A thought

[Brian Ellis]

How very true in every country!

[Jessterw]

Yes.

Oddly enough, some of the 'greatest' presidents in US history have increased governmental power in dire times, knowing full well the consequence of doing so. Which of course would be the problem now, our current doesn't (ignoring the short-term benefits to his administration).

But that's neither here nor there and certainly not a subject matter for in here. Good quote.

[KvHagedorn]

Power is a neutral, meaning it is neither good nor evil in and of itself. There will never be a "great" leader who does nothing because he fears to take the reins. The checks and balances that were meant to prevent abuses now often serve to institutionalize abuse. I'm talking about lobbyists and others "buying" politicians, while there are checks and balances preventing a single strong leader, should he manage to materialize amid this mess, from taking decisive action against them. I'm also talking about congress "voting themselves" a hefty raise and special benefits for life. There is therefore no public service.. only self-service.. and the service done for those rich bastards who have paid officials to do their bidding.

The best situation in government would be an elected body that is held accountable by a monarch who has been raised and tutored with an iron hand, ingrained with the idea that he is the servant of his people.. to the point of living amongst commoners in youth who pay him no deference. But then, he would have to have a "people" to show such loyalty to.

[Jessterw]

The last thing we need is for this to be turned into yet-another-discussion-on-multi-culturalism. As I'm taking a wild guess that this lack of "people" you're trying to subtly refer to is the lack of a society comprised of people of a single ethnic background or culture.

Let's keep this upper-level Lounge worthy.

[Brian Ellis]

When I posted this, I was not thinking of any specific country because it applies to all. It is applicable to any of the dictatorships throughout the world in the past and present, whether that dictatorship is monarchial (e.g., Anglo-Saxon kings) or elected (e.g., Hitler and Mugabe) or even collegial (e.g., Saddam). I had not even really thought of the restriction of liberties in various countries in the past half-decade, although it is applicable.

What I would wish is that this debate remain in global generalities and not applied to the situation in just the USA, as KvH appears to be doing, although his reference to an administration overseen by a monarch kinda sorta echos some of what Woodrow Wilson himself unsuccessfully promoted to the US peoples (note the plural). I don't know the context of the quotation in the plaque but he was a forward thinker, far ahead of his time (in fact, if he were president today, I suggest his thoughts would still not be acceptable to the US electorate, any more than to the French, Germans, Brits - he admired the UK Parliamentarism, though - or many other electorates.

[KvHagedorn]

Might I also remark that this sort of thing applies in the world of commerce as well. Monopoly and near-monopoly situations destroy utterly the liberty which a free market system, through competition, is supposed to bring to the marketplace. Ever larger multi-nationals and endless unimpeded mergers have usurped much of the power that once was held by governments. While the pledge of allegiance loses favor in schools, the local Wal-Marts still have pep rallies to ingrain allegiance to their corporate banner.

[Brian Ellis]

KvH

Yes and no. Unimpeded mergers are a result of liberty. Read the plaque very carefully and think about it. If the government restricts the liberty of merging, then we are left with a host of mid-sized companies none of which has the throughput to practise economies of scale, so the cost of goods will be higher. Same with commerces: Walmart is cheap for many products because they can buy so many that they can negotiate a better price, which they can pass on to their clients.

Now let's see what happens with large companies getting larger. There comes a stage when the admin becomes so heavy that they need further echelons of non-productive administrators at mid levels and costs start to rise, rather than come down. Often "empires" are built, resistant to interference and they become inefficient, if not criminally corrupt. A good example of this can be seen at Ford and GM. Sooner or later, either these colossi with clay feet divest, thus becoming manageably smaller, or they go bust (read ICI, PanAm, AT&T and Enron, each for a different reason). Whatever, in the long term, there is an auto-regulation in the fortunes of large corporations, on condition there is total liberty and freedom from government regulation. It is usually in the 3rd generation that the downsizing occurs (read IBM here). The thing to avoid, at all costs, is government backing, subsidies or even loans for failing megacorps.

If this natural sequence follows its course, then hundreds of entrepreneurial companies rise from the ashes, creating in one year more innovation than the original one did in 20 years. After one generation, the more successful ones will be swallowed up in takeovers and mergers and so the cycle continues. Of one thing, you can be certain, no matter how big a company, it will always have small competitors and these will be successful if they fill a niche that the big'uns can't or won't.

Where I live, in a village of 1100 inhabitants, we have 3 successful mom'n'pop supermarkets, yet we have Carrefour (the world's 2nd biggest supermarket chain, after Walmart) just 7 km down the road. The local ones have marginally higher prices than Carrefour on most articles, but (brands apart) there is little you can't buy at one that you can't at the other. As the parking lot at Carrefour is always crowded, I can surmise that it is as successful as the small guys, in proportion of scale. What is the niche that allows the small guys to compete? Service, personal service - and, perhaps, an opportunity for a gossip. If a small commerce is failing, it is because they have not found a niche.

The liberty of cartelisation is also to be considered. A cartel always has artificially high prices, by definition. This allows an entrepreneur to squeeze in under them, and the cartel will break up, in time.

[Umfriend]

No, I partly agree with KVH here. The auto regulation you speak about does not exist. Large 'empires' are those that have many products or services but that is not a requirement for a market destroying monopoly. The examples you give are irrelevant (heck AT&T was split by the governemnt, Enron was not 'big' in admin, just in fraud LOL).

The total liberty it would require, if it would work, would also require the complete abolishment of IP laws, certification laws and laws on where and how one can start a business. Even if it would work, the results would be devastating.

The assumption that an entrepeneur might squeeze in is folly. A cartel is valuable to its members. The entrepeneur would either have to be an idealist or as wealthy as the cartel to be succesful.

A free market is one where there are no barriers to entry. A monopoly and cartel typically preclude that.