Why We Need More, Not Less, Government

[ShackledNation]

Only 6% of homes were in default when the system collapsed.

Nice try, though.

The $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative bubble is what brought down the economy.

Just to give you an idea of how big a bubble that was, the GDP of all the economies in the world in one year is $50 trillion.

First of all, cite sources. Second of all, what does the number of homes in default have to do with the points I raised? Government and the Federal Reserve caused such bad derivatives to be favorable in the market. These derivatives were largely based on the housing market and mortgage loans. When the housing market bubble popped, the absurdity of these derivatives was revealed. Had the housing bubble never been created by the government such derivatives would never be profitable anyway.

There could be no collapse of the derivatives market without the rise. And the rise was wrongly caused by government. The market in derivatives should never have existed in the first place. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subsidized such derivatives. The government essentially encouraged bad loans and investments.

FYI, bundled mortgages are not derivatives.

When did I say they were?

 

[Rozman]

This lady is so right....
The bigger the government the better.
We should just hand over all our money to the government because we all know by now government manages money much better then we ever could.
They will never mismanage funds,they never have corruption among them.
Projects are always done early or on schedule and always on budget.
Government is so much smarter then the people.

Only when government controls all aspects of or lives will we be happy.

 

[Jack Fate]

For the moron rightys ~ who could provide no proof of their rightwinged propaganda, and blatantly come here to spout lies and distortions of facts.

Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[98] In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."[108] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian school economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country.[109]

However, many others dispute that the CRA was a significant cause of the subprime crisis. Paul Krugman[110] noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA.[111] According to Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim.[106] In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust", relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.[112] Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair,[107] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[113] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[114] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect,[115] Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation,[116] Daniel Gross of Slate,[117] and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[118]

Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][119] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".[120] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[121] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[122] Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[123]

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Astounding that a poster still uses Wikipedia as a source. Pitiful and ignorant.

And Factual. You forgot factual, and that your an imbecile.

Read this, dumb ass. Even the founder of Wikipedia says his site is not for serious study.

Wired Campus - The Chronicle of Higher Education

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First of all, cite sources. Second of all, what does the number of homes in default have to do with the points I raised? Government and the Federal Reserve caused such bad derivatives to be favorable in the market. These derivatives were largely based on the housing market and mortgage loans. When the housing market bubble popped, the absurdity of these derivatives was revealed. Had the housing bubble never been created by the government such derivatives would never be profitable anyway.

There could be no collapse of the derivatives market without the rise. And the rise was wrongly caused by government. The market in derivatives should never have existed in the first place. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subsidized such derivatives. The government essentially encouraged bad loans and investments.

FYI, bundled mortgages are not derivatives.

When did I say they were?

Your post was a bit murky.

 

[ShackledNation]

FYI, bundled mortgages are not derivatives.

When did I say they were?

Your post was a bit murky.

I apologize for being unclear.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Wow! Lots of extreme views here. Government solves everything. Government is the source of all problems.

I've lived in lots of places. Countries with little or no government tend to be dangerous and unstable. Countries where corporations are left to "govern themselves" make our homeless problem look extremely mild. So yes, I'm glad we have a government. And for all its' faults, I like our government. That is why I have always returned to the United States.
I wish we had a more efficient government but we have a really big country. Just like really big companies operate less efficiently than smaller ones. But we are after all, the UNITED States of America.
Do I like that we have agencies to check food, products etc... for safety? Sure. I've lived in places where it is left up to "the market" to take care of that and guess what? People get sick or die and the companies just keep on going. So no, "the market" won't make those bad ol' companies go away. People won't quit doing business with them because they weild so much power, no one ever gets an accurate picture of what really happened.
On the other side, there is SO much waste and duplication in our government, there's obviously room for cuts. Do you know we spend tens of millions every year on the Rural Electrification Agency? Yup. It's job since the 1920? Making sure rural America has electricity. Yeah. We still need that one. WTF?
Anyway, just my two cents...

