Private Sector, Public Sector
[quote="Sand"][/quote]
I finally made up my mind about you, Sand. You don't read my posts.
I've already talked to you about the cause of the economic crisis.
How free is the market in the US.
The way banks are involved with the US govt.
What a corporations is.
Insurance is State mandatory in some cases.
Who were bailed out.
You ignored all these points. You did not bother to address them before.
Also. I just mentioned in my previous post to you, how the MSM is closely tied to the State and its corporations and you assume I said otherwise.
Not everything is either "public sector / private sector".
There is a corporate sector.
~When this sector makes mistakes it poses as "private" using its corporate media to discredit the private sector, capitalism and the free market, ignoring the fact that these "private" companies(corporations) are not so private, they are subsidized, receive govt contracts, they pay no taxes(subsidies are tax money) and would get bailed out if it is needed.
~When it needs funding they come out of the picture as private and and it becomes an issue of the "public sector" as the State sees that subsidies to "private" companies are needed to maintain the growth of the country. The State gives them tax dollars.
~When the corporate sector gains profits it goes into the hands of a few individuals and to expansionist policies/lobbies.
~When it loses profits the debt is paid by the tax payer via bailouts and this goes into public/national debt that the govt acquires through the borrowing of money from the Federal Reserve and from other countries.
When these corporate entities manage to acquire certain industries to a certain degree they make it fail on purpose to nationalize it by having the State interfere with the excuse of "saving the economy" and buy parts of the company/firm through bailouts.
This is how industries end up in the hands of the State.
The "public sector" is just an excuse to get rich off of people's ignorance.
The corporate sector is given birth by the State. By political influence in the market, using its monopoly on violence and moral support of the majority, the State manages to control the economy.
This is were the problem is coming from, from the State. Not the private sector.
There is a corporate sector.
~When this sector makes mistakes it poses as "private" using its corporate media to discredit the private sector, capitalism and the free market, ignoring the fact that these "private" companies(corporations) are not so private, they are subsidized, receive govt contracts, they pay no taxes(subsidies are tax money) and would get bailed out if it is needed.
~When it needs funding they come out of the picture as private and and it becomes an issue of the "public sector" as the State sees that subsidies to "private" companies are needed to maintain the growth of the country. The State gives them tax dollars.
~When the corporate sector gains profits it goes into the hands of a few individuals and to expansionist policies/lobbies.
~When it loses profits the debt is paid by the tax payer via bailouts and this goes into public/national debt that the govt acquires through the borrowing of money from the Federal Reserve and from other countries.
When these corporate entities manage to acquire certain industries to a certain degree they make it fail on purpose to nationalize it by having the State interfere with the excuse of "saving the economy" and buy parts of the company/firm through bailouts.
This is how industries end up in the hands of the State.
The "public sector" is just an excuse to get rich off of people's ignorance.
The corporate sector is given birth by the State. By political influence in the market, using its monopoly on violence and moral support of the majority, the State manages to control the economy.
This is were the problem is coming from, from the State. Not the private sector.
To claim that the corporate sector is an agent of the state rather than the reverse is a total misconception.
To claim that the corporate sector is an agent of the state rather than the reverse is a total misconception.
The turnpike authorities in both New Jersey and New York are chartered as corporations and they both exercise state authority over the roads. Taxes and tolls are collected from the public to fund their operations.
Fanny Mae was a corporation established by the U.S. Government.
The Federal Reserve Bank is a corporation which is both regulated by the U.S. Government (the Congress chooses its chairman) and also acts as a financing agent for the U.S. Government. It is the latter day version of the National Bank established by Alexander Hamilton.
So parts of the "corporate sector" are intertwined with government.
ruveyn
To claim that the corporate sector is an agent of the state rather than the reverse is a total misconception.
The turnpike authorities in both New Jersey and New York are chartered as corporations and they both exercise state authority over the roads. Taxes and tolls are collected from the public to fund their operations.
Fanny Mae was a corporation established by the U.S. Government.
The Federal Reserve Bank is a corporation which is both regulated by the U.S. Government (the Congress chooses its chairman) and also acts as a financing agent for the U.S. Government. It is the latter day version of the National Bank established by Alexander Hamilton.
So parts of the "corporate sector" are intertwined with government.
ruveyn
More than parts and that's the problem.
Sand.
A corporation is chartered by a state and given many legal rights as an entity separate from its owners. This form of business is characterized by the limited liability of its owners, the issuance of shares of easily transferable stock, and existence as a going concern. The process of becoming a corporation, call incorporation, gives the company separate legal standing from its owners and protects those owners from being personally liable in the event that the company is sued (a condition known as limited liability). Incorporation also provides companies with a more flexible way to manage their ownership structure. In addition, there are different tax implications for corporations, although these can be both advantageous and disadvantageous. In these respects, corporations differ from sole proprietorships and limited partnerships.
The State chooses who becomes a corporation, who gets the most, who gets less.
If there is an ex-businessman in politics(very usual), he might end up helping his industry, friends&fam.
Furthermore, an ex-politician can end up in the administrative area of a corporation, sometimes as CEO.
(I've posted a video about SERCO corporation before, that corporation is one of the best examples Corporatism).
State intervention in the market has caused the corporate problem. Corporations are a symptom of central planning of the economy. This is flawed, this has failed(it failed for us, for them it is doing wonders).
This is why I stress the fact that it is better for individuals to be left to do business among each other and let supply and demand determine the outcome of the economy.
And yes, I know what you are thinking, "monopolies". I have to repeat myself. Monopolies form when the State favors them over their competitors. Just look at the monopolies of today and see if they are not connected to the State.
