PDA

View Full Version : What would our economy and way of life look like without megacorps?



donttread
09-15-2014, 06:26 PM
Imagine a world where local, capitalist, price competitive businesses operated under free or at least freer markets. Imagine daily staples like bread, energy, meat, produce and even other vital products like building materials and clothing were produced within a 30 mile radius of home. Imagine a world where it was far more difficult to price fix, manipulate markets and buy politicians. Where we did not meddle in countries affairs , make war over oil and poppies half a world away or build club med "embassies ". Where seed was not patented and where there was a diversity of companies raising our food in clean , sustainable , naturally occurring manner and fed our food animals food they are designed to eat. Where energy was transported hundreds of miles and we were not tied to umbilical cord. A world where farmers did not get sued because their neighbors seed blew into your fields. Where a handful of companies didn't control all the legal medication and own the agency created to regulate them. Where the prison industrial complex didn't need to be fed a constant stream of non-violent "criminals" via drug charges and consensual sex "criminals."
Tell be how could that not be a better world?

Peter1469
09-15-2014, 06:29 PM
It would be a better world.

Chris
09-15-2014, 06:54 PM
It would be better.

And the path to that world goes through minimizing government if not eliminating it. Magacorps depend on megagovernment.

donttread
09-15-2014, 06:59 PM
I don't think we can limit government or even get true representation as long as the megacorps exist. Their mere exsistence makes true free markets impossible

Chris
09-15-2014, 07:13 PM
I don't think we can limit government or even get true representation as long as the megacorps exist. Their mere exsistence makes true free markets impossible

They can only exist with government. Government creates and protects them.

Chris
09-15-2014, 07:18 PM
What is a megacorp but a monopoly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU

Guerilla
09-16-2014, 02:13 AM
Imagine a world where local, capitalist, price competitive businesses operated under free or at least freer markets. Imagine daily staples like bread, energy, meat, produce and even other vital products like building materials and clothing were produced within a 30 mile radius of home. Imagine a world where it was far more difficult to price fix, manipulate markets and buy politicians. Where we did not meddle in countries affairs , make war over oil and poppies half a world away or build club med "embassies ". Where seed was not patented and where there was a diversity of companies raising our food in clean , sustainable , naturally occurring manner and fed our food animals food they are designed to eat. Where energy was transported hundreds of miles and we were not tied to umbilical cord. A world where farmers did not get sued because their neighbors seed blew into your fields. Where a handful of companies didn't control all the legal medication and own the agency created to regulate them. Where the prison industrial complex didn't need to be fed a constant stream of non-violent "criminals" via drug charges and consensual sex "criminals."
Tell be how could that not be a better world?

I think what you describe is the solution. Part of accomplishing it is getting rid of far reaching influences like megacorps and large government. But part of it is also for us to come together with those around us so we can have small regions be self-sufficient. If we don't do that then it will fall into chaos. We need to teach ourselves sustainability first, then I think will be able to look at things differently which will naturally lead to what you are talking about.

Mac-7
09-16-2014, 05:46 AM
Where the prison industrial complex didn't need to be fed a constant stream of non-violent "criminals" via drug charges and consensual sex "criminals."
Tell be how could that not be a better world?


A world where criminals and drug zombies roam free on the streets?

imagine the unintended consequences of that insane dream.

zelmo1234
09-16-2014, 06:42 AM
Imagine a world where the people actually have to support them selves rather than live off the labors of others. where they are not forced to purchase insurance to prop up an industry and increase market share. Where doctors are not sued for millions of dollars because the crack whore's baby died during birth!

Where you can't sue someone for coffee being hot, or because that cigarette you were smoking all of your live gave you that cancer that you knew you would get. A world where energy was cheaper because no one was telling you that you could not burn coal, or natural gas to produce it

where you were free to start a business and employ people for a wage that they were willing to work for, so you could actually compete and sell a better product that what is being built in China Where the people actually said Thank You too the business owner that employees hundreds of people giving them a way to a better life, instead of calling him a monster exploiting others.

You see Chris is right the Government is picking winners and losers and that is what allows the mega corp to exist.

Mac-7
09-16-2014, 10:55 AM
Imagine a world where the people actually have to support them selves rather than live off the labors of others. where they are not forced to purchase insurance to prop up an industry and increase market share. Where doctors are not sued for millions of dollars because the crack whore's baby died during birth!

