• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why shouldn't capitalism be better regulated?

dear, haven't you read any of the books out on this very subject? Is your belief in illiteracy so strong that you refuse to read any books at all??

Yes.. I have.. extensively.. pookie bear...

Which is why I know that you are completely and utterly full of BS.

But.. I have given YOU the opportunity to present to us..your learning and education. And so far? FAIL...

So again:

How about you define exactly what specific "war on poverty".. crippled those "it was trying to help"... and then in detail please explain how it destroyed love and family.

Start with 1990 to present.

Why are you so afraid? Why so much fear?
 
Yes.. I have.. extensively.. pookie bear...

but as a typical illiterate liberal no books on our subject?? Isn't that embarrassing???
 
Do you think the Girl Scouts destroyed love and family in America or was it the liberals, the true enemies of civilization on earth??

You seem to have some kind of weird fixation on the girl scouts.
 
ceo-compensation-ratio-2016.png

Interesting picture, but the CEOs at the top 350 companies are not "average CEOs." They are the top CEOs.
 
Interesting picture, but the CEOs at the top 350 companies are not "average CEOs." They are the top CEOs.

Therefore it's okay for companies to not pay their employees more even though they have the ability to do so? Over the past 10 years, WalMart has approved $120 billion in share buybacks. Why should that be legal while their employees are so poor that they qualify for food stamps? Why are we subsidizing this enrichment of the already wealthy?
 
but as a typical illiterate liberal no books on our subject?? Isn't that embarrassing???

WTF..I told you I have done extensive reading on it. you realize that you can read books right? Or do you just use books to level your coffee table? How embarrassing for you.
Twice you have been asked to provide evidence of your premise..and twice you have failed
 
Therefore it's okay for companies to not pay their employees more even though they have the ability to do so? Over the past 10 years, WalMart has approved $120 billion in share buybacks. Why should that be legal while their employees are so poor that they qualify for food stamps? Why are we subsidizing this enrichment of the already wealthy?

Companies should pay their employees what they're time is worth, i.e., the market wage for their work. It's not the responsibility of private companies to provide for the needs of our population. That's the role of government.

Besides, for the vast majority of these top 350 companies, if you took the CEO's entire salary and divided it among the other employees, it wouldn't amount to crap.
 
Companies should pay their employees what they're time is worth, i.e., the market wage for their work. It's not the responsibility of private companies to provide for the needs of our population. That's the role of government.

Besides, for the vast majority of these top 350 companies, if you took the CEO's entire salary and divided it among the other employees, it wouldn't amount to crap.
The government should provide our livelihood? So you support UBI?

Also, real wealth is concentrated in shareholder assets and financial institutions, not CEO pay.
 
The government should provide our livelihood? So you support UBI?

Also, real wealth is concentrated in shareholder assets and financial institutions, not CEO pay.

No, people should provide for their own livelihood. We have welfare for people who can't (or won't, which bothers me). We don't need UBI.
 
Interesting picture, but the CEOs at the top 350 companies are not "average CEOs." They are the top CEOs.

The employees that work for the top 350 companies are not just "average employees." They are the top employees.

See how that works?
 
We have FIRE regulations for a reason, yes?
Fire can be a useful tool, because it can warm your home, forge your steel and iron, cook your food, etc.
It can also burn down entire towns if left unchecked.

Capitalism is a lot like FIRE. Left unregulated and unchecked, it can become predatory and very damaging, and it can unearth some pretty awful unintended consequences. And yet when properly harnessed, capitalism can lift entire generations out of poverty, stimulate innovation and launch entirely new industries. Capitalism has demonstrated the capability to serve as a useful and rewarding tool to serve the middle class if it operates under the right kind of regulation.

So this thread is an effort to explore suggestions and ideas on how to properly regulate capitalism to do just that.

Excellent analogy. I've also compared capitalism to dogs--well-trained dogs are a great addition to a household, but poorly-trained dogs are messy and annoying at best and dangerous at worst.

The fire analogy may be better though.
 
Child Labor was ended by pressure from people who today would be called "The Religious Right" Henry Ford created the 40 hour work week and he hated the Left.

The religious "right" of the early 20th century IS the religious "left" of today, because today's religious right is warming up to the notion of reintroducing child labor.

• Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty
In November, Acton came under fire for an essay on its website whose original title was “Bring Back Child Labor.” (The title was quickly changed.) The Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation contributed $1.28 million from 2000 to 2014, and the Prince Foundation donated at least $550,000.

And no, not JUST benign apprenticeship, actual raw unregulated child labor...

More than a century after public policies dramatically reduced child labor in the United States, the topic has burst back into the headlines in an unlikely manner: President Trump’s now-withdrawn nominee for the Federal Reserve Board, Stephen Moore, came under fire for suggesting the repeal of child labor legislation. During a panel on the minimum wage at the 2016 GOP convention, Moore said: “I’m a radical on this, I’d get rid of these child labor laws. I want people starting work at 11, 12.”

