Hamumu Software Hamumu Software Hamumu Software
Name
Password Register
Latest Journal update: Oct 20, 2017

Go Back   Hamumu Forum > General > General Blabber

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-21-2010, 06:04 PM   #1
sonicchaos1993
Chaos sold separately.
Moderator
 
sonicchaos1993's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Definately not behind you
Posts: 1,429
Default The Great Debate

Welcome to the Great Debate! In here, a variety of topics and issues, both past and current, will be discussed and debated. Each topic for debate will have a variety of sub-topics with it. These sub-topics will be debated one at a time, and the debaters will be grouped with other debaters with a similar position.

Topic of Debate (#1):
The Economy (Oh boy...)

Sub-Topics:
Government Regulation
Taxes
Loans/Morgages
"Laziness"
Closing

This debate will begin with the topic of Government Regulation.

For centuries, economic policies have shaped the future of the world. Governments have attempted several different policies. Among these include lassize-faire (sp?) and communism, both different extremes. Lassize-faire simply means that the government is "hands-off" when it comes to business. Communism/socialism, on the other hand, is where the government controlls EVERYTHING.

Which policy do you think is better for the economy? Less government regulation or more?



Personally, I want the government to be "hands off" with the economy. Government regulation, for the most part, gets in the way of profit and progress. Business profits are a large part of the government's income, and without them, a country can fall into debt. However, I belive that in EXTREME cases government intervention is needed, such as in the horrible working condidtions during the Industrial Revolution and Child Labor (by which I mean little kids working, NOT 16/17 year old teens).
__________________

AGLA FL15 Pro Circuit Champion - Tank for Hybrid Theory (AGLA) - Captain/Hybrid for Zero Logic (GGL)
sonicchaos1993 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2010, 09:10 PM   #2
Ubernoob
Dumb Person
 
Ubernoob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 759
Default Re: The Great Debate

I think there is an appropriate level of government regulation. The problem with unbridled capitalism is mainly that it is bad for democracy, and bad for other things like the environment. So governments introduce concepts like minimum wage laws, working hours, etc. Governments also subsidize businesses by offering tax incentives to come and set up plants etc. in their jurisdiction; business makes a lot of money out of government, but you seldom hear that mentionned in one-sided rants about government "interference" in the economy.

That is all for now. It's possible I'll have more to say later.
__________________
Ubernoob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2010, 06:09 PM   #3
sonicchaos1993
Chaos sold separately.
Moderator
 
sonicchaos1993's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Definately not behind you
Posts: 1,429
Default Re: The Great Debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubernoob View Post
I think there is an appropriate level of government regulation. The problem with unbridled capitalism is mainly that it is bad for democracy, and bad for other things like the environment. So governments introduce concepts like minimum wage laws, working hours, etc. Governments also subsidize businesses by offering tax incentives to come and set up plants etc. in their jurisdiction; business makes a lot of money out of government, but you seldom hear that mentionned in one-sided rants about government "interference" in the economy.

That is all for now. It's possible I'll have more to say later.
As I said, I support government intervention in EXTREME cases. This included the poor treatment of workers following the Industrial Revolution, which would include both min. wage laws and working hours.

You say that unbridled capitalism is bad for democracy--and I understand what you mean by that. However, extreme government intervention will limit the freedom of business, which also goes against democracy.

The biggest government intervention I have a problem with is the bailouts. As a member of an upper-class family, I can testify that they are not as good as they may seem. Yes, they help keep the economy from going under, but they also cost the government money. To get this money, the government will have to raise taxes. And, as always, the upper class will get the biggest increase. Currently, my family has an income tax rate of 40%. We're paying nearly half of our income to help struggling businesses, (and obviously, if we're upper class, our business is doing well) many of which are doing poorly because of their own decisions. The government is basically telling us, "You're doing really well, so we'll take some of your money to help out the business down the street." If the government is just taking more money from you if you're successful, where's the inspiration for success?
__________________

AGLA FL15 Pro Circuit Champion - Tank for Hybrid Theory (AGLA) - Captain/Hybrid for Zero Logic (GGL)
sonicchaos1993 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2010, 11:33 PM   #4
Gigacat
Pinkie Pirate!
 
