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

[Big Fitz]

Sure, monopolies are going to give you a choice.

RAAARRR!

Wouldn't you really like to be able to see who it is that writes such garbage and exactly what their jobs are? I'm betting most of them are paid to be on these boards!

So you're admitting being a paid troll? Who pays the check? Media Matters, Politifucked, SEIU, ACORN or the Tides Foundation or George Soros directly. Or is this a goal and currently you're only an unwitting tool or useful idiot?

 

[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.

RAAAAAR

Wrong....And here's why.

You're going back to the dawn of the industrial revolution -a friggin' century- as some kind of "proof" that we need even more rules and regulations in the here and now.

We have more rules, regulations, regulators and bureaucrats right now than anytime in the nation's history......Yet still we get Charles Keating, Michale Miklen, Ivan Boesky, Ken Lay, Bernie Madoff and even a freaking unrepentant tax evader as the goddamn Secretary of the Treasury!

But, somehow or another, real deregulation -as opposed to mere rearranging of the regulatory deck chars, peddled under the rubric of "reform"- is supposed to give us worse results?

Dude, you're no cynic...You've got a bad case of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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

What will happen if the hacks stop lying about the opponents' actual positions?

 

[Oddball]

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.

Technology doesn't stand still...Moreover the FDA has pretty much morphed into a giant protection racket for BigParm, over and above being a sensible regulatory agency.

Besides that, if you take notice of teevee ads, there is no shortage of lawsuits against drug makers medical device makers despite the leviathan FDA.

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.

Again, foreign competition can drive that much better than one-size-fits-nobody federal laws and regs...Name the federal regulation(s) that mandated AWD, active suspensions and anti-lock brakes.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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


I'd make a hell of a lot more money!

 

[Big Fitz]

Food saftey isn't the responsibilty of govt?

You are blending proper use of regulation versus improper.

Consumer, competition and worker protection, are proper uses of government force. The problem begins when the government forgets where personal responsibility begins and oversteps their bounds for those who should know better. Not to mention make sure everyone plays by the same rules and does not abuse the rules to achieve unfair advantages (green subsidies anyone? Anyone?).

There is a place for regulation but it has been exceeded in most ways since the 1970's with the beginning of the econazi movements and the stifling of personal responsibility and assumption of risk.

 

[Mr Liberty]

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.

Kaz, heres a question. If a company has the most kick ass product ever but to make this product they are destroying the land and environment in, lets just say, West Virginia. Do you think the American people will stop buying the product because a few thousand West Virginians are getting sick?

You put waaaay too much trust in the public, if that is the case. And that scenario can be replayed over and over until it's on your doorstep or shit gets soooo fucked up in sooo many different areas that the american people will come together *snicker* to fight for *snicker* a common cause *LOL*

The American People will stop buying their product after the company goes out of business, because they were sued by the people of West Virginia. We can take care of ourselves. Deregulation doesn't mean the absence of laws. It means the Government does not enforce the law, the people do. A wise business would obey the law, to ensure its' survival.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

Kaz, heres a question. If a company has the most kick ass product ever but to make this product they are destroying the land and environment in, lets just say, West Virginia. Do you think the American people will stop buying the product because a few thousand West Virginians are getting sick?

You put waaaay too much trust in the public, if that is the case. And that scenario can be replayed over and over until it's on your doorstep or shit gets soooo fucked up in sooo many different areas that the american people will come together *snicker* to fight for *snicker* a common cause *LOL*

The American People will stop buying their product after the company goes out of business, because they were sued by the people of West Virginia. We can take care of ourselves. Deregulation doesn't mean the absence of laws. It means the Government does not enforce the law, the people do. A wise business would obey the law, to ensure its' survival.

Thanks for answering and I agree with that BUT (there is a but) how does that square with the Republicans other "want" which is doing away with "frivilous" lawsuits?

I see a connection between, deregulation and frivilous lawsuits and it seems like they are giving us the rope to put around our own necks then convince us its a necktie. Deregulate and do away with lawsuits (against business and/or doctors) then what do you have left?

 

[kaz]

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 -

Objection your honor, non responsive. Please direct the witness to answer the question.

 

[kaz]

I already gave an example, the banking monopoly which preceded the Fed

So your fear of private monopolies is one that ended over a century ago. I don't agree with you it was a monopoly, but that's irrelevant. You can't name private monopolies that exist actually today and yet you're in hysterical fear of them.

