Quote:
Originally Posted by Caldwin
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
This doesn't describe free market capitalism at all. Not that we have a whole lot of free market in the US nowadays with all the regulations and redistribution of wealth, not to mention lobbyists that marry big corporations with big government. If it wasn't for big government, I doubt very much we would have monopolistic big corporations.
In a free market, someone gets an idea, creates a product or does a service that people may want and starts a business to sell that product or service. Yes, he wants a profit for his idea and investment. And why shouldn't he? If the business is successful and it grows, he will need help. So he hires one or more employees. But, he can only pay them so much, and the market and sales will determine the rate. So, he is happy for getting something for his idea, the customer is happy for whatever product or service he receives and the employee is happy to be making some money.
But, when you start redistributing his profits in the form of huge taxes and fees for running the business and piling on draconian regulations, he may have second thoughts about even starting a business, or may not want to expand it. And, who would want innovate and start a business if as soon as he becomes successful the government swoops in and takes more of his profits, whether through taxes or minimum wages. Redistribution of wealth is theft. Speaking of minimum wages, if governments keep upping the minimum wages the way they are, more people will be priced out of a job, especially for the low skilled starter jobs. Whenever I hear the protests of fast food stores saying they need to make a living wage, I roll my eyes. The typical fast food job isn't supposed to support a "living". Those jobs are supposed to be starter jobs for teenagers or people going to college... not to make a career out of it.
Excessive taxes, fees and regulations stifle innovation (innovation that may save someones life or solve the energy problems, etc.) and are a barrier to the little guy, since big corporations have the resources to pay or circumvent the taxes and fees, and can afford a legal department to deal with all the regulations... regulations they probably lobbied for in the first place to keep the little guy out.
I'd rather have a small government that leaves people alone to prosper in a free market, than to have big government in bed with big corporations. Maybe then there would be much better competition where everyone wins. Because with true competition, there would be lower costs, better quality, more ideas to solve problems and even competition for workers (i.e. higher wages).
|
So you're against IP rights?
I'm not actually a huge regulation guy. I think that's precisely that kind of mechanism that works out better for elites than normal people. We are always going to need some, but they should be kept minimal.
Wealth transfers are different. You probably shouldn't eye roll at overpaid labor when it is the only mechanism to give some people a living. Less we start UBI and transferring a lot more wealth.
On a free market, many jobs don't pay shit in a global competitive sense. A few pay extremely well. Middle jobs are actually fairly rare.
So governments come in and set context to prevent this from being the case. Strong borders is one, but we have like 350 million people in this country...strong borders won't cut it to get everyone living wages.
We either overpay labor (not actually my favorite long term solution) or do enough services and wealth transfers so that people can either live poorly or better themselves to be actually useful to the economy.
It get
more like this over time. So it gets increasingly true that something must be done. Back in the 1800's, just giving people access to plots of land in the west was enough, maybe more than enough.
We don't live in the days of Jefferson or Lincoln anymore though.
03-15-2019, 04:03 AM
Linear Mode