Where you can't sue someone for coffee being hot, or because that cigarette you were smoking all of your live gave you that cancer that you knew you would get. A world where energy was cheaper because no one was telling you that you could not burn coal, or natural gas to produce it

where you were free to start a business and employ people for a wage that they were willing to work for, so you could actually compete and sell a better product that what is being built in China Where the people actually said Thank You too the business owner that employees hundreds of people giving them a way to a better life, instead of calling him a monster exploiting others.

You see Chris is right the Government is picking winners and losers and that is what allows the mega corp to exist.

Isnt the core problem government that has too much power?

Captain Obvious
09-16-2014, 10:57 AM
It's amazing how we were able to evolve from slime to where we are without the help of mega corps and teh gubmint.

Common Sense
09-16-2014, 10:58 AM
Government has historically been a balance to power of the large corporations. It all began with Teddy Roosevelt.

Unfortunately today, the line between industry and government has been blurred. People flow back and forth.

Chris
09-16-2014, 01:37 PM
Government has historically been a balance to power of the large corporations. It all began with Teddy Roosevelt.

Unfortunately today, the line between industry and government has been blurred. People flow back and forth.

Friedman dispels that myth in post #6 above.

Common Sense
09-16-2014, 01:47 PM
Friedman dispels that myth in post #6 above.

It's his opinion. Unfortunately for him, historically we have seen govt breaking up monopolies that existed without govt help. How does his theory account for the various monopolies that existed before regulations and anti trust laws?

Chris
09-16-2014, 02:01 PM
It's his opinion. Unfortunately for him, historically we have seen govt breaking up monopolies that existed without govt help. How does his theory account for the various monopolies that existed before regulations and anti trust laws?

Sorry, but he is presenting factual history. You are offering opinion. If not, you'd present some history, not repeat what you were taught in liberal school.

Common Sense
09-16-2014, 02:12 PM
Sorry, but he is presenting factual history. You are offering opinion. If not, you'd present some history, not repeat what you were taught in liberal school.

He was not, he was offering a theory on free trade.

Do I have to teach you the history of the involvement of Roosevelt in breaking up monopolies and the precedent it set?

Chris
09-16-2014, 02:23 PM
He was not, he was offering a theory on free trade.

Do I have to teach you the history of the involvement of Roosevelt in breaking up monopolies and the precedent it set?

I suggest actually viewing the Friedman video, it was not theory.

Present a single case of government busting up a monopoly--Standard Oil is standard, you want to go with that? Show how the Sherman Act was applied to benefit consumers not uncompetitive competition. Don't just talk in generalities, common, put some meat on those opinions of yours.

Mac-7
09-16-2014, 03:06 PM
It's amazing how we were able to evolve from slime to where we are without the help of mega corps and teh gubmint.

Nothing is beyond the Creator.

Peter1469
09-16-2014, 04:28 PM
Isnt the core problem government that has too much power?

That would be my view- too much power and misapplying that power.

Take 100,000 people at random and have them set up a community. I imagine that vast majority will what some level of government.

Polecat
09-16-2014, 04:48 PM
Anything that gets too big and powerful goes rogue. Commerce, government, and religion have been demonstrating this since recorded history.

Chris
09-16-2014, 04:56 PM
Anything that gets too big and powerful goes rogue. Commerce, government, and religion have been demonstrating this since recorded history.

But none become so powerful without government. All power comes from society. Some is given up to government to protect the rest as is our right. But government colludes with business and unions and religions and other special interests to take more power. If corporations etc could not rely on government for political means to wealth but had to rely on economic means they would have to produce what people value.

"There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. Robbery! Forcible appropriation! ...I propose in the following discussion to call one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, the “economic means” for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the “political means.”"

Franz Oppenheimer, 1914, The State

Polecat
09-16-2014, 05:40 PM
But none become so powerful without government. All power comes from society. Some is given up to government to protect the rest as is our right. But government colludes with business and unions and religions and other special interests to take more power. If corporations etc could not rely on government for political means to wealth but had to rely on economic means they would have to produce what people value.

"There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. Robbery! Forcible appropriation! ...I propose in the following discussion to call one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, the “economic means” for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the “political means.”"

Franz Oppenheimer, 1914, The State

I can't accept his principles due to the historic fact that in the 1800s our government was bought by the likes of Carnage, J.P. Morgan, Getty, Vanderbilt, etc. Europe was owned by the Rothschild family. You want to make the hair on the back of your neck stand up read up on this family and their American kin.

