Capitalist regulation vesus government regulation

Only a fool would argue that government regulations are bad and businesses should be self regulated.

actually the American economy is largely self regulated whereas the USSR and Red China were mostly government regulated. Do you now which system worked better?? Do you know why the Red China switched to a less regulated economy??? Isn't thinking fun??


A business regulates itself only to the extent needed to maximize profits.

of course only a brainwashed liberal Marxist would say that. To exist a business must regulate itself to provide the best products in the world at the lowest prices. This capitalist regulation got us from the stone age to here. The liberal Marxist would destroy the system because he lacks the IQ to comprehend it.


A profitable well established business with a large loyal customer base may be willing to take on the expense of delivering a safe high quality product in order to keep their customers happy. But what about the thousands of businesses that aren't doing so well? Without government regulations, they will cut whatever is needed to turn a profit and stay in business.

absurd, if they enslave their workers they go to jail. If they pollute a river they go to jail.


Many government regulations benefit businesses such as trademark, copyright, and patent protections, limits on liability,

so???? Even Milton Friedman wanted these regulations?? Do you have any idea what you are trying to say??

Government regulations against insider trading

actually insider or expert trading is good so that when you buy a stock it is priced correctly. I know thats way over your liberal head but think about it please.


and full disclosure requirements has been a huge benefit to the investment community.

actually good accounting for public companies would be a good idea. If we had it we all would have known the banks were in trouble long before they imploded. Enron would have been impossible.

The vast majority of government regulations are needed by the public as well as businesses.


that of course that is very stupid. BO has a long association with communism and so just regulated the entire health care system. For a brainwashed liberal there is no end in sight for the regulation they really want. They want communst regulation.

Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
 
Last edited:
Only a fool would argue that government regulations are bad and businesses should be self regulated.

actually the American economy is largely self regulated whereas the USSR and Red China were mostly government regulated. Do you now which system worked better?? Do you know why the Red China switched to a less regulated economy??? Isn't thinking fun??


A business regulates itself only to the extent needed to maximize profits.

of course only a brainwashed liberal Marxist would say that. To exist a business must regulate itself to provide the best products in the world at the lowest prices. This capitalist regulation got us from the stone age to here. The liberal Marxist would destroy the system because he lacks the IQ to comprehend it.




absurd, if they enslave their workers they go to jail. If they pollute a river they go to jail.




so???? Even Milton Friedman wanted these regulations?? Do you have any idea what you are trying to say??



actually insider or expert trading is good so that when you buy a stock it is priced correctly. I know thats way over your liberal head but think about it please.


and full disclosure requirements has been a huge benefit to the investment community.

actually good accounting for public companies would be a good idea. If we had it we all would have known the banks were in trouble long before they imploded. Enron would have been impossible.

The vast majority of government regulations are needed by the public as well as businesses.


that of course that is very stupid. BO has a long association with communism and so just regulated the entire health care system. For a brainwashed liberal there is no end in sight for the regulation they really want. They want communst regulation.

Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

I agree that most businesses regulate themselves. They do so because they know if they don't government will. China loosened regulations in order to establish free enterprise. That does not mean they are unregulated. In many respects businesses in China are more regulated than in the US. Talk to anyone who tries to do business in China.

Today, there are over 130,000 businesses that are on the verge of bankruptcy. In good economic times, the number will be about half that. Do you really believe that these companies are concerned about the safety of their products and the long term health problem that might arise from their use? Of course not. They are concerned with keeping the business afloat. If a toy retailer in a financial bind can make a sizable profit selling a toys painted with a lead base paint, do think you he will turn it down because he might be sued in 5 or 10 years. The profit motive is a two edge sword. It can drive a business to excel at producing quality products at low prices but it can also drive a business to unscrupulous acts to protect or increase profits.

Are you saying that government regulations that protection patents, trademarks, and copyrights are not in the best interest of business? What about antitrust laws and regulation that protect small businesses from unfair competition. How about tariff regulations that protect American businesses from unfair competition from abroad. There are many government regulations that protect American bushiness and insure a competitive market.

I would love to hear you explain how insider trading insures that stocks are properly priced.
 
I agree that most businesses regulate themselves. They do so because they know if they don't government will.

no no no they regulated themselves in a manner consistent with having the best product and the best price so they don't go bankrupt. Get it now?? The threat from the consumer is 1000 times greater!!

China loosened regulations in order to establish free enterprise. That does not mean they are unregulated.

well compared to communist regulation they are virtually unregulated


In many respects businesses in China are more regulated than in the US. Talk to anyone who tries to do business in China.

whatever,it is nothing compared to communist regulation when there was no American presense in China!!!!!!


