Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| thomas pars wrote: |
| With public ownership the people own the resource. So if the government is irresponsible with it then the people can vote them out and replace them with one who will better represent their interests. With corporate ownership the people have no voice. |
This works in practice, rarely. At least if there is a competitive market, people can vote with their dollars.
If there is a monopoly, govt or corporate, as you say the people have no voice. It is an ownership problem. Not a problem with markets.
| Quote: |
| And in several cases the government has no voice either. Take the fuel additive MTBE. When California decided to ban the additive because it causes cancer. The Canadian manufacturer sued California with the claim that "California's ban unfairly restricts the company's ability to sell methanol (the key ingredient in MTBE) and profit from it in the state -- and therefore constitutes a violation of NAFTA. |
The company is well within their rights to challenge something like this. Perhaps the science isn't settled, on this substance. There are more factors at play than simply, good govt vs evil business.
| Quote: |
| this is what is so troubling to me... corporations overruling the decisions made by citizens at the ballot box and the legislative process. |
Every single time this happens, it is because they are enabled by their cronies in govt. Corporatism in action.
| Quote: |
| I'm not a terribly big fan of big government either. But explain to me how the antidote for it is unrestrained, unchecked capitalism. |
Free markets are far from perfect, but they are by far the fairest way to allocate resources. The situations you describe have nothing to do with free markets. The are corporatism, crony capitalism, corporate welfare, whatever you want to call it. Capitalism has nothing to do with it.
| Quote: |
The current economic crisis is a direct result of deregulation. |
If you believe this, I feel truly sorry for you.
| Quote: |
| As for the water crisis in Bolivia at least the IMF and the world bank, agents that are supposed to HELP developing nations convinced them to relinquish their public ownerships. So that multinational corporations like good old Coca cola, or Thames water, or Nestle or any more than a dozen other firms could build a plant and sell THEIR water back to them at ridiculously inflated prices. |
Haha, the IMF and World Bank are the villains here, not private business. These govt institutions allow and facilitate the abuses you have high lighted, and your solution is more bureaucrats?
| Quote: |
| There was nothing wrong with the country's original water plants or operations. Bolivia wanted money from the world bank/IMF. And they agreed to give it. With the caveat that they relinquish control over state owned resources. |
There you go. Who is to blame. The patron or client?
| Quote: |
true Bolivia didn't have to hand it over. But let me ask you this, is is ok to allow a corporation to ban people from collecting rain water for irrigation, washing or even DRINKING?!!?!?! As was the case in Bolivia? Is that OKay? |
There is no way that a company could stop people fr4om collecting rain water, with out collusion with the govt.
This could never happen with a true free market. As property right are sacrosanct, an individual is free to do as he pleases on his own land. |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
