Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Casaubon who wrote (108473)	2/19/2010 12:59:59 AM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

We don't set a living wage, in our Capitalist system because, we can't. Was this country founded as a haven for Capitalist interests (or any other economic system)? Or was it founded to preserve the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity? I think that's a fundamental question we need to address... I'm ALL for capitalism, SO LONG as it serves the greater good of the citizens of this country. But it must be regulated to prevent it from exploiting and harming American citizens. Now.. Corporations can pick and choose their legal status at will. They don't have to spend years becoming naturalized citizens. They can move their "citizenship" (incorporated status) from the US to another country, or vice versa. A US company can be bought by a foreign corporation and suddenly become "foreign". As such, their loyalties are transient, as are their profits. In essence, corporations are "supranational" by their very nature. Therefore, the predominant responsibility of our government is to represent the people who elect them to office, not the corporations who seek to do business in this country. It's the government's responsibility to set the rules and regulations that govern corporate activity within our sovereign borders. Labor laws, OSHA, FDA, anti-trust regulations, environmental quality, as well as securities regulations are all safeguards put in place to prevent corporate exploitation of the citizenry of this nation. So yes.. I'm all for Capitalism, but I'm not for Corpocracy, which represents control over our sovereign country by corporate interests. Competitive Capitalism HAS BEEN the greatest engine for economic growth and technological innovation in man's history. HOWEVER, every engine has to have a governor and other physical restraints in order to prevent it from those seeking to harness it for their use and benefit. Unfettered capitalism, on the other hand, resembles totalitarian fascism just as much as centralized "command economies" exploit the proletariat for their own political interests. I'm all for providing inducement/incentives for corporations to do business in the US. In fact, I'm with Mish when it comes to decreasing corporate income taxes (though I think local governments can assess/waive permitting fees). Besides, corporations just pass those taxes on to the consumers of their products/services. But the quid pro quo must be that corporations act to benefit the communities in which they are located. They need to have some "skin in the game" when they start up operations in a community. They need to invest in the success of that community. And government has the responsibility for making sure that it invests in it's citizens to attract corporations to begin business in those communities. Educational and job re-training support,... etc. And if those corporations seek to move the greater percentage of their operations outside of the US, only to sell back into the US marketplace, then I think the people of this country, via it's elected government, have some interest in whether to permit those products to escape tariffs and taxation. At least, that's my opinion on the matter at this time.. Still developing my views on the matter. Hawk