Shadow Government
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The option is NOT there. No one will invest or offer a loan to you in certain places. Hell, try being Hispanic and apply for jobs in Iowa. I'll give you a hint. Same resume to a place, only difference was the name Joe Smith vs my real name. SAME PHONE NUMBER. Guess who got a call about an interview. Go on.
First, I live in Massachusetts. We have plenty of shop owners that are black, white, latino, etc. Iowa, I've never been there, but it sounds that they need to wake up a bit. No offense.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Oh, some people would like to claim the chance is there for every person, but it isn't. The minorities have less opportunities. It may be blatent racism, or it could just be a lack of education, or a lack of local resources. Whatever you you blame it on, it is still an issue.
I won't deny that it's an issue, I realize this. However, for the most part, you definitely don't find that kind of problem on this side of the continent. There is racism here and there, don't get me wrong. But I do see that a lot of people have made something of themselves, mostly based on merit.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I don't need to cite a couple of sources. Go to your local paper and see how much the local universities have cut this year. Heck, the state considered one of the most recession-proof is Iowa. Not much industry to tank, housing market was stable even during the bubble, and everyone needs corn. They are looking at ways to trim a few hundred million from the state budget and jobs are pretty much all they can kill without doing something stupid. Look at the Des Moines Register if you want. Wisconsin, Illinois, (heck Chicago is hurting bad), all are not in good shape.
Fair point. However, I thought we were talking about the federal debt here, and how it was applied by the private sector adjusting. I don't really think that the people out in California would agree. Unemployment is still around 10% U3, U6 is around 20%. So as I say, please cite a few sources. You say that Iowa never really had to adjust... so why would you even mention Iowa? Massachusetts never really felt much of a burden (though the state itself is hurting, the private sector here isn't really.)
I love how people will claim because there are people that are minorities in small business they obviously were never discriminated against. How about you go ask them if they had to jump through more hoops, had less chances and still managed to get ahead before figuring they were fine? And yes, Iowa would be pretty backwards in some ways. But it wasn't like I could move at the time. I was talking about how government jobs aren't a safe haven for people anymore. Every level of government has been hit, but the state is the most hit of late. And when I said adjusted I meant that most of the companies have laid off a ton of people to "trim" and now those people are not making money, which is killing those local governments. I might not have explained myself very well.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Option 1: Work for the local megacorp at slave wages. Option 2: Starve, because no one else is hiring.
Option 3: Start your own business. Option 4: Work for the government, because they have taken up a big part of the private sector. Option 5: Work for a small business/work under the table. There's always more than two solutions, though most people will only think of two. The two party system really works to make people think like this.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Not in the era of mass production, where you get more efficient the larger you get. Just look at Walmart, for an example of one on its way up.
Great example of how the bigger you get, the less quality you get. It's not about efficiency, it's about prices being low because quality is low.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Then we have Microsoft, who would be a complete monopoly instead of a partial monopoly, if not for government intervention (Socialism).
I think that's communism specifically... don't call me on it though.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The auto companies are huge conglomerates, and would probably be playing slave wages if not for the labor unions (Socialism)
This is definitely communism. Government intervention to this degree is communism.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
This is what capitalism leads to... And this is where some amount of socialism (Government regulation) is necessary to preserve fairness.
This shouldn't have happened in a free society at all. Capitalism is different from corporatism, and that's what we have, not capitalism. The free market is no longer at work.
josda1000 wrote:
Option 3: Start your own business.
Not always an option, if the big guys control the market. We're talking capitalism taken to extremes here.
josda1000 wrote:
Option 4: Work for the government, because they have taken up a big part of the private sector.
Again, extreme capitalism means no government involvement, so this is off the table.
josda1000 wrote:
Option 5: Work for a small business/work under the table.
So part of the only alternative is illegal? Isn't that a problem? :)
josda1000 wrote:
Great example of how the bigger you get, the less quality you get. It's not about efficiency, it's about prices being low because quality is low.
Sure, quality suffers, but does that stop them from dominating the market? Look at the control they have over the economy...
josda1000 wrote:
This shouldn't have happened in a free society at all. Capitalism is different from corporatism, and that's what we have, not capitalism. The free market is no longer at work.
That's the point I'm getting at... What's to stop this from happening in a 100% capitalist society? What's to stop capitalism from becoming corporatism? Again, I'm not trying to say capitalism is bad, obviously... Just saying that it needs a little control (socialism) to keep a level playing field.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I love how people will claim because there are people that are minorities in small business they obviously were never discriminated against. How about you go ask them if they had to jump through more hoops, had less chances and still managed to get ahead before figuring they were fine? And yes, Iowa would be pretty backwards in some ways. But it wasn't like I could move at the time. I was talking about how government jobs aren't a safe haven for people anymore. Every level of government has been hit, but the state is the most hit of late. And when I said adjusted I meant that most of the companies have laid off a ton of people to "trim" and now those people are not making money, which is killing those local governments. I might not have explained myself very well.
Wow, take more offense, will you? Take it easy, I'm not trying to offend you. I'm just trying to go through all of this logically, to the best of both our abilities.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I love how people will claim because there are people that are minorities in small business they obviously were never discriminated against.
I never said that they "were never discriminated against". For that matter, I'm a white male who has been discriminated against for being too uptight and arrogant, though I don't think of myself as such a person at all.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
And yes, Iowa would be pretty backwards in some ways. But it wasn't like I could move at the time.
I'm not saying you could, I'm just saying that the possibility is out there if you try hard and work at it. That's all it is.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Every level of government has been hit, but the state is the most hit of late.
When it comes to jobs (within government), I could agree with you. But I think that the federal deficit is the worst figure we have right now, next to California's unemployment rate.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
And when I said adjusted I meant that most of the companies have laid off a ton of people to "trim" and now those people are not making money, which is killing those local governments.
I think what's killing the local governments is bad budgeting. Usually, it's overspending that kills any government, and when you don't rake in a normal amount of taxes, you're going to really get rocked, especially if you don't have that surplus. Of course it depends town to town, so I can't be certain. This is such a sketchy topic because local government is so radically different between populations.
-
Same here. I wrote a really simple budgeting program. I need to keep working at it though... I have too many bugs with my MFC code. I just need more duct tape.
I wrote a WPF program that lets veterinarians educate their clients, and I paid my house off. I do not have any formal training as a programmer, so I essentially did that for the price of a computer and an internet connection. I mean, I work as a developer in my day job, I had experience that helped me, too, but all of it came from me applying myself to what I wanted to become.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Option 3: Start your own business.
Not always an option, if the big guys control the market. We're talking capitalism taken to extremes here.
josda1000 wrote:
Option 4: Work for the government, because they have taken up a big part of the private sector.
Again, extreme capitalism means no government involvement, so this is off the table.
josda1000 wrote:
Option 5: Work for a small business/work under the table.
So part of the only alternative is illegal? Isn't that a problem? :)
josda1000 wrote:
Great example of how the bigger you get, the less quality you get. It's not about efficiency, it's about prices being low because quality is low.
Sure, quality suffers, but does that stop them from dominating the market? Look at the control they have over the economy...
josda1000 wrote:
This shouldn't have happened in a free society at all. Capitalism is different from corporatism, and that's what we have, not capitalism. The free market is no longer at work.
That's the point I'm getting at... What's to stop this from happening in a 100% capitalist society? What's to stop capitalism from becoming corporatism? Again, I'm not trying to say capitalism is bad, obviously... Just saying that it needs a little control (socialism) to keep a level playing field.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Oh, so we're talking straight capitalism? Truly free markets? Honestly? Let's go:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Option 3: Start your own business. Not always an option, if the big guys control the market. We're talking capitalism taken to extremes here.
They can't control the market, if there's no regulation. I could start a business, anytime, with my money (if I have the money). If my product is better, then it gets bought by people that recognize it. I'll stay in business, though I'll only slowly expand. I may not "control" the market, but I'll be in business, and be able to get by. This is what happens with small business. This is ALWAYS an option in a free market, even if there's "a monopoly". It's all about competition, guts, determination, and quality.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Option 4: Work for the government, because they have taken up a big part of the private sector. Again, extreme capitalism means no government involvement, so this is off the table.
Do you mean corporatism or capitalism? I hope you're not getting your terminology confused. Remember, capitalism is a free market, corporatism is where there's government intervention, weeding out small business.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Option 5: Work for a small business/work under the table. So part of the only alternative is illegal? Isn't that a problem? Smile
Well... now if there's no government involvement, maybe they'll never find out! lol Or, more likely, there will be little to no reporting of tax revenue/profit at all anyway, so this may be totally off the table anyway.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Sure, quality suffers, but does that stop them from dominating the market? Look at the control they have over the economy...
Agreed. The thing is, if people are willing to sacrifice that quality that comes normally from a small business, so be it. It's up to the consumer in the long run. I can agree with this.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's the point I'm getting at... What's to stop this from happening in a 100% capitalist society? What's to stop capitalism from becoming corporatism?
Stopping it is government, actually. The more regulation you put on a small business (income tax, sales tax, minimum wage
-
I was thinking that, actually. FYI: One of those guys watched his dad beat his mom nearly to death. He flipped out when Phelps did that and she wasn't the only one with a black eye.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
He flipped out when Phelps did that and she wasn't the only one with a black eye.
