What will happen if we do what Repubs want and Deregulate Business'

[kaz]

Deregulating businesses means you have to trust them to do the right thing. It's like leaving your house and car unlocked, out of trust.

Actually you don't have to trust them, you just have to allow consumers to chose who to do business with. And that's why your government solution is failure out of the gate. They start by removing choice and then you really do have to trust them, and the only thing you can trust politicians to do is screw you. And screw you they do.

Sure, monopolies are going to give you a choice.

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
Bertrand Russell

You do make people think, my friend. You provide that unique cynicism perspective of people who don't think government can solve problems like monopolies for us. You are truly skeptical of people who don't trust politicians, it's refreshing. And then calling yourself a cynic and putting lies in your sig. Brilliant.

Here's the problem, name monopolies that were not actually created by government.

 

[jgarden]

Rules for whom again?

I dont understand your question...?

Then a remidial reading course for you is mandatory since *I* was addressing what *YOU* wrote.

"Then a "remidial" reading course for you is mandatory"

Are their still rules for spelling OR do we all now have the personal freedom to express (spell) ourselves anyway we want in The People's Tea Party Republic?"

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gosh....what would we do without the peanut police...our species would become extinct within one election cycle.

You should try reading labels sometimes. You'd be shocked by all the things that have trace amounts of peanuts in them.

My son has a severe peanut allergy, and I have a severe shrimp allergy. We deal with it just fine without the governments help.

The world is not populated with helpless drones. Go find an old lady and help her cross the street.

And you never ever looked at a food label to see if a product contained peanuts?

seriously...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gosh....what would we do without the peanut police...our species would become extinct within one election cycle.

You should try reading labels sometimes. You'd be shocked by all the things that have trace amounts of peanuts in them.

My son has a severe peanut allergy, and I have a severe shrimp allergy. We deal with it just fine without the governments help.

The world is not populated with helpless drones. Go find an old lady and help her cross the street.

And in your world, that street would have no speed limit, no traffic lights, and no one driving on it would need a license.

 

[jgarden]

Actually you don't have to trust them, you just have to allow consumers to chose who to do business with. And that's why your government solution is failure out of the gate. They start by removing choice and then you really do have to trust them, and the only thing you can trust politicians to do is screw you. And screw you they do.

Sure, monopolies are going to give you a choice.

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
Bertrand Russell

You do make people think, my friend. You provide that unique cynicism perspective of people who don't think government can solve problems like monopolies for us. You are truly skeptical of people who don't trust politicians, it's refreshing. And then calling yourself a cynic and putting lies in your sig. Brilliant.

Here's the problem, name monopolies that were not actually created by government.

Its rapidly reaching the point where it makes little difference whether monopolies are in the hands of government or provate corporations - given that many politicians have already been bought and paid for through contributions by the private sector.

One advantage of the public sector is that at least the people are allowed to pass judgement on upper management every 2 to 4 years - giving them the opportunity to bring in a whole new set of politicians that the corporations will attenpt to corrupt!

 

[editec]

Bottom line?

Regulation isn't the problem, BAD REGULATIONS (or bad enforcement of same) ARE.

Of course without some regulations, there'd be NO MARKETS to begin with, so thinking that one can count on self regulation is entirely a faith based belief system.

 

[hortysir]

With the stroke of a pen, Bill Clinton ended an era that stretched back to William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson and reached fruition with FDR and Harry Truman. As he signed his name, in the whorls and dots of his pen strokes William Jefferson Clinton was also symbolically signing the death warrant of Liberal America and its core belief in the level playing field that had guided the Democratic Party

Progressive Historians: History For Our Future

If you think of this graph as the level playing field, notice how flat it was before Bill Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall, then notice how steep it has become. Those subprime loans amount to nothing more than an organized ripoff of millions of innocent Americans, with the steepness of the graph illustrating the how far the playing field has tilted.

While a little higher, the subprime loans didn't spike until 2003 and Clinton was not president in 2003.

So what happened in 2003? Bush signed his American Dream Downpayment Initiative bill (ADDI) in 2003 that made no down payment loans for more than the value of the house to people with bad credit who couldn't make the payments as the centerpiece of his 2004 election campaign, so it must be Clinton's fault.

I'm just saying that deregulation is BOTH parties albatross.
Clinton unleashed the bulldog, Bawney Fwank and Chris Dodd dangled the steak, and W said 'fetch'...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yep... we need more regulations like the type that mandate we give mortgages to those with no income and no assets.

