Hello There, Guest!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How do you see bus. working under diff. political systems?
#1
I'm trying to get a better understanding how others view business under different political systems.

So based on your “personal experience and perspective”, how does business (primarily Amway) work under Socialism, Communism, Democracy and Social-Democracy?

Not having lived under any of these political systems, I'd like to how you and others in your country view and decide who should have what and how much.


As I was reading through the other political topics and comments I kept asking myself, how can people who are involved in the same business have such different beliefs?

After all, the Amway business is founded on personal freedom, and the right for each to keep the rewards of their own efforts, yet I read where some believe that government should have the right to control, as well as own part or all of what we have and to be able to share or use it as they choose.

Although I realize Amway operates in many countries and under very different political systems, I mistakenly assumed everyone who is involved as an IBO thinks as I do, that we and not the government should control our economic freedoms. That it should be us who decides what we keep, and what, and to who we share our time and property with.

Admittedly, I look at this mainly from the perspective of living in the United States and believing that we each have the right to private ownership and to enjoy the full rewards (or consequences) of our choices and efforts with as little government control or involvement as possible.

Then after watching a documentary last night on the history of Socialism which also talked about other political systems, I was reminded that not everyone believes that we should be entitled to keep all that we have earned, that we should share it with others in order to be more equitable even if others are not willing to work for it or if they have less ability. That there should be limits as to how much or how successful one should be.

Thanks.
 Reply
#2
IBOguy,

You probably have opened a can of worms with this post.

My view in a nut-shell...very condensed from the other political debates we have had.

Although I believe we should have control, or the vast majority, of our finances, I do recognize the need for necessary taxation on a body of people to establish and maintain a governance of laws. These laws and associated costs should cover much of what we, as individuals, can not do ourselves. In thus lies much of the debate as to what should and shouldn't be controlled by the government.
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
#3
IBOGuy Wrote:Although I realize Amway operates in many countries and under very different political systems, I mistakenly assumed everyone who is involved as an IBO thinks as I do, that we and not the government should control our economic freedoms. That it should be us who decides what we keep, and what, and to who we share our time and property with.


This paragraph would indicate you're an anarchist, and believe there should be no government?

If you believe there should be some form of government, then for what purpose, and how does it get paid for?

IBOGuy Wrote:Then after watching a documentary last night on the history of Socialism which also talked about other political systems, I was reminded that not everyone believes that we should be entitled to keep all that we have earned, that we should share it with others in order to be more equitable even if others are not willing to work for it or if they have less ability. That there should be limits as to how much or how successful one should be.


The two parts I bolded seem a bit of a stretch - I'd say you'd have go the extreme left to find even a handful of people who believe either of those things.
 Reply
#4
Your political and economic views are are shared by millions of ibos and Amway's founders as well.

Here are a few videos from Milton Friedman. He was a Nobel Prize winner as well as a personal friend of Rich DeVos. Milton Friedman has since passed, but in his day, he was a favorite speaker at Amway events. My mother gave me a gave me copy of his book Free To Choose that she got at an Amway convention.

Free To Choose (Vol 1)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6vjrzUplWU&feature=related[/youtube]

Milton Friedman Tells Phil Donahue Why Socialism Fails
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p31-xQ2Rrz4[/youtube]
 Reply
#5
TB 2 IBO Wrote:IBOguy,

You probably have opened a can of worms with this post.

My view in a nut-shell...very condensed from the other political debates we have had.

Although I believe we should have control, or the vast majority, of our finances, I do recognize the need for necessary taxation on a body of people to establish and maintain a governance of laws. These laws and associated costs should cover much of what we, as individuals, can not do ourselves. In thus lies much of the debate as to what should and shouldn't be controlled by the government.


TB 2 IBO,

Can of worms? Perhaps, although I don't see my questions as sparking any controversy. I was not trying to extol the virtues or vices of one political system over another, which as you pointed out are already debated elsewhere.

While my questions did arise from reading some of those debates, I simply wanted to better understand how others saw how business works within in their political system and the role they felt government should play in their business though taxation and regulatory control over how they operate their business.

I agree with you that the individual should be the one who has the greatest control over their money. I also recognize the importance of government in the role they play in establishing laws, taxes and the services they provide. They should however be limited so as not to become overly burdensome.
 Reply
#6
IBOGuy Wrote:I agree with you that the individual should be the one who has the greatest control over their money. I also recognize the importance of government in the role they play in establishing laws, taxes and the services they provide. They should however be limited so as not to become overly burdensome.


This answers my questions Smile

I think virtually *everyone* in modern democracies agrees with you - where differences arise is in determining what is or isn't "overly budernsome".

Take health care for example. My position is that an individuals health risks are dramatically affected by those around them, so even from an entirely selfish perspective I want those around me to have a certain level of health care, even if they can't afford it themselves.

I also want health care to be as efficient as possible, and I believe that for many issues surrounding health the government can do a better job than a private sector, as they're not well suited to a profit-motivated system.

i've developed this perspective from investigating (and living!) under different systems. The US system, primarily private sector, is one of the least efficent health systems in the world. It costs more per capita, for poorer health outcomes. Countries with more socialised systems (and few, if any, are entirely government controlled) spend less money and get better results.

From that perspective it seems to me that a decent public health system is in no way "overly burdensome", indeed to the contrary - they appear overall to do a better job for less cost.

Why on earth many on the right oppose this is beyond me. It seems to me to be little more than blind ideology for the sake of ideology. It's beneficial to me personally, and my family, to have society as a whole healthier. It's beneficial to me as a business owner to have society as a whole healthier - there's less employee time lost to illness, and a more productive workforce in society as a whole increases wealth, thus increasing the market for my products and services. And the data indicates it's cheaper and gets better results to let the government handle it.

Details aside, the only reason to oppose a decent level of government health case is ideology - essentially the belief that those than can't afford decent health care are in that position through their own fault and "deserve" to suffer.

Or lets take the current GM/Chyrsler/Banks bailot. Nobody I know in the world of "social democracies" thinks, taken in isolation, it's a good idea for the government to be running these institutions or lending large sums to them to keep them afloat. Those types of things are absolutely best run by the private sector (though with whatever needed regulation). That's what modern "socialists" (as Limbaugh et al use the term) believe.

However ... nobody who understand the modern economic systems thinks it's a good idea to let these institutions collapse either. Funding them or supporting them in someway is the lesser of two evils ... and by a VERY significant margin.

If you oppose the bailouts , you need to remember who first began them - the very right Bush administration. That should give you pause to think that perhaps they "knew" something you don't, and put ideology to one side, not because they suddenly all became Marxists, but because they could see no other solution.

The discussions we've had on these forums indicate to me purely that there's a bunch of folk who put ideology ahead of all other concerns. It doesn't matter if government run health systems get better health outcomes at a better price than the private sector - government should be as small as possible (drowned in the proverbial Grover Norqist bathtub). It doesn't matter if the collapse of the big car manufacturers or banks could lead to the collapse of the entire US economic system - failed companies should be allowed to fail, to hell with the consequences.

If you don't believe in such rigid ideology, then I think if you step back a little you'll find the "differences" in position are much smaller than you think. Nobody of any consequence believes people should share their hard earned rewards with people who are not willing to work - that's a bizarre caricature of "the left" created by some on "the right" Nobody believes governments should be running car companies - again a silly caricature of "the left" promoted by the right (including our friend MichMan on this forum).
 Reply
#7
MichMan Wrote:Here are a few videos from Milton Friedman. He was a Nobel Prize winner as well as a personal friend of Rich DeVos. Milton Friedman has since passed, but in his day, he was a favorite speaker at Amway events. My mother gave me a gave me copy of his book Free To Choose that she got at an Amway convention.


A noted atheist speaking at Amway convention? Whatever will we hear of next .... Wink

(note: technically he described himself as agnostic - ie, can't prove or disprove either way, but really that's simply a variety of atheist)
 Reply
#8
ibofightback Wrote:
IBOGuy Wrote:Although I realize Amway operates in many countries and under very different political systems, I mistakenly assumed everyone who is involved as an IBO thinks as I do, that we and not the government should control our economic freedoms. That it should be us who decides what we keep, and what, and to who we share our time and property with.

This paragraph would indicate you're an anarchist, and believe there should be no government?

If you believe there should be some form of government, then for what purpose, and how does it get paid for?


ibofightback,

Anarchist? :confused: Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Obviously neither extreme is good (total governmental control vs no government).

I was merely stating that I didn't agree with some who believe that government should have more control over our finances then we do.

My point here is not to debate which form of government is preferred but rather to advocate that government should be limited in it's taxation and laws so as not to overburden it's citizens, as TB 2 IBO said above and in my reply.

To what degree do you feel a government should tax and pass laws that affect it's citizens?

ibofightback Wrote:
IBOGuy Wrote:Then after watching a documentary last night on the history of Socialism which also talked about other political systems, I was reminded that not everyone believes that we should be entitled to keep all that we have earned, that we should share it with others in order to be more equitable even if others are not willing to work for it or if they have less ability. That there should be limits as to how much or how successful one should be.


The two parts I bolded seem a bit of a stretch - I'd say you'd have go the extreme left to find even a handful of people who believe either of those things.


Obviously there are people who need and should receive our help, whether it be financial, health or other assistance.

Some have a physical or mental health limitation. We should them regardless of how long they need our help.

There are others who may have fallen on hard times either due to something they did or as a result of something outside of their control. They need help for a while until they get back on their feet. They are often the kind who then turns around and helps someone else.

And then there’s the third group, the ones who could work but won’t. These are the ones I am referring to. But somehow they get lumped in with those who legitimately can’t help themselves.

We all know them. Some are lazy, others just fell into the victim mentality that they can’t make it on their own.

If they are helped, it should be to help them become self-sufficient and regain their self-esteem and respect. But they are told they can't and are often just be pushed though the system of welfare assistance being told they can't change.



Regarding limits to ones income. When people talk about passing laws to raise taxes on incomes above a certain amount so as to make it more fair or because they can afford it, that is just plain wrong. It’s a form of penalty that punishes those who did the right things and succeeded.
 Reply
#9
IBOGuy Wrote:I simply wanted to better understand how others saw how business works within in their political system and the role they felt government should play in their business though taxation and regulatory control over how they operate their business.


Did you answer this question?

IBOGuy seems to be asking what role government should play (through taxation and regulatory control) in the way YOU run YOUR business.

For instance, if one believes in greater regulatory control of industry, does that mean that there should be greater control of THIS business?

Possible examples

Greater regulatory control mandating disclosure of profits?

A new regulated sales plan that shifts more money to the new IBOs and less from the top? ("spreading the PV around")

Limits on the amount of money a Diamond can make?

Price controls on products? Government controlled PV/BV ratios?

Laws dictating a waiting period before a new person can sign up?
 Reply
#10
ibofightback Wrote:
IBOGuy Wrote:I agree with you that the individual should be the one who has the greatest control over their money. I also recognize the importance of government in the role they play in establishing laws, taxes and the services they provide. They should however be limited so as not to become overly burdensome.


This answers my questions Smile


Big Grin



ibofightback Wrote:I think virtually *everyone* in modern democracies agrees with you - where differences arise is in determining what is or isn't "overly budernsome".


ibofightback,

Interesting.

How do you see taxes and regulation as they pertain to you and your business?

Regarding healthcare, you bring up some good points. It still seems to be one of those areas that gets turned around backwards and everyone wonders why cost are so high when we keep treating the symptom and not addressing the cause. Like other things in our lives, most of us bring this upon ourselves with the choices we make.
 Reply

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)