Government Corporatism

privacyconcern

Do you support the destruction of small Irish run industries in favor of large foreign companies with no allegiance to Ireland? Are you willing to save a couple of quid to transfer our free market principles to the Government run Corporations?

Personally, I believe these massive companies should receive no perks from the Government, and should fail when things become unsustainable. Not only that, but they are wiping out small business in this country because the Government offers degrees of "protection" to these firms over our own.

The globalists appear to have an agenda to turn Ireland into Socialist France or something, but I don't support this one bit. Irish culture should not be consigned to history in place of globalist practices. Government Corporatism is simply against the principles of free, voluntary trade.

Socialists favor Corporatism to keep their stronghold over the people, while pushing their "redistribution" principles through force and coercion. Do you agree? I honestly believe Socialism and Corporatism will destroy this country.

What is your view? Do you really sympathize with the small family run corner shop, or do you salivate over Government interference in the free market? Government should have no interference with private entities. It's favoritism.

galwayrush

Self employed Irish people have no rights in this country..:mad:

44leto

What on Earth are you on about and since when have corporate capitalists become socialists.

AngryBollix

galwayrush wrote: »

Self employed Irish people have no rights in this country..:mad:

And by extension you'd have to be insane to set up business.

If red tape and lack of rights dont get you, the banks failure to lend certainly will.

The difficulties facing prospective business owner and entrepreneur at least partially explains our lack of indigenous industry

privacyconcern

44leto wrote: »

since when have corporate capitalists become socialists.

Corporatism is a socialist idea. The Socialists like to blame "capitalism" for everything, but the idea goes against the free market right wing ideals. The bank bailouts are a prime example. Too big to fail. In a free market economy such as Hong Kong, those banks would probably have been told to fcuk off. These bank bailouts are nothing more than socialised losses - A socialist idea.

Biggins

I favour Jellybabies myself, right now!

toexpress

AngryBollix wrote: »

And by extension you'd have to be insane to set up business.

If red tape and lack of rights dont get you, the banks failure to lend certainly will

I set up a business last summer in the food industry and yes there was lots of red tape but I did it and we do fairly well given that it is not a year old yet. It means a lot of hours but it's better than being on social welfare. I have had a good deal of support from a couple of state agencies

AngryBollix

toexpress wrote: »

I set up a business last summer in the food industry and yes there was lots of red tape but I did it and we do fairly well given that it is not a year old yet. It means a lot of hours but it's better than being on social welfare. I have had a good deal of support from a couple of state agencies

Have you had to borrow yet?

AngryBollix

Biggins wrote: »

I favour Jellybabies myself, right now!

Its white bonbons or nothing

privacyconcern

There is something seriously wrong in this country when there is little incentive to set up and maintain a business. This is what we should be SUPPORTING. Native Irish Industries. Of course, the far left fear this immensely. A free economy means they have no control over you. It's really that simple.

My recovery plan? Remove all the red tape, sack the pinko liberals, and return our economic sovereignty from Government run Corporations to Free market Individuals.

44leto

privacyconcern wrote: »

Corporatism is a socialist idea. The Socialists like to blame "capitalism" for everything, but the idea goes against the free market right wing ideals. The bank bailouts are a prime example. Too big to fail. In a free market economy such as Hong Kong, those banks would probably have been told to fcuk off. These bank bailouts are nothing more than socialised losses - A socialist idea.

In Ireland with a population of 4 million they were to big to fail. A corporation is an organization controlled by the share holders the share holders in nearly all corporations are not the tax payers the share holders are in private hands.

If the government was to buy up all the shares in Irish corporations that is called nationalism that is a socialist policy.

Where are you getting your stuff from??

AngryBollix

44leto wrote: »

In Ireland with a population of 4 million they were to big to fail. A corporation is an organization controlled by the share holders the share holders in nearly all corporations are not the tax payers the share holders are in private hands.

If the government was to buy up all the shares in Irish corporations that is called nationalism that is a socialist policy.

Where are you getting your stuff from??

Is it nationalisation as opposed to nationalism?

toexpress

AngryBollix wrote: »

Have you had to borrow yet?

Just my overdraft which is new. I admit I wouldn't like to be looking for funds for capital from the bank

44leto

AngryBollix wrote: »

Is it nationalisation as opposed to nationalism?

Yeah stupid spell checker, and illiteracy.

galwayrush

Biggins wrote: »

I favour Jellybabies myself, right now!

