Why shouldn't capitalism be better regulated?

[Obscurity]

Most of those so-called "glaring weaknesses" are merely loony left factless mantras.

They're glaring weaknesses and have nothing to do with your ad hominem. Typical reply from a con tho. No answer just ad hominem when faced with an inconvenient challenge to your pathetic arguments.

 

[Bullseye]

They're glaring weaknesses and have nothing to do with your ad hominem. Typical reply from a con tho. No answer just ad hominem when faced with an inconvenient challenge to your pathetic arguments.

You should look up "ad hominem". I'm not attacking YOU I'm attack the litany of clichés you trot out as argument.

Kinda like you calling my arguments "pathetic".

 

[Obscurity]

You should look up "ad hominem". I'm not attacking YOU I'm attack the litany of clichés you trot out as argument.

Kinda like you calling my arguments "pathetic".

Your arguments are pathetic. Literally. You completely ignore glaring weaknesses and dont address them at all.

Like I said.

Pathetic.

 

[braindrain]

We need to look the past to find what works. Our ancestors who survived the Great Depression had a plan that worked so well that it created the greatest middle class in history and made us the envy of the world. No need to reinvent the wheel. Their plan included confiscatory income tax rates for top earners, support for unions, breaking up of monopolies and other methods that support wage growth for the masses. I would also add tax breaks for small business with under 50 employees. Small business is not the problem so you should rest easy.

yeah because the US being one of the only countries that didn't have its industrial and manufacturing centers blown to bits had nothing to do with that right.

Trying to use that time periods taxes and union support as the reason for our success without mentioning what else was going on in the world is a rather dishonest argument

 

[braindrain]

Most regulations come about because of the lobbying of the 1%. That's what most people don't realize. A lot of my regulations.. probably the vast majority.. come from my competitors... either alternative industries, or even within the industry itself. Its one of the ways that corporations can get a competitive edge over their competitors.

Do you have some proof of this.

 

[braindrain]

Sorry, Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70% to 28%. No, I do not think he made up for the decline by plugging up the tax loop holes.

"Politicians are spending addicts," because most Americans want the government to help them get through life. Because that is the way things are the government should hammer the rich with high taxes.

If they do not like it, they can move to a third world country with low taxes. That country will also have dirt roads, dangerous drinking water, high crime rates, and corrupt criminal justice systems. I will help them pack. They should only be allowed to take with them two suit cases with toilet articles and two changes of clothing. Everything else they own should be sold. The money should go to the U.S. Treasury to pay off the national debt that has grown since the inauguration of Reagan.

That you got demonstrating so very clearly why no one should ever listen to a word you say.

 

[code1211]

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.

Do you have an example for a location where capitalism is unregulated?

 

[wellwisher]

One of the problems with regulating any industry is you end up with layman in that field, in charge of the experts in that field. The regulators are variations of lawyers and bureaucrats. They are not all economists, businessmen and technical experts. This result is not expert advice to experts, by rather flawed advise to experts, by laymen.

To put this in perspective, why not regulate the legal industry; lawyers, using engineers? Or why not use plumbers to regulate medicine? Maybe the EPA can be regulated by Actors and Dancers. I am showing you the pitfalls of using laymen to regulate experts in another field. If the layman is leading, by the power of law, it becomes more political than technical. Political power allows the bull crap to float to the top, using nothing but hot air. It makes more sense to leave it to the experts, since they are the best for optimizing their profession.

On the other hand, the Democrat party has demonstrated what can happen when a profession is not regulated from the outside. The lawyer profession, instead of being there exclusively to protect victims from criminals, can now be used by the criminals, as way to commit and cover up crimes. The DOJ was even weaponized against citizens, because the foxes were in charge of the chicken coup. There is no outside regulations, from laymen in other professions, when it comes to the law industry.

Before we further regulate the economy, which is already regulated by layers of laymen, we need to begin to using layman to regulate the legal profession. Lawyering is the only profession, left, that is self regulating. Lawyers are low on the trust scale compared to other professes. Doctors are rated high but are regulated by lawyers via law suits. But doctors cannot regulate the legal profession. This makes no sense. The events over the past few years shows, that you cannot depend on lawyers to police themselves, since you can see what is happening in terms of using legal looking investigations for political purposes.