Your first argument, all shot to Hell. ^^^

Henry Ford hated the Left because in his mind, the Left meant JEWS.
Ford hated Jews. He hated them so much that he published numerous books and magazines slamming what he believed was "the international conspiracy of Jewish bankers".


Your second argument, all up in flames. ^^^

Thanks for playing, good-bye.
 
Excellent analogy. I've also compared capitalism to dogs--well-trained dogs are a great addition to a household, but poorly-trained dogs are messy and annoying at best and dangerous at worst.

The fire analogy may be better though.

No point in it being an either/or. Both analogies work well.
The point is, purity is a killer.
Purity in genetics leads to profound birth defects, purity in religion leads to fundamentalist extremists, purity in music, art, literature and cuisine leads to stagnation and the collapse of the genre.

Purity is not something that Nature tolerates well, nature is always attempting to insert impurities and it is often these impurities that stimulate positive responses, even when cloaked in seemingly negative outward indicators.
We see a pearl and we're told that the oyster generates the pearl substance to shield the organism from an impurity trapped in the shell but does the oyster truly view the pearl it creates as an unwanted consequence? Oysters have been creating pearls for billions of years, more than enough time to evolve away from what it would view as a threat to the continued survival of the species, thus it might be assumed that a pearl is treated by the host body as benign.

And in economics, purity leads to extremes in what spiritual people refer to as the Seven Deadly Sins, chief among which is greed, driven by love of money, the kind of love that would normally be directed toward God. Thus purity, in the form of absence of all regulation, leads to worship of Mammon.
Even I can see the problem with that and I am not even a religious person.
One cannot serve two masters and we in this world are clearly under the yoke of Mammon today.
 
No point in it being an either/or. Both analogies work well.
The point is, purity is a killer.
Purity in genetics leads to profound birth defects, purity in religion leads to fundamentalist extremists, purity in music, art, literature and cuisine leads to stagnation and the collapse of the genre.

Purity is not something that Nature tolerates well, nature is always attempting to insert impurities and it is often these impurities that stimulate positive responses, even when cloaked in seemingly negative outward indicators.
We see a pearl and we're told that the oyster generates the pearl substance to shield the organism from an impurity trapped in the shell but does the oyster truly view the pearl it creates as an unwanted consequence? Oysters have been creating pearls for billions of years, more than enough time to evolve away from what it would view as a threat to the continued survival of the species, thus it might be assumed that a pearl is treated by the host body as benign.

And in economics, purity leads to extremes in what spiritual people refer to as the Seven Deadly Sins, chief among which is greed, driven by love of money, the kind of love that would normally be directed toward God. Thus purity, in the form of absence of all regulation, leads to worship of Mammon.
Even I can see the problem with that and I am not even a religious person.
One cannot serve two masters and we in this world are clearly under the yoke of Mammon today.

Phenomenal post. :thumbs: :thumbs:

You are so right about purity being a poison. We're seeing examples of American politics right now, where any politician that doesn't pass the progressive purity test or the fascist purity test has no home in the polarized bases. 99.9% pure? Too bad, you're 0.1% short and are a heretic.

Our political system cannot survive like this for long.
 
More times than not, regulations are put in place to protect the company more so than the consumer.

Where regulations should be put into place they are not, and where they shouldn't be, there they are.

This is what happens when the people making the laws aren't concerned with the safety, well-being, and prosperity of those who elected them there in the first place.
 
More times than not, regulations are put in place to protect the company more so than the consumer.

Where regulations should be put into place they are not, and where they shouldn't be, there they are.

This is what happens when the people making the laws aren't concerned with the safety, well-being, and prosperity of those who elected them there in the first place.

Not saying that ALL regulations are good, or even well written, or effective.
I'm saying that complete ABSENCE of ANY regulation whatsoever is dangerous.
The thread is titled "Why shouldn't capitalism be BETTER regulated?

If the regulation is not better, then it is not better regulation, it's poor regulation.
And we need BETTER regulation, in areas where regulation might be called for.

I am attempting to make a very very specific point here, I am not broad brushing or saying,
"Regulate the crap out of everything that moves or has a pulse!"

We are not "Animal Farm", therefore it is not necessary to run around screeching,
"Four legs good, two legs BAA-A-A-A-A-AD!!"

And whenever anybody reflexively jumps up and says that "regulation is bad" because:

A

B

C

D

they're leaving out E, F, G and so on, which might not be bad, and might even be good.

Just don't do A-B-C-D and learn to implement E-F-G etc as intelligently as possible.
 
Last edited:
PLEASE REMEMBER that I started off this thread by saying:

...when properly harnessed, capitalism can lift entire generations out of poverty, stimulate innovation and launch entirely new industries. Capitalism has demonstrated the capability to serve as a useful and rewarding tool to serve the middle class if it operates under the right kind of regulation.

So it is clear that I am not against capitalism, I am not a communist and I am not calling for blanketing the entire horizon under a thick wool slab of nonsensical regulation for regulation's sake.

