Corporate Controls & Prices

.

Corporate Controls Lead To Increasing Prices

The strongest argument by international investors into not placing controls on international corporations and trade is that controls lead to higher consumer prices. This threat to the purchasing power of the dollar places thoughts of inflation into the minds of the public which in turn influences the governing decisions of politicians.

      Everyone fears inflation.

Is that the reality of the marketplace? If the corporations of the world are involved in un-ethical business practices, whether in supply, manufacture, commodity trading, growing, producing, transportation, advertising or marketing, should they not have controls placed upon them.

If in turn these conditions for import and trade lead to improvements in the welfare and safety of working people world wide, should not trade conditions be applied?

If controls allow for safer consumer goods and foods, should not trade conditions be applied?

If controls allow for more competition in the market place, is that not good for all?

The market place will find it's true balance. Perhaps some products will increase in price, but maybe that is where the price should be in relation to world wide markets and standards of living. Just how far can we rely on artificial price controls? Just how far can we justify protectionist tariffs? Just how far can we allow subsidies and product dumping to dictate global prices?

      Sooner'r later – “sumptins gotta give”.

So many of the products we buy and the services we use are artificially priced from the start. Necessity products, such as groceries should remain much the same because the majority are produced locally. Imported foods, fruits and vegetables, may increase but prices on most clothing, entertainment, communications, have enough profit already built in that the price should not increase at all. If anything they may decrease as the essential products increase and disposable incomes go down and less is there to be spent on non-essential items. As demand lessens so does the price. How much is the consumer willing to pay for Nike shoes, for a Gap T shirt, for tickets to watch the Leafs, for a Rogers cellphone? All items priced on willingness to pay, not on actual costs.

As the wealth of the world becomes more and more centralized and becomes controlled by fewer and fewer, as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, where is the justice? The actual purchasing power of the dollar is decreasing. The facade of wealth is only increasing through borrowing and debt that allows the average Canadian citizen to have a higher standard of living than he/she enjoyed just a few short years ago. Borrowing creates increased consumption of product; it does not increase one's wealth.

The whole infrastructure is based on more and more people working for less and less wages but being given more and more credit to purchase even more product supplied by fewer and fewer sources. Where does it end?

It is not that different from the illegal drug trade. The ‘cartel’ supplies the drugs to the pushers who hook the users who have to steal and sell the merchandise to the pawnshop which is controlled by the ‘cartel’ who gives just enough for the next hit. The whole economy of the drug trade depends upon wealth outside the system to perpetuate. It couldn't exist without theft. But there is no outside source of wealth in the real market, but there is still theft. International trade laws just make marketing theft legal, that's all. It comes out of the consumers pocket.

    I say again; Sooner or later – “some thing's gotta give”.

The following from:

.