Big business or big government: Chicken or Egg?

[thegreekdog]

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.

The problem is that most people enjoy the political polarization (or are too blinded or busy or stupid to realize it's pointless). I do agree with you though. As I said in one of nietzche's threads (or here), I wish I cared enough to do something more than grouse on a website and vote.

[Lootifer]

Together we should start a revolution...


... ahhhhh f*ck it.

[thegreekdog]

Together we should start a revolution...


... ahhhhh f*ck it.

We would just end up turning on each other at the end. And we'd have to get BBS and Saxi involved (BBS on my side, Saxi on yours).

[Lootifer]

Mmmm, Saxi right behind me.... brb.

[warmonger1981]

by Phatscotty on Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:27 pm

warmonger1981 wrote:
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.


i would have to say poor as a person who is just barely making it without going on some type of government assistance. If your looking for a dollar amount i dont have one.. I make about 30k a year and I buy generic brands cause its cheaper from big box grocers. I cant afford to buy from a kowalski if you know what type of grocers store that is. I would rather have less befor I look for a handout but I have a friend who makes less than me is on the government assistance and eats better than me. I try to stay self sufficient while others are more than happy to take more and give nothing. Like my dad says our county has turned into a ME ME ME MORE ME NOW selfish asses.

[Phatscotty]

by Phatscotty on Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:27 pm

warmonger1981 wrote:
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.


i would have to say poor as a person who is just barely making it without going on some type of government assistance. If your looking for a dollar amount i dont have one.. I make about 30k a year and I buy generic brands cause its cheaper from big box grocers. I cant afford to buy from a kowalski if you know what type of grocers store that is. I would rather have less befor I look for a handout but I have a friend who makes less than me is on the government assistance and eats better than me. I try to stay self sufficient while others are more than happy to take more and give nothing. Like my dad says our county has turned into a ME ME ME MORE ME NOW selfish asses.

I guess I get your point.

I know people like that, shit bothers me. And they are always gambling! I just have a soft spot for local businesses, even when they charge more, because the money usually stays in the local community

[warmonger1981]

i do that when i can . i also will waite in line longer to have a real person check me out instead of a self check out. i figure the more i go the the self check out the less a real person will be needed therefore they have no job. big business is always finding ways to cut human labor. why have 15 real person check outs when you can have 15 self check outs and one real person managing them all. they say they pass the money saved on labor to the customers but more than likely upper management got bonuses that year and cut employees.

[Ray Rider]

i do that when i can . i also will waite in line longer to have a real person check me out instead of a self check out. i figure the more i go the the self check out the less a real person will be needed therefore they have no job. big business is always finding ways to cut human labor. why have 15 real person check outs when you can have 15 self check outs and one real person managing them all. they say they pass the money saved on labor to the customers but more than likely upper management got bonuses that year and cut employees.

I would much rather use the self-checkout. If the store doesn't have to employ as many cashiers, their cost will be lower and consequently the markup will be lower so we as customers will pay less (if one business does instead keep the prices high and give it away in management bonuses, as you say, that business would go bankrupt very shortly when all their customers would leave for other stores with a lower markup). Yes, that means fewer cashiers will be required, but that is good because it will create a greater incentive for them to further their education and so they can work elsewhere in a position where they cannot be replaced by a machine; this benefits them individually in addition to benefiting the economy as a whole.

[warmonger1981]

Well then if that was the case with all the technology today and all these free roaming bodies floating around everyone should have a job. Wasn't technology supposed to have us all rich enough where we wouldn't have to work as much?

[stahrgazer]

by Phatscotty on Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:27 pm

warmonger1981 wrote:
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.


i would have to say poor as a person who is just barely making it without going on some type of government assistance. If your looking for a dollar amount i dont have one.. I make about 30k a year and I buy generic brands cause its cheaper from big box grocers. I cant afford to buy from a kowalski if you know what type of grocers store that is. I would rather have less befor I look for a handout but I have a friend who makes less than me is on the government assistance and eats better than me. I try to stay self sufficient while others are more than happy to take more and give nothing. Like my dad says our county has turned into a ME ME ME MORE ME NOW selfish asses.

You're right.

Wal-Mart is a prime example of one of those huge corporations that undermines small businesses by undercutting small business costs. Wal-mart BEGAN as a "made in the USA" company but then it sold out, and when it did, it drove many small businesses OUT of business... small businesses that didn't have the multiglomerate bargaining power that Wal-Mart has. So their US suppliers also lost out.

