Oh, I definitely agree with that article. For true capitalism to work, there has to be an even playing field. When the big guy can dodge their responsibilities, it only hurts the little guy. The little guy then can't be competitive. Capitalism fails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker
First, why is government spending, in and of itself, a concern? Whatever your answer, that's what we should actually be talking about.
I'm going to assume spending is a concern because its funded by taxes and because the government is running a deficit. In both these cases, we could just as easily say revenues are the problem and taxes are too low. Our point of view depends entirely on whether we believe what the government is spending its money on is valid and important.
|
Your question is one that everyone needs to ask themselves. Is spending a concern? In my mind, it is.
Government spending is a concern when we are one of the more heavily taxed provinces yet are running a deficit and really don't have any government services that are notably better than anywhere else to warrant it. To get out of the red and into the green, there seem to be two option: save money (cut) or raise more money (tax). If our money was going towards services that were mind-blowingly awesome... services that I had no problem paying for, then I'd be more in favor of additional tax. But I don't see any services that make my head explode. At least not in happiness.
So that's sort of my thought process.
In regards to businesses investing elsewhere, why is that? They have to invest SOMEWHERE, and in the same way that a consumer will balance quality and price when buying a pair of pants, businesses will balance cost to operate and desirability of location when deciding where to set up shop. A business isn't going to up and move unless the location they are operating out of is so noncompetitive that it makes more financial sense to incur the cost of leaving, building a new facility, hiring new staff, etc.
I don't necessarily buy that with reduced public services and increased private services cost goes up. Again, look at the NLC. Right now we have one location at which we can buy liquor. A monopoly. No chance to make a competitive decision. Now imagine, all of a sudden, three more chains open that also sell us our much needed beers. Chain #2 decides it is going to start charging a dollar less per case, and starts seeing more customers. Chain #3 loses customers because of this, so they offer a similar price or risk going out of business. I don't need to give you an economics lesson, you know that the theory is that prices continue to adjust downwards until it is not feasible for any of the businesses to adjust anymore. The problem arises when the companies get together and decide what they will charge. A cartel is just as damaging as a monopoly, and I am just as against it.
I mean, is that basic idea in some way wrong? I understand that we don't live in a perfect world, and that it clearly is not as simple as I am making it seem. However, in my mind, government should only be so large as to maintain itself, and focus on the essential services that no private company would want to touch (or services the public WANTS the government to manage. Again, Health Care. Private health care is indeed pretty messed up, no argument there. I have thoughts about a two-tiered system but I don't want this thread to go in that direction.
)