How Govt. Ruined The Movies

[Tom Lowe]

I have no problem with breaking up monopolies, but such power should be used sparingly and only in very clear-cut cases. Whether or not the studio/theater system needed to be dismantled by the government in the 1940s is open to debate, strictly on the merits of the cases. I don't know enough about the details to really get into it here. Just on the surface, I don't see why the independent theaters could not compete. And there was already competition from rival studios, I'm assuming. So where is the monopoly? The details of this are probably very involved. Gavin, you are on the opposite of the political spectrum from me. You seem to believe in big government, and I believe in small government. So it's unlikely that we will see eye to eye on issues related to the scope of government. On issues of civil liberties, for example, we would probably agree on many things.

 

[Yannick Hagman]

Free market is self-regulating. But now we are in a time where big companies don't die if they make mistakes. I guess it is a very dangerous thing that could lead to severe damage. Only the feature will show how this will end up. Like life, there is a point where every company makes a mistake and dies. It's a natural process and there shouldn't be any intervention at all.


Kongō Gumi was the oldest company ever.

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Man, more of this monopoly baloney, go back and read my prior comments on them, I'm tired of repeating the same thing and watching people blatantly ignore the facts of life: options will always exist in a free market.

So what if YOU can't start a company that competes with Sony, but don't assume others like Jim couldn't, and don't assume he needed "govt. help" to do it. I think Jim would find that offensive actually.

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Free market is self-regulating. But now we are in a time where big companies don't die if the make mistakes. I guess it is a very dangerous thing that could lead to severe damage. Only the feature will show how this will end up. Like life, there is a point where every company makes a mistake and dies. It's a natural process.


Kongō Gumi was the oldest company ever.

You know, and I've said this many times in this thread and seen it ignored, companies HAVE been given powers that the free market does not give them. So the next time your ticked off about business leaders getting away with all kinds things you don't like, just remember, it was your precious big govt. that allowed it to happen, by granting them the abilities they have to skirt all kinds of personal accountability.

All right, now lets watch the big govt. guys ignore this fact.

 

[jpp]

Cardmaverick,

Can you name a single prosperous country, at any time in history, that's implemented your free-market theories and thrived on them for more than a few years? Until recently, folks used to cite Iceland and Ireland as free-market miracles, but Iceland is currently in receivership, having gone bankrupt, and Ireland isn't far behind.

Meanwhile, it's not at all difficult to cite prosperous countries where the population lives far more comfortably than most Americans. And these countries not only reject your preferred system, but the U.S. approach well, as far too raw and unregulated.

Given the choice, why should anyone take your route?

 

[Tom Lowe]

Look at the boom in the US from 1870 until the 1920s.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

So what if YOU can't start a company that competes with Sony, but don't assume others like Jim couldn't, and don't assume he needed "govt. help" to do it. I think Jim would find that offensive actually.

Even Jim was as 'small' at some point. He didn't inherit his Red startup money.

It's a chicken egg scenario. You have to protect the eggs or all you have are chickens and trust fund chickens. Which is the opposite of a meritocracy and doesn't let people like Jim enter a market and offer a superior product or use their superior business senses to replace existing market share.

You don't want your economy setup such that only billionaires can start companies.

 

[jpp]

Look at the boom in the US from 1870 until the 1920s.

Yes, the period of child factory labor, violent government suppression of labor protests and the development of urban slums. Tremendous wealth was amassed during this period, but not by working people; this was the age of the robber barons. And how did it end? With a market collapse, widespread bank failures, massive government intervention in the economy, and two world wars.

The highest increase in growth of per capita wealth occurred after WWII, thanks to strong unions, the GI bill, high taxes on wealth, strong banking regulations, a labor/business compact, and government programs like S.S.. That boom lasted until about 1970, until Nixon chucked out the Bretton-Woods agreement, and we embarked on the so-called free market era of slow growth and low wages. Since then, wages have actually declined.

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Cardmaverick,

Can you name a single prosperous [correction!] country, at any time in history, that's implemented your free-market theories and thrived on them for more than a few years? Until recently, folks used to cite Iceland and Ireland as free-market miracles, but Iceland is currently in receivership, and Ireland isn't far behind.

Meanwhile, it's not at all difficult to cite prosperous countries where the population lives far more comfortably than most Americans, which not only reject your preferred system, but the U.S. system as well, as far too raw and unregulated.

Given the choice, why should anyone take your route?

Here's the problem, a truly free society hasn't even been given a chance. From day one in the US its been a downward spiral of big govt. power grabbing, just look at slavery, blatant ignoring of a freshly signed constitution forbidding that. More big government. Can you please defend slavery? It only existed because of government you know.

As for citing other countries I find that rather odd. Why? Because you, and millions of others probably don't know this: our currency is what backs literally over a hundred other nations currencies. Our currency is worthless (100% crap since 1971, look it up), and thus, so is theirs... You can write whole books on why that setup is a bad idea economically, and I've read them!

Define living "comfortably"? I'm curios. I know in many socialistic countries you are probably referring to, that privacy is almost non existent, you have to wait on lists for operations because some bureaucrat thinks he can predict exactly the number/types of procedures are needed each year, and all the brightest tend to flee to the US, despite our declining freedoms. Theres more, like the fact that all those countries are headed for bankruptcy as well (so are we, but they are much farther along then we are as dead end socialists go).

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Can you please defend slavery? It only existed because of government you know.

Everything only exists because of government. Your wealth and my wealth are only defined by our ability to defend said definition. If I come into your house. Shoot you and start living in your home. Without a government it's now my house.

In a "Truely free market" the easiest way to eliminate the competition is to violently enforce your monopoly. No government or regulation and execution of executives and entrepreneurs who threaten your business is fair game.

In a "Truely free market" ("which has never existed") slaves and employees are indescernable. The employer simply grabs someone on the street and straps them into a chair. In a "truely free market" an employer who controls most of the jobs in a market can tell the grocery store to only sell to people who work for the company. They can effectively completely control a labor market and force people to work for little to no wages. They can also force you to sign agreements which forbid you from working for anyone else. They get you while you're hungry. And have you sign whatever they want in exchange for a hot meal. Then you're a slave. That's free market.

"Oh but I'll just go to the town next door!" Sure... but someone has already setup a monopoly on labor there as well. Maybe you can't afford to move.

With a truely free market you devolve into fiefdoms and the dark ages.

 

[Peter Weisberg]

Define living "comfortably"? I'm curios. I know in many socialistic countries you are probably referring to, that privacy is almost non existent, you have to wait on lists for operations because some bureaucrat thinks he can predict exactly the number/types of procedures are needed each year, and all the brightest tend to flee to the US, despite our declining freedoms. Theres more, like the fact that all those countries are headed for bankruptcy as well (so are we, but they are much farther along then we are as dead end socialists go).

actually the socialism practiced in europe specifically in sweden is handling much better than we are right now in the states. The fact of the matter is any economic plan founded on greed is not the way to go, it will cause more problems then it solves and it instills all the wrong ideas. Instead of focusing on making the best possible product we can, most companies focus on making the best possible profit. What we are seeing in our economy is a blatent example of captialism working its way around regulation. Thats the problem with captialism in the first place, is that in order for it to work there needs to be regulation and regulation like that always has loopholes. Now we have industries that CAN NOT fail and if they do it means catastrophe so the govt has to bail them out. But if the government was running these industries and they started to fail, the public could demand a change in staff. Shareholding would be a matter of public record and we wouldn't see these big ceo's being able to lie and steal money with no one there to stop them.

This would leave free market competition for industries that could fail without bringing down our entire economy, and would allow for a much healthier form of competition.

 

[Kevin Olsen]

Sorry, but no. The Federal Reserve is known as a quasi-governmental institution, with elements of private governance. It's not a government agency, but it's not a private business either. In practice, the Federal Reserve is very unlikely to thwart presidential directives. And the president appoints the Fed chief.

While the GOA has the ability to audit the Fed, they never release their findings to Congress, and thus Congress can't dictate policy.

Yes the President appoints the head of the Fed, but this is widely known that he does so from a list of 'options' the Fed gives him. This is the only member of the Fed that the government appoints, and his position is largely a PR role, meant to ease market concerns and promote positive perception.

I suggest EVERYONE, read and sign a petition urging their Congressmen/Congresswomen, to support H.R. 1207, which outlines plans to make the Fed report their activities to Congress and make their activites public knowledge. This was introduced by Ron Paul and has 162 co-sponsors in the house (as of 05/14/09).

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/campaigns/auditthefed.php

There are plenty of articles and good news clips showing some deliberation about many of these topics at the Campaign for Liberty site. I suggest you visit and read a bit. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

If your curious about the history of the Fed, read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jeky...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242436774&sr=8-1

KO

 

[Jay Voutour]

While the GOA has the ability to audit the Fed, they never release their findings to Congress, and thus Congress can't dictate policy.

Yes the President appoints the head of the Fed, but this is widely known that he does so from a list of 'options' the Fed gives him. This is the only member of the Fed that the government appoints, and his position is largely a PR role, meant to ease market concerns and promote positive perception.

I suggest EVERYONE, read and sign a petition urging their Congressmen/Congresswomen, to support H.R. 1207, which outlines plans to make the Fed report their activities to Congress and make their activites public knowledge. This was introduced by Ron Paul and has 162 co-sponsors in the house (as of 05/14/09).

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/campaigns/auditthefed.php

There are plenty of articles and good news clips showing some deliberation about many of these topics at the Campaign for Liberty site. I suggest you visit and read a bit. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

If your curious about the history of the Fed, read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jeky...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242436774&sr=8-1

KO

IMO, 'government' (quasi- or otherwise) transparency and accountability is always a good thing. Especially when you are dealing with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
________
Toyota Tf104 History

 

[GlennChan]

Talk about circular arguments.... I thought the whole beauty of being a monopoly is that you don't have to answer to customers and can sell them crap.

But they can't... otherwise people would switch to Linux, OS X, etc.

Microsoft still has to improve its operating system, support developers, etc. etc.

A good thing, too, since not a day passes without a Microsoft Windows security alert. Any kind of warranty, extended or otherwise, would bankrupt Microsoft in about 10 days.

So from what I understand, whatever Microsoft does is evil?

Not offering free security patches? Evil.
Offering free security patches? Also evil.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

actually the socialism practiced in europe specifically in sweden is handling much better than we are right now in the states. The fact of the matter is any economic plan founded on greed is not the way to go, it will cause more problems then it solves and it instills all the wrong ideas. Instead of focusing on making the best possible product we can, most companies focus on making the best possible profit. What we are seeing in our economy is a blatent example of capitalism working its way around regulation. Thats the problem with capitalism in the first place, is that in order for it to work there needs to be regulation and regulation like that always has loopholes. Now we have industries that CAN NOT fail and if they do it means catastrophe so the govt has to bail them out. But if the government was running these industries and they started to fail, the public could demand a change in staff. Shareholding would be a matter of public record and we wouldn't see these big ceo's being able to lie and steal money with no one there to stop them.

This would leave free market competition for industries that could fail without bringing down our entire economy, and would allow for a much healthier form of competition.

When was the last time you saw a well run government program? I mean seriously? I am currently dealing with SS and Mediacare for my grandparents and it is such a joke. If I ran my business like the government runs things, I would have made it about one month (of course, I don't have access to just taking more money from other people or printing more!) I find it funny how congressmen and senators accuse CEO's of all these things, and they are doing just as many wrong things.

Capitalism works. But only in a moral society. I don't think our society is anything like it was 200 years ago. Big companies can fail. Let them. It's happened before and we've gotten through it. But capitalism only works if things like failing companies to actually fail. We will survive.

But basic laws like not letting people who can't afford to take out loans to not take them out is wise. There's nothing in the Constitution about providing an easy life for you. All you get is protection from other countries, each other, and freedom to make your life whatever you want to make it. (you know, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") That's what I love about the US. You can make your life whatever you want it to be. Federal government isn't supposed to provide anything more.

Matthew

 

[Tom Lowe]

Man, it's nice to see a lot of libertarian-minded people in here.

 

[GlennChan]

When was the last time you saw a well run government program? I mean seriously?

Uh... garbage collection. Defense. Police.

Though I agree that there a lot of cases where the government shouldn't get involved / it does a terrible job. Subsidies, protectionism, bailing out bad banks and rewarding people who have made too many bad loans, starting wars, etc. etc.

 

[jpp]

Define living "comfortably"? I'm curios.

- free health care, which results in far lower infant mortality rates and substantially higher life expectancy than in the U.S. Europeans also grow taller than Americans these days, which is a very revealing public health stat.

- free higher education, including graduate and professional school (film school too, for that matter; when I was on the festival circuit with shorts, it was always easy to tell the European student films: 35mm.)

- mandatory 6 week vacations

- a guaranteed wage, in case of sickness or disability

- free daycare

- no poverty, as we know it in the U.S. (and especially, no CHILD poverty)

I know in many socialistic countries you are probably referring to, that privacy is almost non existent

You mean countries where the government spies illegally on your phone calls, emails and financial and medical records, and then has the Congress immunize the elected officials who ordered the illegal surveillance? That couldn't be us by any chance, could it?

When was the last time you saw a well run government program? I mean seriously?

Social security works flawlessly, and took millions of seniors out of poverty, and Medicare works pretty well, apart from the private sector fraud which besets the program, and the bleeding it gets from pols who want to give themselves and their campaign contributors tax cuts.

More to the point, would you really want the health insurance industry or investment bankers running the post office or the military?

Ah, but I forgot. The investment banks and the health insurance industry DO run the country .... And look at the result.

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

JPG, please don't mis-quote me:

I agree with this, but never typed it, Matthew Rogers did:

"When was the last time you saw a well run government program? I mean seriously?"

Gotta keep an eye on that sorta thing...

 

[Joseph Ward]

Sorry, but no. The Federal Reserve is known as a quasi-governmental institution, with elements of private governance. It's not a government agency, but it's not a private business either. In practice, the Federal Reserve is very unlikely to thwart presidential directives. And the president appoints the Fed chief.

Sorry I was wrong, but just saying why the need for the government to pay interest on issuing money, if it was Federal? As far as presidential appoints for the Fed Chief, the President gets a list that he(or she) chooses from and nominates while Congress approves/confirms the nominee. The biggest power house for the Federal Reserve, compared to the other banks/territories, is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Congress can exercise their right to audit the Federal Reserve but they won't... Ahh Economics can go around in circles.