Please do not assume or read something into my post or my thread that isn't there and never was.
 
Not saying that ALL regulations are good, or even well written, or effective.
I'm saying that complete ABSENCE of ANY regulation whatsoever is dangerous.
The thread is titled "Why shouldn't capitalism be BETTER regulated?

If the regulation is not better, then it is not better regulation, it's poor regulation.
And we need BETTER regulation, in areas where regulation might be called for.

I am attempting to make a very very specific point here, I am not broad brushing or saying,
"Regulate the crap out of everything that moves or has a pulse!"

We are not "Animal Farm", therefore it is not necessary to run around screeching,
"Four legs good, two legs BAA-A-A-A-A-AD!!"

And whenever anybody reflexively jumps up and says that "regulation is bad" because:

A

B

C

D

they're leaving out E, F, G and so on, which might not be bad, and might even be good.

Just don't do A-B-C-D and learn to implement E-F-G etc as intelligently as possible.

Yeah, I really hate them knee jerkers...or how bout them halfwit ****s who give someone else their position for them, when they don't know what the **** they're talking about....god I hate them asses with a passion...:soap



More times than not, people, I'm not one of these people you understand, but there are the Ayn Randians of the world who despise regulation for despising regulations sake. They think because ABCD are so bad that EFG will just have to be lost in the fight.

I personally am jaded with the whole process, but not so much that I don't see the underlying necessity or good that comes with certain types of regulation.

See, when you have to shut down a start up because government has their head up their ass and you watch as hundreds of thousands of dollars in product is thrown out or destroyed (none of it mine thank god, the one time my procrastination paid off, but of fellow entrepreneurs ) because the city doesn't know how to deal with the industry, or I should say make money off it, or when you can't even put a business plan into action because certain aldermen with competing interests constantly are putting up road blocks, and others are aligned with those in the same space who've lined their pockets and have therefore been given the green light and a head start, well, you'll forgive me if my initial response to "why shouldn't capitalism be regulated?" is one of pessimism.

Or when you come back from Europe and you're reminded of how your government is essentially allowing you to be poisoned by the untold number of atrocities to man companies are allowed to commit and what's worse are protected by the government TO commit, again pessimism wins the day...

Or even when you think back a couple years and you see an entire industry raking in billions by just resting on their laurels and then lobbying successfully to hamstring competition who've embraced technological advancements and entered into their space so successfully that now have taken over the space, what is a thoughtful creature going to lean towards? pessimism

Or how about that family with hope all but gone, who want to try their saved one with an "unapproved" treatment, medicine what have you, and they just want to throw that last hail mary pass, knowing deep down it will probably fail, but just want that shred of hope to cling to? Yeah, **** them for their own good, right?

Now course there are plenty of regulations in place that do keep the scumbags from just out and out killing us, but, you know, at the time I wasn't thinking of them. That's my optimistic side, the side that makes me think, nah, the government ain't gonna allow for there to be a percentage of fecal matter in my meat. Or sawdust in my parmesan, or....oh hell nah, wait a minute...

Regulations that are good, that are truly a given, no one in their right mind is opposed to. The problem is in trusting those making the regulations. As we see time and time again expedience usually wins the day and that's usually a loss for most of us.
 
Yeah, I really hate them knee jerkers...or how bout them halfwit ****s who give someone else their position for them, when they don't know what the **** they're talking about....god I hate them asses with a passion...:soap



More times than not, people, I'm not one of these people you understand, but there are the Ayn Randians of the world who despise regulation for despising regulations sake. They think because ABCD are so bad that EFG will just have to be lost in the fight.

...

As an aside, almost all of these Ayn Randians call themselves libertarians. What makes that so hilarious is that Rand herself hated libertarians. :lamo
 
The employees that work for the top 350 companies are not just "average employees." They are the top employees.

See how that works?

No, that's not how it works. Fortune 100 companies need cheap labor just like any other companies.
 
The employees that work for the top 350 companies are not just "average employees." They are the top employees.

See how that works?

Tell that the people stuffing trucks for Jeff Bezos.
 
As an aside, almost all of these Ayn Randians call themselves libertarians. What makes that so hilarious is that Rand herself hated libertarians. :lamo
objectivists and libertarians are very very similar which is of course why you presented no evidence that she hated them. She did hate communism. Notice that a conservative/libertarian is made to feel like a kindergarten teach when a liberal is around?
 
Capitalism is a lot like FIRE. Left unregulated and unchecked, it can become predatory and very damaging, and it can unearth some pretty awful unintended consequences.

of course that's perfectly backwards. The struggle in human history is for freedom and capitalism against govt libcommie elitist monopolists who presume to regulate us to an always growing degree that had already resulted in 100's of millions of dead human souls .
 
More times than not, regulations are put in place to protect the company more so than the consumer.
.

sometimes but mostly they are put in place by libcommie monopolist elitist regulators who imagine they know better than millions of people regulating and creating a free market.
 
Back
Top Bottom