Corporate_slave
Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8
We can all agree that adhering to the Constitution is of paramount importance in this late hour. A retraction of big government will allow the people to recover some of their lost wealth. However, even after the IRS is dissolved, even after the FED is routed out (and our monetary system is placed back into the hands of the people who use it); how will this country regain its power over unregulated corporate expansion - which serves to undermine the wealth of the people of our nation almost as much as the FED itself?
The health of America's local economies are the true barometer of the economic health of our nation. I feel that this is a pretty basic concept that most people can grab onto... I will go off of this premise to make my point.
In a closed economy, the monetary unit remains relatively stable - so long as hoarding and spending cycles are responsibly kept in check. Money circulates, and the monetary unit remains the servant of the people who use it - yet growth and expansion aren't very plausible without an uneven distribution of monetary units.
When money is introduced from outside the closed economic circle (from another closed economic circle,) the money supply is increased, and opportunities for growth and expansion are made easier - without reducing the the amount of monetary units in possession of the majority of people within that once-closed economic circle. Although the money supply is expanded, it is done so in incremental amounts, and usually involves the export of real goods or services. Realistically speaking, these types of transactions are typically reciprocal, and tend to even themselves out - anything else is considered a trade deficit, and should be remedied by the local economies that it effects.
The flip-side of this is when corporate entities invade a relatively closed, and healthy, local economy. The financial risk of starting a new business is significantly reduced when that new business has corporate backing. That risk is all but nullified when the object is to suffocate the competing local business owners who cater to the same target market or industry. Once the local competition is wiped out, the profits will begin to roll in, and the investment finally pays off.
Most local business owners do not have the capital to fight this, and the liberty for the common person to elevate themselves from servitude to small business owner is laughable at best. What is accomplished through unregulated corporate expansion, is the destruction of small businesses, and the deterrent of any future small businesses from being started.
I have witnessed this in my own town. As the corporate giant lumbers through, I watch small business after small business close up shop and dissolve into the wind. I work for a small business owner, and I have watched as he has had to let go of 3 very valuable employees. We, like so many other small businesses in this area, now have a corporate giant in our back yard. These corporate giants are able to negotiate better deals, and are able to utilize corporate advertising campaigns to funnel a larger share of the market than is possible for the smaller business.
Now, with that being said, I am not complaining about open competition. Competition is actually healthy for any particular market segment and/or industry - especially for the customer. However, to site an example of aggressive corporate expansion, I will bring up Starbucks. In the last year, I have seen over 8 new Starbucks locations go up, and they are all located near small, locally owned coffee shops. As of today, ALL local coffee shops in my town have closed down - and I do mean ALL of them. If I want a fresh iced latte, I have to get it from Starbucks. Starbucks now has a monopoly over the coffee shop industry in my town.
There are several other industries in my area that have suffered the same fate. This practice is more-or-less just monopoly-building, and should be subjected to scrutiny under anti-trust legislation. But there is a more severe problem that arises from this practice...
As a corporate entity aggressively consumes an entire market segment in any local economy, that revenue is funneled OUT of the local money supply. Sure, some of that money stays behind through payroll, local taxes, and other locally-derived expenditures. However, the rest of the net profit is funneled up to the corporate structure, and is rarely returned to the local money supply that it came from. So, as the local money supply is funneled out of the local economy, and local businesses dry up; the economic prosperity of the members of that local economy is reduced day after day.
Over an extended period of time, this provides a landscape that is indistinguishable from any other local economy. As you drive down "the main strip," all you see is a never-ending scrolling background of corporate logos. Every town begins to look like every other town in America.
Without small business owners, there is NO middle-class. Without small business owners, the common man is left to work for slave wages, for a gigantic corporate entity that could care less about the concerns of any particular employee. The ability of the common person to elevate themselves from slavery to anything else is made impossible.
I believe that aggressive corporate expansionism should not only be curtailed, but brought to an immediate halt - for the liberty of all to pursue the opportunity to provide products and services to their local economy. With stronger local economies, our national will only become stronger.
What is Dr. Paul's position on aggressive corporate expansionism?
I have ideas that I would LOVE to discuss with Dr. Paul. I am a staunch supporter of Dr. Paul, and do my best to educate as many people as I can about him on a daily basis.
Keep up the good fight Dr. Paul... I am with you.
The health of America's local economies are the true barometer of the economic health of our nation. I feel that this is a pretty basic concept that most people can grab onto... I will go off of this premise to make my point.
In a closed economy, the monetary unit remains relatively stable - so long as hoarding and spending cycles are responsibly kept in check. Money circulates, and the monetary unit remains the servant of the people who use it - yet growth and expansion aren't very plausible without an uneven distribution of monetary units.
When money is introduced from outside the closed economic circle (from another closed economic circle,) the money supply is increased, and opportunities for growth and expansion are made easier - without reducing the the amount of monetary units in possession of the majority of people within that once-closed economic circle. Although the money supply is expanded, it is done so in incremental amounts, and usually involves the export of real goods or services. Realistically speaking, these types of transactions are typically reciprocal, and tend to even themselves out - anything else is considered a trade deficit, and should be remedied by the local economies that it effects.
The flip-side of this is when corporate entities invade a relatively closed, and healthy, local economy. The financial risk of starting a new business is significantly reduced when that new business has corporate backing. That risk is all but nullified when the object is to suffocate the competing local business owners who cater to the same target market or industry. Once the local competition is wiped out, the profits will begin to roll in, and the investment finally pays off.
Most local business owners do not have the capital to fight this, and the liberty for the common person to elevate themselves from servitude to small business owner is laughable at best. What is accomplished through unregulated corporate expansion, is the destruction of small businesses, and the deterrent of any future small businesses from being started.
I have witnessed this in my own town. As the corporate giant lumbers through, I watch small business after small business close up shop and dissolve into the wind. I work for a small business owner, and I have watched as he has had to let go of 3 very valuable employees. We, like so many other small businesses in this area, now have a corporate giant in our back yard. These corporate giants are able to negotiate better deals, and are able to utilize corporate advertising campaigns to funnel a larger share of the market than is possible for the smaller business.
Now, with that being said, I am not complaining about open competition. Competition is actually healthy for any particular market segment and/or industry - especially for the customer. However, to site an example of aggressive corporate expansion, I will bring up Starbucks. In the last year, I have seen over 8 new Starbucks locations go up, and they are all located near small, locally owned coffee shops. As of today, ALL local coffee shops in my town have closed down - and I do mean ALL of them. If I want a fresh iced latte, I have to get it from Starbucks. Starbucks now has a monopoly over the coffee shop industry in my town.
There are several other industries in my area that have suffered the same fate. This practice is more-or-less just monopoly-building, and should be subjected to scrutiny under anti-trust legislation. But there is a more severe problem that arises from this practice...
As a corporate entity aggressively consumes an entire market segment in any local economy, that revenue is funneled OUT of the local money supply. Sure, some of that money stays behind through payroll, local taxes, and other locally-derived expenditures. However, the rest of the net profit is funneled up to the corporate structure, and is rarely returned to the local money supply that it came from. So, as the local money supply is funneled out of the local economy, and local businesses dry up; the economic prosperity of the members of that local economy is reduced day after day.
Over an extended period of time, this provides a landscape that is indistinguishable from any other local economy. As you drive down "the main strip," all you see is a never-ending scrolling background of corporate logos. Every town begins to look like every other town in America.
Without small business owners, there is NO middle-class. Without small business owners, the common man is left to work for slave wages, for a gigantic corporate entity that could care less about the concerns of any particular employee. The ability of the common person to elevate themselves from slavery to anything else is made impossible.
I believe that aggressive corporate expansionism should not only be curtailed, but brought to an immediate halt - for the liberty of all to pursue the opportunity to provide products and services to their local economy. With stronger local economies, our national will only become stronger.
What is Dr. Paul's position on aggressive corporate expansionism?
I have ideas that I would LOVE to discuss with Dr. Paul. I am a staunch supporter of Dr. Paul, and do my best to educate as many people as I can about him on a daily basis.
Keep up the good fight Dr. Paul... I am with you.
