Democracies and Mutual Respect

What a dumb thing to say. You haven't actually addressed any of my points at all, merely dismissed them and called me a 'government lover.'

I actually believe in small gov't as well. There isn't any reason why we can't have both small government and proper regulation. But, it is easier for you to denigrate me than it is to actually respond to my posts, so...

Show how what she and I have said is wrong, or don't bother posting again; you haven't advanced your side of the argument in several pages, and it's really getting old arguing with someone who can't argue back, but resorts to insults and denigration.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Do you still claim there is no free market? Try running a business for a while if you've never tried it, then come back here and tell me theres no free market. Don't claim you know anything about it until you do.

0 Replies

What? That doesn't even make any sense.

What if I said, 'Try running a government for a while before you talk about how badly it is run, Okie.' Would you accept that and shut up with governmental criticisms? I doubt it.

I still claim that the term 'free market' does not apply to our current situation at all. You have been unable to show that this is untrue, or even to refute a single one of my points. Instead, you substitute what you wish my argument was, by claiming I said there was no competition - neither I nor Plainoldme said this, and you can't link to where we did - and tell me to shut up and call me crazy when you can't refute my points.

Weak. Try actually attacking my argument or responding to points, for once.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What a dumb thing to say. You haven't actually addressed any of my points at all, merely dismissed them and called me a 'government lover.'

I actually believe in small gov't as well. There isn't any reason why we can't have both small government and proper regulation. But, it is easier for you to denigrate me than it is to actually respond to my posts, so...

Show how what she and I have said is wrong, or don't bother posting again; you haven't advanced your side of the argument in several pages, and it's really getting old arguing with someone who can't argue back, but resorts to insults and denigration.

Cycloptichorn

Huh. Now you know how most of the conservative posters on A2K feel. Welcome to the club.

0 Replies

I accept that, McG, but would like to limit discussion to the argument at hand with Okie; I don't want the subject to change, and allow him to get away without addressing the points I raised.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Huh is right McGentrix. I've been trying to convince Cyclops and plainoldme that we still have a free market in this country and that consumers have choices as well as the producers, and both factors influence the goods and services that are available. They would have none of this logic, and apparently think I am not in touch with reality. So be it. I guess its part of my education about what the intelligentsia in this country actually think, and its worse than I thought for sure.

Cyclops, we can argue some more, but if you claim "bribes, trickery, and economic manipulation" has completely destroyed the free market, I think your are pretty far out. At one point, volume buying was criticized. I suppose that is trickery or economic manipulation? I don't know where to start. I would suggest we argue one point at a time instead of making your ridiculous sweeping claims, to which I throw up my hands and say you are hopeless.

0 Replies

Sigh, okie... we have never contended that what you just said is untrue. Just that there are other factors which play a huge role in determining how the market works, that have nothing to do with consumers or choice.

This is not difficult to understand.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sigh, okie... we have never contended that what you just said is untrue. Just that there are other factors which play a huge role in determining how the market works, that have nothing to do with consumers or choice.

This is not difficult to understand.

Cycloptichorn

Here we've been debating some of the statements made, such as plainoldme contending there was no free market and complaining about the lack of variety of products, and so forth, and I simply pointed out how far off her arguments were as well as yours where you attempted to defend her. Now, you seem to be shifting your position to that of yes, it is a free market but there are other factors that affect it. Okay, so now what we have left to argue is just how much of the market is free and how much effect other factors have on it.

Why don't you just admit you were wrong instead of shifting your position?

I have never contended that some artificial factors cannot skew the free market. Among these are tax policies, various federal regulations, and trade policies. Inasmuch as many of these policies can affect an industry across the board, the companies providing the service or producing products are still equally penalized or stimulated in roughly the same fashion by those policies. The simple fact is that business in this country is dominated by competition, price, supply, demand, and choice by consumers, in other words, a free market. Some policies might be more selective and skew the free market somewhat, but it is still basically a free market.

If you want to address clear examples of "bribes, trickery, or economic manipulation," that seriously compromise the free market, then I am more than willing to debate them, but the examples must be specific and backed up by clear evidence. And it would be better to concentrate on 1 or 2 at time, rather than making several sweeping vague accusations.

0 Replies

Lol, I haven't shifted my argument in the slightest. The 'free market' as you put it doesn't exist. The Corporation has killed it in many ways. I have already outlined this adequately, and you have no counter whatsoever for my arguments.

