Big Business

[A18]

Very Favorable. America would suck without Big Business, and I think anyone who runs on a platform of hurting big business deserves to get under 1% of the vote.

[Alcon]

Favorable. It is needed, but there is a lot of corruption, as there will be anywhere large sums of money is involved. I think free trade is fundamentally good, but we need to decrease business taxation and increase environmental monitoring, as well as imposing salary caps.

[A18]

as well as imposing salary caps

I was pretty much with you until this.

[J-Mann]

Favorable.  I hate to see Mainstreet USA go to pot because the Mom & Pop stores can't compete with Wal-Mart, but that's progress, I suppose. 

[Alcon]

as well as imposing salary caps

I was pretty much with you until this.

I think that this will be good for the economy. The salary cap would not be too low, probably several million per year, but I think that keeping money in the market is a good thing.

[A18]

as well as imposing salary caps

I was pretty much with you until this.

I think that this will be good for the economy. The salary cap would not be too low, probably several million per year, but I think that keeping money in the market is a good thing.

I'm not sure what you mean. For example, if someone makes $200 million and puts it in a bank, it goes right back into the market through loans.

Furthmore, money leaving the market would actually make the value of the dollar go up.

[Alcon]

as well as imposing salary caps

I was pretty much with you until this.

I think that this will be good for the economy. The salary cap would not be too low, probably several million per year, but I think that keeping money in the market is a good thing.

I'm not sure what you mean. For example, if someone makes $200 million and puts it in a bank, it goes right back into the market through loans.

Furthmore, money leaving the market would actually make the value of the dollar go up.

Not all of it goes into investments as far as I know, although this is not an area I know much of.

It would make the dollar go up, but not hugely. Alternatively it would allow more money to pay to the workers. That would also go into the dollar, and they would spend it.

[David S]

as well as imposing salary caps

I was pretty much with you until this.

I think that this will be good for the economy. The salary cap would not be too low, probably several million per year, but I think that keeping money in the market is a good thing.

If government can dictate how much CEOs can make, what stops it dictating how much you can make? Why do we want the government to tell us how much we can make? What section of the constitution gives it that power?

I dislike the idea that CEOs can set their own compensation, but I prefer to give the stockholders more say in that rather than the federal government.

[Alcon]

as well as imposing salary caps

I was pretty much with you until this.

I think that this will be good for the economy. The salary cap would not be too low, probably several million per year, but I think that keeping money in the market is a good thing.

If government can dictate how much CEOs can make, what stops it dictating how much you can make? Why do we want the government to tell us how much we can make? What section of the constitution gives it that power?

I dislike the idea that CEOs can set their own compensation, but I prefer to give the stockholders more say in that rather than the federal government.

Stockholders don't, however, pay attention, as long as the company makes money. Why would the government dictate how much I make? I would be against this, but if they can already do it to CEOs, they can do it to us, so the point is moot.

What section of the Constitution allows for minimum wage?

[A18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An imaginary one. The Supreme Court just makes sh*t up. As long as they like the law, it is constitutional.

[David S]

as well as imposing salary caps

I was pretty much with you until this.

I think that this will be good for the economy. The salary cap would not be too low, probably several million per year, but I think that keeping money in the market is a good thing.

If government can dictate how much CEOs can make, what stops it dictating how much you can make? Why do we want the government to tell us how much we can make? What section of the constitution gives it that power?

I dislike the idea that CEOs can set their own compensation, but I prefer to give the stockholders more say in that rather than the federal government.

Stockholders don't, however, pay attention, as long as the company makes money. Why would the government dictate how much I make? I would be against this, but if they can already do it to CEOs, they can do it to us, so the point is moot.

What section of the Constitution allows for minimum wage?

If the stockholders are happy why should you object?

As far as the minimum wage goes, no section of the constitution allows that.

[Alcon]

as well as imposing salary caps

I was pretty much with you until this.

I think that this will be good for the economy. The salary cap would not be too low, probably several million per year, but I think that keeping money in the market is a good thing.

If government can dictate how much CEOs can make, what stops it dictating how much you can make? Why do we want the government to tell us how much we can make? What section of the constitution gives it that power?

I dislike the idea that CEOs can set their own compensation, but I prefer to give the stockholders more say in that rather than the federal government.

Stockholders don't, however, pay attention, as long as the company makes money. Why would the government dictate how much I make? I would be against this, but if they can already do it to CEOs, they can do it to us, so the point is moot.

What section of the Constitution allows for minimum wage?

If the stockholders are happy why should you object?

As far as the minimum wage goes, no section of the constitution allows that.

Because the excessive money going into them goes out of the market, could be spent on those who barely make a living, and I do not believe corporations should just make money and ignore anything else.

[Nym90]

Favorable. I hate to see Mainstreet USA go to pot because the Mom & Pop stores can't compete with Wal-Mart, but that's progress, I suppose.

Well, it's not progress in my opinion. It depends on how you look at it. The economy as well as humanity as a whole is best served by a balance of big business and small businesses. They both have their own advantages and disadvantages. It isn't in anyone's best interest (other than WalMart's) to drive smaller stores out of business. That means less competition, which is always bad and stifles a truly free market, not to mention all of the advantages of small business that are lost as a result (more personalized service, easier to find things in the store, many within walking distance of homes, or at least on mass transit routes so that it isn't as necessary to drive a car to get there, which reduces pollution and congestion, saving time and money for all).

[John Dibble]

Favorable. Has it's disadvantages, but outweighed by the advantages.

[Platypus]

if i was an american, i'd support it more then i do. As i'm not, my focus is on small business, but i'm not anti-big business. Priority should be given to small businesses however, imho.

[Richard]

Business in the United States is a joke.

- All anti-trust legislation should be abolished.  There is simply no excuse for the government to invade your natural rights.

- Federal minimum wage should be abolished.  You're infringing on my right to choose for how I want to price my labor.  If I want to sign a contract with another person that offers my labor at $1.50 an hour, I HAVE THAT RIGHT.

- The corporation principle should be abolished.  Incorporating provides a way for people to obtain a "limited liability" which is blatantly against Anglo-Saxon Common Law.  Limited liability, or the principle that a man is not responsible for his actions, encourage risky behavior and even illegal behavior under a pretense of immunity against parties that may have claims against you.  All organizations must be fully liable for their actions, and the people in said organizations that have a direct ownership (stocks) or management control should be fully liable for their actions, and the actions taken by the organization they control.

Enron would not have happened.  People need to be responsible for their actions.

- Bankruptcy laws should be abolished.  There should be no easy way out.  This is another shield to encourage people not to be responsible for their actions.  It is immoral and wrong.  There should be no option to declare onself bankrupt, and neither should a corporation have that ability.  If a corporation runs out of money and has creditors, you start taking money from the owners (shareholders) and management.


Based on such laws, no one should fear anything from a big business.

[David S]

as well as imposing salary caps

I was pretty much with you until this.

I think that this will be good for the economy. The salary cap would not be too low, probably several million per year, but I think that keeping money in the market is a good thing.

If government can dictate how much CEOs can make, what stops it dictating how much you can make? Why do we want the government to tell us how much we can make? What section of the constitution gives it that power?

I dislike the idea that CEOs can set their own compensation, but I prefer to give the stockholders more say in that rather than the federal government.

Stockholders don't, however, pay attention, as long as the company makes money. Why would the government dictate how much I make? I would be against this, but if they can already do it to CEOs, they can do it to us, so the point is moot.

What section of the Constitution allows for minimum wage?

If the stockholders are happy why should you object?

As far as the minimum wage goes, no section of the constitution allows that.

Because the excessive money going into them goes out of the market, could be spent on those who barely make a living, and I do not believe corporations should just make money and ignore anything else.

Ok lets look at how things work in capitalism. The first duty of the CEO is to make money for the stockholders. That may sound selfish, but in fact it creates great benefits for society as a whole. The company must provide quality goods and services at reasonable prices or their competition will put them out of business. The company must  keep costs down while offering wages high enough to attract employees. That forces them to operate as efficiently as possible. Keeping costs down is a good thing for you and me as customers. Competing for employees is good for the employees. And finally while you might think of stockholders as a bunch of fat cats, in fact there are also average people like you and me who own stock in companies either directly, or indirectly through mutual funds, in brokerage accounts or IRA/401K accounts. So those profits benefit average people as well as rich ones. Best of all the capitalist system operates by itself without  need of government intervention. Compare our capitalist system with a pure government run system such as that which existed in the former USSR. Our system beats the pants off of the Soviet model in terms of the material well being of the people, not to mention the level of freedom.
If the CEO is running the company in such a way as to return profits to the stockholders that's a good thing and if the stockholders want to reward him with a high salary what's wrong with that?

[TheBulldog]

Unfavorable.  It has its benefits, but they exploit workers unfairly.

[David S]

Unfavorable.  It has its benefits, but they exploit workers unfairly.

Can you give us an example of a something better? Big Business' generally pay better than small business'. Unskilled automotive workers are very well paid and get excellent benefits. I have nothing whatsoever against small business, but usually the local Mom and Pop store does not pay its employees all that well. Government jobs in the U.S. may pay well and have good benefits, but those jobs can only exist because of the taxes levied on the private sector. If you want a state run economy show me one that has provided the level of prosperity for its people that our capitalist system provides for us. I assure you there are none.

[Bono]

Unfavorable, because they only got big because of government priviledges, like walmart using eminent domain to demolish churches and set stores there.

[John Dibble]

- All anti-trust legislation should be abolished.  There is simply no excuse for the government to invade your natural rights.

I actually disagree on this. Some of these laws prevent price collaboration. Capitalism serves everyone best when it is competitive, and price collaboration(trusts, cartels) create artificial monopolies that are bad for the consumer - like what OPEC does, raise the price of oil whenever they feel like it, rather than base prices on supply and demand are. Some anti-trust legislation may be bad, but preventing price collaboration is good.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Very Unfavorable

[Richard]

- All anti-trust legislation should be abolished.  There is simply no excuse for the government to invade your natural rights.

I actually disagree on this. Some of these laws prevent price collaboration. Capitalism serves everyone best when it is competitive, and price collaboration(trusts, cartels) create artificial monopolies that are bad for the consumer - like what OPEC does, raise the price of oil whenever they feel like it, rather than base prices on supply and demand are. Some anti-trust legislation may be bad, but preventing price collaboration is good.

So you're willing to revoke someone's right to make a contract with someone else?

You don't have to buy your oil from OPEC.  Oligopolies can't last without government interference.  It is government that causes monopolies and oligopolies.

[David S]

Unfavorable, because they only got big because of government priviledges, like walmart using eminent domain to demolish churches and set stores there.

Walmart doens't get to invoke eminent domain. Only government can do that. You should be upset with government for misusing eminent domain. Under the constitution eminent domain is used to obtain land for public use, not for private business. So its government, not Walmart that acted improperly.

Also what type of business do you think we should have? Its fair enough to criticize big business, but what works better?

[David S]

Richius, you have very strong Libertarian views, at least on economic issues. I applaud that. Are there any more like you in Ontario?