Soaked in booze overnight...:D

UsernameInUse

No, Socialists do not favour Corporatism. In fact, Corporatism is as much at odds with Socialism as Capitalism. For one, socialism does what it says on the tin - the workers own the production lines. Corporatism is simply private companies lobbying government to implement legislation that benefits them and them only - this is not Socialism and this is definitely not capitalism.

The reason we're in the mess we're in is because of the existence of central banks. The central banks (ECB for us/Fed for Americans) artificially set interest rates and depending on what number they go with, can rally the economy or slow it down. For a period, the interest rates were set to 1% leading in turn to everyone borrowing and buying bigger houses with fiat currency i.e - paper money that isn't really worth anything because they've already debased the value of it via quantitative easing (counterfeiting).

So now you've got a situation where the banks are lending out vast sums of money to people for micky mouse artificially set interest rates and in turn, have no money to hand out when the piper comes to withdraw savings. This is known as fractional reserve banking - the evil process of loaning out more money than the banks actually have in their vaults. The only way a bank can legally do this is because of the govenment. If there was no government legislation, banks would need 100% reserves, 100% of the time and would perhaps charge a small fee for keeping your money safe. But it is this monetising debt that allows banks to make billions a year from money they literally print out of thin air devaluing the purchasing power of you, the consumer and the price of your properties.

Until Ireland leaves the European Union and the European Central Bank in it's rear view mirror, then you can elect whomever you want into office - it won't make one bit of difference.

privacyconcern

44leto wrote: »

In Ireland with a population of 4 million they were to big to fail. A corporation is an organization controlled by the share holders the share holders in nearly all corporations are not the tax payers the share holders are in private hands.

If the government was to buy up all the shares in Irish corporations that is called nationalism that is a socialist policy.

Where are you getting your stuff from??

Let me ask you this one, are Corporations free from Government perks and favoritism? A good example is RTE. Would they still be around if the Government didn't threaten you with jail time to pay for a "licence"? Why isn't the private sector allowed this degree of power over the people? That is an extreme power to give to any "Corporation".

If RTE wasn't still supported and funded by the Government, they would have failed and been overtaken by competition in the private sector a long time ago. Plus, the private versions would not send you to jail for not paying, they would just cut your service.

Chuck Stone

privacyconcern wrote: »

The Socialists like to blame "capitalism" for everything, but the idea goes against the free market right wing ideals

The 'free market' and 'right wing' don't go together. Right wingers love the state as much if not more than the left.

privacyconcern

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The 'free market' and 'right wing' don't go together. Right wingers love the state as much if not more than the left.

Very True. I can sympathize with legitimate Socialism, as long as they aren't using the Government to interfere with my social and economic rights. It's not fair for me to tar them all with the same brush at the end of the day. The right is wrong on a hell of a lot too sometimes.

Biggins

galwayrush wrote: »

Soaked in booze overnight...:D

I like that there thinkin' son! That be a a darn good idea!

44leto

UsernameInUse wrote: »

No, Socialists do not favour Corporatism. In fact, Corporatism is as much at odds with Socialism as Capitalism. For one, socialism does what it says on the tin - the workers own the production lines. Corporatism is simply private companies lobbying government to implement legislation that benefits them and them only - this is not Socialism and this is definitely not capitalism.

The reason we're in the mess we're in is because of the existence of central banks. The central banks (ECB for us/Fed for Americans) artificially set interest rates and depending on what number they go with, can rally the economy or slow it down. For a period, the interest rates were set to 1% leading in turn to everyone borrowing and buying bigger houses with fiat currency i.e - paper money that isn't really worth anything because they've already debased the value of it via quantitative easing (counterfeiting).

So now you've got a situation where the banks are lending out vast sums of money to people for micky mouse artificially set interest rates and in turn, have no money to hand out when the piper comes to withdraw savings. This is known as fractional reserve banking - the evil process of loaning out more money than the banks actually have in their vaults. The only way a bank can legally do this is because of the govenment. If there was no government legislation, banks would need 100% reserves, 100% of the time and would perhaps charge a small fee for keeping your money safe. But it is this monetising debt that allows banks to make billions a year from money they literally print out of thin air devaluing the purchasing power of you, the consumer and the price of your properties.

Until Ireland leaves the European Union and the European Central Bank in it's rear view mirror, then you can elect whomever you want into office - it won't make one bit of difference.

