Ideally what percentage of the economy do you think should be government filtered? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

What percentage of the economy should be government filtered?

1. 0-5%
4
36%
2. 5-40%
3
27%
3. 40-60%
1
9%
4. 60-95%
No votes
0%
5. 95-100%
2
18%
6. Other
1
9%
#14938177
SolarCross wrote:If profit is evil, then making a loss is good, no?


Making a 'loss' is part of the 'risk' of normal business.
There are winners & losers in the 'profit' or 'loss' situation.

Consumers, whether business or personal, benefit from a company making a loss on product's.

People, as well as business are engaged in the 'supply', 'demand' & 'price mechanism' function of the market.

There is no god given right to making a profit, or loss, for that matter in the market.

Buying from business that constantly increase profits arising from the price mechanism, illustrates a lack of competition in a market.
Raising prices reduces demand, reducing prices increases demand(in theory).

Where a monopoly or cartel is operational(often with the connivance of government)the market is effectively short-circuited.

In the U.K, utility companies are effectively running a cartel, despite 'regulators' overseeing the markets, these 'regulators' are absolutely ineffective, because they are not allowed to do the job of 'regulating' the market 'anomalies' arising from intentionally weak 'regulation'.
As a result, the consumers are & have been fleeced by these companies since before the 2008 crash.
There is a political price to be paid for this corruption by politicians of the party in power.

When companies act in unison to rig the market, the effect is to cause employment to fall through those rising prices causing inflation.
Unless there is a general compensation for inflation, the effects are negative, but, even where there is monetary compensation, economically, the country loses any competitive edge that it may have had.

It is a feature of most economies of late to ignore the money supply contribution to general inflation through rising debt levels & this will come back to haunt the politicians arising from voter anger.
#14941041
I don't think regressing to child labor, longer working days, less pay, businesses deciding for themselves how much they want to expend on safety measures in the workplace, and how they want to dump their (industrial) waste products/pollution and so on is a step forward.
#14941045
Bulaba Jones wrote:I don't think regressing to child labor, longer working days, less pay, businesses deciding for themselves how much they want to expend on safety measures in the workplace, and how they want to dump their (industrial) waste products/pollution and so on is a step forward.


Even assuming all those things would definitely happen, I would still see it as superior.
#14941054
Bulaba Jones wrote:I don't think regressing to child labor, longer working days, less pay, businesses deciding for themselves how much they want to expend on safety measures in the workplace, and how they want to dump their (industrial) waste products/pollution and so on is a step forward.


I guess you don't realise this but a government could regulate for these things without going over 5% of GDP and even then spending most of that on the armed forces. Government spending gets over 5% when it starts paying large numbers of people salaries: welfare claimants, state pensioners, health workers and educators. A smallish coterie of lawyers, legislators, judges, cops, gaolers and bureaucrats doesn't cost that much.

Also arguably most of those things are better left up to the personal choices of the people actually involved.

necessarily inferred 'Necessarily', my arse! […]

@Sivad You clearly don’t know what it means t[…]

I don't think regressing to child labor, longer w[…]

https://twitter.com/rosemcgowan/status/1031535197[…]