The way I would change the legal profession, as a layman, is by making a simple change connected to trials and investigations. In a trial, lawyers on both sides do not have to swear an oath to tell the truth. Only the witnesses have to do this. The lawyers have given themselves the room to lie and deceive, during a trial, without any consequences. The judge is there to control the scamming, but if he is biased or political, the scam is still on. This situation is based on self regulation. What would happen if say Adam Schiff was vulnerable to perjury, anytime he used his legal skills to voice an unsubstantiated claim? This one change could mess up most scams and help make the system honest again.

The lack of regulation in the lawyer industry is why businesses need to be regulated in the eyes of many. If a business breaks the law or is being unethical, this position is not defended by economic majors or engineers, whose industries are regulated. This is passed off to the lawyers, who self regulate, and who have the option to use deception, as a legal defense tactic. If we hold the legal feet to the fire, everything self regulates, since the major tool for social injustice is no longer available to big business.

 

[SmartCat]

This is what happens in a modern economy when social justice narratives and plattitudes become the driving force for the implementation of tax policy

Hollande's 75% 'Supertax' Failure A Blow To Piketty's Economics

Hollande's 75% 'Supertax' Failure A Blow To Piketty's Economics

If that website presents a good argument, please express it in your own words. Otherwise you indicate that you do not understand it yourself.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Sorry, Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70% to 28%. No, I do not think he made up for the decline by plugging up the tax loop holes.

"Politicians are spending addicts," because most Americans want the government to help them get through life. Because that is the way things are the government should hammer the rich with high taxes.

If they do not like it, they can move to a third world country with low taxes. That country will also have dirt roads, dangerous drinking water, high crime rates, and corrupt criminal justice systems. I will help them pack. They should only be allowed to take with them two suit cases with toilet articles and two changes of clothing. Everything else they own should be sold. The money should go to the U.S. Treasury to pay off the national debt that has grown since the inauguration of Reagan.

As an aside: if you have enough money in a country like that, you can get away with practically anything.

 

[iguanaman]

yeah because the US being one of the only countries that didn't have its industrial and manufacturing centers blown to bits had nothing to do with that right.

Trying to use that time periods taxes and union support as the reason for our success without mentioning what else was going on in the world is a rather dishonest argument

What does Europe and Japan have to do with the phenomenal postwar wage and GDP growth that was entirely internal to the U.S? We had so much cash we were lending it to Europe to rebuild. It is not like exports were causing the economic growth. That "theory" has been debunked.

 

[Bullseye]

Your arguments are pathetic. Literally. You completely ignore glaring weaknesses and dont address them at all.

Like I said.

Pathetic.

You keep saying that without proof other than LW mantras and slogans. Sorry if facts cause you difficulties but they're still facts.

 

[Obscurity]

You keep saying that without proof other than LW mantras and slogans. Sorry if facts cause you difficulties but they're still facts.

Facts are that your economic viewpoint is not only kindergarten, but absurd.

In my view regulation is useless because, again, in my view, companies ought not have the ability to do things that need to be regulated in the first place. If we bad a system set up like that no regulation would be needed.

In your view corporations are propertied and thus their propertied status is sanct. You claim their income is property and no one else has a right to it.

Fact is the rich have overwhelmingly destroyed the middle class via removal of benefits. That's not a talking point its historical fact.

You dislike it. I dont give a **** how you feel and not does anyone e else.

 

[Bullseye]

Facts are that your economic viewpoint is not only kindergarten, but absurd.

In my view regulation is useless because, again, in my view, companies ought not have the ability to do things that need to be regulated in the first place. If we bad a system set up like that no regulation would be needed.

In your view corporations are propertied and thus their propertied status is sanct. You claim their income is property and no one else has a right to it.

Fact is the rich have overwhelmingly destroyed the middle class via removal of benefits. That's not a talking point its historical fact.

You dislike it. I dont give a **** how you feel and not does anyone e else.

More fact-free blather and jabberwocky. Sprinkled with lies and idiocy, . :roll:

 

[smallvoice]

I guess you are opposed to Reagan's increases in the military budget then.

Hell, no. That was an expenditure we actually got something for: the demise of the Soviet Union.

 

[Obscurity]

More fact-free blather and jabberwocky. Sprinkled with lies and idiocy, . :roll:

We know. We can all read your absurd non responses.

