Should government interfere with the economy?

[WaffleSingSong]

Hiyas. Been a long time X)

Anyways, we had this debate in class. And this really interested me on what people think, and how most fellow Americans are so blind in there consumerist society they do not know what is really happening in the U.S and what is really wrong with the nation. And why am I saying this?

Because, if the government does not control the economy, who will? Corporations. If we are too lenient on what a businesses can set it standards, this could lead to really low wages, and long hours of hard work with little insurance to cover you if you get injured thus lowering standards of life. Also, if the government does not set the limits on what a big business can and can not do, the opposite will happen. Corporations will be able to buy there favored politicians to power and can lobby with them to get there way. Also, corporations will be able to buy out the media to control what a nation's people what they watch. Turning a democracy ruled by the people into an oligarchy ruled by money. Sounds like a country we know?

MURICA!
Also, Benito Mussolini said, to end my argument, is...

"Fascism is the merger of corporate and state power."

Anyways, what do you guys think about this issue?

[Cicero]

No. The Government should mind it's own business, the more they get Involved the more it becomes a socialist country. Corporations do not own America, they are only 1% of it.

[Harry Smith]

If the Government have to get involved as a last resort then they should, look over here in 2008 when are banks nearly went Bust, if the government didn't interfere then we would have lost about half our banks and people's saving would have disappeared. Look at FDR work during the great Depression, he managed to get america back on track

[WaffleSingSong]

No. The Government should mind it's own business, the more they get Involved the more it becomes a socialist country. Corporations do not own America, they are only 1% of it.

You do not have to overwhelmingly have to overpopulate a nation to rule it as seen here.

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2011/10/28/10/if-us-land-were-divided-like-us-wealth-14991-1319811170-1.jpg

That 1% control all the major media, all of the major businesses and own most of the wealth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q this is a BEAUTIFUL video explaining whats wrong with America.

[Cicero]

You do not have to overwhelmingly have to overpopulate a nation to rule it as seen here.

image (http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2011/10/28/10/if-us-land-were-divided-like-us-wealth-14991-1319811170-1.jpg)

That 1% control all the major media, all of the major businesses and own most of the wealth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q this is a BEAUTIFUL video explaining whats wrong with America.

Last time I checked, the majority of that 1% are republican and 90% of the major media is democrat.

[Jean Poutine]

Of course it should interfere with the economy. We don't want to live in post-Industrial Revolution Britain all over again.

History has shown us what happens when we let the private sector have any control over anything and yet some idiots are still for that rampant, savage capitalism. I swear.

[Kandanza]

History has shown us what happens when we let the private sector have any control over anything and yet some idiots are still for that rampant, savage capitalism. I swear.

But history has also shown what happens when governments control the economy.

Ask a politician this question - would you set your own ambition aside and give up your job if you felt it was the right thing to do for the country?

How many (modern day) politicians would say yes? The private sector has a different motivation - if they screw up they make no money :)

[Abigballofdust]

But history has also shown what happens when governments control the economy.

Ask a politician this question - would you set your own ambition aside and give up your job if you felt it was the right thing to do for the country?

How many (modern day) politicians would say yes? The private sector has a different motivation - if they screw up they make no money :)

Yet the private sector will have no problem stomping over the employees to make money.
This is why we need government intervention. Government needs to enforce labor laws, control the competition and change the fiscal and monetary policy according to actual situations on the market.

Also, we need to end this idiocy about politicians having complete immunity. If they screw up they should be punished. Every action they take should have a written planned outcome and a due date the task will be fulfilled. Failure to do so should result in sanctions. From deducing money, taking away a whole pay to jail sentences. Whatever is needed to motivate them.
E.g: I work at a call center and interview people on the phone. We work with big names. TV companies, political parties and corporations. If we don't manage to end all our tasks in due time, the company pays enormous fines to the clients, a state should be no different.
Let's say a politician promises me a tax increase will end up in the public debt getting lower by a year or two, but 2 years later it doesn't, this means I've been robbed and he should be stripped of his position and sent to jail. The only motivations politicians have today depends whether or not they have a conscience. Once you introduce money in the game, they'll all grow consciences.

[Kandanza]

Yet the private sector will have no problem stomping over the employees to make money.

What else do you expect an employer to do? He is in business to make money - an employee has a job to feed his family etc. If the employee doesn't like his job he can leave/get a better job or start his own business. Then he can stomp over his own employees :)

Also, we need to end this idiocy about politicians having complete immunity. If they screw up they should be punished. Every action they take should have a written planned outcome and a due date the task will be fulfilled. Failure to do so should result in sanctions.