See, I'd pay money to see that....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Oh, so we're talking straight capitalism? Truly free markets? Honestly? Let's go:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Option 3: Start your own business. Not always an option, if the big guys control the market. We're talking capitalism taken to extremes here.
They can't control the market, if there's no regulation. I could start a business, anytime, with my money (if I have the money). If my product is better, then it gets bought by people that recognize it. I'll stay in business, though I'll only slowly expand. I may not "control" the market, but I'll be in business, and be able to get by. This is what happens with small business. This is ALWAYS an option in a free market, even if there's "a monopoly". It's all about competition, guts, determination, and quality.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Option 4: Work for the government, because they have taken up a big part of the private sector. Again, extreme capitalism means no government involvement, so this is off the table.
Do you mean corporatism or capitalism? I hope you're not getting your terminology confused. Remember, capitalism is a free market, corporatism is where there's government intervention, weeding out small business.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Option 5: Work for a small business/work under the table. So part of the only alternative is illegal? Isn't that a problem? Smile
Well... now if there's no government involvement, maybe they'll never find out! lol Or, more likely, there will be little to no reporting of tax revenue/profit at all anyway, so this may be totally off the table anyway.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Sure, quality suffers, but does that stop them from dominating the market? Look at the control they have over the economy...
Agreed. The thing is, if people are willing to sacrifice that quality that comes normally from a small business, so be it. It's up to the consumer in the long run. I can agree with this.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's the point I'm getting at... What's to stop this from happening in a 100% capitalist society? What's to stop capitalism from becoming corporatism?
Stopping it is government, actually. The more regulation you put on a small business (income tax, sales tax, minimum wage
josda1000 wrote:
It's all about competition, guts, determination, and quality.
I worked for a small company, all we did was melt cooking chocolate and add flavouring. We spent what little startup we had on good looking packaging, and the company was a decent success. You can easily support yourself by feeding a niche that the big boys can't or won't bother with.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I missed the ability to persecute Christians?! DAMMIT!!!! I was so hoping to ask them why sex is so bad while pointing at Songs of Soloman...
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I was so hoping to ask them why sex is so bad while pointing at Songs of Soloman...
LOL - I am told that conservative Jews are horrified by the song of solomon. Actually the drummer in my band wrote a song based on the SOS and sings it at weddings sometimes... :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
It's all about competition, guts, determination, and quality.
I worked for a small company, all we did was melt cooking chocolate and add flavouring. We spent what little startup we had on good looking packaging, and the company was a decent success. You can easily support yourself by feeding a niche that the big boys can't or won't bother with.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
*blush* obviously not everyone has what it takes to be able to be a developer, but I do think that most people, if they really worked at it, could find a way to support themself legally, even if not with the success I experienced. Certainly I think welfare would be better spent on giving people more motivation and resources to start a business or get training to find work.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Distind wrote:
You don't have any money, you don't have any thing marketable, you can't get a job, so how exactly do you start your own business?
I wrote a computer program.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Oh, so we're talking straight capitalism? Truly free markets? Honestly? Let's go:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Option 3: Start your own business. Not always an option, if the big guys control the market. We're talking capitalism taken to extremes here.
They can't control the market, if there's no regulation. I could start a business, anytime, with my money (if I have the money). If my product is better, then it gets bought by people that recognize it. I'll stay in business, though I'll only slowly expand. I may not "control" the market, but I'll be in business, and be able to get by. This is what happens with small business. This is ALWAYS an option in a free market, even if there's "a monopoly". It's all about competition, guts, determination, and quality.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Option 4: Work for the government, because they have taken up a big part of the private sector. Again, extreme capitalism means no government involvement, so this is off the table.
Do you mean corporatism or capitalism? I hope you're not getting your terminology confused. Remember, capitalism is a free market, corporatism is where there's government intervention, weeding out small business.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Option 5: Work for a small business/work under the table. So part of the only alternative is illegal? Isn't that a problem? Smile
Well... now if there's no government involvement, maybe they'll never find out! lol Or, more likely, there will be little to no reporting of tax revenue/profit at all anyway, so this may be totally off the table anyway.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Sure, quality suffers, but does that stop them from dominating the market? Look at the control they have over the economy...
Agreed. The thing is, if people are willing to sacrifice that quality that comes normally from a small business, so be it. It's up to the consumer in the long run. I can agree with this.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's the point I'm getting at... What's to stop this from happening in a 100% capitalist society? What's to stop capitalism from becoming corporatism?
Stopping it is government, actually. The more regulation you put on a small business (income tax, sales tax, minimum wage
josda1000 wrote:
They can't control the market, if there's no regulation. I could start a business, anytime, with my money (if I have the money). If my product is better, then it gets bought by people that recognize it. I'll stay in business, though I'll only slowly expand. I may not "control" the market, but I'll be in business, and be able to get by. This is what happens with small business. This is ALWAYS an option in a free market, even if there's "a monopoly". It's all about competition, guts, determination, and quality.
