Are you looking to debate a communist or anyone who does not want a purely capitalist government. Because I want to have regulated capitalism.
that would depends on to which extent you want it regulated. im also in favour of regulated capitalism
I want corporations to be allowed to run their businesses however they wish, but with regulations on product safety, workplace health and safety, minimum wage, and a few other things. I also want to ban the use of tax money to bail out failing business (because it defeats the whole purpose of a capitalist society if you do not let follow it's natural course), and ban subsidies to private business. I would also like to see small businesses be give tax credits for hiring workers, and an ban on the importation of sweatshop products in the US.
okay, we then essentially agree but there a few exceptions. i would argue that unions rather than government could take care of safety and health and especially setting a good wage for their members. im thus opposed to a government set minimum wage. i would like to remove the tax on hiring ppeople all together. I would allow sweatshop products beause it leads to cheaper products and a better life for their workers.
If corporations could be trusted to pay their workers enough to survive on, a minimum wage would not be necessary. But, corporations have proven in then past that they can not be. And sweatshops also are the main reason for outsourcing. Ban sweatshop products being imported and better yet, ban US companies from doiong business in nations that allow sweatshops, and it would lead to more jobs in the US.
corporations have no moral obligation to pay their workers any more than their market value. However, workers can raise that value by organising into unions and forcing negotiations for better pay on employers. I thought you were going for the supposed immorality of sweatshops, but okay, I guess I can take this one too. that it's cheaper to make goods in other countries signals that it's a more efficient way, and thus that it would be inefficient to make them in the US. It also signals that the US should either lower it's cost of labour, as it's obviously too expensive, and that they should perhaps move on to other occupations. Just like better agricultural tools and techniques led to the loss of many farm jobs those people evntually got to work doing more productive things. The goal ought to be wealth creation at the most efficient way, and that's not achieved by subsidising inefficiency. It's after all not jobs per se we are after right? If that was the case, why not give everyone a spoon and assign them to dig a canal? Because that would be a horrid waste of time and resources when there's more efficient ways to do it. There's also that tariffs can lead to trade wars, in case you thought about that too. one got to have markets to sell to you know, we can't go back to mercantilism.