No we are not, the reason interest rates were so low is the world had a glut of savers as in China India and even Germany, there was to much money in the system. Money is actual it is a real product and I am sure you know the rules of supply and demand, or do you?

As for corporations lobbying governments YES to get a better return for their shareholders, because that is their function, they are a private company in private hand not socialized hands.

As for a central bank, that is needed to control the currency and they are supposed to enforce financial regulations which they didn't which is another reason we are in this mess.

southsiderosie

UsernameInUse wrote: »

Until Ireland leaves the European Union and the European Central Bank in it's rear view mirror changes its gombeen political culture which favors populist spending over fiscal prudence, then you can elect whomever have whatever currency or macroeconomic system you want into office - it won't make one bit of difference.

FYP.

UsernameInUse

44leto wrote: »

No we are not, the reason interest rates were so low is the world had a glut of savers as in China India and even Germany, there was to much money in the system. Money is actual it is a real product and I am sure you know the rules of supply and demand, or do you?

As for corporations lobbying governments YES to get a better return for their shareholders, because that is their function, they are a private company in private hand not socialized hands.

As for a central bank, that is needed to control the currency and they are supposed to enforce financial regulations which they didn't which is another reason we are in this mess.

So your argument to me is that a central bank is needed to write regulations? You advocate putting the foxes in charge of the hen house because that is exactly who writes up banking regulations - BANKERS.

Fail.

44leto

UsernameInUse wrote: »

So your argument to me is that a central bank is needed to write regulations? You advocate putting the foxes in charge of the hen house because that is exactly who writes up banking regulations - BANKERS.

Fail.

But they don't work for the investment banks, they are civil servants.

And what do you mean by fail??

privacyconcern

Central Banks facilitated this mess. Principally, the ECB. I Will agree with Sinn Fein when they say we should burn the bondholders. In fairness to them, they appear to be the only large Irish party standing up to these vultures in the EU.

44leto

privacyconcern wrote: »

Central Banks facilitated this mess. Principally, the ECB. I Will agree with Sinn Fein when they say we should burn the bondholders. In fairness to them, they appear to be the only party standing up to these vultures in the EU.

I suspect not burning the bondholders was part of the conditions of the bailout, I am not sure, but if I am right ireland wouldn't have got the bailout package and we would be fukced right now,

Don't mind Sinn Fein they are just pandering the masses with economic gibberish, they can say these things knowing they will never have to implement that policy. Labour said the same thing till they got into power. So I imagine there are conditions we don't know about.

southsiderosie

privacyconcern wrote: »

Central Banks facilitated this mess. Principally, the ECB. I Will agree with Sinn Fein when they say we should burn the bondholders. In fairness to them, they appear to be the only large Irish party standing up to these vultures in the EU.

If it were the ECB's fault, then we would expect all of the eurozone countries to be experiencing the same problems. But they aren't. The countries that are in trouble are the ones who binged on low interest rates and/or tried to prop up their failing banking sectors.

texidub

I think business and government should be separated as much possible: and that applies to small businesses as much as large businesses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Mussolini claimed that Italian Fascism's economic system of corporatism could be identified as state capitalism which he claimed was state socialism "turned on its head", which in either case involved "the bureaucratisation of the economic activities of the nation."[62]

privacyconcern

southsiderosie wrote: »

If it were the ECB's fault, then we would expect all of the eurozone countries to be experiencing the same problems. But they aren't. The countries that are in trouble are the ones who binged on low interest rates and/or tried to prop up their failing banking sectors.

This argument holds true when you consider our debt repayments to only cover Irish losses. The fact is, Ireland is propping up failed European investments from not only the Irish, but the French, Italians, and beyond. It's socialized losses, essentially.

Pacifist Pigeon

44leto wrote: »

No we are not, the reason interest rates were so low is the world had a glut of savers as in China India and even Germany, there was to much money in the system. Money is actual it is a real product and I am sure you know the rules of supply and demand, or do you?

As for corporations lobbying governments YES to get a better return for their shareholders, because that is their function, they are a private company in private hand not socialized hands.

As for a central bank, that is needed to control the currency and they are supposed to enforce financial regulations which they didn't which is another reason we are in this mess.

NEIN NEIN NEIN!!

Corporatism/monetarism ACCENTUATES the business cycle creating greater booms and busts (as predicted by Friedrich Hayek and other Austrian economists) effecting the general populous in the long term. Central banks are criminal state-supported counterfeiting organisations who only profit themselves and politicians. Governments comes up with silly arguments that just try to justify their existence to the docile masses (currency, regulation, etc.), but they are WRONG, FALLACIOUS & DECEPTIVE!!

To quote Murray Rothbard: "The State is a coercive criminal organization that subsists by a regularized large-scale system of taxation-theft, and which gets away with it by engineering the support of the majority (not, again, of everyone) through securing an alliance with a group of opinion-moulding intellectuals whom it rewards with a share of its power and pelf."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MLry6Cn_D4

UsernameInUse

southsiderosie wrote: »

If it were the ECB's fault, then we would expect all of the eurozone countries to be experiencing the same problems. But they aren't. The countries that are in trouble are the ones who binged on low interest rates and/or tried to prop up their failing banking sectors.

I adhere to the Austrian School of Economics.

Your mainstream Keynesian worldview is in tatters. You're on the wrong team.

privacyconcern

UsernameinUse and Chuck Stone are right, it's not about left vs right. Corporatism is used by both the left and right to achieve their aims, either social or fiscal - through the corporation. Austrian school Libertarianism makes the most sense to me - Remove the power afforded to central banking altogether.

Pacifist Pigeon

UsernameInUse wrote: »

I adhere to the Austrian School of Economics.

Your mainstream Keynesian worldview is in tatters. You're on the wrong team.

I read somewhere that 80-90% of Keynes' views were proven to be utter nonsense.

UsernameInUse

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

I read somewhere that 80-90% of Keynes' views were proven to be utter nonsense.

JM Keynes hadn't a clue and this 80 year experiment is coming to a close. The government lives on free money - without it, Capitalism would prevail and Capitalism is Kryptonite to politicians and corporations.

Austrian economists assert that inherently damaging and ineffective central bank policies are the predominant cause of most business cycles, as they tend to set artificial interest rates too low for too long, resulting in excessive credit creation, speculative "bubbles" and artificially low savings.

All Austrian theorists consider the unsustainable expansion of bank credit through fractional reserve banking as the driving feature of most business cycles. However, Murray Rothbard paid particular attention to the role of central banks in creating an environment of loose credit prior to the onset of the Great Depression, and the subsequent ineffectiveness of central bank policies, which simply delayed necessary price adjustments and prolonged market dysfunction.[63]



Rothbard begins with the claim that in a market with no centralized monetary authority, there would be no simultaneous cluster of malinvestments or entrepreneurial errors, since astute entrepreneurs would not all make errors at the same time and would quickly take advantage of any temporary, isolated mispricing. In addition, in an open, non-centralized (uninsured) capital market, astute bankers would shy away from speculative lending and uninsured depositors would carefully monitor the balance sheets of risky financial institutions, tempering any speculative excesses that arose sporadically in the finance markets. In Rothbard's view, the cycle of generalized malinvestment is greatly exacerbated by centralized monetary intervention in the money markets by the central bank. "[44]


However, Rothbard asserts that an over-encouragement to borrow and lend is initiated by the mispricing of credit via the central bank's centralized control over interest rates and its need to protect banks from periodic bank runs (which Austrian economists believe then causes interest rates to be set too low for too long when compared to the rates that would prevail in a genuine non-central bank dominated free market).
Under the current fiat monetary system, a central bank creates new money when it lends to member banks, and this money is multiplied many times over through the money creation process of the private banks. This new bank-created money enters the loan market and provides a lower rate of interest than that which would prevail if the money supply were stable

Pacifist Pigeon

I am pleased to see that libertarianism in finally gaining some sway on these boards.

Viva La Revolution!

My name is URL

Government corporatism is fine once it benefits the populace as a whole and doesn't induce crony capitalist tendencies in those charged with overseeing it. lol

Pacifist Pigeon

My name is URL wrote: »

Government corporatism is fine once it benefits the populace as a whole and doesn't induce crony capitalist tendencies in those charged with overseeing it. lol

But it will inevitably accentuate the business cycle and it will inevitably descent into crony capitalism - there's too much risk - I don't trust government desk jockeys with making life-changing monetary decisions.

privacyconcern

Libertarianism deserves more media attention. The left vs right dichotomy is nothing more than a trick and pony show. It is a tool engineered to detract from the very root cause of most political corruption - Central Banking. The Republican party in the USA is a far cry from a small government supporter. Deceptive. The right has no right to tell you how to live your life or waste billions on Military toys. Likewise, the libs need to reduce state enforced theft. Libertarianism - **** makes sense, Son.

dotsman

UsernameInUse wrote: »

The reason we're in the mess we're in is because of the existence of central banks. The central banks (ECB for us/Fed for Americans) artificially set interest rates and depending on what number they go with, can rally the economy or slow it down. For a period, the interest rates were set to 1% leading in turn to everyone borrowing and buying bigger houses with fiat currency i.e - paper money that isn't really worth anything because they've already debased the value of it via quantitative easing (counterfeiting).

