Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011 From: The Old Pueblo Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Businesses exist to provide a service and - wait for it - make a profit. Yes, there is a bottom line. Oh, yes, I understand full well that they're in business to make money. My grandfather was a businessman and he told me that all the time (about any business). For the most part, they're not humanitarians, they're not civic-minded, and they have no social conscience. They are what they are, just like the Five Families of New York City. quote:
And, yes, it needs to be protected. Protected by whom? What obligations do the U.S. government and taxpayers actually have to the private sector? How much does it cost to protect them and their interests? If the U.S. taxpayers are paying the U.S. military to go to the Middle East and help prop up our oil industry, shouldn't we have a say in how much we should pay at the pump? It needs to be protected by the business. Without profits, there is nothing to pay employees. There is nothing with which to expand. The business will not prosper. If a business can't operate profitably, it needs to change it's business model, or cease to exist. I get your point, although technically, the business doesn't pay their employees from profits. Profits are what they have left after they've paid their employees and other expenses. Obviously, businesses have to make some profit but the questions still remain: 1. How much is enough? 2. Do other sectors of the economy have to sacrifice their profit margin in order to make one or two sectors profitable? (In other words, “Do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many?”) quote:
Our military shouldn't be propping up our oil industry. Our taxpayers shouldn't be propping up any failing/failed business. We need to let those who play with fire get burned. Helps teach a lesson about playing with fire. Agreed. quote:
quote:
quote:
Third party stations, imo, do not take precedence over brand named stations. If there were contracts stipulating price and quantity to be delivered, that is one thing, but if only price, then that's completely another. Well, of course, I don't propose that it be done in a vacuum. From the articles you've posted, I can see where price controls have been implemented rather badly (where there weren't any real "controls" at all), but that doesn't mean that the concept itself can't be implemented in other ways. What other ways can price controls be implemented? You are either propping a price up above Market level (sugar and farming industries), or putting caps on prices below Market level (Medicare/Medicaid?). Both are going to distort the Market in different ways. Either way, pricing will change the Market, and there will be negative ramifications. A lot of the market and our entire economy and political system is based largely on faith. If people have no faith in the market, or our economic/political system for that matter, then there will be negative ramifications just the same. Sometimes, the people need reassurances that law and order will be maintained, that we’re not descending into chaos, and that they won’t be gouged and cheated all the way to the poorhouse. There needs to be ways of restoring consumer confidence. They need to know that someone in power is looking out for their interests and not selling us all out to the highest bidder. Price controls are just a way of sending a message and keeping the chaos under control. One of government’s roles is to maintain law and order, and that includes the marketplace. If we ever get to the point where people have to carry wheelbarrows full of money in order to buy a loaf of bread, then we’re in serious trouble. I will say, though, that I’m not really as strongly in favor of price controls as much as you seem to be against the idea. I think that other things will also need to be put in place, both in terms of our domestic and foreign policies. It’s not that I think that price controls will be some kind of panacea; I’m just thinking that it’s something worth revisiting as a possible temporary measure. quote:
quote:
quote:
What I didn't know until looking these things up, was that it was Federal price controls that actually motivated the vast increase in importing oil. It was cheaper to get it overseas. Not exactly. It was cheaper to get it overseas than to expand drilling. The price cap on oil was set on "old" wells, that is, wells that were already producing. Oil from new wells would not fall under that cap. That was done to give incentive to expand drilling. What it ended up doing was closing some "old" wells (because it wasn't profitable enough to continue pumping) and increasing imports. Had the price control been applied to "old" oil and imported oil, there would have been a mad scramble for increased drilling, but prices would have skyrocketed as importing declined and old wells were closed. It would not have been profitable to continue to produce at those wells, so the shit would have fallen apart, anyway. I think that our energy policy might be a separate topic unto itself. There are other sources of energy besides oil, and other sources of oil besides the Persian Gulf. In fact, I’ve heard that there is probably more oil under the earth than anyone is really letting on. And with oil, we’re dealing with a cartel which gets together and sets the price. So, there are price controls already. quote:
quote:
I think it could actually help other sectors of the economy, as well as facilitate spending cuts in government without drastically cutting services. If you were running a business and your energy costs were dramatically reduced, you'd suddenly have a lot of extra capital to expand, hire more workers, and/or pump more money into the local economy. It's the same with rents. I've seen some local businesses go under only because they couldn't negotiate a reasonable rent for their business. And yet, I see so many empty storefronts around town. If only the rents could be lowered, then businesses would move in, hire workers, and help get our economy moving again. (I have an idea as to how this could be accomplished, but I'm sure you'll like that idea even less than price controls.) But, what are the costs of doing that to the energy providers? If you Nationalize (which may not be your idea; I'm just guessing), then taxpayers are still footing the bill and Corporatism will be alive and well, as it is now. I’m a Keynesian, so I don’t favor nationalization of industries. But I also think that the well-being of our nation and people should come first, and the government’s priorities should be flexible enough to be able to make adjustments when deemed reasonably necessary. As for corporatism being alive and well, that brings up the point as to whether or not our government can be trusted to faithfully carry out any policy our leaders pledge to carry out. This seems to be true of any policy. It doesn’t matter what they say or what they pledge to do, the government will always find a way to screw the people and help their buddies in the corporate world. I also have to admit that a lot of this can be blamed on the people as a whole. If people had the backbone to organize and maintain real boycotts and exert their own power over the marketplace, then maybe a message can be sent to corporate America that might stick. But too many people are just plain suckers. quote:
