Silkroad Online Forums

im completely lost

Me too. I think he was right about governmental interference not being possible but corporate social responsibility is almost an oxymoron.

I came from an era where if somebody was 'price gouging' they would be boycotted. It wasn't called that but there was hate generated. People depended on each other and there was no tolerance for such wickedness. Turn the sun dial forward a number of decades and look now to the "heros" of our day. Multi-billion dollar corporations not only command our respect and awe, our children are being trained at the university level to emulate their practices.

We have a difference of opinion is all. I'm thinking (from reading his comments) that Millenium is from Canada. We'll probably have to wait until dom becomes Prime Minister for any change there.

~Granps

Millenium is a woman and I disagree with your EGNP. Government should not have a hand in the market. Free market capitalisms where Government only interferes during emergencies is the most reasonable, imo.

She's my woman.

I stand corrected then.
I think she was right about governmental interference not being possible. Better?
Waiting for the emergency makes sense to you? I'll talk to you again in ten years or so, probably less.

Currently the US government subsidizes corporations. That is also 'interference' isn't it? This topic wasn't intended to be a political science discussion though, again I was being facetious (using my sense of humor, not intending to be taken seriously).

Seems like 4 votes against Grandpa for Emperor. I'll vote for anybody who brings a better alternative.

Free Market doesn't work, and neither does socialism or the retarded mixture we live in now. The problem with what we have now is that politians have to make bad decisions regarding the sharing of resources to win votes. It's not efficient, and it never will be until we get into the situation where we have a dictator that truly loves his people and does what is in the best interest of the nation - which is impossible for any person to do, when in that position.

i think the government should do enough to protect the economy

Protect it from what? Multinationals, monopolization, and the business cycle that comes with free trade? or rights and freedom, reward, and justice that you lose with strong socialism? The Keynes model proved to work with the depression, but it's far from effective over the long term. There's no way around it, we have to ride out the business cycle just like nature would throw droughts at us - it's natural. What should be changed is that on the low end, we shouldn't have to worry about basic necessities, but rather worrying whether or not we can afford to go to the casino. And that's where governmental intervention comes in.

well the system we have right now is the best we have but certainly not the best we could have

are you saying that we should have stuff like government health care insurance

If I understand your point you are saying that people who work should be able to live. The idea of an employer paying the worker sufficiently for them to be able to afford the basic needs of life: shelter, food, heat, & medicine is hardly a fanatical position. I've worked at insurance companies offering supplemental social security to those in the US. I've spoken to the elderly and have been asked, "Do you know what it is like to have to choose between buying prescriptions and paying for heat?" I had no reply. It's sad. These have worked all their lives and are now in dire straits.

Funny how much resistance such thoughts can generate though. I have a particular lack of fondness for corporations. Corporations are legal entities created by governments that were formed on ideals that have been degraded.

I live in Canada. Virtually every civilized nation has health care (and uses the metric system).

dont blame the american public, we have nimrods running the government.

as for metric system, we slowly changing it, you can`t switch it overnight, theres an entire generation of old people that dont even know metric at all. its going to take at least another 20 years before we have generations of people that are comfortable with metric, and that generation is still in high school and college

Free Market, Socialism, and Democratic Socialism (yes, the retarded mixture has a name) won't work in all situations. They all have their place. Some people are attracted to one more than the others.

@Grandpa, You should know what I mean by emergency. I'm not typing about things that can be anticipated, intercepted, and prevented (such as what America is heading towards). I'm talking about true emergencies, cases where things weren't expected. (highly unlikely, most problems that'll occur can be predicted a few years before it happens. Then again, its probably easier saying we saw it coming after it happens than before) There are times when Government needs to come down and deal with problems. There are also times when people need to realize that the Government shouldn't be their little safety blanket. Ten Years from now I'll be a Medical Doctor, helping my Dad with his practice. I have no worries.(I have a few worries.)



I especially like this post. Dom and I think the same, sometimes.

First of all, I do want to specify that I'm not a college student. I'm a 3rd year Comp Sci with Business option in a University.



Your proposal was



THAT is retained earnings. The money government gets to keep after its operating cycle. You said ALL THE $$$. So I said ALL the Retained earnings. Whats exactly wrong here?



My point was NOT to defend Wal-Mart. And I dont' care how the company got rich. Your proposal said Wal-Mart should allocate their retained earnings to reduce cost of goods sold. IF wal-mart decides to lower their price (which is already too low for smaller home busineses to compete with) then it will hurt the smaller businesses, because they simply can't make profit if they lower their prices even more to stay on the same level as Wal-Mart, which is why I'm reasoning your proposal is a fail. Please dont' drag other things into this equation.



