Dean Forster wrote:
> --- Christopher Gwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip>
>>> If you can propose an alternative that will work
>>> better, let fly. I don't think you can- restricting
>>> free enterprise only reduces their efficiency.
>> if you look back over Mr. Arnett's and my posts
>> and you will notice no mention of 'restricting free
>> enterprise'.
> Ah, so you're complaining without offering a solution.
1.) I was not 'complaining'. I pointed out that the description as
given ('business sells people what they want') was not accurate _as
stated_ and that 'business sells what people will buy' was more
accurate - and noted that there were times when 'business sells what
people will buy' looks a lot like 'business sells people what they
want', just that it wasn't all the time.
2.) I would think that accurately describing the problem - beginning
with coming to an agreement as to what the problem is - would be
essential to solving the problem. (and that this would be so whether
the problem is real, or simply a result of various
misunderstandings.)
3.) Once I have a solution I will propose it. Since in my view an
appropriate solution depends on understanding what the problem is
(and by extension, the consequences of any proposed solution) this
will be awhile. Are you interested in contributing to some useful
solutions?
4.) Unless you would reflexively classify anti-pollution laws and
workplace regulations signed into law by President Richard Nixon (not
a person sympathetic to communism or 'the left') to be 'restricting
free enterprise' I don't think that you would consider any of the
laws I would consider promulgating to be 'restrictions of free
enterprise'.
> Maybe your government can think of one for you.
I've met quite a few intelligent dedicated thoughtful and educated
people who work for the government (city, county, state, country, and
even united nations!) - I'm sure that a lot of them can contribute
greatly to finding solutions to many problems. (just as many
individuals in business, religious organizations, and many other
groups, can contribute greatly.) Are there people in your government
that can help solve problems?
>>> I can't imagine what
>>> you could propose that would replace free
>>> enterprise for the better.
>> perhaps a broadening of the factors that are
>> considered when looking for a profit? in particular
>> a lengthening of the time period that a business
>> considers reasonable for a product to return a
>> profit?
> And how are we to make this happen?
A lot of the pressure that companies feel to turn a profit in a
short time is based on whether the price of their stock is rising or
falling. If the law on capital gains was changed to place most of the
tax on profits from the sale of stock on stock that was bought and
sold within a short time (hours? days? weeks? months?) and very
little tax on stock that was held for years or decades (with
intermediate rates for stock held for intermediate lengths of time)
we might see a lengthening of how long companies are willing to try a
good idea that doesn't show an _immediate_ profit because their
stockholders would have a financial incentive for patience.
(i would like to do something similar for all capital gains taxes -
if you own it for a long time the tax is very low. if you own it for
a very short time your profit is pretty highly taxed. that way
someone who spends much of his/her life building up a business ends
up with more wealth than someone who just happens to know where the
next big real estate boom or fad is.)
ideas like this need to be discussed among people of widely
different views and gone over by people with particularly applicable
knowledge, looking for what the 'unintended consequences' might be,
and how likely it appears that they would produce the intended
objective. any good discussion of that sort is going to generate a
lot more ideas - after all that is what other people are for, to help
us do what we can't do by ourselves.
> go on, i know you
> want to say it.. you want to force people to do what
> you think is right, the fix-all answer for every good
> socialist.
Complete And Utter Nonsense. Forcing people to do things is of very
limited use. (yeah, seat-belts do save laws - and I support those
laws - but seat-belt use would be a lot lower if most people didn't
think that wearing seat-belts was a good idea. prohibiting the use of
outhouses in metropolitan areas is another example - it is a law that
forces people to do what 'i think is right', but most of the people
who use indoor plumbing do so voluntarily.) Providing education and
opportunities works much better than using force on people.
>>> Now, if we could figure out a way to
>>> encourage smarter consumers, then we'd have
>>> something to work with.
>> that would be a significant improvement - and might
>> go a long way towards making the production of things
>> people will buy more closely resemble manufacturing what
>> people want.
> Yep, smarter *individuals*.
Yes.... Are you saying that you have a problem with this too?
Personally I would like to have a lot more educated people around me,
and a lot more educated people voting, etc. Not only would we be
likely to get better decisions but they are more co-operative and
much less likely to stoop to insults when they think they disagree
with you.
regards,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
