Which is Better?

[bripat9643]

landlords don't get lead out of apartments without regulation

They do if they don't want to be sued.

Huh?!?

In the absence of regulations to ignore or follow, how can a lawsuit possibly be an option.

You don't know squat about tort law, do you?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Farms receive subsidies. That isn't a product of the tax code.

​

This explains so much...

 

[bripat9643]

Farms receive subsidies. That isn't a product of the tax code.

​

This explains so much...

It explains that I know the difference between a subsidy and a tax deduction.

 

[AVG-JOE]

landlords don't get lead out of apartments without regulation

They do if they don't want to be sued.

Huh?!?

In the absence of regulations to ignore or follow, how can a lawsuit possibly be an option.

You don't know squat about tort law, do you?

Apparently not.

Please explain to me how you'd file a lawsuit over dangerous living conditions in an apartment in the absence of any regulations that describe things like acceptable levels of lead in the paint.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I sincerely doubt that I need to point out the obvious, but what the hell.

A balance, an equilibrium, must be found where properly constructed and implemented regulations exist to protect markets and consumers while absolutely minimizing drag on natural market forces. Regulations will always create a drag on those forces, yes, so they must be minimized appropriately.

When we knee-jerk away from regulation or when we knee-jerk in favor of it, bad things happen. When we fail to properly implement regulation, regardless of who's in charge, bad things happen. Had we properly implemented and enforced existing securities regulation, for example, leading up to the Meltdown of 2008 the effects would have been significantly lighter.

Dodd-Frank, as another example, has knee-jerked us towards over-regulation with all kinds of freakin' wasteful redundancies and intrusions, I can tell you that first hand.

Bottom line: It's all about balance, equilibrium. And since regulation is controlled by politicians, I don't know how you get from here to there.

.

 

[bripat9643]

Huh?!?

In the absence of regulations to ignore or follow, how can a lawsuit possibly be an option.

You don't know squat about tort law, do you?

Apparently not.

Please explain to me how you'd file a lawsuit over dangerous living conditions in an apartment in the absence of any regulations that describe things like acceptable levels of lead in the paint.

People file lawsuits against corporations all the time for injuries caused by their product. Consider the lady who sued McDonalds because she spilled coffee in her lap and burned her genitals. The case you sited was a classic example. The government approved silicon breast implants for use, but plaintiffs still sued and won.

 

[bripat9643]

.

I sincerely doubt that I need to point out the obvious, but what the hell.

A balance, an equilibrium, must be found where properly constructed and implemented regulations exist to protect markets and consumers while absolutely minimizing drag on natural market forces. Regulations will always create a drag on those forces, yes, so they must be minimized appropriately.

When we knee-jerk away from regulation or when we knee-jerk in favor of it, bad things happen. When we fail to properly implement regulation, regardless of who's in charge, bad things happen. Had we properly implemented and enforced existing securities regulation, for example, leading up to the Meltdown of 2008 the effects would have been significantly lighter.

Dodd-Frank, as another example, has knee-jerked us towards over-regulation with all kinds of freakin' wasteful redundancies and intrusions, I can tell you that first hand.

Bottom line: It's all about balance, equilibrium. And since regulation is controlled by politicians, I don't know how you get from here to there.

.

There is no "balance or equilibrium" with regulations. They are all counter productive. However, even if there were, that doesn't mean such a "balance" could ever be achieved. Political mechanisms work to prevent any kind of balance. wherever politicians are involved, corruption and excess are the rule.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Farms receive subsidies. That isn't a product of the tax code.

​

This explains so much...

It explains that I know the difference between a subsidy and a tax deduction.

Like the way that the mortgage interest tax deduction subsidizes housing in this country?

 

[AVG-JOE]

.

I sincerely doubt that I need to point out the obvious, but what the hell.

A balance, an equilibrium, must be found where properly constructed and implemented regulations exist to protect markets and consumers while absolutely minimizing drag on natural market forces. Regulations will always create a drag on those forces, yes, so they must be minimized appropriately.

When we knee-jerk away from regulation or when we knee-jerk in favor of it, bad things happen. When we fail to properly implement regulation, regardless of who's in charge, bad things happen. Had we properly implemented and enforced existing securities regulation, for example, leading up to the Meltdown of 2008 the effects would have been significantly lighter.

Dodd-Frank, as another example, has knee-jerked us towards over-regulation with all kinds of freakin' wasteful redundancies and intrusions, I can tell you that first hand.

