[sbskeeper]

You are right. Consumers do have some power in the market. I dont know who said this but it is so true."No one ever went broke overestimating the intellenge of the average consumer". The crap that people buy never ceases to amaze me. Look at the whole flap about these toxic Chinese toys. What in the world makes people think that their kids need hundreds of cheap plastic garbage toys in order to amuse themselves. Consumers buy stuff just to buy without any real need for what they are getting. When I was a kid in the 50's there was no such thing as yard sales. People had stuff that they needed and when it wore out they threw it away and bought new stuff. That is not how things are done today. People buy and then store vast quantities of goods that then sit in some cupboard or closet unused for years until they clean it out and have a yard sale. They need the room to store the new useless crap that they then go about getting. Consummerism it's nuts.

I'm not going to argue with you on that. Consumers do buy junk they don't need but buying frivoulous things is good for the overall health of the economy. Due to the influence of globalization in the economy, especially in the United States, it is very difficult to know exactly what you are buying, or where it comes from. A lot of times mistakes made overseas do end up in the final product in the US so if there are mistakes made in the overall product (like the toxic toys from China) there used to be a lot consumers couldn't do about it. There are a lot of website people can go to now to report things like toxic toys to stop other people from buying bad products. [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Political Forum Link. is one such website where people can do this.

Consumers do have power in the market if people report bad products. Lawsuits are also helpful to helping rectify a supplier's mistake to consumers.

[crazy canuk]

There is no such thing as a free market. What your idea of a free market is, that those who own and control the means of production and control wages and the lives of millions of people who are completely in their thrall are free to screw the public to their hearts delight. As for Combines you show your political and historical ignorance of a time in American history when large American corporations Combined together to create Trusts whose only function was to provide the Robber Barons of the time a complete monopoly and a complete control over production of virtually every single product and commody bought and sold in the USA. This was the type of Capitalism that caused Communism as a reaction by the wage slaves in other parts of the world. Thankfully the leaders of the USA at the time realized that this free market system was nothing of the sort and a continuation of it would probably lead to violent revolution. Even right wing leaders like Theodore Roosevelt started to use the US Justice department to Bust these Trusts. Unregulated big business is always a tyrrany of the worst sort pitting the upper class of masters against the lower class of workers. I believe in the free enterprise system. You are free to run your business how ever you want until your practices start to infringe upon the rights of others. Then the people step in and regulate your business to protect everybodies rights. This is a happy medium where everyone is protected and respected and peace and harmomy prevail. This is the political center, not left or right but a position that wants the best for the most. We hear almost nothing about the center in American politics. Why not.

[sbskeeper]

First of all, I’m sorry it has taken me so long for me to get back to you. I’m going to be incredibly busy this week, so it may take me longer than usual to respond, so please be patient with me. I may be having some sort of oral surgery tomorrow morning, so I may not respond until late Wednesday or early Thursday.

What your idea of a free market is, that those who own and control the means of production and control wages and the lives of millions of people who are completely in their thrall are free to screw the public to their hearts delight.

I think I should define my opinions more clearly. I don’t think my idea of a free market is one where suppliers screw up the lives of millions of people. My idea of a free market is dictated mainly by the rules of supply and demand. Any illegal or unethical activity done by businesses should be dealt with by consumers unless it is too big for consumers to deal with (price gouging of oil for example). I also think that most of the early practices that the US government passed as laws to mandate ethics in business are also practical and help ensure that both business and consumers benefit.

As for Combines you show your political and historical ignorance of a time in American history when large American corporations Combined together to create Trusts…

My lack of understanding of your term “combines” was neither political nor historical ignorance. In America we use the word “merger” to describe when companies join together instead of “combines”.

…whose only function was to provide the Robber Barons of the time a complete monopoly and a complete control over production of virtually every single product and commody bought and sold in the USA. This was the type of Capitalism that caused Communism as a reaction by the wage slaves in other parts of the world. Thankfully the leaders of the USA at the time realized that this free market system was nothing of the sort and a continuation of it would probably lead to violent revolution. Even right wing leaders like Theodore Roosevelt started to use the US Justice department to Bust these Trusts.

]

I don’t know if I would go so far to call every single monopoly “bad”. There were two main “trust busting” cases that stick out in my mind during the time of Roosevelt’s presidency; Standard Oil and Alcoa. Standard Oil became a monopoly by using illegal business practices in order to become a giant in the oil industry. If the government reacted sooner against the illegal business practices undertaken by Standard Oil (the way it was supposed to), Standard Oil would have never become a monopoly, and no court action would have been needed, saving taxpayers of the past thousands of dollars in court fees. On the other hand, there are examples of “good” monopolies. Alcoa was a giant in the aluminum industry that actually was able to keep exceptionally low prices for consumers, that really benefited everyone BUT Alcoa (Alcoa had no competitors).

I don’t know about Canada but in the US there are two precedents regarding monopolies: the per se rule and the rule of reason. The two rulings are completely opposite of one another and were used in the above Supreme Court cases. The Rule of Reason was applied in the case of Standard Oil: the only reason to break up monopolies was if they engaged in illegal business practices. Since Standard Oil did use illegal business practices to get ahead they were broken up into the oil companies that remain today; Mobil, Chevron, Amoco, and Exxon. The per se rule means that all monopolies are illegal regardless if they engage in illegal business practices. The Supreme Court took no action against Alcoa because competitors soon entered the aluminum industry after Alcoa went to court, which settled with the issue with Supreme Court. Although the per se rule was not used to break up Alcoa in the 40s, it has been used against monopolies since that time.

To be honest, I haven’t quite made my mind up where the government line should be concerning unethical business practices. I do think that most of the rules made to monitor the ethical practices of business do help but I think sometimes they are taken too far. I think I should better define the problem I have with the role of government with business. I think that US government guidelines and severe taxation of US companies are really hurting US companies today. There are so many permits, applications, fees, etc required by government to simply operate companies! I think that most of these permits, applications, fees, etc are wasting valuable time and resources of both companies and the US government. I also don’t think that government should force severe global warming legislation down the throats of businesses because it hurts consumers (by higher prices) and producers (have to finance new ventures that are costly). In the case of the American automobile industry, I think this is particularly true. I do think that US companies should have foreseen that cleaner vehicles that are more efficient with fuel, because they would have had to know that they would pursue an entire new market of consumers with such technology. Foreign automobile companies that did foresee that this new era of environmental concern have benefited greatly. I also think that there should not be a government mandated minimum wage. People wanting an increase in wages should go to their employers, not government. Besides, the main age group of people that benefit from the minimum wage, at least in America, are teenagers. Regardless, a raise in minimum wage has an impact on a whole country with a raise in unemployment and inflation. Leadership in government advocating a raise in the minimum wage know this but if they support raising the minimum wage they will obtain more votes from teenagers. That is all raising the minimum wage is about.. Votes.

Unregulated big business is always a tyrrany of the worst sort pitting the upper class of masters against the lower class of workers. I believe in the free enterprise system. You are free to run your business how ever you want until your practices start to infringe upon the rights of others. Then the people step in and regulate your business to protect everybodies rights. This is a happy medium where everyone is protected and respected and peace and harmomy prevail. This is the political center, not left or right but a position that wants the best for the most. We hear almost nothing about the center in American politics. Why not.

I really think that current government regulations in the US are sufficient to safeguard its citizens from the “tyranny” of business. I think we agree on some things concerning business but I favor more action undertaken by consumers rather than government. I only think government should intervene if the issue is to big for consumers. For the most part I think we should agree to disagree on the role of government.

[crazy canuk]

What you are saying is that you believe in a regulated market. This is quite different than a free market. I agree that regulations can become real burdens on the development of business and the government has to be careful that they are not an impediment to development. You have a lot of faith in the consumer to no what is good for him or not. I have no faith in the consumer at all. We have no way to be able to tell if products sold to us are what they are supposed to be. If someone put dung in a bottle and then spent millions advertizing that this was the greatest cure for whatever there ever has been, people would buy it and use it even if it killed them. Your avarage person is no match for big business and that is why we as consumers need the protection of our government. The government is supposed to be "The People" so this is just a case of the people protecting themselves from an entity that has a very bad track record when it comes to being honest, fair, and responsible to their customers.

[sbskeeper]

What you are saying is that you believe in a regulated market. This is quite different than a free market. I agree that regulations can become real burdens on the development of business and the government has to be careful that they are not an impediment to development.

I guess I would believe in a regulated market but only at the limited extent. I think market regulations should extend only to things talked about in Bus 101 ethics classes.

You have a lot of faith in the consumer to no what is good for him or not. I have no faith in the consumer at all. We have no way to be able to tell if products sold to us are what they are supposed to be. If someone put dung in a bottle and then spent millions advertizing that this was the greatest cure for whatever there ever has been, people would buy it and use it even if it killed them. Your avarage person is no match for big business and that is why we as consumers need the protection of our government. The government is supposed to be "The People" so this is just a case of the people protecting themselves from an entity that has a very bad track record when it comes to being honest, fair, and responsible to their customers.

...The media would be all over that story and lawyers would wage a multi-million dollar lawsuit against that company. The average person still has to choice to purchase a product or not and and wouldn't willfuly buy a product that would kill them, please stop being so sarcastic. There are many companies that are honest, fair, and responsible to customers. The negative attuitue you exhibit are the reason for all the "real burdens on the development of business". Producers supply what consumers want and if they don't, then producers will not make a profit. So, suppliers have to market their products in a way that will want consumers to buy the product. Even if the product really doesn't improve the lives of the poeple that buy it like video games or something, what does it matter? Those kind of purchases strengthen the economy in the long run. The market is a delicate balance of supply and demand. Without both the producer or the consumer dictating which products line the shelves, the balance of supply and demand is off.

[libertarianlady]

You know in context, don't bash the libertarians. WE do stand for limited government and there is nothing wrong with that. I have read many many governmental books on different forms and the one that overwhelmingly was the best option was the libertarian view. What's wrong with returning to the jungle. It's a hell of a lot worse in this world right now. You have people on welfare who really shouldn't be and they make more money than most people. I've seen people on welfare buying condos', new cars, etc. I've never had a new car and I've worked all my life.
You sit back and put your faith in simple human beings who only get put into office because they either have the money or the influence to get in. Last time I checked, they pull their pants down and go to the potty like everyone else. What makes them gods?
You say libertarians are stupid. I don't think so. I think we're some of the few that actually have our heads screwed on straight and see the crap for what it is. Some glorified world you are living in. Open your eyes and see it for what it is instead of walking around with blinders on.

[sbskeeper]

Thank you!