So now you've got a situation where the banks are lending out vast sums of money to people for micky mouse artificially set interest rates and in turn, have no money to hand out when the piper comes to withdraw savings. This is known as fractional reserve banking - the evil process of loaning out more money than the banks actually have in their vaults. The only way a bank can legally do this is because of the govenment. If there was no government legislation, banks would need 100% reserves, 100% of the time and would perhaps charge a small fee for keeping your money safe. But it is this monetising debt that allows banks to make billions a year from money they literally print out of thin air devaluing the purchasing power of you, the consumer and the price of your properties.

Until Ireland leaves the European Union and the European Central Bank in it's rear view mirror, then you can elect whomever you want into office - it won't make one bit of difference.

This is so warped, I don't know where to even begin. Let's try with the basics and...

privacyconcern wrote: »

I Will agree with Sinn Fein when they say we should burn the bondholders. In fairness to them, they appear to be the only large Irish party standing up to these vultures in the EU.

...ah forget it, you guys are beyond hope.

Pacifist Pigeon

dotsman wrote: »

This is so warped, I don't know where to even begin. Let's try with the basics and...

Why don't you try and contribute to the thread instead of making condescending little snide remarks. It would be nice to hear some real debate on facts here.

Doc Ruby

privacyconcern wrote: »

Corporatism is used by both the left and right to achieve their aims, either social or fiscal - through the corporation.

I'll tell you what though, even with the amount of bollocks going around this thread, the more I learn the more corporate globalisation and socilaism without borders start to sound exactly alike to me.

And now, in a stunning eleventh hour save of the discussion, here's a hot chick with nunchuks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGvEkfDbc5Y

privacyconcern

dotsman wrote: »

...ah forget it, you guys are beyond hope.

Glad to know you know so much about random internet folk. Some of your views on the matter would contribute constructively to the discussion!

My name is URL

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

But it will inevitably accentuate the business cycle and it will inevitably descent into crony capitalism - there's too much risk - I don't trust government desk jockeys with making life-changing monetary decisions.

There's the irony of it.. it's paradoxical no matter what side you happen to be on.

Even with a more limited government; some relatively small group is going to be empowered just enough to decide upon and shape the things that affect us all, be they in government or not.

Pacifist Pigeon

My name is URL wrote: »

Even with a more limited government; some relatively small group is going to be empowered just enough to decide upon and shape the things that affect us all, be they in government or not.

How? Are you referring to monopolies? Don't you know that all corporate monopolies in history have been supported with the help of governments and politicians? Monopolies simply cannot form in a free market with zero government intervention.

Biggins

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I'll tell you what though, even with the amount of bollocks going around this thread, the more I learn the more corporate globalisation and socilaism without borders start to sound exactly alike to me.

And now, in a stunning eleventh hour save of the discussion, here's a hot chick with nunchuks

Inserted video

Naa... Good try but you can't beat Nuns With Guns!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wsSacnyP6I

privacyconcern

My name is URL wrote: »

Even with a more limited government; some relatively small group is going to be empowered just enough to decide upon and shape the things that affect us all, be they in government or not.

But they would garner less power than the central bank. Der Spiegel has an article that explains the terror of central banking quite well, just decided to post a link. Though with these new draconian copyright laws coming into force, I don't know how long it will stay up for. We are slowly moving towards an authoritatrian state folks!

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,764299,00.html

Does The ECB Know How Safe Its Collateral Is?
The ECB maintains a list of "eligible assets," a sort of seal of approval for securities. Every major bank in the euro zone must have such securities, such as bonds or government bonds, or it would be excluded from the money market. There are currently 28,708 securities on the ECB list, with a total value €14 trillion at the end of 2010.