Agree 100%. A politician only needs to do 2 things
to get elected - say the other guy's doing bad elect me cos I have all the answers
to get re-elected - say well I still have the answers it will just take more time

Basically he can lie and if people are dumb enough to believe him he'll succeed. That worked well for Obama :)

If politicians were personally accountable for what they did - as you suggest - we would have a different world today.

But who could change rules to make politicians accountable - only politicians themselves. I doubt they'd do it :)

[xmojox]

The government has to regulate the economy, at least to some degree. Imagine the evil and chaos if they didn't. They should indeed be held accountable for their actions. It seems fair to me that paid elected officials should be compensated the average income of the people they represent, and, if they take extra from any source, they should be prosecuted. Also...why do corporations have or need First Amendment protection? A corporation is an imaginary person, so they should have an imaginary right to free speech to keep them from funneling millions toward the campaigns of their favorite puppet politicians.

[Kandanza]

It seems fair to me that paid elected officials should be compensated the average income of the people they represent, and, if they take extra from any source, they should be prosecuted.

They are. If a politician takes money because of his job (vote for this bill and I'll give you $10,000) he would be prosecuted.

What you're saying is exactly the same as saying if somebody kills another person they should be prosecuted. They already are.

Also...why do corporations have or need First Amendment protection?

Because they're tax paying entities that have a perfect right to influence the people who spend their taxes. That's called democracy.

[WaffleSingSong]

Last time I checked, the majority of that 1% are republican and 90% of the major media is democrat.

It doesn't matter about Republican and Democrat really, there really the same party in a ton of ways. Last election showed that Romney and Obama were not that different at all, just the media hyped it up to make it sound more competitive. And why did they? There owned by the same people who put there money in Obama and Romney. The friction in America is truely more of a fight for freedom and liberty rather than left/right, even if the majority of Americans do not know it.

But who could change rules to make politicians accountable - only politicians themselves. I doubt they'd do it :)

The only way to truely kick a politician out of power is by the people doing it themselves either by peaceful means or by force.

[xmojox]

They are. If a politician takes money because of his job (vote for this bill and I'll give you $10,000) he would be prosecuted.

What you're saying is exactly the same as saying if somebody kills another person they should be prosecuted. They already are.

No, it isn't the same at all. So far as I know, there's no way to legally murder someone. There are, however, ways for elected officials to legally receive "gifts" from lobbyists.

Because they're tax paying entities that have a perfect right to influence the people who spend their taxes. That's called democracy.

How old does a corporation have to be in order to vote in elections? They obviously don't enjoy all the rights of a flesh-and-blood person. Maybe I should clarify...they can "say" whatever they'd like. When it comes to donating huge sums of money because they are exercising their First Amendment rights, that's another matter, entirely.

[Kandanza]

No, it isn't the same at all. So far as I know, there's no way to legally murder someone. There are, however, ways for elected officials to legally receive "gifts" from lobbyists.
Such as?


How old does a corporation have to be in order to vote in elections? They obviously don't enjoy all the rights of a flesh-and-blood person. Maybe I should clarify...they can "say" whatever they'd like. When it comes to donating huge sums of money because they are exercising their First Amendment rights, that's another matter, entirely.

That's the point a company can't vote so money is the only way they can influence politicians.

Don't you think paying taxes give them some rights?

[Danny_boi 16]

It is necessary for Federal government or government in general to organize the enterprise of the people with regulations. Government has always organized and oversaw our enterprise and the economy. If the government’s does not oversee the economy the credit rating of the country will fall; you can see this in the European Union. I’m not saying that Government to be in complete control of the economy, the credit rating must oversee the economy is necessary for foreign relations

[naglfari]

Last time I checked, the majority of that 1% are republican and 90% of the major media is democrat.

of course they're republican, they use the republican party to do their bidding lol. under republican presidents inequality between the rich and the middle/poor classes has soared.

part of the government's job does need to be regulating corporations so that capitalism benefits the people, not just the super rich. in essence protecting the people from corporate rule. people say socialism to refer to the government doing anything to help people at all, like that's a bad thing. its crazy. the countries with more socialized governments did much better in the recession than more capitalist ones you know.

[xmojox]

Such as?




That's the point a company can't vote so money is the only way they can influence politicians.

Don't you think paying taxes give them some rights?

