Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Corporatocracy

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 10:21:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

I believe that there has long been conspiracy between corporate and the government. I also believe that this problem predates Reagan.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 10:49:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 10:21:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

I believe that there has long been conspiracy between corporate and the government. I also believe that this problem predates Reagan.

Yes. I agree, but no president, in the recent history of our country, has done more for big business than Reagan. As much as I disliked George W., even he had his limits. Reagan had (and still has among fiscal conservatives) the popularity of a god, which enabled him to change the course of our economy.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 2:57:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 10:21:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

I believe that there has long been conspiracy between corporate and the government. I also believe that this problem [LONG] predates Reagan.

Calvin Coolidge.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 3:04:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 2:57:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/20/2013 10:21:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

I believe that there has long been conspiracy between corporate and the government. I also believe that this problem [LONG] predates Reagan.

Calvin Coolidge.

Yes, and I personally believe his policies of deregulation played a major role in bringing on the Great Depression, just as I believe Reagan's policies of deregulation led to the financial crises of 2008.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 3:07:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 3:04:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 2:57:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/20/2013 10:21:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

I believe that there has long been conspiracy between corporate and the government. I also believe that this problem [LONG] predates Reagan.

Calvin Coolidge.

Yes, and I personally believe his policies of deregulation played a major role in bringing on the Great Depression, just as I believe Reagan's policies of deregulation led to the financial crises of 2008.

Lot of truth to that, IMHO.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 3:12:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 3:04:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 2:57:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/20/2013 10:21:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

I believe that there has long been conspiracy between corporate and the government. I also believe that this problem [LONG] predates Reagan.

Calvin Coolidge.

Yes, and I personally believe his policies of deregulation played a major role in bringing on the Great Depression, just as I believe Reagan's policies of deregulation led to the financial crises of 2008.

Wait, so now we're blaming someone from two decades prior to the crash for the financial crisis?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 3:29:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

Do you know what a corporation is? A corporation is a legal entity representing a group of people as a collectivized individual. Municipal governments are a corporations, the 13 colonies were corporations; corporatism is not capitalism. A business is a corporation only when they are granted a legal charter by the state or federal government.

A corporatocracy is an oligarchical form of government, where corporations (legal people) wield absolute sovereignty over the government. If you turn on C-Span, and watched the political climate in DC, you would know that this is not the case. The US government is extremely anti-corporation, and has been so for the last 12 decades.

The regulations imposed by the US government hurts corporations to the point of outsourcing. There is reason you rarely see "made in the US" on manufactured goods anymore.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 3:30:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 3:12:00 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:04:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 2:57:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/20/2013 10:21:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

I believe that there has long been conspiracy between corporate and the government. I also believe that this problem [LONG] predates Reagan.

Calvin Coolidge.

Yes, and I personally believe his policies of deregulation played a major role in bringing on the Great Depression, just as I believe Reagan's policies of deregulation led to the financial crises of 2008.

Wait, so now we're blaming someone from two decades prior to the crash for the financial crisis?

It was Reagan's policies of deregulation that facilitated the fiscal bubble which led to the collapse of the market.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 3:52:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 3:30:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:12:00 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:04:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 2:57:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/20/2013 10:21:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

I believe that there has long been conspiracy between corporate and the government. I also believe that this problem [LONG] predates Reagan.

Calvin Coolidge.

Yes, and I personally believe his policies of deregulation played a major role in bringing on the Great Depression, just as I believe Reagan's policies of deregulation led to the financial crises of 2008.

Wait, so now we're blaming someone from two decades prior to the crash for the financial crisis?

It was Reagan's policies of deregulation that facilitated the fiscal bubble which led to the collapse of the market.

No, it started with low mortgage rates, and an expansion of credit, as the federal reserve set interest rates artificially low. The new money created by the artificially low interest rates were confused for real loanable funds, resulting in mal-investments. The aggregate demand increased, and the aggregate supply decreased. The actual price inflated beyond the sticky expected price, resulting in supply shortages and temporary job growth. The aggregate output was pushed beyond its potential, and therefore was unsustainable.
http://www.debate.org...

This unsustainable boom resulted in a bust. The mal-investments caused an increase in the aggregate supply, resulting in an increase in output. The increase in output caused the monetary demand to increase, thus causing the actual price to deflate below the sticky expected price. The output was now below its potential, resulting in supply surpluses, and an increase in unemployment.
http://www.debate.org...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 3:57:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 3:29:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

Do you know what a corporation is? A corporation is a legal entity representing a group of people as a collectivized individual. Municipal governments are a corporations, the 13 colonies were corporations; corporatism is not capitalism. A business is a corporation only when they are granted a legal charter by the state or federal government.

A corporatocracy is an oligarchical form of government, where corporations (legal people) wield absolute sovereignty over the government. If you turn on C-Span, and watched the political climate in DC, you would know that this is not the case. The US government is extremely anti-corporation, and has been so for the last 12 decades.