Once again, you are changing my argument - that the Corporation has lead to the demise of the Free Market through its very structure - into the one you want to have.

Now, it seems to me that you have changed your argument; now, you are admitting that:

Quote:

Some policies might be more selective and skew the free market somewhat, but it is still basically a free market.

So, we still have a 'basically' free market. Seems to me that you are moving the goalposts from your earlier contention.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

So how has the corporation led to the demise of the free market? Where did you get this idea? And who do you propose run the business that have sufficient capital to run big business, instead of corporations, rich people, government, just what do you propose?

0 Replies

Sheesh, how many times do I have to repeat myself?

Companies which start out having a purpose to build a product or service, become companies to make money once they take on investors through the issuing of stock.

These same companies have no connection between the ownership and the company itself. The investors care about money, not morality. Those who bring in the highest profits are rewarded by the investment community, those who don't, aren't.

This creates an atmosphere in which doing the right thing actually has negative connotations for one's company. The only positively rewarded action is creating a higher profit.

This leads to actions which are not free-market actions: bribery of government, destruction of environment, hostile takeover of smaller Corporations, supression of employee rights. Anything to get higher profits, because that is what the market rewards.

This is exacerbated by Due Dilligence laws. Let me know if you don't understand how this applies.

In the end, a company which wants to provide a good service at a good price, cannot compete with Corporations who are willing to break the law, ruin the environment, and have the money to bribe inspectors and regulators (not to mention politicians, to change the laws). Small businesses don't have the legions of accountants to avoid paying taxes altogether. They don't have the massive buying power, or ability to employ foreign slave labor, the way the large Corporations do.

So, the 'free market' isn't free at all. There are a large body of factors which determine the market, regardless of consumer action. This leads to the demise of smaller companies as the Corporations are willing to do whatever it takes to get ahead, and many companies who are owned by people actually acquainted with the company are not.

Those who wish to act in a moral fashion, cannot compete with those who will act in an immoral fashion. This destroys the 'free market' concept, because it is no longer the consumer who is directly deciding which companies live and die.

---

Does competition exist? Of course it does!

Have Corporations done good things for our society? Of course they have!

You make it sound as if everything is black-and-white. Of course it isn't!

There is no reason why we cannot have companies acting in a responsible manner, and have competition. The Corporation, the powers granted to it, and the structure of investing have hurt this, however, and I am determined to work to change that.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sheesh, how many times do I have to repeat myself?

Companies which start out having a purpose to build a product or service, become companies to make money once they take on investors through the issuing of stock.

No, companies are started to make a profit by building a product or providing a service. That is what they remain. What a cockeyed statement was that?

Quote:

These same companies have no connection between the ownership and the company itself. The investors care about money, not morality. Those who bring in the highest profits are rewarded by the investment community, those who don't, aren't.

This creates an atmosphere in which doing the right thing actually has negative connotations for one's company. The only positively rewarded action is creating a higher profit.

Have you ever run a company? Companies that operate with no regard to the service they provide or products they produce, in other words with no regard to the happiness of their customers, will fail. To make high profits, you must provide a service the customer likes. The two are linked. High profits will not continue if the company is immoral with no regard for the customers, that is if they make a habit of cheating the customers. Not so with government, where immorality can run rampant because there is no competition. I had to throw in that observation for you Cyclops.

Quote:

This leads to actions which are not free-market actions: bribery of government, destruction of environment, hostile takeover of smaller Corporations, supression of employee rights. Anything to get higher profits, because that is what the market rewards.

This is exacerbated by Due Dilligence laws. Let me know if you don't understand how this applies.

In the end, a company which wants to provide a good service at a good price, cannot compete with Corporations who are willing to break the law, ruin the environment, and have the money to bribe inspectors and regulators (not to mention politicians, to change the laws). Small businesses don't have the legions of accountants to avoid paying taxes altogether. They don't have the massive buying power, or ability to employ foreign slave labor, the way the large Corporations do.

So, the 'free market' isn't free at all. There are a large body of factors which determine the market, regardless of consumer action. This leads to the demise of smaller companies as the Corporations are willing to do whatever it takes to get ahead, and many companies who are owned by people actually acquainted with the company are not.

Those who wish to act in a moral fashion, cannot compete with those who will act in an immoral fashion. This destroys the 'free market' concept, because it is no longer the consumer who is directly deciding which companies live and die.

Look, there are reams of laws governing crimes, bribery, you name it, including environmental laws, with state authorities as well as EPA looking over the shoulders of companies. Companies cannot break these laws without the possibility of them paying dearly for it. We see this all the time. Corporations can break laws. People break laws. Do you advocate doing away with all people because a few break laws? It is the people running the corporations, not the corporation that is the problem. Corporations employ gobs of lawyers and public relations people just to deal with the government and all of their reams of laws, some of which might be fairly obscure and easy to break there are so many of them.

And I vehemently disagree with your assertion that people that operate a business in moral fashion cannot compete with those that don't. I know plenty of people that do, and they consider your remarks ignorant and insulting.

---

Quote:

Does competition exist? Of course it does!

Have Corporations done good things for our society? Of course they have!

You make it sound as if everything is black-and-white. Of course it isn't!

There is no reason why we cannot have companies acting in a responsible manner, and have competition. The Corporation, the powers granted to it, and the structure of investing have hurt this, however, and I am determined to work to change that.

Cycloptichorn

Well, I don't know what you have planned, but I would suggest you first go run a business, then come back here and tell us what its all about. If you haven't, I don't think you know enough about what you are talking about, which I think alot of your opinions show.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

So how has the corporation led to the demise of the free market? Where did you get this idea? And who do you propose run the business that have sufficient capital to run big business, instead of corporations, rich people, government, just what do you propose?

GO BACK AND READ WHAT WE POSTED. THERE IS NO FREE MARKET. T

0 Replies

Okie wrote:

Have you ever run a company? Companies that operate with no regard to the service they provide or products they produce, in other words with no regard to the happiness of their customers, will fail. To make high profits, you must provide a service the customer likes.

OKIE:
ADVERTISING SELLS THE WORST CRAP EVER CREATED. LOOK AT WHAT I WROTE ABOUT THE SKIRT SHOPPING EXPERIENCE AND ABOUT GREIGE GOODS AND PROCTOR AND GAMBLE'S COFFEE.

PEOPLE LIKE YOU BELIEVE A PRODUCT IS GOOD. . . THAT THEY NEED THE PRODUCT BECAUSE THE ADVERTISING FIRMS HIRED BY THE MFGers TELL THEM SO.

HAVE A CUP OF FOLGERS AND THEN FOLLOW IT WITH SOMETHING GOOD. YOU MIGHT DISCOVER YOU'VE BEEN DUPED BY THE CAPITALISTS!

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

Okie wrote:

Have you ever run a company? Companies that operate with no regard to the service they provide or products they produce, in other words with no regard to the happiness of their customers, will fail. To make high profits, you must provide a service the customer likes.

OKIE:
ADVERTISING SELLS THE WORST CRAP EVER CREATED. LOOK AT WHAT I WROTE ABOUT THE SKIRT SHOPPING EXPERIENCE AND ABOUT GREIGE GOODS AND PROCTOR AND GAMBLE'S COFFEE.

PEOPLE LIKE YOU BELIEVE A PRODUCT IS GOOD. . . THAT THEY NEED THE PRODUCT BECAUSE THE ADVERTISING FIRMS HIRED BY THE MFGers TELL THEM SO.

HAVE A CUP OF FOLGERS AND THEN FOLLOW IT WITH SOMETHING GOOD. YOU MIGHT DISCOVER YOU'VE BEEN DUPED BY THE CAPITALISTS!

Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone has the same tastes in coffee as you? Good grief. Heaven forbid I have to agree with your taste in products. I suppose you would like a government committee or the politburo to decide what is the best coffee for all the rest of us instead of allowing the people to decide with their pocketbooks.

0 Replies

Okie -- There is this thing called rhetoric. Its an example, Okie. Should I write more slowly.

Okie, corporations tell you the government is dangerous and restricts you, because the corporations are dangerous and restricting you.

You can vote against a senator or a mayor but you can not vote against a corporation.

When Pringles came out, everyone I knew in Michigan made fun of them. Forty years later, they are still around. While there are very tasty potato chips available, Pringles stays on because it is the policy of Proctor and Gamble to double by actual weight the amount of the crap they sell year after year.

People buy the junk because they are told to buy it. You can not vote with your dollars.

Okie, you are dangerously naive, and possibly just plain dangerous.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

Okie -- There is this thing called rhetoric. Its an example, Okie. Should I write more slowly.

Okie, corporations tell you the government is dangerous and restricts you, because the corporations are dangerous and restricting you.

No corporation ever told me this. I figured it out by reading history and by observation including observing the nature of governments, plus my own experiences.

Quote:

You can vote against a senator or a mayor but you can not vote against a corporation.

You don't have to vote for a corporation at the ballot box. You do it at the store. I can vote for a senator or a mayor, but there is no assurance they will do what I want, and I still have to pay them for it. I have to pay nothing to a corporation if I don't want to, I simply don't buy anything from them, and if enough people feel the same as me, they go out of business.

Quote:

When Pringles came out, everyone I knew in Michigan made fun of them. Forty years later, they are still around. While there are very tasty potato chips available, Pringles stays on because it is the policy of Proctor and Gamble to double by actual weight the amount of the crap they sell year after year.

People buy the junk because they are told to buy it. You can not vote with your dollars.

Okie, you are dangerously naive, and possibly just plain dangerous.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. I buy Pringles once in a while because I LIKE THEM. I don't live on them, but if I go on a trip or a picnic, I like them. Thats why I buy them. So don't call them crap. Just because you think they are, I am here to inform you it is still a free country thank goodness. Perhaps they don't have Pringles in Cuba, I don't know, but if you were Castro, there would be no pringles there for sure.

I NEVER BUY ANYTHING BECAUSE I AM TOLD TO BUY IT. This all proves one thing, as Rush says, liberals think people are stupid and therefore the government should make all the decisions for them. I am beginning to agree with him more and more.

This debate points out one good reason to vote. To vote against liberals that think we are all stupid enough to simply buy stuff because we are told to. You are the dangerous one. Not physically dangerous, but your philosophy is very dangerous. I would never want to see your thinking take over all of government.

plainoldme, are you okay? Is this a ruse on this debate or are you actually serious?

Speaking of mutual respect, you don't seem to respect my tastes. I like pringles, and I may like coffees that you don't like. You need to respect differing tastes rather than calling my chosen food items names. Where is your respect?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

plainoldme wrote:
First, I wonder, Okie, how it is that Cycloptichorn can understand exactly what I am saying and you can not.

You can quit wondering now. Please be informed as of now, that I do understand exactly what you are saying, but I simply disagree with it because you are wrong. Cyclops agrees with you because he is another liberal that loves government and distrusts business, so business is always the bad guy and profits are evil.

If you can understand, why can't you quote us correctly? I would love it if you could take the state mandated test, MCAS. I'd love to see your score.

0 Replies

First, let me post something Okie wrote:

companies are started to make a profit by building a product or providing a service. That is what they remain. What a cockeyed statement was that?
---------------------------

Okie, I would say that most corporations today are started solely to be bought by larger corporations so that the founders can make a quick killing.

---------------

Second, when someone reads poorly and continually demonstrates naivete as well as anger at people who are more educated than he, how can one argue with him?

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

When Pringles came out, everyone I knew in Michigan made fun of them. Forty years later, they are still around. While there are very tasty potato chips available, Pringles stays on because it is the policy of Proctor and Gamble to double by actual weight the amount of the crap they sell year after year.

People buy the junk because they are told to buy it. You can not vote with your dollars.

Okie, you are dangerously naive, and possibly just plain dangerous.

plainoldme, I had some pringles this past weekend along with our backyard barbecue. I LOVED them. They were DELICIOUS!! Hooray for the company that makes them. I chose to buy them. Thank goodness you aren't running the country and outlawed Pringles.

By the way, if you are teaching a class or something, I think it is probably worthless. The university is only offering it to make a profit, feather its own nest, perpetuate a worthless university so that you and the administrators can rake in the money along with a cushy retirement. We are told to go to college and take the courses that are nothing more than crap. Nothing but greed. Razz

Quote:

Okie, I would say that most corporations today are started solely to be bought by larger corporations so that the founders can make a quick killing.

plainoldme, I would say that most universities are started solely to support the administrators and professors, both their salaries and cushy retirements. Once tenured, it is nigh impossible to get rid of an incompetent professor, proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that the professors are more important to the university than the service provided to the students who pay for and expect a decent education.

0 Replies

Democracies and Mutual Respect

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know