Gigacat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Over There!
Posts: 1,007
Default Re: The Great Debate

I think government intervention is good, and sometimes bad. The pluses are: Minimal wages, no monopolys and making sure there are enough jobs to go around.
__________________
Gigacat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 08:24 AM   #5
sonicchaos1993
Chaos sold separately.
Moderator
 
sonicchaos1993's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Definately not behind you
Posts: 1,429
Default Re: The Great Debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigacat View Post
I think government intervention is good, and sometimes bad. The pluses are: Minimal wages, no monopolys and making sure there are enough jobs to go around.
No monopolies is good?!?

In terms of business, a monopoly is the ultamite success story. It means that a business has done so well that it has grown to a point that it has no competitors. Most of the time, this can only happen because that company is preferred by customers, whether be it from better service, better prices, or something else. Since that company had to be offering an overall better service than it's competitors, it is very unlikely that the company would sudden stop such policies. Doing so would be harmful, as it would result in a decrease in customers. A monopoly has to be extremely careful with it's customers, since a larger company has more to lose.
__________________

AGLA FL15 Pro Circuit Champion - Tank for Hybrid Theory (AGLA) - Captain/Hybrid for Zero Logic (GGL)
sonicchaos1993 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 08:28 AM   #6
hyperme
Not Evil, Just British
 
hyperme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Britain
Posts: 1,322
Default Re: The Great Debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonicchaos1993 View Post
The biggest government intervention I have a problem with is the bailouts. As a member of an upper-class family, I can testify that they are not as good as they may seem. Yes, they help keep the economy from going under, but they also cost the government money. To get this money, the government will have to raise taxes. And, as always, the upper class will get the biggest increase. Currently, my family has an income tax rate of 40%. We're paying nearly half of our income to help struggling businesses, (and obviously, if we're upper class, our business is doing well) many of which are doing poorly because of their own decisions. The government is basically telling us, "You're doing really well, so we'll take some of your money to help out the business down the street." If the government is just taking more money from you if you're successful, where's the inspiration for success?
I'll slice this up into bits.

First: If the economy dies, lots of businesses go down with it, which causes massive unemployment. Where do unemployment benefits come from? The government.
The upperclass have the most money, and are therefore less troulbed if that income drops or goes away entirely. Also, money isn't everything. You can't buy an honest man, as they say.
Third, related to first, just because you're doing well, if the economy dies, your business/employer could be effected. It's all interlinked, which is why the bailouts happened.
Finally, success is sucess. You can still rub your x figure income at our lower income, no matter the tax. You're still winning, just a little less. Remeber, Greed is a deadly sin.

Ack, ninja'd.

You support monoplies? YOU SUPPORT A SINGLE COMPANY HAVE TOTAL MARKET DOMINACNE!?
They don't need care! They can do whatever they want to the customer, or anything really, as there's no alternative.
Competition? Economies of Scale + Matching sales price with sales cost = No competition.
Monopolies are bad. Bad. BAD!
__________________
This space unintentionally left blank

Last edited by hyperme; 05-23-2010 at 08:32 AM.
hyperme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 08:47 AM   #7
sonicchaos1993
Chaos sold separately.
Moderator
 
sonicchaos1993's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Definately not behind you
Posts: 1,429
Default Re: The Great Debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperme View Post
I'll slice this up into bits.

First: If the economy dies, lots of businesses go down with it, which causes massive unemployment. Where do unemployment benefits come from? The government.
The upperclass have the most money, and are therefore less troulbed if that income drops or goes away entirely. Also, money isn't everything. You can't buy an honest man, as they say.
Third, related to first, just because you're doing well, if the economy dies, your business/employer could be effected. It's all interlinked, which is why the bailouts happened.
Finally, success is sucess. You can still rub your x figure income at our lower income, no matter the tax. You're still winning, just a little less. Remeber, Greed is a deadly sin.

