- Joined
- Apr 8, 2019
- Messages
- 1,093
- Reaction score
- 229
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I'm puzzled at how you can conclude that the third party has no stake in making accurate assessments. Its own business depends completely on the extent to which clients and the public trust and rely on its information.
It's not the 1890's where a hand full of industrialists reign over vast monopolies and hoard vast amounts of wealth, and I noticed you didn't offer up any examples of these proper regulations.
Thankfully, States like Texas challenged the EPA and the Obama administration in court which led to the Supreme Court issuing a stay which blocked Obama's Clean power plan.
We have FIRE regulations for a reason, yes?
Fire can be a useful tool, because it can warm your home, forge your steel and iron, cook your food, etc.
It can also burn down entire towns if left unchecked.
Capitalism is a lot like FIRE. Left unregulated and unchecked, it can become predatory and very damaging, and it can unearth some pretty awful unintended consequences. And yet when properly harnessed, capitalism can lift entire generations out of poverty, stimulate innovation and launch entirely new industries. Capitalism has demonstrated the capability to serve as a useful and rewarding tool to serve the middle class if it operates under the right kind of regulation.
So this thread is an effort to explore suggestions and ideas on how to properly regulate capitalism to do just that.
If you ever participated in the evaluation of prospective employees, their training or in partook the hiring process yourself as an employer, you would know that not everyone who calls themselves electrician, cook, welder, carpenter, computer scientist, etc. are the same, even though their nominal titles and nominal skill sets are the same. An employee who shows up on time, who learns well, and who do not require constant supervision to operate as you would like them to operate are employees you want to keep. For one thing, the guy or girl you see working every day is known to be as good as you what you see whereas pulling people out of unemployment is always subject to some uncertainty.
I mean, that's pretty much the progressive agenda (ie Bernie Sanders and AOC) in relation to labor, yeah, and I largely agree with it. the point of this topic isn't discussing what "libruls" wanna do, though, it's discussing why things are fine the way they are, or what you think should be done, and why.
pure and simple, few business and corporations are willing to treat their employees properly without being forced to - so clearly something is needed. what do you think it is, since i'm assuming that you don't agree with any of the points you laid out?
So you hate success?
No one hates success. That's such a silly non sequitur. We hate exploitation and insane inequality.
No one hates success. That's such a silly non sequitur. We hate exploitation and insane inequality.
No exploitation, no one is forced to work for the wages they are, to spend the way they do, stop it. And income inequality is only an issue for those not educated enough to understand the issue.
Trouble is government is incompetent; government is corrupt. Some regulations is good more is not necessarily better.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
We have FIRE regulations for a reason, yes?
Fire can be a useful tool, because it can warm your home, forge your steel and iron, cook your food, etc.
It can also burn down entire towns if left unchecked.
Capitalism is a lot like FIRE. Left unregulated and unchecked, it can become predatory and very damaging, and it can unearth some pretty awful unintended consequences. And yet when properly harnessed, capitalism can lift entire generations out of poverty, stimulate innovation and launch entirely new industries. Capitalism has demonstrated the capability to serve as a useful and rewarding tool to serve the middle class if it operates under the right kind of regulation.
So this thread is an effort to explore suggestions and ideas on how to properly regulate capitalism to do just that.
What makes you think capitalism is NOT regulated? There are huge volumes of laws and regulations on the books governing the operation of our businesses. Probably far more than necessary. The reason corporate misbehavior makes news is because it's rare. There are tens of thousands of corporations and businesses out there doing business lawfully, and honorably.
Utter nonsense. Questionable cherry picking doesn't negate the fact the unnecessary regulations costs businesses, and therefore consumers billions of dollars every year.Most regulation in the US is to protect the company not the consumer/people. Yes there are many businesses that are doing it "lawfully", but that does not mean it is morally good or that it is good for capitalism. Just because you follow regulations you put in place with the help of a willing politician, does not mean that the regulation is good.
It varies from country to country of course, but regulation in Europe is primarily used to protect the consumer and the taxpayer. It is also used only if the "free market" is not abused by the corporations.
Take car emissions or/and how far the car can go on a gallon. In the US, the big 3 car companies managed to infect the legislation so much, that no mandatory improvement on mileage or emissions was done on a federal level for almost 40 years. This was clearly a bad regulation put in place by corporations. In Europe, the opposite happened. Here much to the hatred of the car companies (especially the German), the EU forced through improvement after improvement because they have a duty to protect the consumer.
Another good example is your internet companies and telecoms. Local, state and federal laws that prevent competition, put in place by monopolistic telecoms (local and regional) to protect their markets from competition. This means insane high prices for even basic internet and lack of real investment in infrastructure... why should they, since they will earn billions regardless. It is crazy that I have far more choice in Spain on mobile and fiber internet connections than the average American, and I dont even live in a town. Oh and the telecom infrastructure is kinda crap here as well, but there is competition. In the nearest town there are at least 6 companies providing 100mb fiber internet.. some even doing 1000mb. Just saying..
So it comes down to who the regulatory system is designed to protect... the 1% and corporations or the people. In the US it is the 1% and the corporations.
we dont live in a democracy
never have, never will
and if you want a socialistic society move to one....
Trouble is government is incompetent; government is corrupt.
Take car emissions or/and how far the car can go on a gallon. In the US, the big 3 car companies managed to infect the legislation so much, that no mandatory improvement on mileage or emissions was done on a federal level for almost 40 years. This was clearly a bad regulation put in place by corporations. In Europe, the opposite happened. Here much to the hatred of the car companies (especially the German), the EU forced through improvement after improvement because they have a duty to protect the consumer.
Originally Posted by Checkerboard Strangler
So this thread is an effort to explore suggestions and ideas on how to properly regulate capitalism to do just that.
We have FIRE regulations for a reason, yes?
Fire can be a useful tool, because it can warm your home, forge your steel and iron, cook your food, etc.
It can also burn down entire towns if left unchecked.
Capitalism is a lot like FIRE. Left unregulated and unchecked, it can become predatory and very damaging, and it can unearth some pretty awful unintended consequences. And yet when properly harnessed, capitalism can lift entire generations out of poverty, stimulate innovation and launch entirely new industries. Capitalism has demonstrated the capability to serve as a useful and rewarding tool to serve the middle class if it operates under the right kind of regulation.
So this thread is an effort to explore suggestions and ideas on how to properly regulate capitalism to do just that.
Trouble is government is incompetent; government is corrupt. Some regulations is good more is not necessarily better.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Utter nonsense. Questionable cherry picking doesn't negate the fact the unnecessary regulations costs businesses, and therefore consumers billions of dollars every year.
The tax cuts are barely a year old and they are NOT magic mushroom laws. I can't comment on your particular tax situation because there are dozens of factors involved but somewhere between 70% and 90% of all workers who actual pay taxes received a cut. Not to mention those with no tax liability but qualify for EITC who saw twice as much tax credits.I disagree. Cutting taxes on business did nothing to reduce the cost of product at the point of sale. I've realized zero economic benefit from Trump's plan, since the lie peddled by conservative thinkers always claims tax cuts will reduce cost; maybe it does, but it sure does not reduce cost for the consumer, and that's frankly all I care about.
If businesses can pass on costs to consumers, they sure as hell are unwilling to pass along savings to consumers - and that is a fact.
The tax cuts are barely a year old and they are NOT magic mushroom laws. I can't comment on your particular tax situation because there are dozens of factors involved but somewhere between 70% and 90% of all workers who actual pay taxes received a cut. Not to mention those with no tax liability but qualify for EITC who saw twice as much tax credits.
Most of those so-called "glaring weaknesses" are merely loony left factless mantras.Oh spare me. We all know not a single cent in savings will ever be passed along to consumers. Businesses are used to obtaining a certain price point, and taxes are used as an argument to bolster their claim taxation and pricing are intrinsically tied together. When we raise taxes they raise prices. I've -never- seen them reduce cost from a tax break, instead they shill it all off to their board members.
Why do you lot insist on ignoring these glaring weaknesses in your arguments?
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?