Comments on: Get a job. No, CREATE a job! http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/12/21/get-a-job-no-create-a-job/ Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:56:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: LG Girl http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/12/21/get-a-job-no-create-a-job/#comment-487 LG Girl Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:10:54 +0000 http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/12/21/get-a-job-no-create-a-job/#comment-487 George-- you're misunderstanding the ideas of the kind of system BJ is talking about. In a libertarian government, the government is there only for things as you describe-- stealing, fraud, etc. If the government itself is in charge of things that private businesses should be doing, and the gov. commits theft or fraud, where can we turn? We can sue the government, but we're just paying that in the end ourselves through our own taxpayer dollars and inflation after the government prints money to pay us. The government should be the last resort once a corporation has messed up, not the be all and end all of providing everything to consumers in the first place-- this results in a lot of money spent on bureaucracy and in dis-satisfied customers. As one example-- on customer service, are people happier with the US Postal Service or with UPS? It's not a one-to-one comparison, but UPS has to run itself like a business and achieve customer satisfaction and quality, whereas the USPS has a government-created monopoly on certain types of mail and therefore doesn't have to achieve a better rate of service or better hours. As one example of this, UPS drops things off for you at your door even if you live in an apartment complex or have a mailbox by the road, while the USPS will not bring your mail to your door unless the individual delivering happens to be very accommodating-- if you get a big package, you often have to go to the post office to pick it up yourself. That's an example of a company providing a type of customer satisfaction that the government just can't provide with its regulations ("mail can only be put in mailboxes") that are designed for regulatory purposes, not for pleasing customers-- the USPS doesn't really have to please first class mail customers, because dissatisfied ones have nowhere else to turn. As far as what you say about entrepreneurs, etc.-- yes, in a free market, companies WILL naturally treat their customers right (if they want any business). These days, companies more often than not can just ignore customers' needs and instead have their lobbyists treat the lawmakers in DC right-- if you get my drift. One example is airlines-- they depend on the gov. for subsidies rather than creating a sustainable business model, so they don't care if customers are stranded on the tarmac without water. Corporate welfare, billions in tax breaks for companies with billions in profits... that's commonplace in today's market, which means it's NOT a free market. I don't see the current Democratic congress changing this, either. If you study economic history, monopolies are almost always government-created (In fact, I think they're always government-created, and I would challenge you to find an example of one in American history that was not). They are created by regulation and laws that are amenable to that company and prevent competition from sprouting up. In a true free market there can be no monopoly, because if a company is the only one providing a service or product, it must be the best at it (because otherwise, a new company would be created to compete with the company that was not satisfying customers.) The Republican Party certainly currently has advantages over the Democratic Party-- it has a few great candidates like BJ running for office! :) George– you’re misunderstanding the ideas of the kind of system BJ is talking about. In a libertarian government, the government is there only for things as you describe– stealing, fraud, etc. If the government itself is in charge of things that private businesses should be doing, and the gov. commits theft or fraud, where can we turn? We can sue the government, but we’re just paying that in the end ourselves through our own taxpayer dollars and inflation after the government prints money to pay us. The government should be the last resort once a corporation has messed up, not the be all and end all of providing everything to consumers in the first place– this results in a lot of money spent on bureaucracy and in dis-satisfied customers. As one example– on customer service, are people happier with the US Postal Service or with UPS? It’s not a one-to-one comparison, but UPS has to run itself like a business and achieve customer satisfaction and quality, whereas the USPS has a government-created monopoly on certain types of mail and therefore doesn’t have to achieve a better rate of service or better hours. As one example of this, UPS drops things off for you at your door even if you live in an apartment complex or have a mailbox by the road, while the USPS will not bring your mail to your door unless the individual delivering happens to be very accommodating– if you get a big package, you often have to go to the post office to pick it up yourself. That’s an example of a company providing a type of customer satisfaction that the government just can’t provide with its regulations (”mail can only be put in mailboxes”) that are designed for regulatory purposes, not for pleasing customers– the USPS doesn’t really have to please first class mail customers, because dissatisfied ones have nowhere else to turn.

As far as what you say about entrepreneurs, etc.– yes, in a free market, companies WILL naturally treat their customers right (if they want any business). These days, companies more often than not can just ignore customers’ needs and instead have their lobbyists treat the lawmakers in DC right– if you get my drift. One example is airlines– they depend on the gov. for subsidies rather than creating a sustainable business model, so they don’t care if customers are stranded on the tarmac without water.

Corporate welfare, billions in tax breaks for companies with billions in profits… that’s commonplace in today’s market, which means it’s NOT a free market. I don’t see the current Democratic congress changing this, either. If you study economic history, monopolies are almost always government-created (In fact, I think they’re always government-created, and I would challenge you to find an example of one in American history that was not). They are created by regulation and laws that are amenable to that company and prevent competition from sprouting up. In a true free market there can be no monopoly, because if a company is the only one providing a service or product, it must be the best at it (because otherwise, a new company would be created to compete with the company that was not satisfying customers.)

The Republican Party certainly currently has advantages over the Democratic Party– it has a few great candidates like BJ running for office! :)

]]> By: BJ Lawson http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/12/21/get-a-job-no-create-a-job/#comment-486 BJ Lawson Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:40:14 +0000 http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/12/21/get-a-job-no-create-a-job/#comment-486 George -- Let me try again. Government is not the "problem", per se. Government is the problem insofar as government interests are indistinguishable from corporate interests. Check out where your legislators get their money from www.opensecrets.org, or start reading any appropriations/spending bill. The corporate welfare in our government makes individual welfare look tame. We don't need to "get rid of government", we just need government to follow its own rules (starting with the Constitution). There will be more to come on this subject -- I have a particularly memorable email exchange that I think you'll enjoy. The Great Depression was a consequence of government's alliance with the banking industry following the birth of our Federal Reserve. The liquidity bubble that fueled the boom of the 1920's ran out of steam, as all bubbles eventually do, and collapsed. The Fed at the time did *not* intervene with massive liquidity injections, and the deflationary depression that followed is a lesson studied by all central bankers, and an experience they are determined never to repeat. Thus we live in a highly inflationary environment. Check out these posts for additional context: http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/11/19/whered-the-money-go/ <- hilarious video http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/11/27/yes-virginia-there-is-a-santa-claus/ http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/08/29/what-cnn-doesnt-understand-fractional-reserve-banking/ With respect to Democrats versus Republicans, I am frankly fed up with "party politics". At the highest level, the past eight years have shown me that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, and the two-party party system is one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the American people. The system of partisan politics serves only to divide us amongst ourselves, and prevents substantial discussion of the real issues, as we're currently doing here. It just so happens that I'm a lifelong registered Republican, and I believe that the ideals in the Republican party platform are closest to our founding Republicans' vision of a limited federal government (NOT a police state!), albeit not perfect. I appreciate your dropping by and commenting, and hope you'll join us in helping to take our country back. I spent some time in a country this summer where Party Loyalty was all-important. That country was China, and such an emphasis on The Party was profoundly disturbing. Here's to being free Americans again! George — Let me try again. Government is not the “problem”, per se. Government is the problem insofar as government interests are indistinguishable from corporate interests. Check out where your legislators get their money from http://www.opensecrets.org, or start reading any appropriations/spending bill. The corporate welfare in our government makes individual welfare look tame.

We don’t need to “get rid of government”, we just need government to follow its own rules (starting with the Constitution). There will be more to come on this subject — I have a particularly memorable email exchange that I think you’ll enjoy.

The Great Depression was a consequence of government’s alliance with the banking industry following the birth of our Federal Reserve. The liquidity bubble that fueled the boom of the 1920’s ran out of steam, as all bubbles eventually do, and collapsed. The Fed at the time did *not* intervene with massive liquidity injections, and the deflationary depression that followed is a lesson studied by all central bankers, and an experience they are determined never to repeat. Thus we live in a highly inflationary environment. Check out these posts for additional context:

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/11/19/whered-the-money-go/ < - hilarious video
http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/11/27/yes-virginia-there-is-a-santa-claus/
http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/08/29/what-cnn-doesnt-understand-fractional-reserve-banking/

With respect to Democrats versus Republicans, I am frankly fed up with “party politics”. At the highest level, the past eight years have shown me that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, and the two-party party system is one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the American people. The system of partisan politics serves only to divide us amongst ourselves, and prevents substantial discussion of the real issues, as we’re currently doing here. It just so happens that I’m a lifelong registered Republican, and I believe that the ideals in the Republican party platform are closest to our founding Republicans’ vision of a limited federal government (NOT a police state!), albeit not perfect.

I appreciate your dropping by and commenting, and hope you’ll join us in helping to take our country back. I spent some time in a country this summer where Party Loyalty was all-important. That country was China, and such an emphasis on The Party was profoundly disturbing. Here’s to being free Americans again!

]]> By: George Entenman http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/12/21/get-a-job-no-create-a-job/#comment-484 George Entenman Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:53:00 +0000 http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/12/21/get-a-job-no-create-a-job/#comment-484 This is a very interesting take on how things work. And I don't mean that cynically even though I disagree with your analysis. Let me see if I understand you: Big corporations get the government to do what they want, so government is the problem, right? If you get government out of the way, then entrepreneurs like you will be free to treat customers right and beat the big impersonal corporations in the marketplace because things like pricing, product bundling, stealing product ideas (who protects us against theft?), etc. will always loose out to entrepreneurs who care about their customers, right? I'm afraid that my problem with libertarian ideas is not that their analysis of the problem is incorrect (yours is one of the most interesting and nuanced I've read). My problem is the simplistic solution: get rid of government. I think you should read about, say, the Great Depression, lose overly simplistic ideas and come invigorate my Democratic party, which could use some more entrepreneurial spirit. Your party, which has never met a police power power that is too strong, that has never been able to see a monopoly or balance a budget, is actually more antithetical to entrepreneurship and real competition that is mine. This is a very interesting take on how things work. And I don’t mean that cynically even though I disagree with your analysis.

Let me see if I understand you:

Big corporations get the government to do what they want, so government is the problem, right?

If you get government out of the way, then entrepreneurs like you will be free to treat customers right and beat the big impersonal corporations in the marketplace because things like pricing, product bundling, stealing product ideas (who protects us against theft?), etc. will always loose out to entrepreneurs who care about their customers, right?

I’m afraid that my problem with libertarian ideas is not that their analysis of the problem is incorrect (yours is one of the most interesting and nuanced I’ve read). My problem is the simplistic solution: get rid of government.

I think you should read about, say, the Great Depression, lose overly simplistic ideas and come invigorate my Democratic party, which could use some more entrepreneurial spirit.

Your party, which has never met a police power power that is too strong, that has never been able to see a monopoly or balance a budget, is actually more antithetical to entrepreneurship and real competition that is mine.

]]>