Ack, ninja'd.

You support monoplies? YOU SUPPORT A SINGLE COMPANY HAVE TOTAL MARKET DOMINACNE!?
They don't need care! They can do whatever they want to the customer, or anything really, as there's no alternative.
Competition? Economies of Scale + Matching sales price with sales cost = No competition.
Monopolies are bad. Bad. BAD!
Yes, the upper class has more money, so lets take money from them and give it to businesses so that the POOR can keep their jobs. That is similar to taking from the rich and giving to the poor. There's a name for that: it's called COMMUNISM.

How is it fair to us that, just because we do well, we have to pay for the people who are too LAZY or DON'T CARE about getting a job?!? We got our money from rising up the ladder. If we could do it, anybody else could. The American Dream is that ANYBODY has the opportunity to make a fortune. I don't recall it mentioning that doing so gives the government the right to tax you more.

The economy will NOT die without bailouts. At some point, the economy will self-correct. That is what it always has done and what it always will do. Bailout programs and similar relief programs will help ease the pain at first, but eventually they will just come back to bite us.

To us, we don't see how WE'RE the greedy ones. We have worked (and most of us still are) night and day to make our fortunes. Meanwhile there are people out there are out there who are working considerably less, and some of them are not working at ALL! So, the government decides to tax the people who have worked the HARDEST to further the economy. That is not even REMOTELY fair to us.

And monopolies can be good because while they do have the power to raise prices, they can also lower them. If a product's price is raised, the people have the power to boycott that product. Since the monopoly is larger, they will be making more of that product and therefore will have higher costs. Therefore, if their product is boycotted, that company will lose a LOT of money, and there is nothing the stockholders hate more than a bad quarterly statement.

I should probaly mention that by monopolies, I am referring to both horizontal and vertical types. Although horizontal (which is the one previously mentioned) can be bad, it also has the potention to be good. Vertical, on the other hand, is all good. The company controlls every aspect of production, but still has competitors. By controlling all aspects of production, the company lowers the cost of production which allows them to lower prices. With competitors out there also, it gives the company the motivation to lower prices.
__________________

AGLA FL15 Pro Circuit Champion - Tank for Hybrid Theory (AGLA) - Captain/Hybrid for Zero Logic (GGL)
sonicchaos1993 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 08:58 AM   #8
hyperme
Not Evil, Just British
 
hyperme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Britain
Posts: 1,322
Default Re: The Great Debate

Quote:
How is it fair to us that, just because we do well, we have to pay for the people who are too LAZY or DON'T CARE about getting a job?!? We got our money from rising up the ladder. If we could do it, anybody else could. The American Dream is that ANYBODY has the opportunity to make a fortune. I don't recall it mentioning that doing so gives the government the right to tax you more.
Yes, all unemployed people are lazy. None of them are having troulbe finding work dispite trying daily. Yup. That's nice to say. These people trying to get work need to eat, drink, have shelter and be clean.
American Dream? Go read/see A Death of a Saleman. It shows quite well that not everybody can reach the top, and some pay dearly for trying the impossible. And if poor people don't have jobs, who is doing the low paid jobs? Refuse collection? Road maintence? Construction? Farming? Most of the entire Primary and Secondary sectors of industary?

And as for tax, where's the government meant to get money from other than tax?
__________________
This space unintentionally left blank
hyperme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 09:35 AM   #9
Mr.Onion
Evil, random-voting vegetable
 
Mr.Onion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Down at the shore where there's no-one vacationing.
Posts: 4,862
Default Re: The Great Debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonicchaos1993 View Post
Yes, the upper class has more money, so lets take money from them and give it to businesses so that the POOR can keep their jobs. That is similar to taking from the rich and giving to the poor. There's a name for that: it's called COMMUNISM.
You seem to be misunderstanding the scale involved here. If the bailout never happened, banks like AIG go bankrupt. AIG employs a hundred thousand people, and loans to many, many businesses. If it went bust, apart from all 100,000 people losing their jobs, a ton of businesses can no longer get loans. If they can't get loans, they can't pay back their creditors. If they can't pay back, their creditors can also not pay back, and so on so forth... until, at the end of the chain, your employer can no longer pay your upper-class wage.

Quote:
How is it fair to us that, just because we do well, we have to pay for the people who are too LAZY or DON'T CARE about getting a job?!? We got our money from rising up the ladder. If we could do it, anybody else could. The American Dream is that ANYBODY has the opportunity to make a fortune. I don't recall it mentioning that doing so gives the government the right to tax you more.
How accurate would I be if I suggested that you or your family are white Christians? Minority, unskilled, disabled or anyone with any number of other conditions will have a hard time getting jobs, regardless of skills, hard work, or anything else.

Quote:
The economy will NOT die without bailouts. At some point, the economy will self-correct. That is what it always has done and what it always will do. Bailout programs and similar relief programs will help ease the pain at first, but eventually they will just come back to bite us.
No bailouts => AIG and most major banks go bust => Thousands of businesses go bust, as they can no longer borrow money to pay back debts => Millions more (Millions already lost their jobs when the banks themselves collapsed) lose their jobs, including, quite easily, you.

Quote:
To us, we don't see how WE'RE the greedy ones. We have worked (and most of us still are) night and day to make our fortunes. Meanwhile there are people out there are out there who are working considerably less, and some of them are not working at ALL! So, the government decides to tax the people who have worked the HARDEST to further the economy. That is not even REMOTELY fair to us.
It is fair to tax you the most: You are the ones most able to afford it.

Quote:
And monopolies can be good because while they do have the power to raise prices, they can also lower them. If a product's price is raised, the people have the power to boycott that product.
The entire point of a monopoly is that that last part is no longer an option, and because it is no longer an option, prices can be raised indefinitely. Imagine Microsoft were the sole builder of desktop computers. Is boycotting computers entirely, just to avoid Microsoft, a feasible option? Is it feasible for a business?

Quote:
I should probaly mention that by monopolies, I am referring to both horizontal and vertical types. Although horizontal (which is the one previously mentioned) can be bad, it also has the potention to be good. Vertical, on the other hand, is all good. The company controlls every aspect of production, but still has competitors. By controlling all aspects of production, the company lowers the cost of production which allows them to lower prices. With competitors out there also, it gives the company the motivation to lower prices.
Keep in mind that low costs != low prices. The company will lower prices to the degree necessary to get more customers; Anything lower would decrease profits unnecessarily.
__________________

Last edited by Mr.Onion; 05-23-2010 at 09:36 AM.
Mr.Onion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 10:16 AM   #10
sonicchaos1993
Chaos sold separately.
Moderator
 
sonicchaos1993's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Definately not behind you
Posts: 1,429
Default Re: The Great Debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Onion View Post
You seem to be misunderstanding the scale involved here. If the bailout never happened, banks like AIG go bankrupt. AIG employs a hundred thousand people, and loans to many, many businesses. If it went bust, apart from all 100,000 people losing their jobs, a ton of businesses can no longer get loans. If they can't get loans, they can't pay back their creditors. If they can't pay back, their creditors can also not pay back, and so on so forth... until, at the end of the chain, your employer can no longer pay your upper-class wage.
Why are you assuming that we are employed? Usually, the wealthy arn't the ones being employed. Furthermore, AIG is not the only bank from which a business could recieve a loan. If AIG went bankrupt, then companies can simply find another bank from which to recieve loans. The main reason that "banks" like AIG are doing poorly has more to do with housing loans, not business loans. Also, when a company goes bankrupt, they are not erased. Most of the time, they simply restructure and go back into business.


Quote:
How accurate would I be if I suggested that you or your family are white Christians? Minority, unskilled, disabled or anyone with any number of other conditions will have a hard time getting jobs, regardless of skills, hard work, or anything else.
Not at all accurate. We are atheists. However, everybody has the opportunity for success.


Quote:
No bailouts => AIG and most major banks go bust => Thousands of businesses go bust, as they can no longer borrow money to pay back debts => Millions more (Millions already lost their jobs when the banks themselves collapsed) lose their jobs, including, quite easily, you.
You are assuming that the bank we OWN (not WORK at) borrows from major banks. While tons of businesses were going under, we made a PROFIT. Not all business get their loans from big "banks."


[QUOTE]It is fair to tax you the most: You are the ones most able to afford it.[/QUOTE}
Fair to you perhaps, because it means that YOU don't have to pay more, while we DO. Who can afford it is irrevelent. We are all citizens, and therefore, we all have the SAME duty to help our country-- which includes paying taxes. A lot of money that our tax increases were made for help the poor-- many of which DO NOT PAY TAXES, or pay much LESS taxes. How is it fair when one person pays 40% of their income while another person has to pay 20%?


Quote:
The entire point of a monopoly is that that last part is no longer an option, and because it is no longer an option, prices can be raised indefinitely. Imagine Microsoft were the sole builder of desktop computers. Is boycotting computers entirely, just to avoid Microsoft, a feasible option? Is it feasible for a business?
There was a time when there wasn't computers. As I have mentioned previously, I am okay with government intervention in EXTREME cases, and this would fall under such a category. A monopoly may not be created simply to raise prices indefinitely. It could be created so that competition is eliminated, and therefore, all purchases of that product go to the monopoly. Even if prices stayed the same as if there was no monopoly, the company would still have an increased profit. More sales = More profits.


Quote:
Keep in mind that low costs != low prices. The company will lower prices to the degree necessary to get more customers; Anything lower would decrease profits unnecessarily.
Perhaps, but low costs = more profit, which helps the company and by extension the whole economy greatly.

@hyperme: I NEVER said that ALL poor people were lazy. However, there are some that ARE. There are also illegal immigrants, who get the work and get paid WITHOUT paying taxes at ALL, while they get some benifits that WE pay for, but that's a completely different issue.
__________________

AGLA FL15 Pro Circuit Champion - Tank for Hybrid Theory (AGLA) - Captain/Hybrid for Zero Logic (GGL)
sonicchaos1993 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 10:35 AM   #11
CheeseLord
No One Is Perfect
 
CheeseLord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The dead center of the universe.
Posts: 1,590
Default Re: The Great Debate

In general, I support letting the market work on its own. Competition forces prices to stay at a reasonable level and requires constant innovation. The laws of supply and demand create exactly the goods that the people want at the price that both buyer and seller agree upon. The unlimited potential for profit gives rise to new businesses, which leads to an increase in employment.

In times of prosperity, the government should only interfere to take care of externalities (such as pollution), to stop ventures that threaten the future success of the economy (such as subprime mortgages) and to keep monopolies from driving prices through the roof, stifling creativity and destroying potential for new businesses.

In times of recession, the government's top priority should be to prevent the economy's total collapse. When large companies fail, they drag the economy down a little. When they all fail simultaneously, they bring the rest of the nation crashing down. Bailouts help on this front. The next step is to tackle the underlying problems. Until those are fixed, any measures taken will meet with minimal success. The most important part of this is to calm the populace. Panic leads to depressions. Once this is done, the final step is to give the people more incentive to create new businesses. This brings about new jobs, giving more people money to spend, which leads to more spending, which leads to more successful businesses, which in turn leads to more jobs.
__________________
There is often a method to the madness, but always a madness to the method.

Without loss of generality, assume I am a squirrel.

I'm not an actor, I just play one on TV.
CheeseLord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 10:44 AM   #12
hyperme
Not Evil, Just British
 
hyperme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Britain
Posts: 1,322
Default Re: The Great Debate

Sonic, given your recent amitence to wealth through ownership, not employment, I feel you do not have the perpective those who or whose families do have to work for a living. Some of us/some of our families need to put effort into gaining money. Do you not find it hypocritical that you critize poor people for their laze, yet your family itself is not technically employed?

Futhermore, although you/your family do not suffer discrimination, many people do.

On the change loan providers point, this may not be easy. There are many factors in aquiring one, so if you can't get one in time for payout day, things get bad.
__________________
This space unintentionally left blank

Last edited by hyperme; 05-26-2010 at 08:32 AM.
hyperme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 11:06 AM   #13
Mr.Onion
Evil, random-voting vegetable
 
Mr.Onion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Down at the shore where there's no-one vacationing.
Posts: 4,862
Default Re: The Great Debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonicchaos1993 View Post
Why are you assuming that we are employed? Usually, the wealthy arn't the ones being employed.
The bank holding your independent wealth goes bust; Now what?

Regardless of where your income is coming from, the sort of cascading failure that would be triggered by a major bank like AIG collapsing would almost certainly affect you. That was the reason for the bailout in the first place; It wasn't possible to predict the extent of the damage of the banks collapsing.

Quote:
Furthermore, AIG is not the only bank from which a business could recieve a loan. If AIG went bankrupt, then companies can simply find another bank from which to recieve loans. The main reason that "banks" like AIG are doing poorly has more to do with housing loans, not business loans.
The banks won't pay out; They just lost a huge amount of money from AIG defaulting. The banks borrow incredible amounts of money from each other, so if one suddenly collapses, this makes the others more reluctant to loan to anyone.

Quote:
Not at all accurate. We are atheists. However, everybody has the opportunity for success.
Did you see the link in that section you quoted? It discusses exactly how you're wrong. (In short, minorities are paid 80%, or less, of what whites are. Would your life be as good as it is with only 80% of your income?)

Quote:
You are assuming that the bank we OWN (not WORK at) borrows from major banks. While tons of businesses were going under, we made a PROFIT. Not all business get their loans from big "banks."
Did you make a profit, or were you paid? Depending on the structure of the organization, there's a distinction.

Quote:
Fair to you perhaps, because it means that YOU don't have to pay more, while we DO. Who can afford it is irrevelent. We are all citizens, and therefore, we all have the SAME duty to help our country-- which includes paying taxes. A lot of money that our tax increases were made for help the poor-- many of which DO NOT PAY TAXES, or pay much LESS taxes. How is it fair when one person pays 40% of their income while another person has to pay 20%?
Because the person paying 40% is earning twice, if not three times as much as the other person, and so still earns more money? Allow me to use Communist ideas, of all things, to support this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Marx (and you thought I was joking :p)
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
In short, charging you 40% of your income as tax won't result in you starving to death. The same cannot be said for charging 40%, or even 20% as tax in lower income bands.

Quote:
There was a time when there wasn't computers. As I have mentioned previously, I am okay with government intervention in EXTREME cases, and this would fall under such a category. A monopoly may not be created simply to raise prices indefinitely. It could be created so that competition is eliminated, and therefore, all purchases of that product go to the monopoly. Even if prices stayed the same as if there was no monopoly, the company would still have an increased profit. More sales = More profits.
The exact example is irrelevant; The point is that the only thing that forces most companies not to charge outrageous prices for their products, (think the difference between Macs and the equivalent generic PC, but bigger) is competition. In a monopoly, that doesn't exist, meaning companies can put prices as high as they want, if their product is necessary enough.

Quote:
Perhaps, but low costs = more profit, which helps the company and by extension the whole economy greatly.
So you're agreeing with my point that low production costs don't necessarily translate into any benefit for customers?

Quote:
@hyperme: I NEVER said that ALL poor people were lazy. However, there are some that ARE. There are also illegal immigrants, who get the work and get paid WITHOUT paying taxes at ALL, while they get some benifits that WE pay for, but that's a completely different issue.
What hyperme has already said about this.
__________________
Mr.Onion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 11:10 AM   #14
happystickman
Back From the Dead
 
happystickman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sticktopia
Posts: 1,514
Default Re: The Great Debate

Government regulation needs to be severely limited or completely destroyed. The capitalist system works much better when the government stays out of the way. Thought the entire histroy of America, the econmy goes though boom and bust cycles. The economy fixes itself though simple supply and demand economics. When the government tries to mess with this cycle, then they causes more harm then good. Competition sorts things out on its own.

America is the only country where the great depression is the great depression. When FDR created his sweeping "reforms", he messed with a system that was about to revitalize, according to economists. It is theorized that the depression would have ended a year or two earlier if the New Deal was never put into place.
__________________
"May the Emperor have mercy with the fool that stands against me, for I shall not"
happystickman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 11:15 AM   #15
Mr.Onion
Evil, random-voting vegetable
 
Mr.Onion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Down at the shore where there's no-one vacationing.
Posts: 4,862
Default Re: The Great Debate

Quote:
America is the only country where the great depression is the great depression.
[citation needed]
We had global trade back then, you know. When the American stock market collapsed, everyone's economies went down the toilet to varying degrees.
__________________
Mr.Onion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 12:30 PM   #16
hyperme
Not Evil, Just British
 
hyperme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Britain
Posts: 1,322
Default Re: The Great Debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by happystickman View Post
Government regulation needs to be ... completely destroyed. The capitalist system works much better when the government stays out of the way.
Yay, I don't need to exploit 3rd world countries to build my doomship, now I can do it anywhere, due to the lack of minium wage, health and safety standards or waste dumping rescritions! Hope you like toxic waste dumped in your rivers!

And that is why we need government regulation. Look at Victorian England and how the worrking class were treated.
__________________
This space unintentionally left blank
hyperme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 01:23 PM   #17
happystickman
Back From the Dead
 
happystickman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sticktopia
Posts: 1,514
Default Re: The Great Debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperme View Post
Yay, I don't need to exploit 3rd world countries to build my doomship, now I can do it anywhere, due to the lack of minium wage, health and safety standards or waste dumping rescritions! Hope you like toxic waste dumped in your rivers!
The press would report on such things and people would find out. They would stop buying the product and companies would have to do better in order to keep business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperme View Post
And that is why we need government regulation. Look at Victorian England and how the worrking class were treated.
Back then, there was no televised news or TV documentaries. People did not know the things happening, and could not act. When The Jungle was published to criticize the meat industry. The outrage then was by a lot of people, in an era when literacy was still low. in an era of televised news, the companies would be forced to change ways or be pushed aside by the competition.
__________________
"May the Emperor have mercy with the fool that stands against me, for I shall not"
happystickman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 01:26 PM   #18
hyperme
Not Evil, Just British
 
hyperme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Britain
Posts: 1,322
Default Re: The Great Debate

Yes, but if most businesses are doing these terrible things, there isn't much you can do to fight against it. That's why the regulatios are needed.
__________________
This space unintentionally left blank
hyperme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 01:27 PM   #19
happystickman
Back From the Dead
 
happystickman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sticktopia
Posts: 1,514
Default Re: The Great Debate

Boycotts are very powerful you know.
__________________
"May the Emperor have mercy with the fool that stands against me, for I shall not"
happystickman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2010, 02:47 PM   #20
Mr.Onion
Evil, random-voting vegetable
 
Mr.Onion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Down at the shore where there's no-one vacationing.
Posts: 4,862
Default Re: The Great Debate

I'd like to see you boycott supermarkets when their business practice has driven every corner shop and such into the ground.
__________________
Mr.Onion is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Welcome to teh debate's thread FlatOutLie Total Mayhem 10 10-10-2014 07:48 PM
New Rules Debate texasjoshua Mafia & Forum Games 41 11-28-2011 01:11 AM
The Capital Punishment Debate LRT General Blabber 19 11-13-2009 10:14 AM
Psychic Powers, the Debate grim3vil Total Mayhem 47 12-04-2008 04:25 PM
Debate: Hamumu-Style! BlastOButter42 Total Mayhem 31 09-23-2008 02:40 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Site Map
Copyright 2017, Hamumu Games Inc.