|
Yachtie -> RE: What is the solution? (11/15/2013 6:15:17 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:
You can do it, generally, because the marketplace operates on the maxim that states people deal honorably with each other.
So, you're saying without the historical regulation of insurance companies they would act in Good Faith?
No. It's because regulation becomes necessary where legalized fraud becomes the norm. By legalized fraud I mean "protection," or put another way, a racket. A legalized racket is regulated. It really is no different from the Mafia which regulates itself and its activities as to maintain 1) its power and 2) its income stream with as little disruption as possible. As long as the rules are obeyed one won't have a problem. Many see that as "dealing honorably." But I ask you, is it?
For example, take Las Vegas. The odds favor the house. The "contract" favors one side over the other. The only game I am aware of, the contract one abides by if sitting at the table, that even approaches an equality to each side is Black Jack. I've been to Vegas a few times and it's the only game I'll play.
There's the proof that regulation is needed. If you don't strictly regulate these Artificial Legal Entities, they *always* try to 'game the system' and expliot the consumer.
I do not disagree here, but neither do I see regulation as the absolute answer. If the consumer, if you or I, had full protections within the Statute of Frauds these Corporations, these protected Corporations, would/could be held accountable. Tangentially, government exploits the consumer for its own ends too.
Like you and I, making contract. Provided either one of us is not protected, we are vulnerable to each other. That is how it should be. Banks, for instance, are so well protected and look what they are doing. Look who benefits from their power, from their largess. Why all the lobbying? Do you not see fraud there? Look at the mortgage problems, MERS, MBS, etc. That one is in our faces. So many highly regulated Corporations are only truly vulnerable to that which regulates them. They are not vulnerable to us.
As MN says, and in reality I totally agree -
If anything general can be said, the liberalism side will decry 'corporate' corruptions, and conservatism will decry 'person' corruptions. Whether or not pragmatically, they actually will do anything concrete is another subject.
Both; in their own ways, will certainly 'get along' with it.
What is government really really good at? Making regulations. What is government really really bad at? Making regulations. Who's in bed with what is regulated? Government. The fox owns the chicken house. Whic is the fox is debatable.
There are different mindsets at work though. On the one hand are those who think the beast can be controlled, regulated. On the other are those who think such belief is illusion. Now, if I agree with MN, and I do where he says, "Both; in their own ways, will certainly 'get along' with it," I must conclude that such is not really in my best interests as such collusion always favors the house.
I really must also conclude that true liberalism, and true conservatism, do not exist anymore for if they did, MN's statement would be rewritten as -
If anything general can be said, the liberalism side will punish 'corporate' corruptions, and conservatism will punish 'person' corruptions.
Both; in their own ways, will certainly 'NOT get along' with it.
But, sadly, that is not the case.
|
|
|
|
