This is just wealth redistribution, but with extra steps. These are the types of things we should be against. It’s basically accepting that the government has the authority to shut down business in the first place, and then have the authority to tell a business what they can and can’t sell and for how much. This is the opposite of a free market system.
We don't have a laissez-faire free market system here unfortunately and nobody in Congress is introducing anything to prohibit the shutdowns, the stay-home orders, or the face-mask orders for that matter. (The constitution applies, but is not being enforced.) If they aren't going to do any of that, they should do this.
What we have is neoliberalism where corporations use the government to create markets for their products. Such as the "banana republics" in Latin America during the 20th century, where we went to war for the benefit of the United Fruit Company.
"Within the realities of neoliberalism “the state must be an active force, and cannot simply rely on ‘market forces’” to function coherently. Rather by supporting bureaucratic technocracy and the wisdom and power of centrally-planned corporations, a quasi-market state hybrid is developed which requires subsidisation of distribution and output. The major ways of doing this are through either state regulation, which puts up entry barriers to other competitors and limits the competitive impetus of functioning free markets, or through the development of financialisation and rentierism which warp time preferences and allow for the soaking up of overproduction in an unfree economy. Entry barriers originating from the large state monopolies, such as intellectual property, the money monopoly and transport subsidies create large economies of scale while subsidising the diseconomies, meaning artificially high overhead and capital costs which limit the ability of potential entrepreneurs to compete and engage in market activity and price discovery.
On the other side, the use of financial markets to soak up excess capital goods leads toward a financialised economy where time preferences are made much shorter due to a desire for immediate profit, and where rentierism becomes the norm of wealth production. Established companies benefit through more access to debt and capital markets, and financiers can hedge bets on the performance of company debts and stocks. A Misesian concept of financial markets functioning to efficiently allocate capital to businesses and entrepreneurs is thrown out the window when land-value speculation, currency manipulation and the desire for short-term profit over long-term medium gains become the existing function of said markets. In effect what is seen is a privatisation of profits, and the socialisation of losses. To describe such a system as related to free market activity would be laughable if weren’t actually being done."
I bet the big corporations (notably including Bezos' Amazon/Washington Post) would quit pushing for shutdowns and stay home orders as hard if this passes.
They (WaPo) published articles supporting lockdowns which hugely benefited their ecommerce and AWS (data hosting) business.
No, this is NOT what needs to happen. Taking money away and giving it to the government to redistribute NEVER works. What NEEDS to happen is to end these lockdowns and let people make up their own minds about what they want to do. Get vaccinated, wear mask, take HCQ, take Ivermectin, rely on remsvidir or Regeneron, or if you are under 50 just plan on getting it and recovering. The ONLY people who might need to be locked down are those over 70. Educate them that they are at real risk, like 1 in 4 or 5 of dying. And again, let people make up their own minds. Government involvement screws things up. More gov involvment screws things up more.
I mean, I highly doubt it.... I just don't get why she's all of a sudden spouting off Republican talking points??? They are all swamp, so it really doesn't matter what side she's on... it's just confusing. Please walk me through it.
This is just wealth redistribution, but with extra steps. These are the types of things we should be against. It’s basically accepting that the government has the authority to shut down business in the first place, and then have the authority to tell a business what they can and can’t sell and for how much. This is the opposite of a free market system.
We don't have a laissez-faire free market system here unfortunately and nobody in Congress is introducing anything to prohibit the shutdowns, the stay-home orders, or the face-mask orders for that matter. (The constitution applies, but is not being enforced.) If they aren't going to do any of that, they should do this.
What we have is neoliberalism where corporations use the government to create markets for their products. Such as the "banana republics" in Latin America during the 20th century, where we went to war for the benefit of the United Fruit Company.
"Within the realities of neoliberalism “the state must be an active force, and cannot simply rely on ‘market forces’” to function coherently. Rather by supporting bureaucratic technocracy and the wisdom and power of centrally-planned corporations, a quasi-market state hybrid is developed which requires subsidisation of distribution and output. The major ways of doing this are through either state regulation, which puts up entry barriers to other competitors and limits the competitive impetus of functioning free markets, or through the development of financialisation and rentierism which warp time preferences and allow for the soaking up of overproduction in an unfree economy. Entry barriers originating from the large state monopolies, such as intellectual property, the money monopoly and transport subsidies create large economies of scale while subsidising the diseconomies, meaning artificially high overhead and capital costs which limit the ability of potential entrepreneurs to compete and engage in market activity and price discovery.
On the other side, the use of financial markets to soak up excess capital goods leads toward a financialised economy where time preferences are made much shorter due to a desire for immediate profit, and where rentierism becomes the norm of wealth production. Established companies benefit through more access to debt and capital markets, and financiers can hedge bets on the performance of company debts and stocks. A Misesian concept of financial markets functioning to efficiently allocate capital to businesses and entrepreneurs is thrown out the window when land-value speculation, currency manipulation and the desire for short-term profit over long-term medium gains become the existing function of said markets. In effect what is seen is a privatisation of profits, and the socialisation of losses. To describe such a system as related to free market activity would be laughable if weren’t actually being done."
Source for quoted paragraphs: https://thelibertarianideal.com/2016/09/02/neoliberalism-is-not-the-free-market/
This bill does correct for some problems with our current non-free market system.
I don't think she realizes that she should be a republican. I hope she switches soon.
She's actually a commie, so no. But she weirdly has some good ideas.
You guys are close... When In Rome... Do as the Romans Do...
Probably because this is more akin to AOC musings than legit "Republican" proposal.
I can get behind this. Problem is the money will be diverted 50 different ways before small business owners see anything
I bet the big corporations (notably including Bezos' Amazon/Washington Post) would quit pushing for shutdowns and stay home orders as hard if this passes.
They (WaPo) published articles supporting lockdowns which hugely benefited their ecommerce and AWS (data hosting) business.
No, this is NOT what needs to happen. Taking money away and giving it to the government to redistribute NEVER works. What NEEDS to happen is to end these lockdowns and let people make up their own minds about what they want to do. Get vaccinated, wear mask, take HCQ, take Ivermectin, rely on remsvidir or Regeneron, or if you are under 50 just plan on getting it and recovering. The ONLY people who might need to be locked down are those over 70. Educate them that they are at real risk, like 1 in 4 or 5 of dying. And again, let people make up their own minds. Government involvement screws things up. More gov involvment screws things up more.
Yay Socialism! AMIRITE?
I don’t trust her at aaaaaaaaaaall.
Has she been red pilled???
Dig... Just a little bit more...
I mean, I highly doubt it.... I just don't get why she's all of a sudden spouting off Republican talking points??? They are all swamp, so it really doesn't matter what side she's on... it's just confusing. Please walk me through it.
So... Go back to this page and read what I wrote in the post above... She's not running again...