Let's say I have a product that everybody is using. Now let's say a small business makes a new product. I tell the people buying my product that if they buy this guys product at all, I will make sure their product stops working. This will kill their business as they need my product to operate. There is no legal way for them to stop this. They need to carry my product and my product will not interface with the small business guy's product. Anyone attempting switch to the new company's product now can't interact with people using my product. My product also happens to have 75%+ of the market share. So good luck doing business. So what do you think happens? The companies all ignore the superior product because switching would kill them and the monopoly employed by the big company is enough to kill any meaningful competition. You don't need quality when you have quantity and the ability to leverage that into power. Heck, you can even release shoddy updates to products and EVERYONE will buy them and not use the competitors because they have to due to what is effectively the industry standard. And before you tell me this will never happen think hard on what I described and see if you can see the company I am talking about. Even with anti-monopoly laws in place it has managed a good portion of this.
-
josda1000 wrote:
They can't control the market, if there's no regulation. I could start a business, anytime, with my money (if I have the money). If my product is better, then it gets bought by people that recognize it. I'll stay in business, though I'll only slowly expand. I may not "control" the market, but I'll be in business, and be able to get by. This is what happens with small business. This is ALWAYS an option in a free market, even if there's "a monopoly". It's all about competition, guts, determination, and quality.
Let's say I have a product that everybody is using. Now let's say a small business makes a new product. I tell the people buying my product that if they buy this guys product at all, I will make sure their product stops working. This will kill their business as they need my product to operate. There is no legal way for them to stop this. They need to carry my product and my product will not interface with the small business guy's product. Anyone attempting switch to the new company's product now can't interact with people using my product. My product also happens to have 75%+ of the market share. So good luck doing business. So what do you think happens? The companies all ignore the superior product because switching would kill them and the monopoly employed by the big company is enough to kill any meaningful competition. You don't need quality when you have quantity and the ability to leverage that into power. Heck, you can even release shoddy updates to products and EVERYONE will buy them and not use the competitors because they have to due to what is effectively the industry standard. And before you tell me this will never happen think hard on what I described and see if you can see the company I am talking about. Even with anti-monopoly laws in place it has managed a good portion of this.
Are you talking about the Google/Microsoft problem? That's just one thing, one time. I thought we were talking about business in general? Even other monopolies don't seem to have this type of problem. Enlighten me if I'm missing something. I was talking about little shops on the corner, drug stores, neighborhood banks, restaurants, hotels... but even other markets don't seem to have these little games being played behind the scenes, unless I'm naive.
-
Are you talking about the Google/Microsoft problem? That's just one thing, one time. I thought we were talking about business in general? Even other monopolies don't seem to have this type of problem. Enlighten me if I'm missing something. I was talking about little shops on the corner, drug stores, neighborhood banks, restaurants, hotels... but even other markets don't seem to have these little games being played behind the scenes, unless I'm naive.
MS was the big one. Big 3 also have had this situation. As for corner stores, banks, restaurants and hotels, yes they do have these issues. How many people complain about "our small town feel being ruined" by a Wal-Mart? That chain moves in, drops prices until competition is only had by Target or KMart (which is close to dead) and then raises prices to get a profit again. Corner stores and drug stores have had this situation where they can't compete because they just plain don't have the resources to offer the prices Wal-Mart does. It's them using their size to effectively kill the small competitors, they may not force people to do as they ask in this case, but they do use practices that are darn vicious and effective only because of their size and resources. Taking a loss for a year just to wipe out all competition and then increase your earnings to make 3 times as much as you would with competition is pretty efficient. Neighborhood banks are something I don't know enough to be able to speak on. I do know 2 of them have dropped this year in my town. The major chains stayed up. (and I hate the bail out as much as you do, trust me) Restaurants are pretty cut throat, but there you are right. Very little danger of being strangled by a chain. Of course the statistics on how many survive 5 years with normal competition are pretty grim. Hotels, yea, they are also pretty much chain only. There are only a few players in this and the local places tend to be much worse off. Speculating on my part as to why isn't going to really work. My point, though, is that while you can say it is fine not to regulate, that just won't work in every field. There will always be some company taking any advantage they have to utterly screw their competition with the goal of being dominant. Once dominant, they can price their product however they like and people will not have a real choice. Any possible upstart to their status quo is then immediately crushed and so they remain in charge. Now if you hate the current political atmosphere, why would you want to allow the exact same thing to happen economically? Life is not black and white. No model for society will work for that and so you take the situation, take whatever model will best allow for people to succeed and use that. Capitalism, tempered by the people to not allow it to screw us, with some government stewardship as needed is what you get as a result. Mucking about with the structure of this hoping some radical change will somehow g