Today, there are over 130,000 businesses that are on the verge of bankruptcy. In good economic times, the number will be about half that. Do you really believe that these companies are concerned about the safety of their products and the long term health problem that might arise from their use? Of course not.


too stupid. If their products are not safe Consumer Products points it out and they go instantly bankrupt!! The market makes products safe not liberal make work bureaucrats.

They are concerned with keeping the business afloat. If a toy retailer in a financial bind can make a sizable profit selling a toys painted with a lead base paint, do think you he will turn it down because he might be sued in 5 or 10 years.

people are free to read Consumer Reports and business is free to know people will read it and make their own choice. Do you want a make work liberal bureaucrat to decide whether lead paint is safe or not for the entire country?? Pay the guy off and the whole country gets lead paint because the bureaucrat says its ok?????

Do you want a bureaucrat to decide that a car must survive a 100MPH crash or do you want the market to decide what a reasonable standard is through comnpetition? where is the copetition to improve if some liberal decides 55 MPH is good enough?? Too complex for a liberal??


The profit motive is a two edge sword. It can drive a business to excel at producing quality products at low prices but it can also drive a business to unscrupulous acts to protect or increase profits.

makes perfect sense if you're a filthy communist who assumes consumers are stupid and liberal bureaucrats are not!!


Are you saying that government regulations that protection patents, trademarks, and copyrights are not in the best interest of business?

even MIlton Friedman supported them


What about antitrust laws

years in court to get IBM and Microsoft while the market took care of both before the bureaucracy could!!

and regulation that protect small businesses from unfair competition.

such as???????


How about tariff regulations that protect American businesses from unfair competition from abroad.

if they protect a business from lower prices from abroad they harm consumers with higher prices.

There are many government regulations that protect American bushiness and insure a competitive market.

so even MIlton Friedman agreed. THe state enforces the rules of capitalism, and???????

I would love to hear you explain how insider trading insures that stocks are properly priced.
[/B]

insiders are experts!! THey buy if the price is too low and sell if it is too high. That adjusts the price to the correct level so that when you buy you get a correct price. A liberal is like a child. If its not simple it goes over your head. Sorry
 
Brutus,

You seem to think that businesses will regulate themselves because the market and buying public will force them too, and in some ways you have a point. The problem is that before you reach that point a lot of people end up getting hurt. 100 years ago we didn't have any government regulations about work place safety, and a hell of a lot of people were killed or maimed in factories before the public (not the market) demanded that government create laws to force owners to start addressing safety issues. For that matter, do you think that companies wouldn't still be hiring 8-10 year old kids for minimal pay if the law allowed it? They're sure as heck willing to break the laws to hire illegal aliens who will accept lower wages, so why do you think they wouldn't go back to maximizing profit at the employees expense if everything were deregulated the way you want?

You have a lot of faith in the market, but I KNOW business owners and how they think. They WILL NOT spend a penny more on their employees,customers, or safety then they absolutely have to. Public opinion can force them to spend that money, but not until something happens which creates a public outcry. Until that happens the company is just going to continue to happily pocket the extra profits and ignore the problem, because that costs less then fixing it.
 
Brutus,

You seem to think that businesses will regulate themselves because the market and buying public will force them too, and in some ways you have a point. The problem is that before you reach that point a lot of people end up getting hurt. 100 years ago we didn't have any government regulations about work place safety, and a hell of a lot of people were killed or maimed in factories before the public (not the market) demanded that government create laws to force owners to start addressing safety issues. For that matter, do you think that companies wouldn't still be hiring 8-10 year old kids for minimal pay if the law allowed it? They're sure as heck willing to break the laws to hire illegal aliens who will accept lower wages, so why do you think they wouldn't go back to maximizing profit at the employees expense if everything were deregulated the way you want?

You have a lot of faith in the market, but I KNOW business owners and how they think. They WILL NOT spend a penny more on their employees,customers, or safety then they absolutely have to. Public opinion can force them to spend that money, but not until something happens which creates a public outcry. Until that happens the company is just going to continue to happily pocket the extra profits and ignore the problem, because that costs less then fixing it.


You are missing the point and doing what Liberals always do when the topic of regulation cumes up.

The implications of Obamacare are crippling the planning of most businesses. There are more than 2000 pages to this law and the regulations that will support the law will probably number more than 10 times that number. How do you plan for this? How do you make a 5 year plan?

Obama has backed away from trying to pass Cap and Trade. This is because he could not even get his super majority Dems to pass it during the two years of tyranny that opened his administration. However, he has directed the EPA to make an enforce regulations that make people stop dead in their planning tracks rather than run afoul of misguided, ill informed, inexperienced and unfeeling beurocrats with no concept of anything outside of academia and revenge for hurt feelings.

Obama and his cronies are chomping at the bit to increase taxes on everything, but particualrly on "the rich". Why on Earth would you risk venture capital at a time when the lying thieves in Washington could unilaterally and retroactively levy taxes on "the rich"?

Businesses are not particularly opposed to regulation. What they are terrified of is the capricious and unpredictable repeated attacks on their ability to do business. It has reduced the greatest economy in the world to an also ran among the world's industrialized powers.

One look at the deficit and the debt should be proof to anyone that the government is unable to run anything. Why they demand the right to run everyone's business is beyond me.

One would hope that if they demand that right, they at least do not run it into the ground.
 
Code,

Where on earth did you get the idea that I'm a liberal? Just because i feel that SOME government regulation is neccessary doesn't mean I'm a liberal- it means I'm a realist. If you read back to the beginning of this thread you'll find that the original poster opposes any sort of government regulation, and feels that markets and businesses will do just fine regulating themselves. He's not talking about cap and trade or Obamacare, he's talking about ALL regulation, including little things like contract law or the GAAP standards that accountants like myself are supposed to follow. Now, do you feel businesses could function without contract law, or that anyone would invest in the market when every company could use it's own personal accounting standards to cook the books?

Now, if you want to talk about whether specific laws and regulations are a good or bad idea, that's a different story. Cap and trade was a bad idea, pure and simple. ObamaCare wasn't necessarily a bad idea (Lets face it, it would be nice if every American had medical coverage), but the plan they came up with stinks. Part of me would like to think that we could actually provide medical coverage for everyone at a cost the country could afford, but the part of me that does accounting for a living says that the governments numbers just don't add up, and that no matter how you spin them they won't ever balance.
 
Code,

Where on earth did you get the idea that I'm a liberal? Just because i feel that SOME government regulation is neccessary doesn't mean I'm a liberal- it means I'm a realist. If you read back to the beginning of this thread you'll find that the original poster opposes any sort of government regulation, and feels that markets and businesses will do just fine regulating themselves. He's not talking about cap and trade or Obamacare, he's talking about ALL regulation, including little things like contract law or the GAAP standards that accountants like myself are supposed to follow. Now, do you feel businesses could function without contract law, or that anyone would invest in the market when every company could use it's own personal accounting standards to cook the books?

Now, if you want to talk about whether specific laws and regulations are a good or bad idea, that's a different story. Cap and trade was a bad idea, pure and simple. ObamaCare wasn't necessarily a bad idea (Lets face it, it would be nice if every American had medical coverage), but the plan they came up with stinks. Part of me would like to think that we could actually provide medical coverage for everyone at a cost the country could afford, but the part of me that does accounting for a living says that the governments numbers just don't add up, and that no matter how you spin them they won't ever balance.



Whoopsie! Given that premise, my whole post is not at all related to your position. I aplogise and see that you and I are in agreemnt with regard to regulation.

Some regulation is needed to avoid anarchy. Too much is to be avoided to allow the risk takers to provide ooportunity for the rest of us.

I agree that it would be nice to provide medical coverage for all, but all are not willing to pay for it. Even during the debate, those that currently don't have it were under the mistaken impression that it would be provided gratis. Had the individual cost of the program be widely and accurately publicised, were it to be even now, the limited popularity of the program would evaporate entirely.
 
Code,

You're right. If people had have known the real costs involved a lot fewer would have supported it. Part of the problem was politicians not wanting to be honest about the costs involved, and some of it was wishful thinking on the part of the electorate. The GAO warned that Obamacare was going to cost a lot more then what was being estimated, and that any savings would be purely theoretical for at least the first 5-10 years, but nobody wanted to listen.

I wish it surprised me, but it doesn't. Companies hire accountants to keep track of all the boring numbers and advise them about finances, then ignore them the instant that they tell them something the owners don't want to hear. I guess the government isn't any different. Apparently most of the movers and shakers in this country prefer to live in a fantasy world where 1+1 = "whatever the hell I want".
 
I agree that most businesses regulate themselves. They do so because they know if they don't government will.

no no no they regulated themselves in a manner consistent with having the best product and the best price so they don't go bankrupt. Get it now?? The threat from the consumer is 1000 times greater!!

China loosened regulations in order to establish free enterprise. That does not mean they are unregulated.

well compared to communist regulation they are virtually unregulated




whatever,it is nothing compared to communist regulation when there was no American presense in China!!!!!!





too stupid. If their products are not safe Consumer Products points it out and they go instantly bankrupt!! The market makes products safe not liberal make work bureaucrats.



people are free to read Consumer Reports and business is free to know people will read it and make their own choice. Do you want a make work liberal bureaucrat to decide whether lead paint is safe or not for the entire country?? Pay the guy off and the whole country gets lead paint because the bureaucrat says its ok?????