The regulations imposed by the US government hurts corporations to the point of outsourcing. There is reason you rarely see "made in the US" on manufactured goods anymore.

If you're using the economies of these countries the United States outsources to, as an argument for deregulation, I feel very sorry for you.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 4:05:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 3:57:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:29:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

Do you know what a corporation is? A corporation is a legal entity representing a group of people as a collectivized individual. Municipal governments are a corporations, the 13 colonies were corporations; corporatism is not capitalism. A business is a corporation only when they are granted a legal charter by the state or federal government.

A corporatocracy is an oligarchical form of government, where corporations (legal people) wield absolute sovereignty over the government. If you turn on C-Span, and watched the political climate in DC, you would know that this is not the case. The US government is extremely anti-corporation, and has been so for the last 12 decades.

The regulations imposed by the US government hurts corporations to the point of outsourcing. There is reason you rarely see "made in the US" on manufactured goods anymore.

If you're using the economies of these countries the United States outsources to, as an argument for deregulation, I feel very sorry for you.

No, I'm using the economics of this country. There are costs to outsourcing. There is a multitude of costs related to outsourcing; a company does not just back up and switch locations. There is a huge risk in outsourcing, as well as a the many costs involved. The company has to consider the risks associated with the exchange rates and foreign government, they must also consider the travel costs, transaction costs, PR costs, training cost, import/export cost, and so on. These are just a few of the risks and costs associated with outsourcing. There is also the issue of reduced output.

If a company is outsourcing, it means the country the company is based in is over-regulating, and the government is making it hard for firms to turn a profit.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 4:32:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 4:05:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:57:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:29:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

Do you know what a corporation is? A corporation is a legal entity representing a group of people as a collectivized individual. Municipal governments are a corporations, the 13 colonies were corporations; corporatism is not capitalism. A business is a corporation only when they are granted a legal charter by the state or federal government.

A corporatocracy is an oligarchical form of government, where corporations (legal people) wield absolute sovereignty over the government. If you turn on C-Span, and watched the political climate in DC, you would know that this is not the case. The US government is extremely anti-corporation, and has been so for the last 12 decades.

The regulations imposed by the US government hurts corporations to the point of outsourcing. There is reason you rarely see "made in the US" on manufactured goods anymore.

If you're using the economies of these countries the United States outsources to, as an argument for deregulation, I feel very sorry for you.

No, I'm using the economics of this country. There are costs to outsourcing. There is a multitude of costs related to outsourcing; a company does not just back up and switch locations. There is a huge risk in outsourcing, as well as a the many costs involved. The company has to consider the risks associated with the exchange rates and foreign government, they must also consider the travel costs, transaction costs, PR costs, training cost, import/export cost, and so on. These are just a few of the risks and costs associated with outsourcing. There is also the issue of reduced output.

If a company is outsourcing, it means the country the company is based in is over-regulating, and the government is making it hard for firms to turn a profit.

Regardless of the expense, no company, in its right mind, would concede to it, if the benefit of outsourcing did not outweigh the costs.

Having said that, I think the economies of these countries speak for themselves.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 5:13:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 4:32:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 4:05:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:57:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:29:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

Do you know what a corporation is? A corporation is a legal entity representing a group of people as a collectivized individual. Municipal governments are a corporations, the 13 colonies were corporations; corporatism is not capitalism. A business is a corporation only when they are granted a legal charter by the state or federal government.

A corporatocracy is an oligarchical form of government, where corporations (legal people) wield absolute sovereignty over the government. If you turn on C-Span, and watched the political climate in DC, you would know that this is not the case. The US government is extremely anti-corporation, and has been so for the last 12 decades.

The regulations imposed by the US government hurts corporations to the point of outsourcing. There is reason you rarely see "made in the US" on manufactured goods anymore.

If you're using the economies of these countries the United States outsources to, as an argument for deregulation, I feel very sorry for you.

No, I'm using the economics of this country. There are costs to outsourcing. There is a multitude of costs related to outsourcing; a company does not just back up and switch locations. There is a huge risk in outsourcing, as well as a the many costs involved. The company has to consider the risks associated with the exchange rates and foreign government, they must also consider the travel costs, transaction costs, PR costs, training cost, import/export cost, and so on. These are just a few of the risks and costs associated with outsourcing. There is also the issue of reduced output.

If a company is outsourcing, it means the country the company is based in is over-regulating, and the government is making it hard for firms to turn a profit.

Regardless of the expense, no company, in its right mind, would concede to it, if the benefit of outsourcing did not outweigh the costs.

Having said that, I think the economies of these countries speak for themselves.

The benefits of outsourcing don't always outweigh the cost. A company outsources when it is more profitable to outsource than it is to conduct business locally. When regulations get to the point where outsourcing is preferable, the regulations need to be loosened.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 5:38:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 3:52:45 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:30:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:12:00 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:04:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 2:57:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/20/2013 10:21:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

I believe that there has long been conspiracy between corporate and the government. I also believe that this problem [LONG] predates Reagan.

Calvin Coolidge.

Yes, and I personally believe his policies of deregulation played a major role in bringing on the Great Depression, just as I believe Reagan's policies of deregulation led to the financial crises of 2008.

Wait, so now we're blaming someone from two decades prior to the crash for the financial crisis?

It was Reagan's policies of deregulation that facilitated the fiscal bubble which led to the collapse of the market.

No, it started with low mortgage rates, and an expansion of credit, as the federal reserve set interest rates artificially low. The new money created by the artificially low interest rates were confused for real loanable funds, resulting in mal-investments. The aggregate demand increased, and the aggregate supply decreased. The actual price inflated beyond the sticky expected price, resulting in supply shortages and temporary job growth. The aggregate output was pushed beyond its potential, and therefore was unsustainable.
http://www.debate.org...


This unsustainable boom resulted in a bust. The mal-investments caused an increase in the aggregate supply, resulting in an increase in output. The increase in output caused the monetary demand to increase, thus causing the actual price to deflate below the sticky expected price. The output was now below its potential, resulting in supply surpluses, and an increase in unemployment.
http://www.debate.org...

So, banks got cheap money and made bad investments; and, the taxpayer is left bailing them out.

How is this not proof the government is in bed with big business?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 5:52:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 5:13:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 4:32:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 4:05:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:57:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:29:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

Do you know what a corporation is? A corporation is a legal entity representing a group of people as a collectivized individual. Municipal governments are a corporations, the 13 colonies were corporations; corporatism is not capitalism. A business is a corporation only when they are granted a legal charter by the state or federal government.

A corporatocracy is an oligarchical form of government, where corporations (legal people) wield absolute sovereignty over the government. If you turn on C-Span, and watched the political climate in DC, you would know that this is not the case. The US government is extremely anti-corporation, and has been so for the last 12 decades.

The regulations imposed by the US government hurts corporations to the point of outsourcing. There is reason you rarely see "made in the US" on manufactured goods anymore.

If you're using the economies of these countries the United States outsources to, as an argument for deregulation, I feel very sorry for you.

No, I'm using the economics of this country. There are costs to outsourcing. There is a multitude of costs related to outsourcing; a company does not just back up and switch locations. There is a huge risk in outsourcing, as well as a the many costs involved. The company has to consider the risks associated with the exchange rates and foreign government, they must also consider the travel costs, transaction costs, PR costs, training cost, import/export cost, and so on. These are just a few of the risks and costs associated with outsourcing. There is also the issue of reduced output.

If a company is outsourcing, it means the country the company is based in is over-regulating, and the government is making it hard for firms to turn a profit.

Regardless of the expense, no company, in its right mind, would concede to it, if the benefit of outsourcing did not outweigh the costs.

Having said that, I think the economies of these countries speak for themselves.

The benefits of outsourcing don't always outweigh the cost. A company outsources when it is more profitable to outsource than it is to conduct business locally. When regulations get to the point where outsourcing is preferable, the regulations need to be loosened.

What have loosened regulations done for the economies of these countries? These are not necessarily countries we wish to use as blueprints for the renovations of our own economy.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 6:45:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 5:38:04 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:52:45 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:30:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:12:00 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:04:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 2:57:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/20/2013 10:21:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

I believe that there has long been conspiracy between corporate and the government. I also believe that this problem [LONG] predates Reagan.

Calvin Coolidge.

Yes, and I personally believe his policies of deregulation played a major role in bringing on the Great Depression, just as I believe Reagan's policies of deregulation led to the financial crises of 2008.

Wait, so now we're blaming someone from two decades prior to the crash for the financial crisis?

It was Reagan's policies of deregulation that facilitated the fiscal bubble which led to the collapse of the market.

No, it started with low mortgage rates, and an expansion of credit, as the federal reserve set interest rates artificially low. The new money created by the artificially low interest rates were confused for real loanable funds, resulting in mal-investments. The aggregate demand increased, and the aggregate supply decreased. The actual price inflated beyond the sticky expected price, resulting in supply shortages and temporary job growth. The aggregate output was pushed beyond its potential, and therefore was unsustainable.
http://www.debate.org...


This unsustainable boom resulted in a bust. The mal-investments caused an increase in the aggregate supply, resulting in an increase in output. The increase in output caused the monetary demand to increase, thus causing the actual price to deflate below the sticky expected price. The output was now below its potential, resulting in supply surpluses, and an increase in unemployment.
http://www.debate.org...

So, banks got cheap money and made bad investments; and, the taxpayer is left bailing them out.

How is this not proof the government is in bed with big business?

Low interest rates benefit the borrower, not the lender. The low interest rate by the FED allowed commercial banks to lower the interest rate on mortgages and other forms of loans. Low interest rates benefits the borrower, so by lowering the FED's rate, the commercial banks were encouraged to lower their rates.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 6:59:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 5:52:26 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 5:13:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 4:32:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 4:05:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:57:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:29:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

Do you know what a corporation is? A corporation is a legal entity representing a group of people as a collectivized individual. Municipal governments are a corporations, the 13 colonies were corporations; corporatism is not capitalism. A business is a corporation only when they are granted a legal charter by the state or federal government.

A corporatocracy is an oligarchical form of government, where corporations (legal people) wield absolute sovereignty over the government. If you turn on C-Span, and watched the political climate in DC, you would know that this is not the case. The US government is extremely anti-corporation, and has been so for the last 12 decades.

The regulations imposed by the US government hurts corporations to the point of outsourcing. There is reason you rarely see "made in the US" on manufactured goods anymore.

If you're using the economies of these countries the United States outsources to, as an argument for deregulation, I feel very sorry for you.

No, I'm using the economics of this country. There are costs to outsourcing. There is a multitude of costs related to outsourcing; a company does not just back up and switch locations. There is a huge risk in outsourcing, as well as a the many costs involved. The company has to consider the risks associated with the exchange rates and foreign government, they must also consider the travel costs, transaction costs, PR costs, training cost, import/export cost, and so on. These are just a few of the risks and costs associated with outsourcing. There is also the issue of reduced output.

If a company is outsourcing, it means the country the company is based in is over-regulating, and the government is making it hard for firms to turn a profit.

Regardless of the expense, no company, in its right mind, would concede to it, if the benefit of outsourcing did not outweigh the costs.

Having said that, I think the economies of these countries speak for themselves.

The benefits of outsourcing don't always outweigh the cost. A company outsources when it is more profitable to outsource than it is to conduct business locally. When regulations get to the point where outsourcing is preferable, the regulations need to be loosened.

What have loosened regulations done for the economies of these countries?

Actually India is dirt poor because of socialism. Like Russia, India began liberalizing their economy in the 1990's, which resulted in economic growth. ("liberalization" refers to the reduction of government restrictions) Economic liberalization is the most pragmatically optimal policy when it comes to the economy, because it maximizes long term economic growth.

These are not necessarily countries we wish to use as blueprints for the renovations of our own economy.

No, because they are aspiring to become more like us.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 7:18:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 6:45:56 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 5:38:04 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:52:45 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:30:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:12:00 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:04:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 2:57:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/20/2013 10:21:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

I believe that there has long been conspiracy between corporate and the government. I also believe that this problem [LONG] predates Reagan.

Calvin Coolidge.

Yes, and I personally believe his policies of deregulation played a major role in bringing on the Great Depression, just as I believe Reagan's policies of deregulation led to the financial crises of 2008.

Wait, so now we're blaming someone from two decades prior to the crash for the financial crisis?

It was Reagan's policies of deregulation that facilitated the fiscal bubble which led to the collapse of the market.

No, it started with low mortgage rates, and an expansion of credit, as the federal reserve set interest rates artificially low. The new money created by the artificially low interest rates were confused for real loanable funds, resulting in mal-investments. The aggregate demand increased, and the aggregate supply decreased. The actual price inflated beyond the sticky expected price, resulting in supply shortages and temporary job growth. The aggregate output was pushed beyond its potential, and therefore was unsustainable.
http://www.debate.org...


This unsustainable boom resulted in a bust. The mal-investments caused an increase in the aggregate supply, resulting in an increase in output. The increase in output caused the monetary demand to increase, thus causing the actual price to deflate below the sticky expected price. The output was now below its potential, resulting in supply surpluses, and an increase in unemployment.
http://www.debate.org...

So, banks got cheap money and made bad investments; and, the taxpayer is left bailing them out.

How is this not proof the government is in bed with big business?

Low interest rates benefit the borrower, not the lender. The low interest rate by the FED allowed commercial banks to lower the interest rate on mortgages and other forms of loans. Low interest rates benefits the borrower, so by lowering the FED's rate, the commercial banks were encouraged to lower their rates.

Yes, the banks were not loaning money at cheaper rates, because they were bleeding hearts, but because they paid less for their product.

Nevertheless, it's not the rate at which the financial markets acquired money that inflated the real estate bubble but subprime lending. It sounds as though you believe the banks were doing the economy a favor by making bad investments.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 7:38:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 7:18:47 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 6:45:56 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 5:38:04 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:52:45 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:30:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:12:00 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:04:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 2:57:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/20/2013 10:21:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

I believe that there has long been conspiracy between corporate and the government. I also believe that this problem [LONG] predates Reagan.

Calvin Coolidge.

Yes, and I personally believe his policies of deregulation played a major role in bringing on the Great Depression, just as I believe Reagan's policies of deregulation led to the financial crises of 2008.

Wait, so now we're blaming someone from two decades prior to the crash for the financial crisis?

It was Reagan's policies of deregulation that facilitated the fiscal bubble which led to the collapse of the market.

