View Poll Results: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • no regulation

    6 16.67%
  • regulate for safety

    26 72.22%
  • level the playing field

    8 22.22%
  • penalize unwanted industry

    5 13.89%
  • strengthen government

    3 8.33%
  • reasonable costs so businesses can thrive

    16 44.44%
  • moderate to severe regulations to control industry

    2 5.56%
  • help nationalize industry by placing undue burdens on businesses

    1 2.78%
  • other...

    7 19.44%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45

Thread: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    It's not that the poor don't have the drive to do well in high school or shoot for a college education. Or rather, that is not the only reason. For some, it's cultural; for others, it's because of family influence; for others, it's because they have disabilities, such as mental illness; for yet others, it is because of regional differences in industries.

    And yes, we do give PreK - High school education paid for by taxpayers. And we do that because we have an economic interest in providing opportunities for education to our people. Originally, public schools was formed so that children would be able to do basic reading, writing, and arithmetic so that they would be able to read directions on the use of such things as fertilizers and calculate how much of which components they would need to apply the fertilizer to their fields.

    We started public school in order to have an educated populace that is easier to train for occupations necessary for our well-being. As our society has advanced, so has the requirements for basic occupations. For example, plumbers no longer learn how to put pipes together. They also have to learn the environmental impacts of sewage. This requires even basic tradesmen to have a higher quality of education than previous.

    I'd also like to point out a report I read one time. They took different factors of death row inmates and calculated common factors between them. The number one common factors between criminals sentenced for death was a lack of education.

    So providing easier and better opportunities for education will not only help reduce criminals (since most criminals commit crimes because it is an easier way they can make an income, and thus there's an economic factor to crime) it will also ensure that we have an educated and trained populace that can pursue occupations and thus earn a living.

    Basically what I'm saying is that the best way to get people off of food stamps is to ensure they get professional occupational training and education so they have the opportunity to get hired. Considering this will increase the economic benefits of the entire country for having an educated and skill populace, and it will reduce the crime rate, I think that's tax money well spent.
    College is not and should not be mandatory. We should not offer it for free. We are not a social democracy. You can make a fine living without a college education.

    The basic problem I see with what you are saying is that you think you can produce an educated populous by mandating it. The reality is that the drop-out rate is skyrocketed. People who need it are not getting educated through the capable school system already in place. There is no way to wave a wand so that they are suddenly ready for college.

    It is a situation that is impervious to regulation.

  2. #22
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    I say that the role of regulation in our economy, society, government is that it be for safety. I also say that it be reasonable and not place undue costs or procedures on businesses. I say only for safety as I don't wish to see regulation used to "level the playing field" in any sense. I say be reasonable since we don't want to unduly burden business - we want a business friendly environment so that businesses can be created and thrive.

    My core question is: is there such a thing as too much regulation? How do we determine where that point is, industry to industry?
    Contract law and environmental (aka, property crime) law should cover just about everything.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    All Government Regulation should be based on 'public interest and safety'. Under that I would include not only health codes but banking regs. A bank that engages in overly risky behavior for short terms gains is putting their depositors at risk. Also, any misleading or unethical business practices (price-fixing, bait and switch advertising, false advertising) is not in the public's interest.

    I don't like the "level playing field" idea, but I think ensuring fair competition and pricing is in the public interest.

  4. #24
    Educator Jucon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    04-22-14 @ 07:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    787

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    One thing I would like is to make the first 4 years, or the equivalent in credits, of college, university, or trade school paid for by taxes for all Americans instead of them relying on student loans or scholarships. That way we can ensure that all people have the opportunity for a basic college education. That will help people get the formal educational and occupational training they need for employment nowadays. By limiting it to only the first 4 years, anyone who screws up the first time and tries to go again will have to pay for it himself.
    We can barely afford to pay the teachers K-12... now is not the time for this. Besides, like Reef said... we don't need another entitlement program.

    I made it through 5 years of college basically paying for all of it with loans. Now that I have a degree, I will get a job and pay back my loans. It may take some time to pay them back, but it was all worth it. Money is not an issue here... you just need decent grades.

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    It's not that the poor don't have the drive to do well in high school or shoot for a college education. Or rather, that is not the only reason. For some, it's cultural; for others, it's because of family influence; for others, it's because they have disabilities, such as mental illness; for yet others, it is because of regional differences in industries.
    Everyone is given choices in life. If you decide to waste your life with video games, gang involvement, drugs, etc... you have only yourself to blame. Every child in the U.S. is given the opportunity to make something of themselves. They just need to grow up and learn how things work in this country.

