PDA

View Full Version : Only Government Intervention Can Stop Corrupt Capitalism



Chris
07-13-2012, 10:10 AM
Not.


At the core of capitalism are powerful forces that, if unconstrained, cause corporate corruption, as reflected in two recent corporate scandals, one involving Barclays and a second involving GlaxoSmithKline.
These cases raise starkly, yet again, the issue of how to realize the benefits of market capitalism while restraining the powerful impulses to cut corners, cheat, and commit fraud. This ageless question is of special moment in this polarized political season, in which the role of government is central. The cases rebut the assertions of the Republicans, Tea Partyers, libertarians, and corporate leaders who wish to reduce the reach of law and government and who believe that markets will always self-regulate -- people from Ayn Rand and Russell Kirk, to Ron Paul and Grover Norquist, to Tea-Party Republican majorities in the House who want to "starve government," to individual and corporate donors to super PACs, all of whom are today shaping the Republican message

The cases support people who believe in a mixed economy that gives a central role to economic freedom and free markets -- but a system that also places important legal and regulatory limits in order to prevent corruption and protect social goods.

So begins Only Government Intervention Can Stop Corrupt Capitalism (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/only-government-intervention-can-stop-corrupt-capitalism/259687/).

This is a typical liberal argument. The solution to government solutions that inevitably lead to more problems, here, crony capitalism, is even more government solutions.

The "powerful impulses to cut corners, cheat, and commit fraud" are not exclusive to capitalists but just as much an element of government, they are the impulses of some men, those who, as Oppenheimer put it in The State (http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1662&chapter=36963&layout=html&Itemid=27), seek political means over economic means. Giving more power to such men only makes the problem worse.

While I'm not saying harm by fraud should not be regulated against, I am saying the solution isn't regulating business so much as it is regulating government. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary," wrote Madison in Federalist 51.

Goldie Locks
07-13-2012, 10:20 AM
Problem is the government is more corrupt than the companies.

Chris
07-13-2012, 10:42 AM
Agree, tho' hard to measure, but worse is only government has the power to let corruption affect the entire state (nation).

A corrupt business in the market will affect some before the market shuts it down or proper government prosecutes for crime. But a corrupt government, colluding with a corrupt business, affects us all, we all pay for it one way or another.

Peter1469
07-13-2012, 04:17 PM
Would you consider anti-trust laws to be valid?

Chris
07-13-2012, 04:40 PM
Would you consider anti-trust laws to be valid?

Another form of crony capitalism. Most anti-trust suits have been brought by companies who couldn't compete economically in the market so compete politically instead. That was the case with Standard Oil. It was the case with when Sun Microsystems and others sued Microsoft because they were giving Internet Explorer away for free.

Peter1469
07-13-2012, 05:23 PM
Another form of crony capitalism. Most anti-trust suits have been brought by companies who couldn't compete economically in the market so compete politically instead. That was the case with Standard Oil. It was the case with when Sun Microsystems and others sued Microsoft because they were giving Internet Explorer away for free.

Wow.

So outside of basic criminal law, you want government to stay out of corporate business?

Do you see any difference between a 50 man small business and a 50,000 people mega corporation?

Goldie Locks
07-13-2012, 05:37 PM
I still trust business more than government. I can boycott a business who doesn't do their job...I can't do that with government.

Peter1469
07-13-2012, 06:04 PM
There are dangers in both directions.

Goldie Locks
07-13-2012, 06:05 PM
There are dangers in both directions.

less with business.

Peter1469
07-13-2012, 06:06 PM
less with business.

Not with the extremely large multinational banking corporations. Their antics are one of the main causes of the EZ crisis. And our 2008 fiscal crisis.

Goldie Locks
07-13-2012, 06:10 PM
Not with the extremely large multinational banking corporations. Their antics are one of the main causes of the EZ crisis. And our 2008 fiscal crisis.

Who says I have to have my money in one of those banks. This is the free market. If a business screws me, I don't participate and tell everyone I know. In fact with interest rates, why have a a bank at all.

Chris
07-13-2012, 07:05 PM
I still trust business more than government. I can boycott a business who doesn't do their job...I can't do that with government.

Exactly. With business you vote with each and every dollar you spend, or don't. Government, your vote hardly counts.

Chris
07-13-2012, 07:06 PM
Not with the extremely large multinational banking corporations. Their antics are one of the main causes of the EZ crisis. And our 2008 fiscal crisis.

And would those corporations exist without government protection and favor?

Peter1469
07-13-2012, 07:22 PM
Who says I have to have my money in one of those banks. This is the free market. If a business screws me, I don't participate and tell everyone I know. In fact with interest rates, why have a a bank at all.

I agree. People should put their money into local credit unions / banks. But the reality is that the big banks have brought our economy to the brink. Government failed to properly regulate them- unlike during the S&L crisis of the 80s.

And with the end of Glass-Steagal banks and financial institutions merged. Prior to that if one got into a bubble the other could prop up the economy. In 2008 we saw banking and financial bubbles burst at the same time.

Peter1469
07-13-2012, 07:25 PM
And would those corporations exist without government protection and favor?

Governments are made up of us. We failed to properly regulate the banks.

Or do you think governments are going to fold and go away soon?

When the American west was colonized it was the pure anarcho-capitalist societies. But over time they did everything that they had to in order to become states.... Why? Was it corruption? Was it human nature? I don't know. But it happened. And we have no lasting long term example of a significant anarcho-capitalist society. Yet.

Peter1469
07-13-2012, 07:26 PM
Exactly. With business you vote with each and every dollar you spend, or don't. Government, your vote hardly counts.


That is absolutely not true with mega-corporations.

Chris
07-13-2012, 07:41 PM
Governments are made up of us. We failed to properly regulate the banks.

Or do you think governments are going to fold and go away soon?

When the American west was colonized it was the pure anarcho-capitalist societies. But over time they did everything that they had to in order to become states.... Why? Was it corruption? Was it human nature? I don't know. But it happened. And we have no lasting long term example of a significant anarcho-capitalist society. Yet.


Governments are made up of us.

So liberals think and say. The federal government is totally disconnected from the people.


We failed to properly regulate the banks.

We? No, government failed. See The Political Implications of Ignoring Our Own Ignorance (http://www.american.com/archive/2011/december/the-political-implications-of-ignoring-our-own-ignorance): "...it was not the intent of regulators to loosen the reins on banks. On the contrary, from the regulators' point of view, it was the environment prior to 1980 that amounted to leaving the teenagers with the keys to the liquor cabinet. The post-1980 regulatory changes were believed to be in the direction of tighter supervision and more rational controls."


Or do you think governments are going to fold and go away soon?

No one's arguing that straw man.


When the American west was colonized it was the pure anarcho-capitalist societies.

Nonsense.

You keep arguing absolutes--govts going away, pure this, pure that--idealism.

I'm sure we all could imagine some perfect ideal government, some perfect ideal regulations, but none of that applies in the real world.


But over time they did everything that they had to in order to become states.... Why?

To protect rights. They bought into the Declared "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men".


And we have no lasting long term example of a significant anarcho-capitalist society.

Again, no one's arguing anarcho-capitalism.

Don't you want to discuss the topic?




That is absolutely not true with mega-corporations.

Demonstrate. Start with the legal (government, oops) definition of corporation. From that fact argue it's absolutely not true.

Peter1469
07-13-2012, 07:51 PM
I am not sure how you think that mega corporations will restrain themselves. You talk like an anarcho-capitalist, but then claim that is untrue.

Chris
07-13-2012, 08:01 PM
I am not sure how you think that mega corporations will restrain themselves. You talk like an anarcho-capitalist, but then claim that is untrue.

So where's your argument demonstrating what I said is absolutely not true.

Where do I talk like an anarcho-capitalist? This thread is an argument against the liberal belief more government solutions is the cure to the problems created by government solutions. Nothing anarcho-capitalist about that.

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 09:19 AM
The gubmint/corporate orgy is a two-way action.

Chris
07-15-2012, 09:55 AM
The gubmint/corporate orgy is a two-way action.

Yes, it is, called collusion, but only gubmint has the power to sell favors to special interests to gain more power. Business is a necessary cause, gubmint a sufficient one.

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 10:04 AM
Yes, it is, called collusion, but only gubmint has the power to sell favors to special interests to gain more power. Business is a necessary cause, gubmint a sufficient one.

I don't see how that justifies the desire to limit the powers of one side and not the other, unless I'm misinterpreting your commentary.

In fact, limiting gubmint's role in regulating industry is contradictory in this scenario.

Chris
07-15-2012, 10:56 AM
I don't see how that justifies the desire to limit the powers of one side and not the other, unless I'm misinterpreting your commentary.

In fact, limiting gubmint's role in regulating industry is contradictory in this scenario.

A definitional distinction first, from Oppenheimer, The State (http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1662&chapter=36963&layout=html&Itemid=27), there are two means by which man satisfies his desires, the economic means, whereby he voluntarily exchanges good and services with others, and the political means, whereby he uses government to coerce what he wants. The latter is also called Rent Seeking (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentSeeking.html).

We don't want to regulate the economic means as is is the only means by which we generate wealth. But we do want to regulate the political means, the rent seeking. So how best do this? Regulate business? But that overshoots the mark of regulating the political means by also regulating the economic means. It's like much gun control, aiming to regulate criminals but regulating only law-abiding citizens.

Thus I argue regulate the gubmint, limit its power to provide political means, rent seeking means, and in so doing regulate the ability of business to seek those means.

Lobbying is one of those means. But you don't want to regulate lobbyists because then you regulate the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". No, you regulate Congress' ability to hand out favors to special interests.

Thus "limiting gubmint's role in regulating industry is [NOT] contradictory in this scenario" at all.

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 11:06 AM
Yes, it is, called collusion, but only gubmint has the power to sell favors to special interests to gain more power. Business is a necessary cause, gubmint a sufficient one.

Chris, you fail to consider the full impact of corrupt business.

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 11:13 AM
I do want to regulate the "economy", more specifically big business.

If one thing our form of capitalism has (or should have, that is debatable) taught us is that you cannot NOT have a check and balance feature in any system.

Uninhibited capitalism is corrupting and destructive.

Chris
07-15-2012, 11:14 AM
Chris, you fail to consider the full impact of corrupt business.

In what way?

A corrupt business that pursues what it wants, profit, by economic means will run itself out of business as consumers will no longer purchase their goods and services. It is only by political means that such a business can persist, and who provides that political means, gubmint.

So, no, it is considered.

Chris
07-15-2012, 11:17 AM
I do want to regulate the "economy", more specifically big business.

If one thing our form of capitalism has (or should have, that is debatable) taught us is that you cannot NOT have a check and balance feature in any system.

Uninhibited capitalism is corrupting and destructive.

Nice claim, a standard liberal view, but demonstrate, you say we've been taught, so show how by economic means, where consumers form the check and balance, that is possible.

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 11:57 AM
In what way?

A corrupt business that pursues what it wants, profit, by economic means will run itself out of business as consumers will no longer purchase their goods and services. It is only by political means that such a business can persist, and who provides that political means, gubmint.

So, no, it is considered.

No you seem to be fixated on one side of the equation. I am only trying to bring you back into balance. We the people have more control over our government than we do over mega corporations like Apple or Microsoft.

Now go meditate and seek balance. :smiley:

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 12:00 PM
Nice claim, a standard liberal view, but demonstrate, you say we've been taught, so show how by economic means, where consumers form the check and balance, that is possible.

CO gets it wrong by not realizing that these mega corporations are not creatures of the free market. The actions he identifies as "Uninhibited capitalism" is not capitalism at all.

Chris
07-15-2012, 12:51 PM
No you seem to be fixated on one side of the equation. I am only trying to bring you back into balance. We the people have more control over our government than we do over mega corporations like Apple or Microsoft.

Now go meditate and seek balance. :smiley:

I think you're fixated on a straw man, Peter. Great how you set that up and knock it down. Care to comment on the topic?

Chris
07-15-2012, 12:53 PM
CO gets it wrong by not realizing that these mega corporations are not creatures of the free market. The actions he identifies as "Uninhibited capitalism" is not capitalism at all.

He gets wrong the same thing you get wrong. Corporations are not creatures of the free market but creations of government just as they were in Adam Smith's time.

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 01:34 PM
I think you're fixated on a straw man, Peter. Great how you set that up and knock it down. Care to comment on the topic?

I already did.

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 06:05 PM
CO gets it wrong by not realizing that these mega corporations are not creatures of the free market. The actions he identifies as "Uninhibited capitalism" is not capitalism at all.

