"Protect the Shire" or Farming subsidies should go

[Gloer]

I just bought frozen vacuum packed fillet beef from outside of the EU markets.The bovine meat is from Argentina. The price was 8,8 euros/kilogram.

In the shop here the cheapest vacuumpacked tenderloin costs 17 euros per kilogram!

1. I would like to know how much tenderloin/fillet beef costs in your local shop.
2. Why are we not allowed to buy and import the Argentinian meat in to EU if it is half the price?

I understand that Argentina has serious financial problems. I am convinced that it is our fault.

EU does not allow any signifficant importing of meat.
USA is keeping Argentinian meat from the Pacific market with foot and mouth disease accusations every now and then.

[HLGStrider]

Personally, I don't believe in trade restrictions, though I have never noticed the price of beef (We have our own cows and we eat them... aren't we violent?)

There is an economic fallacy that cheeper things, made in other countries, will take away from the money domestic farmers, workers, etc would've made on them... hence trade restrictions and tarriffs. However, if the workers could buy these cheeper things then they would have money to spend on other things made in this country... Hazlet put it better than I did... Anyway, it is only partially our fault. The other fault lies with the lousy governmental/economic systems of these countries...

[DGoeij]

You want me to start on farming subsidies, US or EU?

First, I'm going to dip my head in a bucket full of vanilla ice. To get rid of the steam around my head and the red dots that blur my vision.

Second, I will tell you that the US and EU are actively destroying any chance the third world has to ever get up out of poverty. If the bloody western farmers can't compete, then great, go bankrupt! That's kapitalism and free market for you.
At this moment not a single african nation has any real chance to develop because they cannot obtain the financial assets needed to do this. Why? It is impossible for them to sell their goods in the western world and in the meanwhile they are flushed with western cheap goods, because they are forced to open up their markets.
And some people are still wondering why people hate the western world.:rolleyes:

[HLGStrider]

The African nations might have a better chance if they let the people who've owned the farms for decades keep the farms... :rolleyes:

We treat farms differently from other businesses, paying them for not doing anything... I don't see why farms should get special privillages...

Wait... I guess the government also gives money to airports... and transportation companies like Amtrack... and energy companies...

WHY ARE WE SO AFRAID OF LETTING BAD COMPANIES WHO CAN'T COMPETE GO OUT OF BUSINESS???

Urg......

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
The African nations might have a better chance if they let the people who've owned the farms for decades keep the farms... :rolleyes:

I hear you. Try to distinguish who are the goodguys and the badguys, and you'll just end up being confused.:D

[Gloer]

How much do you pay for the tenderloin??????

I don't give a f--- about social justice. I only feel that Argentinian cause is very much my cause and our enemy is stealing right from my beef budget!

How much is the fillet in the Netherlands? USA?

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Gloer
How much do you pay for the tenderloin??????

I don't give a f--- about social justice. I only feel that Argentinian cause is very much my cause and our enemy is stealing right from my beef budget!

How much is the fillet in the Netherlands? USA?

I know beef was suprisingly cheap when me and my family were on vacation in the US, both compared to the Netherlands and to what other daily products cost. I'll try and find the specific price of basic beef later today. Here on university the chances of finding that out are rather limited.:)
And subsidies and protectionism are economic injustices, causing social injustice. I give a f about that, and I don't care much if you don't.

Where are you from anyway? If you ever mentioned, I seem to have forgotten.

[Gloer]

I ment to say that i really would like to know how much does a good quality beef cost in other areas of EU or outside of it.

it just seems that people rather start talking about vague right/wrong issues than compare numbers. So I ment that in this thread i would like to get price comparisons first, then maybe think of the reasons and last think if it is right or wrong ethically. Economically it certainly seems so.

I live in Helsinki Finland and here i pay twice as much for tenderloin than it cost on a cruise boat 5 minutes of the harbour on the way back from Estonia. Why can't they just ship it in and bring it to the shop next door?
I think the market is not quite functioning efficiently and everybody loses while few get undue benefits. Plus of course some get undue hardships. ok. it is unjust, but it is the a side effect of an inefficient market not the cause. I am actually pretty sure that creation of open free market will in short term create much more misery than benefit. And more likely next door in Europe.

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Gloer
I am actually pretty sure that creation of open free market will in short term create much more misery than benefit. And more likely next door in Europe.

The benefit of a free market certainly has its limits. Not everything is fit to become a freely traded good. See what happened to the British Rail system.
But the current free market is only free for the richer, economically healty countries. And they only wish to open up those markets where they have the advantage. Clearly not the beef market.
According to my mom, who is my primary source of information on food, beef costs about 17 euros the kilo here. Depending on the kind of meat you want. Not every part of the cow is as expensive as the other.:rolleyes:

[HLGStrider]

I'm personally an extreme freemarket defender. I've done a lot of economic reading and it just makes sense. Restrictions just cause problems for the consumers.
We have a lot of economic problems now, and we've been going the wrong way to get them done...

I think my dad sells are cows for under 2 bucks a pound... 1:20 something... but that's before they are butchered normally... or sometimes we sell them by the half after they've been killed... we can charge more because we have "organic cows"... :D

[Gloer]

I 'll have to check that from the internet universe.
(At least i know what buck is. I didn't know that you still use deer as currency over there... one would think that two whole bucks are worth more than a pound of beef. It's game food after all.)

A friend of mine has a beef cattle ranch in Oregon. i was very impressed how business like the ranch was. No romantic nostalgy there alá Bonanza. It was business all through from futures trade in the market to feeding the cattle. In fact they did not own a single head of the cattle. They had specialized in taking care of other peoples cattle and feeding it sincee their land was better suited for it- they had minimized risks on beef markets and steady income. I was impressed. BTW I am pretty sure those bulls were organic only in biological terms - huge things.

[HLGStrider]

I'm sorry.
I flunked metric.
Anyway, I'm in Oregon too, so just ask him and you'll get our prices.

I reserve the right to use local slang.

[Gloer]

that's where Jeff is from. it is a potato town but they have cattle.

[HLGStrider]

Hermisten is a little east of here. Most of eastern Oregon is devoted to cows. In the middle is orchards. In the west is tourism...

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
The African nations might have a better chance if they let the people who've owned the farms for decades keep the farms... :rolleyes:

We treat farms differently from other businesses, paying them for not doing anything... I don't see why farms should get special privillages...

Wait... I guess the government also gives money to airports... and transportation companies like Amtrack... and energy companies...

WHY ARE WE SO AFRAID OF LETTING BAD COMPANIES WHO CAN'T COMPETE GO OUT OF BUSINESS???

Urg......


Wrong question, Strider, IMHO.

The real question is: "Why does the American government provide financial support and subsidies for companies that are in the black?"

A lot of smaller corporations and businesses would have more chance to succeed if our government didn't subsidize companies like Monsanto, McDonald's, and GM.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it odd that Enron actually received a tax REFUND of over $100 million in the tax year just preceeding the whole scandal?

I'm *so* sure that that's good for the economy.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by DGoeij


I hear you. Try to distinguish who are the goodguys and the badguys, and you'll just end up being confused.:D

Well, if you look specifically at the Zimbabwe situation, that is because the farmers stole the lands that they farm.

The fact that they've been there for so many years doesn't have much bearing for me -- since the lands were stolen for peoples who had similarly been there for . . . millenia . . . in the first place.