This has gotten rather off-topic, but I'll give you short and most likely unsatisfactory answers then withdraw from this side-debate before it gets too far out of hand.

If you're interested in what sorts of gifts are allowed to elected officials, a quick internet search can point you to the information.

Paying taxes gives corporations many rights that flesh and blood people don't have, and, paying taxes allows them to continue conducting business as an artificial person.

[Southside]

No. The Government should mind it's own business, the more they get Involved the more it becomes a socialist country. Corporations do not own America, they are only 1% of it.

Corperations do own America, that's why we are in this mess now. I dont mean to bring the Middle-East into this domestic disuccsion but, why do you think Israel gets so much of our tax dollars? Its the pro-Israeli and Jewish lobbyist groups who push congress to give it to them.

[Harry Smith]

Corperations do own America, that's why we are in this mess now. I dont mean to bring the Middle-East into this domestic disuccsion but, why do you think Israel gets so much of our tax dollars? Its the pro-Israeli and Jewish lobbyist groups who push congress to give it to them.

Haha yeah Blame the jews for everything that always works

[Southside]

Corperations do own America, that's why we are in this mess now. I dont mean to bring the Middle-East into this domestic disuccsion but, why do you think Israel gets so much of our tax dollars? Its the pro-Israeli and Jewish lobbyist groups who push congress to give it to them.

What else do you expect an employer to do? He is in business to make money - an employee has a job to feed his family etc. If the employee doesn't like his job he can leave/get a better job or start his own business. Then he can stomp over his own employees :)



Agree 100%. A politician only needs to do 2 things
to get elected - say the other guy's doing bad elect me cos I have all the answers
to get re-elected - say well I still have the answers it will just take more time

Basically he can lie and if people are dumb enough to believe him he'll succeed. That worked well for Obama :)

If politicians were personally accountable for what they did - as you suggest - we would have a different world today.

But who could change rules to make politicians accountable - only politicians themselves. I doubt they'd do it :)

So Obama is doing a bad job in your opinion? I hate when people say how shitty the economy is but never say anything about the billions of dollars wasted in STUPID wars in Iraq & Afghanistan in the Bush years. The US went to surplus(Clinton Years) to downright 6billion dollar deficit. But..No one pays attention to that of course, just blame it on Obama. Im not a full democrat(more of a independent leaning left), but I see Obama as a maid cleaning up a mess that will take atleast 10-20 years to get under control.

[Abigballofdust]

What else do you expect an employer to do? He is in business to make money - an employee has a job to feed his family etc. If the employee doesn't like his job he can leave/get a better job or start his own business. Then he can stomp over his own employees :)

My parents are employers, so I'm talking with some arguments here.
You don't need to stomp on your employees to succeed. If you threat them with respect and pay them what they're worth you can get more out of them.
Also, go tell an employee in a country with an unemployment rate of 21.9% that he can leave if he doesn't like it.

[Southside]

Haha yeah Blame the jews for everything that always works

I have nothing against Jews, I have something against Israel though. I use to be one of those pro-Israel people who thought that Israel was a tiny country surrounded by a bunch of other countries who wanna blow Israel off the map. Then, I found out about the atrocities, see the media always talks about how Palestian militants kill 1 or 2 Israeli civilians but never report about the hundreds of thousands of Palestians killed in the last couple decades by Israel. Israel is a terrorist state.

[irishguy123]

i think they should be involved in the economy in certain areas only as there are certain services and tasks that only governments can afford to pay for

[xmojox]

So Obama is doing a bad job in your opinion? I hate when people say how shitty the economy is but never say anything about the billions of dollars wasted in STUPID wars in Iraq & Afghanistan in the Bush years. The US went to surplus(Clinton Years) to downright 6billion dollar deficit. But..No one pays attention to that of course, just blame it on Obama. Im not a full democrat(more of a independent leaning left), but I see Obama as a maid cleaning up a mess that will take atleast 10-20 years to get under control.

This mess will never be controlled the way either republicans or democrats are trying to do it.

[Sugaree]

The government should only care about government services. Unless the economy is tanking faster than the Titanic, it has no right to interfere with the economy.

[Taurus]

If the government were to just drop all involvement in the economy, the economy would collapse. There wouldn't be an economy without the government, at least not a better one. Where and how would we export our goods around the world without trade agreements? Governmental authorization and diplomatic relations are required to transport goods from one country to another. Without government, there would be no laws preventing monopolies, no laws requiring minimum wage, no laws for safe working conditions, no laws for fair treatment in the work place... a governmental presence is required to maintain the economy.