I see your point, but with all due respect your argument seems like the typical "If we don't have government we will all have food poising and die and turn into zombies." Can you tell me what places and countries you are referring to? As for our government, if states had the powers they were supposed to have we wouldn't have to worry about being to big. Yet the 10th amendment is largely ignored today.

I've lived in the USA, Canada, Mexico, Austria and The Ukraine. I've stayed in about another dozen countries in the Carribean, South America and Europe for three months or more.
I don't know where it is you've lived that have companies who would never put profits before people but the USA isn't one of them.
You're talk about giving the powers to the states indicates you might be a Libertarian but don't want to be presumptuous. If so, there are a lot of great ideas that come out of that movement but like the Dems or Repubs, no party is perfect. There are several concepts that come from them (I have friends irl who always tell me I am a Libertarian and just don't realize it). There are aslo several ideas that are extremely flawed in application. Giving power over virtually everything that is not specifically designated as Fed by the USC, is one concept I feel is highly over-estimated by the Libs. It is historically, a formula for even more corruption.

 

[chikenwing]

Why We Need More, Not Less, Government

Because "we" are mentally retarded parasites?

Lead the way chief. Get up off your ass and go into the wilderness. Clear some land..farm maybe..hunt. Go on. Try it. No gubmint for a year or so.

If you make it..you can let us all know how it went.

Went way better than planed, got anything else???

 

[ShackledNation]

Wow! Lots of extreme views here. Government solves everything. Government is the source of all problems.

I've lived in lots of places. Countries with little or no government tend to be dangerous and unstable. Countries where corporations are left to "govern themselves" make our homeless problem look extremely mild. So yes, I'm glad we have a government. And for all its' faults, I like our government. That is why I have always returned to the United States.
I wish we had a more efficient government but we have a really big country. Just like really big companies operate less efficiently than smaller ones. But we are after all, the UNITED States of America.
Do I like that we have agencies to check food, products etc... for safety? Sure. I've lived in places where it is left up to "the market" to take care of that and guess what? People get sick or die and the companies just keep on going. So no, "the market" won't make those bad ol' companies go away. People won't quit doing business with them because they weild so much power, no one ever gets an accurate picture of what really happened.
On the other side, there is SO much waste and duplication in our government, there's obviously room for cuts. Do you know we spend tens of millions every year on the Rural Electrification Agency? Yup. It's job since the 1920? Making sure rural America has electricity. Yeah. We still need that one. WTF?
Anyway, just my two cents...

I see your point, but with all due respect your argument seems like the typical "If we don't have government we will all have food poising and die and turn into zombies." Can you tell me what places and countries you are referring to? As for our government, if states had the powers they were supposed to have we wouldn't have to worry about being to big. Yet the 10th amendment is largely ignored today.

I've lived in the USA, Canada, Mexico, Austria and The Ukraine. I've stayed in about another dozen countries in the Carribean, South America and Europe for three months or more.
I don't know where it is you've lived that have companies who would never put profits before people but the USA isn't one of them.

You need a specific country and a specific time to make sure the government was actually as limited as you think it was. Often times, it really isn't, or there is another factor involved. It has nothing to do with putting profits before people. The only way companies can make a profit in the free market is by offering a product people will buy. They can only make profits by serving consumers. They don't make profits by creating products that kill them with food poisoning.

You're talk about giving the powers to the states indicates you might be a Libertarian but don't want to be presumptuous. If so, there are a lot of great ideas that come out of that movement but like the Dems or Repubs, no party is perfect. There are several concepts that come from them (I have friends irl who always tell me I am a Libertarian and just don't realize it). There are aslo several ideas that are extremely flawed in application. Giving power over virtually everything that is not specifically designated as Fed by the USC, is one concept I feel is highly over-estimated by the Libs. It is historically, a formula for even more corruption.

