Forum Post: Explain to me why a capitalist government refuses to be in business…
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 9, 2011, 11:45 a.m. EST by Markmad
(323)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Explain to me why a capitalist government refuses to be in business… And actually own corporations that are related to national security such as the natural resources sectors; oil, food, minerals, and etc. etc. etc. The problem with our government is lack of income; taxes alone are not enough to provide for free education, all the way to college, and free health care for all. If emerging economies such as Brazil, Canada, and France are able to do so, why not in the United States?
The government is in all kinds of business. The business of War first of all. Weapons are our #1 component of GDP and export item. Just take a look at Haliburton - gov't contracts - we've been bunk mates for decades! Second, they're in the business of War Debt. Raising the debt ceiling is a blank check for our war efforts, which sadly, are profit-motivated - oil, you know. So be comforted in knowing that your elected officials are indeed serving the purpose of generating income for the gov't by leveraging a massive deficit for sinister business dealings across the globe. Why to we need 250 over seas military bases, and yet we don't have enough money to offer National Guard employees life insurance - Rumsfeld said it best: 'body bags are cheaper than body armor'. Never a truer capitalist statement.
Because the definition of capitalism revolves around private ownership of property and investment decisions. The purpose of government in a capitalistic society is to provide the environment under which people can engage in commerce by free exchange of goods and services.
Well if you are going to dig ancient economic principles (von Hayek 1944 e von Mises 1920) no wonder our economy is a disaster. The greatest economies today are mix; a combination of government own corporation working in conjunction with industries from the private sector. Mix economies that are the future.
I agree that there is a mix, but am saying that I do not think government should be in business of any type.
Why? If the government goes into business, it takes that market away from competitors, usually by creating laws to favor the government.
This intervention leads to a downward spiral. Normally you have an upward spiral: any time there is a market created for a new good or services, secondary markets spring up to serve those who produce the new good or service -more grocery stores, gas stations, home builders, etc. And the increase in these sectors provides more income for those producers to buy and investment capital to innovate and create more goods, additional services (or make those that exist more efficient).
Take away true market competition and the spiral reverses as the secondary markets shrink. Add to this that the monopoly owner of the market becomes less efficient/responsive, and the spiral escalates.
Given a choice between a monopoly by a corporation or a monopoly by a government, I'd prefer to have one by a corporation, because a government can make laws to restrict competition. However bad a corporation might get, it can always be usurped by a more innovative product that meets the needs of the market better, cheaper, etc.
Ah, maybe because government can't even police the border without GIVING guns to drug cartels. And apparently, no one is to blame! Or handing out tax money to start-ups its own advisers red-flag. I want these bureaucrats running a nationalized oil company. Brilliant!
Give government less power, not more. And don't look to the state for your well-being.
You’re so wrong. Brazil Owns 150 national corporation, Canada owns 100 national corporations and France owns around 110 national corporations. These countries are economic powerhouses serving the people. A powerless government must prostitute itself to wall street.