Did anyone watch Jon Stewart on Chris Wallace?

#76
#76
nbakerld said:
Yeah, that's what I don't get. I'm all about principle though, and maybe other people aren't. If freedom is the best answer when it comes to social issues, why on earth is not the best answer when it comes to economic issues (and vice versa)? It's inconsistent, IMO.

I mean, the rationale from social liberals is, "I don't want some moralistic aristocrat telling me what I can and can't do. It's my life." That's the same thing business owners are saying.
Click to expand...

Such a complex subject. I have to admit I identify with what you are saying - keeping the government out of social issues but keeping them involved in economic ones. After the banking travesty, I have a hard time trusting big business owners to make competent, savvy business decisions.
Would like to discuss pros and cons of this tho.
 
#77
#77
KiffinKiller said:
Such a complex subject. I have to admit I identify with what you are saying - keeping the government out of social issues but keeping them involved in economic ones. After the banking travesty, I have a hard time trusting big business owners to make competent, savvy business decisions.
Would like to discuss pros and cons of this tho.
Click to expand...

Me too. But IMO that doesn't change with increased regulation. It actually gets worse. Regulation is what allows government to get in bed with big business. Croney capitalism doesn't exist without government involvement in the marketplace. They collude to prevent new competitors from arising. It creates the worst kind of monopoly (and really the only kind that has staying power).
 
#78
#78
nbakerld said:
Me too. But IMO that doesn't change with increased regulation. It actually gets worse. Regulation is what allows government to get in bed with big business. Croney capitalism doesn't exist without government involvement in the marketplace. They collude to prevent new competitors from arising. It creates the worst kind of monopoly (and really the only kind that has staying power).
Click to expand...

Ok - I guess it can also create problems on the legal side of things. Altough I'm uncomfortable arguing to make trial lawyers rich - with more lax business laws, big business can get away with things they definitely shouldn't.

It's definitely hard to find some comfortable middle ground where businesses are allowed to be free enough to be competitive, yet ruled enough to have be responsible and competent.
 
#79
#79
KiffinKiller said:
Ok - I guess it can also create problems on the legal side of things. Altough I'm uncomfortable arguing to make trial lawyers rich - with more lax business laws, big business can get away with things they definitely shouldn't.

It's definitely hard to find some comfortable middle ground where businesses are allowed to be free enough to be competitive, yet ruled enough to have be responsible and competent.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but my contention is that policy can't change that. Do you trust big business anymore after the changes post-Enron? I don't.
 
#80
#80
nbakerld said:
Yeah, but my contention is that policy can't change that. Do you trust big business anymore after the changes post-Enron? I don't.
Click to expand...

Who says things got tougher? There were regulators in Washington who were supposed to be watchdogs in 2006 who looked at the derivatives and credit default swap markets who actually did say "we are about to get ****ed" and then were essentially told by everyone to shut up because times were good.
 
#81
#81
nbakerld said:
Yeah, but my contention is that policy can't change that. Do you trust big business anymore after the changes post-Enron? I don't.
Click to expand...

Definitely not - less regulation obviously isn't the answer - as we can see by the current bank crisis.
 
#83
#83
milohimself said:
Who says things got tougher? There were regulators in Washington who were supposed to be watchdogs in 2006 who looked at the derivatives and credit default swap markets who actually did say "we are about to get ****ed" and then were essentially told by everyone to shut up because times were good.
Click to expand...

Which I would say makes the case for anti-regulation. If we are going to ignore red flags, why design costly policy to raise red flags in the first place?
 
#84
#84
nbakerld said:
But the current bank crisis came in a time of relatively more regulation.
Click to expand...

Fair point - does that mean there isn't enough regulation or too much? I think giving them more free reign now will give big business the wrong idea. They will complain for sure - like GM man complaining about getting bailed out.
 
#86
#86
KiffinKiller said:
Fair point - does that mean there isn't enough regulation or too much? I think giving them more free reign now will give big business the wrong idea. They will complain for sure - like GM man complaining about getting bailed out.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm the broken record here who always says "no regulation" so you probably don't want to ask me. IMO, it doesn't accomplish anything, and is costly.
 
#87
#87
nbakerld said:
Well, I'm the broken record here who always says "no regulation" so you probably don't want to ask me. IMO, it doesn't accomplish anything, and is costly.
Click to expand...

So you're staunchly opposed? I just don't see how it would be better without regulation.
 
#88
#88
Regulation definitely has it's place - safety (without going full OSHA/EPA nuts); transparency and disclosure in financial markets; and maybe a few other areas.

Overall it should be broad based and minimally intrusive. Unfortunately it is often used to shift business to favored industries/constituents/activities or to discourage less favored businesses (see fossil fuels). Other times it is designed to placate a minority special interest.