I'm not in support of what Mugabe is doing down there, but I'm certainly not about to start shedding tears for those farmers.

[HLGStrider]

Personally I am not for subsidies of any sort. We do both. A monopoly cannot truly exist (in the origenal definition of the word) without support from the government. The government should keep its hands out of all businesses.

Anyway, the problem I have with the farming situation is that the country is killing itself. The people they are giving the farms to don't have the slightest idea how to take care of the farms hence they are starving their own country. Before maybe the wealth wasn't as evenly distributed, but at least it existed and hence there was a little more food. They're throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
I'm personally an extreme freemarket defender. I've done a lot of economic reading and it just makes sense. Restrictions just cause problems for the consumers.
We have a lot of economic problems now, and we've been going the wrong way to get them done...

I think my dad sells are cows for under 2 bucks a pound... 1:20 something... but that's before they are butchered normally... or sometimes we sell them by the half after they've been killed... we can charge more because we have "organic cows"... :D

You have to understand the long-term effects if you are going to be an extreme free-market defender.

Argentinian beef is extremely cheap because:

A. The workers get paid dirt wages.
B. Land is very cheap and there is plenty of it.
C. There is no concern about over-grazing the land and rendering it entirely unfertile -- they just do it, and move on to the next plot.

One can only support paying inadequate wages to people who work hard and perform important functions if one is not among those people oneself. IE. Most supporters of the freemarket in this country have no idea what it means to pull themselves out of the mud by their bootstraps and become successful.

Here in America, only the tiniest percentage of people actually live (or ever HAVE lived) at a level of poverty that is common throughout the 3rd world. Most people here who would call themselves 'poor' always had enough to eat -- even if it wasn't very good, or diverse -- and had clothes to wear. That's a leg up on a lot of people.

As for cheap land -- great! Too bad that once the cows have over-grazed the land, a lot of the land down there has a tendency to turn into a concrete-like clay brick after a year or two of rain and then baking in the sun.

One who has studied the effects of cattle herds on various land-types know that having these hordes of cows roaming the world over-grazing and causing environmental turmoil is an unsustainable practice in most places because of the environmental conditions there.

So enjoy your cheap beef now -- the REAL problems for consumers are yet to come, and will come because of unsustainable practices that are buoyed by 'free-market' ideals -- which are more or less about allowing corporations from 1st world countries to minimize their costs in 3rd world countries where regulations are virtually non-existent, maximize executive and share-holder profits, and none of this for the benefit of the consumer. The fact that we pay lower prices is a by-product of unsustainable corporate greed.

It'd be a lot better to pay a slightly higher price, and have a system that is actually long-term sustainable -- but that would eat into Joe CEO's bonus, now wouldn't it? Can't have that. If Joe CEO doesn't make $10 million in bonuses while selling the future of his company down the river, then something is just wrong with the system, according to some...!

I support free-markets wherein super-corporations do NOT have lots of government subsidies to protect them from the oh-so-dangerous little guy competition, and where ethical considerations of the consequences of profiteering are taken into account. The newspapers of the last 30 years reveals that this is not the market that exists in the global marketplace today.

[HLGStrider]

If governments are giving subsidies, it is not free market at all, it's a mix between capitalism (there is a difference between capitalism and freemarkets. Capitalism was a term invented by Karl Marx who didn't exactly know much about free markets) and mercantilsm (mostly capitalism).
The idea of free markets is that the businesses have to do a good job or else they won't make it. The idea of capitalism is normally support business no matter what the cost.

I don't go much for the inadequate wages when referring to the US because the minimum wage is now ridiculous. Our standard of living has gone up so much over the last few decades that to support what is now considered the bare minimum still means you have a TV set and a phone. People on well fare often have these things. However, I can see the problem with Argentina. There is no point in not buying their cows however because if we didn't they wouldn't get paid at all... which again is throwing babies out with bathwater.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
If governments are giving subsidies, it is not free market at all, it's a mix between capitalism (there is a difference between capitalism and freemarkets. Capitalism was a term invented by Karl Marx who didn't exactly know much about free markets) and mercantilsm (mostly capitalism).
The idea of free markets is that the businesses have to do a good job or else they won't make it. The idea of capitalism is normally support business no matter what the cost.

I don't go much for the inadequate wages when referring to the US because the minimum wage is now ridiculous. Our standard of living has gone up so much over the last few decades that to support what is now considered the bare minimum still means you have a TV set and a phone. People on well fare often have these things. However, I can see the problem with Argentina. There is no point in not buying their cows however because if we didn't they wouldn't get paid at all... which again is throwing babies out with bathwater.

HLG -- Our government gives massive subsidies to extremely large corporations... I mis-interpreted your previous posts and assumed you were equating our national economy with a free market system.

I wasn't talking about Americans vis-a-vis wages. The vast majority of Americans live in a luxury of consumerism unparalleled in human history, and have undreamed of opportunities.

In the rest of the world, however, the situation is far, far different, and a lot of this is due to the actions of American corporations in the 3rd world. American (and European, Japanese etc) corporations go into 3rd world countries, encourage corrupt leadership by throwing around multiple millions (if not billions) of dollars to influence certain decision making processes, and exploit people and land with no concern for the treatment of either as long as the maximum profit for this quarter's earnings can be squeezed out.

The practices of 1st world corporations (and the governments who support/encourage them) in the 3rd world has artificially depressed the economic and social systems of these countries.

One example is Guatemala, where American fruit companies (think Dole) managed to convince the CIA to murder the socialist elected president, and install a hard-right dictator, who proceeded to brutally supress all attempts by the workers to organize and gain their rights. A brutal era in Guatamalan history that lasted from the '50s right up into the '90s. Brought to you by American Business.

Or how about Union Carbide in Bhopal, India? Around 17 years ago, Union Carbide (subsidiary of Dow Chemical), because of inadequate safety facilities, accidentally released a cloud of toxic gas that went through the entire town -- killing 1,000 within a day or two. 16,000 eventually dead because of the toxic chemical exposure. 550,000 people injured with various issues related to toxic chemical exposure.

90% of these claimants received $400 for their injuries -- or enough to pay for 5 years of medication -- despite the fact that greater than 99% are permanently disabled and need some form of medication for the rest of their lives.

Where is the accountability from Union Carbide? Actually, they're doing their absolute best to have to avoid doing anything else for these people -- literally every thing possible.

Unfortunately, these are not isolated incidents, but are part of a regular pattern of exploiting the third world, leaving a large mess behind, and doing absolutely nothing about it.

[HLGStrider]

I believe in punishing criminal action whether by corporations or states. We cannot help the influence companies may have on other countries just by being rich any more than we can help give good governments to countries sorely in need of them. It isn't our job and it is a job much too big for any government, group, or whatever this world holds. I personally don't believe this world will ever get to that state, that Utopia is an impossibility and always was.

However, I believe that businesses should be able to conduct real business (and I don't mean extortion or bribery) without the government butting in... they should be able to charge as little or as much, trade where they want, and not be supported by or deterred by the government.

Some will take advantage of this. If they do it illegally we can snap on the cuffs... If not then it is unfortunate, but there is nothing we can do about it. We have too many laws as it is.