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    And yes, we do give PreK - High school education paid for by taxpayers. And we do that because we have an economic interest in providing opportunities for education to our people. Originally, public schools was formed so that children would be able to do basic reading, writing, and arithmetic so that they would be able to read directions on the use of such things as fertilizers and calculate how much of which components they would need to apply the fertilizer to their fields.
    Yes... but that doesn't mean kids will take advantage of the great opportunities they are given.

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    We started public school in order to have an educated populace that is easier to train for occupations necessary for our well-being. As our society has advanced, so has the requirements for basic occupations. For example, plumbers no longer learn how to put pipes together. They also have to learn the environmental impacts of sewage. This requires even basic tradesmen to have a higher quality of education than previous.
    I bet a majority of those in poverty never strove to do well in high school and don't know any applicable skills anyways... besides pushing a button on an order taking screen.

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    So providing easier and better opportunities for education will not only help reduce criminals (since most criminals commit crimes because it is an easier way they can make an income, and thus there's an economic factor to crime) it will also ensure that we have an educated and trained populace that can pursue occupations and thus earn a living.
    Sorry but this is ridiculous. Like I said... everyone is given an opportunity to learn in this country. But each person needs to make the choice to work hard and make something of themselves. Why would kids who don't try hard in high school try to get into college? You try hard in high school to get into college... THEN after high school and you have proven you are responsible and are able to handle the task of learning, you are given the opportunity to get into college. This opportunity doesn't, and SHOULDN'T, just fall in your lap. These people choose crime because it's easier than studying or reading a book. Life is full of choices, and these people have made theirs.

  5. #25
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Contract law and environmental (aka, property crime) law should cover just about everything.
    No it won't. There are plenty of necessary regulations which don't fall into either of those categories. Do you think it should be legal for health insurance companies to discriminate based on genetic profile? Do you think it should be legal for companies to monopolize an industry and suppress any competition by selling below cost? Do you think it should be legal for financial firms to make enormous gambles that threaten to bring down the entire economy? Do you think it should be legal for food processing companies to use any unsanitary conditions they want, as long as they don't advertise otherwise?

    I think most people would agree that the answers to all of these questions is no. Therefore, we need more regulations than just the two you mentioned.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #26
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    No it won't. There are plenty of necessary regulations which don't fall into either of those categories. Do you think it should be legal for health insurance companies to discriminate based on genetic profile?
    Why shouldn't they be able to?
    It is their money on the line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Do you think it should be legal for companies to monopolize an industry and suppress any competition by selling below cost?
    Just how long can a business sell below cost for?
    They certainly can't do it forever.
    Besides, many businesses already do that now to drive out competition and no one is doing anything about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Do you think it should be legal for financial firms to make enormous gambles that threaten to bring down the entire economy?
    That's what you get for concentrating power around a few select financial firms and implicitly guaranteeing them that they will be bailed out via the public treasury.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Do you think it should be legal for food processing companies to use any unsanitary conditions they want, as long as they don't advertise otherwise?
    It's not legal if someone gets sick, that is part of contract law.
    It is a tort.
    Of course, some food companies already have unsanitary conditions that either the regulators fail to check or they look the other way.
    The most likely thing that happens is that most food companies don't want their customers to be afraid of eating their product, so they do this voluntarily in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I think most people would agree that the answers to all of these questions is no. Therefore, we need more regulations than just the two you mentioned.
    Not really, they cover a pretty broad range of law.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #27
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Why shouldn't they be able to?
    It is their money on the line.
    Because the purpose of insurance is risk-sharing, not risk-hoarding. People have no control over their genes, at least not yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    Just how long can a business sell below cost for?
    They certainly can't do it forever.
    Long enough to drive the competition out of business, if they start from a strong point. That's how John D. Rockefeller was able to maintain his monopoly for so long.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    Besides, many businesses already do that now to drive out competition and no one is doing anything about that.
    What businesses specifically are you referring to? Selling below cost to drive the competition out of business is highly illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    That's what you get for concentrating power around a few select financial firms and implicitly guaranteeing them that they will be bailed out via the public treasury.
    No, the fact that they needed to be bailed out was a SYMPTOM of the fact that they play such a central role in our economy, not the cause. How exactly do you suggest we move away from "concentrating power around a few select financial firms"? Break them up? How is that not a regulation in itself?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    It's not legal if someone gets sick, that is part of contract law.
    It is a tort.
    But if the corporate lawyers say "We never advertised our products were processed in sanitary conditions," what then? If you think it should be illegal anyway, then it's a regulation that doesn't fit your above criteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    Of course, some food companies already have unsanitary conditions that either the regulators fail to check or they look the other way.
    The most likely thing that happens is that most food companies don't want their customers to be afraid of eating their product, so they do this voluntarily in the first place.
    Usually that is the case, but not always, as was the case with Peanut Corporation of America last year. Sometimes a company might conclude that the short-term cost savings are more important than their long-term reputation.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #28
    Educator Jucon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    04-22-14 @ 07:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    787

