Who believes our Nation is in a better spot than a year ago?

[Kathyp]

I would say that part of the problem is the making all businesses big and owned by so few people. 

I don't disagree.  We need to look at the reasons small businesses are losing to big businesses.  The main reason is cost.  Cost comes from a lot of places.  Taxes, regulations, labor expenses, licensing...
Farmers are getting hit especially hard with regulations, the expenses of compliance, and the expenses now of fuel and fertilizer. 

Where you used to be able to have an idea, open a shop, and try to sell your idea, you now need to have permission from some government entity to even get started.  Even if you want to do some kind of cottage industry, the government may stand in your way.  My mother used to sell her extra eggs.  In CA, it is now illegal without jumping through the state hoops.  When we were young and poor, I used to do child care. It is so expensive now to get set up with licensing and inspections, that I would not have been able to do it with the resources we had then.  My grandmother used to take care of old people in her home.  It's how she survived after her husband died.  To do it now, would be so expensive that she would probably not have been able to do it.

I get all the safety and inspection arguments.  I get the labor arguments.  You can't on the one hand make those arguments and impose those expenses and on the other hand lament the loss of small businesses. 

[Ben Framed]

I would say that part of the problem is the making all businesses big and owned by so few people. It makes things cheaper until something goes wrong.  I would use pig farming as an example.

I agree gww. From the local owned Pharmacy, Grocery Store, Hamburger Stand, Hardware Stores etc. Even Dentist and Doctors Offices are leaning toward the trend.  Even the old country stores are being bought out, torn down and replaced with fast gas type markets in my area. Sad

[gww]

There are regulations that are needed and then there are regulations to protect those already there.  There was also a push away from the Teddy Roosevelt anti trust to the bigger is better by both sides.  The republicans did this on communication platform ownership in president bush's term.

Ben
Everybody is in a race to the bottom.
Cheers
gww

[Ben Framed]

There are regulations that are needed and then there are regulations to protect those already there.  There was also a push away from the Teddy Roosevelt anti trust to the bigger is better by both sides.  The republicans did this on communication platform ownership in president bush's term.

Ben
Everybody is in a race to the bottom.
Cheers
gww

No argument from me here gww. Again I basically agree. There are many who used our voting right to say no to both sides in a desire to reign in the establishment on both sides.  The establishment, swamp, or pick your own description.  Many of The old established leadership on both sides seem to be in that rush to the bottom without care or concern.  That is what I and so many common citizens of all races and colors have been trying to express. United we stand, Divided we fall. Our Constitution is the guide and equalizer. We need real Americans in position of leadership which will uphold our Constitution for the good of us all. IMO

[Kathyp]

There is no doubt that there are some needed regulations, but even if you take those into account, government interference is at the root of most of these things. 

We need to look at what is actually needed for safety and what is done as protection for someones pet whatever.  The egg selling thing, as an example, is not a safety issue even though it was pushed as one.  Do we actually need to regulate every in-home daycare or can parents make up their minds, do their own checks, and save money using the neighborhood mom rather than the licensed, regulated, and expensive daycare?

There are always risks with freedom and choice, but we need to regulate against real risks and not possible risks...and certainly not against one business in favor of another...and I would add minimum wage increases to that also because they destroy small businesses in favor of the Costcos of the world.  There was no market need to go to 15 dollars an hour.  It was a want that some had because getting paid more is easier than getting skills and earning more.

[Ben Framed]

There are always risks with freedom and choice, but we need to regulate against real risks and not possible risks...and certainly not against one business in favor of another...

Agreed


The economic dangers of monopolies are clear. ... I will ask you two, what is outlined in the Constitution about monopolies? What is the description of a monopoly? There was the break up of Standard Oil once upon a time. Was that done in accordance to our Constitution?

[Ben Framed]

Wrong regulations in wrong areas can bog down an economy and damage the freedom and maneuverability to do business. Just as removing red tape regulations can boost an economy when business persons, both large and small have confidence in leadership. It was proven to help tremendously to have a real business person, (not a politician), to know the difference.... A business person who will put their Nation first. As example:

Topic:
"Ace, who's protecting the rich from paying taxes now?"

Average wage earner up over 5,000 annually since Trump was elected. Lowest unemployment in 50 years. I don't know what you would call bettering the lives of American people, unless you are referring to bums, welfare recipients, criminals, and no-goods. Then you may be right, and I hope it continues.

Ben Framed October 2019
"That's right iddee
7 million Americans have been lifted off of food stamps. Since the election. Unemployment has reached its lowest rate in 50 years, unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans, have hit the all time lowest rates in the history of our country. Wages are rising fast and they are growing twice as fast for low income workers, they have the biggest percentage increase. 1.3 million fewer children live in poverty than when Mr Trump was elected, that's 1.3 MILLION people.  He cut a record number of job killing regulations.  He and his team, (he again said WE), have passed the largest package of tax cuts and reforms in American History. Nearly a trillion dollars has already been poured back home. People had their money in other places and couldn't bring it back in, it was prohibited, the legislation was impossible but he and his team got rid of it, (again he said  WE), got rid of it.  Over  a TRILLION dollars has been brought back in and it's being spent  building right here in the United States instead building overseas. Meanwhile THE MAJOR  DEMOCRATS running for president have pledged to abolish American production of oil and natural gas, at least in Louisiana as his Louisiana speech is where I watched and heard this information. . Now tell me how that makes sense?"

[Kathyp]

The economic dangers of monopolies are clear.

The Constittuion does not address monoplies.  This is a pretty good article.  It's long and doesn't really give an answer to solve the issue, but lots of case law and history.

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1213&context=facultyworkingpapers

My feeling is that the federal government and federal courts should not get involved unless a company is proactively killing off competition. We have a more recent example of several companies colluding to kill off Parlor.   Nothing was done about that. 

My issue is that when the feds and courts are involved they are picking winners and losers.  It doesn't have to be anti-trust things.  It can be something like supporting a certain kind of energy over another.  Green stuff over oil would be a recent example.  Green companies, oil companies, etc. should be treated the same.  If one gets tax credits, all should.  The federal government should never be giving collected tax money to one over another as they did with green companies during the Obama admin. 

My exception to interferance would be something like the guy who jacked up the insulin prices.  That was definitely a case for the courts. 

Not much of an answer