I went off on a bit of an overly verbose tangent at the end. But I was offering another viewpoint that these people who compose this 'right wing government' are 'such stupid, selfish, vile pieces of shit' because they don't want to allocate so much money to improving the lives of others.
Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:47 am
Thanks for the opinion but I not sure you are on the argument yet.
I'm wasn't, I was replying to a specific sentiment from VG's post.
The free market is not better, because it is privately owned and tends to act like a syphon which takes wealth out of the system and depresses the economy.
Sounds like a pretty politically-loaded opinion. Obviously, I don't agree. The point I was just getting at also attempts to show that a free market business knows how to distribute money a lot better than a government one. The government siphons money out of the existing system as well; There's a reason why it's shamelessly called 'wealth redistribution'. Granted the government makes their own money as well, but that's a bit beside the point for what we're discussing as it's entirely separate.
Do you think the 'free markets' is better at anything, or is that just a blanket statement? TV shows, Movies, hardware manufacturers, those should all be government funded as well?
it does so by a continual downwards pressure on wages, and a tendency to gain monopoly control. As low paying successful businesses grow they absorb the more generous businesses and by doing that gain economies of scale by which they are more able to compete.
Uhhm, There are government monopolies as well? In fact, I was under the impression that it's well known the government is far more likely to create a monopoly than the free market. Depending on where you live - the very computer you're typing on is juiced by an electricity company given true monopoly rights by the government.
Drugs, Internet Service Providers, Cellular companies - all these things that probably come to mind when you think of the word 'monopoly', were created due to government regulation surrounding them.
This has led to the growth of massive corporations whose earnings are greater than the GDPs of some smaller countries.
Without regulation they are empowered to seize assets and make land grabs with massive buying power and the ability to pay-off corrupt politicians. Once they secure the rights they can then exploit local workers in sweat-shops and then sack workers in their home countries.
I think without 'regulation', sweat-shops are more likely to pay their employees more. It doesn't mean that that a 15% corporate tax reduction will translate exactly to the employee payroll, but it does mean they will reallocate some
amount of the money somewhere within their business. It would be much superior if we could raise the 'competitive wage' rather than force an increase in the 'minimum wage', and I would hope we can at least agree on that in spite of our political differences. I think lowering regulations, like corporate tax does exactly this but like I said, it won't be a perfect translation of an exact amount, as many want to expect.
The point of all this is that the less you pay working people the less they have to spend in the local economy. Low demand means low supply, fewer goods move around in the market. It also means a lower tax revenue.
Thanks for trying to reexplain your position here, and I think I have a better understanding of what's being discussed, I'm just not sure I agree with all of your nuance, or line up with your political philosophy at all.