Again, show me where I said "profit is bad"
Michael said:
Explain to me how Healthcare and Profits are 'mutually exclusive'. Saying something isn't the same as making a logical argument. How about food? Is food and profits 'mutually exclusive'? How about education? Is education and profits 'mutually exclusive'? How about medical devices? How about drugs? How about housing?
As a humanist I am inclined to say yes to all those examples.
Show me where I said that "profit is bad". If you read a little closer and with a little more attention you would have noticed that I clearly said "But it depends on your definitions of profit and fair pay".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)
You specifically stated you were inclined to say 'yes' to all of the examples. This suggests you have a warped and negative view of the role profit plays in a free-market society.
That was the impression I was left with. Perhaps you can elaborate.
But the subject is not the price of coffee!!!!! It is the billions of dollars of profits by companies who pay their workers so little they need to supplement their income with food stamps or other government services such as day-care for their children while they go to work.
Firstly, we live in a Progressive Republic with State-regulated markets and a Fiat State Currency. We live in a society where the workers have to pay the State in the State's currency an 'income tax' just
TO work.
And you wonder why they're poor?
What happens to blueberries when they come into season? The price comes down.
What happens to labor when there's too many workers? The price per hour comes down.
Why is it that 120 years ago the dream of most Americans was to start and own a business and now, 120 years later - it's to be a worker. What role does Public "Education" play in producing workers instead of entrepreneurs? What role does 'regulations' play in preventing competition and stopping people from opening up businesses? What role does fiat currency instead of sound money play in society?
I have a question for you: If the US Government can create as much fiat currency as is needed (without borrowing and going into debt, without selling 30 year T-Bonds) to fund all public schools, all public universities, to pay for research into medical cures, to pay for everyone's children to have access to food - healthcare for everyone, why don't we do that instead of borrowing the money by selling 30 T-Bonds on unborn children and taxing the worker?
When the Chinese buy a 30 Year T-Bond, what is it they are buying?
Perhaps you should follow your own advice and define non existent terms like unfree-market. I give you plenty of references, which you conveniently ignore.
But this link clarifies my humanist position in regard to the need for "regulated commerce".
http://thehumanist.org/january-february-2012/corporations-or-people-restoring-the-common-good/
There is no such thing as "
the common good". We're not a collective hive. We are not our citizen stamp at birth. We are not a 'label'. We are individual humans. Saying the
common good is like saying '
for Uncle Sam' or '
for the good of Islam' - it makes no sense. It's a mental short-cut. But prosperity is defined as Time + Civil Liberties. State regulations reduce civil liberties and therefore by definition make society poorer.
In a free society, one based on property rights, sound money and law, people freely exchange with one another and from prosperity - this is how we attain a high standard of living. It's estimated that if we had no more regulations since 1949, the average yearly income would be $350,000. Imagine all the great things we could do with THAT much extra money. The poor would be few and those few would be taken care of properly - not shovelled into Public Housing and forgotten about.
Well, at last we share sympathy, except you lament the terrible regulations to companies, where I lament the victims of unregulated companies.
There is not a single company in the USA that is not regulated. The highest regulated industry is finance. The second highest regulated industry is healthcare. These are also the top two (in the order) political donors. What you don't get is the regulation isn't there to help you, law and property rights ensure you are legally protected, the regulation is there to harm you. Regulators and Industry leaders are literally in a revolving door. They use regulation to harm the public.
Would you say that defines an unfree-market? You are conveniently ignoring the link to "monopoly profits", where there is no competition and the consumer has no choices. Energy providers are usually monopolies
.Have you ever looked into the research on monopolies? Only one true monopoly has ever existed in the USA. Do you know what happens to price with monopolies? It's always lower. While this may seem counter-intuitive, I'll leave it to you to look up the research because I read a PhD dissertation whose thesis and research was exactly on the topic of US monopolies and this is the data. Even when Standard Oil (not a true monopoly) was broken up, the price of oil went UP not down. The Rockefellers quadrupled their wealth over night. In a free market monopolies are very hard to maintain and the price is LOW to prevent competition entering.
And then of course you must sympathize with me against "corporate welfare"
I don't have a problem with corporations not being taxed at all - neither should workers.
When a company is taxed all that happens is they pass the cost onto the buyer. The money is sent to the Government where it is frivolously wasted.
But you insist on talking about the price of a cup of coffee, which is a perfect example of free market, you can find coffee stands wherever you look, while I am talking about the poorest among us, you know the few million elderly people, or people with pre-existing conditions, whose food stamps just were reduced and now have the "free choice" to buy needed drugs or starve to death on the "free market", or the "free choice" of a few million parents and their children to sleep in their car or under a bridge because they cannot afford to pay rent on the "free market".
We don't live in a free market. We live in a State regulated market, one where workers have to pay the State in the State's currency a transaction tax when they work.
So, don't blame the free-market, we don't live in a free market - it's the reason we're becoming poorer and will continue to become poorer.
Which has now been formalized by SCOTUS in the Citizens United case and this latest little known decision.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-still-thinks-corporations-are-people/259995/
Until they start working for a company like Enron.
http://finance.laws.com/enron-scandal-summary
Remember Madoff?
And? This happened in the State regulated market that uses State fiat currency. Blame the State and it's regulations and currency - don't blame freedom.
You keep insisting that government is causing all the regulations rather than responding to abuses of the free market system. We are not talking about the price of a cup of coffee, we are talking about billions if not trillions of dollars which could easily provide a healthy economy for all, if returned into the economy in the form of living wages, free education, affordable healthcare, affordable housing.
One more time, we do not live in a free market. We are Tax Cattle in a Pen called the United States of America. A highly regulated pen. One where workers are forced to pay the State in it's currency just to work. The Federal Reserve is owned by Private Banks (themselves owned by private individuals - some very wealthy) that are "regulated" by the State - the CEO's revolve into and out of Treasury.
At the end of the day - if you want to work in the USA, you will pay the State a transaction tax in the Banker's currency for the mere act of labor. So, stop blaming this magical free-market that doesn't exist.
Perhaps you have not heard that oil and gas drillers can have your private property confiscated and in general ARE exempt from regulations,
Have you ever heard of the Halliburton Loophole?
Let me guess, this is a 'regulation' the State devised for it's cronies at Haliburton?
Again - what does this have to do with a free-market based on sound money, law and property rights? Let's imagine if Haliburton damaged your property via an oil leak. What would happen? Could you sue? Nope. There's a "Regulation" that protects Haliburton FROM YOU. See, this is what regulation is there for - it's to protect big companies from the people they screw over. In a free market you'd have recourse through the justice system. You'd also have access to insurance on YOUR SIDE. Instead insurance hass ALSO written 'regulations' that prevent you from recourse.
So, one more time - we do not live in a free market. We live as Tax Cattle in a State-Regulated Tax-Pen called the USA.
NOTE THAT THESE ARE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS which have circumvented the regulations that protect our property rights and freedom to have access to clean drinking water.
They have NOT "circumvented' regulations - they WRITE the regulations. They are the reason why we HAVE regulations.
For your information I used to be a fan of Ayn Rand and have read all her books. But she was hopelessly na�ve as has been proven time and time again.
Fair profit is good, greed is bad. Unregulated greed is terminal to a democratic nation, which espouses equal rights to share in the benefits of the nations resources.
We wouldn't know because we do not live in a free society.
I am done, if you still cannot see the NEED for government regulation in certain industries and government assistance to the least of us, you might as well advocate for Darwinian natural selection as is the case in some third world countries where dead people lay along the roadside from starvation and lack of shelter or of speaking up against the current dictatorship.
Again, we live in a State regulated tax-pen.
The Government just spent $59 BILLION dollar to spy on us for Christ's sake. It just blew through $13 billion on an aircraft carrier. You think the State is there to help but I'm sorry it is not there to help you. It is there to help the rich become richer.
It would be good for population control, but then don't expect the government to help you in time of crisis, like Katrina, Sandy, Oil spills on land or in the oceans, E-coli in your food on the "free market" or finding your well contaminated and you land confiscated. You might become a victim yourself.
Again, in a free society WITH private property rights you sue if your property is damaged (or your insurance company does so on your behalf).
When you say we need the Government what you're saying is we need to initiate force against innocent people. That is the only way the Government distinguishes itself from any other group of humans. That's it. You may want to ask - why do you think like that? It's a simple question. Is it frustration? Hate of other people? Childhood? Why?
Because I grew up poor - $40/wk in a tiny trailer, and I don't think like that. I think we can work together peacefully. While I (sadly) don't think we can live in anarchy, I do think we can live with LIMITED government. One that probably needs an additional branch just to deal with currency - once the Federal Reserve system is eliminated.
I personally see ObamaCare as a sideshow. The real show is how quickly the so-called LEFT and RIGHT came together (over a two day weekend) and agreed to bail out the Banks to the tune of nearly a $1 Trillion and since then trillions and trillions more. AND MORE TO COME. Let's hope the State implodes.
Take a look at Public School's with 47% illiteracy rates - this is ObamaCare in 30 years.
Take a look at Public Housing with massive drug use and gun violence - this is ObamaCare in 30 years.
Take a look at Public Roads that kill or harm a million people a re year - this is ObamaCare in 30 years.
Take a look at medicine as it is today - 1 in 5 a misdiagnosed and 1 in 12 would be better off NOT GOING to hospital! Now, imagine what those statistics will be in 30 years. You can't even begin to imagine what it's possibly going to be like.