No, it started with low mortgage rates, and an expansion of credit, as the federal reserve set interest rates artificially low. The new money created by the artificially low interest rates were confused for real loanable funds, resulting in mal-investments. The aggregate demand increased, and the aggregate supply decreased. The actual price inflated beyond the sticky expected price, resulting in supply shortages and temporary job growth. The aggregate output was pushed beyond its potential, and therefore was unsustainable.
http://www.debate.org...


This unsustainable boom resulted in a bust. The mal-investments caused an increase in the aggregate supply, resulting in an increase in output. The increase in output caused the monetary demand to increase, thus causing the actual price to deflate below the sticky expected price. The output was now below its potential, resulting in supply surpluses, and an increase in unemployment.
http://www.debate.org...

So, banks got cheap money and made bad investments; and, the taxpayer is left bailing them out.

How is this not proof the government is in bed with big business?

Low interest rates benefit the borrower, not the lender. The low interest rate by the FED allowed commercial banks to lower the interest rate on mortgages and other forms of loans. Low interest rates benefits the borrower, so by lowering the FED's rate, the commercial banks were encouraged to lower their rates.

Yes, the banks were not loaning money at cheaper rates, because they were bleeding hearts, but because they paid less for their product.

Nevertheless, it's not the rate at which the financial markets acquired money that inflated the real estate bubble but subprime lending.

Lowering the discount rate lowers the risk of commercial banks when they lend money. It also encourages borrowing. Asset backed securities also played a roll in encouraging subprime lending, but there is nothing inherently wrong with asset backed securities. The problem occurs when you mix artificially low interest rates with asset backed securities, thereby inflating the nominal value of the securities and encouraging mal-investments.

It sounds as though you believe the banks were doing the economy a favor by making bad investments.
No it doesn't. I said nothing to indicate that I favor mal-investments.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 7:38:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 6:59:56 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 5:52:26 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 5:13:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 4:32:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 4:05:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:57:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:29:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

Do you know what a corporation is? A corporation is a legal entity representing a group of people as a collectivized individual. Municipal governments are a corporations, the 13 colonies were corporations; corporatism is not capitalism. A business is a corporation only when they are granted a legal charter by the state or federal government.

A corporatocracy is an oligarchical form of government, where corporations (legal people) wield absolute sovereignty over the government. If you turn on C-Span, and watched the political climate in DC, you would know that this is not the case. The US government is extremely anti-corporation, and has been so for the last 12 decades.

The regulations imposed by the US government hurts corporations to the point of outsourcing. There is reason you rarely see "made in the US" on manufactured goods anymore.

If you're using the economies of these countries the United States outsources to, as an argument for deregulation, I feel very sorry for you.

No, I'm using the economics of this country. There are costs to outsourcing. There is a multitude of costs related to outsourcing; a company does not just back up and switch locations. There is a huge risk in outsourcing, as well as a the many costs involved. The company has to consider the risks associated with the exchange rates and foreign government, they must also consider the travel costs, transaction costs, PR costs, training cost, import/export cost, and so on. These are just a few of the risks and costs associated with outsourcing. There is also the issue of reduced output.

If a company is outsourcing, it means the country the company is based in is over-regulating, and the government is making it hard for firms to turn a profit.

Regardless of the expense, no company, in its right mind, would concede to it, if the benefit of outsourcing did not outweigh the costs.

Having said that, I think the economies of these countries speak for themselves.

The benefits of outsourcing don't always outweigh the cost. A company outsources when it is more profitable to outsource than it is to conduct business locally. When regulations get to the point where outsourcing is preferable, the regulations need to be loosened.

What have loosened regulations done for the economies of these countries?

Actually India is dirt poor because of socialism. Like Russia, India began liberalizing their economy in the 1990's, which resulted in economic growth. ("liberalization" refers to the reduction of government restrictions) Economic liberalization is the most pragmatically optimal policy when it comes to the economy, because it maximizes long term economic growth.

I am not a proponent of socialism; I believe in a free market with reasonable restrictions. I believe liberalization to a reasonable extent serves its purpose. However, I don't believe anarchy within social, political, or economic constructs is the way to go. A society must have laws to govern its systems; I don't believe laissez-faire makes for good policy in society or its markets.

These are not necessarily countries we wish to use as blueprints for the renovations of our own economy.

No, because they are aspiring to become more like us.

If our system is so screwed up, why would they do a thing like that?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:14:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 7:38:33 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 6:59:56 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 5:52:26 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 5:13:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 4:32:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 4:05:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:57:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:29:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

Do you know what a corporation is? A corporation is a legal entity representing a group of people as a collectivized individual. Municipal governments are a corporations, the 13 colonies were corporations; corporatism is not capitalism. A business is a corporation only when they are granted a legal charter by the state or federal government.

A corporatocracy is an oligarchical form of government, where corporations (legal people) wield absolute sovereignty over the government. If you turn on C-Span, and watched the political climate in DC, you would know that this is not the case. The US government is extremely anti-corporation, and has been so for the last 12 decades.