 

[Eriech]

People are incompetent. People are corrupt. People compose both the government, as well as the companies that compose the markets.

This is the issue with free market freedom fighters. You ignore how corrupt, greedy and ruthless a lot of business owners are. How bereft of morals, how bereft of dignity, and how bereft of decency some of them are.

You can wax poetic about the merits of the free market, but without government as a regulating force for the general public, unfettered laissez faire would lead directly to where it always leads - robber barons, obese grain peddlers, and roaring 20's indignation which destroyed the economy.

Regulation is necessary when human beings are involved, end of story. More regulation is better than less in the realm of restoring fair business practices and actually undoing all the monopolizing that has been going on unchecked for decades.

"You ignore how corrupt, greedy and ruthless a lot of POLITICIANS are. How bereft of morals, how bereft of dignity, and how bereft of decency some of them are." If you rely on them you are a fool. Everyone looking for their best interests is the answer.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

What does Europe and Japan have to do with the phenomenal postwar wage and GDP growth that was entirely internal to the U.S? We had so much cash we were lending it to Europe to rebuild. It is not like exports were causing the economic growth. That "theory" has been debunked.

Most of the European industries destroyed in the war were back up and churning out product as early as 1948...1950 at the latest. Fiat, Alpha Romeo, BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagen, AEG, Siemens, Bayer, Renault, most if not all of the early British heavy industries, Leica, Blaupunkt, Grundig, all had product in the pipeline not even two years after the end of the war.

So the theory that the United States had some sort of "captive market" as a result of the war is nonsense.

A 1950 Blaupunkt Granada AM/FM/SW/LW radio receiver gifted by my grandparents

 

[iguanaman]

Most of the European industries destroyed in the war were back up and churning out product as early as 1948...1950 at the latest. Fiat, Alpha Romeo, BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagen, AEG, Siemens, Bayer, Renault, most if not all of the early British heavy industries, Leica, Blaupunkt, Grundig, all had product in the pipeline not even two years after the end of the war.

So the theory that the United States had some sort of "captive market" as a result of the war is nonsense.

A 1950 Blaupunkt Granada AM/FM/SW/LW radio receiver gifted by my grandparents

View attachment 67257711

It's all they have since they need to ignore the obvious reasons for the amazing postwar growth. Wages kept up with profits, all wage groups saw similar income gain %, and the top earners were severely limited in their income by confiscatory income tax rates. This meant the economy was firing on all cylinders with nearly no one socking away more than they spent.

Look at the inversions of profits vs. wages. the last time wages beat profits was during Bill Clinton's administration. No wonder he was so popular.

 

[Obscurity]

"You ignore how corrupt, greedy and ruthless a lot of POLITICIANS are. How bereft of morals, how bereft of dignity, and how bereft of decency some of them are." If you rely on them you are a fool. Everyone looking for their best interests is the answer.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

So to you, we should defer to the free market, where there is no real accountability? Politicians can be kicked out of office. Business owners cannot.

 

[Thoreau72]

What makes you think capitalism is NOT regulated? There are huge volumes of laws and regulations on the books governing the operation of our businesses. Probably far more than necessary. The reason corporate misbehavior makes news is because it's rare. There are tens of thousands of corporations and businesses out there doing business lawfully, and honorably.

Capitalism WAS regulated, but not so much today.

I offer 2 examples: Glass-Steagall regulated banks after the disaster of the Great Depression. It served the country well for the better part of 60 or 70 years, during which time the country thrived as perhaps never before. Since its repeal, predictably, we have had disaster after disaster related to bad behavior by individuals in the banking sector.

The other is the direct-to-consumer advertising allowed by Clinton under pressure by Big Pharma. The result has been all sorts of bad behavior by individuals in Big Pharma. Whether there is a cause and effect relationship between those events might be debated, but in this nation of hypochondriacs, this free-for-all has put Big Pharma in the drivers seat, at the expense of the ordinary tax payer.

High tax rates on wealthy individuals were also a fact during the period of the mid-20th century.

 

[Bullseye]

Capitalism WAS regulated, but not so much today.

I offer 2 examples: Glass-Steagall regulated banks after the disaster of the Great Depression. It served the country well for the better part of 60 or 70 years, during which time the country thrived as perhaps never before. Since its repeal, predictably, we have had disaster after disaster related to bad behavior by individuals in the banking sector.

