How can anybody be Anti-Business?

What you’re talking about is ‘Anti-Big Business’ aka corporate monopolies that are antithetical to true capitalism and to fair business interactions.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir
Not agreeing or disagreeing….
Plus, only for my sake, and not to be a bother, would you please expand on that a bit?

Let’s accept that capitalism is the way to go, for the time being. Big businesses are conglomerates that prevent any small business from competing in the marketplace – I’m sure you have heard about the lamentations of many a ‘mom and pop’ business because a chain store was in town – big businesses like Walmart or McDonalds or any of the big pharmas monopolize supply and demand and there is a concern that there is too much power in the hands of those running these big business and that they certainly ‘own the U.S. government’ because many representatives are sell-outs to some big business industry or other. Big businesses have often been accused of unethical practices, mistreatment of their workers, bad working conditions, etc. Basically, they (the businesses) have too much say over the people which don’t and simply can’t when faced against a big business, have a say. Incidentally, I believe (as a leftist) that big business is just as bad as big government. And read more here.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir But how would you morally (not legally, morally) justify using the force of the big government thugs to capriciously inhibit the big business conglomerates in order to show equally capricious favor to the small business? Wouldn’t it be better to simply advocate that people patronize the small business (assuming their product or service was comparable in quality and value) or at least to make sure that you personally patronized them? Besides hiring goons from big government, what else can you do?

People can’t patronize small business because big business can produce things at a lower price by utilizing overseas labor. This is bad for Americans because jobs are overseas, and bad for the people of these other nations as well as laborers everywhere because it brings down the dollar value of labor globally.

@josie Businesses are supposed to be under government, that’s the idea. And your language is loaded..besides the fact that I wasn’t discussing what your first sentence of your last comment deals with…People should be able to choose whatever products but because of big business, there is no choice – it’s either their product or none or a significantly more expensive product. I don’t know who is ‘hiring goons from big government’ but people, on their own, can not fight big business.

But there was business (productive human activity) before there was government. The first civilized humans hired nomadic bandits to protect their crops and animals from other nomadic bandits. That was the origin of government.
But thanks, Simone. I’m glad it was you (and JPS) that responded to the question first. It could have been one of the crazies.

@josie Totally agree that part of what government needs to do is protect businesspeople, but its first duty is to protect citizens, be it from vandals or abusive business practices.

@josie Wait, I thought you thought I was one of the crazies. I get so confused about who’s pigeonholing me where…:)
I think there was always human activity, exchange…that’s not big business…and there was a kind of government, usually in that there usually were people whose role was to lead the rest.

@josie That nomadic bandit thing seems like kind of a scam, a system, if at all true, I’m not giving you that one, but if it were true, it sounds like a system devised by bandits to serve the purposes of the bandits, but an interesting take on the origins of government, I’ll give you that. Government originated when we began having to hire thieves to protect us from other thieves. That might be a keeper, at least something I will be pondering for a while. :-)

@lillycoyote It is the beginning of the age of the God/Kings in Mesopotamia. The first civilized humans were not prepared to protect their fragile crops by the river, and their newly domesticated animals. They were frequently raided by hunter gatherer nomads who figured stealing crops and livestock was easier than taking their chances in the field. Newly civilized man struck a deal with some of the raiders-we will give you a cut of our product as tribute if you chase away the other bandits. All they had to do was give protection, and they got wealth and status in exchange. Lots of people would take that deal. They still do.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Never thought you were crazy. Just thought you were easy to disagree with. And I still do. But I have decided to do it in a less antagonistic manner. Once I was hardcore, now I am a responsible member of peaceful civilian society. It’s healthier this way. For me anyway. Maybe you like antagonism? I doubt it. You like a good argument, but not antipathy.

@josie Well this is a good change, then. I am glad and you already know I don’t like antipathy. Good night.

@josie Sorry, that answer, my response to you, was stupid, and flippant and I got tangled up in my own editing and my own smartassery.

I can be anti-business when it looks like the Bryant and May factory where they deliberately put young women in massive harms way to save some cash. Or the cocoa business that is still using child labour and often forced child labour.

The advent of government regulations came because of cases like these. And I don’t for a moment believe that if we were to adopt a more libertarian economy today that businesses would suddenly become fair and humanitarian.

But really I’m not anti-business. I just want business to be reasonable. I don’t want businesses to pollute my environment, to monopolize their industries, or cause harm to save or make money. We need government to make sure they don’t.

The left isn’t anti-business, that is simply a FALSE talking point spread by the right to further their own cause. Its based upon the assumption that the left wants to raise taxes to the point where businesses will be unsuccessful, yet businesses have historically done better under left leaning presidents. For example, under Clinton (a left leaning dem who had higher taxes than under repubs) the economy grew by 23.1 million jobs. Meanwhile under Bush 2 (a right leaning president with huge tax cuts for the wealthy among others) the economy grew by 3.5 million jobs… then lost 8 million in his last 6 months. In fact Clinton created more jobs in his 8 years, than the combined 20 years of Reagen, Bush 1, and Bush 2.

Another good example is the 1950’s. Under presidents Truman and Eisenhower the highest tax bracket was in the NINETY PERCENT range, as in 90%, 9–0—%. Yet somehow the 50’s were the most economically booming decade in the history of our country, and still yielded eccentric millionaires such as Howard Hughes (the man who had so much money he built a boat to lift a Russian submarine off the floor of the Pacific ocean, for shits and giggles).

The belief that the left wants to raise taxes to the point of harming businesses is false. We simply want them to pay their fair share and help build the roads and take care of the very workers that make them so profitable. That and we don’t want them cheating us out of money or destroying our environment and things like that (but thats more into the regulation side of the argument).

I think the 50s can be a bit misleading. The economy boomed, I believe, because both Germany’s and Japan’s manufacturing sectors were wiped out by the war. This created a void that the U.S. filled. Things are much more competitive now.

If you really want to see what happens in countries were there is little government intervention take a look at failed or nearly failed states that are heavy in natural resources. Often it is not pretty what happens to the average working person.