Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyafd
I've read your posts with great interest. I hope that you post more often. Your intellect is obvious. The efficiency of the market place is as close to perfect as you can get. Capitalism must have rules that are followed however, and Capitalism must adequately reward those who follow its rules. Governments that give overwhelming advantages to established oligarchies cannot be tolerated. Those advantages are in conflict with the concept of Democracy.
Socialism and it's ugly brother communism are grossly inefficient.
Capitalism with a good set of rules that are enforced. That's the answer. Corporations become too powerful when they can sue innovators out of existence. One example is a woman who invented a way to transmit electricity through the air by converting the electricity to sound above our hearing range and crystals that reconvert the sound back into electricity. She patented the process but refused to license the process out to major companies. The companies threatened to bury her in litigation. They shouldn't be able to do that because it stifles innovation.
Removing the cap on Social Security withholding, negotiating with drug companies for better prices and letting only the tax cuts for the wealthy expire next year will go a long way in helping lower the deficit. And for God's sake lets not fall victim to another scam war like Iraq.
|
I agree with the concept of limited regulation in cases such as the example you cite. The problem occurs with the calculated and oppressive regulation that is a component of a political ideology. You know it well. It resides in the White House today. I respectfully submit that it is that type of government regulation that truly "stifles innovation" as you suggest. Domestic energy development comes to mind as a current example. The Gibson Guitar case is but one of many oppressive regulatory lynchings that offend me. So much to explore......so little space and time.
Removing the cap on withholding, negotiating with drug companies and letting tax cuts on the wealthy expire would help lower the deficit as you suggest. Of course that presumes that the revenue was dedicated to that purpose. Unfortunately, in the real world, those in Washington who get their hands on the revenue windfall will creatively find other ways to "redistribute the wealth". Ways that are more consistent with their self interest and ideology. I have said this in many ways before. Our government has Americans debating the issue of raising or reducing taxes. As long as our eye is off the ball, the treasury will continue to be plundered by special interests. The question should be...WHERE ARE OUR TAX REVENUES GOING? The devil is in the details of this question.
Responding to your position on the Iraq war would require more keystrokes then this site can support and this poster, at the moment, has in him. In fairness, it would command a thorough explanation on the dynamics of the Mideast, the Arab Spring, Iran, Israel, Islam and our current foreign policy in that region. The spread of Islam in Europe has created considerable unrest as evident by the most cursory viewing of world news. Just last night, Sweden of all places, was the site of riots and civil unrest by components of the Muslim population. I should add that Sweden's problem has been growing for many years and involves a smaller, more extreme element of their increasing Muslim population. My goodness.... this Sweden thing could morph into its own thread. In briefer terms than are warranted, your statement on the Iraq War, strikes an emotional nerve at many levels. It doesn't reveal or consider the complexity of the threats to Israel, Western Europe and the United States that are in play. Now that would be interesting and informative.
You do provoke a lot of thought that most of us can learn from.