% above the commodity prices at the time.[130]

After a long-running dispute between Starbucks and Ethiopia, Starbucks agreed to support and promote Ethiopian coffees. An article in BBC NEWS,[131] states that Ethiopian ownership of popular coffee designations such as Harrar and Sidamo is acknowledged even if they are not registered. The main reason Ethiopia fought so hard for this acknowledgement was to allow its poverty-stricken farmers a chance to make more money. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. In 2006 Starbucks says it paid $1.42 per pound for its coffee. At, the coffee Starbucks bought for $1.42 per pound had a selling price, after transportation, processing, marketing, store rentals, taxes and staff salary and benefits of $10.99 per pound.[132] As of August 2010, Starbucks sells only one Ethiopian coffee on its website and it is proclaimed by the website to be new.

[Lootifer]

In my opinion, you are thinking about this the wrong way. You are under the assumption that the political left (i.e. those with jobs in government) are by-and-large actually left-leaning and those on the politicla right are by-and-large actually right-leaning. I disagree with that characterization. I'll use your examples to illustrate.

I'd probably agree with that lol. Mainly because a) I dont live in america thus am always going to be, to some degree, less informed than if I was (even considering media bias and other distortions) and b ) I'm arguing [neccessarily] at a high level due to my lack of understanding [and care for] the granular details of the US system.

The Affordable Care Act is very similar to a plan proposed by the Republicans in the 1990s (when Clinton was president). It is also a plan that rewards the health insurance industry at the expense of patients. If healthcare costs go down in the long-term, I will admit I was wrong, but I don't think they will. I think the Affordable Care Act will result in health insurance companies making more money than ever and costs will continue to increase.

In terms of regulation of business, there is an element of regulation on both sides. But I'll point to the latest banking and financial instrument regulation law (the name escapes me) which, most people (real left-leaning and real right-leaning people) think isn't anything more than pretend regulation of business.

I've talked about both of these items in other threads. My overall point is that big business and special interest (i.e. those big entities other than big business) run our government. I suspect big business came before big government (to answer Juan's sort of thing), but I think Juan is right that the writers of the Constitution still wanted their landed "aristrocracy" to retain control of government.

Agree, and personally the only way I think you guys can get rid of a wildly bloated puppet government (WBPG for here on) is by the voter base compromising with their ideals and working together to establish a clean slate, then layer up your ideals once the clean slate is established. Essentially I'm saying you need to write a modern constitution which is policy agnostic and purely a framework - your current constitution contains too much policy.

My meta point I guess is that as long as you guys have a polarised (yet politically very similar) voterbase and a constitution that contains both policy and an amendment process that can manipulate afrementioned policy then you will continue down the current path regardless of how you get out of your current mess.

However, I say this once again as a pretty uninformed neutral observer, so feel free to correct/argue the point.

[Phatscotty]

Sorry but if you think we are free to choose from big biz or small biz when a person is poor your wrong. Most of the time small biz charges a little more for a product or service since they do not have huge quantities to make it cheap. Example: big biz sells 100000 widgets at a dollar a piece compared to small biz who has to sell 10000 of them at three dollars a piece. Small biz cant afford to buy in huge quantities to pass the cost onto the customer. We will be funneled into the big biz sooner or later.

can you give an example what you mean when you say "poor person". Are we talking does not own a pair of shoes poor? OR only 1 color TV and only 1 car poor?