Most the explotations you listed are in some way illegal or have legal responsibility entailed. The thing is our legal system has a large section of loop holes and a lawyer can always find more. That's why personally I am just working on cleaning up myself at the moment. I'll worry about other people if I ever become president.

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Tyaronumen
Well, if you look specifically at the Zimbabwe situation, that is because the farmers stole the lands that they farm.

The fact that they've been there for so many years doesn't have much bearing for me -- since the lands were stolen for peoples who had similarly been there for . . . millenia . . . in the first place.

I'm not in support of what Mugabe is doing down there, but I'm certainly not about to start shedding tears for those farmers.

They are to be blaimed for what their ancestors did? Doesn't make much sense either. I perfectly understand the Zimbabwians wanting to farm fertile lands, but this way they'll just end up with nothing. Except Mugabe himself of course.

That's what I meant with trying to distinguish between good and bad. It's usually somewhere in between.:)

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
I believe in punishing criminal action whether by corporations or states. We cannot help the influence companies may have on other countries just by being rich any more than we can help give good governments to countries sorely in need of them. It isn't our job and it is a job much too big for any government, group, or whatever this world holds. I personally don't believe this world will ever get to that state, that Utopia is an impossibility and always was.

IMHO, that seems like a pretty defeatist attitude. We *can* help the influence corporations have on other independent nations by enforcing existing regulations and ensuring that new regulations are made to prevent corporations from despoiling the world.

I think that it IS our job, and it ISN'T too big of a job for the United States. All that is at stake are the lives and lifestyles of our children and their children, so on... isn't it worth getting involved for that?

It's true that we can't force a nation to have a good government, but we can certainly regulate the American corporations that are responsible for encouraging an environment that is corrupt in the 3rd world.

However, I believe that businesses should be able to conduct real business (and I don't mean extortion or bribery) without the government butting in... they should be able to charge as little or as much, trade where they want, and not be supported by or deterred by the government.

At what cost? Obviously, the government has a responsibility to the people -- ALL of the people, not just the rich ones. We all deserve to have a clean, healthy environment, and good opportunities. If we screw those up, that's our fault. But big business in the 3rd world is despoiling nature, and enforcing an economy of serfs and masters.

Some will take advantage of this. If they do it illegally we can snap on the cuffs... If not then it is unfortunate, but there is nothing we can do about it. We have too many laws as it is.

Hmmmmmmm -- if they do it illegally, we can snap on the cuffs? Why isn't Marc Rich in prison, then? Why isn't the "Junk Bond King" in prison? How 'bout Kenneth Lay, who isn't going to spend an iota of time in prison, despite collusion in fraud?

Actually, we could do to enforce the laws that we already have, but to say "we have too many laws as it is" seems to me like a bit of a cop-out when we're talking about issues that deal with the quality of life of future generations, not to mention the current one.

Most the explotations you listed are in some way illegal or have legal responsibility entailed. The thing is our legal system has a large section of loop holes and a lawyer can always find more. That's why personally I am just working on cleaning up myself at the moment. I'll worry about other people if I ever become president.

Of course we should begin with ourselves. That's why I recycle, conserve water, don't have a Kentucky blue grass lawn (I'm in the dry West), try to conserve fuel by driving efficient vehicles, and educate myself on major issues of the past and present.

But not even a Bill Gates can close himself off from the rest of the world -- the world can and does impose itself on individual lives everyday, and to not attempt to understand, and work with, our world to ensure the viability of future generations of humans would be a mistake, IMHO.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by DGoeij


They are to be blaimed for what their ancestors did? Doesn't make much sense either. I perfectly understand the Zimbabwians wanting to farm fertile lands, but this way they'll just end up with nothing. Except Mugabe himself of course.

That's what I meant with trying to distinguish between good and bad. It's usually somewhere in between.:)

Well, when the actions of their ancestors lead to the current generation of farmers sitting fat and pretty while the majority of the rest of the population lives in poverty, and the current generation of farmers does . . . nothing?

Well, yeah, you can expect that a lot of folks will blame them, even if it's not right.

Resentment toward the rich is natural in a situation where the rich have become so by exploiting the poor, and have no interest in improving the situation of the poor.

Certainly, the poor Zimbabweans will end up with little or nothing in the end, and they'll have succeeded at nothing more than ruining the lives of the farmers.

But the vast majority of the farming gentry in Zimbabwe have done nothing since 1980 to improve their relationship with Zimbabwe's lower class, and prior to 1980 were intensely devoted supporters of Ian Smith and his apartheid system of government (one slogan that Smith used: "A whiter, brighter Rhodesia") . . . and these aren't exactly 'ancestral' actions here... it's the current generation of farmers who supported this agenda...

But anyhow, it's really crappy situation over there. I don't support the Zimbabwean squatters, or Mugabe (who is, IMHO, a traitor to the cause of democracy), but I also, once again, have little sympathy for those farmers, who have not simply been passive participants in Zimbabwe...

[Gloer]

I turn by back and immidiately there is a heated discussion...or long monologies I ahve no time to read. So I just ignore the bulk and assume the rest...

Short comments:
1. Argentina produces cheap meat beacause
a. they have to sell it cheap because of the european and american trade restrictions that cause the free Atlantic market to have too much supply
b. Argentina needs the money at the moment so they dump even their costs of production
c. Last and the only sustainable reason is: argentina is far better suited for sustainable cattle grazing than USA or at least Europe is

Argentina is not over grazing. I would like to point out that their production of beef has longer traditions than western states of US.
Since the 18th century. And they eat 4 times more meat than americans. I think they would like to sell some to you too, if you just would admit free trade.

Zimbabwe:
1. United kingdom has bought of a lot of white farmers during the 90's to give the land to President Mugabe's government. That land has been taken over by mr. mugabes relatives and is as a rule deserted, ill managed and unproductive - in five to ten years.
2. What the Brittish should have done is to invade the country and relieve the people of this terrorist leader. He is killing his own people just like Saddam.
3. Protection of enterprise property is the only way to survival. if the rightful owner is a lazy and he wastes property, then his rights are often illegally overlooked in every western nation as well. But the other way around is terrorism. If 9/11 was flames, then land confiscation in Zimbabwe is rusting iron, slow fire that erodes the land.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Gloer
Argentina is not over grazing. I would like to point out that their production of beef has as long traditions than eastern states of US.
Since the 18th century. And they eat 4 times more meat than americans. I think they would like to sell some to you too, if you just would admit free trade.

While it's true that the Pampas is well suited to the production of beef -- it is NOT well suited to the levels of production that are being squeezed out of it right now. These levels of production are not long-term sustainable.


Zimbabwe:

If 9/11 was flames, then land confiscation in Zimbabwe is rusting iron, slow fire that erodes the land.

The British shouldn't have left Rhodesia in the hands of Ian Smith in the first place. In fact, they shouldn't have gone to Rhodesia and imposed a racist system of governance in the first place, which is the real origin of the smouldering hatreds between the blacks and whites in Zimbabwe.

Land confiscation in Zimbabwe is etc. etc. as you say, I won't disagree. However, this is not a case of the 'poor li'l farmer' and the 'big bad government'. Those farmers are responsible for the modern face of Zimbabwe too.

[HLGStrider]

Personally I want the government as small as possible.