I am a libertarian, but not a Libertarian. The party and the ideology are not necessarily always in agreement. If by giving power over virtually everything not specifically granted to the federal government by the states is something you do not like, then unfortunately you disagree with the concept of the federal system and the 10th amendment.

Anyway, I still feel my question has not been answered. I need more specific information.

 

[IndependntLogic]

The only way companies can make a profit in the free market is by offering a product people will buy. They can only make profits by serving consumers. They don't make profits by creating products that kill them with food poisoning.

I am a libertarian, but not a Libertarian. The party and the ideology are not necessarily always in agreement. If by giving power over virtually everything not specifically granted to the federal government by the states is something you do not like, then unfortunately you disagree with the concept of the federal system and the 10th amendment.

Anyway, I still feel my question has not been answered. I need more specific information.

The statement in bold is easily disproven.
Phillip Morris
GM
Ford
Eli-Lily
Proctor & Gamble
Pfizer
ExxonMobil
Conoco Phillips
Cardinal Health Care
Kaiser Permanente

Guess which of those companies have been found guilty of wrongful death? All of them. Guess which of those companies fought tooth and nail to keep the public from finding out about it? All of them. Guess which of them are still in business? All of them.

Guess how many more examples I can come up with that bad companies that produce harmful or even lethal products, won't be fixed by "the market"?

Hundreds....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The statement in bold is easily disproven.
Phillip Morris
GM
Ford
Eli-Lily
Proctor & Gamble
Pfizer
ExxonMobil
Conoco Phillips
Cardinal Health Care
Kaiser Permanente

Guess which of those companies have been found guilty of wrongful death? All of them. Guess which of those companies fought tooth and nail to keep the public from finding out about it? All of them. Guess which of them are still in business? All of them.

Guess how many more examples I can come up with that bad companies that produce harmful or even lethal products, won't be fixed by "the market"?

Hundreds....

I guess there'd be no deaths if only government came up with enough regulations.

 

[Contumacious]

The statement in bold is easily disproven.
Phillip Morris
GM
Ford
Eli-Lily
Proctor & Gamble
Pfizer
ExxonMobil
Conoco Phillips
Cardinal Health Care
Kaiser Permanente

Guess which of those companies have been found guilty of wrongful death? All of them. Guess which of those companies fought tooth and nail to keep the public from finding out about it? All of them. Guess which of them are still in business? All of them.

Guess how many more examples I can come up with that bad companies that produce harmful or even lethal products, won't be fixed by "the market"?

Hundreds....

Lyndon Baines Johnson

- ordered the summary execution of the sailors in the USS Liberty

William Jefferson Clinton

--ordered the summary execution - by incineration - of the Davidians in Waco, TX 1993

Guess which of those presidents have been found guilty of wrongful death? None of them.

.Guess which of those presidents earns millions of dollars in speaking fees. William Jefferson Clinton.

.

 

[Triton]

governments have been responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths in the last century alone. A dangerous servant and a fearful master.

 

[ShackledNation]

The only way companies can make a profit in the free market is by offering a product people will buy. They can only make profits by serving consumers. They don't make profits by creating products that kill them with food poisoning.

The statement in bold is easily disproven.
Phillip Morris
GM
Ford
Eli-Lily
Proctor & Gamble
Pfizer
ExxonMobil
Conoco Phillips
Cardinal Health Care
Kaiser Permanente

Guess which of those companies have been found guilty of wrongful death? All of them. Guess which of those companies fought tooth and nail to keep the public from finding out about it? All of them. Guess which of them are still in business? All of them.

Guess how many more examples I can come up with that bad companies that produce harmful or even lethal products, won't be fixed by "the market"?

Hundreds....

And you think being found guilty of wrongful death made these companies more profitable at the time of the lawsuits? Your argument did not disprove my argument at all. All you have proven is that companies make mistakes and can still stay in business if they recover from those mistakes. That does not contradict anything I said, and ironically supports my argument, for these companies have had to improve their flaws to stay in business and remain profitable. The argument was never that companies are infallible and good and never screw up. The argument was they can only make profit if they produce something of value. Which still holds true.

