Monday, August 22, 2011 11:52:29 AM
Rawrg, not that I also mentioned "before the people... decided to care."
There are plenty of companies around now that have been through a LOT of protests, and thrive to this day. Take WalMart for example.
WalMart has gone through hell and high-water with all the issues it's faced. If you ask the internet, it`s nearly impossible to find someone who DOESN`T hate WalMart.
So how are there still WalMarts tanking local economies and poorly treating workers everywhere?
Because no one cared about them until Walmart was successful enough that they didn`t have to care. Even if some horrible truth comes out about Walmart, they can lower their prices and their millions of dumb, ignorant and apathetic customers will flock in until they`ve made up any lost money.
Dollar diplomacy doesn`t always result in the right candidates being elected, I`m afraid.
Sunday, August 21, 2011 5:51:09 PM
"Ummm im pretty sure by 'flat tax` he means a flat percentage across the board... you know, instead of say 30% for the poor and oooh 0% for the rich?"
There is a valid argument that a flat sales tax will impact the poor more, because in a purely flat tax system, only money that is not spent is untaxed. So the poor, who have to spend most of their money (percentage-wise) on food, bills, etc, pay more of their income percentage on taxes.
That said, in a world without FICA, income tax, etc, a reasonable flat tax rate might end up costing the poor less than current taxes. It all depends on the government`s spending level.
It's a different age today. With the internet, watchdog groups and state legislation and regulatory boards (which Ron Paul is NOT against), this can be covered. The problem with the federal government doing it is that they set up huge agencies that cost billions to maintain, and their budgets always go up each year, regardless of necessity.
Sunday, August 21, 2011 3:54:19 PM
In a truly free market, companies who dump waste into people's properties would not survive. Who would buy products from companies like that? ... They would tank, because people would protest their products by going with a competitor. Back in the days when America didn`t really regulate the economy, this was the belief and policy. Let`s see how that turned out:
A) Quite a bit of damage was done before people learned the truth or decided to care.
B) By that time, those companies had saved quite a bit of money, since it`s cheaper, and were some of the most successful businesses around.
C) Being the most powerful businesses around, they drove their competition out of business, giving people no choice but to buy their product or go without, and sometimes the companies in question sold things that are virtually essential for everyday living.