Bottom line: It's all about balance, equilibrium. And since regulation is controlled by politicians, I don't know how you get from here to there.

.

There is no "balance or equilibrium" with regulations. They are all counter productive. However, even if there were, that doesn't mean such a "balance" could ever be achieved. Political mechanisms work to prevent any kind of balance. wherever politicians are involved, corruption and excess are the rule.

Including the regulations that make possible your lawsuit over lead in your apartment?

 

[Decus]

So two and only two choices do you have... live in fear, or learn how to use the tool.

I guess it's good to have choices, at least.

An absense of government seems to scare people like you.

It's a question of use. The People banding together to use the tool of government to maintain infrastructure, educate the Monkey spawn and ensure justice is a good thing.

Fearing 'government' is like fearing a gun or a chain saw. Without the hands of a Monkey on the trigger, it's just a tool on the shelf, nothing to fear.

I advise you to fear the Monkeys wielding the tools, not the tools.

Be realistic. Most DC politicians have trouble staying abreast of the laws. Many of them have several full-time assistants to keep order, and even with this and additional assistance, most are lost. The average citizen has little chance of wielding a tool that defies understanding.

Our politics have become absurdly complex, with trillions of dollars unaccounted for (according to the CBO), pork barrel spending run amuck and lobbying that seem to be at the heart of much of our legislation.

The only way that government can be a tool is when that government is more local in nature - state, county or city - and even then using the tool is difficult at best.

Your "tool" analogy seeks to simplify the unwieldy nature of government. Propoganda uses a similar approach.

 

[AVG-JOE]

You don't know squat about tort law, do you?

Apparently not.

Please explain to me how you'd file a lawsuit over dangerous living conditions in an apartment in the absence of any regulations that describe things like acceptable levels of lead in the paint.

People file lawsuits against corporations all the time for injuries caused by their product. Consider the lady who sued McDonalds because she spilled coffee in her lap and burned her genitals. The case you sited was a classic example. The government approved silicon breast implants for use, but plaintiffs still sued and won.

So you're saying that the regulations concerning silicon breast implants should have been stricter, protecting the corporations from their own greediness?

That seems to be a new tack for you, bripat.

 

[Ravi]

Farms receive subsidies. That isn't a product of the tax code.

​

This explains so much...

It explains that I know the difference between a subsidy and a tax deduction.

where do you think the freaking subsidy comes from dummy?

Farmers also benefit directly from the tax code:

Farm Tax Deductions | eHow.com

Now how about links to these companies you claim build their own roads and schools?

 

[Skull Pilot]

A business can write off its losses. So yeah, we are all "there" to help a business that fails.

So you think the tax code is tantamount to the country helping a failed business?

Now that's funny.

Funny like a heart attack? The tax code certainly does help business, as you well know.

Yeah those ridiculously long depreciation schedules are really helpful.

The ******* government and the country as you put it get a hell of a lot more from my business than I get from them.

 

[Ravi]

So you think the tax code is tantamount to the country helping a failed business?

Now that's funny.

Funny like a heart attack? The tax code certainly does help business, as you well know.

Yeah those ridiculously long depreciation schedules are really helpful.

The ******* government and the country as you put it get a hell of a lot more from my business than I get from them.

I doubt that but didn't you hear the good news? for 2012 and 2013 we can now write off without depreciating up to $500K.

 

[akelch]

Which is better... Raw, unfettered Capitalism or Capitalism that's guided and directed?

'Intelligent Design' 'Survival of the Most Fit'​

Could what's 'better' change over history?

we already know, based on the failure of laissez faire capitalism, that there need to be rules... rules preventing monopolies, rules for fair labor standards, rules for fair wages... rules for workplace safety. anyone who says we shouldn't have those rules doesn't know their history.

Capitalism prevent monopolies, poor labor standards, poor pay, and improves workplace safety.

I know my history... Do you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Funny like a heart attack? The tax code certainly does help business, as you well know.

Yeah those ridiculously long depreciation schedules are really helpful.

The ******* government and the country as you put it get a hell of a lot more from my business than I get from them.

I doubt that but didn't you hear the good news? for 2012 and 2013 we can now write off without depreciating up to $500K.

I don't get anything from the ******* government worth what gets confiscated from me via taxes.

I'm not planning to buy any equipment this year and I have just about finished all the capital improvements to the building which btw are not exempt from depreciation schedules.