Thank you dD, but I just think conservatives have to sit down for a long hard think about how private enterprise acts in places like Africa, central America, and Asia, where there is very little enforced government regulation and corporations acts as if they own the place and can do whatever they want without fear of repercussion.... Wait... hold on a second...

I think the mistake many right wing anti-government control people make is they don't realise that if you remove the government and give power to the private sector, the large corporations essentially become the government...

Exactly, and same thing for the right wing that yells about states rights ( usually a facade for racism, discrimination, and so on) it's the same shit just now the states are doing it... It's only thanks to government regulation that people in the west don't live on piles of trash and fish in oil polluted water like they do in Nigeria, or that people don't work at coal mines with no protection or safety regulation and get payed less than a dollar a day...

But thats what they want isn't it?

Well the whole mess of contradictions tips just telling about how the right is just a buch of money interests willing to spout absurd bullshit to rile up an ignorant and bigoted base. And when it comes to the "smart" ones who read Ayn Rand and pray to the words laissez faire they are just ignorant of how life is outside the western civilization bubble where government regulation has created peace, sanitation, and suburbia.

@ denis what you just said about states' rights being a facade for racism and discrimination is is an extremely subjective and ignorant claim

Oops not "created" but " allowed for the creation and ability of infpdividuals to indulge in" incase a righty pops up...

So it's not... Take a simple look at the history of the civil war... Jim crow laws... Now the voter ID laws... And the gay marriage debate...

Not "so" but "no"

read the tenth amendment for starters...states' rights and federalism is the entire basis for the American political system...the decentralized structure was the best guarantee of the preservation of individual liberty. And in regards to your Civil War references...Wisconsin used nullification (basically the utmost exercise of states' rights) to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. Oh, and voter ID laws is a great idea.

Wow Wisconsin... Are you forgetting the whole secessionist thing? Oh and Jim crow... And gay rights that you forgot to comment on. And voter ID laws are targeted against minorities and younger voters, voting fraud is not a rampant problem in the us...
The us system needs a change based completely on individuals not states. It's completely irrational to give Wyoming the same amount of senators as California. Not to mention the electoral college. But that's a states rights thing isn't it? Or do more densely populated states and urban staes tend to consist of more minorities and more liberals?

yeah jim crow...all southern states right? the north or west didn't have black codes...oh wait http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_laws_by_State

i don't even understand what gay rights has to do with the argument, each state should be able to decide whether or not gay marriage (if that is what you are referring to) should or shouldn't be legal

yeah, wyoming shouldn't have as many senators as california...except for the fact California has 55 congressmen and wyoming has 1...the system was created to protect small states yet still represent large states. And the electoral college likewise was developed in order to represent each state, since the US was formed from individual states, not all as one people. And voter IDs...i think with the recent influx of illegal immigrants, what's the downside? And who is the federal govt to tell states what their own voting laws are?

I never said only the south had Jim Crow laws... Did I? If the federal government had decided laws they would be more liberal and uniform since the extremes that were in the south would be balanced by the more liberal states. As for gay rights, people who run for federal office that are against it just dodge the question by defer it to states rights. Wyoming has 3 congressmen, they have two senators ( arguably the more powerful house in congress) just like California. Why do people think states need protecting? Protecting from what? The populous at large should decide laws for guess what... The populous at large. States rights is just compartmentalizing the country into arbitrary state lines that divide the people and allow for laws that would never pass nationally to be passed on a small scale. And the federal government's authority trumps the authority of states laws... Medicinal Marajuana is legal in California, but if the FBI catches you with a stash, it's over... That's just one example of how federal govt is someone to tell states what their laws should be

Anyways this thread was side tracked... How about we return to the original discussion on corporations...

jpgredsox +3
Game Over

Tettletons Chew aren't you the one who believes in individualism? I'm proposing a more appropriate representation of the individual in government...
Anyways this thread is about corporation's inability to act humanely without government regulation, not states right

Hear that everyone? The game is over, because TC says so. I'm afraid the game is not over because I'm still posting aren't I?

