As a native of Wisconsin, and my father being a state worker, I am very proud of how Wisconsin has acted over the past few weeks.
I have done various essays for school on these protest so I know the gist of it.
What it does This bill strips nearly all collective baragining rights form state workers. Wisconsin was the first state to get collective bargaining, by doing this Walker is try to erase Wisconsins proud history.
I'll start form the begging of what I know.
On February 14, University of Madison student walked into the rotunda of the capitol protesting the bill Governor Walker was proposing.
On February 15, Multiple schools practiced walk outs protesting the bill.
On February 17, All 14 Wisconsin senators left, delaying a bill that needs a minimum of 20 senators. This sparked debate among the republican senators, sparking outcries among democratic senators. My opinion is that these senators did their job, by allowing democracy to happen instead of letting Walker jam through a bill destroying Wisconsin families.
From February all the way until March, the protest got bigger, reaching over 100,000 people. The weekend that the Tea-Party came there was actually very little violence if any, no arrest were made even past that point. There were very little Tea-Partiers, and at it;s hight about 2,000 tea partiers to the 65,000+ pro-teachers/union.
Dirty Republicans
The scum of the earth republicans did eventually find a way to pass the non- fiscal part fo the bill, as the senate could have any number of senators to pass a non-fiscal bill. These people held a long secretive session in early March, stripping the fiscal parts of the bill and just passing the non-fiscal parts. Soon after this was passed thousands of protestors angrily took to the streets, pounding on Windows and other such things, I don't believe any arrest were made, but it was a very angry crowd of shocked people.
This act took only seconds to pass with a 18-1 vote, the lone nay was R-Dale Shultz, he earlier stated that he would vote against the bill, this action alone sparked the Dirty Republican party to try to oust him from the party.
The bill was also passed in the senate, but denied in the court by the Dane County judge. The Dirt Republican Party also found a way around this, they basically told the Judge to eff-off by writing a footnote that states the bill has to go in affect in 10 days.
There is much, much more to talk about and if this topic gets going I can say much more.
Fun Facts: Many celebrities supported Wisconsin protestors. No ads for Walker were run from inside Wisconsin associations. David Koch funds Walker, what a ****. Scott Walker was dropped out of Marquette for cheating. Walker destroyed Milwaukee's economy and jobs just like he's doing now
Look. Walkers a idiot an if you don't think that, get out of America.
Home it it right for the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer... It makes no sense.
If you live in Wiscosin, get out to recall your Dirty Republican Senator/Assembly leader. [/b]And Scott Walker in 2012![b]
That's why the Government needs to step in and regulate businesses, and breaking up monopolies like the one in your example, too bad the government's too busy worrying about other countries
How about this, company buys other companies and is sole owner of all farms. Company ratchets the price up to an obscene level. Bread goes for $50 a loaf. Many people starve.
Their ratcheting up the price makes them much less competitive. This allows Company B to outcompete them. Many people benefit from the competition, and are better off.
Example: Company gets subsidized by government, and creates a monopoly even though it wasn't the most efficient. Despite the seemingly cheaper prices, it is really only a method of inefficient redistribution.
That's why the Government needs to step in and regulate businesses, and breaking up monopolies like the one in your example, too bad the government's too busy worrying about other countries
Government regulation of business is completely wrong. By doing so, you prevent informed transactions from occurring, and in turn you decrease prosperity and increase suffering.
Their ratcheting up the price makes them much less competitive. This allows Company B to outcompete them. Many people benefit from the competition, and are better off.
lol w0w ur liek ttly dum breh
He's saying that there is no competition since Company A has a monopoly. He can buy any company he wants.
Government regulation of business is completely wrong. By doing so, you prevent informed transactions from occurring, and in turn you decrease prosperity and increase suffering.
I think you should follow in our example and explain why it decrease prosperity and increases suffering.
@ E1337 you do know what you're talking about but owners reaping huge profits over teh screwing of the common people is what makes people upset; @ the rest of you honestly, i think thats why people are so up in arms about this. Its life big spenders will spend to get what they want, the little people fail to matter in a society governed by money.
Company B is a subsidary of A. A produces fuel efficent cars but prices them highly.
B produces a cheaper gas guzzler car, because the parent company owns all the gas stations in a 200 mile radius.
now, company A and it's subisdary B are the sole car makers in the entire state and have, through copious lobbying, the sole license to sell cars in the state via a crooked no bid contract.