 

[edthecynic]

Actually you don't have to trust them, you just have to allow consumers to chose who to do business with. And that's why your government solution is failure out of the gate. They start by removing choice and then you really do have to trust them, and the only thing you can trust politicians to do is screw you. And screw you they do.

Sure, monopolies are going to give you a choice.

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
Bertrand Russell

You do make people think, my friend. You provide that unique cynicism perspective of people who don't think government can solve problems like monopolies for us. You are truly skeptical of people who don't trust politicians, it's refreshing. And then calling yourself a cynic and putting lies in your sig. Brilliant.

Here's the problem, name monopolies that were not actually created by government.

The monopolies came first, generated massive amounts of money which they used to buy government officials who then passed laws to solidify the power of the monopolies.

I already gave an example, the banking monopoly which preceded the Fed. The banking monopoly used its power to manipulate the money supply to create panics and crashes which were used to create a governmental central bank that they controlled. The central bank did not create the banking monopoly, the banking monopoly created the central bank.

 

[edthecynic]

Progressive Historians: History For Our Future

While a little higher, the subprime loans didn't spike until 2003 and Clinton was not president in 2003.

So what happened in 2003? Bush signed his American Dream Downpayment Initiative bill (ADDI) in 2003 that made no down payment loans for more than the value of the house to people with bad credit who couldn't make the payments as the centerpiece of his 2004 election campaign, so it must be Clinton's fault.

I'm just saying that deregulation is BOTH parties albatross.
Clinton unleashed the bulldog, Bawney Fwank and Chris Dodd dangled the steak, and W said 'fetch'...

Funny that you only mentioned CLINTON!!!!!!!!

 

[Oddball]

Pure bullshit as usual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwEkpB4feN0&feature=related

So, you're saying that Rockefellers DIDN'T make their money off of oil fields secured by gubmint-granted mineral rights and rights-of-way?

BTW....I'll bet a dollar to a dog turd that you didn't know those same Robber Barons were behind the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment, didja?

That's right, Rockefeller made his money by teaming up with fellow monopolist Vanderbuilt who controlled Rail Road monopily and he jacked up the transportation costs to other oil refiners and cut the same transportation costs to Rockefeller allowing Rockefeller to undercut his competition. Rockefeller realized that costs for extracting the oil and refining the oil were going to be about the same for all, so the place to undercut the competition was in transportation costs.
You obviously didn't watch the video, didja?

And yes I'm well aware of the fact that the banking monopoly manipulated the money supply with panics and crashes to create a central bank, and after the wealthy Robber Barons set up their phony charities, like the Rockefeller Foundation, they then pushed for an income tax so others will not become wealthy.

But I'm also aware that that shoots down the argument that Capitalist Businessmen will act in the common good of the American people if unregulated. Obviously they act only in their best interests and America be damned, which is why you support them.

Right...And they couldn't have done ANY of that without the regulators (i.e. BIG GUBMINT) paving the way, with the abuse of their monopoly on the use of proactive force.

In other words, the regulators, politicians and bureaucrats could've told the Robber Barons no, but chose instead to misuse the responsibilities entrusted to them.

If any argument is shot down here, it's yours.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Yep... we need more regulations like the type that mandate we give mortgages to those with no income and no assets.

point of this post is *blank*

?

 

[hortysir]

While a little higher, the subprime loans didn't spike until 2003 and Clinton was not president in 2003.

So what happened in 2003? Bush signed his American Dream Downpayment Initiative bill (ADDI) in 2003 that made no down payment loans for more than the value of the house to people with bad credit who couldn't make the payments as the centerpiece of his 2004 election campaign, so it must be Clinton's fault.

I'm just saying that deregulation is BOTH parties albatross.
Clinton unleashed the bulldog, Bawney Fwank and Chris Dodd dangled the steak, and W said 'fetch'...

Funny that you only mentioned CLINTON!!!!!!!!

1997 and 2003 our congresses were pretty evenly divided.
No bill could have reached the President's desk without bipartisan support.

 

[edthecynic]

So, you're saying that Rockefellers DIDN'T make their money off of oil fields secured by gubmint-granted mineral rights and rights-of-way?

BTW....I'll bet a dollar to a dog turd that you didn't know those same Robber Barons were behind the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment, didja?

That's right, Rockefeller made his money by teaming up with fellow monopolist Vanderbuilt who controlled Rail Road monopily and he jacked up the transportation costs to other oil refiners and cut the same transportation costs to Rockefeller allowing Rockefeller to undercut his competition. Rockefeller realized that costs for extracting the oil and refining the oil were going to be about the same for all, so the place to undercut the competition was in transportation costs.
You obviously didn't watch the video, didja?

