Corruption in the US government?

[finalfantasynut]

in my comparison the boss would be the goverment that never fades away and keeps almost all of it for them selfs well the people who work for them get close to nothing or nothing

 

[bamthedoc]

That's generally how the "communist" and socialist governments go. One thing that Bush believes is that the government should be less involved in individuals and busnissess lives, but that it should still be regulating certain things so that products and processes remain safe. One trend I have seen (during Clinton's administration) is the reduction of high-paying jobs in favor of minimum wage ones. Bush hopes to reverse that trend. In other words, workers get payed more for their services (still nothing compared to the value of products sold, but you still need to make a profit to expand and hire more workers).

 

[finalfantasynut]

ahh so make less jobs but at least there high payed is that what your saying correct me if im wrong

 

[bamthedoc]

That's not it. It would create more jobs in the long run, and most/all those jobs would be high-paying. We would still have our minimum-wage jobs, but they would mostly be for high school students, and even for college students to pay for stuff while in college. Also, idealy, because of the increased influx of money economically (and a flat-tax that would have to exist in this system) there would be more money for the government to pay publically employed teachers and others.

So what I'm saying is there would be a larger number of jobs, not fewer.

 

[finalfantasynut]

okay now i have less mcdonalds more enrons is that correct?

 

[bamthedoc]

No, actually there wouldn't be a reduction of stuff like McDonalds, and hopefully there would be "failsafes" against corruptions like Enron (and stuff like McDonalds have had scandals and such that are less publicized). What you would see is a rise in stuff like manufacturing and services. Those are the two biggest payers.

 

[finalfantasynut]

okay more gas and more cars and more polution so far no safe guards agaist enrons and the same number of mcdonalds

 

[bamthedoc]

According to the economics of "moving money", you would have a rapid advance in technology, likely more so. It would strive for the reduction/erasure of polution and expansion in agrarian ability (i.e. making more product on land available). I don't know what the safe-guards would be, but it is likely that someone more economically (or would it be politically...) knowledgable would be able to name.

 

[finalfantasynut]

how does it make a rapid incress in tech they create techs to make it so they can make enthough to bury the smaller buisness in this case they dont need to they are getting to money from bush

 

[bamthedoc]

How are they getting the money from Bush? They are simply getting their money back. In "moving money", competition actually becomes more important. You advance your tech to compete, but you don't try to bury small busisnes. Afterall, different people have different ideas. You don't even try to buy them out. What should happen is the creation of more and more business, and all start out as "small".

And, as I said in the link I put, a 17% flat-rate tax would have no loopholes to escape from paying a certain amount. I even stated that since the tax cut (the initial one) more small businesses have opened in and around my area, and likely elsewhere.

Also, have you noticed a major competition that is now missing a member? Walmart v Kmart v Target is now just Walmart v Target. Now...that's just Kmart's poor business practices, but it may prove a negative impact on the economic environment of those companies.

 

[finalfantasynut]

are you living in a fantasy world big bunesses try and buy out or distroy small busnesses because it means more profit for them

 

[XenLiger]

yes, say i run GodGames (the name is taken after i thought of i so i dont see anyreson not to put it dis way) well say i run GodGames and im not makeing asmuch monney because i got an Eb-games shop right next to me with a sale going on. I want more monney, so i go to the Eb-game shop and ask if they want to sell for 2 million dolla'az if they say no i offer 5 they still say no ile rig a bomb, deleat some files and destroy thare shop then i make more monney again aka

are you living in a fantasy world big bunesses try and buy out or distroy small busnesses because it means more profit for them

A nuther example is Microsoft buying B.net = more profits for Microsofe because they are makeing monney form blizzard games

 

[bamthedoc]

Actually, no. You'll find that, as long as you have consumers, compeditors will always be a "threat" that is "coming out of the woodwork". Not even a business the size of Microsoft would be able to successfully deal with all compeditors and run a business with compeditive prices. Let's take Coke-a-Cola and Pepsi-Cola for example. Coke let Pepsi fall through the cracks three times! (1) Coke was on a law suit spree, knocking out all the "Cola" companies that popped up and missed Pepsi. (2 & 3) Twice Pepsi went bankrupt and offered to Coke. This occurs quite often, and proves to bring a lot of small business to a new forefront.

Another thing is that a lot of small businesses would be almost ignored because they aren't a real threat. That is untill they start running a real profit. But, by then, it's too late for the larger businesses to buy them out. I guess that's what I meant. It is likely that larger businesses will try to buy out many smaller ones they find, but you cannot catch them all, and you don't want to spend money to actually try.

 

[finalfantasynut]

yes but company buy other companys to make money that is the truth that you cant deny

 

[bamthedoc]

When did I deny it?

 

[finalfantasynut]

about here

Actually, no

yea i think that was the spot

 

[bamthedoc]

You'll find that, as long as you have consumers, compeditors will always be a "threat" that is "coming out of the woodwork". Not even a business the size of Microsoft would be able to successfully deal with all compeditors and run a business with compeditive prices.

I was openning to that... I was saying that even buying out x businesses; you can't get them all. Microsoft is still competing with Macintosh (I like a recent joke from a Mac user/fanatic). They also compete with Linux and a few others. There are several smaller companies that Microsoft has yet to buy out becuase of a variety of reasons (including competition).

 

[finalfantasynut]

yes i understand that but if mircro soft had a chance they would buy out apple and dell or any other combo

 

[Forged]

Originally posted by finalfantasynut
bush passed because his father payed off his teachers


nice the poor cant get ahead so lets give the rich more and our selfs rasies and give the poor the finger nice let me guess your a republican

Wow that was a first, I dont think anyone has ever called me a republican, No im not politacal partys suck vote for the best canidate... I live in a wealthy family that gives me that aspect

 

[finalfantasynut]

i live in a weathly family too but i dont let that impare my judgement