Good Lord, that escalated quickly!
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
The solution can't ultimately come from the government as it is fundamentally flawed. We know that the supply side is seeking profits so caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. I don't advocate an absence of regulation and agree that some good regulations exist but I do believe that an abundance of regulation, as the video clearly advocates, opens the door for increased influence by lobbyists and thus money. Just like unions, regulations serve a purpose but can get out of hand and ultimately hurt the marketplace.
One must accept that pretty much no one else has their best interest at heart. Not the companies, not the lobbyists, not your boss, and not the politicians. You have to watch your own back. Now one thing that you and I can probably agree on is that companies who cross the line and commit fraud, wanton discrimination, knowingly poison the environment, etc. should be sued into oblivion. Make a few examples and they will stop the BS. Particularly if you put some executives into jail. I guess my idea is fewer rules but stiffer penalties if you knowingly break them.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Last edited by Buddy; 03-09-2014 at 08:54 PM.
Well.......he has a few valid points as do Libertarians. The reason this country is a republic and not a true democracy is the same reason it isn't pure capitalism. Democracy favors the majority and sometimes that majority is mindful of the minority but not always so you have to have checks in place to allow all people safe living.
Who ever above talked about campaign reform is the ding ding ding winner, campaign dollars need to be watched by citizen run bodies, you want to root out corruption this is step one, step two is lobbyist, lobbyist need to be reduced. Lobbyist have one single thing on their agenda, company interests and the bottom line.
Now with that said, I will ask people straight in the face, if we blend this Bull Moose party and Libertarian style to produce a smaller government on the civil liberates front and a larger government in the corporate front, what material things are you prepared to give up in your lives for more liberties?
You can't have both, the beauty about a company is the simple fact that it chooses where it wants to conduct its business, it doesn't have to be America, yes there are many many benefits to conduct business in the worlds largest free economy but you have to be careful not to turn a great thing into a horrible situation with regulation.
Do I think companies have too much influence and greed in America as we live today, yes. Do I think the government tries to restrict and limit the people and companies within its boarders too much as we live today, yes. The government is a business, it wants its piece of the pie as well, we sold our souls to the banks and oil companies with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Teddy Roosevelt knew the harm in what these men wanted to accomplish but Ol' Woodrow was too ****in' stupid (and paid off) to see past what is the single biggest folly in American history.
Now you have an endless battle between the US Government (who wants to be the biggest kid on the block) and the private sector (Morgan's, Chase's, Barclay's etc...) and it is all driven by profits. Security globally equals profit, peace at home equals greater profits, global markets equal greater profits. It will never stop, we are in America now because someone was looking for more "profit" the only difference is the type of "profit" they were locking for back then wasn't the American dollar.
Peace and Humptiness Forever
Valandui's Weekly Music Video
The Contortionist: Language I: Intuition
I can't get the quoting function to work, but I'll address certain points made in a previous post. Note I'm not even really a libertarian, but it always helps that people know what they're talking about.
"You have it completely backwards. Remember your history lessons from back in the day. During the late 1800s, the government took a laissez-faire approach to business and we wound up with monopolies that eliminated competition and decreased consumer purchasing power. To counter that, the government created news laws (Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Clayton Anti-Trust Act, etc.) and regulations."
This is historically inaccurate. The monopolies that had to be broken up, the most notable of which was Standard Oil, resulted in consistently reduced prices for consumers. In fact, you had some senators that voted for the Sherman Act that candidly admitted that Standard Oil was good for consumers, but stated that they were voting in favor of it because they wanted to help less competitive companies, i.e. the "little guy".
"Remember this: every corporation ...all of them... every single one, exists to separate you from your money. That is their sole purpose. We hope that we'll get something useful for our money, some product or service that will benefit us. But if they can get our money without providing a useful product or service, or by providing a substandard product or service, they will. The only way to protect the consumer is through regulation. I'm not talking about corporate-sponsored regulation like the crap A.L.E.C. feeds to us; I mean regulations meant to insure that we're not getting ripped off, either as individual consumers or as a nation (environmental cleanups, etc.)."
Corporations exist to limit liability to their shareholders. For example, if Exxon pollutes the water, the government or a plaintiff's attorney can't go after my personal assets because I happen to own shares in Exxon. At the same though, the particular individuals at Exxon that consciously decided to do that can be held liable, and that's why directors and officers of big corporations all take out insurance to cover their own personal liability. Consumers can be protected in a whole number of ways, some of which existed in this supposed laissez faire era, mainly in the form of lawsuits by private actors. Sometimes corporations will welcome certain type of government oversight. For instance, pharmaceutical companies often attempt, with varying degrees of success, to defend lawsuits that allege failure to warn by stating that they put on their labels exactly what the FDA has told them to. You can debate whether it makes sense for a regulatory agency to do what courts and common law has traditionally done. I personally think there's a place for it. There are just trade offs. For example, the Department of Transportation either has or is considering a regulation requiring all new cars to have rear view cameras installed to prevent cars from backing up into pedestrians. The cost of compliance will, of course be passed on to the the consumer. So it's just a trade off between whether the fewer amount of deaths or injuries is worth the extra few hundred dollars that people will be paying for new cars in the future.
"Jobs are created through demand for goods and services. Demand cannot increase unless people have money to spend on goods and services. If profits alone created jobs, this country would be flush with jobs because corporations are making and sitting upon enormous amounts of money."
Jobs can be created in a whole number of ways. The government can just pay, or force private actors, to pay for people to dig holes and fill them up again. I can also create a job by going to your house and breaking a window. If this is done enough times, quite a few jobs in the glass making industry will be created. Of course, you might have used that money to buy something you actually wanted, or put it in the bank from where people can take out loans to put to more productive use.
"No. Corporations control the government, and the government controls citizens. That dynamic has to change which is why we need to remove all private money from politics."
This is a statement that doesn't mean anything, but has appeal to low information voters. If you want to remove all private money from politics, you will have to shut down every single media corporation in the country, from Fox News, to MSNBC, to the New York Times. They are all part of multibillion dollar corporations that contribute favorable in-kind news coverage to particular politicians all the time. You can just look at the New York Times editorial page, or Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity. While they might avoid explicitly saying "vote for x", we all know that's exactly what they do every single day. I fail to see why those corporations get to influence the political process in that exact way, but IBM or Exxon should not.
I'll also add that big corporations are often, and usually not, libertarian oriented. WalMart regularly lobbies for greater allocations for food stamps because poor people shop there. As admitted by Warren Buffet, insurance companies will exaggerate the consequences of global warming because it allows them to charge higher premiums. The construction industry wants more and more money spent on disaster relief because it's more business for them. This is also why most health insurance companies ended up supporting Obamacare. It was supposed to, anyway, result in more people paying premiums.