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Why shouldn't they be able to?
    It is their money on the line.
    I don't think someone's genetics will determine how sick they will get in life. People with "good" genetics can lead unhealthy lifestyles and people with "bad" genetics can lead good lifestyles. The insurance companies simply should not have access to people's genetic information. Only the health care GIVERS should have access to it.

    People really need to make a major choice concerning health care regulations... some people want to require the health insurance companies to cover anyone... yet some people don't want it to be required that everyone buy health insurance.

    The only logical options are to require both, or neither.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Just how long can a business sell below cost for?
    They certainly can't do it forever.
    Agreed

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    That's what you get for concentrating power around a few select financial firms and implicitly guaranteeing them that they will be bailed out via the public treasury.
    Amen. As much as I hate certain government intervention... I think these banks need to be slit up into smaller entities.

  9. #29
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Because the purpose of insurance is risk-sharing, not risk-hoarding. People have no control over their genes, at least not yet.
    Yea but it's supposed to be risk sharing based on age, gender, disease affliction and could be based on disease predisposition.
    They are all micro pools of risk sharing, that is how it works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Long enough to drive the competition out of business, if they start from a strong point. That's how John D. Rockefeller was able to maintain his monopoly for so long.
    Rockefeller colluded with the railroads (which happened to be heavily subsidized by the government) to exclude other businesses but even then he didn't have a monopoly and his share of the market was dwindling by the time he was prosecuted with anti trust legislation.

    No monopoly can last forever, unless it is protected by the public trust.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    What businesses specifically are you referring to? Selling below cost to drive the competition out of business is highly illegal.
    A Raceway gas station just opened up in my town, in a few weeks they will start selling regular unleaded below cost to help draw business to them away from their competitors.
    It's a common practice, grocery stores do this too.
    They're called loss leaders.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    No, the fact that they needed to be bailed out was a SYMPTOM of the fact that they play such a central role in our economy, not the cause. How exactly do you suggest we move away from "concentrating power around a few select financial firms"? Break them up? How is that not a regulation in itself?
    I suggest that they be forced to rely on themselves otherwise they will always find a way to be bailed out.
    There was a time in this country when the larger banks acted as the lenders of last resort.
    I wonder why that changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    But if the corporate lawyers say "We never advertised our products were processed in sanitary conditions," what then? If you think it should be illegal anyway, then it's a regulation that doesn't fit your above criteria.
    But it does, that isn't adequate consideration under contract law.
    It would also be argued that no person would of purchased the product, if they knew it had been tainted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Usually that is the case, but not always, as was the case with Peanut Corporation of America last year. Sometimes a company might conclude that the short-term cost savings are more important than their long-term reputation.
    Yep and a lot of them go out of business.
    My company has 0 government quality inspectors yet they(the company) force strict quality measures on each production line.
    These products come with a standard free from defect warranty, which costs the company money if it does not meat the fitness of the consumer.

    These things are already largely enforced by private enterprises.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  10. #30
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The role of regulation in the US economy, society and government

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    I don't think someone's genetics will determine how sick they will get in life. People with "good" genetics can lead unhealthy lifestyles and people with "bad" genetics can lead good lifestyles. The insurance companies simply should not have access to people's genetic information. Only the health care GIVERS should have access to it.

    People really need to make a major choice concerning health care regulations... some people want to require the health insurance companies to cover anyone... yet some people don't want it to be required that everyone buy health insurance.

    The only logical options are to require both, or neither.
    I'm all for information privacy, I think though that if one insurer were to require that information another wouldn't as a means of taking customers from that company.

    It's not a vacuum of existence, so anything is possible in a competitive market.

    You are largely right though, behavior is the number 1 driver of whether or not, someone is healthy and will continue to be healthy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    Amen. As much as I hate certain government intervention... I think these banks need to be slit up into smaller entities.
    They have oodles of influence that gets them all kinds of gifts, like the latest financial reform bill that passed.
    I wonder why Goldman Sachs supported it...
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •