Bar Stool Economics

[Cuchulain]

Wow, just fucking wow.

Unethical conduct in government is as old as the institution itself.

The same is true of unethical conduct in business.

There is currently this vast amount of corruption because the government has so much power over day to day life. So the easiest path for these business owners now is to simply pay to get the influence they want. Reduce the reach of government and you remove that incentive.

Talk about wildly convoluted logic. Yes, lobbyists exist because in a system where govt regulates business, bribing the officials who create and administer those regulations provides a means to slither out from under them. But suggesting that the answer is to remove govt power to regulate is simply...amazing...or maybe horrifying would be a better word. So if the police were taking bribes from criminals, you say that removing legislation against criminal activity is the answer? If it's not illegal, the police can't arrest them, so there would be no reason for crooks to bribe the cops? Sweet Jesus....

Heres a thought: How about if we throw the corrupt cops in jail along with the other criminals?

Business is not going to regulate itself

[NYBURBS]

Wow, just fucking wow.

Unethical conduct in government is as old as the institution itself.

The same is true of unethical conduct in business.

There is currently this vast amount of corruption because the government has so much power over day to day life. So the easiest path for these business owners now is to simply pay to get the influence they want. Reduce the reach of government and you remove that incentive.

Talk about wildly convoluted logic. Yes, lobbyists exist because in a system where govt regulates business, bribing the officials who create and administer those regulations provides a means to slither out from under them. But suggesting that the answer is to remove govt power to regulate is simply...amazing...or maybe horrifying would be a better word. So if the police were taking bribes from criminals, you say that removing legislation against criminal activity is the answer? If it's not illegal, the police can't arrest them, so there would be no reason for crooks to bribe the cops? Sweet Jesus....

Heres a thought: How about if we throw the corrupt cops in jail along with the other criminals?

Business is not going to regulate itself

Business will regulate itself just fine through competition and there are other means of pressure such as consumer boycotts. By your logic we should legislate everything and simply remove any private rights because obviously no one can control themselves.

Also as I have repeatedly said, laws that forbid trespassing upon the rights of another such as murder, assault, robbery, etc are completely different then coming in and telling someone how they must now use their property. There are of course instances where property rights clash and you need laws and courts to mediate those disputes in a civil manner. That is completely different from what we have today though.

[trish]

Competition is not a regulator of business; it is that which drives businesses to outdo each other. In some instances competition will do the opposite of a regulator. Businesses which, for example, compete for natural resources (like lumber, furs, fish and oil) can and have driven each other to deplete those resources.

The property of corporation is not generally the property of one single individual but of the shareholders. Sometimes a corporation will “harvest” a resource that in fact belongs to all of us and call it their own. I see no problem with laws that tell corporations what to do with their property. Even in the case of individual persons we have laws that restrict the use of property. You can’t shoot people with your guns, you can’t spy on your neighbors with your binoculars and you can’t direct your stereo speakers at full volume into your neighbor’s bedroom. These are laws of trespass, yes and like tax laws they don’t mention guns, binoculars or stereos; but they are also laws that restrict the use of personal property.

Property is not a metaphysical connection between you and your belongings, nor is it a physical connection. There is no physical or chemical test that one can perform on a person and lawn chair that will decide whether that person owns that lawn chair. That’s because the cosmos does not recognize ownership. Ownership is a human invention, a social construction and exists only in a social context. Society will always adjust that construction as it sees fit.

[yodajazz]

....
Business will regulate itself just fine through competition and there are other means of pressure such as consumer boycotts. By your logic we should legislate everything and simply remove any private rights because obviously no one can control themselves...

http://featured-stories.blogspot.com...-call-for.html
or
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.co...egulation.html
This just in: George Bush,Christopher Cox, SEC chairman, and Bernanke are calling for greater regulation of Credit Default Swaps. Plus the article says the more regulations of them will be addressed at the G-20 Summit.
NYBURBS let go! Let go and feel the warmth around your body knowing that business regulations are protecting you. Yes, there is even freedom here on our side. All you need to do is surrender to the force.

[NYBURBS]

....
Business will regulate itself just fine through competition and there are other means of pressure such as consumer boycotts. By your logic we should legislate everything and simply remove any private rights because obviously no one can control themselves...

http://featured-stories.blogspot.com...-call-for.html
or
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.co...egulation.html
This just in: George Bush,Christopher Cox, SEC chairman, and Bernanke are calling for greater regulation of Credit Default Swaps. Plus the article says the more regulations of them will be addressed at the G-20 Summit.
NYBURBS let go! Let go and feel the warmth around your body knowing that business regulations are protecting you. Yes, there is even freedom here on our side. All you need to do is surrender to the force.

Dude because George Bush endorses something I should want it? LOLOLOLOLOL. That guy's administration has been poison to everything it touches, hence another reason why I don't want the government touching much of anything. Regulation helped get us into this mess, with forced lending for instance.

As for Christopher Cox, he was a partner in one of the biggest law firms in the world. The guy and his friends make their living off of regulation. If you don't have the government making bad rules, then you don't have a bogeyman with deep pockets to sue or challenge.

Oh and Ben Bernanke wants more control of the economy huh. The man sits as the Chairmen of the board that rules the economy with an iron fist. The first thing people like me want to see done is to have the Federal Reserve abolished, never mind listen to what its chairman wants.

[yodajazz]

The point I was trying to make assumed that many people, you might consider as left wing or liberal are calling for more regulation of certain business practices. But now we have people like George Bush, and Alan Greenspan saying that changes are needed. Greenspan in particular had been a champion of deregulation. A Sixty Minutes piece, called “credit default swaps” legalized gambling. If people were doing that with their own money is one thing, but to do that with people’s pension money saved over years of work is another thing altogether. Even the G-20 Summit will be looking at the practice, according to the article. It looks like your position that ‘all government financial regulation.’ is bad, has less and less support these days.

On the other it’s not true that all regulation is good either. I think a majority might say that moderation between over regulation and under-regulation is the answer.

[NYBURBS]

The point I was trying to make assumed that many people, you might consider as left wing or liberal are calling for more regulation of certain business practices. But now we have people like George Bush, and Alan Greenspan saying that changes are needed. Greenspan in particular had been a champion of deregulation. A Sixty Minutes piece, called “credit default swaps” legalized gambling. If people were doing that with their own money is one thing, but to do that with people’s pension money saved over years of work is another thing altogether. Even the G-20 Summit will be looking at the practice, according to the article. It looks like your position that ‘all government financial regulation.’ is bad, has less and less support these days.

On the other it’s not true that all regulation is good either. I think a majority might say that moderation between over regulation and under-regulation is the answer.

Yea because we find those balances oh so often in government right? If they engage in questionable practices with other people's money then leave people the right to sue them, or see if the conduct falls into some type of criminal behavior. You know there are plenty of actual criminal laws dealing with fraud, filing false instruments, etc., that have not been pursued much in the vast majority of these cases.

Further look where government intervention into the economy has gotten us. The most recent examples being the Treasury Department's decision to completely change direction and invest directly in banks rather than buy assets in that reverse auction they first championed. Funny how they miraculously develop this new idea after the check is cut.

Now there's also the push to bail out the auto companies with our money, even though everyone knows they make a shit product and have an even shittier business model. Of course there are the promises that the auto-makers will be even more "strictly" regulated if they get this money.

As for my position having broad support, that has zero to do with my belief in the basic truth of my argument. Also I posted in another thread here an argument as to why many of these liberals are not much different than the neo-cons and religion nuts. All of those groups favor strong government control, just in different forms or for varying purposes. Alan Greenspan is a whole separate story, but basically if he really believed in less regulation then he would not have taken a leadership position with the Federal Reserve.

[hippifried]

Alan Greenspan is a whole separate story, but basically if he really believed in less regulation then he would not have taken a leadership position with the Federal Reserve.

Yeah he would. You get to control how much regulation there is if you're the regulator. Then again, the Fed's just a consortium of banks under a government contract. Everybody loves to milk a government contract.