You are incorrect, I fully understand the concept that you are describing. Hence my "our form of capitalism" description.

wingrider
07-15-2012, 06:10 PM
this is great... asking government to stop capitalist corruption is like asking John Dillenger to guard the bank..

Chris
07-15-2012, 06:12 PM
this is great... asking government to stop capitalist corruption is like asking John Dillenger to guard the bank..

Exactly, it's a protection racket.

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 06:14 PM
Nice claim, a standard liberal view, but demonstrate, you say we've been taught, so show how by economic means, where consumers form the check and balance, that is possible.

I'm not sure if I'm not understanding you or vice versa. Consumers form a check and balance system to a small degree, however the general consumer populace isn't collectively disciplined enough to hold companies to ethical standards. Some people may boycott, many will not, they don't give a shit.

Take the coal mining industry for example, here in lovely West Verginyah coal mining ethics is a huge issue. Google Upper Big Branch mine disaster for example and keep on looking, there are plenty of coal mining issues that suggest mines operate unsafely in order to control costs. And yet, as you read this post you are likely using electricity generated from coal from one of these mines.

If you're suggesting that you disagree with regulation and desire companies to operate in a regulation free environment, completely uninhibited, then I'm not sure continuing this conversation with you is rational.

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 06:15 PM
this is great... asking government to stop capitalist corruption is like asking John Dillenger to guard the bank..

Who then? Santa Claus?

michaelr
07-15-2012, 06:16 PM
Not.



So begins Only Government Intervention Can Stop Corrupt Capitalism (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/only-government-intervention-can-stop-corrupt-capitalism/259687/).

This is a typical liberal argument. The solution to government solutions that inevitably lead to more problems, here, crony capitalism, is even more government solutions.

The "powerful impulses to cut corners, cheat, and commit fraud" are not exclusive to capitalists but just as much an element of government, they are the impulses of some men, those who, as Oppenheimer put it in The State (http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1662&chapter=36963&layout=html&Itemid=27), seek political means over economic means. Giving more power to such men only makes the problem worse.

While I'm not saying harm by fraud should not be regulated against, I am saying the solution isn't regulating business so much as it is regulating government. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary," wrote Madison in Federalist 51.

The government has a fix in store for us all, and man is it a doozy.

First of all.

We just had another MF Global, and JP Morgan was part of it again.

The LIBOR rate fix has been a way of life since the advent of LIBOR, and governments and their central banks have always benefited from this crap. To say they want to end it is a lie, and not even a good one.

I have talked about the paper crash on this board, but in a nut shell it is when currencies, debt, and derivative/bonds fail. They did.

The LIBOR scandal is a distraction, or better put, a place to which one can point their finger and say 'we need more regulation because that crashed the economy'. Bullshit, we are well into the paper crash.

A credit default swap (CDS) is basically an insurance on a derivative. The rates on the derivatives have been fixed because they have crashed. The banks that own the CDS will have to come up with the values of the derivatives and the swaps themselves. The fed has plenty of such swaps on the EU and member nations on everything from currency swaps to the dreaded Mortgage Backed Security (MBS). They through operation twist have placed some of these swaps onto the backs of the TBTjails.


Now here is the trip, and if need be I will check in and answer any question that you might have.

Their regulation includes a freeze on the CDS. The MBS and other 'securities' can not sell without them, and they can't stand on their own without them. Everything vested in these securities will be in peril. I think this happens in Oct.

Good luck!

wingrider
07-15-2012, 06:17 PM
Who then? Santa Claus? good question.. but asking crooks and thieves to control other crooks and thieves is a bit much don't ya think

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 06:20 PM
good question.. but asking crooks and thieves to control other crooks and thieves is a bit much don't ya think

I don't disagree, which is why BOTH sides of this spectrum need plunged out.

You're not going to get much argument from me about shrinking down gubmint, very little in fact however gubmint at it's core has a fundamental purpose. Regulating business is one of them, but unfortunately instead of regulating business, gubmint is copulating with it.

wingrider
07-15-2012, 06:21 PM
I don't disagree, which is why BOTH sides of this spectrum need plunged out.

You're not going to get much argument from me about shrinking down gubmint, very little in fact however gubmint at it's core has a fundamental purpose. Regulating business is one of them, but unfortunately instead of regulating business, gubmint is copulating with it. spot on

Chris
07-15-2012, 06:29 PM
I'm not sure if I'm not understanding you or vice versa. Consumers form a check and balance system to a small degree, however the general consumer populace isn't collectively disciplined enough to hold companies to ethical standards. Some people may boycott, many will not, they don't give a shit.

Take the coal mining industry for example, here in lovely West Verginyah coal mining ethics is a huge issue. Google Upper Big Branch mine disaster for example and keep on looking, there are plenty of coal mining issues that suggest mines operate unsafely in order to control costs. And yet, as you read this post you are likely using electricity generated from coal from one of these mines.

If you're suggesting that you disagree with regulation and desire companies to operate in a regulation free environment, completely uninhibited, then I'm not sure continuing this conversation with you is rational.


Consumers form a check and balance system to a small degree...

Yes...


...however the general consumer populace isn't collectively disciplined enough to hold companies to ethical standards.

That may be but who is going to make their choices for them? You, me, Bush, Obama?

I say let consumers make their own free choices, and take responsibility for the consequences.


there are plenty of coal mining issues that suggest mines operate unsafely in order to control costs

Right, but that is a different issue, one where government has a legitimate purpose of protecting people's rights against harm by force or fraud--"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"


If you're suggesting that you disagree with regulation and desire companies to operate in a regulation free environment, completely uninhibited, then I'm not sure continuing this conversation with you is rational.

The topic is about government corruption, and their indeed I do not trust a corrupt government to regulate themselves, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

If you want a rational discussion then be rational.

Chris
07-15-2012, 06:31 PM
Who then? Santa Claus?

But that is the very question.

Madison, Federalist 51
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 06:32 PM
You didn't address the suggestive question - are you recommending a completely unregulated, uninhibited capitalistic structure?

Trinnity
07-15-2012, 06:32 PM
Their regulation includes a freeze on the CDS. The MBS and other 'securities' can not sell without them, and they can't stand on their own without them. Everything vested in these securities will be in peril. I think this happens in Oct.

Good luck!Oh crap. What effect do you think that will have on the election and the economy?

Chris
07-15-2012, 06:41 PM
You didn't address the suggestive question - are you recommending a completely unregulated, uninhibited capitalistic structure?

Me? No. And I did answer. For one (A) if your regulate government to prevent it from providing opportunities of the rent seeking of crony capitalism, corporations that engage in that will be blocked. For another (B) any business that that engages in fraud or harms people, from banks to mining companies, should be prosecuted for criminal activity. But (B) criminal activity lies outside the topic of (A) crony capitalism as far as I'm concerned, and both lie outside capitalism, the free market, both are corruptions of the free market.

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 06:42 PM
Oh crap. What effect do you think that will have on the election and the economy?

Probably none. The sheeple don't understand....

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 06:47 PM
Me? No. And I did answer. For one (A) if your regulate government to prevent it from providing opportunities of the rent seeking of crony capitalism, corporations that engage in that will be blocked. For another (B) any business that that engages in fraud or harms people, from banks to mining companies, should be prosecuted for criminal activity. But (B) criminal activity lies outside the topic of (A) crony capitalism as far as I'm concerned, and both lie outside capitalism, the free market, both are corruptions of the free market.

(A) That governmental "regulation" that you suggest is called the vote. It works about as well as consumer corporate regulation, marginally that is. (B) As far as criminal prosecution of corrupt corporations, who paves the paths for that? If you guessed the gubmint, you might just be correct.

Nowhere did I state that government effectively regulates industry, in fact I stated otherwise and agree to a high extent with the OP, however I strongly disagree with any suggestion that corporate America self-regulates or be consumer advocacy driven. That is the core role of the government, plain and simple and if it's broken, fix the source.

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 06:51 PM
And for the record, I highly disagree with the suggestion that gubmint isn't the appropriate institution to deal with a corrupt corporate America. That IS the role of the government and no other institution can take on this role.

Chris
07-15-2012, 06:58 PM
(A) That governmental "regulation" that you suggest is called the vote. It works about as well as consumer corporate regulation, marginally that is. (B) As far as criminal prosecution of corrupt corporations, who paves the paths for that? If you guessed the gubmint, you might just be correct.

Nowhere did I state that government effectively regulates industry, in fact I stated otherwise and agree to a high extent with the OP, however I strongly disagree with any suggestion that corporate America self-regulates or is consumer advocacy driven. That is the core role of the government, plain and simple and if it's broken, fix the source.


(A) That governmental "regulation" that you suggest is called the vote. It works about as well as consumer corporate regulation, marginally that is.

With government we each get a single nearly meaningless vote--marginally at best. With business we vote with every dollar we spend.


(B) As far as criminal prosecution of corrupt corporations, who paves the paths for that? If you guessed the gubmint, you might just be correct.

I see government bailing banks out not prosecuting them.


I strongly disagree with any suggestion that corporate America self-regulates or is consumer advocacy driven.

It wasn't suggested. The market self-regulates with every individual's subjective, freely chosen exchange of goods and services with others doing the same. If I purchase something from you and I'm cheated I won't buy again and will tell others and soon enough you'd be out f business unless your purchase protect from that racket called gubmint.


That is the core role of the government, plain and simple and if it's broken, fix the source.

It's broken, corrupted by crony capitalism, and we need to fix it, stop it from using our tax dollars to protect corporations who rent seek favors in exchange for power.

Chris
07-15-2012, 06:59 PM
And for the record, I highly disagree with the suggestion that gubmint isn't the appropriate institution to deal with a corrupt corporate America. That IS the role of the government and no other institution can take on this role.

It should be regulated so it cannot offer opportunities of crony capitalism.

michaelr
07-15-2012, 07:00 PM
Oh crap. What effect do you think that will have on the election and the economy?

Umm, you ain't gunna believe this.

The 2013 budget proposal includes the nationalization of the 401 and other private retirement funds. Hey the T-Bill ain't selling.

This freeze collapses the rest of the economy.

I expect this to be a 1 2 deal, in the same day. I think riots and mayhem will breakout in Oct. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am, and i have somewhat of a record on this stuff.

On the elections, I dunno, 50/50 we even have them if I am right.

The paper crash has been in swing since QE1. They have floated the economy by replacing it with QE. This created a liquidity trap. We have had QE and zero rates for so long that the liquidity trap became a paper crash. We simply don't have an economy, and it would be very bad for the government and their banks if one accidentally broke out. The rates and inflation would literally fight each other for first place.

Now the banks and corporations have been hoarding trillions. The banks alone have $1.4 trillion in hoarded funds. The fed has been paying interest on that. They did that to stifle growth. Remember the rates and inflation fight here.

Well the fed doesn't want to use the QE word, so they are going to stop paying interest on the $1.4 trillion. The banks will run it through the system using fractional reserve. This will create about $15 trillion in funny money. I think this will be their last attempt, but the freeze on the CDS will absorb that in a freaking heartbeat. It will do nothing for the economy, QE and the like never does.

wingrider
07-15-2012, 07:04 PM
I think I see where you are going with this Mike.. I said something similar to this about a year ago.. that Obama and his Handlers would create some form of national crises to suspend the elections and declare martial law.. looks Like I may be pretty close to right.. we sill see come oct. or late sept.

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 07:05 PM
With government we each get a single nearly meaningless vote--marginally at best. With business we vote with every dollar we spend.

Well, at least that's cleared up - you are suggesting simple consumer advocacy driven corporate regulation.

That's absurd, people will continue to buy BP gas, buy big pharma drugs and run electricity no matter how corrupt those industries are. That's beyond absurd, it's asinine.


I see government bailing banks out not prosecuting them.

"If it's broken, fix the source" - a wise man once said that.

... wait, that was me.


It wasn't suggested. The market self-regulates with every individual's subjective, freely chosen exchange of goods and services with others doing the same. If I purchase something from you and I'm cheated I won't buy again and will tell others and soon enough you'd be out f business unless your purchase protect from that racket called gubmint.

You are adept at talking out of both sides of your mouth. Is your name Romney?

I have only one thing to say that firmly debunks your theory - Wal Mart.


It's broken, corrupted by crony capitalism, and we need to fix it, stop it from using our tax dollars to protect corporations who rent seek favors in exchange for power.

Funny how things go full circle. Who fixes corrupt corporate America then, Santa Claus?

Chris
07-15-2012, 07:11 PM
Well, at least that's cleared up - you are suggesting simple consumer advocacy driven corporate regulation.

That's absurd, people will continue to buy BP gas, buy big pharma drugs and run electricity no matter how corrupt those industries are. That's beyond absurd, it's asinine.


"If it's broken, fix the source" - a wise man once said that.

... wait, that was me.



You are adept at talking out of both sides of your mouth. Is your name Romney?

I have only one thing to say that firmly debunks your theory - Wal Mart.



Funny how things go full circle. Who fixes corrupt corporate America then, Santa Claus?


you are suggesting simple consumer advocacy driven corporate regulation

No, I'm not. I'm advocating free consumer choice in purchasing what they subjectively value. Consumer advocates use political means. An important distinction.


"If it's broken, fix the source"

'at's what the OP said. Regulate government, fix it.


You are adept at talking out of both sides of your mouth. Is your name Romney?

Ad hom, and you wanted rational discussion?


I have only one thing to say that firmly debunks your theory - Wal Mart.

Argue your point then....


Who fixes corrupt corporate America then, Santa Claus?

As stated already, if it's criminal, then it is the Declared job of government to protect us from such fraud. But we're discussing crony capitalism, government corruption. Like even you said "If it's broken, fix the source".

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 07:22 PM
No, I'm not. I'm advocating free consumer choice in purchasing what they subjectively value. Consumer advocates use political means. An important distinction.

We don't already have "free consumer choice"?


'at's what the OP said. Regulate government, fix it.

I think we agree on this although I'm not sure, you seem to be spinning around on the issue. Regardless, how do you suggest we "fix" the gubmint? By eliminating it isn't an answer, I figure I'll beat you to that punch.


Ad hom, and you wanted rational discussion?

Physician, heal thyself!


Argue your point then....

I thought this went without saying, but here - let me grab a spoon.

Wal Mart sells crap. People buy said crap, because it's cheap. Crap winds up in landfills quickly, and the same people go back to Wal Mart to buy more crap when the crap that they just bought from Wal Mart breaks. It's a viscous cycle.


As stated already, if it's criminal, then it is the Declared job of government to protect us from such fraud. But we're discussing crony capitalism, government corruption. Like even you said "If it's broken, fix the source".

I think we keep circling around to the same agreement, sort of. Everything is broke and needs fixed, let's start again at that point. Where I get a little launched into orbit is the suggestion that government's role in regulating corporate America be eliminated or significantly reduced and corporate America be left to the advocacy of the consumer.

Shall we go round this one more time?

Chris
07-15-2012, 08:03 PM
We don't already have "free consumer choice"?



I think we agree on this although I'm not sure, you seem to be spinning around on the issue. Regardless, how do you suggest we "fix" the gubmint? By eliminating it isn't an answer, I figure I'll beat you to that punch.



Physician, heal thyself!



I thought this went without saying, but here - let me grab a spoon.

Wal Mart sells crap. People buy said crap, because it's cheap. Crap winds up in landfills quickly, and the same people go back to Wal Mart to buy more crap when the crap that they just bought from Wal Mart breaks. It's a viscous cycle.



I think we keep circling around to the same agreement, sort of. Everything is broke and needs fixed, let's start again at that point. Where I get a little launched into orbit is the suggestion that government's role in regulating corporate America be eliminated or significantly reduced and corporate America be left to the advocacy of the consumer.

Shall we go round this one more time?




We don't already have "free consumer choice"?

Not when government intervenes. Take sugar for instance, consumers are forced to pay high prices because government decided to favor the US sugar industry. Or milk for another instance, sellers are regulated on the price they cannot go below.




I think we agree on this although I'm not sure, you seem to be spinning around on the issue.

I think we agree on this although I'm not sure, you seem to be spinning around on the issue.



Regardless, how do you suggest we "fix" the gubmint? By eliminating it isn't an answer, I figure I'll beat you to that punch.

Punching straw men isn't rational. There is, as I've pointed out now several times, a Declared legitimate purpose to government.



Wal Mart sells crap. People buy said crap, because it's cheap. Crap winds up in landfills quickly, and the same people go back to Wal Mart to buy more crap when the crap that they just bought from Wal Mart breaks. It's a viscous cycle.

Facts please.



I think we keep circling around to the same agreement...

Because the topic is about government corruption and you want to keep dragging corporate criminality into it, which prosecuting is a legitimate purpose of government, as stated. The question here tho' is what do we do about government corruption, the sort that leads to crony capitalism. The OP presented a liberal view on which government corruption is to be fixed with more government. But as wingrider pointed out that a protection racket. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?