Adam Driver
Active member
Awards
Which type of job creation you think has a good/bad effect on today's unemployment and wage benefits?
[Discussion] Free Market V Government
- Thread starter Adam Driver
- Start date
Haywood Jablomi
Member
slimreaper
Active member
Kiri Starstalker
Member
Both can co-exist, and do co-exist, so acting like one by itself works splendidly is just wrong. We can see how this works in pretty much every civilized country.
As far as the US is concerned, an unregulated free-market was proven to be detrimental during the late 1800s and early 20th century, but government regulations haven't had the greatest effects either, especially at the local level.
As far as the US is concerned, an unregulated free-market was proven to be detrimental during the late 1800s and early 20th century, but government regulations haven't had the greatest effects either, especially at the local level.
Adam Driver
Active member
Awards
Because of the overwhelming influence and control of the government?
Co workers always saying there is no free market.. I agree as well I just wanted to see if others had a different view on it but it seems like everyone agrees on that point
Adam Driver
Active member
Awards
Yeah I heard the same thing in a documentary about Capitalism a while back, thanks man
Logically, the government obtains its revenues from taxes and any employees must be paid by either those taxes or inflation of the currency supply.
Therefor government employment is a net burden on the economy.
The only job that does not represent a burden is a job created within the free market.
Now, it should be noted that virtually every country uses fiat currency systems. Since the government is the only issuer of the currency, then the only point of entry into the market is from government employees or contracts paid to private market bidders of services.
Of course, only suicidal nations adopt fiat currencies. Since that is what the whole world is using, things are going to get pretty entertaining around here.
Therefor government employment is a net burden on the economy.
The only job that does not represent a burden is a job created within the free market.
Now, it should be noted that virtually every country uses fiat currency systems. Since the government is the only issuer of the currency, then the only point of entry into the market is from government employees or contracts paid to private market bidders of services.
Of course, only suicidal nations adopt fiat currencies. Since that is what the whole world is using, things are going to get pretty entertaining around here.
Citizenship within 'my country' would be signing on to the terms and conditions of a citizenship contract referred to as the Constitution. The Constitution would denote how the country's affairs are to be divided up into seated offices, how the people chairing those offices are to be selected, the limitations upon those offices, how decisions upon exercising authority are made, and upon the restrictions that apply to what kind of decisions can be made.
Ideally, a key facet of the Constitution would be that non-citizens are allowed to reside within the territory without specific permit or registration. They could own property, conduct business, seek employment, etc. Since the only form of legal tax revenue would be sales tax indiscriminate of the individual, the need to register and track individuals is kept to a minimum. The only legal form of money would be metric units of gold and/or silver, and the government would not be permitted to authorize its own currency.
Citizenship simply denotes the acceptance of the terms of the governing process and an acceptance of the authority to exercise a vote when appropriate. It gains no special privileges or permissions and is given the only prohibiting criterion that anyone violating the terms of the contract (IE - conducting affairs in a way inconsistent with the contract - Constitution) has their citizenship revoked and can no longer participate in government affairs. A lack of citizenship status does not imply a requirement for deportation.
However, borders should still be secured and any migrants screened for illness and potential criminal history.
The exact structure is something I'm still working out, but I will eventually be floating the ideas around more as time goes on.
No surprises? Like, "Surprise, forgot to tell you we hate blacks and mexicans! We lock them up in jail cells upon notice!" Sounds like a trap...
You're borderline teabagger so it wouldn't surprise me...
By all means, if you think it's a trap, then don't come in.
The TEA party doesn't hate blacks and mexicans.
The problem stems from the unchecked illegal immigration that comes from Mexico. Many of these illegal immigrants cross the border as part of criminal gangs and drug operations. Regions near the border tend to have very high incidence of crime perpetrated by those who have crossed the border illegally.
Now - not all illegal immigrants are bad people - but it is a problem, particularly in regions of the country with very liberal social welfare programs that enroll these "undocumented" individuals into benefit programs that they then qualify for and receive. This places an increased tax burden upon the population that is working and the supply of illegal immigrants is greater than the supply of domestic workers.
Southern California, for example, is bankrupt over their support of illegal immigrants (among other things) and there has been increasing support for a splitting of the State into Northern and Southern California because those in the Northern section of the state are tired of paying higher taxes to support programs that are voted for and abused by the electorate in the South that has been the subject of numerous voter fraud investigations involving the illegal aliens.
This is why:
A) The border needs to be secure in the first place.
B) The reason why immigration numbers are [supposed to be] controlled by the government in the first place is to constrain access to its social programs and to attempt to appropriate spending for public works accordingly.
C) B is only necessary as long as the government appoints itself as the nanny of the people. Offer no social programs to anyone - citizen or otherwise - and the issue of how many immigrants can come into the country at any given time is largely a question of how many want to come into the country.
Thus, by eliminating government spending upon the population and allowing the market to act upon factors such as increased population, increased labor supply, etc, it is entirely unnecessary to produce a long and complicated immigration approval service. The more complicated and difficult the official immigration service, the more likely people are to try and defeat border security to gain unauthorized access to the nation.
Economic factors will, in the long term, act to balance out population issues. In areas where the population grows faster than the market economy can adapt, costs of living will be higher and the incentive to immigrate to those regions will decrease. On the other hand, in areas where the market economy grows faster than the population, incentive to immigrate increases as there becomes an increased demand and capacity for additional labor, skill, and service trades.
There's absolutely no need for the government to attempt to manage these things in the slightest.
The only valid concern from a government standpoint is that of security. Even so, as I have indicated in my newly formed thread, very strict restrictions must be placed upon government power and the fail-safes must be exceptionally redundant to act against attempts to abuse any infrastructure developed around the mission of security. It is not a case where abuse and corruption can be prevented - but that it must be structured to naturally balance interests against secrecy and expansion. It will be a constant battle for any nation, but most nations are not aware that it's a battle to lose, at present.