 

[kaz]

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

Again with the liberal black and white polar extreme choices. I can have our current suffocating system or no regulation at all. So if you can justify one regulation or get me to admit we need one regulation for anything, then all regulation for everything is justified. That's the bar you set for yourself.

 

[Oddball]

I already gave an example, the banking monopoly which preceded the Fed

So your fear of private monopolies is one that ended over a century ago. I don't agree with you it was a monopoly, but that's irrelevant. You can't name private monopolies that exist actually today and yet you're in hysterical fear of them.

He doesn't seem equally suspicious of the motives of the biggest monopoly of them all: The District of Columbia Corporation.

 

[kaz]

Thanks for answering and I agree with that BUT (there is a but) how does that square with the Republicans other "want" which is doing away with "frivilous" lawsuits?

So you're saying that all lawsuits are frivolous? I don't agree with that. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist and I support having a legal system to compensate people that are genuinely harmed by others. So does the GOP. I just want people who caused the harm to be accountable, not the people with the deepest pockets.

 

[kaz]

I already gave an example, the banking monopoly which preceded the Fed

So your fear of private monopolies is one that ended over a century ago. I don't agree with you it was a monopoly, but that's irrelevant. You can't name private monopolies that exist actually today and yet you're in hysterical fear of them.

He doesn't seem equally suspicious of the motives of the biggest monopoly of them all: The District of Columbia Corporation.

None of them do. We can't have power consolidated in the hands of few people, so we need to give government dictatorial powers over it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thanks for answering and I agree with that BUT (there is a but) how does that square with the Republicans other "want" which is doing away with "frivilous" lawsuits?

So you're saying that all lawsuits are frivolous? I don't agree with that. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist and I support having a legal system to compensate people that are genuinely harmed by others. So does the GOP. I just want people who caused the harm to be accountable, not the people with the deepest pockets.

Not all lawsuits are frivolous my worry is who will determine what is and is not "frivolous".

 

[kaz]

Thanks for answering and I agree with that BUT (there is a but) how does that square with the Republicans other "want" which is doing away with "frivilous" lawsuits?

So you're saying that all lawsuits are frivolous? I don't agree with that. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist and I support having a legal system to compensate people that are genuinely harmed by others. So does the GOP. I just want people who caused the harm to be accountable, not the people with the deepest pockets.

Not all lawsuits are frivolous my worry is who will determine what is and is not "frivolous".

We make that determination now, we just don't do it very well. The best thing to do is cap damages so juries can't make ridiculous awards. That would eliminate a lot of frivolous lawsuits right there where lawyers are suing for themselves and not the plaintiff.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberalspeak translations:

Wanting to eliminate unnecessary regulation = wanting to eliminate all regulation.

Wanting to reduce the level of increase in spending = spending cut.

Misbehavior of one corporation or entity = corruption in all similary industry.

Misconduct of one Republican = corruption in the entire party.

Wanting a balanced budget = wanting to throw the poor under the bus.

Wanting parents to provide necessities for their children = wanting to starve children.

Etc. etc. etc.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Technology doesn't stand still...Moreover the FDA has pretty much morphed into a giant protection racket for BigParm, over and above being a sensible regulatory agency.

I agree there's been corruption of the original purpose of the FDA. But the example of the regulation of the medical industry is one of the VERY positive examples of regulatory power. The state of Medicine now versus the 1850's is no comparison, and it isn't just because science is moving forward. A fair amount of good medical science was known in the 1850's, but it just wasn't implemented because getting the education to use it was just plain not profitable. Implementing it was just plain not profitable.

That's part of the problem. Sometimes the free market needs a kick in the ass to innovate. Sometimes you can do that by opening up the market to outside forces like foreign companies, as happened to the Big Three. Sometimes regulation has to occur to product the health and safety of the consumers.

Is there too much regulation? Probably. But taking the view that all regulation is bad is idiotic. Admittedly that isn't many folks in this thread.

The problem is that folks take a knee jerk reaction to regulation and never once stop to think about why a particular regulation exists. Quite a few of the regulations on the books are there for a good reason. Often people only remember that reason after disaster strikes.

 

[Oddball]

There's no all or nothing here.

However, the notion that we're deregulating when we're merely re-re-re-regulating (i.e. "reforms") and/or the idea that true deregulation is tantamount to total anarchy is patently ridiculous.

Equally ridiculous is the strawman that real modern deregulation equals a return to sweat shops and Robber Barons.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Is the reason that you quote someone with wit because you lack any of your own?