Are Corporations a Threat to Democracy?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I personally believe that they are not, for the sole reason that we have freedom of choice in purchasing their products or not. I'll expand on that as the debate continues. Nonetheless, I am interested to hear what others think on the issue.

[Major Robert Dump]

I believe that they are when unchecked. But they are also more efficient. Despite what the Greenies say, a corporate farm is going to pollute far less than 25 small farms producing the same amount of food.

And no, we don't always have a choice. Drug companies are a prime example, and military contractors are another. When you mix in the buddy system and corporate influence in campaigns and politics, it gets very ugly indeed.

[Beskar]

Yes they are.

Democracy is regulation of politics to make things fairer and more equal. Freer the market, more unchecked power. Democracy checks political power, to assist in preventing it isn't abused. Socialism would be an economical example of checking the economical power of corperations. This is to try to stop exploitation.

In democracy, are also responsible and accountable by the masses, in socialism, you are also responisble and accountable by the masses. Without that responsibility and accountablity, it gives rise to exploitation.

[Fragony]

No, you know what they are after and why. Leftist politicians are a much greater threat because they want absolute control.

[Beskar]

I believe that they are when unchecked. But they are also more efficient. Despite what the Greenies say, a corporate farm is going to pollute far less than 25 small farms producing the same amount of food.

Oh, you are talking about collectivism? This is usually associated with communism, not free market where you have the 25 random small farms.


No, you know what they are after and why. Leftist politicians are a much greater threat because they want absolute control.

I don't think responsibility and accountablity = absolute control. Absolute control would mean it is responsible to an absolute sole/dictator, and since Lefties don't like dictators and would put checks in place to prevent them (opposed to free-for-abuse politics such as the Free[for-abuse] Market).

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, they certainly aren't. They can be detrimental to the liberty of people, but that's like most any group.

Nearly all dangers stemming from corporations trying to influence politics and infringe on people's rights can be avoided if the population as a whole rejects the idea of government interference or widespread regulation in the economy.

Acceptance of high regulation is used by unscrupulous companies in order to push regulations that benefit them economically. Such regulation not only distorts the free market and therefore the most efficient allocation of resources, but often infringes on the right of people to conduct business as they would choose with others.


Yes they are.

Democracy is regulation of politics to make things fairer and more equal.

No, it's government determined by the people.


Oh, you are talking about collectivism? This is usually associated with communism, not free market where you have the 25 random small farms.

In America, the word corporate means just about the opposite of collectivism. Because the farm is run by a corporation that wants to make profits, not by people who want to give things to people according to their need.

You see, there's a big difference there, huh? Do you see the difference?

I want to explain this clearly, because it seems you think the size of a farm determines its socio-economic philosophy. But really, a big, corporate farm is more efficient than smaller farms due to economics of scale. Now, that's a complex phrase, so here's a link that explains it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

Just click on that and read it and you'll see what I'm saying about large farms.

Now, in America we have many large, corporate farms. So the free market is not associated with "25 random small farms". MRD wrote about corporate farms, but you seemed to think he said the opposite thing. And by opposite I mean what you wrote about the free market was directly contrary to what MRD said, and the reality shows, the free market of farms is.

Also, MRD wrote that big corporate farms are more efficient than many smaller ones (economies of scales again!). You seemed to think that means collectivism is more efficient.

But that isn't right. Because of fundamental flaws in socialistic theory, collectivist farms in history have been less efficient - often much less so - than private farms of any size. So collectivism isn't efficient, but inefficient, which means more work for less food. Which is why the Soviet Union had to import grain.

CR

[Fragony]

I don't think responsibility and accountablity = absolute control. Absolute control would mean it is responsible to an absolute sole/dictator, and since Lefties don't like dictators and would put checks in place to prevent them (opposed to free-for-abuse politics such as the Free[for-abuse] Market).

It's utopian in nature, never going to stop going for that 100%, no matter who and what. Comes down to this, company's eat each other for their market-share, governments feed on everything

[seireikhaan]

Leaning nay. Some basic checks need to be in place so that we don't go back to late gilded ages. Obviously, like any large, expansive group of people, corporations can go wild. But I don't see them as terribly hard to contain with the right motivation, and after that ought to be left alone.

[jabarto]

No, they certainly aren't. They can be detrimental to the liberty of people, but that's like most any group.

Okay, so we're in agreement so far...


Nearly all dangers stemming from corporations trying to influence politics and infringe on people's rights can be avoided if the population as a whole rejects the idea of government interference or widespread regulation in the economy.

Wait, what? Without regulation corporations would reduce their workers to wage slavery. Or are you seriously insinuating that the corporations only have good intentions and would always act in good faith were it not for the big mean government always stepping in?


Such regulation not only distorts the free market and therefore the most efficient allocation of resources,

That's funny, right?

Anyway, I think my answer to the question is obvious. They aren't a direct threat to democracy as long as they're reigned in by strict regulation.

[Meneldil]

When companies grow bigger and richer than some states, they indeed become a threat to democracy, the people and the economy as a whole.

Now, I'm kind of baffled by the liberal idea that companies are bad only if governement regulation steps in. As far as I know, back in the 19th -when western governements avoided any kind of regulation- workers were barely glorified slaves and consummers had no rights at all. All the wealth went in the hands of a few people, while the majority of the population worked 14 hours a day 7 days a week. And thinking about going on strike was enough to send you to jail or to get you shot at by the army. Awesome system, I say.
So please enlighten me as to how regulation is a bad thing.

You want unchecked and unregulated companies? Then read Dickens and Zola, or move to China, because that's what you want. Myself? I'll pass.

[rory_20_uk]

And no, we don't always have a choice. Drug companies are a prime example, and military contractors are another. When you mix in the buddy system and corporate influence in campaigns and politics, it gets very ugly indeed.

Erm, call me biased, but for almost every condition there is more than one drug. Popular ones can have dozens all doing slightly different things.

Corporations can wield massive power especially over smaller states. In big ones generally the number of them will mean government is pulled in several directions and often balancing each other out (USA and healthcare is obviously an example where everyone is pulling in the same direction). Smaller states can be so dependent on a small number that they hold massive power over what is done, and as are often not motivated by "nice" principles will worsen the lot of the locals.

~:smoking:

[Ironside]

No, they certainly aren't. They can be detrimental to the liberty of people, but that's like most any group.

Nearly all dangers stemming from corporations trying to influence politics and infringe on people's rights can be avoided if the population as a whole rejects the idea of government interference or widespread regulation in the economy.

Acceptance of high regulation is used by unscrupulous companies in order to push regulations that benefit them economically. Such regulation not only distorts the free market and therefore the most efficient allocation of resources, but often infringes on the right of people to conduct business as they would choose with others.

CR

So these unscrupulous companies would be scrupulous if they didn't have a concentration of power to attemt to corrupt?
And only use fair means to get fair advantages against other companies and/or to make profit?

I'll ask one counter question:

Is democracy always more profitable than lack of democracy?

Personally, I would say that in some cases, yes. Particually if they get large and powerful and a big corperation is more efficient due to economics of scale...

[KukriKhan]

Erm, call me biased, but for almost every condition there is more than one drug. Popular ones can have dozens all doing slightly different things.

Corporations can wield massive power especially over smaller states. In big ones generally the number of them will mean government is pulled in several directions and often balancing each other out (USA and healthcare is obviously an example where everyone is pulling in the same direction). Smaller states can be so dependent on a small number that they hold massive power over what is done, and as are often not motivated by "nice" principles will worsen the lot of the locals.

~:smoking:

I was about to vote "No; no threat", until I read rory's answer. That got me thinking. Looking at it as a matter of scale, corporation size : democracy unit (State or Country), I can see that a large corporation could have a delterious effect on a smallish State. For example, what if Microsoft's HQ and production facilities were in Malta, a country of only 400K citizens (120K voters)?

That might skew/unduly influence policy and voting patterns in Malta, always in favor Big Daddy.

So, I'll soften my vote to "Leaning No", to recognize that it depends on context; where a corporation is.

[Fisherking]

In the way they have been developed and allowed to be essentially immortal entities they are.

It is more the courts and laws surrounding them that has made the trouble but in a representative democracy they wield much too much political power and compete with individual liberties vs. corporate wellbeing.

Most of the representatives are as liable to be bought and sold now as they were in the 18th century.

I am certainly not anti business. I am just much more pro individual liberties...

[Husar]

Well, Intel almost got AMD off the market and almost established a monopoly that way but then the evil EU stepped in, sentenced them to a big fine and said these methods are forbidden and now the stores that Intel paid to only sell Intels before are slowly starting to offer computers with AMD CPUs.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Should the EU have let the market regulate itself and do free market economists agree that a monopoly is a good thing or could uncle Tom have stepped in and produced some CPUs in his garage to compete with Intel?

Then, in the times of pretty much unchecked markets you could also buy people there, it was only when governments forbid it that human trade went to the black markets of the evil sex industry and disappeared from it's place next to aunty Anna's fruits and vegetables stand, or did I misunderstand something here?

[CountArach]

They certainly aren't doing any good for African Democracy. Diamond trade anyone?

EDIT: In case it wasn't obvious, I don't like the fact that this thread is predicated on the idea that Democracy is a Western institution. 'Third World' Democracy is ignored here.

[Louis VI the Fat]

When companies grow bigger and richer than some states, they indeed become a threat to democracy, the people and the economy as a whole.

Now, I'm kind of baffled by the liberal idea that companies are bad only if governement regulation steps in. As far as I know, back in the 19th -when western governements avoided any kind of regulation- workers were barely glorified slaves and consummers had no rights at all. All the wealth went in the hands of a few people, while the majority of the population worked 14 hours a day 7 days a week. And thinking about going on strike was enough to send you to jail or to get you shot at by the army. Awesome system, I say.
So please enlighten me as to how regulation is a bad thing.

You want unchecked and unregulated companies? Then read Dickens and Zola, or move to China, because that's what you want. Myself? I'll pass.:jumping:


Humans are not ants. Society serves the individual. Corporations serve the economical well-being of individuals, not the other way round.


Edit: 'Are corporations a threat?' Well, both a threat and the means by which much of our economy is organised. I must give the boring answer: give me a strong, solid liberal democracy with a capitalist means of production. In practise, I want more regulation, more de-privatization. The welfare of society should be the goal, not the welfare of corporations. For that, move to China or the Congo indeed.

[Pannonian]

Erm, call me biased, but for almost every condition there is more than one drug. Popular ones can have dozens all doing slightly different things.

Corporations can wield massive power especially over smaller states. In big ones generally the number of them will mean government is pulled in several directions and often balancing each other out (USA and healthcare is obviously an example where everyone is pulling in the same direction). Smaller states can be so dependent on a small number that they hold massive power over what is done, and as are often not motivated by "nice" principles will worsen the lot of the locals.

~:smoking:
Comparable to landowners and rotten boroughs. The smaller the borough and the fewer the landowners, the more rotten the borough. Until you have the example of Dunny-on-the-Wold.

[Fragony]

Diamond trade anyone?


Yeah who would do a thing like that

[Beskar]

You see, there's a big difference there, huh? Do you see the difference?

I want to explain this clearly, because it seems you think the size of a farm determines its socio-economic philosophy. But really, a big, corporate farm is more efficient than smaller farms due to economics of scale. Now, that's a complex phrase, so here's a link that explains it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale


Reply like that again and I am sticking you on ignore. I am not an idiot and I do know all about the economics of scale, this remarks was simply uncalled for.


Which is why the Soviet Union had to import grain.

It was because the farmers burned all their land and slaughtered their livestock so it never went into the hands of that government as they were sent to the gulags and the land was then worked by people who didn't have a single clue how to actually farm.



On another point, I agree with comments from the following members as these are examples of how it is a big threat or sprouted opinions which say they are:
CountAnarch
Louis VI the Fat
Husar
Fisherking
rory_20_uk
Meneldil
jabarto

[Crazed Rabbit]

Wait, what? Without regulation corporations would reduce their workers to wage slavery.


Really? Why? It's not the most profitable approach. There seems to be an unfounded fear that without strict regulation we'll return to the worst excesses of the late 1800s.


Reply like that again and I am sticking you on ignore. I am not an idiot and I do know all about the economics of scale, this remarks was simply uncalled for.


Sorry, I meant no offense, I just saw this remark;


Despite what the Greenies say, a corporate farm is going to pollute far less than 25 small farms producing the same amount of food.Oh, you are talking about collectivism?



So please enlighten me as to how regulation is a bad thing.

I said high regulation. A few simple rules (not polluting, etc.) are good.

CR

[Strike For The South]

It's a catch-22. Corporations usually do a much better job than the goverenment and as was mentioned early in the thread big ones can fianance products that would otherwise be unfianancable.

Now of course they sink there greedy paws into goverenment but that's been going on for centuries.

Where's the "We've been getting screwed for awhile but at least have some cool stuff to show for it" option?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Where's the "We've been getting screwed for awhile but at least have some cool stuff to show for it" option?That option is in the Monastery, in the thread 'The world before neo-liberalism'.

[jabarto]

Really? Why? It's not the most profitable approach. There seems to be an unfounded fear that without strict regulation we'll return to the worst excesses of the late 1800s.

Well, yeah. The 1800's pretty much proved that if they can possbily squeeze another dime out of someone without consequence, they're more than likely to try.

Just curious, what *is* the most profitable approach if not this?


A few simple rules (not polluting, etc.) are good.

CR

Maybe I gave you too little credit before. You're leagues above most libertarians if you're willing to admit that.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, yeah. The 1800's pretty much proved that if they can possbily squeeze another dime out of someone without consequence, they're more than likely to try.

Just curious, what *is* the most profitable approach if not this?

If your workers cannot buy your products, you are losing their business and therefore their money. It is more profitable to pay workers a living wage and to have them buy your products. That is why we are no longer in the 1800s, not because of government regulation. I would argue that the 1800s are not an example of pure, unfettered capitalism at all, but that is another point altogether.

[Idaho]

A corporation is going to do everything legal, and will push the boundaries of the law, in order to get more money. This effect is amplified the larger it gets. A massive corporation has no other reason to exist but to make more money. And that money is used to directly challenge or reinforce decisions that make the corporation richer or poorer. The larger corporation often has so many offshoots in so many different markets that it has no overall 'trade' or 'industry sector'. It simply deals in the business of business. Money. And when money gets big enough that a small change in the law here, tax percentage there, or foreign policy decision elsewhere makes billions of dollars difference to the corporation's profits - that corporation will take measure to influence that decision.

Corporate interests control the political campaign's of politicians and the access to those politicians - the democratic value of a citizen's vote is hence greatly diminished.

[Ironside]

If your workers cannot buy your products, you are losing their business and therefore their money. It is more profitable to pay workers a living wage and to have them buy your products. That is why we are no longer in the 1800s, not because of government regulation. I would argue that the 1800s are not an example of pure, unfettered capitalism at all, but that is another point altogether.

First: That's Fordism, the capitalistic counter to socialism (yes I agree that the middle class and the western world is built on that idea).

Second: That's not true for the induvidal company. They profit from low wages if the ones with high wages are plentyful enough compared to your own employees. Otherwise we wouldn't have production export to low salary countries. And it's certainly not a fundamental idea amongst prominent supporters of capitalism. Why would they otherwise fight against minimun salaries? Or proposing a general salary decrease as a whole or for large speciffic groups?

[Jolt]

No, it's government determined by the people.

No. Democracy is both. It was created by the people who were for centuries oppressed under an immobile social pyramid with little or no chance for social mobility. It was because of this plight that democracies appeared exactly with the intention that Beskar described them to be. Otherwise, why would all democratic constitutions uphold the idea equity and fairness. To prevent abuses the powers are separated, and each power is checked by the other ones.


No, you know what they are after and why. Leftist politicians are a much greater threat because they want absolute control.

I find it funny that you and other people here saying "Politicians want absolute power, and it is because of that, that we should never allow them to regulate things which don't need their regulation."
But what about Corporations themselves? How come Politicians are interested in absolute power, and yet, Corporations are not interested in gaining as much political and economical power as possible to do their own bidding and subject countries to their own interests? Are Corporations all that is missing in Politics? Should we allow Corporations to rule us since they do not care for absolute power? History has proven us time and again that Corporations thrive on ambition for as much power and profit as possible for themselves, leading to cartels, trusts and other assorted dealings which allow them to brush off competition and gain a full monopoly to subject entire societies and political powers to their own interests.

[Meneldil]

If your workers cannot buy your products, you are losing their business and therefore their money. It is more profitable to pay workers a living wage and to have them buy your products. That is why we are no longer in the 1800s, not because of government regulation. I would argue that the 1800s are not an example of pure, unfettered capitalism at all, but that is another point altogether.

That would be true, if:
- it weren't possible to export your goods to other places where people might be able to buy them
- corporations made plans based on the long-term.

As it is now, they are only driven by short term profit, and are willing to do anything to increase these profits. Even if it means destroying the system that gave birth to them.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Too big to fail = Too big to exist.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I love how when a thread is opened in the Backroom you can usually predict the viewpoints of other members. The turns that debate takes when the rare deviation from expected thought occurs are also very interesting, as are the fluctuations in how vocal the left is versus how vocal the right is every quarter. :book:

EDIT: Many people have said their general opinions on corporations, but few have actually stated outright why or why not they are threats to democracy specifically. Thoughts?

[rvg]

Too big to fail = Too big to exist.

amen to that. Chop-chop-chop.

[Beskar]

I would argue Worker Councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_council) and certain types of Cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative)'s are the changes that need to occur in the economy. It is socialist ideas such as these which are the best.

Also, just to make this clear, Socialist doesn't mean = nationalised. These Worker Councils and Cooperatives can operative privately/independently.

[Beskar]

Sorry, I meant no offense, I just saw this remark;


I was hinting towards something different, the comment was a tongue in cheek reference, nothing major.

However, there are some problems with economics of scale which is highly dependent on technology and geographical factors. The same is in politics too, as when nations became too big, they began to crumble.

[Husar]

EDIT: Many people have said their general opinions on corporations, but few have actually stated outright why or why not they are threats to democracy specifically. Thoughts?

Well, I ignored that on purpose because it's a difficult question, some corporations might be a danger to democracies, others may not, I don't hate corporations per se as long as I get the impression that they're somewhat fair all around, but then that rarely happens without government intervention, partly because the huge mass of people will do anything to please the corporations even if they say otherwise. In an ideal world people would just refuse jobs where they aren't paid enough, not gonna happen though with 4 million unemployed craving to get a job...

There needs to be a balance in most things, too much corporation and not enough government is just as bad as no corporation and lots of government. The market often regulates itself but the market is also often stupid, that's where clever people want the government to step in, after all the point of a government is to keep the people happy and regulate things from the top. :smash:

[Beskar]

I have no problems with small independent ventures and being honest, I doubt anyone really does. I do believe a that a few of the fundamentals should be definitely be nationalised/publicly owned. This includes water, energy and infrastructure and once this is done, they configure the prices at a level which would make them self-sufficient.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Democracy is just a system of government where the decisions of the government is decided either directly or indirectly through chosen representatives by the will and consent of the people being governed.

Since nowadays all "democracies" are indirect with representatives of some sort, I will talk about that.

Yes, corporations are a threat to democracy, just as the people themselves are a threat to democracy through a self destructive tyranny of the majority that eventually leads to a class struggle of some kind.

The threat from corporations comes from the idea of corporate personhood which is a double bladed sword. On one hand you would not wish for corporations to have no legal protections, the economy would never take off under such a system. However, the downside is when the idea that a corporation can legally lobby government just like any individual citizen begins to shift the attention of the government officials from the needs of the people to the needs of big business.

This is evident just by comparing the lobbying strength of some of the worlds biggest companies like Microsoft which makes more money every year then most countries even. That's a lot of lobbying from companies drowning out the common man, especially under the guideline in the U.S. right now determined by the Supreme Court in some cases I am blanking out on right now where they held that essentially "money=free speech". Obviously, under this guideline any company is going to have more free speech so to speak then the average citizen, or many of them combined even. When this happens you cannot say it is Democracy since it is no longer the will of the people through votes that is deciding the direction and policies of the government of government but business who give enough money to politicians for them to win a now hollow election through pandering and massive advertisements.

Is this how it is in the U.S.? Obviously not, because no matter what, the politicians are still chosen by the people which preserves a connection between a politicians and his/her constituents and prevents a total override from corporations from being able to turn the country back into the Gilded Age, such a drastic decrease in the standard of living for peoples lives will get everyone angry and politicians will need to actually work for them (or at least pretend to) to make sure everybody is not thrown overboard so to speak. But nevertheless, when the people are happy and content and the economy is doing well and everyone is distracted by their bread and circuses, are the politicians maintaining the will of the people?

That being said, I just wanted to say the point of people being able to choose who they buy from has no impact at all. Nowadays, companies rarely work toward just making sure only themselves are gaining from manipulated regulation, but instead work together to form extremely large "automaker lobbyists" and "oil lobbyists" so that any such regulation lets all of them make off with lots more profit. Since the goal of a company is to make profit, corporations by now (over the course of 100+ years) realize that it is not a zero sum game where in order to make more they need to win over more customers from their competitor through better marketing/products etc..., they can see that what makes everyone another $100,000,000 is great because now they can take this extra profit to their share holders which will drive up the stock price in the market which will make all the CEO's lots of money, and the billions and millions spent on competing for a better product is now cut down to the hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay key legislators to push forward the regulation.

[Idaho]

Is this how it is in the U.S.? Obviously not, because no matter what, the politicians are still chosen by the people which preserves a connection between a politicians and his/her constituents and prevents a total override from corporations from being able to turn the country back into the Gilded Age, such a drastic decrease in the standard of living for peoples lives will get everyone angry and politicians will need to actually work for them (or at least pretend to) to make sure everybody is not thrown overboard so to speak. But nevertheless, when the people are happy and content and the economy is doing well and everyone is distracted by their bread and circuses, are the politicians maintaining the will of the people?

Throw in a full stop now and again would you? :laugh4:

Your politicians aren't chosen by the people. Your politicians are picked from a well vetted and controlled shortlist. Those who can secure corporate backing are are the only ones allowed on the two big tickets.

[Jolt]

Throw in a full stop now and again would you? :laugh4:

Your politicians aren't chosen by the people. Your politicians are picked from a well vetted and controlled shortlist. Those who can secure corporate backing are are the only ones allowed on the two big tickets.

Indeed. If you have a major candidate who doesn't support the corporations, then he simply isn't funded by the corporations and innevitably will never rule. Thus we can say that corporations have in fact usurped popular power.

[Fisherking]

While corporations may pose some threat, I think that our own representative legislation bodies usually pose a greater risk to our freedoms and liberties...

Some times they really could read what it is they are voting on...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In my opinion corporations may well be a threat, but no more than politicians, the civil service, the government, and even [or perhaps especially] the electorate itself.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Throw in a full stop now and again would you? :laugh4:

Your politicians aren't chosen by the people. Your politicians are picked from a well vetted and controlled shortlist. Those who can secure corporate backing are are the only ones allowed on the two big tickets.

Yes that was my point. The corporations have an overwhelming influence over who are voted upon but the fact that people are the ones voting nevertheless, means that corporations can only go so far in their abuse since a population which is unhappy is a population that is unlikely to vote Mr. 5 term Senator from having a 6th term. A politician wont sacrifice his/her job for the corporations because they know that by appeasing the population with some good ole populist lecturing toward corporate CEO's (how many of you came here on private jets instead of coach...you should accept being paid a dollar a year to help your company...etc) they can get more money through lobbyists in the long run by keeping their job then by helping the corporations fully achieve their attempt to turn 2009 America into 1889 America.

[Idaho]

In democratic terms, corporate control of the shortlist of US presidents is much like the Communist Party control of the shortlist of candidates in the old USSR.

[Beskar]

In democratic terms, corporate control of the shortlist of US presidents is much like the Communist Party control of the shortlist of candidates in the old USSR.

And the shortlist of candidates for the Europe Union.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In democratic terms, corporate control of the shortlist of US presidents is much like the Communist Party control of the shortlist of candidates in the old USSR.

That's really a bit much. Take a look and freedom and democracy indexes comparing the USA to the USSR. Then again, they're probably controlled by evil corporations too, right?

[Idaho]

That's really a bit much. Take a look and freedom and democracy indexes comparing the USA to the USSR. Then again, they're probably controlled by evil corporations too, right?

That's only because the right to freely exercise capital power has wrongly been labelled as 'democracy'. In this sense China is a democracy. You can go and make millions there just don't expect to have any political power. In many ways the west is coming to the same situation, but from the other side. Power is increasingly centralised, political institutions increasingly pointless.

In fact other than the odd comment about human rights, the west doesn't really give a toss about Chinese democracy any more than it's own.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Personal economic freedom is an important part of liberal democracy, as those who eliminate economic freedom tend to rule autocratically. However, it is not the only part, nor is it confused with or substituted for other democratic freedoms by the agencies that carry out these surveys.

For example:

Top 25 Countries by Economic Freedom. Try to find China.

1 Hong Kong
2 Singapore
3 Australia
4 Ireland
5 New Zealand
6 United States
7 Canada
8 Denmark
9 Switzerland
10 United Kingdom
11 Chile
12 Netherlands
13 Estonia
14 Iceland
15 Luxembourg
16 Bahrain
17 Finland
18 Mauritius
19 Japan
20 Belgium
21 Macau
22 Barbados
23 Austria
24 Cyprus
25 Germany

Democracy Index (2008)


1 Sweden
2 Norway
3 Iceland
4 Netherlands
5 Denmark
6 Finland
7 New Zealand
8 Switzerland
9 Luxembourg
10 Australia
11 Canada
12 Ireland
13 Germany
14 Austria
15 Spain
16 Malta
17 Japan
18 United States
19 Czech Republic
20 Belgium
21 United Kingdom
22 Greece
23 Uruguay
24 France
25 Portugal

You will notice that while they do not match, the United States, for example, is still rated as both economically free and a democracy. Nobody denies that other rights are important, but you can have economic freedom and be a democracy. In fact, it is integral.

[Beskar]

You will notice that while they do not match, the United States, for example, is still rated as both economically free and a democracy. Nobody denies that other rights are important, but you can have economic freedom and be a democracy. In fact, it is integral.

Not really. Also, at what basis is something classed as democratic? It ends up getting distorted due to peoples opinions of what is democracy and rights.

