Capitalism does nothing for the environment or workers. That is its primary problem which has lead to new forms of ideology.. socialism, communism, enviormentalism and so on. Capitalism has one goal.. profit at any cost and with that power and this is what leads it to its own downfall if not regulated (self or government). And since self regulation goes out the window as one of the first in a lazzie-faire regulatory system, then well...The only place capitalism probably fails to self-regulate is environmentally. It is possible for capitalism to lead to tragedies of the commons that don't self-correct very quickly or peacefully. But then again I'm not sure any other economic model is terribly concerned with the environmental impacts of our pro-growth policies.
More horse**** based on a text book. In the real world, no amount of self regulation would have stopped using children in mines or factories. The capitalists were earning millions doing it, so why change it? Just because a few children died, so what.. they are replaceable. It was only when government came in and said on behalf of all people... no using children is wrong, that the capitalists changed their tunes. And that was not because they wanted too, but they were forced to do so because of changing political ideologies that threatened their whole business.. aka communism and socialism. There is nothing like a revolution and riots that can "regulate" a capitalist society... but do we really have to go that far to change things for the better?Not really. You end up with an quasi-socialist oligarchy that learns how to disguise itself as a capitalist republic. Capitalism may bring about ****ty scenarios now and then, but that is a very necessary aspect of the self-regulatory nature of capitalism. When government step in and interfere, they're destroying that self-regulatory mechanism and turning the system into something other than a free market.
Listen, capitalism is by far the superior method of doing things. However like everything in life it is far from perfect, and having a lazzie-fair attitude when it comes to regulating it, only spells doom. Time and time again we have seen this, because there is two major flaws in most human beings... power and greed. And if a person can via the lazzie-fair capitalism gain more money and power by doing bad things, then that person will do so. Now you can say that the opposition in capitalism will prevent that (self-regulation), but often the opposition is out of business or/and dead and the power of the one left behind is so huge that people are afraid of him/her. Standard Oil comes to mind. Walmart comes to mind now days in certain geographic areas. Microsoft comes to mind back in the day. Apple comes to mind today.
Lets put this in perspective. Capitalism is like a teenager. Now we can have a lazzie-fair attitude to raising said teenager, and let "society" and "experience" form the teenager over time. Or we can go by the control aspect and ban a teenager for doing things, keep watch and so on. Which one is the best method or is it a mix of the two? But ultimately the parent can and does step in an take control if the teenager gets out of line... those families where parents dont act like parents, we get what... criminals and problem teenagers in larger numbers than families where parents act like parents.
It is no different in the overall economy... let the business run amok in a self regulating environment with no boundaries... and watch that eventually implode. Go the totally opposite way and regulate everything, and you are asking for hurt as well as no one likes to be told what to do all the time. Hence a mix of the two, and often the regulation is brought out of need to fix a problem rather than a preventive measure. So basically.. if it had not been for the abuses and flaws of capitalism, then there was no need for government regulation.
Problem of course comes when corporations own the regulatory arm of government and the regulation is made to prevent competition... it is still capitalism,.. you cant deny that.. but it is a flawed version.
Something that has not been investigated or is being investigated very quietly is that Standard and Poor and Moodys were neck deep in evaluating derivatives and were constantly evaluating them entirely too high for investors to know what they were getting into. Similar to the LIBOR issue, the valuers of the derivatives were hand in hand with the sellers creating misleading valuations.
Regulation is a fine line. Too much and it enriches government too much (usually in terms of power), too little and it enriches business too much. Ostensibly government should regulate just enough to allow business to grow without trampling the rights of individuals, consumers and employees. That should be the goal. That doesnt appear to be the goal on either side lately. So I dunno.
Else I agree. My motto is always... we only need the regulation that is needed, no more, no less.
"There is a lot of talk coming from CitiGroup about how Dodd-Frank isn't perfect, So let me say this to anyone listening at Citi —I agree with you. Dodd-Frank isn't perfect. It should have broken you into pieces." -- Elizabeth Warren
If the government was prevented from subsidizing or creating specific taxes, it would be impossible for companies to get an advantage by having a hand in the government. Heavy government regulation will ensure that a few major corporations will run the country and not the citizens, because they will be the ones throwing the money at politicians making sure the regulations favor them. Further, government spending on an industry can help the specific industry, but it creates an imbalance in the markets. It may appear like its helping the economy because the sector that the government is spending in gets larger, but where is that money coming from? Its coming from the sectors that are doing much better. In this way, it causes the public to invest in things that have a low return or in some cases a negative return. Because of that, government intervention almost always limits the economy.
The government had a hand in many of the aspects of this current recession. Fannie Mae was originally a creation of the Federal Government back in 1938. About 90% of all mortgages sold on the secondary market are sold to Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae therefore sets the standards in the lending industry. If Fannie Mae accepts high risk loans, then the banks will make high risk loans knowing that Fannie Mae will buy them. The banks don't care how risky the loan is since they aren't the ones that will suffer the consequences. They just care that the loan meets the standards set by Fannie Mae so they can sell it. If Fannie Mae sets the standard, and the standard they set is good, then there shouldn't be a lending crisis. A few banks that take their own risks might fail, but the industry as a whole should be fine.
As far as your comment on child working, that can be implemented as a general law that covers all industries. So I'm not against child labor laws. There are plenty of good laws that the government can come up with. They just shouldn't be making laws that favor certain individuals or industries.
Last edited by lordnate; 08-15-12 at 06:08 AM.
As to "starting" under Reagan, no. Jimmy Carter: Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 Remarks on Signing H.R. 4986 Into Law.
I dont care if youre Egyptian,Finnish or Swiss but stop with false narratives and talking points.