• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Want Higher Taxes?

Helvidius said:
Do you want a specific example? Medicine, automobiles, clothing, electricity, internet, etc
Click to expand...

I think we were looking for a more global example (i.e. a country or state being lifted out of poverty by true free markets) and I am pretty sure the above mentioned products and services are governed
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Yep, that's the U.S. for ya ... again, my original post was regarding working pay and conditions in Japan
Click to expand...

Other manufacturers pay much better than Toyota does in the U.S. (as my link shows). So this would seem to be a problem with Toyota not the U.S.
 
1Perry said:
Other manufacturers pay much better than Toyota does in the U.S. (as my link shows). So this would seem to be a problem with Toyota not the U.S.
Click to expand...

I believe here in the U.S., manufacturer's pay is decided my U.S. businessmen, not Japanese
 
just machine operators? isn't that a bit misleading?
 
1Perry said:
Other manufacturers pay much better than Toyota does in the U.S. (as my link shows). So this would seem to be a problem with Toyota not the U.S.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed, Hino motors is a U.S. owned motor manufacturer and Toyota uses the motors. This does not mean that the design of the motors Hino makes was necessarily designed by Hino though .. it was likely designed by Toyota and Hino just manufactures them. See link below:

Hino Motors Manufacturing U.S.A., INC.
 
1Perry said:
You would be wrong.
Click to expand...

Also, I don't understand why you would make a post saying simply ... you would be wrong ... without a source, unless you were just guessing ... I'm sure you will scramble for some kind of source now though, lol!
 
MusicAdventurer said:
I am not sure what your point is? Do agree or disagree with monopolies? Also, are you saying there was no market regulation before 1890? Additionally, I believe 1890 marks the time when we were still very young as a country .. meaning, resources were abundant, population levels were low, i.e. a very different environment than today's. So any arguments made from those time periods are not relevant - if you have taken a research class I am sure you are already aware of this.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is the next time someone mentions a so called monopoly that the Sherman Act ended I should just say it isn't relevant anymore. Cool!
 
Henrin said:
So what you are saying is the next time someone mentions a so called monopoly that the Sherman Act ended I should just say it isn't relevant anymore. Cool!
Click to expand...

Did you read my post? Do you know anything about relevance when making comparisons in research? If you noticed, the simple fact that the Sherman Act occurred was not what made prior data irrelevant, please read my post again and if you do not understand, I try to explain it in more detail and simplicity.
 
Last edited:
MusicAdventurer said:
Additionally, I believe 1890 marks the time when we were still very young as a country .. meaning, resources were abundant, population levels were low, i.e. a very different environment than today's.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think I did read it and understood it.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, I think I did read it and understood it.
Click to expand...

Ok, then you will agree that applying theories using relevant data from that time period to today's without modification, would not be good practice, right?
 
Last edited:
MusicAdventurer said:
Ok, then you will agree that applying theories using relevant data from that time period to today's without modification, would not be good practice, right?
Click to expand...

No, not really.
 
sangha said:
And yet, you haven't named one example of this so-called "free market" lifting people out of poverty
Click to expand...

How can you even ask such a question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China
Overview
In the modern era, China's influence in the world economy was minimal until the late 1980s. At that time, economic reforms initiated after 1978 began to generate significant and steady growth in investment, consumption and standards of living. China now participates extensively in the world market and private sector companies play a major role in the economy. Since 1978 hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty: According to China's official statistics, the poverty rate fell from 53% in 1981[10] to 2.5% in 2005. However, in 2006, 10.8% of people still lived on less than $1 a day (purchasing power parity-adjusted).[11] The infant mortality rate fell by 39.5% between 1990 and 2005,[12] and maternal mortality by 41.1%.[13] Access to telephones during the period rose more than 94-fold, to 57.1%.[14]

In the 1949 revolution, China's economic system was officially made into a communist system. Since the wide-ranging reforms of the 1980s and afterwards, many scholars assert that China can be defined as one of the leading examples of state capitalism today.[15][16]
Click to expand...


If you're serious about the subject, I don't think you'd have such misconceptions about private markets vs non-private markets.

Nothing wrong with lower taxes in the U.S. We have an enormous amount of spending and debt that needs to be cut. If we have a war that threatens our survival, sure, I can envision higher taxes as a necessity.
 
Last edited:
Helvidius said:
Do you want a specific example? Medicine, automobiles, clothing, electricity, internet, etc
Click to expand...

Yes, I would like a specific example of when a free market economy has lifted people out of poverty. So far, you haven't done so
 
Mach said:
How can you even ask such a question.

Economy of the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



If you're serious about the subject, I don't think you'd have such misconceptions about private markets vs non-private markets.

Nothing wrong with lower taxes in the U.S. We have an enormous amount of spending and debt that needs to be cut. If we have a war that threatens our survival, sure, I can envision higher taxes as a necessity.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously arguing that China has a free market economy??
 
MusicAdventurer said:
I think we were looking for a more global example (i.e. a country or state being lifted out of poverty by true free markets) and I am pretty sure the above mentioned products and services are governed
Click to expand...

India and China are the most recent examples of a move toward free markets. Has done wonders for many of their people.
 
Ikari said:
Corporations don't have rights. Only individuals possess rights.
Click to expand...

technically true but in general terms false. I should have noted those who run a corporation have rights to operate in the best interests of those who own the corporations which is essentially a long version of what I said.
 
Helvidius said:
India and China are the most recent examples of a move toward free markets. Has done wonders for many of their people.
Click to expand...

true while the US has moved away from them. I love all the caterwauling about the evils of free markets generally from those who have not done well in said markets
 
Helvidius said:
India and China are the most recent examples of a move toward free markets. Has done wonders for many of their people.
Click to expand...

That...that's not free market capitalism in China. It's all State controlled essentially. The people aren't allowed to save much. Hell, factories had to release "please don't kill yourself" pamphlets recently to workers because of the increase in suicide. Yeah....I would not really ever exalt China as a shining example of anything just or good.
 
TurtleDude said:
technically true but in general terms false. I should have noted those who run a corporation have rights to operate in the best interests of those who own the corporations which is essentially a long version of what I said.
Click to expand...

Well it's a bit of rhetoric, but I believe the rhetoric in this case to be important. And yes, those who own the corporation have the right to operate in the best interest. Those who run the corporation have an obligation to those who own it. It's why I think that shareholders should be allowed to sue the Board and CEO if they **** up their company. If a CEO needs to go, but the Old Boys on the board won't let it happen cause they're all buddies, stock holders should have an option to force it.
 
Ikari said:
Well it's a bit of rhetoric, but I believe the rhetoric in this case to be important. And yes, those who own the corporation have the right to operate in the best interest. Those who run the corporation have an obligation to those who own it. It's why I think that shareholders should be allowed to sue the Board and CEO if they **** up their company. If a CEO needs to go, but the Old Boys on the board won't let it happen cause they're all buddies, stock holders should have an option to force it.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree with you there. There should be a price to pay for incompetence and the salaries some boards hand out due to ego is a violation of the fiduciary duty the board has to the owners but I don't believe the government should have the power to set salaries
 
Helvidius said:
India and China are the most recent examples of a move toward free markets. Has done wonders for many of their people.
Click to expand...

Seriously, are you using China and India as examples? By the way, I was asking for pure Capitalism ... when are you going to admit that pure Capitalism has never existed under conditions like the ones we have today, that it is complete theory and that the theory itself is flawed and doomed for failure? Unless of course you want massive amounts of suffering and poor quality products (made available by monopolies).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom