FederalRepublic
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,942
- Reaction score
- 711
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Gavin, I think your missing an inevitable feature of human nature. People cheat to get ahead. Not that everyone cheats, as a matter of fact I'd say that most people are pretty honest. The problem, as has already been pointed out, is that you're looking at individual transactions, but that's not a "market". T
On the macro level businesses are always looking for ways in improve profits. Innovate, advertise, branch out into new areas or be dishonest. The last one has the highest return on investment.
If being dishonest allows to increase profits without spending anything, then it's ok to assume that those profits can be turned back into the business in a way that gives a company a competitive advantage.
Without enforcement (rules) and a body to carry them out, the markets will always succumb to the lowest common denominator.
The logical conclusion is, who does society trust to enforce the rules? Generally a body that everyone has a say in. Government.
I see your point regarding "movies" with political agendas. I don't support the idea regardless of who makes them, someone will interpret them as propaganda. However, it occurs to me that tackling this problem at the end is like trying to put the smoke back into the fire.
It occurs to me that there are groups on both ends of the political spectrum that spend more time trying to convince the populace who to blame for their problems, then actually working to solve them. The problem in my mind revolves around the fact that the problem is a system almost as complex as the weather. Most people don't take the try to understand the problem, especially when their or corporate and private interests with vast resources who are eager to tell you who's at fault.
This problem has solutions, but they require a level of understand that most people don't possess or are willing to commit to learn.
The solution in my mind involves education, cultural change, moral change and the willingness of the average person to commit themselves to activism rather then just watching the "news" so they know who to complain about tomorrow at work during coffee breaks.
I don't assume that if the system were more transparent and our education system were vastly improved and our cultural and moral values were focused on things like fairness, equality and the idea that a hard days work should entitle you to a reasonable standard of living that politicians could not be trusted to implement rules that are in line with their constituents that elected them.
I realize that we are a long way from that, so the question is, how do we get their? I refuse to assume that this ideal is impossible.
I see your point, this goes back to the point I made earlier, but at some point, a point I think we're approaching, information is monopolized by those with access and the resources to exploit media. The 1% have motive, opportunity and are much easier to organize around a common theme, then the the bottom, who spend 1/2 of their waking hours trying to makes ends meet. The other 1/2 is spent taking care of kids, running errands, maintaining their home. It's extremely hard for the average person to compete.
Citizens united is simply a vehicle for those with money to promote ideas that benefit them often at the expense of those at the bottom. Even if what you said is 100% true, the system is unsustainable and needs to be reformed.
There are plenty of other possibilities. It's just that most progressives think they would prefer the victory gin.
You're missing another inevitable feature of human nature. Nobody likes a cheater. Being dishonest is usually only a short term gain, unless you have friends in power to protect you from the market. The enforcement feature is the market itself, more specifically the ability of those in it to choose other options.
There is no data for this (of course). Just market evangelist stream of consciousness. Cheaters do quite well when not regulated (which is why we regulate).
But in any case, the entire post is meaningless due to market flaws, such an imbalances in information. Your health insurance company can cheat you, and due to your lack of information, you'd never even know.
Dishonesty becomes you.
Meantime, there is no such thing as a "free market" except in the overheated minds of libertarians who live vicariously through the rich and who hope one day, to have servants, in their compounds.
There are plenty of other possibilities. It's just that most progressives think they would prefer the victory gin.
You're missing another inevitable feature of human nature. Nobody likes a cheater. Being dishonest is usually only a short term gain, unless you have friends in power to protect you from the market. The enforcement feature is the market itself, more specifically the ability of those in it to choose other options.
"Unless you have friends in power to protect you".
That is an interesting statement. The extra profits made from unethical behavior can and have been used to buy lots of "friends". Even if you remove the politicians oversight over business and rely on the legal system alone, again you have people deciding the fate of other people. Except now, judges, for the most part, aren't elected so many have little to fear about pleasing constituents. For those judges that are elected, they need funds for campaigns, and well, you know where this is going.
There is more than one kind of cheating. Your assuming that companies just cheat consumers and when they find out they move on. What about a company that illegally disposes of toxic waste? Or exploits the environment in some other way to reduce costs like dumping tires at sea? They'll get caught you say? Maybe, maybe not. What about a third parties acting on behalf of a company willing to shelter their customer from any wrong doing? In many cases a company can and has cheated for years before getting caught, and the penalty rarely exceeds the profits made form cheating. What about companies that exploit employees? The market generally doesn't care about employees as long as the consumer gets a low price. Sure there are some extreme examples where consumers are made aware of things like child labor, but generally speaking employers can exploit workers and no one cares.
The bottom line is that it'snot that difficult, when you have money to obfuscate to the point that the general public doesn't know what to think. Global climate change is a PERFECT example. There is as much if not more misinformation out there, that people don't know what to think.
There are innumerable other ways that companies are dishonest or unethical that consumers aren't immediately aware of. Companies are increasingly making the decision that they have a fiduciary duty to exploit the system by what ever means necessary in order to maximize profits and maintain competitiveness. Less regulation will lead to greater exploitation and because unethical behavior often brings in more profits than innovation, companies are incentivized to think of new and increasingly creative ways to exploit the system.
Which part of that do you think is dishonest? The part about other alternatives, or the part about the gin? Either way, it's pretty rich coming from you.
Sarah Palin? I expected you to make a joke about Trig...you're getting soft.I love it when conservatives try so hard to attack progressives but can't think up even a single original insult.
It's like watching Sarah Palin at a spelling bee.
Sarah Palin? I expected you to make a joke about Trig...you're getting soft.
Hey, that's at least original. Well not so much. But a bracing attempt at a defense of Palin is always worth reading.
You can't make yourself look big by trying to make others seem small. Was that worth reading?
Power corrupts.
So give us your big solution that has the power to change policy, but no power since power corrupts. This should be interesting....I'm all ears (eyes really).
Politicians and law enforcement should automatically receive TWICE the minimum sentence for any corruption convictions. That would be a good start.
In china, when a corrupt gov't official is caught, they march him right outside and immediately "term limit" him.
Yeah, but that only happens when they don't have any friends left in the party.
I'll defer to your expertise on the communist party of china and how it operates, then.
The point is that there are ways to significantly decrease corruption among elected officials.
Politicians and law enforcement should automatically receive TWICE the minimum sentence for any corruption convictions. That would be a good start.
In china, when a corrupt gov't official is caught, they march him right outside and immediately "term limit" him.
I agree. No system can work with official corruption. Indeed it is a defining factor of failed states. A corrupt official not only harms those he betrays, but the entire system.
So if you recognize that why to you trust Government which is always corrupt the more powerful it gets? You should be supporting State rights and Local power. :lol:
Because tomatoes kite sidle mushrooms?
What an incredible nonsequitur.
Jesus, you can't even make an original response.
Why? You didn't answer my question..
Yes, I did. I answered a nonsequitur with another. If you want to ask a cogent question, you have to stop using your antigummit crib sheet.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?