Dotoar

Now we're dangerously close to what goes on in the anarchy thread, but it's fair to continue here, I guess.

And the obvious question would be: Why? The core difference when it comes to leverage is that a government has the legislative power to enforce coercion upon its citizens, whereas a company (as part of the civil society) has not (as far as the free market goes). If you've got reason to distrust a company, all you have to do is look for a competitor, but if you've got reason to distrust a government your chances to make a change is second to none.

One must remember that 'big business' as we know it is more often than not held under the wings special political interests and thus subject to governmental regulations and/or subsidies.

Yes, and that's exactly why businesses have all the incentives to act properly in the eyes of its customers/shareholders/citizens whereas the government has not.

It's supposed to, yes. Unfortunately, today's western-type welfare state is so inflated and influential and so severely exceeding its adequate scope that all the incentives of the public sector are all but hung up on the interests of the political motives and not on the interests of the actual people. Remember: A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take away everything you own.

That I cannot argue with. Fascism is basically right-wing socialism, if there ever was anything like that.

Will it? If a company relies only on nepotism when hiring staff, and in the process neglects things such as competence, it will surely take its toll upon the ensuing results. Enter a competitor that doesn't endorse nepotism.

__________________

hip hop bunny hop

No doubt, there is no shortage of intelligent conservative women in the USA. They simply could never win a primary because much of the party remains fervently anti-feminist, including many of the women (in particular older women). Phyllis Schlafly remains the most influential person in the party when it comes womens issues, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Right, because it makes perfect sense for Montana to have the same statutes on littering as Rhode Island, or Alaska to have the same regulations on commercial trapping as New York. Remember, the USA is the 3rd largest nation in terms of Geographic size, the 3rd largest in terms of population, and whereas over one quarter of nation is sparsely populated enough to meet the old definition of frontier (2 persons or less per square mile), most of the populace lives in an Urban or Suburban setting. Add to this historical immigration patterns that have resulted in regional cultures of varying difference, and I fail to see the sense in trying to have a one-size fits all approach to all but the most important matters.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

Yes, but I'm speaking from the absolute ground level. That which is invisible to big government, and big companies. Hiring nepotism is incredibly common at the below $10/hr range of jobs. At least, from the people I'm around.

The government itself is weak. It's owned by these corporations. I wouldn't be shocked if they had a McDonalds built in the pentagon to feed the guys who look over our nukes. The roads are built by licensed corporations(I've applied to them), the money is supposedly printed, and managed by licensed corporations. I go to a school that does it's financial aid service, and without alternate option, through mastercard entirely. (A mastercard that choses to unscrupulously randomly slap on charges for no apparent purpose.)

Thing is, big companies cannot be responsible for the management of the common man. If a big company needs to hire 10,000 people it doesn't care if there's 40,000 unemployed. The government is supposed to, and compensate for it. If the companies own the government, than the government just does what's in their interest without a will of their own.

The tea party is just steering them nearer to that.

__________________
Al Pacino = God

Dotoar

That's as may be, but it's still not relevant for the discussion.

Note where the problem lies here; the government has sovereignty, and if they let in the corporate interests, of course the corporations will take advantage of it. Why wouldn't they? I sure would take every chance I could get in order to gain benefits through governmental power. There's even a word for it (or two, more precisely): Crony capitalism. John Stossel made a special on that very subject, diving into several typical cases of how companies has managed to pass certain regulations and/or subsidies with the ensuing result being that competitors on the heavily regulated market simply don't stand a chance and fail. On a free market they wouldn't (lest they don't meet the demands of the customers, of course).

Now, that's the USA and I'm just a snotty-nosed swede who should either shut up or at least bring up something domestic on the table. In Sweden we have a grand tradition of handing over a considerable part of the civil society to the government, and even disregarding the vast amount of purely governmental corporations and institutions, there are still parts of the supposedly unregulated market that, well, aren't. The swedish electricity market is a good example; everyone and his brother is going on and on about how the electricity prices are getting higher ever since the deregulation of the electricity market. The reason is simple: It isn't deregulated at all.

Well, the separate providers are, but they are still working under heavy regulations. How it works at the moment is that the government has shut off all natural competition on the market by stipulating a carefully planned pricing on electricity in order to force citizens to cut down on their use. That means that all the electricity providers have incentives to outbid each other over the price of the most costly - and thus most ineffective - provider (as opposed to how it would work had the marked been truly deregulated, during which the most effective provider would set the price crossbar). So when it's freezing during wintertime (which it naturally is during quite a long period of time here) and the need for electricity is high, the providers will still wait for the most ineffective one to start its production, before tipping in on the market. This naturally keeps the prices for electricity at a high and this is a neat example of how political interests are forced upon the market and ultimately the citizens.

First of all, like I already implied, I believe the companies (read: economy) and the government should be thoroughly separated. That being said, it's not the company's responsibility to hire so-and-so many people just to bring down the unemployment figures. They will hire as many as they estimate it takes to produce whatever it is they produce. What is their responsibility however, or at least their one and only guarantee that they will remain, is to satisfy the needs of their part of the market (i.e. the demands of you and me) at the highest quality and lowest price possible in order to keep and attract customers (or they will turn to a competitor). The government on the other hand, may well be giving out promises with silver linings to employ all these people or, as here in Sweden, make up 'labour-market-political arrangements' (freely translated) and thus hide the unemployment of thousands behind such neat titles as sick-listing or job centre courses or subsidized workshops on which you can gain knowledge on how to turn on a computer. If the government actually fulfills these vows is another thing though, and keep in mind that whatever labour they may invent in order to counteract unemployment will be financed by your partly confiscated income, which I believe you have the exclusive right to invest in whatever you want.

Well, if they contribute to the unholy alliance between government and corporations, then I certainly don't agree with them. (Well, already the neo-cons ruined it for me).

__________________

Revolutionarypunk

I think they are a new American Nazi Party.
They are complete idiots supported by muti-national corporations, and rich people.

Hip Hop Bunny Hop this is coming from a person who likes skrewdriver.
One of most sexist, racist, homophobic, jew hating band of all time.

captaincaptain

What political party in power isn't supporting by multi-national corporations?

__________________

LAST.FM

RYM

djchameleon

Does anyone know why the Tea Party is against Unions in general?

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

Sansa Stark

Unions are for protection of employees, Tea Party is for big business and doesn't give a **** about the working man(or woman)

djchameleon

Okay that makes sense. I don't even get why they are gaining ground and supporters for such a horrible party.

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

Electrophonic Tonic

The Tea Party's economic view is that cutting government (with the exception of the military... of course), will solve the USA's economic woes. Unions are in a position to demand raises and benefits that would be required to be provided by the government. So naturally, if you remove unions, you remove that element of spending in our government... according to the Tea Party.

The simpler explanation is that unions are on the opposite side of the political spectrum to the Tea Party. So they must be destroyed!! But, that the spirit of politics, right?

On the same level though, the Tea Party is incredibly far right socially as well. Meaning, they oppose legalization, gay marriage, Planned Parenthood ect... So, if you want to limit people from doing something, you must pass a law. To make sure the law works, it needs to be enforced... which costs money from the government. When the Tea Party talks about cutting from government, it's only the programs they oppose that are in the crosshairs.

Rand Paul was mentioned earlier in the thread. I am certainly not a Tea Party supporter, but I do like the fact that he mentioned cuts to the military along with other parts of government. He actually wants to cut everything rather than cherry pick the things he opposes. And I give him credit for that.