Do you want a bureaucrat to decide that a car must survive a 100MPH crash or do you want the market to decide what a reasonable standard is through comnpetition? where is the copetition to improve if some liberal decides 55 MPH is good enough?? Too complex for a liberal??




makes perfect sense if you're a filthy communist who assumes consumers are stupid and liberal bureaucrats are not!!




even MIlton Friedman supported them




years in court to get IBM and Microsoft while the market took care of both before the bureaucracy could!!



such as???????




if they protect a business from lower prices from abroad they harm consumers with higher prices.

There are many government regulations that protect American bushiness and insure a competitive market.

so even MIlton Friedman agreed. THe state enforces the rules of capitalism, and???????

I would love to hear you explain how insider trading insures that stocks are properly priced.
[/B]

insiders are experts!! THey buy if the price is too low and sell if it is too high. That adjusts the price to the correct level so that when you buy you get a correct price. A liberal is like a child. If its not simple it goes over your head. Sorry
Time doesn't permit me to addresses all of your points but I’ll reply to two of them.

I believe your statement that businesses regulate themselves in a manner consistent with having the best product and the best price applies to most businesses most of the time. However, when the business is in financial difficulty as tens of thousands are today, turning a profit becomes far more important than product safety issues that may not come to light for many years.

In the 1960’s and 70’s medical researchers became concerned about the high rate of kidney failure in children and nervous system disorders. They were able to link the problems with lead paint in toys. Even after studies were published, toy manufactures continued to sell imported toys containing high levels of lead. It wasn’t until the FTC banned all use of lead paints, that the toy industry took lead paint in toys seriously putting pressure on foreign manufactures. It was neither consumers nor self-regulation in the industry that got the lead out of toys but rather the FTC.

The history of patent medicine is another prime example of the lack of self-regulation in an industry that led to federal regulations. Prior to these regulations, remedies were openly sold to the public and claimed to cure or prevent nearly every ailment known to man, including venereal diseases, tuberculosis, colic in infants, indigestion or dyspepsia, and even cancer. Physicians and medical societies were critical of patent medicines. They argued that the remedies did not cure illnesses, discouraged the sick from seeking legitimate treatments, and caused alcohol and drug dependency. The Proprietary Association, a trade association of medicine producers, refuted published articles in newspapers and magazines and fought off regulations for some years. There is no evidence that manufactures attempted in anyway to regulate themselves. It was not until the State of South Dakota passed disclosure laws that manufactures began listing all ingredients. In 1906, Congress Passed the Pure Food and Drug Act, which ended forever the era of the medicine man.

Claiming that insider trading benefits investors in some manner is ridiculous. The only one who benefits is the inside trader. An inside trader uses undisclosed information as a basis for trading stocks. Having undisclosed good news about a company, the inside traders buys up shares at a bargain price often pushing the price up so other investors end up paying a higher price. Regulations that make insider trading illegal is credited with building investor confidence that the stock market is a free and fair market. Possibility you are confusing the work of Specialists with Inside Traders. Specialists are traders who work to maintain an orderly market, specializing in one or a few stocks. They act as auctioneer and are required to buy or sell against the market to insure an orderly market. Unlike insider traders they are necessary and legal.
 
Last edited:
Excellent points Flopper. I do understand where Brutus is coming from, but the problem i see with his ideas are that they don't work well on that kind of scale the market operate on today. Back in the day when there were only a few dozen companies trading stocks and "the market" was primarily a local phenomena the concept of self regulation might have been viable, but in todays world economy that just won't work. At this point the question is how much regulation is needed, and how to provide enough regulation without over regulating or making compliance with the regulation too much of a financial burden.
 
At this point the question is how much regulation is needed, and how to provide enough regulation without over regulating or making compliance with the regulation too much of a financial burden.

you are 100 confused! You talk like regulation is controlled like a water faucett. You just have to decide how much water or regulation you want. Thats 100% stupid.

The Fed was created to regulate the economy in the wake of many bank panics, the last one, at the time, being the Panic of 1907. It was not only a lot of regulation but also the "wrong kind". It caused the Great Depression and World War 2.( 60 illion dead)


We are now in a Great Recession; again caused by a ton of regulation of the wrong kind, namely, Fanny/Freddie and ,again , the Fed.

PLease don't ever again talk of regulation as if its just a matter of how much. Regulations come in 1000000 types from the Fed to Fanny Freddie to Soviet and Chinese. What they have in common is that they appeal to a liberals childlike belief in magic. It never turns out to be magic though, just another form of liberal statist cancer.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top