Consumer valuation is subjective. People who still support those companies do so because they feel they are getting value from them. They still like them despite the factors you mentioned. If people still buy the harmful and lethal products, they obviously see whatever benefit they get from such products as higher than not getting them (heard of alcohol and tobacco? Harmful indeed). Also, GM should have failed, but government bailed it out. So GM exemplifies the idea that government intervention can actually allow companies that do not provide what consumers want to survive.

 

[Chris]

Businesses can make a fortune by exploiting consumers.

Tobacco, alcohol, firearms, fast foods, prescription drugs, cocaine, heroin,... people will buy a lot of things which will kill them.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I guess there'd be no deaths if only government came up with enough regulations.

It is always the tactic of an extreme view, to view any differing view as the opposite extreme.

My point was simply that "The Market" will not do what was stated i.e. regulate itself and eliminate any companies that sell harmful, dangerous or even deadly products.

Do I think that this will disappear entirely if we have "enough regulations"? Of course not. That view is as extreme and inaccurate as thinking we'd all be perfectly safe if we had no regulations or government agencies.

Government is needed. Even big federal government. Do we have too much in some areas? I think so. Do we need even more in others? I think that is true as well.

But what I find to be common, is the belief that if the government was just small enough, all would be fine. Go live in The Ukraine for a while. They have almost ZERO regulations when it comes to business. They will practically pay you to take a company there. You can also pay almost nothing in taxes. Aren't those all the conditions you're hoping for here?

 

[IndependntLogic]

The statement in bold is easily disproven.
Phillip Morris
GM
Ford
Eli-Lily
Proctor & Gamble
Pfizer
ExxonMobil
Conoco Phillips
Cardinal Health Care
Kaiser Permanente

Guess which of those companies have been found guilty of wrongful death? All of them. Guess which of those companies fought tooth and nail to keep the public from finding out about it? All of them. Guess which of them are still in business? All of them.

Guess how many more examples I can come up with that bad companies that produce harmful or even lethal products, won't be fixed by "the market"?

Hundreds....

Lyndon Baines Johnson

- ordered the summary execution of the sailors in the USS Liberty

William Jefferson Clinton

--ordered the summary execution - by incineration - of the Davidians in Waco, TX 1993

Guess which of those presidents have been found guilty of wrongful death? None of them.

.Guess which of those presidents earns millions of dollars in speaking fees. William Jefferson Clinton.

.

Um.... Okay..... Well then, I guess you feel that proves "The Market" will rgulate itself and prevent the sale and distribution of harmful and deadly products... alrighty then.

 

[IndependntLogic]

The only way companies can make a profit in the free market is by offering a product people will buy. They can only make profits by serving consumers. They don't make profits by creating products that kill them with food poisoning.

The statement in bold is easily disproven.
Phillip Morris
GM
Ford
Eli-Lily
Proctor & Gamble
Pfizer
ExxonMobil
Conoco Phillips
Cardinal Health Care
Kaiser Permanente

Guess which of those companies have been found guilty of wrongful death? All of them. Guess which of those companies fought tooth and nail to keep the public from finding out about it? All of them. Guess which of them are still in business? All of them.

Guess how many more examples I can come up with that bad companies that produce harmful or even lethal products, won't be fixed by "the market"?

Hundreds....

And you think being found guilty of wrongful death made these companies more profitable at the time of the lawsuits? Your argument did not disprove my argument at all. All you have proven is that companies make mistakes and can still stay in business if they recover from those mistakes. That does not contradict anything I said, and ironically supports my argument, for these companies have had to improve their flaws to stay in business and remain profitable. The argument was never that companies are infallible and good and never screw up. The argument was they can only make profit if they produce something of value. Which still holds true.

Consumer valuation is subjective. People who still support those companies do so because they feel they are getting value from them. They still like them despite the factors you mentioned. If people still buy the harmful and lethal products, they obviously see whatever benefit they get from such products as higher than not getting them (heard of alcohol and tobacco? Harmful indeed). Also, GM should have failed, but government bailed it out. So GM exemplifies the idea that government intervention can actually allow companies that do not provide what consumers want to survive.

"And you think being found guilty of wrongful death made these companies more profitable at the time of the lawsuits? "

No and I never said that. I said the claim that "the Market" will magically protect people is bs. It won't. Companies can sell products that are harmful and get away with it. They would get away with even more, if there wasn't fed regulation.

Not true. Let's say we put states in power. If a candidate has the Big Three Auto behind them they are going to win an election. Then the Big Three own them. So then they pass laws in Michigan, that say you can't sue Ford for Pinto Problems, Chevy for Corvair prolems etc... Cars blow up. So what? They stop making them and don't pay a dime. Hell, they can even fire their actuaries because now that the states get to decide what laws are great or not, even the most dangerous products won't be recalled. They'll simply stop making them and the people who die or whatever? Well, bummer dude.
Same with the Phaceuticals in Cali. What do you think the safety standards and regulations would be like, if it were left entirely up to the state of Texas? Please.

"If people still buy the harmful and lethal products, they obviously see whatever benefit they get from such products as higher than not getting them"

Now that's just plain stupid. You would see the benefit of owning a car that occasionally blows up - even if, not only were you not told about it, you were told it was safe? If a drug said it was safe to use and there were no federal regs requiring the warnings, you would see the benefit of death?

And I never made a point about govt handouts, I only contend that there is a time and place for federal government and regulation - even when it's not splled out in the USC.
Or do you think I should be allowed to own nukes? Nothing in the USC that say I can't. And guess what? There was no chemically synthesized drugs, no cars, no oil wells etc... so you can't use the old "Well, nukes weren't around back then!"...

 

[ShackledNation]

It is always the tactic of an extreme view, to view any differing view as the opposite extreme.

My point was simply that "The Market" will not do what was stated i.e. regulate itself and eliminate any companies that sell harmful, dangerous or even deadly products.

Do I think that this will disappear entirely if we have "enough regulations"? Of course not. That view is as extreme and inaccurate as thinking we'd all be perfectly safe if we had no regulations or government agencies.

Government is needed. Even big federal government. Do we have too much in some areas? I think so. Do we need even more in others? I think that is true as well.

But what I find to be common, is the belief that if the government was just small enough, all would be fine. Go live in The Ukraine for a while. They have almost ZERO regulations when it comes to business. They will practically pay you to take a company there. You can also pay almost nothing in taxes. Aren't those all the conditions you're hoping for here?

You're quoting the wrong person.

 

[ShackledNation]

The statement in bold is easily disproven.
Phillip Morris
GM
Ford
Eli-Lily
Proctor & Gamble
Pfizer
ExxonMobil
Conoco Phillips
Cardinal Health Care
Kaiser Permanente

Guess which of those companies have been found guilty of wrongful death? All of them. Guess which of those companies fought tooth and nail to keep the public from finding out about it? All of them. Guess which of them are still in business? All of them.

Guess how many more examples I can come up with that bad companies that produce harmful or even lethal products, won't be fixed by "the market"?

Hundreds....

And you think being found guilty of wrongful death made these companies more profitable at the time of the lawsuits? Your argument did not disprove my argument at all. All you have proven is that companies make mistakes and can still stay in business if they recover from those mistakes. That does not contradict anything I said, and ironically supports my argument, for these companies have had to improve their flaws to stay in business and remain profitable. The argument was never that companies are infallible and good and never screw up. The argument was they can only make profit if they produce something of value. Which still holds true.