However, while you argue it is "integral" why are some of the most social economics in Europe topping the list?

Also, what is classified as economically free? Is it free to construct monopolies and cartels, or is it freedom from monopolies and cartels?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not really. Also, at what basis is something classed as democratic? It ends up getting distorted due to peoples opinions of what is democracy and rights.

The definition of liberal democracy is relatively straightforward.


However, while you argue it is "integral" why are some of the most social economics in Europe topping the list?

You will find that they also have amounts of economic freedom. However, the freedom of the citizen within the democracy is integral to economic freedom. If I can't start my own business and manage it, then how am I free? Almost every country below the fiftieth position on the Index of Economic Freedom is undemocratic and/or very corrupt. Sweden and Norway average at about the fifteenth position when democracy and economic freedom are both taken into account.

The truth is that the vast majority of democracies are economically free or relatively so.


Also, what is classified as economically free? Is it free to construct monopolies and cartels, or is it freedom from monopolies and cartels?

Monopolies are not part of the free market, but they should be prevented by the free market wherever possible. The creation of monopolies is another topic.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Monopolies are not part of the free market, but they should be prevented by the free market wherever possible.

You are delusional.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You are delusional.

Hardly. My position can be summarized as: monopolies are not good, therefore competition is good, therefore the more competition the better, therefore a properly conducted free market which emphasizes competition. Delusional? I think not.

[Husar]

Monopolies are not part of the free market, but they should be prevented by the free market wherever possible. The creation of monopolies is another topic.

The free market does not prevent monopolies, the government does.

That's not to say I'm against the free market but it's not the cure for everything.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The free market does not prevent monopolies, the government does.

Incorrect, as the government often implements monopolies. Monopolies are not prevented specifically by the free market or government, but they can be prevented by a properly implemented free market or by properly implemented government rules, or both. It depends what is preferred.

[Beskar]

Incorrect, as the government often implements monopolies. Monopolies are not prevented specifically by the free market or government, but they can be prevented by a properly implemented free market or by properly implemented government rules, or both. It depends what is preferred.

Well, it if wasn't for the US and EU courts, I doubt the Market would stop Microsoft.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The free market does not prevent monopolies, the government does.

That's not to say I'm against the free market but it's not the cure for everything.


Incorrect, as the government often implements monopolies. Monopolies are not prevented specifically by the free market or government, but they can be prevented by a properly implemented free market or by properly implemented government rules, or both. It depends what is preferred.

You both are right (and wrong). The government can prevent/remove monopolies such as when it broke up Standard oil and AT&T, it can also create monopolies through corporate lobbying manipulating the system and altering regulation (such as how the Sherman Anti Trust Act actually crushed more unions then monopolies until alterations later in the early 20th century). The free market does not prevent monopolies, the entire Gilded Age shows us that, so it is probably for all of our best interests to make sure the government is doing its job right instead of distrusting it.

[Beskar]

You both are right (and wrong). The government can prevent/remove monopolies such as when it broke up Standard oil and AT&T, it can also create monopolies through corporate lobbying manipulating the system and altering regulation (such as how the Sherman Anti Trust Act actually crushed more unions then monopolies until alterations later in the early 20th century). The free market does not prevent monopolies, the entire Gilded Age shows us that, so it is probably for all of our best interests to make sure the government is doing its job right instead of distrusting it.

Exactly hitting the nail on the head. You need regulation, you need to make sure they don't become too powerful so have that much control.

The free-market also caused the credit crunch, the free-market caused the great depression and the 21st century depression (the one we are in). The companies served only themselves and as they destroyed the world around us, we had to pay billions to try to stop us from returning to the Dark Ages.

Only thing free the free market does is allow those with power freedom to do what ever they want, the power to ignore law, the power to exploit, the power to abuse, the power to destroy what is good for profit. Freedom to fuel and fund war in Africa sot hey can sell their goods, Freedom for off-shore slave labour camps for the latest Nike trainer, Freedom for corruption.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The free-market also caused the credit crunch, the free-market caused the great depression and the 21st century depression (the one we are in). The companies served only themselves and as they destroyed the world around us, we had to pay billions to try to stop us from returning to the Dark Ages.

With all due respect, that is garbage. Nonetheless, that is a discussion for another threat, not this one.

[Beskar]

With all due respect, that is garbage. Nonetheless, that is a discussion for another threat, not this one.

No it isn't, it is funny that all the regulated banks in Europe were fine, while the loosely regulated ones based in places like America and the UK just crumbled into dust.

It is the lack of control and due care of the corperations which cause chaos and massive politicisation which brought about the worst dictators in modern history.

[jabarto]

competition is good, therefore the more competition the better

This isn't always the case, and I don't know why people keep deifying competition as some magic fix-all. To cite an example from my field of expertise (healthcare), competition does NOT necessarily translate to lower-cost, higer-quality products. It can just as often translate to the corporations cutting their services and spending more on advertising. And why not? It's easier to just cut corners and spend a pittance to convicne the unwashed masses that all is well than it is to actually improve their product.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Only thing free the free market does is allow those with power freedom to do what ever they want, the power to ignore law, the power to exploit, the power to abuse, the power to destroy what is good for profit. Freedom to fuel and fund war in Africa sot hey can sell their goods, Freedom for off-shore slave labour camps for the latest Nike trainer, Freedom for corruption.

I think you might be making the corporations out to be more malicious then they really are.

I think it is important for everyone to know that corporations cannot be personified as "good" or "evil" as we do for individuals in our daily lives. The goal for a company is to make more money. The means to make money is of no concern to them, if they could get more money by manipulating some regulation in their favor they would do it, and if they could make billions of dollars by giving millions of toys to children they would immediately do that as well (sadly this is not the case for the reason I will explain in just a moment). So to classify them as "evil" or "bad" does not really help or apply since ultimately they are amoral in their quest for more money, it just so happens that the way to get more money is from my first example above then the latter. People when it comes to the free market are amoral just as well, they (for the most part) won't go to the product that costs $1.50 more then the competitor just because they gave lots of toys out to needy children, they got their own children to feed and bills to pay with a limited budget, does that make them "bad" people? No of course not. Take this however you want, whether it makes it seem that capitalism is a terrible plague of an economic system upon mankind for this lack of morals (which I can't really argue against, if we are talking about capitalism in its purest form) or whether it enlightens you that there really is no grand conspiracy to keep all of us down, there is just incentives that all of us follow and that any economic situation can be solved if we just know the incentives perpetuating a problem and fix them.

I would like to finish by saying that in regards to the housing collapse we have experienced in America, that it was indeed caused by the free market, but what does that really mean? Congress in the early 90's deregulated the home loaning market in regards to high risk loans, this caused the free market to create a bubble that recently collapsed. People like to start pointing the finger at the banks for doing such a thing, but lets look at all participants of this bubble:
1. The banks did make irresponsible loans, but they just followed the new incentive for more profits.
2. The people applied for these irresponsible loans that were impossible to pay off, but they just followed the new incentive for a higher standard of living, including a nice house in a nice suburban neighborhood that exemplifies the American dream.

Well lets blame Congress for starting this in the first place! Well....all Congress did was follow the incentive in trying to make the economy better and grow so they can keep their jobs.

In my eyes, when we say the "free market made all these problems for us" it is important to see the free market is not just corporations, but all of us consumers and ultimately government as well. So how about we just forget blame and realize that at some point we let an incentive somewhere undermine the market and made it instable and get our government to fix it so we can move on with our lives and get the economy rolling again.

I know this is all probably off topic, but I felt like saying it.

[Beskar]

I think you might be making the corporations out to be more malicious then they really are.

They don't care about people, only their profits. They don't care about the well-being or the greater good. They would serve water only in bottles at $20 if they could get away with it. Luckily, we have regulation there to stop this from happening.


Take this however you want, whether it makes it seem that capitalism is a terrible plague of an economic system upon mankind for this lack of morals (which I can't really argue against, if we are talking about capitalism in its purest form)

It is an unfortunate truth.


or whether it enlightens you that there really is no grand conspiracy to keep all of us down, there is just incentives that all of us follow and that any economic situation can be solved if we just know the incentives perpetuating a problem and fix them.

Luckily, we have some control over corperations to stop this from happening. Get rid of that, then it wouldn't surprise me this will happen in the Western World. However, it already does happen in Latin America, Africa and off the coast of America and other locations. :no:



I would like to finish by saying that in regards to the housing collapse we have experienced in America, that it was indeed caused by the free market, but what does that really mean? Congress in the early 90's deregulated the home loaning market in regards to high risk loans, this caused the free market to create a bubble that recently collapsed. People like to start pointing the finger at the banks for doing such a thing, but lets look at all participants of this bubble:
1. The banks did make irresponsible loans, but they just followed the new incentive for more profits.
2. The people applied for these irresponsible loans that were impossible to pay off, but they just followed the new incentive for a higher standard of living, including a nice house in a nice suburban neighborhood that exemplifies the American dream.

Well lets blame Congress for starting this in the first place! Well....all Congress did was follow the incentive in trying to make the economy better and grow so they can keep their jobs.

I put it this way. Why were the rules there in the first place? It was to stop this from happening because it was a foolish idea. Obviously, you would think "duh, even my uncles pet dog knows this is a stupid idea, why do we need all these stupid rules? No one is ever going to do it."

Lo' and behold.

Unfortunately, the world would be a better place without less rules if everyone had a brain cell and a had a moral fibre. Unfortunately, this isn't the case so these things have to be done.

There is another thing you American's like to discuss everytime 100 odd kids in a high school have been gunned down - Gun Regulation. Millions of people keep getting shot - FACT. Now, there is the obvious argument "Ban the guns, then no one can be shot" because you can't shoot some one without a gun. Then there is the argument "why punish us all because a big group of people with no moral fibre keep gunning people down.". etc.

The Free-market idea would be having no regulations on weapons or guns, so people with no morale fibre can run down the street with RPG's unchecked and having absolutely no responsiblity or restricts, then argue that the world would be a perfect place because no one will have a monopoly, do anything bad and won't exploit people! (except in every real life instance, returning to places like Africa again, it proves that they do)

[a completely inoffensive name]

They don't care about people, only their profits. They don't care about the well-being or the greater good. They would serve water only in bottles at $20 if they could get away with it. Luckily, we have regulation there to stop this from happening.
Yes, and if you read on i explain why this not malicious but amoral, but you seemed to skip over that. If we were to call anyone who puts their want of money over the well being of others "bad" people, then we shall all go to hell for our sins of buying cheaper Chinese products instead of good ole American products.



Luckily, we have some control over corperations to stop this from happening. Get rid of that, then it wouldn't surprise me this will happen in the Western World. However, it already does happen in Latin America, Africa and off the coast of America and other locations. :no:
Clarify for me. Are you talking about a grand conspiracy or bad incentives?



