• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Labor Unions Join Wall Street Occupiers for "Mass Rally'

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it"
"We have to destroy capitalism in order to save it"
The Mahablog » Destroying Capitalism to Save It

Obama: It Became Necessary to Destroy the Economy to Save it | Common Dreams

Governments regulate because it gives them power. No other reason.
Progressivism is the enemy.

I don't know what to tell you man. That's just stupid talk. Every economist agrees that government regulation is necessary to preserve competition and force companies to take account of externalities. Nobody would argue that. What they do argue about is the extent to which the government should make them take account of externalities, but nobody argues that they should just ignore them, and certainly nobody in their right minds argues that the government doesn't need to take steps to preserve competition... Capitalism without competition is not capitalism. That's the core engine of capitalism. I dunno man. You've got to do some more reading on economics before we can really discuss it.
 

Misterveritis

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,813
Reaction score
2,233
Location
Huntsville, AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The (rabidly anti-regulation) world bank publishes a report each year about the most "business friendly" countries. The US ranked 4th last year. The countries ahead of us are all very small. Of the significant economies, we're clearly the most pro-business.

Doing Business in United States - World Bank Group

So I guess your pretty far off base with that one.



Fascist? Regulating business isn't fascist... Fascism doesn't really have a clear economic policy. The most notable fascist government- Nazi Germany- was on the free market end of things. What fascism means is a government that is socially repressive, typically combined with nationalism or racism.
Why dodge my question? What impact do you think those 80,000 regulations have on businesses, my friend?

Fascism is more than you state:

Fascists advocate: a state-directed, regulated economy that is dedicated to the nation; the use and primacy of regulated private property and private enterprise contingent upon service to the nation or state;​

Perhaps the world bank is not a good determinant? Perhaps they do not address the impact that 80,000 regulations have on business in the US.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
8,380
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
may those who are anti-union live to see why we had them in the first place.

May those who are pro-Union live to see how they have outlived there usefulness.
 

Misterveritis

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,813
Reaction score
2,233
Location
Huntsville, AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't know what to tell you man. That's just stupid talk. Every economist agrees that government regulation is necessary to preserve competition and force companies to take account of externalities. Nobody would argue that. What they do argue about is the extent to which the government should make them take account of externalities, but nobody argues that they should just ignore them, and certainly nobody in their right minds argues that the government doesn't need to take steps to preserve competition... Capitalism without competition is not capitalism. That's the core engine of capitalism. I dunno man. You've got to do some more reading on economics before we can really discuss it.
Government regulations do not preserve competition. They destroy competition. I believe you know this. I am sure that politicians and economists would agree that government has to regulate businesses. What else could they say?

I am just fine on economics. Thank you very much.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
8,380
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't know what to tell you man. That's just stupid talk. Every economist agrees that government regulation is necessary to preserve competition and force companies to take account of externalities. Nobody would argue that. What they do argue about is the extent to which the government should make them take account of externalities, but nobody argues that they should just ignore them, and certainly nobody in their right minds argues that the government doesn't need to take steps to preserve competition... Capitalism without competition is not capitalism. That's the core engine of capitalism. I dunno man. You've got to do some more reading on economics before we can really discuss it.

Absolutely. We do need some regulation otherwise the need to regulate trade between the states would not have been granted by the Constitution. One of the things that turn me off from libertarian thought is that the markets will correct itself. We all should know by now that will never work.

My problem is to much regulation at this point in some sectors and that person-hood should never have been given to corporations. If we could get corporate money out of our politics it would make for better candidates and real choice.

You are pretty smart for a progressive, lol. ;)
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
8,380
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Government regulations do not preserve competition. They destroy competition. I believe you know this. I am sure that politicians and economists would agree that government has to regulate businesses. What else could they say?

I am just fine on economics. Thank you very much.

I hate to disagree but the monopoly's of the 20's and 30's say that is not true.
 

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
24,279
Reaction score
18,087
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I don't know what to tell you man. That's just stupid talk. Every economist agrees that government regulation is necessary to preserve competition and force companies to take account of externalities. Nobody would argue that. What they do argue about is the extent to which the government should make them take account of externalities, but nobody argues that they should just ignore them, and certainly nobody in their right minds argues that the government doesn't need to take steps to preserve competition... Capitalism without competition is not capitalism. That's the core engine of capitalism. I dunno man. You've got to do some more reading on economics before we can really discuss it.

Amen brotha.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't know what to tell you man. That's just stupid talk. Every economist agrees that government regulation is necessary to preserve competition and force companies to take account of externalities. Nobody would argue that. What they do argue about is the extent to which the government should make them take account of externalities, but nobody argues that they should just ignore them, and certainly nobody in their right minds argues that the government doesn't need to take steps to preserve competition... Capitalism without competition is not capitalism. That's the core engine of capitalism. I dunno man. You've got to do some more reading on economics before we can really discuss it.

Capitalism is naturally competitive. Regulations to perceive competitive forces are usually in response to results of government action in the past that restricted competition either on purpose or more than likely by accident.

Every regulation cost money and when you have as many as we have they cost a lot of money with entire teams to make sure all are followed and to keep up with new ones down the pipe. That doesn't even mention the huge amount of cash it takes to comply with them all. All of this cost money and considering that almost all regulations affect small to large business it kills off competition very easily just by there existence alone. Btw, I used to be on such a team. Before you call someone stupid might want to know what you are talking about.
 
Last edited:

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
8,380
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Capitalism is naturally competitive. Regulations to perceive competitive forces are usually in response to results of government action in the past that restricted competition either on purpose or more than likely by accident.

Every regulation cost money and when you have as many as we have they cost a lot of money with entire teams to make sure all are followed and to keep up with new ones down the pipe. All of this cost money and considering that almost all regulations affect small to large business it kills off competition very easily just by there existence alone. Btw, I used to be on such a team. Before you call someone stupid might want to know what you are talking about.

Very true. To much regulation is just as bad as to little. Where do we find the middle ground??? I am no economist but it must be possible?
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Why dodge my question? What impact do you think those 80,000 regulations have on businesses, my friend?

Depends what you mean by "businesses" I guess. Some businesses could certainly make more profits, for example, by using child labor or dumping toxic waste into lakes or selling food that will make you sick or by fixing prices with their competitors or whatever, but those things don't improve the economy overall, they make it much, much, worse for the economy overall.

Fascism is more than you state:

Fascists advocate: a state-directed, regulated economy that is dedicated to the nation; the use and primacy of regulated private property and private enterprise contingent upon service to the nation or state;​

Economic policy really isn't a central part of fascism either way. There have been free market fascist states and there have been socialist fascist states. In general they tend to be more on the right economically, but not always. Of course socially they are hard right.

Perhaps the world bank is not a good determinant? Perhaps they do not address the impact that 80,000 regulations have on business in the US.

If the world bank isn't a good source for measuring how business friendly governments are I don't know who possibly would be... That's what they do, and they're rabidly anti-regulation... And yeah they did look at the regulatory environment. That's what the whole report is about.

Government regulations do not preserve competition. They destroy competition. I believe you know this. I am sure that politicians and economists would agree that government has to regulate businesses. What else could they say?

You just are not thinking about it in a nuanced enough way. "Regulations" aren't one big monolithic thing. Some regulations are good for competition some are bad. If the government said "only ACME products can sell widgets" that would obviously be bad for competition, but if they say "ACME can't collude with Walmart on prices", then that is good for competition. Every capitalist economist I've ever heard of agrees that government has to, at the very least, prevent monopoly and collusion.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
13,406
Reaction score
8,258
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is a great action, I'm glad to see the OWS movements acting as a spark in getting other movements active while at the same time linking up with those other struggles and universalizing them. We're seeing this all over the country, from 11/17 to OWS calling for the occupation of foreclosed homes to OWS linking up with Occupy/Decolonize the Hood movements and so on. I really hope this momentum can be maintained.
 

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
24,279
Reaction score
18,087
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Very true. To much regulation is just as bad as to little. Where do we find the middle ground??? I am no economist but it must be possible?

The real question isn't HOW MANY, it's WHICH regulations and how we choose to enforce them.
 

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
24,279
Reaction score
18,087
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Capitalism is naturally competitive. Regulations to perceive competitive forces are usually in response to results of government action in the past that restricted competition either on purpose or more than likely by accident.

Every regulation cost money and when you have as many as we have they cost a lot of money with entire teams to make sure all are followed and to keep up with new ones down the pipe. That doesn't even mention the huge amount of cash it takes to comply with them all. All of this cost money and considering that almost all regulations affect small to large business it kills off competition very easily just by there existence alone. Btw, I used to be on such a team. Before you call someone stupid might want to know what you are talking about.

Governments regulate because it gives them power. No other reason.

If that's not stupid talk, I don't know what is.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
8,380
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The real question isn't HOW MANY, it's WHICH regulations and how we choose to enforce them.

Maybe, but we have so many on the books now we can't even keep up with them to enforce them, and choose to enforce the stupid ones. I mean look at what the Fender guitar company is going through because of some damn trees. We are wasting time and money going after a company because of where they buy wood for their guitars, just silly.

A way to keep company's competitive without a strangle hold by government is possible. I just don't know enough about economics to say how.
 

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
24,279
Reaction score
18,087
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Maybe, but we have so many on the books now we can't even keep up with them to enforce them, and choose to enforce the stupid ones. I mean look at what the Fender guitar company is going through because of some damn trees. We are wasting time and money going after a company because of where they buy wood for their guitars, just silly.

A way to keep company's competitive without a strangle hold by government is possible. I just don't know enough about economics to say how.

I agree completely.
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Every regulation cost money

That is emphatically not true. Lets just take the standard example of an externality. Say a company has two options for how to make a widget. One process costs them $10 per widget, but requires dumping toxic waste in the lake beside the factory, which causes $10 per widget worth of damage to the fishing industry and property values. The other option is to build the widget in a way that costs $15 per widget, but does not require dumping waste into the lake.

For the business, in a non-regulated environment, the smart move is to make the widgets the $10 way, but that is not the most efficient solution for the economy overall. Overall, that is wasting $5 per widget this factory makes. So, what you need is for government to step in and force the company to take the externality (the cost created by dumping the waste in the lake) into account in their calculations. That means regulation. Either the government should prohibit dumping in the lake or force the company doing it to pay for the costs of the problems they are creating. Either way, that regulation is saving money, not costing money. The economy as a whole is $5 better off per widget because of that regulation. Ideally, every regulation of an externality works that way.

Regulations designed to preserve competition are even more "profitable" for the economy. A monopoly in a key sector could cost the country entire percentages of our GDP each year. Standard oil, for example, really was doing that.

Now, that doesn't mean all regulations are good for the economy. Some are poorly designed. Some are designed to protect something non-economic like quality of life. But to say they all cost money is flat wrong.
 
Last edited:

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
24,279
Reaction score
18,087
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
That is emphatically not true. Lets just take the standard example of an externality. Say a company has two options for how to make a widget. One process costs them $10 per widget, but requires dumping toxic waste in the lake beside the factory, which causes $10 per widget worth of damage to the fishing industry and property values. The other option is to build the widget in a way that costs $15 per widget, but does not require dumping waste into the lake.

For the business, in a non-regulated environment, the smart move is to make the widgets the $10 way, but that is not the most efficient solution for the economy overall. Overall, that is wasting $5 per widget this factory makes. So, what you need is for government to step in and force the company to take the externality (the cost created by dumping the waste in the lake) into account in their calculations. That means regulation. Either the government should prohibit dumping in the lake or force the company doing it to pay for the costs of the problems they are creating. Either way, that regulation is saving money, not costing money. The economy as a whole is $5 better off per widget because of that regulation. Ideally, every regulation of an externality works that way.

Regulations designed to preserve competition are even more "profitable" for the economy. A monopoly in a key sector could cost the country entire percentages of our GDP each year. Standard oil, for example, really was doing that.

Now, that doesn't mean all regulations are good for the economy. Some are poorly designed. Some are designed to protect something non-economic like quality of life. But to say they all cost money is flat wrong.

They all cost money only if you fail to price in the cost of the externality - which, to be fair, is often very difficult to calculate.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/10/25/141701559/the-tuesday-podcast-will-economic-growth-destroy-the-planet
 
Last edited:

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If that's not stupid talk, I don't know what is.

You'd might be surprised at how often people who gain power enjoy exercising it over others.

Do you rely on the good will of politicians, bureaucrats and those who seek power?
 

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
24,279
Reaction score
18,087
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
You'd might be surprised at how often people who gain power enjoy exercising it over others.

Do you rely on the good will of politicians, bureaucrats and those who seek power?

No, of course not. But that in no way contradicts the fact that the statement "Governments regulate only for the sake of regulating" is inherently idiotic. Regulations don't exist for their own sake. Neither do regulators simply regulate because they are on a power trip. Congress did not pass the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act because they thought it would be fun for the folks at the EPA to piss people off.
 
Last edited:

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No, of course not. But that in no way contradicts the fact that the statement "Governments regulate only for the sake of regulating" is inherently idiotic. Regulations don't exist for their own sake. Neither do regulators simply regulate because they are on a power trip. Congress did not pass the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act because they thought it would be fun for the folks at the EPA to piss people off.

But that is not what was said. Henrin said "Governments regulate because it gives them power. No other reason", which is true. If regulations didn't give the government power why would they adopt regulations?

When regulations are mentioned it is usually of the chemical waste put in public water facilities scenario, and that is one regulation we can all agree upon. But what about regulations that don't allow an individual to plant a garden in their front yard, or a hardware store owner not being allowed to offer free coffee to his customers, or a little girl arrested for selling lemonade. Mattress inspectors? As one small example, why does anyone need a permit to cut someone's hair?

We learn to accept these inane regulations thinking they are somehow in the public good but often without examining their consequences.
 

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Politicians and bureaucrats have a lot less power than you think.

Certainly that depends on the country they're in. There is no doubt that there are many people who simply want power for its own sake, and they can often do a great deal of harm if there aren't sufficient and enforceable checks and balances in place.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
13,406
Reaction score
8,258
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Grant said:
Certainly that depends on the country they're in. There is no doubt that there are many people who simply want power for its own sake, and they can often do a great deal of harm if there aren't sufficient and enforceable checks and balances in place.

There is no such thing as "power for its own sake." Further, all politicians are limited by their financiers and, to a lesser extent, the public, as well as the bureaucrats with whom they work. Bureaucrats are individuals limited by the scope of their job and influence, including the conflicting interests between themselves, the public, other bureaucrats and politicians.

Speaking about government the way you do makes no sense; the absurd regulations of which you speak are due precisely to the lack of homogeneity within the government, i.e. the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If that's not stupid talk, I don't know what is.

Its true. There is already laws against murder and such things but we pass regulations on food safety and the sort because it kills people. Maybe you need to figure the range of punishments on businesses for actions that cause harm of any sort but there is no reason to pass narrow regulations on such matters that merely allow the government to pick the solutions to solve a problem that arrived and needs handling. All it does is allow the government to control the market and the decisions of business owners when something goes wrong. It is nothing but control.
 

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There is no such thing as "power for its own sake." Further, all politicians are limited by their financiers and, to a lesser extent, the public, as well as the bureaucrats with whom they work. Bureaucrats are individuals limited by the scope of their job and influence, including the conflicting interests between themselves, the public, other bureaucrats and politicians.

Speaking about government the way you do makes no sense; the absurd regulations of which you speak are due precisely to the lack of homogeneity within the government, i.e. the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

Are you speaking in general terms here or of a specific country?

You feel that there are not people who only want power over others and will fight to maintain that power despite it being evident that their policies are not working? History is riddled with such types.

And politicians can also control financiers, as well as the banks. That has been demonstrated repeatedly also.

Certainly bureaucrats are limited by the scope of their job and influence but that does not mean that they will not enthusiastically enforce whatever powers they might have.

And of course, unless there is a great deal of pressure on an individual, there will always be a "lack of homogeneity" within any group, including a government.

How would you enforce homogeneity?
 
Top Bottom