I think that the Income Tax thing has made governments afraid of big companies. Because they pay more taxes than the poorer people the big companies have more political clout... clout they wouldn't have quite as much of if we didn't have such a ridiculous tax system.
They would still have a little (from fundraisers and things), but it wouldn't be so bad.

Personally, I don't want America to get involved in over seas problems. It just gets us into trouble. We'll be the heros of the oppressed for a few weeks and then they will start hating us because we have troups in their country or aren't giving them enough aid or something. In the past it hasn't worked, and I don't see why it will in the future.



At what cost? Obviously, the government has a responsibility to the people -- ALL of the people, not just the rich ones. We all deserve to have a clean, healthy environment, and good opportunities. If we screw those up, that's our fault. But big business in the 3rd world is despoiling nature, and enforcing an economy of serfs and masters.

Kenneth Lay actually is very environmentally concerned and supported the UN clean air treaty and didn't like free markets.
The governments only responsibility is to arrest law breakers, protect our country from outside aggression, and protect us from law breakers. That was the origenal intent anyway.
The third world is a problem, but I bet if you looked into it the governments are behind the companies. They cannot be corrupt without government help. Bad companies are not parasites that turn good governments bad. They are parasites that leach off the already bad governments.

Personally I believe that we have more than enough regulations in this country and they aren't doing a heck of a lot of good. We regulate the wrong people for the wrong things, and environmental politics has become nothing more than a card to play (And quite a money making business.). In my state you can legally have a doctor kill you and smoke pot (though I think the Feds are trying to change that a bit), but you cannot legally build your own house on your own property if your property happens to be in certain areas... no matter how long that property has been yours. Environmental policies run all over property rights, and I am against them because of it. However, if you mean not letting a company dumb chemicals in a river, I agree with that. The river is public property and by polluting their section of it they pollute other people's property... hence such things do not go against property rights but rather protect other peoples.

Actually, we could do to enforce the laws that we already have, but to say "we have too many laws as it is" seems to me like a bit of a cop-out when we're talking about issues that deal with the quality of life of future generations, not to mention the current one.
We do have too many laws, and I think it is stupid to make new laws because we fail to enforce the old ones. There are laws against fraud (Deceit or trickery). If Lay did fraud arrest him. It's that simple. If a company is bribing, arrest them.

If a company is just making money by out playing another company (doing what it is supposed to do more efficiently) and so puts the other company out of business, let that company go out of business.

Supporting free markets is not supporting businesses. Adam Smith, one of the founders of this economic philosophy, loathed businessmen. If you look back on history some of the biggest anti-freemarket people have been business men. Why? Because the bigger the government the easier it is to milk for benefits and the more confusing the legal system is (with more laws) the easier it is to get around.

About Zimbabwe, I'm not saying these farmers are necessarily good people, but they at least have some claim to the land, were doing honest work on it, and making them leave the country with only what they can carry (no cash) seems a little harsh.



The Ayn Rynd (I haven't read her works but I've read about her) view of things is that by doing things for selfish motives people unintentionally work for the good of each other... I don't totally agree, but it is often the case. When companies selfishly compete for our business we get better business.... etc. I think free markets provide this. However, I have given up on trying give us one... we're far to socialized to get out of it now.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
Personally I want the government as small as possible.

I think that the Income Tax thing has made governments afraid of big companies. Because they pay more taxes than the poorer people the big companies have more political clout... clout they wouldn't have quite as much of if we didn't have such a ridiculous tax system.
They would still have a little (from fundraisers and things), but it wouldn't be so bad.

Do you know how much money Enron paid in taxes in the last year it filed taxes, HLG...?


Make a guess, c'mon... please...?




Okay, I'll just tell you. -$100 million. NEGATIVE ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS -- courtesy of you, me, and everyone else who actually PAYS taxes.

And this isn't just Enron. There are LOTS of large corporations who don't cook their books like Enron did who receive HUGE tax refunds every year because of their accounting.

So please don't try to talk about big corporations gaining clout because of the income tax... that is a notion that is NOT based in fact.

Big corporate clout in the government is all about monetary relationships, such as **** Cheney, former C.E.O. of Haliburton being the Vice-President.

Personally, I don't want America to get involved in over seas problems. It just gets us into trouble. We'll be the heros of the oppressed for a few weeks and then they will start hating us because we have troups in their country or aren't giving them enough aid or something. In the past it hasn't worked, and I don't see why it will in the future.

Maybe it's because of the naive idea that we can just go in, free the 'oppressed', sell their land to Coca-Cola, etc., replace their bad leader with a bad leader who supports our economic policies and then leave, all in the blink of an eye...?


Kenneth Lay actually is very environmentally concerned and supported the UN clean air treaty and didn't like free markets.

WRONG. Kenneth Lay SAYS he is environmentally concerned. SAYS he supported the UN clean air treaty. SAYS he didn't like free markets.

ACTIONS speak louder than words, and Kenneth Lay's ACTIONS showed no special concern for the environment. Just his own pocket book.


The third world is a problem, but I bet if you looked into it the governments are behind the companies. They cannot be corrupt without government help. Bad companies are not parasites that turn good governments bad. They are parasites that leach off the already bad governments.

Yes, this is why the Central Intelligence Agency was so busy in the last fifty years toppling governments in Asia, South America, etc. so that we could get corruptable leaders in there for corporations to exploit.

Salvador Allende wouldn't go for it -- so the C.I.A. had him killed. What about Guatemala? Vietnam? South Korea? SURE we "saved" them from big bad "Communism" -- and delivered them into the hands of sweat shop owners and criminals.

The governments in these other countries are NOT 'behind' the companies. The governments in most of the 3rd World are at the mercy of a Nike or a McDonalds because Nike and McDonalds have budgets that exceed those of most 3rd world nations, and the dictators in those countrys *crave* riches -- so they'll sell their own people down the river, no problem.

In my state you can legally have a doctor kill you and smoke pot (though I think the Feds are trying to change that a bit), but you cannot legally build your own house on your own property if your property happens to be in certain areas... no matter how long that property has been yours. Environmental policies run all over property rights, and I am against them because of it. However, if you mean not letting a company dumb chemicals in a river, I agree with that. The river is public property and by polluting their section of it they pollute other people's property... hence such things do not go against property rights but rather protect other peoples.

Hmmm -- I'm against rich Americans building whatever they want wherever they want just because they have money. This is NOT just YOUR country. It belongs to ALL of us, and I damn well object to people who want to own everything and keep it for themselves.

I do, however, believe that people should be properly compensated in the scenario where they are forbidden to build on land that they have owned for longer than a reasonable period of time -- if it was legal to build on the land when they bought the land.

The idea that our wilderness should all be sub-divided, sold, and developed, or that this should even be permissable, is unsustainable in the long term, as per usual, and I oppose it entirely.


We do have too many laws, and I think it is stupid to make new laws because we fail to enforce the old ones. There are laws against fraud (Deceit or trickery). If Lay did fraud arrest him. It's that simple. If a company is bribing, arrest them.

Would be nice if Lay's money didn't insulate him from being treated as an equal.


About Zimbabwe, I'm not saying these farmers are necessarily good people, but they at least have some claim to the land, were doing honest work on it, and making them leave the country with only what they can carry (no cash) seems a little harsh.

Oh come on. Those people have SOME claim to the land. The people their grandparents drove from the land have a much MUCH better claim to the land, if you ask me.

