Is the Business of America (or the World) Business?

Now, I don't mean it in the sense that Coolidge did. What I mean is:

Business and commerce drives the geo-political climate, defines an area's standards of living, and provides jobs for billions. My question is: Recognizing the importance of business (which is undeniable), should governments concentrate on improving the success of business over the success of the individual citizen? It is a heated debate, and personally I really don't have an opinion, there is so much to process. What do you think?

Is there a middle ground. Well lets see here on one side you have the Businesses which make tones of money and employ many many people (Though i have issues with "huge" Businesses that go to foreign countries because of there lack of unions and tax havens but more on that later) Or do you go with the people and take the individuals civil liberties over the economy, (Though i think people are happier rich then with the ability to choose)

I think its all a matter of perception, however it seems as though governments are taking the side of Businesses over people (As evidence of the law that made Businesses the same as people)


Interesting topic.

Parhaps I misunderstand the question, but here is my answer to that which I do understand [or percieve, right or wrong]:
Governments [specifically Democracies] are set up to defend the rights and justices of the individual. If said rights and justices are violated, that said government would find itself null and void and in the position that the people would be obligated to replace it should said government had been responsible or in some way connected to the violations of its own accord without sufficient and justifiable reason.
There is no reason that any [Democratic] government should ever hold a buisness/company over the individual. There will always be another company that is just as competant as the one that would defile the individual that would find ways to accomedate the rights and justices of the individual. Therefore, the argument that in any said case a government that has need for a particular company's perks and so should suspend the rights of the individual to obtain said perks from the company is null and void.

No, you're good.

What if (like now), the success of business is key to the general welfare of the nation. Should the government at least consider business over the individual.

Nope. Business's should be dismantled and replaced with Workers Cooperatives.

Viva la Syndicalism then? Got to ask what are your thoughts on Participatory economics.

I'm not saying that buisness is not key to the general welfare. I am simply pointing out that the general welfare can and should always take precident in terms of the government's decisions. The Democratic model government is based on the people. The very nature of buisnesses mean that while one company would violate an individual in the process of benefiting the country, another would find a way to appease both the needs of the country and the individual while making a profit in the process. Therefore, there is no justifible reason that the people should suffer losses for the sake of a deal between a government and a buisness.

What about when that welfare is hurting the economy and helping the country's debt grow?

Surely a workers' co-operative is a business? With obvious differences to a capitalist one. Sorry, i'm just being pedantic.
Anyway, I would never put the interests of business above the state. That doesn't mean i'm anti-business; surely the interests of private and public bodies are not mutually exclusive. UIn the end however, if those who are in power do not have ultimate authority, then they are not truly in power.

Government should provide the freest climate possible, for both businesses and individuals. It should not curb the rights of the people (and I mean rights like freedom of speech, not bonuses like minimum wage) for the gain of the business, and it should not curb the rights of businesses for the gain of the individuals. Ultimately though, better off individuals = better off businesses. Better off business = better off individuals. They need each other.

Government should have strict control over business as businesses are not people. I would personally like to see more co-operatives instead of corporations and they can be as competitive and successful as corporations.

General welfare =/= Whatever the fuck you're talking about.

One or the other could possibly work in the right environment. I personally favor the government butting out of the economy, but if the government was protectionist, it could still possibly do a good job. But it could also fail horribly, given the right(current) conditions.

The economy is pointless if the individual is not benefiting. And it is in the government's best interest to please the individual because it is the individual, not the buisness, that votes them into office.

I agree with this partly. My main concern is the 'minimum wage' smiting idea, but that is just my opinion. And buisnesses sould in no way be allowed by the government to curb the individual, no matter if that may end up slightly curbing the buisness. I stand by my earlier assertion that in the buisness world, the buisness able to adapt to the individual, which pleases the individual and by extention, the government, will have the edge in the market and ultimately prove studier in the long run.
Otherwise, the post looks good.

Well, I'm not just talking about protectionism. Whether it be socialism or protectionism, should the government do all it can make the businesses the most profitable?

That question is missing an essencial element that is in debate here: the individual.
Whether or not a government helps a buisness is irrelivent in the context of my posts because it does not hold that the individual suffers or prospers. It does not even mention the individual.
I still stand by the belief that 'all it can' cannot in any way extend to violating the individual unjustly.
Therefore, I guess that my answer to your question is no.

It's not just governments helping business, it could also extend to government running businesses. As for your thoughts on the individual, I pose a question "What is more important: a grain of sand or the beach in which it resides?" It could be either.

A state run buisness is VERY different than a privet run buisness. In a Democratic society, it is inferable that the state run buisness is meant in some way to benefit the society, even if it makes minimal profit. Or the purpose of the state run buisness is to make a self-sufficient govenment as to avoid taxing the people and instead selling goods to sustain itself. Either way, the buisness is different than a privet buisness whose sole purpose is to make a profit. Of course, there are problems and easy pitfalls to state-run buisnesses.

The question posed had nothing to do with the buisness HELPING the individual, but rather the buisness v. the individual.
To your question: The beach, obviously. Even in a Democracy, it is based on the majority's opinion of what is right and what should be done.
But this question is somewhat different, because you are asking about the individual v. the majority, not the individual v. buisness.
Yes, I understand about your assertion that the buisness can benefit the majority and thus the two are equavalatbale in a certain sense, but it does not actually make sense in practice. For one, the buisness looks after itself, not the majority, though it may benefit the majority. For another, the buisness can easily begin by violating some individuals and then move on to violating the majority. Thus, the buisness can actually become malevolent to the individual AND the majority.
And this comes full circle back to the point that it is the individual and the majority, not the buisness that puts the government in power therefore, it is still in the best interests of the government to appease the people, not the buisness.

I see your point, and I think I'll change it from "profit" to "yield". So now the question is "Should the state do all it can to maximize businesses' yield.

Again, another good point, however, I would say that it is the nature of the majority to protect itself (to a fault) from business, while the individual is at the whim of business (unfortunately). Still, to be practical, it is not a perfect world, and the state must look after the majority, so business wins over the individual (in most cases as long as it does not violate Constitutional rights).

Buisiness should be prioritized because it brings in a general income and helps maintain the welfare of the country. Without big business im sure we would be seeing alot less money. Although I am not exactly sure where private company's stand. But im sure regardless Private or public the government im some shape or form is getting a cut in the profits.