And yes I'm well aware of the fact that the banking monopoly manipulated the money supply with panics and crashes to create a central bank, and after the wealthy Robber Barons set up their phony charities, like the Rockefeller Foundation, they then pushed for an income tax so others will not become wealthy.

But I'm also aware that that shoots down the argument that Capitalist Businessmen will act in the common good of the American people if unregulated. Obviously they act only in their best interests and America be damned, which is why you support them.

Right...And they couldn't have done ANY of that without the regulators (i.e. BIG GUBMINT) paving the way, with the abuse of their monopoly on the use of proactive force.

In other words, the regulators, politicians and bureaucrats could've told the Robber Barons no, but chose instead to misuse the responsibilities entrusted to them.

If any argument is shot down here, it's yours.

That's pure bullshit, and you know it, proven by the fact you can give no example of how the "gubmint" helped Rockefeller take over the oil industry. The "gubmint" was always one step behind Rockefeller. Even their antitrust suit failed to break his oil monopoly, which his family still controls today!!!

 

[Oddball]

It's pure truth.

Who granted the Rockefellers exclusive mineral rights on the oil fields? Who granted them, Morgan and the Vanderbilt rights-of-way to build their railroads?

You take away what gubmint is selling and nobody would be around to buy it.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm just saying that deregulation is BOTH parties albatross.
Clinton unleashed the bulldog, Bawney Fwank and Chris Dodd dangled the steak, and W said 'fetch'...

Funny that you only mentioned CLINTON!!!!!!!!

1997 and 2003 our congresses were pretty evenly divided.
No bill could have reached the President's desk without bipartisan support.

In 1997 and 2003 the GOP controlled Congress and in 2003 they also controlled the White House. It was Phil Graham (R) who introduced the bill as a rider to an appropriations bill that opened the door for the banks to pass the risks for bad loans onto the rest of the economy. It's true that the banking monopoly owns both Parties, but they own more Republicans than Democrats.

 

[edthecynic]

It's pure truth.

Who granted the Rockefellers exclusive mineral rights on the oil fields? Who granted them, Morgan and the Vanderbilt rights-of-way to build their railroads?

You take away what gubmint is selling and nobody would be around to buy it.

Rockefeller was not an oil driller so he had no "exclusive mineral rights" to the oil fields!!! He was a refiner, who undercut all his competition with his deal with his friend Vanderbilt who controlled the railroad monopoly and gave him a special discounted rate. The railroads were already built when Vanderbilt took them over, Vanderbilt didn't build them and didn't make deals with the "gubmint" for right of ways. He made his fortune in steamships before he bought his way into railroads.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Deregulating businesses means you have to trust them to do the right thing. It's like leaving your house and car unlocked, out of trust.

Actually you don't have to trust them, you just have to allow consumers to chose who to do business with. And that's why your government solution is failure out of the gate. They start by removing choice and then you really do have to trust them, and the only thing you can trust politicians to do is screw you. And screw you they do.

Not all regulation is bad. Compare, for example, the medical industry pre-government regulation. Any idiot with $24.95 could get a medical liscence, buy up a few leeches, and send you home with some snake oil.

Before you jump in saying that things are somehow different because of science: Keep in mind that a hell of a lot of scientific innovation happened before the USA regulated the medical industry. The problem was, there was absolutely no reason for the medical industry to change from something profitable to something effective, and even worse the American consumer had no way to gain access to the innovation via free market short of heading off to Europe.

You've seen the same thing in the automobile industry. The Big Three throughout their history have been anti-innovation all along. Once power in a Free Market stabilizes, innovation isn't profitable and litigation is often cheaper than safety measures.

 

[Oddball]

Who bought up the railroads is irrelevant to the fact that a public rights-of-way were abused, and the regulators of that public good stood aside and allowed the collusion to occur.


So you have massive incompetence and failure to enforce free interstate commerce, and your "solution" is to reward that incompetence and corruption with even more power to rule and regulate?

Yeah.....Right.

 

[edthecynic]

Who bought up the railroads is irrelevant to the fact that a public rights-of-way were abused, and the regulators of that public good stood aside and allowed the collusion to occur.


So you have massive incompetence and failure to enforce free interstate commerce, and your "solution" is to reward that incompetence and corruption with even more power to rule and regulate?

Yeah.....Right.

RAAAAAR