The regulations imposed by the US government hurts corporations to the point of outsourcing. There is reason you rarely see "made in the US" on manufactured goods anymore.

If you're using the economies of these countries the United States outsources to, as an argument for deregulation, I feel very sorry for you.

No, I'm using the economics of this country. There are costs to outsourcing. There is a multitude of costs related to outsourcing; a company does not just back up and switch locations. There is a huge risk in outsourcing, as well as a the many costs involved. The company has to consider the risks associated with the exchange rates and foreign government, they must also consider the travel costs, transaction costs, PR costs, training cost, import/export cost, and so on. These are just a few of the risks and costs associated with outsourcing. There is also the issue of reduced output.

If a company is outsourcing, it means the country the company is based in is over-regulating, and the government is making it hard for firms to turn a profit.

Regardless of the expense, no company, in its right mind, would concede to it, if the benefit of outsourcing did not outweigh the costs.

Having said that, I think the economies of these countries speak for themselves.

The benefits of outsourcing don't always outweigh the cost. A company outsources when it is more profitable to outsource than it is to conduct business locally. When regulations get to the point where outsourcing is preferable, the regulations need to be loosened.

What have loosened regulations done for the economies of these countries?

Actually India is dirt poor because of socialism. Like Russia, India began liberalizing their economy in the 1990's, which resulted in economic growth. ("liberalization" refers to the reduction of government restrictions) Economic liberalization is the most pragmatically optimal policy when it comes to the economy, because it maximizes long term economic growth.

I am not a proponent of socialism; I believe in a free market with reasonable restrictions. I believe liberalization to a reasonable extent serves its purpose. However, I don't believe anarchy within social, political, or economic constructs is the way to go. A society must have laws to govern its systems; I don't believe laissez-faire makes for good policy in society or its markets.

These are not necessarily countries we wish to use as blueprints for the renovations of our own economy.

No, because they are aspiring to become more like us.

If our system is so screwed up, why would they do a thing like that?

Because our our system is better than most countries. There is a reason the US owns most of the world's wealth. There is a reason the US is the world's sole economic and military superpower, despite only being around for 225 years.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:15:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 3:29:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

Do you know what a corporation is? A corporation is a legal entity representing a group of people as a collectivized individual. Municipal governments are a corporations, the 13 colonies were corporations; corporatism is not capitalism. A business is a corporation only when they are granted a legal charter by the state or federal government.

A corporatocracy is an oligarchical form of government, where corporations (legal people) wield absolute sovereignty over the government. If you turn on C-Span, and watched the political climate in DC, you would know that this is not the case. The US government is extremely anti-corporation, and has been so for the last 12 decades.

The regulations imposed by the US government hurts corporations to the point of outsourcing. There is reason you rarely see "made in the US" on manufactured goods anymore.

I was following this reasoning until this last paragraph. Are you saying that the US government is hurting "group[s] of people as a collectivized individual" and that somehow this makes the government responsible for outsourcing? That doesn't make any sense.

IMHO the regulations have little to do with outsourcing compared to the trend of globalization.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:19:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 7:38:33 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 6:59:56 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 5:52:26 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 5:13:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 4:32:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 4:05:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:57:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:29:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

Do you know what a corporation is? A corporation is a legal entity representing a group of people as a collectivized individual. Municipal governments are a corporations, the 13 colonies were corporations; corporatism is not capitalism. A business is a corporation only when they are granted a legal charter by the state or federal government.

A corporatocracy is an oligarchical form of government, where corporations (legal people) wield absolute sovereignty over the government. If you turn on C-Span, and watched the political climate in DC, you would know that this is not the case. The US government is extremely anti-corporation, and has been so for the last 12 decades.

The regulations imposed by the US government hurts corporations to the point of outsourcing. There is reason you rarely see "made in the US" on manufactured goods anymore.

If you're using the economies of these countries the United States outsources to, as an argument for deregulation, I feel very sorry for you.

No, I'm using the economics of this country. There are costs to outsourcing. There is a multitude of costs related to outsourcing; a company does not just back up and switch locations. There is a huge risk in outsourcing, as well as a the many costs involved. The company has to consider the risks associated with the exchange rates and foreign government, they must also consider the travel costs, transaction costs, PR costs, training cost, import/export cost, and so on. These are just a few of the risks and costs associated with outsourcing. There is also the issue of reduced output.

If a company is outsourcing, it means the country the company is based in is over-regulating, and the government is making it hard for firms to turn a profit.

Regardless of the expense, no company, in its right mind, would concede to it, if the benefit of outsourcing did not outweigh the costs.

Having said that, I think the economies of these countries speak for themselves.

The benefits of outsourcing don't always outweigh the cost. A company outsources when it is more profitable to outsource than it is to conduct business locally. When regulations get to the point where outsourcing is preferable, the regulations need to be loosened.