[Sugaree]

If the government were to just drop all involvement in the economy, the economy would collapse. There wouldn't be an economy without the government, at least not a better one. Where and how would we export our goods around the world without trade agreements? Governmental authorization and diplomatic relations are required to transport goods from one country to another. Without government, there would be no laws preventing monopolies, no laws requiring minimum wage, no laws for safe working conditions, no laws for fair treatment in the work place... a governmental presence is required to maintain the economy.

Why not just let the economy go where it wants? If the government feels it's going somewhere it shouldn't, then we can complain for the government to take control of it. The entire economy shouldn't be controlled by the government.

[xmojox]

If the government were to just drop all involvement in the economy, the economy would collapse. There wouldn't be an economy without the government, at least not a better one. Where and how would we export our goods around the world without trade agreements? Governmental authorization and diplomatic relations are required to transport goods from one country to another. Without government, there would be no laws preventing monopolies, no laws requiring minimum wage, no laws for safe working conditions, no laws for fair treatment in the work place... a governmental presence is required to maintain the economy.

Being able to engage in trade without the permission of the government is called free trade. I personally agree that the government should not allow monopolies to occur, but I'm unconvinced that a legislated minimum wage is a good idea...minimum wage goes up, prices go up to pay for it. No real net gain. As far as safe working conditions and fair treatment in the workplace, these are civil rights, not economic issues.

[Helena]

Hiyas. Been a long time X)

Anyways, we had this debate in class. And this really interested me on what people think, and how most fellow Americans are so blind in there consumerist society they do not know what is really happening in the U.S and what is really wrong with the nation. And why am I saying this?

Because, if the government does not control the economy, who will? Corporations. If we are too lenient on what a businesses can set it standards, this could lead to really low wages, and long hours of hard work with little insurance to cover you if you get injured thus lowering standards of life. Also, if the government does not set the limits on what a big business can and can not do, the opposite will happen. Corporations will be able to buy there favored politicians to power and can lobby with them to get there way. Also, corporations will be able to buy out the media to control what a nation's people what they watch. Turning a democracy ruled by the people into an oligarchy ruled by money. Sounds like a country we know?

MURICA!
Also, Benito Mussolini said, to end my argument, is...

"Fascism is the merger of corporate and state power."

Anyways, what do you guys think about this issue?


No economy is purely a command economy or a free market economy.
They are all mixed systems even though many countries such as the USSR had attempted to make their economies purely Communist.

The government should interfere with the economy because someone does have to regulate. However, businesses should also be free to do as they choose.

If you're interested in this, I suggest you read the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Her views are very extreme but her economic views are intersting.

[Jean Poutine]

But history has also shown what happens when governments control the economy.

Yeah, it results in forward-thinking, liberal places where people have more guaranteed rights than ever and where raising a family isn't complete bullshit like in North America. Every country should be like France.

That's the point a company can't vote so money is the only way they can influence politicians.

Don't you think paying taxes give them some rights?

But all the shareholders, CEOs etc can so you think it's fair to give them double the political rights, as natural persons AND as legal persons? They can use both their natural weight as a person and the weight their corporation gives them to achieve their political goals, and you call that democratic? Stop the Kool-Aid man, Scalia's a dick.

What else do you expect an employer to do? He is in business to make money - an employee has a job to feed his family etc. If the employee doesn't like his job he can leave/get a better job or start his own business. Then he can stomp over his own employees

Look, the point is moot. We all know what living under the yoke of corporations with minimal state intervention is and it's called 18th century Britain. Do you think these workers had the choice to just change jobs if they didn't like it? What is choice good for if all my options are shitty? "Oh I have the choice between this one 70hr/week job that pays 5$/hr and this 80hr/week job that pays 4$...we're all working in squalid conditions though and the foremen beat us the hell up if we refuse to do 30 hours of overtime on the bosses' whims". You wanna see how a market like that looks like? China. Chinese peasants all look really happy with their yoke in life don't they? Keep your conservative nonsense out of my labor relations.

The government is necessary in the relationship between employer and employee because one is vastly more powerful than the other. PERIOD. There are no ifs and no buts. It's in the interest of society as a whole for the government in intervene in labor relations simply because one party is so much more susceptible to control and has much less bargaining tools.

ps : ayn rand is a double-dunking idiot. There, I said it.

[naglfari]

But history has also shown what happens when governments control the economy.


modern germany?