Well tettletons chew avoids the issue once again... How about you give me that Swedish institute of trade study tettletons chew. I'm still waiting. I want the one you cited. Not a list of documents at the Swedish retail institute.

Still waiting for answer tettletons chew

Alright, a few things I want to add.

@ denis - it sounds like you are against the idea of federalism itself. The reason that Wyoming has 2 senators is because every state is equal in the Senate - thus the people in urban states don't control the nation, letting the minority of the population have a legitimate say in government.

You're also turning everything into a race issue when its not necessarily one. I mean, there are *tons* of whites living in cities, not necessarily minorities. In fact, the latest census showed that blacks are moving out of cities. So while your claim isn't baseless, I deem it unnecessary.

And you are also under the assumption that your way of thinking is the only right one, that the liberal states are the best, that people who aren't liberal are backwards. You aren't saying it, but it is implicit in your arguments and I find that disconcerting.

And the populous at large doesn't have a say in federal government. Lobbying groups, vocal minorities, and news figureheads have a say in federal government. We get our say once every two years at best, and 9 times out of 10 the winner is the guy (or woman) with more money. And, most of the people who we *want* to get in there, don't because they never make it through the primaries. By putting more importance on local and state powers and thus local and state elections, the people have more power.

But I digress, there is nothing on economics on this thread. Even the corporation thing is an ethics discussion, not an economics discussion. The simple breakdown is this though. Corporations are inhumane but efficient. Government is humane but inefficient. Thus there needs to be a balance. That's it simply put.

states with large urban populations are generally more liberal, that is a fact because poorer urban populations benefit from more liberal welfare policies. All I mean to say is that Wyoming should not have the same power as california is any of the houses of congress... It's that simple. And the electoral college should be abolished because it does not fairly represent the popular vote and leads to things like the 2000 election.
But again this is supposed to be about how corporations do not act humanely even though they can act humanely. People around the world suffer horrible working conditions, and horribly low wages because the people at the top do nothing to curb these problems. And not only that corporate irresponsibility causes things like pools of oil in people water supply, or forces people to live in slums built on top on trash because they can do nothing to better their situation. And corporations are backing the right in many countries that opposes the welfare system and allows corporations to roam free.

And that's the problem that the right wing model faces, that when regulation is nonexistent corporations don't do what is right, and working conditions go to shit.

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

So then you're saying liberal is better? That's awfully close-minded for a liberal to say. And you're ignoring the rural minority in favor of the urban majority, which is again against liberal thinking. Minorities aren't just race-based. Wyoming should have some power, because it is a state, and the nation was founded on states. Without the power they have in the Senate, rural states would have no say in matters that affect them, effectively letting California, Texas, Florida, and New York run the nation. I'm from New York and I'm appalled by your denunciation of federalism. I do agree though, that the electoral college should be abolished.

And we all know that corporations act humanely only when it hurts them not to do so. The laws in the US are evidence of that, making it very safe to work here now compared to a century ago. Heck, I work at Target for the summer and they had to teach us how to properly climb a ladder lol. The problem is that there are so many laws that these corporations have to comply with, that is is making their business less efficient and thus less profitable. Laws mandating benefits for full-time workers lead to an army of part-time workers in major corporations (ie, myself) so they don't have to pay out the benefits. Now, this is probably also the fault of the stock market, but that is another matter.

And this is why right-wingers don't like welfare. From Keynes's model, lets look at one aspect of welfare - minimum wage laws.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=supply+and+demand+graph+with+minimum+wage&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbnid=9fufuA2F0gu0zM:&imgrefurl=http://www.sparknotes.com/economics/micro/labormarkets/labordemand/section1.html&docid=USJtjK-cJU63fM&w=320&h=240&ei=jaY0TsHmMuPY0QGpqNGADA&zoom=1&biw=1366&bih=545

Wow that's a big URL. Anyways, the minimum wage - whether mandated by unions or by the government - is in many cases above the equilibrium wage, what firms would normally pay the workers.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=supply+and+demand+graph+with+minimum+wage&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbnid=ptLpPbHvIiPdIM:&imgrefurl=http://www.policynote.ca/the-problems-with-the-textbook-analysis-of-minimum-wages/&docid=t4nkqEjws0GpkM&w=788&h=481&ei=jaY0TsHmMuPY0QGpqNGADA&zoom=1&biw=1366&bih=545

Another big one. yikes! As you can see, the gap between the supply and demand graphs represents unemployment. As minimum wage increases, unemployment increases because firms pay each worker more and thus hire less. It doesn't matter that workers are paying more, because the costs gets passed on in higher prices, so workers remain as relatively impoverished as they were before.

Now, in some past cases before minimum wage laws were passed, employers kept the wage below the equilibrium level, which is not good. Back then there wasn't as much profit pressure from the stock market, so many employers simply took the hit when minimum wage laws went into effect. Nowadays, its all about downsizing and increasing productivity.

1. Define harm. I believe that government regulations on corporations/small businesses constitue harm to those businesses. And as the minimum wage law demonstrates, these regulations often end up "harming" those they meant to help.

2. You seem to disregard the existence of civil courts throughout this entire conversation...and in regards to your reference to africa, how many countries in africa actually have a free market? Most of these economies are either mixed, socialized, or capitalist economies heavily marred by cronyism and govt intervention.

Jpgredsox, if there ever was a free market it was america before anti trust laws and govt regulationbeing a worker sucked and you lived a cramped tenement, so I don't understand what your idea of a free market is, do you think it's always good? Free markets don't get me wrong is a great theory but as Africa and the west during the industrial revolution and Keynes prove companies are not going to do whats best at least not now.
Now goldfinger the debate over state representation boils down to this. I believe that the populous should be the guiding force behind the legislative system not state lines. Unfortunately for the right, the popular majority is liberal at this point... What your saying is the the political minority should have a disproportionate amount of influence on the political scene... Now why are you complaining about me being a liberal? Did you read the title of the thread? It's about the problems faced by the right wing libertarian model of economics... That problem being that corporations are not angels and will do a lot of shit when there is no fear of repercussion? Thats what's great about politicians in a democratic system, they always have to think about the populous and they have to remember that there are repercussions for all their actions. Now welfare states are not immaculate, and labour unions can over reach when asking for wages, that is known. But there is a balance to be found and the resposibilty of finding that balance is in the hands of politicians. I'm not one to go about screaming liberal propaganda and agreeing with democrats all the time, in fact I believe we need responsible welfare reform and we have many problems with the current welfare model in america, some with quick political fixes others that are complex cultural phenomena, like drug culture, but the right wing libertarian low regulation low taxes model that seems to have a few active supporters on this site has problems too and peope have to recognize that, problems which are intrinsic with the model unless corporations suddenly become angels that do no harm.

Corporations are a construct of the government. The current system consists of corporations being propped up by the government so that they can continue to hold dominion over the market and trounce private enterprise.
From the libertarian "far right wing" economic perspective, corporations are antithetical to the free market. The market is to be ruled by the consumer and the consumer alone.
The federal government is typically not optimal in terms of providing certain services, they often run at diseconomies of scale to which smaller governments at the state and municipal levels and private firms capable of market specialization are far more efficient.

If you just said the political right is not a bunch of corporate interests you could not be more wrong. I'm sure there are some people on the right who oppse corporate dominance but they don't get elected. And even if the far right as you call it did have their way... The consumer would just go further under the influence of corporations because now its already bad and if corps rule the day that won't change by decreasing regulation ever... Sure if this were a hypothetical world were corps will magically become angels and surrender their power maybe just maybe the " far right " as you say would have a good plan and everything would pan out for the better if regulation went away

Republicans and the tea party don't even begin to approach libertarian economic policies. Someone far right would be for cutting off corporate welfare and subsidies, let the firm's ability be what allows it to stay in business. And again, the far economic right is against corporations as they are a creation of the federal government.