Regulatory action is almost always backward looking. It also suffers the fatal conceit that a few policy makers have a greater sense of what is "good" for business than does the market itself.

Keep regulation broadly applied and minimally evasive and we have a winner.
 
#89
#89
Now that we have completely derailed the thread...

I still have a tough time seeing the separation from Republicans of where the anti-regulation rhetoric ends and where their common sense begins. Sure, the EPA and OSHA can be pains in the dick much of the time, but does anybody deny that at some point in time they did serve a purpose that made our world better?
 
#90
#90
milohimself said:
Now that we have completely derailed the thread...

I still have a tough time seeing the separation from Republicans of where the anti-regulation rhetoric ends and where their common sense begins. Sure, the EPA and OSHA can be pains in the dick much of the time, but does anybody deny that at some point in time they did serve a purpose that made our world better?
Click to expand...

John Stossel:

While it's true that since OSHA started, deadly job accidents have dropped, the truth is, deaths were dropping before OSHA. Between the late 1930s and 1971, job fatalities fell from more than 40 to fewer than 20 per 100,000 workers. After OSHA was passed, fatalities continued to fall, but no faster than before. It's misleading to credit regulation for the improvement. Government gets in front of a parade and pretends to lead it.
Click to expand...

The market was already correcting itself as the economy developed. It's naturally occurring. Once an economy can afford better workplace safety, the economy gets better workplace safety.

The same can be said for environmental safety. Look at the trends leading up to the Clean Air Act.
 
Last edited:
#91
#91
milohimself said:
Now that we have completely derailed the thread...

I still have a tough time seeing the separation from Republicans of where the anti-regulation rhetoric ends and where their common sense begins. Sure, the EPA and OSHA can be pains in the dick much of the time, but does anybody deny that at some point in time they did serve a purpose that made our world better?
Click to expand...

I think most can say that with confidence - but it's the same with current union issues - are unions even doing what they are supposed to? In my experience they largely protect the ones they shouldn't and unnecessarily drive up wages.

The safety issue is still relevant in many parts of business - but much of it has become a bureaucratic headache. Where I work (a modular housing manufacturer), the government is requiring that we do an ergonomics study into our laborers and mark where we can improve. Big waste of time, imo - if anything the gov't should be sending someone over to do this nonsense.
 
#92
#92
nbakerld said:
John Stossel:



The market was already correcting itself as the economy developed. It's naturally occurring. Once an economy can afford better workplace safety, the economy gets better workplace safety.

The same can be said for environmental safety. Look at the trends leading up to the Clean Air Act.
Click to expand...

Not sure I can say that it fixes itself - but it has largely been fixed with regulation.
 
#94
#94
milohimself said:
Now that we have completely derailed the thread...

I still have a tough time seeing the separation from Republicans of where the anti-regulation rhetoric ends and where their common sense begins. Sure, the EPA and OSHA can be pains in the dick much of the time, but does anybody deny that at some point in time they did serve a purpose that made our world better?
Click to expand...

I think it's a myth that Republicans want to do away with all regulation - they hammer on regulation because it is excessive but other than a few outliers or libertarians most aren't about repealing all regulations.

It would be like me saying all Democrats want socialized medicine and welfare for all. They harp on these things because they think there should be more than there is - not because they want a socialist country.
 
#95
#95
volinbham said:
I think it's a myth that Republicans want to do away with all regulation - they hammer on regulation because it is excessive but other than a few outliers or libertarians most aren't about repealing all regulations.

It would be like me saying all Democrats want socialized medicine and welfare for all. They harp on these things because they think there should be more than there is - not because they want a socialist country.
Click to expand...

Health care is socialized right now...lol. If you pay premiums and don't use the money - where does it go?
 
#97
#97
volinbham said:
Huh? Have you been hanging out with Gibbs' gorilla?
Click to expand...

A lot of people ask "why should I pay for your family's health care" - well with the system we have, if you pay premiums and don't use it, then you're money is being used on other people.

I guess I just get annoyed when people demonize socialism/socialized things without understanding the word.

I know you know what it means - but not everyone here does.
 
#98
#98
KiffinKiller said:
A lot of people ask "why should I pay for your family's health care" - well with the system we have, if you pay premiums and don't use it, then you're money is being used on other people.

I guess I just get annoyed when people demonize socialism/socialized things without understanding the word.

I know you know what it means - but not everyone here does.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand it in this context. A private insurance model that collects premiums and pools risk is not socialism in any form. Insurance is not socialism. Now if the government were the insurer we'd have a socialistic aspect to the model.
 
#99
#99
volinbham said:
I'm not sure you understand it in this context. A private insurance model that collects premiums and pools risk is not socialism in any form. Insurance is not socialism. Now if the government were the insurer we'd have a socialistic aspect to the model.
Click to expand...

Ok, so the government has to be in charge for it to qualify as socialized?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top