Government and the private sector intersect because without government regulations the large private companies would run out of control and eventually fail. When companies are allowed to do as they wish it makes for a poor economy. Low wages, poor working conditions, monopolies, and unregulated workers (meaning children) are just some of the results of having no government regulations. These two entities are so ingrained within each other that they cannot live without the other. Government needs the prosperity and taxes that the private corporations make and the corporations need the government to help regulate the laws that help them. If these companies fail, our economy fails as the recession has shown us. When the government refused to bail out anymore banks our economy took a nose dive. Unemployment rose, living conditions declined and we were on our way to the next depression.
The concern is how much does the government regulate? When do they step back and allow the company to decide what to do? The problem with low involvement in the private sector is that it doesn’t allow for a democracy to thrive. “When production becomes concentrated, control becomes centralized. Democracy is threatened because this concentration of economic power tends to promote the concentration of political power.” Based on the chapter for this week, we see that there are a select few that actually control the markets. These select few also seem to control how our government is run using their power and influence to influence our laws.
I believe that the government needs to regulate larger companies. Without regulations companies would be able to decide how much to pay workers, and how much they charge for a product. Large companies could eat up the little companies until all that is left is one company in charge of production. This company could charge whatever amount it wanted because it was the only one offering this product.
I also believe that the upper echelon of our society needs to help the lower groups of society. Improving healthcare and retirement and adding to the social services that have been so needed these past few years. I don’t mind paying higher taxes if I know that I will be able to go to a good doctor and that my child will have excellent teachers. I think that the capitalist class has an obligation and a responsibility to help the people that work for them and their families and if they can’t, then I believe that government has every right to step in and ensure that they do. I believe that bigger government will actually help the economy and put it back where it needs to be. If we do this correctly, we could be flourishing again. We could be the example that everyone else looks to . . . again.
Can you define the upper echelon of our society? What number does upper echelon mean today? $250,000...$150,000...$1,000,000...do kids matter? If you have 4 kids and are making $150,000 is that rich, what if you're single and making $150,000 is that rich? What if you have been married three times and have to pay alimony to three ex's...what is considered rich then?
ReplyDeleteJust to throw some numbers into the conversation: According to a CBO study for 2005. The top 1% share of individual income tax was 38.8%, the Top 5% was 60.7%, the top 10% was 72.7%, the top 20% was 86.3%, the top 50% was 97%. That means that half of the country pays just 3% of the total income tax collected. But it's even better since the bottom 20% don't pay any and actually get 2.9% back. So how much more to the "rich" need to help out. We are almost at a tipping where half of the country will be paying 0% of income taxes and half will be paying 100%.
How can bigger government help out an economy? To have a bigger government you have to get the money from somewhere. Sure they Fed can print more paper out, but that's all it is, just paper. A bigger government would lead to higher taxes. They would be necessary to pay for the bigger government. This in turn would take money away from investors and from personal income. This leads to people and business having less to spend. Since they have less to spend they will not buy as much, since they can't buy as much there will be no need to produce as much, since there is no need to produce as much there will be no need for workers. Layoffs here we go.