Free Market or State Control?

[kaz]

What happens when too big to fail corporations mostly control our government?
When many of our people think that whatever is good for Wall Street is good for America?

For one thing all the old economic rules are thrown out the window.

You know that's a lie because if that were true you'd be working to make government weaker, not stronger. A weak government has less control over you no matter who controls it. But you're out there day after day begging for more government, then you say government "mostly" is controlled by the corporations you hate. Liberals can't even lie without sounding like idiots.

 

[kaz]

This is a very broad power, these two clauses taken together, and gives Congress the authority to regulate the economy as it sees fit, with very few exceptions.

Interstate and International trade, yes. The economy within States no, and that is a State right that the Supreme Court has failed to protect.

Also, the framers wrote it with the intent of facilitating and not restricting trade. Using it for things like the war on drugs is a double abomination. They are restricting trade, and they are meddling on internal State economies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The Constitution is what the Court say it is." Justice Hughes

Are you posting that because it so bizarre....

....or do you actually agree with that nonsense?

 

[sparky]

What happens when too big to fail corporations mostly control our government?
.

Exxon starts laying off Congresscritters?

~S~

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, that was an interesting little dance, PC. Someone brought up already the point I was going to raise, namely that you were employing a version of the sole-alternative or false-dilemma fallacy. Instead of answering that, you changed the subject from what the best way is to organize the economy, to what is allowed under the Constitution.

I'll just note in passing that in doing this you have effectively surrendered on your original point, and then give you a quote from Article I, Section 8, pertinent to federal regulation of the economy.

"The Congress shall have the power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; . . . And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This is a very broad power, these two clauses taken together, and gives Congress the authority to regulate the economy as it sees fit, with very few exceptions.

Correct.

See: United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941), Wickard v. Filburn (1942), H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond (1949), and Katzenbach v. McClung (1964).

Interstate and International trade, yes. The economy within States no, and that is a State right that the Supreme Court has failed to protect.

Also, the framers wrote it with the intent of facilitating and not restricting trade. Using it for things like the war on drugs is a double abomination. They are restricting trade, and they are meddling on internal State economies.

Incorrect.

See cited case law above. Remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, regardless how much you may disagree with, reject, or ignore that case law.

 

[regent]

"The Constitution is what the Court say it is." Justice Hughes

Are you posting that because it so bizarre....

....or do you actually agree with that nonsense?

What difference if I agree, that's the way it is.

 

[Widdekind]

capitalism runs on greed. That same greed led capitalists from the free market system to monopolies, mergers, trusts, holding companies and every method capitalists could create to eliminate the best characteristic of capitalism--competition. And it was a Republican that began the war against the trusts

Standard Oil (SO) has been deceptively mis-represented, e.g. SO improved market efficiency, benefiting (oil) consumers -- "refined oil prices fell from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897", i.e. -80% price reduction, in 30 years (for American consumers). Who would complain (qui bono?) ? Ipso facto, "bust the trusts" was an "assassination" of legitimately successful firms, harming Americans "in their economic wallets".

English, please?

i understand, that Rockefeller's Standard Oil trust is the "whipping boy" of the "bust-the-trusts" movement, which self-justified its market interventions, by alleging concern for consumers, purportedly price-gouged by malevolent monopolies. But, libertarians praise Standard Oil, for streamlining supply, slashing prices, and stabilizing markets. i understand, too, that the "bust-the-trusts" movement provided precedent, for further "friendly" Government Interventions, in our economy.

naively, if "We the People" picked on Rockefeller, for slashing prices -80%; then why not "bust the ponzi schemes" too? Perhaps the Constitution has been abused by numerous interest groups?

 

[editec]

What FREE MARKET advoates want is a good thing --a less intrusive government.

What they are getting is something different -- a government run by their corporations whose sole fidelity is to those corporations.

Be prepared to kiss your FREEDOM goodbye when your EMPLOYER is in the position of telling you how to live, and government is the enforcer of your bosses wishes.

Oh I know some of you won't mind living in that Corporate fascist State because ya'll have shown us time after time that you are, in your heart of hearts, basically peasants seeking only to have a good master.

 

[sparky]

What FREE MARKET advoates want is a good thing --a less intrusive government.

.

yeah,Editec,
but look at how it's all packaged and sold to us, you'll note how they're usually painded broad brush, and lack specifics

most of those 'advocates' are sm biz owners under the gov heel . It makes sense to deregulate certian restrictions like osha , the epa , capital gains, etc for them

but these are mostly doled out with inequity, what's chump change for big biz might close the doors of small biz

even the definition of sm biz is warped in this country, along with all supporting stats

~S~

 

[Old Rocks]

All this screaming about the need for totally free market by the wingnuts, yet the very first thing out of their mouths concerning the price of gasoline is that President Obama should be doing something about it.

 

[Dragon]

Interstate and International trade, yes. The economy within States no

Look at that "necessary and proper" clause again. If Congress wishes to produce an outcome pertinent to regulation of interstate trade, and in order to do this it is necessary to impose a regulation on in-state trade as well, that clause empowers it to do so.

I'm not going to argue the merits of government policies I vehemently disagree with, like the war on drugs; however, there's no doubt that this effort, however cockeyed and asinine, is constitutional.

 

[Crackerjack]

All this screaming about the need for totally free market by the wingnuts, yet the very first thing out of their mouths concerning the price of gasoline is that President Obama should be doing something about it.

Non sequitur. The market for petroleum products is far from free of regulation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The Constitution is what the Court say it is." Justice Hughes

Are you posting that because it so bizarre....

....or do you actually agree with that nonsense?

What difference if I agree, that's the way it is.

Not all Justices feel that way, only the hacks who are are full of themselves, such as Justice Wm. Brennan, jr…1985 Georgetown speech supported the “transformative purpose” of the Constitution, in which he argued for an “aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity…”

The view falls back on the idea that moderns should not be bound by “a world that is dead and gone.” Of course, there are lots of laws on the books today by folks dead and gone: Social Security laws, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Sixteenth Amendment imposing an income tax, and all nine justices who participated in Roe v. Wade are now dead. Would that idea suggest ignoring any of these….or simply wish to allow judges to pick and choose which laws written by dead people we are to be bound by? No, this ‘transformative’ view would simply allow justices to erase parts of the Constitution.

The great ones link their decisions to the United States Constitution....That is the only authority by which the people agreed to be governed.

 

[kaz]

Interstate and International trade, yes. The economy within States no

Look at that "necessary and proper" clause again. If Congress wishes to produce an outcome pertinent to regulation of interstate trade, and in order to do this it is necessary to impose a regulation on in-state trade as well, that clause empowers it to do so.

I'm not going to argue the merits of government policies I vehemently disagree with, like the war on drugs; however, there's no doubt that this effort, however cockeyed and asinine, is constitutional.

The necessary and proper clause? Seriously? That clause says congress can pass laws regarding powers it has, it doesn't say it can pass laws regarding powers it doesn't have. If that's what you're pointing to as the "power" to regulate intrastate commerce, you just admitted they don't.

 

[regent]

The question then becomes should the president be given the power to control those things he is blamed for?

 

[Widdekind]

What FREE MARKET advoates want is a good thing --a less intrusive government.

What they are getting is something different -- a government run by their corporations whose sole fidelity is to those corporations.

Corporations are the "right-hand" of Government Influence in our economy; please acknowledge Unions as the "left-hand" of the same -- each uses the "Meddlings" of the other, to justify more of its own

 

[Dragon]

The necessary and proper clause? Seriously? That clause says congress can pass laws regarding powers it has,

Not quite. It says Congress may "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers." This gives Congress all sorts of authority to do things which are not explicitly spelled out in the remainder of this section, but which are necessary in order to execute the powers that are. For example, Congress is not explicitly authorized here to create agencies of the Executive branch, but such agencies are necessary and proper in order to carry out many of its powers that are. Congress is not explicitly authorized to make laws of military justice, but this is necessary and proper in order to create an army and navy, which it is explicitly authorized to do.

Similarly, Congress is authorized to regulate interstate and international commerce. Let's say that it wishes to ensure that the states do not get into a race to the bottom with respect to wages of workers. In order to do this, it is "necessary and proper" that Congress be able to set a minimum wage which prevails nationwide. This is not directly regulating interstate commerce anymore than passing laws of military justice is explicitly creating an army, but it is a necessary action towards a goal that IS regulating interstate commerce.

That's the way the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter, and given the text of the document it makes sense.

 

[kaz]

The necessary and proper clause? Seriously? That clause says congress can pass laws regarding powers it has,

Not quite. It says Congress may "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers." This gives Congress all sorts of authority to do things which are not explicitly spelled out in the remainder of this section, but which are necessary in order to execute the powers that are.

Since the people who wrote it said it gave Congress "no new power," where did that power come from? The Supreme Court? So your view is that the government can grant itself power in the name of the people? That's sick.

 

[docreflex]

In the complexity theory, the law of diminishing returns plays an integral role in the operations of government vs. a free, unchained market. The more complex the system, the greater the risk of collapse.

Economics isn't a mathematical endeavor, it's a human behavior one. This civilization, free of correction is bound for collapse.

Yes, I think it is bound for collapse. We have an economy based on mass production. It feels it can operate independent of the earth or soul . So yes it has begun to collapse, but barter an trade may work. People need to be willing to be craftsmen an trade, not click a mouse an be contolled by a computer. As I click on a computer I hold in my hands, the irony!!!!??? PS economies are based on energy usage, and so are wars, and both are connectted, economy<>wars. Sad but we really need to look at human behavior, before looking at economies.

 

[Dragon]

Since the people who wrote it said it gave Congress "no new power," where did that power come from?.

It's not a new power. It's just one you didn't notice or anticipate.

EDIT: Also, what do you mean by "the men who wrote it"? You do realize that included a total of 70 people, right?