As was proved during the Reagan era, the rich AND poor BOTH get richer when Government gets out of the way (i.e., fetters to productivity are removed).
8 years is a dreadfully short time to 'prove' an economic method. For all you know what is happening right now is a direct result of Reagan era policies, so I am going to call bullshit on that, but if you can actually provide some reasonable backup for your opinion then maybe you can change my mind!
I am not going to pretend that there isn't bad regulation (goddamn there is tons of it), and it should be gotten rid of, but people who say that all regulation is bad regulation are just crazies. Should we take out anti-trust legislation? Was it smart of us to remove the investment bank regulation? What about safety regulation? What about anti-discrimination legislation?
There are 'fetters to productivity' and there is 'good legislation' but to say that all legislation that fetters productivity cannot be good is wrong.
So in a Capitalist system Johnny gets his jumprope, and a new playground set besides, and we all get 100MB service to our homes.
In a capitalist system Johnny gets his jumprope and playground if his daddy is rich. Most kids would get to play with sticks and rocks.
We don't all get 100MB service to our homes. Rich people get 100MB service to their homes.
Of course, in that system the local government would NOT be allowed to limit the number of ISPs servicing an area, so there would be real competition for service in that last mile.
I don't think the government does limit the number of ISP's. I think the free market does. As long as ISP's keep their prices under the cost of implementation of new infrastructure there will never be any competition.
There might be a few more wires strung and/or tunnels dug to run the lines, but there would be more service, more competition, and CHEAPER PRICES.
This is a fantasy. In reality we would end up with 1 really cheap ISP who puts the others out of business, at which point they would either buy out or purchase the equipment from the other companies. The new monopoly would languor just as much as they currently do and could charge as much as they want for their service.
It never fails to amaze me how many people don't understand that most of the major socio-political and economic problems we have today are directly due to the application of too much socialistic GMI and not enough application of Capitalistic Federalism. It would be funny if it wasn't so sick and sad.
I agree there is too much socialism in some cases, but it is usually a failure of implementation or corruption manifesting itself. I should be able to take the money for my education and apply it to any school. But to take away public education and turn it completely over to the private sector is not only ludicrous, its downright evil.
Do only evil
Seriously? Creating new sources of food is evil? Patents last for a few years or a couple decades (at most). New sources of food will continue to pay dividends for generations.
A small taste of monsanto's evilness.
They are not just trying to create new food sources, they are trying to become the ONLY food source.
They are playing god, and they lack any conscience.
Monstanto developed a seed that makes the plant infertile. That can cross contaminate other plants. The goal of this seed? To make it so farmers cannot use seed from the previous harvest and they have to buy more seeds.
Monsanto is quite possibly the most evil company on the planet.
Then they locked up the rich, I remained silent; I was not rich.
To be fair a large part of our countries rich SHOULD be in prison, especially in the financial and banking centers. The things they do are pretty much criminal.
Then they came for the press, I did not speak out; I was not a member of the press.
I think taking a lot of our press away (fox/nbc/etc) would also be a service. Of course it would be stewart they take and not the people who are governmental mouth peices... but yeah I agree with the sentiment.
It is difficult to soar with the eagles when you work with turkeys.