Chris
09-16-2014, 06:14 PM
I can't accept his principles due to the historic fact that in the 1800s our government was bought by the likes of Carnage, J.P. Morgan, Getty, Vanderbilt, etc. Europe was owned by the Rothschild family. You want to make the hair on the back of your neck stand up read up on this family and their American kin.

In the 1800s the likes of those didn't have to buy government, government went to them for favors. Then came the 16th amendment and turned it around. Regardless, they collude together to our detriment.

Mac-7
09-17-2014, 04:22 AM
In the 1800s the likes of those didn't have to buy government, government went to them for favors. Then came the 16th amendment and turned it around. Regardless, they collude together to our detriment.

Who should government consult with if not the best informed business leaders?

Commerce is the life blood of our economy and the nation.

the idea that bureaucrats in Washington have ultimate knowledge of everything and should just tell business leaders how to run their businesses is really silly.

one reason the old Soviet Union failed is because government pinheads tried to run the nation from Moscow - I.e. From the top down instead of from the bottom up ax we do here in America.

Chris
09-17-2014, 08:18 AM
Who should government consult with if not the best informed business leaders?

Commerce is the life blood of our economy and the nation.

the idea that bureaucrats in Washington have ultimate knowledge of everything and should just tell business leaders how to run their businesses is really silly.

one reason the old Soviet Union failed is because government pinheads tried to run the nation from Moscow - I.e. From the top down instead of from the bottom up ax we do here in America.

We were discussing corruption, cronyism, the collusion of government and business. Other than regulation commerce among states, the federal government has no business meddling in business.

Given that running a business and a government are two different things entirely, why would there be any need for consultation?

The Soviet Union failed because Socialism/Communism cannot solve the economic calculation and coordination problems.

lynn
09-17-2014, 08:27 AM
Simple solution to breaking the bond between corporations and government is to eliminate them from paying taxes.

Mac-7
09-17-2014, 08:28 AM
We were discussing corruption, cronyism, the collusion of government and business. Other than regulation commerce among states, the federal government has no business meddling in business.

Given that running a business and a government are two different things entirely, why would there be any need for consultation?

The Soviet Union failed because Socialism/Communism cannot solve the economic calculation and coordination problems.


Other than regulation commerce among states, the federal government has no business meddling in business.

the reality is that government does meddle in business.

for business to sit around and passively wait for the next uninformed government mandate to arrive on their doorstep would be insane.

Mac-7
09-17-2014, 08:29 AM
Simple solution to breaking the bond between corporations and government is to eliminate them from paying taxes.

that would help.

but government micromanages private business in many other ways also.

Chris
09-17-2014, 08:35 AM
Simple solution to breaking the bond between corporations and government is to eliminate them from paying taxes.

It would help.

Another solution would be to regulate government from providing rent seeking opportunities. As long as political means to wealth are provided by government, people will rent seek it.

Chris
09-17-2014, 08:37 AM
the reality is that government does meddle in business.

for business to sit around and passively wait for the next uninformed government mandate to arrive on their doorstep would be insane.

Politics is about what ought to be. Granted, you need to start with reality to get there, but reality ought not be the conclusion.

Business shouldn't have to wait on government.

Mac-7
09-17-2014, 08:42 AM
Politics is about what ought to be. Granted, you need to start with reality to get there, but reality ought not be the conclusion.

Business shouldn't have to wait on government.

Reality is the conclusion until something better comes along.

but unfortunately we are not building a better or more sensible America.

the reality is that our country is getting worse not better.

so government will keep growing and the elites will use their wealth to get what they want.

if you can't limit the growth of government then you have no chance to stop the corruption that you are complaining about.

Chris
09-17-2014, 08:54 AM
Reality is the conclusion until something better comes along.

but unfortunately we are not building a better or more sensible America.

the reality is that our country is getting worse not better.

so government will keep growing and the elites will use their wealth to get what they want.

if you can't limit the growth of government then you have no chance to stop the corruption that you are complaining about.


Reality is the conclusion until something better comes along.

Naturalistic fallacy.


if you can't limit the growth of government then you have no chance to stop the corruption that you are complaining about.

I just posted about regulating government. As Madison put it: "f men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

Mac-7
09-17-2014, 09:06 AM
Naturalistic fallacy.



Reality is what is, not what you wish it were.

true, things COULD be better.

but reality is that they aren't.

Chris
09-17-2014, 09:08 AM
Reality is what is, not what you wish it were.

true, things COULD be better.

but reality is that they aren't.

Sorry, thought we were talking politics.