I was just in Comm 250 class, yes I'm taking it a little late in my college career but it makes me one of the cooler people in the class because I'm older.
One speech was on how to implement a capitalistic system. The person giving the speech did a good job on presenting how America had been set up to help people that work hard. He told how the government had limited interaction and companies were allowed to make their own decisions that could hurt or help them. What he did after that was what caught my eye.
We started having a discussion on advertisement and whether or not it should be regulated. The general view of the class was that the government should decide how much a company should invest in advertising. I was on the other side, because if it is your money, you can do with it what you want to. I felt that I would have another team mate, the person that had given the directions on how to set up a capitalistic system. This was not the case, he stated that there should be set quantities on how much companies should spend on advertising. Well, that killed his capitalistic directions because he totally went against them. So my question is how do you take directions from somebody that does not believe what they are giving the directions on? it is somewhat like do as I say, not as I do.
It's interesting that this student seemed to have flip-flopped on this assignment but just because he outlined how America's capitalist system was created doesn't mean he believes in it or trusts how it is presently being practiced.
ReplyDeleteIf this was a persuasive speech as to why capitalism is good, then his conversational stance was a poor choice. But if this was a speech comparable to our instructions assignment, his speech should have been neutral and technical in nature, and the post-conversation should be treated separately.
I am not sure why you would want to go down the path of regulating how much a company advertises due to how slippery a slope that can become. If you regulate the advertising ability of a company you are essentially capping the amount of buisness they can achieve, and that might as well lead to production caps for equal competition with lesser companies, which soon can lead to an Animal Farm type of situation...
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how most politicians are hypocrites. And this coming from a political science major. Capitalism isn't about government regulating what money companies can spend where. You'll then have to address the issue of what about the private sector. How are the two different ultimately? Like the commentor before said, it's a very slippery slope regulating the market. Because you're going to have a lot of backlash in a country like ours, where our stance is supposed to be freedom.
ReplyDelete