The national central banks determine which securities are placed on the list and under what conditions. "The ECB has no obligation to supervise the central banks, nor does it have the ability to monitor individual central banks," explains an ECB spokesman. In other words, ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet doesn't even know exactly what kinds of risks he is taking on. In principle, the conditions for ECB investment-grade securities are outlined in a 37-page document, most recently updated in February. To keep the risks for the central banks within reason, some of the haircuts on securities are very high, comprising up to 69.5 percent of the value of a security.


WTF? Why should we be responsible for the dubious central banks of other countries? These fools should not be dictating to us, when they can't even manage their own crap. :O

Doc Ruby

Biggins wrote: »

Naa... Good try but you can't beat Nuns With Guns!

For me the nunchuks are where its at. Lookitergo.

She doesn't even hit her boobs once.

Now if we had a nuns with nunchucks sequel then you're talking.

My name is URL

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

How? Are you referring to monopolies? Don't you know that all corporate monopolies in history have been supported with the help of governments and politicians? Monopolies simply cannot form in a free market with zero government intervention.

Monoploies can exist without government.

At the turn of the 20th century in the US, business could do what it wanted.. and it did. The result was robber barons, monopolistic gouging, management thugs attacking union organisers, an all but crippled business cycle, slavery and racial oppression, starvation among the elderly, and militaristic diplomacy in support of business interests.

A quarter of the population was unemployed. Almost 6000 thousand banks had failed, wiping out the savings of 10 million families. Industrial plants were operating at 12% of overall capacity. Banks foreclosed on a quarter of one state's land. Wall Street was discredited and practically disabled by insider trading and collusion with banks at the expense of investors. Farmers were breaking out into open revolt and miners and jobless workers were regularly rioting.

Don't think, by the way, that if governments don't provide the gunboats, no one else will. Corporations will build their own militaries if necessary: the East India Company did it.. and Leopold did in the Congo.

How is it possible to avoid that without the intervention of government and governance?

privacyconcern

My name is URL wrote: »

Monoploies can exist without government.

At the turn of the 20th century in the US, business could do what it wanted.. and it did. The result was robber barons, monopolistic gouging, management thugs attacking union organisers, an all but crippled business cycle, slavery and racial oppression, starvation among the elderly, and militaristic diplomacy in support of business interests.

A quarter of the population was unemployed. Almost 6000 thousand banks had failed, wiping out the savings of 10 million families. Industrial plants were operating at 12% of overall capacity. Banks foreclosed on a quarter of one state's land. Wall Street was discredited and practically disabled by insider trading and collusion with banks at the expense of investors. Farmers were breaking out into open revolt and miners and jobless workers were regularly rioting.

Don't think, by the way, that if governments don't provide the gunboats, no one else will. Corporations will build their own militaries if necessary: the East India Company did it.. and Leopold did in the Congo.

I suppose if you kept Government on a leash to perform it's only proper functions - Legislative, Executive and Judicial, monopolies would not exist. The mere fact Microsoft for example is allowed ensure almost every computer contains Windows for example is because of Government lobbying and backslapping. America in the 1800's wasn't in anywhere a mature society.

Your argument would be quashed if Government did the bare mimimum. That includes jailing people for fraud and violence among dubious crap. The big Government Institutions we have today facilitates corruption. A much smaller government, like a fishbowel - not so much. Smaller Gov Institutions means more transparency. I am not anti Government. You absolutely need a functioning Government in any sane country.

Toby Take a Bow

privacyconcern wrote: »

Let me ask you this one, are Corporations free from Government perks and favoritism? A good example is RTE. Would they still be around if the Government didn't threaten you with jail time to pay for a "licence"? Why isn't the private sector allowed this degree of power over the people? That is an extreme power to give to any "Corporation".

If RTE wasn't still supported and funded by the Government, they would have failed and been overtaken by competition in the private sector a long time ago. Plus, the private versions would not send you to jail for not paying, they would just cut your service.

I can't think of any country in the world (today) that operates in a truly free market. The 'free market' that everyone talks about is free to a certain extent: usually for the interests of that country, with restrictions on other aspects which would harm that country.

But, yeah, a certain level of protectionism should be encouraged in order to build up and promote indigenous companies.

Biggins

Doc Ruby wrote: »

For me the nunchuks are where its at. Lookitergo.

She doesn't even hit her boobs once.

Now if we had a nuns with nunchucks sequel then you're talking.

Interesting!!!

I think we should work together on the script!