Still agree that those people should have been WELL compensated if they were going to force them to relinquish their land.

[HLGStrider]

I'll accept the compensation compromise for Africa.

As I said bigger government leads to more corruption. You keep yelling and screaming about corruption, and we all know it exists, BUT if our CIA didn't have the reach into foreign governments it did those problems you listed wouldn't happen. If our government didn't have the ability to favor one person over another because it was just too small it would do it. If government didn't have the ability to give special privillages, it wouldn't do it.

Hmmm -- I'm against rich Americans building whatever they want wherever they want just because they have money. This is NOT just YOUR country. It belongs to ALL of us, and I damn well object to people who want to own everything and keep it for themselves.

Oh come on, Ty. These people are not rich companies. They are normal people who have reached a stage in life where they can afford their dream home. Normally they don't want to subdivide, they want a cushion of about ten acres around them so that they can enjoy the trees on their land and the view of the river. They aren't allowed to, even if that land has been in families for years. It is worse if you have land you don't want in the middle of no where.

For instance in my town there is a large flat tableland right above the town. It's mostly sage brush and scrub oak. If there are any endangered speices there I haven't seen them. In fact mostly the big stink in my state is the salmon and not only does this place not have a stream or lake it doesn't have any run off other than rainwater and erosion. I'd say it's about two miles one way one mile the other. It isn't exactly scenic, the view from up there isn't bad (if you like looking at the Klickitats which are basically treeless hills), but looking up you just see a cliff then nothing. (it flattens out and you can't see the top from most place in town). The owners (my next door neighbors who are local farmers (christmas trees and cows)) are not wealthy people. They do better than my family does, but that isn't hard. This land has been in their family I'd say fifty years. It is probably worth quite a bit if it was developed. There aren't many places that one is allowed to build on around here so land values are high (if they let us build more places there would be more supply than demand so the price would be less high so people wouldn't build as much so the supply would again go down and it would eventually balance out naturally, but instead we have high prices which cause people to want to build in order to make money... and they try anywhere they can).

The government wouldn't let them sell this off (in five acre lots or something like that). Instead the government offered to buy it from them and they gave in because who wants worthless land that you can't build on or do anything besides run a few scraggly cows? The government isn't paying them nearly as much as they would get from private people, and besides that money isn't the governments. It's my dads. It's my grandpas. It's the family's who sold the land. It's the families' who would've purchased the land. It's that guy over there's who wasn't even involved. It is hours people spent on their jobs which they would've much rather spent at home with their kids, reading a book, or just being alive (or maybe helping at a chairity organization). It's money that would've purchased things from the local Fred Meyer, kept the people who are now out of work in my town out of debt that much longer, gone to chairities, paid for someone to build a house.

After that money had gone through its first turn of events it would've gone from Fred Meyers into the pockets of Fred Meyer employees and the company. The employees would in turn spend that money on local restaurants which would have employed other people. Fred Meyer would build a new store that would employ more people...

And all this to pacify a family who weren't allowed to use their land for what they wanted to use it for!

Compensation is NOT from the government. It is from tax payers.

My town is dying because of these environmental restrictions. People are going to towns where they can afford to own houses. Businesses are closing. The government plans to use that table land to build a park. We have three or four parks already and they aren't that well used. This is ridiculous.

I don't support Enron because what they did was clearly dishonest.

Business men are known for using governments to help them. I am not talking about talk. I am talking about Lay being a member of several left wing organizations. The amount of P.R. he probably got being in them was not worth the time he spent in them if he didn't believe in them. I find that millionaires and billionaires are an extremely leftist set. I'm looking up that thing I read about Lay and his leftism... looking... looking... He was a member of the 'Union of Concerned Scientists'. Whoops, made a mistake, he supported the Kyoto treating (global warming thing) not because of his personal beliefs but because his company would benefit from it... I forgot about that. Restrictions in this treaty on CO2 (little two, I don't know how to do that... Wait, I think I'm using the wrong formula... Carbon Dioxide...) would create an artificial market in which Enron could do very well. Market socialism type thing... Anyway it goes with what I said about big governments making corruption easier.

Most of your talk reminds me of my impressions while reading the 'Jungle'. All this yelling and screaming (though I do imagine you being a very calm talker from you typing method, but The Jungle was a yelling, screaming type of book) about the terrible abuses. That judges were being bribed. That inspectors were being bribed. That the laws were all benefiting the bad Capitalist meat packers... and I started thinking... because the government is corrupt we want to put it in control of more things? (Sinclair was a socialist). It didn't make sense. If a child is torturing his pet goldfish you don't buy him a dog. If a man is embezzling from a two thousand dollar account you don't give him a two million dollar one. All I could see from this book meant to hype the idea of the goverment controlling EVERYTHING was that the government all ready had its hands too deep in things and that we needed to push it back, seperate the government from those who were abusing it. Sinclair failed utterly with me.

So you see the answer as making Gov. bigger so that it can stop the bad guys. I see that the Gov. is too big and helping those bad guys too much. Take it away from its power, start ellecting men with some semblence of honesty (Who don't worry about the definition of the word "is") and punish those who deserve punishment. It's only common sense.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
I'll accept the compensation compromise for Africa.

Yeah -- and now that I think of it? Hell, they should have given compensation to the poor people and not kicked ANYONE off of the farms... they should've given those people enough cash to *buy* plots of land, etc., if it was determined that something should have been done, as opposed to kicking anyone off of "their" land.



As I said bigger government leads to more corruption. You keep yelling and screaming about corruption, and we all know it exists, BUT if our CIA didn't have the reach into foreign governments it did those problems you listed wouldn't happen. If our government didn't have the ability to favor one person over another because it was just too small it would do it. If government didn't have the ability to give special privillages, it wouldn't do it.

Hmmm -- people are corrupt, HLG, and they are the ones that corrupt organizations... If our government wasn't around doing it's thing (which is, admittedly, quite corrupt in many instances), than we'd go back to the old way of doing things -- the guy who corners the most weapons makes the rules, decides who to interfere with, who to favor, and who to grant special privileges to... he's pretty much got something that is close to 'absolute' power (realizing of course, that nothing is REALLY absolute)...

So you have a scenario where the guy who corners the most weapons might be a veritable Saint -- which is good for the populace at large, because he will tend to try to do the best for the many AND for the individuals, making exceptions when necessary, realizing that no laws are absolute and that nor should they be... etc.

Or you could take a scenario where the guy who corners the most weapons is like Chinghis Temujin Khan -- you are WITH him, or AGAINST... and God help you if you are against (ie. disagree at all, etc.)

With the 'single leader' scenario, you have the capability for TRUE enlightened leadership -- or TRUE hell. Of course, you also have a gamut of in-between possibilities that are far more likely, as well.

But with a government like that of the U.S.?

Well, it's composed of many individuals, some of whom work for the greater good, some who work for themselves, and some who do a bit of both. With a government such as ours, I cannot conceive that you can EVER have a _TRULY_ enlightened leadership (in the sense that the entire government operates for the best of ALL of the people -- as well as individuals, making exceptions when it makes sense, etc.)... nor can I conceive that you can ever have a truly CORRUPT government either -- there will always be at least a few people in the government who really just aren't turned on by bribery, and have no interest in bending the rules for injustice, or personal gain, etc...

So with very little government, HLG, you can end up with the absolute BEST -- or the absolute WORST. With a government such as ours, you are probably likely to always end up with an inefficient organization that is somewhat corrupt -- but also provides a lot of useful, good services to the people, etc.

Oh come on, Ty. These people are not rich companies. They are normal people who have reached a stage in life where they can afford their dream home. ... EDITTED FOR LENGTH ...

For instance in my town there is a large flat tableland right above the town. It's mostly sage brush and scrub oak. If there are any endangered speices there I haven't seen them. In fact mostly the big stink in my ... EDITED FOR LENGTH ... there would be more supply than demand so the price would be less high so people wouldn't build as much so the supply would again go down and it would eventually balance out naturally, but instead we have high prices which cause people to want to build in order to make money... and they try anywhere they can).

I'm all in favor of a program of compensation for these people -- if they aren't allowed to build on this land (and I'm, personally, all in favor of protecting ALL undeveloped open land that is in the United States now -- regardless of ownership -- unless severely necessary), then the United States government should compensate them ABOVE the market value... let's say, 20% to throw out a number.

Here in the United States, we, as a society, are extremely inefficient and ineffective in our use of land. I don't favor developing one iota more of open space until we begin actually utilizing the land that has already been developed all over the country, and has an empty warehouse/office building/etc. sitting on it.


The government wouldn't let them sell this off (in five acre lots or something like that). Instead the government offered to buy it from them and they gave in because who wants worthless land that you can't build on or do anything besides run a few scraggly cows? The government isn't paying them nearly as much as they would get from private people, and besides that money isn't the governments. It's my dads. It's my grandpas. It's the family's who sold the land. It's the families' who would've purchased the land. It's that guy over there's who wasn't even involved. It is hours people spent on their jobs which they would've much rather spent at home with their kids, reading a book, or just being alive (or maybe helping at a chairity organization). It's money that would've purchased things from the local Fred Meyer, kept the people who are now out of work in my town out of debt that much longer, gone to chairities, paid for someone to build a house.

After that money had gone through its first turn of events it would've gone from Fred Meyers into the pockets of Fred Meyer employees and the company. The employees would in turn spend that money on local restaurants which would have employed other people. Fred Meyer would build a new store that would employ more people...

Hmmm -- we ARE the government. I am not against a bit of income redistribution if it helps to protect the beauty of our world for our descendants.

As for the money going from Fred Meyers to it's employees -- well, I don't know much about Fred Meyers, but if it operates like 99% of businesses in the U.S., then there is a LOT of money going into their pockets that the employees AREN'T seeing.

Assuming that the wealthy appreciate the benefit to society as a whole of having as much money flowing through the economy as possible gives a bit too much credit to the wealthy. In most instances, they'd rather horde their wealth and sit on the vast majority of it, rather than actually spending their cash and improving the world economy.

My town is dying because of these environmental restrictions. People are going to towns where they can afford to own houses. Businesses are closing. The government plans to use that table land to build a park. We have three or four parks already and they aren't that well used. This is ridiculous.

Yes, of course -- the animals, plants, trees that live in the parks aren't using them well. Destroy them immediately! :D

Business men are known for using governments to help them. I am not talking about talk. I am talking about Lay being a member of several left wing organizations. The amount of P.R. he probably got being in them was not worth the time he spent in them if he didn't believe in them. I find that millionaires and billionaires are an extremely leftist set. I'm looking up that thing I read about Lay and his leftism... looking... looking... He was a member of the 'Union of Concerned Scientists'. Whoops, made a mistake, he supported the Kyoto treating .... EDITED FOR LENGTH ... thing... Anyway it goes with what I said about big governments making corruption easier.

It's somewhat silly, IMHO, to consider millionaires, etc. to be a leftist set. There is a large difference between saying, "I believe that we should protect the environment" and actually DOING something. If they were really "leftist", they wouldn't be hording their money and living in gated communities...

Ken Lay's belonging to 'left wing' organization doesn't really mean a whole lot. Does belonging to "Friends of the Library" mean that you are really a book-lover and library-supporter? Not necessarily -- you may be in it for the fat healthy tax-cut, and it sure doesn't hurt that you are getting your tax-cut by looking good to those who are most likely to oppose your political/business agenda.

Most of your talk reminds me of my impressions while reading the 'Jungle'. All this yelling and screaming (though I do imagine you being a very calm talker from you typing method, but The Jungle was a yelling, screaming type of book) about the terrible abuses. That judges were being bribed. ..... EDITED FOR LENGTH .... goverment controlling EVERYTHING was that the government all ready had its hands too deep in things and that we needed to push it back, seperate the government from those who were abusing it. Sinclair failed utterly with me.

*laugh* I'm not a yeller or a screamer -- I'm an EMPHASIZER!!! *grin* Actually, in person, I'm very calm -- if emphatic. :)

The problem with what you are saying, HLG, is that the government STOPPED these abuses of the workers. The governments laissez-faire approach allowed these abuses to exist in the first place!

So you see the answer as making Gov. bigger so that it can stop the bad guys. EDITED FOR LENGTH

I don't see making the government bigger as the ultimate answer. Making the government more accountable -- and making big business accountable *at all*, would be a great step.

However, if we start electing men to whom honesty is important, than we will have to rule out re-electing Bush and Cheney. Or anyone else who actually *WANTS* the job.

[HLGStrider]

I am starting to get annoyed.

The idea that people with the most guns are in control is folly because that isn't the way it worked in America ever. To quote Richard Mayberry "The old west was always more Little House on the Paraire than Gun Smoke". When the government was small we had a peaceful lifestyle with a few bad apples. Now the government is huge and we have more crime than we'd ever had.

We are taught that the poor are against the rich, that the black are against the white, that we are against the environment.
Bull.

I skimmed your post and found nothing in it of value. Nothing I hadn't heard before... (That is probably the first time I've said anything vaguely insulting to anyone on this board and the mods are probably going to give me a few bad points on it, but I am really getting tired of the liberal propaganda in the world, and I was tempted to say a lot meaner things... I felt I needed to say something a little heated because I am feeling heated and was afraid if I didn't get it out I would not be able to post with any semblency of rationality).

PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE ESSENTIAL TO ANY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. THEY ARE THE MAJOR PART OF WHAT MAKES AMERICA GREAT. THEY ARE WHAT EVERYONE EVERYWHERE HAS ALWAYS STRIVED FOR, THE RIGHT TO OWN, KEEP AND MAINTAIN LAND, POSSESSIONS, AND FREEDOM.

To deny property rights to someone because you or anyone else does not like what they are doing with their property is to spit in their face.
I find it sad that we live in a society that does not grant human rights to obviously human unborn babies and then grants nearly human rights to obviously nonhuman trees, moscitoes, salmon, etc...

Compensation is not good enough.

We do have a right to govern ourselves, but it isn't happening. My state has not voted in a tax increase in fifty years. My state has received several. My state has voted in tax decreases. They don't last long.

Most people who scream for bigger government and release of property rights live in big cities (correct me if I'm wrong, but I've seen the polls... liberals in cities. Conservatives in rural comunities). They do not understand the idea of what this land is. What farming is. What development is.

