1) Openly documented 2) Viewable by all 3) Accountable to the people not the highest bidder
Exactly as the Founding Fathers wrote and spoke of it? They were pre-capitalist, saw the origins of capitalist philosophy beginning, and wrote of their fears about where that will lead a country of free people; straight into the back pockets of the elite (remember the crown was essentially the same way, owned/controlled all, required the masses to entertain them and provide value for THEM).
You seem convinced contributing to your government is a scam, and you should go shovel whatever for some rich wanker.
You got something else to add? Or are you going to just regurgitate the banal fear mongering of the last 200 years?
Control of the society
How do you make the government accountable, transparent and openly documented ? Mystery to me
Sure but less of a mystery than how we can make corporations transparent, accountable and openly documented.
Corporations are accountable of the wrong they do to third parties. It's the whole point of having a judicial system.
How do you control a govt ? By rioting and voting every 4 years ? Here's how it can work for companies : http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MarketforCorporateControl...
At that time...
Buuuut we now live in the age of the internet, and knowledge is a pure commodity. There are authoritarians looking to muddy the waters and make knowledge more difficult to acquire, but for those interested in learning (like the kids I've worked with), there are plenty of free options I couldn't dream of at the public library I went to as a kid.
We still have an issue of poor education, don't get me wrong, though it is not a result of elitism (quite the contrary).
So some regulations definitely work.
I think a lot of the contention is putting faith in the "the market" (but I would hope even staunchest libertarians realize at times that can be disproportionately large companies) or governments. I feel like the extremes on both sides put too much faith in one or the other. To keep each other in check one can't be too much larger, or wield too much power over the other.
When companies become multinational, things can get weird because they can evade single governments. I'm not saying it's always bad, but it is hard to keep them in check.
The first word that comes to my mind is 'free market', not 'huge government'..
"Free market" is just an illusionary goal--there's no such thing in practice. Every aspect of reality creates some bias to one party or another. Governments try to encourage competitive entreprises, innovative ideas and good mechanisms of check and balances by eliminating monopolies, reducing dynasties/incumbencies and other barriers of entry, in addition to other things like maintaining a fair legal system.
Every aspect of reality creates some bias to one party or another
Have youbever seen govt reducing barriers of entry ? I need examples
Only govt can create monopolies, unless you're talking about mafias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_market
The only example there that could be remotely tied to the government is cable companies (I think the last-mile expense barrier to entry is the main contributor to those monopolies). All of them prevent a "free market" and the idea is that governments break those things up or regulate them. Breaking up a monopoly reduces barrier to entry. After the breakup of at&t, long distance rates dropped due to the new competition.
A few things most governments do to reduce the barrier of entry when starting or running a business: maintain a legal system to facilitate agreements between parties, educate a workforce so there's a pool of citizens with basic skills you can hire or sell things to, maintain open access roadways for transport of workforce and goods, maintain a trusted currency for the exchange of goods and services. All of those would be huge hurdles if I wanted to open a lemonade stand.
> unless you're talking about mafias.
So they're the only fly in the ointment if governments didn't exist? What is the solution to mafias if the government just steals resources?
I'm earnestly curious, if governments only oppress a market, where your best or ideal example? Is there any free market that doesn't have a government? How come when governments fail (or countries without strong governments) a strong free market doesn't develop to overtake the EU or US?
All of them prevent a "free market" and the idea is that governments break those things up or regulate them
maintain a legal system to facilitate agreements between parties
maintain a trusted currency for the exchange of goods and services
if governments only oppress a market
Who said government is the solution to every single problem? I implied too much government intervention was also bad in my original post. I do think the phone call situation in US prisons are exploitative and I hope it does get addressed. Jail/prisons being the responsibility of the government, economic arguments don't apply and they shouldn't exploit prisoners (I'm also not a fan of the "slavery" exemption for prisoners). Just because a captive market exists, doesn't mean it's bad and it has to exploit them...capitalism just tends to push it in that direction. Teddy Roosevelt, who started the "trust busting" didn't have a problem with monopolies, only the monopolies that exploited their position. That still applies to today's anti-trust laws.
> If their currency was so great, why would it need force to make it mandatory ?
Because too many people cause shenanigans when they don't? I'm kind of surprised you were cool with a single legal system, but not with currencies.
> I didn't say that.
You said, "every government action steals resources from someone and prevents them to do it on their own." Maybe I should have been explicit and said "free market" but I figured it was implied. How is "every action steals resources" not oppressing the free market you describe?
The reason large corporations have more power is ... they have more power. They can afford to not only find loopholes, but also exploit ones with higher barrier-to-entry, AND lobby for additional ones.
Many corporations probably DON'T want loopholes that are "too easy" because then smaller businesses would be able to use them as well and become potential competitors. Kind of like how Comcast sues any potential competitor into oblivion using frivolous lawsuits. The cost to entry into the ISP market? The price of a good legal defense that can defeat Comcast. (Read: Nothing to do with the actual hardware/manpower)
(1) You really think Apple cares about the discussions on one thread of Hacker News ?
(2) Even if they did how would it be an effective use of resources. It may shift a handful of people at most. When instead that time could be spent speaking with journalists or writing press releases that could actually shift a lot of people.
(3) It's a slippery slope to keep calling everyone you disagree with shills or employees of a company. Especially since on an anonymous forum they could never be able to defend themselves.
You must have missed seeing this a few years ago...
> Members of Apple PR seek tabloid photos of celebrities holding iPhones, while others read Apple-focused blogs actively, and keep tabs on prominent Apple beat writers using anonymized social media accounts. A former Apple PR employee notes that the team enjoys being an “overall watchdog,” monitoring what the media is saying about the company every day.
https://9to5mac.com/2014/08/29/part-3-strategies-the-art-of-...
It's simply a consumption tax that people do not realize they are paying because it is built into the products citizens are buying.
I didn't intend to "assert" that, and I think it's fair to ask you to elaborate, as I believe there are assumptions embedded in your interpretation of what I wrote.
edit: Grammar.
edit1: Do you think Apple incorporates the cost of the tax burden into the price of an iPhone? I think it really comes down to whether you think Apple would reduce their unit price if it would ultimately result in gross profit increases. It's like taking VC financing, "Do you want to own 100% of a $500K/yr revenue company or 49% of a $3M/yr revenue company?"
Then, a 10% corporate income tax rate is put in place.
Does Apple raise the price of the phone to $1,100? Is that now the profit maximizing decision?
According to your claim "Ultimately, only people pay taxes," the answer is yes - Apple would immediately raise the price of the iPhone to offset the loss incurred by the new tax. Except that then, fewer people would buy iPhones. We already know that $1,100 is not the profit maximizing price point for a phone. So, the amount Apple would increase its price is a function of the price sensitivity of iPhone buyers.
This is a little tricky to explain, but khan academy has a video that explains it quite well.
https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microec...
$1,000 is a profit maximizing price point with 0 % taxes. With 10 % taxes it would be different.