The consumer gets screwed while everyone else rides high and with fat wallets.
Isn't this more of an argument against government regulation?
I think you should follow in our example and explain why it decrease prosperity and increases suffering.
Easy - informed transactions are inherently mutually beneficial.
Being mutually beneficial, they benefit both parties.
Thus, government regulation can only decrease the amount of mutually beneficial transactions that occur. A completely free market produces the greatest number of informed, mutually beneficial transactions, thus the reason why it is the best.
e's saying that there is no competition since Company A has a monopoly. He can buy any company he wants.
The forces of the market will drag him down like quicksand, because it's impossible to consistently buy out all the other competition when there's such a profitable venture there!
The only way he can maintain a monopoly is through the use of force (example: from the government).
If they hold a monopoly, then they don't need to be competitive. Plus, price fixing amongst companies (like medical insurance companies do thanks to immunity from anti-trust legislation.)
I am serious, go read the jungle, it is a lovely snapshot of how things ran when the government did not step in. It was written before the FDA, before OSHA, before anti-trust laws. The end result was, the workers get screwed over, the consumer buys a tainted product and has no recourse, while the owners reap huge profits.
Well, I say a movie called the Informant where the companies tried to unite and fix the price on orange juice or something. Is that what you're talking about?
Isn't this more of an argument against government regulation?
No, it's saying that without government regulation, companies can raise the price to whatever they want.
Thus, government regulation can only decrease the amount of mutually beneficial transactions that occur. A completely free market produces the greatest number of informed, mutually beneficial transactions, thus the reason why it is the best.
You fail to explain how an entirely free market produces an informed decisions. All you explain is the result of informed transactions.
The forces of the market will drag him down like quicksand, because it's impossible to consistently buy out all the other competition when there's such a profitable venture there!
No, but what you can do is use lobbyists to produce government regulations that protect your monopoly.
Capitalism accomplishes the ideals of socialism better than socialism itself.
Socialism = Capitalism
Libertarianism = Capitalism
Every country that allows you to invest your capital in a business is a Capitalistic country. Every country that allows the consumers to command the economy is a free market.
Let's get that straight.
Socialism is where the economy is regulated so that the consumers don't get screwed over.
Libertarianism is where the economy will regulate itself so that consumers don't get screwed over.
What you are arguing is that the economy can regulate itself, and I am arguing that it can't, therefore, the government must regulate it.
Got it? So stop saying that Capitalism is better than Socialism when Capitalism is Socialism.
How about this, company buys other companies and is sole owner of all farms. Company ratchets the price up to an obscene level. Bread goes for $50 a loaf. Many people starve.
Someone says "Wow, this is horrible." They start a company and sell bread at a fairer price.
now, company A and it's subisdary B are the sole car makers in the entire state and have, through copious lobbying, the sole license to sell cars in the state via a crooked no bid contract.
BINGO.
Me and Einfach do NOT support crooked lobbying. In fact, crooked lobbying exists when you give the government more control. That's the whole point we have been making.
I am serious, go read the jungle, it is a lovely snapshot of how things ran when the government did not step in. It was written before the FDA, before OSHA, before anti-trust laws. The end result was, the workers get screwed over, the consumer buys a tainted product and has no recourse, while the owners reap huge profits.
The Jungle is a novel. It isn't a credible source. It was written as a way to encourage socialism.
No, it's saying that without government regulation, companies can raise the price to whatever they want.
But the argument was that businesses were protected by lobbyists. You're acting as if we're supporting lobbying. We don't. In fact, we don't support government intervention because it causes lobbying.
Lobbyists coat their hidden agendas with words like "rotecting the people" and "roviding for the poor".
Government Regulation + Lobbying = FAIL
Government Regulation - Lobbying = WIN
Lobbying occurs under the guise that the politicians is fighting for your best interest. They will tell you that they are regulating businesses when they are actually helping these big businesses hold an unfair advantage over smaller businesses.
The only way to prevent lobbying is to stop depending on the government.
What you are arguing is that the economy can regulate itself, and I am arguing that it can't, therefore, the government must regulate it.
Got it? So stop saying that Capitalism is better than Socialism when Capitalism is Socialism.
â"noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.