Do you know how much money it takes to run a big business? Let's see... The store gets a hundred dollars for something it probably bought for fifty dollars (or less)... To sell it the store had to be open. If the store doesn't own it's building we'll take off 5 dollars for rent. 5 dollars for electricity... five dollars for water... five dollars for each of the employees invoved in the sell... (which is a lot more than just the cashier... there is the inventory guy... the clean up crew who made things meet health code so people could come in...).. etc.

We are always yelling against the rich. It is true, most business men are probably self-centered and just want what they can get out of it. Don't we all want what we can get? Weren't we all garanteyed "pursuit of happiness"? If that happiness doesn't deny someone else their life or liberty (or own happiness within reason.) give it to them.

People in general want what is best for the environment. They may occassionally do stupid things or not understand it, but I blieve that the laws we have are far too Draconian as it is, and humans are far more important than animals.

By the way, about those animals that would live in the park, I see far more animals in the five acre parcels owned by people than I do in the crowded parks owned by the government... and I'm not talking about cows... Wild turkeys, deer, and elk are far more protected on large parcels of private land because on private land the right to post "NO TRESSPASSING" or "NO HUNTING" is very clear. However, the government normally makes up for taking away our land to be government parks by making it accessible through trails. People litter on these trails because they feel they have no ownership of them (and who are we kidding, they don't). Private land owners take much better care of their land because it is their. Government is far to bulky and unwieldy to do anything like that.

[Tyaronumen]

You just said in a previous message that your town has 3 or 4 parks and they aren't 'well-used'. Now they're 'crowded'?

LOL :D

Since your annoyed now, I will refrain from posting any more follow ups to this thread -- I'm not interested in a debate tinged with emotional sentiments.

Good discussion -- I utterly disagree with most of your points :D and encourage you to educate yourself on all sides of the issue.

Tyaronumen

[HLGStrider]

I was actually going to appologize when I came back because I didn't mean to get emotional... I just can't understand such blantant disreguard for somethings that are so important.

I am very well educated in the enviromental issues because they are everywhere. However, while I was born an environmentalist (emotionally I am very sensitive to such things. I do have a weakness for nature and such things, and I do believe there are problems) I became a skeptic becuase of the emotional and exaggerated way the movement was hyped. Then I actually started researching, both as part of my education and from personal information and became a Libertarian-Republican cross breed who couldn't accept the stance that it was all right to force someone to do something with their own land.

I had two history books. One was written by an liberal the other by a conservative. It was interesting to see the different views. I was impressed by the conservative view because it made sense, did not try to appeal to emotions, only logic, and was backed by statistics.

I really doubt you've done the research on the conservative side. Try it.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
I was actually going to appologize when I came back because I didn't mean to get emotional... I just can't understand such blantant disreguard for somethings that are so important.

I am very well educated in the enviromental issues because they are everywhere. However, while I was born an environmentalist (emotionally I am very sensitive to such things. I do have a weakness for nature and such things, and I do believe there are problems) I became a skeptic becuase of the emotional and exaggerated way the movement was hyped. Then I actually started researching, both as part of my education and from personal information and became a Libertarian-Republican cross breed who couldn't accept the stance that it was all right to force someone to do something with their own land.

I had two history books. One was written by an liberal the other by a conservative. It was interesting to see the different views. I was impressed by the conservative view because it made sense, did not try to appeal to emotions, only logic, and was backed by statistics.

I really doubt you've done the research on the conservative side. Try it.

Well heck -- that's such a reasonable message that I'll respond with another salvo: :D

LOL -- I know you doubt it, HLG, because, I would wager, it seems amazing to you that anyone could be well-informed about the 'conservative side' and still disagree...

Despite that -- I am quite well versed in the conservative side of things. In university, while studying history, I had the opportunity to read many works that one might consider liberal, as well as many from a more conservative vein.

On a daily basis, I work next to a gentleman who derives a great deal of emotional satisfaction from Rush, Bill, etc....

I also subscribe to a variety of publications, both liberal and conservative, and have seen that only the Christian Science Monitor reports the news with any regular objectivity involved.

So I am afraid that I really *am* informed on 'both' sides (there are really many sides -- I try to be educated on them all... it's a time consuming hobby :D) -- I just haven't drawn the same conclusions that you have.

For example, I believe that the land belongs to itself, and that mankind should take care of the land, as opposed to simply trying to exploit every last bit possible... I don't think that there is anything emotional or exaggerated in such a notion.

Also, there is more logic to be found in considering land-use from a long-term perspective than to simply allow whatever to happen now so that in the future, we'll have to spend 1,000s of years recovering from the 'paved over' effect...

Ah well. :)

[Gloer]

Human civilisation has always had property rights.
Property rigths have always been present when the object of rights is scarce and satisfies a need.

Indians did not hold land as property if they did not farm it. But they did value buffalo as much as to go in war to stop free sculling of them by the numerous white man. Buffalo had seemed so inexhaustable resourse that indians had not seen the need to claim those animals as their property even though buffalos were their livelihood.

The idea of land belonging to itself is nice. Nevertheless only humans can posess any rights.
If land has right that menas that somewhere there is a human who has those rights. A government agent or an environmentalist lobby group behind him. Land has never any rights, nor will it ever have.

[HLGStrider]

On a daily basis, I work next to a gentleman who derives a great deal of emotional satisfaction from Rush, Bill, etc....

Do you mean Bill O'Rielly? Truthfully I happen to be a fan of his, but I wouldn't say that he was a huge conservative. I read his book "The No Spin Zone" and while I agree with a lot of what he says I'd call him a sensible moderate with stronger leanings towards the right, but with a great respect for the left. I like O'Rielly not because I always agree with him as much as because I like him. I don't know why, but I do...

My idea of conservative is almost libertarian. I took the political poll Gloer posted on the party thing and that is what they told me I was. I don't believe in using government as a means to change society, provide for people, or to restrict people from doing things that don't harm others. The only places I am not with the libertarian party that I know of our their drug and pornography stances which I am going for purely on gut instinct and morality. There are probably other things I'd disagree with them in if I did more research (I haven't found their stance on abortion yet for instance) so I say I'm a republican. I know what all their stances are, for the most part.

Rush Limbaugh I find to be amusing and normally I agree but he blusters a bit too much for my taste so I don't listen much (the signals fuzzy anyway).

Anyway, I find that most fiction carries what I would consider to be a leftist slant. I'm not sure why... shrug.

I personally find it almost offensive if any book, especially a text book, claims to be "objective" or "Non-partial". No writer can completely block out his or her views. To do so would be to take all character or interest from writing. It just doesn't happen, especially not in history. History is a broad subject and there is no way you can include all the sides, all the ideas, all the happenings... so whether you concentrate on this or that is up to you. Even if one tries really really hard remaining objective in your chosing is almost impossible.

I do believe that private property is estential and without it there can be no development. To take away that from human history would bring us to a life where people live to be forty instead of eighty.

[Ciryaher]

Business is inherently corrupt because EVERYBODY who is given a little power and money always wants a little bit more power and money...and then more and more and more. This is called greed. Anyone with power should not be trusted, because there is always the risk that the person will use it for their own gain. This has happened countless times throughout just this past decade, so you cannot deny that it is human nature.

There is no business in the world that--if given the ability to go about its own "business" unhindered--wouldn't take advantage and exploit their freedom at any cost, just so long as their profits increase.

Take a look at the General Electric Corporation. Since the jobs of American workers were not protected (by the enaction of various treatises along the lines of NAFTA), their jobs got shipped off to foriegn countries (i.e. Mexico). These factories are not under the strict operating regulations that the US gov't sets (OHSA, for example) and their workers receive only the tiniest fraction of the wages of an American worker. On top of that, they receive little or no benefits (as would an American), longer working hours (which would not be allowed in the US), and a less safe working environment (as regulated by countless organizations, again, mainly OHSA).

Back to the original topic: farm subsidies. I have family members that farm corn, wheat, soybeans, etc. The government pays them to NOT grow crops. Why is that? It is so the market is not flooded with supply and the demand (and therefore prices) stays high. This means that the farmers get more money for the crops they raise and the grain storage/processing businesses profit as well.

And as for the idea that the government shouldn't fund airlines/transport....that is the most ridiculous and outrageous idea i've yet to hear. I guess you don't fly much, but those of us who do would like to have the ability to fly somewhere! If all of the airlines go out of business because they ran out of money, how in the name of Adam Smith do you think people are going to be able to commute and travel?

If 9-11 hadn't scared so many Americans out of flying, we wouldn't be in this mess. People need to stop being afraid and start being defiant. Every time the fear of a terrorist attack crosses your mind, you are letting them win. Be wary, be brave, and you will stay free.

[HLGStrider]

Business is inherently corrupt because EVERYBODY who is given a little power and money always wants a little bit more power and money...and then more and more and more.

as in government? That's where more and more power has been going in the last century...

Personally I know that it is human to be greedy, but humans are not ruled entirely by so called Human Nature. Most humans have a conscience.

About the airlines, Cir... Let's say we have this situation: A small town has three companies making chairs. These companies employ two people each and can make an average of ten chairs a day. The thing is the need for chairs is not this great so the companies start to whither away and experience financial trouble. Soon there is only the most successful chair company left (as it would be with airlines... not all of them are going to go out of business. They'll find away out of it). That company has a monopoly for awhile. However, as it is now the only company it can charge whatever it wants without fear of competition taking it out. Chairs are getting a high price... that is why some guy who is not having any fun or making enough money making shoes says "HEY I CAN MAKE DOUBLE MAKING CHAIRS!!!"

This man therefore goes into chairs... perhaps two or three men do. There is now competition. The price goes down... The smart companies invest in shoes again. The dumb companies go out of business and their employees either start making shoes or go to work in the other chair businesses....

Why should a town be forced to deal with three or four chair companies it doesn't need because some politician is giving their tax money to these businesses. It creates an artificial market which is not good for business.

As for farms, when there are famines in the world do you think it is really moral to pay people not to plant? Just a moral question, though I personally don't like them that much in economic contexts. Also it raises prices... so now the squash costs six cents a pound instead of four cents... Do you know who is buying the squash? It is the owner of the hardware store in the vary town where the farmer lives... He sees prices for food (something he needs to live) going up, and he has three choices: compensate by buying less squash (in which case the farmer is not making more. He is just selling four squash for six cents instead of six squash for four), he buys more squash but in return raises the price on nails (and since the farmer may need nails he is trading more expensive squash for more expensive nails), or the guy buys the normal amount of squash but compensates by not buying something else... and in turn the seemstress, carpenter, or petstore owner who would've received that money doesn't buy as much squash...

It's called the law of unintended consequences.... You can't get around it, and TANSTAAFL... Figure that one out.

[Gamil Zirak]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
Business is inherently corrupt because EVERYBODY who is given a little power and money always wants a little bit more power and money...and then more and more and more. This is called greed. Anyone with power should not be trusted, because there is always the risk that the person will use it for their own gain. This has happened countless times throughout just this past decade, so you cannot deny that it is human nature.

There is no business in the world that--if given the ability to go about its own "business" unhindered--wouldn't take advantage and exploit their freedom at any cost, just so long as their profits increase.

Johnson and Johnson had some asprin bottles come out a few years back (15 or 20) from their factories that had some cyanide in them inadvertantly. Now according to your theory of people and power they would have done nothing. However, they voluntarily (on their own with no ones intervention) recalled every bottle of aspirin on the shelf and if you had purchased a bottle you were given a coupon for a fresh bottle. They didn't do this in just the market where the tainted bottles were discovered. They did this in every store they had a bottle in. That doesn't sound corrupt to me.

Oh, one pound is equal to 0.4536 kilograms.

[Ciryaher]

HLG, people can't just say "Hey, there's only one airline company, and they're making a fortune! I will too!"

A nationwide airline company costs billions upon billions (if not trillions) of dollars to build and maintain. This isn't something someone can just get an idea about and say "I'll do that too."

And as for recalls, companies don't want to lose their money in a lawsuit, so naturally they recall the product and take the lesser loss.

[Gamil Zirak]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
HLG, people can't just say "Hey, there's only one airline company, and they're making a fortune! I will too!"

A nationwide airline company costs billions upon billions (if not trillions) of dollars to build and maintain. This isn't something someone can just get an idea about and say "I'll do that too."
Sure you can. You just need the financial capital to get it started. I mean really, all you would have to do is buy a few regional airlines and combine them into a semi-national airlines and them go from there. People take out loans all the time to get a business started.
And as for recalls, companies don't want to lose their money in a lawsuit, so naturally they recall the product and take the lesser loss.
That may be true if they only recalled the bottles in the markets that came from that production plant, but they recalled every bottle they produced from every production plant. They could have easily not said anything and wait for the lawsuits to come in and settle out of court for far less than what they lost by not selling two sets of bottles for every one that was returned. That's looking out for the consumer.

[HLGStrider]

Even if they were just looking out for their interests, the consumer benefits, that's why I believe in the right to sue... though I also believe we need more reasonable judges and juries... not the coffee in the lap gets you a couple grand kind.
If you can't afford to mess up, you won't.

We have billionaires in this country. If three billionaires got together and invested each a third of their money they would have enough. It would take them a few years to get off the ground... also I really don't believe all of the airlines would go out of business...

Example: Five Airlines... let's call them Airways, OSA, (I'm making these up off the top of my head, in case you didn't know... :rolleyes:) Trans, Flight, and Skyze.

Skyze and Flight are small companies, OSA is mid way, and the other two are large.

Trouble strikes, like Sept. 11th. Airways panics and quickly starts making drastic changes. There are lay offs, but all in all Airways has a smart couple of execs and they ride out the storm with a small deficit they feel they can make up for (or a large one, but they get a loan from a private bank who is feeling optimistic).
Trans doesn't do so well. It 'crashes', pardon the bad pun, and Trans is gone.
Skyze lays low, being too small to feel things drastically.
Flight doesn't lay low, doesn't adjust for the situation and goes under.
OSA takes cuts, but also rides out the tide.

Now there is small Skyze, medium but crippled OSA, and crippled Airways.

Then things settle down. People stop being afraid to fly (Due in part to a successful bit of PR by OSA and Airways who both can invest in this sort of thing). The market goes up, and because there is no longer the pressure from the main competitor Trans, it goes way way way way way up. Skyze and OSA see opportunity, invest and also go way way up, getting OSA back to normal. Airways pays off it's debt. Skyze invests very wisely and catches up to OSA... We have three again.

Americans aren't going to give up flying, and as long as there is demand, someone is going to try to supply.