What have loosened regulations done for the economies of these countries?

Actually India is dirt poor because of socialism. Like Russia, India began liberalizing their economy in the 1990's, which resulted in economic growth. ("liberalization" refers to the reduction of government restrictions) Economic liberalization is the most pragmatically optimal policy when it comes to the economy, because it maximizes long term economic growth.

I am not a proponent of socialism; I believe in a free market with reasonable restrictions. I believe liberalization to a reasonable extent serves its purpose. However, I don't believe anarchy within social, political, or economic constructs is the way to go. A society must have laws to govern its systems; I don't believe laissez-faire makes for good policy in society or its markets.

Than you are not a liberal when it comes to economics. The government does have certain roles that benefit the market, such as bankruptcy laws, limited patents and copyright protections (not permanent, I would say 2 decades max), and the creation of a uniform fiat currency.

The government should not try to influence or manipulate the economy, because that causes market inefficiencies.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:20:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 6:45:56 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 5:38:04 PM, s-anthony wrote:

Low interest rates benefit the borrower, not the lender. The low interest rate by the FED allowed commercial banks to lower the interest rate on mortgages and other forms of loans. Low interest rates benefits the borrower, so by lowering the FED's rate, the commercial banks were encouraged to lower their rates.

I do believe low interest rates benefit both the borrower and the lender.

If rates are low, then lenders will achieve higher turnover.

If rates are low, borrowers will be more inclined to borrow.

Low rates don't necessarily affect SPREAD, and it is SPREAD that determines profitability of the lender.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:26:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 8:14:13 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 7:38:33 PM, s-anthony wrote:

No, because they are aspiring to become more like us.

If our system is so screwed up, why would they do a thing like that?

Because our our system is better than most countries. There is a reason the US owns most of the world's wealth. There is a reason the US is the world's sole economic and military superpower, despite only being around for 225 years.

Personally, I think a lot of this has to do with geography and the natural barriers that result in ease of defense. Other countries that have had similar economic and political systems to the US (Europe) have not fared nearly as well.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:27:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 8:15:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:29:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

Do you know what a corporation is? A corporation is a legal entity representing a group of people as a collectivized individual. Municipal governments are a corporations, the 13 colonies were corporations; corporatism is not capitalism. A business is a corporation only when they are granted a legal charter by the state or federal government.

A corporatocracy is an oligarchical form of government, where corporations (legal people) wield absolute sovereignty over the government. If you turn on C-Span, and watched the political climate in DC, you would know that this is not the case. The US government is extremely anti-corporation, and has been so for the last 12 decades.

The regulations imposed by the US government hurts corporations to the point of outsourcing. There is reason you rarely see "made in the US" on manufactured goods anymore.

I was following this reasoning until this last paragraph. Are you saying that the US government is hurting "group[s] of people as a collectivized individual" and that somehow this makes the government responsible for outsourcing? That doesn't make any sense.

In regards to business corporations, where the "groups of people" are shareholders, yes.

If the value of stock declines, than the shareholders are unhappy. The CEO is accountable to the board, which is accountable to the shareholders. The shareholders are the owners of the corporation.

IMHO the regulations have little to do with outsourcing compared to the trend of globalization.

Globalization makes it easier to outsource, but it does not change the cause of outsourcing. Countries compete for businesses, who compete for customers and workers, and workers compete for jobs. When a foreign country has more economic freedom, and the workers are willing to work for less per output, than local firms are encouraged to outsource to that foreign country.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:31:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 8:27:16 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:15:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:29:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

Do you know what a corporation is? A corporation is a legal entity representing a group of people as a collectivized individual. Municipal governments are a corporations, the 13 colonies were corporations; corporatism is not capitalism. A business is a corporation only when they are granted a legal charter by the state or federal government.

A corporatocracy is an oligarchical form of government, where corporations (legal people) wield absolute sovereignty over the government. If you turn on C-Span, and watched the political climate in DC, you would know that this is not the case. The US government is extremely anti-corporation, and has been so for the last 12 decades.

The regulations imposed by the US government hurts corporations to the point of outsourcing. There is reason you rarely see "made in the US" on manufactured goods anymore.

I was following this reasoning until this last paragraph. Are you saying that the US government is hurting "group[s] of people as a collectivized individual" and that somehow this makes the government responsible for outsourcing? That doesn't make any sense.

In regards to business corporations, where the "groups of people" are shareholders, yes.

If the value of stock declines, than the shareholders are unhappy. The CEO is accountable to the board, which is accountable to the shareholders. The shareholders are the owners of the corporation.

I think my main objection deals with how you're framing a "corporation". A corporation is nothing but a group collaborative from what I can tell, so I don't see how government regulation here would make a difference between group collaboratives and individualized businesses. If it's onerous, anyone and everyone will outsource, not just corporations.


IMHO the regulations have little to do with outsourcing compared to the trend of globalization.

Globalization makes it easier to outsource, but it does not change the cause of outsourcing. Countries compete for businesses, who compete for customers and workers, and workers compete for jobs. When a foreign country has more economic freedom, and the workers are willing to work for less per output, than local firms are encouraged to outsource to that foreign country.

Um, I think globalization is THE CAUSE for outsourcing, not regulation.

If regulation was high absent globalization, there would be no outsourcing.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:51:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 8:31:21 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:27:16 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:15:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:29:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

Do you know what a corporation is? A corporation is a legal entity representing a group of people as a collectivized individual. Municipal governments are a corporations, the 13 colonies were corporations; corporatism is not capitalism. A business is a corporation only when they are granted a legal charter by the state or federal government.

A corporatocracy is an oligarchical form of government, where corporations (legal people) wield absolute sovereignty over the government. If you turn on C-Span, and watched the political climate in DC, you would know that this is not the case. The US government is extremely anti-corporation, and has been so for the last 12 decades.

The regulations imposed by the US government hurts corporations to the point of outsourcing. There is reason you rarely see "made in the US" on manufactured goods anymore.

I was following this reasoning until this last paragraph. Are you saying that the US government is hurting "group[s] of people as a collectivized individual" and that somehow this makes the government responsible for outsourcing? That doesn't make any sense.

In regards to business corporations, where the "groups of people" are shareholders, yes.

If the value of stock declines, than the shareholders are unhappy. The CEO is accountable to the board, which is accountable to the shareholders. The shareholders are the owners of the corporation.

I think my main objection deals with how you're framing a "corporation". A corporation is nothing but a group collaborative from what I can tell, so I don't see how government regulation here would make a difference between group collaboratives and individualized businesses. If it's onerous, anyone and everyone will outsource, not just corporations.
The point was not that only corporations outsource, the point was that corporations outsource because government regulations are harmful to all businesses including corporations.


IMHO the regulations have little to do with outsourcing compared to the trend of globalization.

Globalization makes it easier to outsource, but it does not change the cause of outsourcing. Countries compete for businesses, who compete for customers and workers, and workers compete for jobs. When a foreign country has more economic freedom, and the workers are willing to work for less per output, than local firms are encouraged to outsource to that foreign country.

Um, I think globalization is THE CAUSE for outsourcing, not regulation.

That is like saying "people drink because of bars". People don't drink because of bars, but it is easier to get a drink because of bars. Firms don't outsource because of globalization, but globalization makes it easier to outsource.

If regulation was high absent globalization, there would be no outsourcing.
Businesses outsourced before globalization.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:52:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 8:51:29 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:31:21 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:27:16 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:15:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/21/2013 3:29:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/20/2013 9:51:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
How many of you would agree the United States is a corporatocracy and Ronald Reagan is the george washington of our new country?

Do you know what a corporation is? A corporation is a legal entity representing a group of people as a collectivized individual. Municipal governments are a corporations, the 13 colonies were corporations; corporatism is not capitalism. A business is a corporation only when they are granted a legal charter by the state or federal government.

A corporatocracy is an oligarchical form of government, where corporations (legal people) wield absolute sovereignty over the government. If you turn on C-Span, and watched the political climate in DC, you would know that this is not the case. The US government is extremely anti-corporation, and has been so for the last 12 decades.

The regulations imposed by the US government hurts corporations to the point of outsourcing. There is reason you rarely see "made in the US" on manufactured goods anymore.

I was following this reasoning until this last paragraph. Are you saying that the US government is hurting "group[s] of people as a collectivized individual" and that somehow this makes the government responsible for outsourcing? That doesn't make any sense.

In regards to business corporations, where the "groups of people" are shareholders, yes.

If the value of stock declines, than the shareholders are unhappy. The CEO is accountable to the board, which is accountable to the shareholders. The shareholders are the owners of the corporation.

I think my main objection deals with how you're framing a "corporation". A corporation is nothing but a group collaborative from what I can tell, so I don't see how government regulation here would make a difference between group collaboratives and individualized businesses. If it's onerous, anyone and everyone will outsource, not just corporations.
The point was not that only corporations outsource, the point was that corporations outsource because government regulations are harmful to all businesses including corporations.


IMHO the regulations have little to do with outsourcing compared to the trend of globalization.

Globalization makes it easier to outsource, but it does not change the cause of outsourcing. Countries compete for businesses, who compete for customers and workers, and workers compete for jobs. When a foreign country has more economic freedom, and the workers are willing to work for less per output, than local firms are encouraged to outsource to that foreign country.

Um, I think globalization is THE CAUSE for outsourcing, not regulation.

That is like saying "people drink because of bars". People don't drink because of bars, but it is easier to get a drink because of bars. Firms don't outsource because of globalization, but globalization makes it easier to outsource.

If regulation was high absent globalization, there would be no outsourcing.
Businesses outsourced before globalization.

I believe outsourcing started in the 17th century.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle