Bush's 2007 Budget

I actually disagree with this point. I think any industry with economies of scale will tend towards one or a few competitors. As this trend evinces itself, these competitors will use the political system to create additional barriers to any other entrants. It's a chicken and egg question but I think this one has an answer -- and its not the government.

Here is a link to some Stanford case studies that you might find interesting reading.

http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-95-96/corporate-monopolies/development.html

 

First, let me just say that my conclusions here will obviously be theoretical since there has never been a truly free-market capitalist society.

But if there were, no one would have the power to force you to spend your money on any particular purpose. I believe the problem with government is that they are given, essentially, unlimited power. And as humans are prone to do, they abuse this power.

A truly free-market society would be a true democracy in that people would vote on everything with their dollars. If something has value it would be paid for, if not then it would never exist.

The free-market would make mistakes, but these mistakes would be corrected in time. I believe the power of the free market over time leaves the most people satisfied. It also gives everyone the ability to work to fix anything that they see as wrong in society. If you feel that something is wrong in the US today do you really feel like you could possibly make a difference?

I think that the internet & globalization will bring the power of competition to politics. It may be a painful transition and a time of confusion but if countries end up competing for business and workers as the flow of capital & humans moves around the globe then in the end the free-market will finally win the battle of philosophies because it is more natural; like evolution, survival of the fittest.

gotta run now, I'll check back in tommorrow

 

I find most of this arguing just a lot of big hypocrites being hypocrites. The drug companies have documents that were made public basically saying they didn’t look for a cure for Aids because there is no money in cures in the long run. So that’s why I said before there is less money in curing people. To all the people and the bush government that like preaching Jesus shit there are not a lot of true givers out of all of you. I don’t remember Jesus preaching no compassion. Mschey who I don’t care to attack never answered my post. This is a perfect example of people who don’t intentionally hurt other people but don’t practice what they preach. So that is why government has a roll to help people because left to the individual they say one thing but then avoid doing anything. If you don’t have to see the poor people everyday it’s easier to not help. Also do you notice Bush is saying if you want help you should go to a church. So that’s basically pressing religion on people because it’s hard to not like the hand that feeds you. I think that’s the same way the Arab terrorist recruit poor people into there cause.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63724&perpage=6&pagenumber=14

 

Libertad you wrote

Energy will never be green until the oil industry is controlled by the government...Alternative energy will just be priced out of favor if it is not nationalized....A nationalized energy program is chosen by its taxpayers via the internet...

I agree with you, but you are missing one big thing, currently the oil industry is controlled by the government

Bush and Cheney!

Therefore there is no incentive to go alternative energy since their croanies, including the House of Saud continues to make more money.

 

National Debt brought to by the Reagan and Bush administrations where Fear is the one trick pony used to line the pockets of the big defense companies. Giddyup!

 

Yes there was, like I said, study history and look at the imperialism age of Europe. It was as close to raw capitalism as it could ever get, being that the government intervention was near nonexistent and the capitalists did whatever they wanted. Do you think it is a coincidence that Europe is a socialist regime?

Study USA during the 1890-around 1910, it had minimal government involvement and was pretty much raw capitalism since government officials were so easily paid off. Blue collar human labor was treated like cattle and had no rights, all while earning a minimal wages barely sufficient enough to survive which kept them as slaves to the capitalist owner. Government laws & regulations slowly arose turning the model into a capitalist/welfare state. Of course that still allowed the monopolies & oligopolies to develop before Teddy Roosevelt cracked down. This is High School history stuff, a further study will really open up your eyes. Capitalism in its purest form was invented through real life & history, not a textbook.

 

This is the point I was trying to make, if you have government officials being paid off then you are not talking about a free market because government officials are given power to force decisions upon people.

Before the income tax was instituted in 1913 I do believe what you have a good example of is capitalism under a relatively small & limited government. This is something that does not exist today; I don't think anyone can argue that our current federal government is small by any means.

And wasn't european imperialism driven by governments? That is what it sounds like to me, as described here from a high school world history class:
http://mclane.fresno.k12.ca.us/wilson98/Assigments/ImpCH11.html

 

Dude, you a Highlander??

 

That's what I thought. Answer: inequality.
Roman empire, French monarchy, Zar's Russia, Chinese dinasties, British colonialism, pick your choice, no matter how wealthy or efficient an economy is, when enough people are getting frustrated and they say fuck it, they will.

Good luck with yourself.