When companies get so big and then sell out the country they were formed in, they are worse than "big government" and, in fact, are a primary cause of government getting so big.... to take care of the people that can no longer rely on the good ol' American value of honest day's wage for honest day's labor.

Just over a year ago, there was an article about New Balance, the athletic shoe company that's based in Massechusetts and was still 100% American made. It has to compete with companies like Nike, who've been in the news over the years for extremely unethical business practices in the foreign nations where they have their products made for pennies on the dollar, then leap from country to country... as workers in the country making Nike get wiser, they start asking for more, and then Nike moves on to the next country dumb enough to work for peanuts.

New Balance had, so far, been able to compete, not reaping the profits that Nike reaps, but making enough to keep in business and keep quite a few folks gainfully employed within the US. But as Nike made plans to move into Viet Nam where workers would work for even less, the owners of New Balance feared that they, too, would either have to sell out and start manufacturing outside of the country, or close.

Nike consumers were not getting the benefit of the cheaper manufacture, because Nikes cost as much to purchase as New Balance does, while New Balance costs to produce are much higher (because, again, New Balance chose to compete while giving their employees a decent wage.)

So. What's going to happen to New Balance employees if the US factory closes? It's gonna go on some sort of dole, like the former US-suppliers of Wal-Mart and the former US-suppliers of the former Wal-Mart competitors and the former Wal-Mart competitors themselves. So what does that mean? Means big gub'ment has to get a little bigger to support them all.

[Phatscotty]

Well then if that was the case with all the technology today and all these free roaming bodies floating around everyone should have a job. Wasn't technology supposed to have us all rich enough where we wouldn't have to work as much?

technology is a double edged sword my friend, it has also eliminated many jobs...

[PLAYER57832]

i do that when i can . i also will waite in line longer to have a real person check me out instead of a self check out. i figure the more i go the the self check out the less a real person will be needed therefore they have no job. big business is always finding ways to cut human labor. why have 15 real person check outs when you can have 15 self check outs and one real person managing them all. they say they pass the money saved on labor to the customers but more than likely upper management got bonuses that year and cut employees.

I would much rather use the self-checkout. If the store doesn't have to employ as many cashiers, their cost will be lower and consequently the markup will be lower so we as customers will pay less (if one business does instead keep the prices high and give it away in management bonuses, as you say, that business would go bankrupt very shortly when all their customers would leave for other stores with a lower markup). Yes, that means fewer cashiers will be required, but that is good because it will create a greater incentive for them to further their education and so they can work elsewhere in a position where they cannot be replaced by a machine; this benefits them individually in addition to benefiting the economy as a whole.

I see, so your idea is that all people have to do is want to go to college and the opportunity will arise?

How exactly is a worker making less than $8.00 an hour supposed to affored a $500 per UNIT (classes generally are 3-4 units each) tuition for undergraduate classes, never mind the almost $800 per UNIT for graduate classes AND pay for food, clothing, rent. And particularly, how is someone with children supposed to do that in a time when most aid is being cut?

[PLAYER57832]

Well then if that was the case with all the technology today and all these free roaming bodies floating around everyone should have a job. Wasn't technology supposed to have us all rich enough where we wouldn't have to work as much?

technology is a double edged sword my friend, it has also eliminated many jobs...

Yes, but some of that has to happen. A bigger problem is the number of people now WORKING fulltime who are making less than it takes them to pay for basic food (NOT talking extravagences here!!), rent, clothing. For many people, even eating out at a local low-priced restaurant (note... I use that term because in our area the mom and pops are roughly the same as McDonald's in price) is a once or twice a year luxury.. IF even that, never mind driving to visit a state or regional park for the day or other relatively low cost outing.

[Ray Rider]

Well then if that was the case with all the technology today and all these free roaming bodies floating around everyone should have a job. Wasn't technology supposed to have us all rich enough where we wouldn't have to work as much?

You're right, we don't work as much as we used to:

i do that when i can . i also will waite in line longer to have a real person check me out instead of a self check out. i figure the more i go the the self check out the less a real person will be needed therefore they have no job. big business is always finding ways to cut human labor. why have 15 real person check outs when you can have 15 self check outs and one real person managing them all. they say they pass the money saved on labor to the customers but more than likely upper management got bonuses that year and cut employees.

I would much rather use the self-checkout. If the store doesn't have to employ as many cashiers, their cost will be lower and consequently the markup will be lower so we as customers will pay less (if one business does instead keep the prices high and give it away in management bonuses, as you say, that business would go bankrupt very shortly when all their customers would leave for other stores with a lower markup). Yes, that means fewer cashiers will be required, but that is good because it will create a greater incentive for them to further their education and so they can work elsewhere in a position where they cannot be replaced by a machine; this benefits them individually in addition to benefiting the economy as a whole.

I see, so your idea is that all people have to do is want to go to college and the opportunity will arise?

How exactly is a worker making less than $8.00 an hour supposed to affored a $500 per UNIT (classes generally are 3-4 units each) tuition for undergraduate classes, never mind the almost $800 per UNIT for graduate classes AND pay for food, clothing, rent. And particularly, how is someone with children supposed to do that in a time when most aid is being cut?

By hard work, long hours, and wise use of money. I'm in my second year of engineering, I'm not in debt, I'm not living with my parents, the only aid I've received is $1000 low-income grant, and I started building up my savings account with an $8.00 an hour job. My grandparents immigrated to this country with one trunk of belongings and worked their way up from there; I have nothing to complain about and neither does the vast majority of people in Canada/the US today. Yes it's easy to see others around us who have a lot more than us, but sitting around complaining and expecting the government/others to help us out is sheer laziness. If you have a goal, work your butt off and go get it. We live in a free land with great opportunity; others around the world would die for the chance to be in our shoes. If you have a sound mind and body, I have little sympathy for you. I help out regularly at the local soup kitchen and there are plenty of people who don't even have that. They are the ones who deserve our help.

[thegreekdog]

by Phatscotty on Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:27 pm

warmonger1981 wrote:
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.


i would have to say poor as a person who is just barely making it without going on some type of government assistance. If your looking for a dollar amount i dont have one.. I make about 30k a year and I buy generic brands cause its cheaper from big box grocers. I cant afford to buy from a kowalski if you know what type of grocers store that is. I would rather have less befor I look for a handout but I have a friend who makes less than me is on the government assistance and eats better than me. I try to stay self sufficient while others are more than happy to take more and give nothing. Like my dad says our county has turned into a ME ME ME MORE ME NOW selfish asses.

You're right.

Wal-Mart is a prime example of one of those huge corporations that undermines small businesses by undercutting small business costs. Wal-mart BEGAN as a "made in the USA" company but then it sold out, and when it did, it drove many small businesses OUT of business... small businesses that didn't have the multiglomerate bargaining power that Wal-Mart has. So their US suppliers also lost out.

When companies get so big and then sell out the country they were formed in, they are worse than "big government" and, in fact, are a primary cause of government getting so big.... to take care of the people that can no longer rely on the good ol' American value of honest day's wage for honest day's labor.

Just over a year ago, there was an article about New Balance, the athletic shoe company that's based in Massechusetts and was still 100% American made. It has to compete with companies like Nike, who've been in the news over the years for extremely unethical business practices in the foreign nations where they have their products made for pennies on the dollar, then leap from country to country... as workers in the country making Nike get wiser, they start asking for more, and then Nike moves on to the next country dumb enough to work for peanuts.

New Balance had, so far, been able to compete, not reaping the profits that Nike reaps, but making enough to keep in business and keep quite a few folks gainfully employed within the US. But as Nike made plans to move into Viet Nam where workers would work for even less, the owners of New Balance feared that they, too, would either have to sell out and start manufacturing outside of the country, or close.

Nike consumers were not getting the benefit of the cheaper manufacture, because Nikes cost as much to purchase as New Balance does, while New Balance costs to produce are much higher (because, again, New Balance chose to compete while giving their employees a decent wage.)

So. What's going to happen to New Balance employees if the US factory closes? It's gonna go on some sort of dole, like the former US-suppliers of Wal-Mart and the former US-suppliers of the former Wal-Mart competitors and the former Wal-Mart competitors themselves. So what does that mean? Means big gub'ment has to get a little bigger to support them all.

Let's see who Wal-Mart donated to in the most recent presidential election...

(1) Mitt Romney - $59,360
(2) Barack Obama - $53,080

PAC Contributions:

(1) To Democrats - $541,000
(2) To Republicans - $547,000

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary ... D000000367