You're only looking at things industry-wise and not nation-wise. Whether Costco Inc. wins the competition or Wal-Mart doesn't even matter. If all large coportations are forced to increase their wages and ignoreing the equilibrium, the economy will be disturbed. I don't even know why I have to explain this, but suppose the equilibrium is at 50 workers for $10. If we increase the minimum wage by $2, making it $12 in final, there will be less workers employed. If this was to continue nation wide, there will be unemployment.

Also, Costco and Wal-mart is a different type of business in a sense that they are both retailers but Wal-Mart retails at a smaller quantity, which is why Wal-Mart needs more employees. Costco supply cosutomers in big quantities, thus offering better prices. That's not business-model. They are just businesses offering different kind of servies for different people's needs.



See my above explanations. I'm not saying what I said about hiring more employees is NEW. And please don't ask me why government-forced wage raise will lead to unemployment unless you want me to draw a simple diagram with the model. But I did try to explain as above. Lowering consumer price will not lead to unemployment but lowering price will put pressure on smaller companies to compete with big companies, and will drive them out of business.

Hiring more employees, will cause a



Oh I'm being totally serious. I'm actually happy to see a post like this on SRF since it does spark some pretty interesting discussion.



The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. If you are asking big corporations to lower their prices. Its essentially is the same as telling smaller businesses to close down.

I liek computers too :3

Greetings Millenium,

I appreciate your reply but would like to limit myself to two of your points by way of clarification.
Point A: Essentially I see a misunderstanding of my original proposal.

The arguments presented are against what was never intended.

I'm certain now that I wasn't clear enough for you. Was I being too vague when I said, "Any company or corporation must designate 1/4 of their company as "Emperor Grandpa's Non-Profit"? The burden proposed on corporations was never placed on 100% of what you term retained earnings.

Point B (ancillary to Point A)
The second point that I'd like to address can be exemplified where you (as my opponent) introduced Wal-Mart to our discussion and I replied with the Sam's vs. Costco Wholesale example.

Again, YOU brought Wal-Mart into the discussion, not me. Then you pleaded with me, "Please don't drag other things into this equation."
When I replied I compared Costco Wholesale to Sam's Club (a division of Wal-Mart) you then argued, "Also, Costco and Wal-mart is a different type of business in a sense that they are both retailers but Wal-Mart retails at a smaller quantity"

Seems that my second point is that I am somewhat dismayed by your refusal to discuss the subject. It's okay though, I'm not really complaining. Easy enough for me to beat down straw-man arguments but since I've repeatedly stated my post was facetious and not worthy of serious consideration it's almost silly, isn't it? I am amused by your tactics though, makes me smile.

~Grandpa

PS. In the US, there is very little difference academically between a "college" and a "university". Some of the top-ranked schools in the US have a name including "college" (ex. Dartmouth College). In other parts of the English-speaking world, the term "university" equates to the US use of "college" and the term "college" refers more to a trade or vocational school. You may assume that I am accustomed to using US terminology.

^ communist!!!



j/k

That's ok. I'd have to admit ignorance though - most of my thoughts about Communism are circa WWII or at least prior to the fall of the wall. Pretty sure I wouldn't be accepted as a Communist; I believe in wages going to the worker. It's not right (in my sight) for a person to work and be deprived the fruit of their labors. Capitalism (but not rabid profiteering) can be socially responsible but that would require Wisdom to be given equal footing to Greed.

When I see people working 40+ hours a week unable to support themselves, let alone their families, my only response is outrage. Honestly, I don't know what to do about it. I was a single dad with two children since my youngest (now 21 years old) was almost 3 years old. His mom deserted exactly one week before his 3rd birthday. It was a struggle. I was lucky to hold a highly compensated position in my job. We also received tremendous community support (from the schools, the church, the medical community, the state, my employer and co-workers and especially from my family). I can't imagine what it would have been like if I were in the position that most single parents find themselves in.

Communism would be a better alternative to stealing wages and price gouging IF we could find the guy that dom spoke about. A benevolent dictator who loves people in truth. Never seen this though and I don't think it's possible.

Did you know that the US paid Pillsbury $11 million so they could market the dough-boy to other countries? That's our tax dollars at work. We need to reverse that flow but that would require an admission that we have been wrong. This is not something I expect politicians to do. By the way, I later heard that the Pillsbury Dough-boy died...

... of a yeast infection.