"Disaster after disaster"? A tad melodramatic, don't you think? Which "disasters are you talking about, and how are they attributed to Glass-Seagall's repeat?

The other is the direct-to-consumer advertising allowed by Clinton under pressure by Big Pharma. The result has been all sorts of bad behavior by individuals in Big Pharma. Whether there is a cause and effect relationship between those events might be debated, but in this nation of hypochondriacs, this free-for-all has put Big Pharma in the drivers seat, at the expense of the ordinary tax payer.

Again, specifics please. What "all sorts of bad behavior"? I can think of a scattering of instances, much like I can of all most every human calling or endeavor.

High tax rates on wealthy individuals were also a fact during the period of the mid-20th century.

And now they pay the lion's share of income tax revenues and far more, percentage wise, than their share of national income.

 

[ataraxia]

Government should have nothing to do with harnessing or regulating the Free Market Economy. The absolute only exceptions are basic law enforcement, contract enforcement and anti monopoly regulations. Since monopolies can usually only be established by crony capitalism: corporations and Government colluding, in a truly Free Market even anti monopoly regulations would seldom be needed.

Although the market will always have it's ups and down, every major depression or recession the US has ever suffered came from Government trying to Regulate or Harness the economy.

It's more than just about monopolies. The free market was demanding ever increasing exploitation of child labor, until the creation of child labor laws. These kids were working 80 hour weeks, with dangerous equipment and chemicals, with no liability from their employers. They were not getting even a basic education.

And they still weren't making enough to eat properly.

Don't get me wrong. The free market is a great thing. It's a very powerful tool, like a bulldozer or a chainsaw. But every powerful tool needs very careful safeguards and safety features.

 

[jaeger19]

It's all they have since they need to ignore the obvious reasons for the amazing postwar growth. Wages kept up with profits, all wage groups saw similar income gain %, and the top earners were severely limited in their income by confiscatory income tax rates. This meant the economy was firing on all cylinders with nearly no one socking away more than they spent.

Look at the inversions of profits vs. wages. the last time wages beat profits was during Bill Clinton's administration. No wonder he was so popular.

Yawn.. sorry but I already debunked this argument. Sorry but wages had nothing to do with "confiscatory income tax rates".

Income tax rates now are more progressive than they were in the past after the war. The idea that income tax rates were confiscatory is pure bunk.

The reason why wages were higher post war? 1. Wages had been kept down during the war..artificially by the government to prevent massive wage inflation. When wages were allowed to increase..they began catching up. By the way..wages being kept down is what led to employer paid healthcare and other benefits.

2. There was tons of pent up demand for products. Not just in the us but abroad. And it was not government spending.. the private sector stepped up as the government spending dropped precipitously.. (evidence that the government actually can crowd out private investment).

3. Unions were strong

4. The use had a strong manufacturing base as we were one of the few countries that did not have to rebuild their manufacturing plants

5. The GI bill

6. The investments of the US in military technology.. led to lots of innovation and products for the private sector.


The idea that wages were the result of tax rates.. is absolutely pure bunk..and has already been dismissed.

 

[iguanaman]

Yawn.. sorry but I already debunked this argument. Sorry but wages had nothing to do with "confiscatory income tax rates".

Income tax rates now are more progressive than they were in the past after the war. The idea that income tax rates were confiscatory is pure bunk.

The reason why wages were higher post war? 1. Wages had been kept down during the war..artificially by the government to prevent massive wage inflation. When wages were allowed to increase..they began catching up. By the way..wages being kept down is what led to employer paid healthcare and other benefits.

2. There was tons of pent up demand for products. Not just in the us but abroad. And it was not government spending.. the private sector stepped up as the government spending dropped precipitously.. (evidence that the government actually can crowd out private investment).

3. Unions were strong

4. The use had a strong manufacturing base as we were one of the few countries that did not have to rebuild their manufacturing plants

5. The GI bill

6. The investments of the US in military technology.. led to lots of innovation and products for the private sector.


The idea that wages were the result of tax rates.. is absolutely pure bunk..and has already been dismissed.

You forget that the increased profits of the last 40 years had to go somewhere...to someone. Is it your contention that if top rates stayed at >70% CEO's would still have taken the same salaries and paid 2/3rds of it to the govt? We know they didn't take them when those rates were in effect.