Have you seen all the people willing to subject themselves to searches in order to feel safe, although all evidence is to the contrary? We openly embraced the Patriotic Act after 9/11 because we wanted to feel comfortable
I let them pat me on my chest not because it makes me feel safer, but merely because otherwise they would not let me on the freaking plane.
It doesn't matter whether corporations are evil. They are self-interested. And self-interested parties with resources will inconvenience others.
This is why we need to set up a system which tricks them into doing good. The best functioning system might be one that fosters altruistic behavior by rewarding the party that enacts certain desirable policies. When doing good seems to help you and help others, even the selfish will often opt for that. Right now, with current American capitalism, money and power are really the only rewards available, and thus companies and people will do whatever it takes to get those rewards. Yes, I think we should interfere with the free market. Yes, regulation. Yes, incentives. Yes, tax breaks for environmentally friendly business. This is the only way to stop corporations from running roughshod over everything in search of quarterly profits.
Then you sir are on the complete opposite side and there is no reason to discuss it further.
You do understand that decreased regulation and irresponsible lending led us to the whole financial crash of '08, right? Does the free market have a plan to regulate itself or prevent the type of behavior that brought us here in the first place?
Then you sir are on the complete opposite side and there is no reason to discuss it further.
Or you could explain your position further, but if you're not interested then I suppose we don't have to pursue it further. I'm not trying to say that what we have is perfect, but I'm not sure that deregulation is the cure. Reform of regulation seems to be the best option.
You do understand that decreased regulation and irresponsible lending led us to the whole financial crash of '08, right? Does the free market have a plan to regulate itself or prevent the type of behavior that brought us here in the first place?
It could be argued that free market should have let those banks just crash and burn, along with whatever else they would have taken down with them. It may have been more painful, but in the end it probably would have sorted itself out in some sense.
They want more regulation and more government control, which is the opposite of what they should be asking for.
I disagree. One, only about half of them want more regulation: the rest want less. Two, I disagree with your premise that less regulation is what we need.
Cheap labor that moves overseas is labor Americans won't do, or at won't do for the appropriate wage.
So we should let the dangerous and often inhumane working conditions of the third world dictate how we live our own lives? Offshore our problems and our poisons? Let it just be a race to the bottom? Even Adam Smith disagreed. He clearly stated that all jobs should pay not just a minimum wage, but a living wage.
Corporations act in their own self interest, which should be exactly what everyone wants.
And shouldn't we regulate what their boundaries are so they don't just dump toxic waste into the rivers or poison their workers to save some dollars?
Evil is an action that is intended to hinder others at no benefit to yourself.
That's your personal definition, which isn't terribly relevant to this discussion. I also disagree with said definition.
If you hate these things you should do something to change them, get a job at Wal-Mart corporate, start your own location based store, or run for the senate.
That's quite the naive worldview you've got there. Wal-Mart corporate jobs aren't exactly open to people who didn't already have a head start and access to higher education. Entrepreneurship requires capital. Running for office requires more capital. None of these three things is within reach of the vast majority of people.
It could be argued that free marketUnited States Government should have let those banks just crash and burn, along with whatever else they would have taken down with them. It may have been more painful, but in the end it probably would have sorted itself out in some sense.
The "free market" didn't bail out anyone. Besides, when you say it may have been more painful, you are really sort of glossing over just how bad a complete credit freeze would have been. Imagine streets on fire bad.
The "free market" didn't bail out anyone. Besides, when you say it may have been more painful, you are really sort of glossing over just how bad a complete credit freeze would have been. Imagine streets on fire bad.
I glossed over it because I didn't want to think of how bad it would have been, but you're right. Thanks for the correction. It would have been quite, quite bad. I'm imagining that eventually it would have all settled out into a series of modern fiefdoms though, once we cleaned up the bodies.
What I was saying about regulation is that listening to what I hear out of OWS
I find it highly unlikely that you're actually listening to OWS. (Especially given the confusion everyone, them included, seem to have with determining their focus of their movement). I find it far more likely that you are echoing the talking heads at FOX's interpretation thereof.
That is a result of the government having regulatory power, it gives incentive for companies to lobby seats in congress, which is what they are against.
You can have regulatory power and still prevent corporations from buying legislation. It's not a zero sum game. Besides, there is no guarantee that getting rid of regulation would eliminated massive lobbying practices anyways.
Companies that do that should get blacklisted by the consumers.
Unless they lie or cover up the fact to consumers who are not experts in the domain of pollution.
What I was saying about regulation is that listening to what I hear out of OWS, what I'm hearing is that they are against money buying legislation. That is a result of the government having regulatory power, it gives incentive for companies to lobby seats in congress, which is what they are against.
I find it highly unlikely that you're actually listening to OWS. (Especially given the confusion everyone, them included, seem to have with determining their focus of their movement). I find it far more likely that you are echoing the talking heads at FOX's interpretation thereof.
I'd say he is, he's just listening to the people at OWS who are handing out voter registration forms already filled in for Ron Paul, and carrying on about moneybombs and their "Enormous Grassroots support."
Highdefinition, did you really delete all your political posts?
That's no fun. You can't test your belief's if you withdraw from the conversation.
When I originally commented I was trying to pull information from someone who had made serveral claims without evidence. I then put my opinion into the matter which I try to never do in these kind of issues, and obviously I failed. Politics is opinion, and when a community of people do not share your opinion and call it naive or stupid it becomes obvious where the "debate" has gone. The real point is that I see the protestors all the time in their tent city and while they see people who are fighting for something they believe strongly in I see a large group of people who are not using that motivation to it's full potential. I disagree with pretty much everything this movement stands for not because of my political ideologies but because they are wasting potential, and misrepresenting the whole. Does big business do things that are against the better interest of not just the people but the world as a whole? Maybe, does big government do the same thing? Maybe, but solutions do not come from the system you see to be flawed. If they think the system didn't care before why do they think it will care now? If you do not trust corporations why do you trust the government to regulate them?
Politics is opinion, and when a community of people do not share your opinion and call it naive or stupid it becomes obvious where the "debate" has gone.
Yes, Politics is opinion but economics can be based on factual evidence. There are facts out there that you can weave your political opinion from.
If they think the system didn't care before why do they think it will care now? If you do not trust corporations why do you trust the government to regulate them?
"Democracy is a poor system of government at best; the only thing that can honestly be said in its favor is that it is about eight times as good as any other method the human race has ever tried." -Robert Heinlein
I don't trust the government to regulate them. That's why you have oversight and audits. To make them accountable.
If you do not trust corporations why do you trust the government to regulate them?
Because self-regulation is an inherent conflict of interest. See Stewart Parnell and the Peanut Corporation of America recall.
Or how about history? We tried almost totally de-regulated business once. They treated workers like slaves and put out sub-par products because it made them money.
If you want to argue that de-regulation is the way to go, you've got one hell of an uphill battle.
group of people who are not using that motivation to it's full potential
And what would you rather have them do? Protesting can be useful and has accomplished change. I do agree that they could be going about the protest in a better way, but what specifically would be a better use of their time?
Politics is opinion, and when a community of people do not share your opinion and call it naive or stupid it becomes obvious where the "debate" has gone.
Yes, Politics is opinion but economics can be based on factual evidence. There are facts out there that you can weave your political opinion from.
If they think the system didn't care before why do they think it will care now? If you do not trust corporations why do you trust the government to regulate them?
"Democracy is a poor system of government at best; the only thing that can honestly be said in its favor is that it is about eight times as good as any other method the human race has ever tried." -Robert Heinlein
I don't trust the government to regulate them. That's why you have oversight and audits. To make them accountable.
who does these oversights and audits, who makes them accountable?
If you do not trust corporations why do you trust the government to regulate them?
Because self-regulation is an inherent conflict of interest. See Stewart Parnell and the Peanut Corporation of America recall.
Or how about history? We tried almost totally de-regulated business once. They treated workers like slaves and put out sub-par products because it made them money.
If you want to argue that de-regulation is the way to go, you've got one hell of an uphill battle.
group of people who are not using that motivation to it's full potential
And what would you rather have them do? Protesting can be useful and has accomplished change. I do agree that they could be going about the protest in a better way, but what specifically would be a better use of their time?
Isn't the complaint that the business is corrupt and buying the government? Is it unfair to have a body have power over another but not let those being ruled to interact with it?
Isn't the complaint that the business is corrupt and buying the government? Is this not a conflict of interest to have a body have power over another but not let the ones being ruled to interact with it?
Isn't this nearly the exact same argument being levied against public sector unions?
Isn't the complaint that the business is corrupt and buying the government? Is this not a conflict of interest to have a body have power over another but not let the ones being ruled to interact with it?
Isn't this nearly the exact same argument being levied against public sector unions?
Also, can the employees and owners of said businesses not vote? There is nothing preventing them from interacting with the government, it's just not fair that they get an unequal representation due to financial well being.
Comments
EDIT: spacing
That's no fun. You can't test your belief's if you withdraw from the conversation.
-Robert Heinlein
I don't trust the government to regulate them. That's why you have oversight and audits. To make them accountable.
Or how about history? We tried almost totally de-regulated business once. They treated workers like slaves and put out sub-par products because it made them money.
If you want to argue that de-regulation is the way to go, you've got one hell of an uphill battle. And what would you rather have them do? Protesting can be useful and has accomplished change. I do agree that they could be going about the protest in a better way, but what specifically would be a better use of their time?
these are questions, not statements.
@Steve I like how they are using a Mr. Potato Head to hold up the sign.