I put it this way. Why were the rules there in the first place? It was to stop this from happening because it was a foolish idea. Obviously, you would think "duh, even my uncles pet dog knows this is a stupid idea, why do we need all these stupid rules? No one is ever going to do it."
Oversimplification. The meaning behind a rule is not recorded on a law along with the law itself. Did economists predict that it would lead to a bubble, yes but many did not. Again, you make it seem like people did this for a reason so they could screw us all over. They just want more money, and so do we. They thought this could be a way for all of us to live better, banks get more more money, we get higher approval ratings, and people get bigger houses. An economy can die by a bad regulation just as fast as by removing a good one.



Unfortunately, the world would be a better place without less rules if everyone had a brain cell and a had a moral fibre. Unfortunately, this isn't the case so these things have to be done.
Correct, you have discovered why regulation is needed.



There is another thing you American's like to discuss everytime 100 odd kids in a high school have been gunned down - Gun Regulation. Millions of people keep getting shot - FACT. Now, there is the obvious argument "Ban the guns, then no one can be shot" because you can't shoot some one without a gun. Then there is the argument "why punish us all because a big group of people with no moral fibre keep gunning people down.". etc.
1. There are holes in your gun control argument, but that is way off topic.
2. You are attempting to compare an economic dilemma with a social one. They are incompatible because with the first every action "good" or "bad" is driven by incentives, in social problems such as gun control there is no incentive to go out and shoot people, or we would all be doing it. It is the random cruelty of a human causing one while the former is the unrelenting pursuit of a goal by an entity.



The Free-market idea would be having no regulations on weapons or guns, so people with no morale fibre can run down the street with RPG's unchecked and having absolutely no responsiblity or restricts, then argue that the world would be a perfect place because no one will have a monopoly, do anything bad and won't exploit people! (except in every real life instance, returning to places like Africa again, it proves that they do)
There is no "free market" idea to social situations. When we are not talking about economics (i.e. social situations) to advocate for no government is an anarchist position. Your paragraph here is meaningless.

[Beskar]

2. You are attempting to compare an economic dilemma with a social one. They are incompatible because with the first every action "good" or "bad" is driven by incentives, in social problems such as gun control there is no incentive to go out and shoot people, or we would all be doing it. It is the random cruelty of a human causing one while the former is the unrelenting pursuit of a goal by an entity.

There are reasons and incentives to go out and shoot people, or it simply would be done. Maybe it be for oppression over others, exploitation and a range and magnitude of things. Also, random cruelty is selfishness, while the latter is also seelfishness. They are the same.




There is no "free market" idea to social situations. When we are not talking about economics (i.e. social situations) to advocate for no government is an anarchist position. Your paragraph here is meaningless.

There is, the 'Social' plays a big aspect in everything, except staying completely isolated. The social inside of corporates, the social affect of corperates, the social conquences, etc.


Clarify for me. Are you talking about a grand conspiracy or bad incentives?

It's both, but this is surely, is this where we go "Grand Conspiracy = dark room with blinds closed mwahaha Dr. Evil style," or actual common known facts that they do actively fund wars in the name of profit, they do exploit people to make trainers for $3 per day for a wage in remote coastal island?

[a completely inoffensive name]

There are reasons and incentives to go out and shoot people, or it simply would be done. Maybe it be for oppression over others, exploitation and a range and magnitude of things. Also, random cruelty is selfishness, while the latter is also seelfishness. They are the same.
There is no widespread incentive for everyone to kill each other, all the reasons you listed are dependent on each individual and apply toward on certain situations for people, there is no widespread, universal incentive to kill each other.
As for your second sentence, you are again over simplifying things by disregarding context. From your white and black view we might as well put Adidas on the same level as Charles Manson. Companies do unfavorable things because they want money, murderers kill because they enjoy the act of murdering someone. Everyone wants money, and we have done or will do things we are not proud of for money, but the vast majority of us don't murder because we enjoy it.





There is, the 'Social' plays a big aspect in everything, except staying completely isolated. The social inside of corporates, the social affect of corperates, the social conquences, etc.
The social effects of corporations are side effects of their economic impact, which come from incentives that promote such economic activity. If you remove the incentive to make cheap sweatshops, they will not make cheap sweatshops.




It's both, but this is surely, is this where we go "Grand Conspiracy = dark room with blinds closed mwahaha Dr. Evil style," or actual common known facts that they do actively fund wars in the name of profit, they do exploit people to make trainers for $3 per day for a wage in remote coastal island?
There is a difference between promote/fund and capitalize. Did companies push the country into war, or did they just take advantage of it? I don't see anywhere your "commonly known facts" are written down as if they were the Ten Commandments. Let me ask you something, what were those people in this remote coastal island making before the sweatshop came? What we are seeing with these overseas factories is the process of industrialization with the same risks and dangers that the U.S. went through for a hundred years before we began to demand for more government regulation.

[Idaho]

Incorrect, as the government often implements monopolies. Monopolies are not prevented specifically by the free market or government, but they can be prevented by a properly implemented free market or by properly implemented government rules, or both. It depends what is preferred.


I think you might be making the corporations out to be more malicious then they really are.

Corporations are not malicious. They are merely single-purpose entities with the sole aim of making as much money as possible. They are the equivalent of sociopaths. They have no morals or conscience. They just make money. And a key part of that strategy is that they strive to become monopolies.