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

[Mensch]

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]

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]

And how does that work? Obviously you believe in a corporatist state.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

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.

 

[phattonez]

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]

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.