[Kandanza]

modern germany?

Fair point. But the German government had the foresight to think long term and do things that would take 20 + years to bear fruit. Today no government thinks beyond getting re-elected in 4 years. I don't think Germany's success could have been replicated by a government today because our (I'm in UK you seem to be USA) governments don't/won't think beyond the next election.

If a modern day politician could do something that looked very good in the short term but would be disastrous in the long term (ie after he's gone) he would do so - he'd put his own interest above his country. Clinton's mortgage policies would be an example - they got lots of votes from poor people at the time but the damage was only felt when Clinton was long gone. Good for Clinton bad for the country - modern politician's thinking.

My point isn't so much that government's shouldn't interfere because it's wrong rather government's shouldn't interfere because they're not competent to do so.

[Harry Smith]

Fair point. But the German government had the foresight to think long term and do things that would take 20 + years to bear fruit. Today no government thinks beyond getting re-elected in 4 years. I don't think Germany's success could have been replicated by a government today because our (I'm in UK you seem to be USA) governments don't/won't think beyond the next election.

If a modern day politician could do something that looked very good in the short term but would be disastrous in the long term (ie after he's gone) he would do so - he'd put his own interest above his country. Clinton's mortgage policies would be an example - they got lots of votes from poor people at the time but the damage was only felt when Clinton was long gone. Good for Clinton bad for the country - modern politician's thinking.

My point isn't so much that government's shouldn't interfere because it's wrong rather government's shouldn't interfere because they're not competent to do so.

Firstly the main reason why Germany were successful was due to the fact that there country was pretty much destroyed and they were able to start over again and build modern infrastructure, where as in the UK were still have waterworks that are 130 years old.

The government are competent to be involved in the economy when they need to be, look at the Bail out of the Banks here in the UK, we shouldn't of had to do it in the first place but if we didn't then not only would our banking system of collapsed but many Brits would have lost their savings

[Kandanza]

Firstly the main reason why Germany were successful was due to the fact that there country was pretty much destroyed and they were able to start over again and build modern infrastructure, where as in the UK were still have waterworks that are 130 years old.

Certainly being destroyed was a contributory factor - no doubt it focused the mind.

You don't agree that the fact German government took a longer term view than US/UK politicians would today was a major contribution to their success?

The government are competent to be involved in the economy when they need to be, look at the Bail out of the Banks here in the UK, we shouldn't of had to do it in the first place but if we didn't then not only would our banking system of collapsed but many Brits would have lost their savings

All the government did was write a (huge) cheque. I hardly think spending a vast amount of taxpayer money demonstrates competence - any fool could do that.

Competence would have been not letting the situation happen in the first place.

[Harry Smith]

Certainly being destroyed was a contributory factor - no doubt it focused the mind.

You don't agree that the fact German government took a longer term view than US/UK politicians would today was a major contribution to their success?

Politicians are under pressure to bring results in there mandate, voters do not care what they are going to do in 25 years time, the German economic plan was greatly helped by the Marshall Plan, invented by the US. This highlights the long term thinking of the US in 1945.

All the government did was write a (huge) cheque. I hardly think spending a vast amount of taxpayer money demonstrates competence - any fool could do that.

Competence would have been not letting the situation happen in the first place.

How could they have stopped it happening in the first place? it wasn't through the governments work that the banks crashed, it was through irresponsible lending by the banks in the first place. Nothing to do with the Government

[randomnessqueen]

the best government wont talk, theyll just act. and when their work is finished, the people will say "Wow, we did it all on our own!"

[brandon1995]

No. The Government should mind it's own business, the more they get Involved the more it becomes a socialist country. Corporations do not own America, they are only 1% of it.

The Government is the United States of America and represents it's people. So why should they take a backseat to some Corporations? Big Business and Wall Street caused the crash an recession, don't you feel they should be held responsible for that?


Of course it must protect the citizens from abuse and exploitation by Corporations. When it doesn't do that, you get "Corporate Socialism"--tax breaks, special laws and regulations--that benefit Corporations at the expense of the people.

[Ajmichael]

Of course the government needs to be involved, the government relies on the economy. If there is a boom, the government has to use that money to improve the welfare of the country through improving infrastructure and social benefits, if there is a recession, then the government has to change the way the economy develops to improve growth. It's something that in Britain we call The Budget... The government if Singapore is very involved in the economy, and as a result of that, Singapore was practically untouched by the 2008 financial crisis.