Consumer valuation is subjective. People who still support those companies do so because they feel they are getting value from them. They still like them despite the factors you mentioned. If people still buy the harmful and lethal products, they obviously see whatever benefit they get from such products as higher than not getting them (heard of alcohol and tobacco? Harmful indeed). Also, GM should have failed, but government bailed it out. So GM exemplifies the idea that government intervention can actually allow companies that do not provide what consumers want to survive.

No and I never said that. I said the claim that "the Market" will magically protect people is bs.

I never said it would. I said companies make profit by selling what people want, not what will kill them. They aren't forcing anyone to buy anything that will send them to their graves. Explain to me how a business would profit if it made all of its customers sick or blow up in cars. Your argument is essentially that by harming consumers, businesses can make more profit. In the short term, maybe. But in the long run it makes no sense whatsoever.

Not true. Let's say we put states in power. If a candidate has the Big Three Auto behind them they are going to win an election. Then the Big Three own them. So then they pass laws in Michigan, that say you can't sue Ford for Pinto Problems, Chevy for Corvair prolems etc... Cars blow up. So what?

What is not true? And what does putting states in power have to do with anything I am saying?

They stop making them and don't pay a dime. Hell, they can even fire their actuaries because now that the states get to decide what laws are great or not, even the most dangerous products won't be recalled. They'll simply stop making them and the people who die or whatever? Well, bummer dude.

Talk about the slippery slope. Do you realize the absurdity of your argument? You act as if the federal government is infallible and will somehow be our protectors when in fact they are even more likely to manipulate us.

Same with the Phaceuticals in Cali. What do you think the safety standards and regulations would be like, if it were left entirely up to the state of Texas? Please.

Why would california regulations be left up to Texas? What does state regulation have to do with anything? I never mentioned states at all. Did you even read my post?

Now that's just plain stupid. You would see the benefit of owning a car that occasionally blows up - even if, not only were you not told about it, you were told it was safe? If a drug said it was safe to use and there were no federal regs requiring the warnings, you would see the benefit of death?

I am talking about tobacco and alcohol. They are examples of harmful products that people still buy. The only person who would buy a car that blows up randomly would be a terrorist. Your examples represent business fraud, which should be severely punished.

And I never made a point about govt handouts, I only contend that there is a time and place for federal government and regulation - even when it's not splled out in the USC.

I know you didn't make that point. I did. You listed GM as a company that did not meet consumers desires sufficiently and said the fact is still existed proves businesses can profit when they do not provide what people want. But there would be no GM if it weren't for government intervention in the free market. That is a very important point to understand. You also must understand that businesses can recover from business decisions that hurt consumers or fail to meet needs. The companies were punished for wrongdoings and managed to improve upon their policy. There is no time and place for any federal regulation if it is not enumerated as a power of the federal government. Period.

Or do you think I should be allowed to own nukes? Nothing in the USC that say I can't. And guess what? There was no chemically synthesized drugs, no cars, no oil wells etc... so you can't use the old "Well, nukes weren't around back then!"...

What does owning nukes have to do with my argument that businesses can only be successful and create profit if they provide what people want? The most successful businesses are those that best serve the needs of consumers. That is why they still exist. Not sure what owning nukes has to do with businesses profiting by creating what people want. Owning nuclear weapons is completely irrelevant.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is always the tactic of an extreme view, to view any differing view as the opposite extreme.

My point was simply that "The Market" will not do what was stated i.e. regulate itself and eliminate any companies that sell harmful, dangerous or even deadly products.

Do I think that this will disappear entirely if we have "enough regulations"? Of course not. That view is as extreme and inaccurate as thinking we'd all be perfectly safe if we had no regulations or government agencies.

Government is needed. Even big federal government. Do we have too much in some areas? I think so. Do we need even more in others? I think that is true as well.

But what I find to be common, is the belief that if the government was just small enough, all would be fine. Go live in The Ukraine for a while. They have almost ZERO regulations when it comes to business. They will practically pay you to take a company there. You can also pay almost nothing in taxes. Aren't those all the conditions you're hoping for here?

I think the market does a pretty good job of eliminating dangerous products.