I am absolutely in favor of limited government regulation (moving a lot closer to laissez-faire economics, but not actually getting to no regulations; regulations are absolutely needed to a certain extent), but in all areas. I'm not necessarily in favor of "Big Oil" because I'm opposed to price controls. I'm opposed to price controls and used Big Oil to show why. I also showed how price controls (in the form of interest rates) had huge implications in leading to the S&L shit mess. I think that both situations were caused by a variety of factors. I don’t think price controls were the “make or break” factor involved in those events. quote:
quote:
VincentML made a little jibe against me saying that I "wasn't much of a free-market guy" or something to that effect, but in fact, I am. But I don't believe in anarcho-capitalism or Mafia economics, which is kind of what we're dealing with nowadays. I tend to agree that banks are a large part of the problem, too, including the Federal Reserve Bank. But I also see an underlying philosophical problem which seems to affect the entire economy, including the banks, the oil companies, and just about everything else. I call it "Corporatism" because it sure as Hell isn't Capitalism. What is the underlying problem you see? I think there’s an underlying attitude that everybody is out to screw everybody else. Businesses seem to have this idea that the customers are out to rob them, and the customers think the businesses are out to cheat them or gouge them with high prices. The old mom-and-pop stores have all but vanished from the free market. Corporatism is just the logical result of the system that we’re living under. It may not be capitalism, but just like with democracy and freedom, if it’s abused, it can be just as self-destructive as anything. If the people choose to live under it, then this is what will result. quote:
quote:
quote:
Who are the "bad guys," in your opinion? Well, in the context above, I think we both agreed that the Federal Reserve would be among them. VincentML said that the system was rigged, so if it's rigged, why not rig it in our favor? Because it won't ever be rigged in our favor. Business will adapt. The only way for it to be in our favor, is to not rig it at all. Put in place the least amount of regulations necessary, and then let the Market work. Well, to be honest, I could possibly go along with that. There is something appealing about libertarianism, but I’m just as pessimistic about such a system ever being set up because, as you said, it won’t ever be rigged in our favor. That would include the political system and the laws we live under. Also, the people have choices right now. As I said above, the people have the power to organize and exercise their power at the market. quote:
Preventing outsourcing is a form of price control. You prevent business from getting the best price it can get. Shouldn't the labor force compete for jobs/wages? Most of the time things are proposed to rein things in do more harm than the thing they are trying to rein in. Most politicians aren't looking at the responses to the effects. They go to one single step. I don’t think tariffs and trade protections are the same thing as price controls. I don’t even think economists would equate the two as being the same. As for the labor force being able to compete, how can they? They need the higher wages in order to be able to afford the basic necessities of life. In other countries, things are much cheaper, so workers seem to be able to get by on lower wages. It’s not possible in the United States, so how are workers to compete and survive on lower wages unless prices are kept under control so they can afford it better? You can’t have it both ways. Something has got to give sooner or later. By opening up to a world without borders, we will find ourselves in a serious problem as the world economy strives toward equilibrium. The developing world will slowly rise to the level of the developed world, as the developed world will either stagnate or fall to some degree. Eventually, the wages of American workers will end up being “competitive” with the wages of workers in Bangladesh or Indonesia, but who knows what the world will look like by then (if it even survives this process). quote:
What I hear, up until that last sentence, is that conservatives are evil and the ones in bed with Wall Street. While the latter is true, it's also true of the liberals. IMO, it's not an issue of Left or Right, it's Left AND Right that are the problem. What is easier to do, end reliance on an entitlement, or prevent the entitlement reliance to begin in the first place? I would err on the latter being easier. I agree on this point, and I’m not completely lambasting conservatives, nor am I giving liberals a pass. I think both parties have had their part in governing this country, and this includes both conservatives and liberals. Both essentially follow the same methods of tax and spend, but the only argument is over who gets the spoils and whose ox is gored. The main thing that got me on the subjects of outsourcing and price controls was when someone else mentioned a point about welfare. I don’t think that people should just be cut off. If we want to end welfare and entitlements, then we have to first figure out what to put it in its place. If there are people who can work and need jobs, then where are they going to get those jobs? What can be put in place to keep America thriving and productive in order to prevent entitlement reliance?
|