DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri There is a need for some regulation and government intervention. Absolutely. It should be all about the consumer, though. Make it illegal to lie in advertising and packaging (which, is really just more advertising), and penalize those who commit that crime. I agree with this completely. I actually think that anyone who gets in front of a public podium, camera, microphone, etc., they should be considered under oath and be subject to perjury charges if they lie. This could come in especially handy when it comes to political candidates and their advertisements. Impeachment could be made much easier and would force them to be very, very careful about every promise and every utterance they make. quote:
That's not all about the consumer, though, as there will be businesses that benefit from "forcing" (or penalizing) their competitors that lie. But, it's a definite consumer protection. If a regulation results in less competition and higher prices for consumers, then, maybe it's not a good regulation. And I would concede that there probably are some bad and/or unnecessary regulations out there. But there might be other societal level considerations beyond consumer protection or lower prices. There are environmental concerns, conservation of resources, national security issues, political stability, etc. Government should not have carte blanche to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. Damn near anything can get rationalized as being "National Security." As long as a politician can rationalize something, he/she can do it. That's abuse of power and definitely not proper. quote:
quote:
quote:
If that's the system that we have, then why would anyone in the business community be complaining at all? The system is already stacked in their favor, and they already have oodles of influence in the government anyway. That's why nothing ever really changes and there's never any true reform in our political or economic systems. Why? Uh, because not all businesses are benefiting to the same extent. You mean some businesses are complaining about inequality and unfairness? Isn't that what the workers who were "whining, moaning, and pissing" doing too? If your position is that an individual fails due to a lack of skills, drive, ambition, etc. and has to work for crappy wages as a consequence, wouldn't that also be true for a business that fails? They can't blame it on regulation or taxes or anything else the government does, since other businesses have had proven success under the same conditions. Yes, they are complaining about inequality and unfairness. Government should treat each and every business the same way. No one business, or sector should get treated differently. That's unfair and unequal. The most ignored thing in a Capitalistic economy - and the second most important thing - is loss. Without loss, business will inefficiently consume resources, and will eventually drive up costs. As long as their competitors are living under the same regulatory structure, they can't blame government. And, as I have said many times before on this very board, failed businesses can and should be learning tools for how to not do things. Government propping up a failed business doesn't send the proper signal that that failed business model doesn't work. quote:
quote:
Capitalism is a component of a society. A system of government is also a component of society. Those two can overlap, too. Can we fix it? I don't know. I sure as hell hope so. The best way to fix it (which is likely the least popular, sadly), is to reduce the extent to which government picks winners and losers (special carve outs) and not by giving away even more, but only to the current favorite sector. That may help, although I'm not sure if it goes deep enough to get to the root of the problem. The problem is really within government. If business is out of control, it's only because the government hasn't done anything to deal with them. There's no doubt a lot of favoritism, cronyism, good-old-boy networks, etc. in the system, and this is what has to be addressed. But I also think that Americans from both side of the spectrum might have to be more ideologically flexible than they currently are. Yup. Sadly, as soon as one starts to bend, the other will start to really hammer away rather than bend in return.
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|