• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does anybody wonder why Walmart supports a hike in minimum wage? ...

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Perhaps it is because they already pay their workers above minimum wage.

Or how about why they might support environmental regulation, preferential tax treatment, etc?

Does anybody wonder why big business and big government go hand-in-hand? In order to regulate the market, you must force business and government together to negotiate and collaborate. What you essentially do by regulating the market is to create corporatist state where the private party benefits and the public pays the liability. We must separate economics and state for the same reason we must separate church and state.

Who really benefits from regulation? The consumer? The small business? Neither. Instead, you benefit only the largest of corporations with regulation. Only the largest businesses can afford to hire an army of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists to bend the regulation to that it suits their needs. When you regulate, you make it a #1 priority for the largest corporation to strike a deal with a bureaucrat and pay x number of dollars to as many legislators and regulators. You create corporatism! You create a corrupt society based on preferential treatment instead of merit.

Now, it should be no wonder why Phillip Morris supports the war on tobacco.
 

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Well duh, if we just went more socialist the companies wouldn't have a say and the people would. Everything would be better. :rofl
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And how does that work? Obviously you believe in a corporatist state.
 

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
As in the social needs and interests of the people are represented prior to those of the large companies etc. A few countries kindof got riled up in revolutions over it. It happened in the states too and is partially responsible the peoples standard of living.
 
Last edited:

phattonez

Traditionalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,552
Reaction score
4,221
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
As in the social needs and interests of the people are represented prior to those of the large companies etc. A few countries kindof got riled up in revolutions over it. It happened in the states too and is partially responsible the peoples standard of living.
I think that has more to do with production than anything else.
 

other

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
1,473
Reaction score
587
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As in the social needs and interests of the people are represented prior to those of the large companies etc. A few countries kindof got riled up in revolutions over it. It happened in the states too and is partially responsible the peoples standard of living.
You've missed the point. It does not necessarily follow that stricter regulation of business better promotes the interests (social, economic, or whatever) of the people--more specifically, of individuals. A bloated regulatory system does, however, automatically necessitate the creation of powerful entities with expensive legal teams that may use the regulatory system (govermnent) as a tool to promote their own interests at the expense of individuals and small businesses. This is because they usually lack the specialized legal expertise to effectively defend their own interests vs. those of a more powerful competitor who can better afford to game/manipulate the system. The net effect is, in fact, the exact opposite of what you expect.

What results is not beneficial toward individuals and small businesses, but large firms in collaboration with policymakers. It alters the market environment to favor entities that spend money to manipulate policy whereas previously the market favored entities that spent money to create a useful or necessary product and actually grow the economy--and left government to its proper functions.

A common argument, then, is that without regulation individuals are then open to abuse, slave wages, etc... To answer this I say: Even in a system without regulation businesses, specifically individuals in businesses, are still subject to normal laws that, if enforced, would prevent overt abuses. The tragedy of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, for instance, did not arise because of a lack of regulation, but because the workers were effectively held hostage--there was already a law protecting each individual to cover that, it just wasn't enforced. For more subtle abuses, it is the worker's right and responsibility to work elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom