|
On September 22 2011 03:55 Kiarip wrote:
From wikipedia, all of american households total right now own about 55 trillion dollars... ironically it's just enough to pay off our entire government and personal debt...
Sounds like a good idea right? Just let the government take it all.
That is a strawman. I never said anything like that. I said if you want own a large amount of the total wealth you are going to have to have a large amount of the tax burden. I think 10% of the population owning 71% of the wealth qualifies as a large amount.
On September 22 2011 03:55 Kiarip wrote:
a lot of them. we have 15 % unemployment... obviously labor is too expensive, so get rid of a lot of the labor laws.
Our healthcare is way too expensive, get rid of a lot of FDA regulation. Our industry isn't competitive enough... a lot of the epa needs to go as well.
How is it a bad idea. everything that those organizations do is heavily influenced by lobbyists, and could be easily negotiable between the customer and the producer.
Constitutional property rights can protect us from a lot of the pollution, don't pick winners and losers by creating regulations on what technology a company needs to use to decrease their pollution, allowing the providers of that technology to inflate their prices... etc etc.
all these things either make labor or manufactoring more expensive. Now we're in a situation where so many people don't have jobs, I think we're protecting the the employees too much if all the employers are scared to hire them.
As for your taking away regulations, no thanks. We tried that once before. Corporations are totally cool with abusing its workforce and customers. They don't care and can afford better lawyers and long trials. These regulations were added, we didn't start with them. We tried it without - didn't work. Also that would require me to believe unemployment is based on regulation and we know that to be false. We have had regulation for years and years and had high employment quite recently.
On September 22 2011 03:55 Kiarip wrote:
The tax rate now is higher. What NEEDS to be removed is all the subsidies and the loopholes. The loopholes are created by the regulations by the way of tax credits, and etcs. for all types of bullshit. Have a flat corporate tax, and don't tax returns on investment (the interest rates will do that on their own when they go up.)
Maybe even get rid of income tax in favor of just a bigger sales tax... tax people when they're spending money not saving it, but I'm not sure about this.
I think that some corporates are simply being under-taxed through their cheating the system, and this needs to be fixed imo. But I don't necessarily think that you need to higher taxes. First you need to cut the shit out of military, some defense, a lot of entitlements, departments that destroy our economy (the ones you've mentioned,) and etc.
No the tax rate is lower. These are extensions of GWB cuts to the Clinton rate. However yes I totally agree we need to have tax reform to close loopholes.
|
On September 22 2011 03:52 MeLlamoSatan wrote:
"Let me remind you that wealth distribution, government sponsored consumption, and heavy regulation of our industry is how we GOT here"
Wealth distribution? What? You mean that the top of 1% of the U.S. owns an incredible amount of wealth, while those at the bottom get to hope for their scraps?
The taxes themselves create the wealth redistribution. Even with a fair tax heavy taxation always favors the rich. and the reason it hurts the poor more is because it hurts them twice, once on their income/whatever else is taxed, and again when the rich are more hesitant to invest in things that could give people jobs.
Obviously at this point it's not longer time to talk about investing, now it's time to talk about saving.
also the inflation hurts the poor more as well obviously... and inflation is also created by the government. and all the labor laws end up hurting the unemployed as it hurts their chances of finding a job... etc etc.
And regulation? What? Glass-Steagal was repealed (largely because lobbying by major banks) and the deregulation following definitely played a role in getting. So if you mean a lack of regulation, sure. And of course, there are excessive regulations in some areas of the economy, but regulating banks in this way was not one of them. Additionally, there have been other roll backs in regulation.
well the housing crisis was caused by the creation of Freddie Mac, and Fannie May and the really low interest rates... the Glass-Steagal didn't have to be there for banks to not do stupid loans. The problem is Freddie and Fannie were buying out all the repackaged mortgages with a blank check from the government.
That obviously hedges the risks on giving mortgages because it guarantees that banks can't really lose money, and that in turn guarantees that houses will keep getting bought, and that in turn guarantees that housing prices will keep going up, and that in turn makes it a good idea to lend the money to people to buy houses who can't afford it... of course once the rates on the mortgages reset, everything collapsed... But banks aren't idiots giving a loan to someone places the risk on the person that gives the money not the person that has to pay the interest... banks would never have made such risky loans if the government didn't force them to compete in who can take more risk faster.
As above, what do you want to deregulate here? FDA? EPA? OSHA? They all serve important roles, I don't think you can really deny that...
Some regulations serve roles but they're not essential roles, meaning what they do can be done without them, but ti's hard because the rest of the system is so fucked that it kinda makes it seem necessary. Others are just plain dumb and counter-productive.
If you remove all of them in large chunks at a time the system can probably get un-fucked.
Govn't Sponsored Consumption? Okay, that played a significant role.
of course... look at the interest rates, and think how they got so low.
|
On September 22 2011 04:08 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2011 03:58 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
More like having to register with the state to get their leg fixed, and having their children go through over a decade of state propaganda. That way they can identify who disagree's with the regime, and then shove them in an oven. *Facepalm.* Please tell me you are being sarcastic. Under the horrors of totalitarian rule, public school are the perfect propaganda centers. A bit of hyperbole, but for US the reason why so many Americans are so blinded by American Exceptional-ism is precisely because of the public school system.
Really? All of my teachers drilled into my head how bad America is.
I don't remember a single word spoken about so called "American Exceptionalism." We hardly even covered American history or discussed people like Thomas Jefferson, etc. If you ask a kid about Thomas Jefferson, the only thing they will know is that he was a founding father who had slaves.
The primary topics of discussion in middle through high school in american history were predominantly: slavery, native american genocide, women as second class citizens, etc.
In college my teachers spent half the class time criticizing the wars and our economic policies. If anything, our education system has been churning out liberals for decades, which is why places like TL are dominated by left-wing arguments, including absolutely absurd statements that "the public school system teaches american exceptionalism."
|
On September 22 2011 04:08 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2011 03:58 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
More like having to register with the state to get their leg fixed, and having their children go through over a decade of state propaganda. That way they can identify who disagree's with the regime, and then shove them in an oven. *Facepalm.* Please tell me you are being sarcastic. Under the horrors of totalitarian rule, public school are the perfect propaganda centers. A bit of hyperbole, but for US the reason why so many Americans are so blinded by American Exceptional-ism is precisely because of the public school system.
A hyperbole, you are being nice with him. Seriously, it's completely dumb.
Now, just to put things clear. In a democratic society, the State is representing the people. This idea that everything that is ruled by the State obeys a secret evil agenda is just ridiculous. America is not Soviet Union.
That being said, if a democratic State works towards the interest of the citizens, and that's the case in any functional democracy, that's not the case of private interests.
What I find astonishing with some Americans is that they are so eager to see evil in their democratically elected government that should have no reason to work for any other interest than the ones of their people, but that the idea that private interests, that are structurally not directed towards the common good, could be a source of oppression and tyranny doesn't even cross their mind.
For me, Fox News is as evil, as dangerous, and as much of a problem for American society than the Pravda was in Soviet Union. If a free society consist of having the same problems than with totalitarianism, except that instead of being between the hands of the party they are between the hands of an oligarchy of billionaires, I don't really see the benefit.
|
On September 22 2011 04:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:08 TanGeng wrote:On September 22 2011 04:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2011 03:58 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
More like having to register with the state to get their leg fixed, and having their children go through over a decade of state propaganda. That way they can identify who disagree's with the regime, and then shove them in an oven. *Facepalm.* Please tell me you are being sarcastic. Under the horrors of totalitarian rule, public school are the perfect propaganda centers. A bit of hyperbole, but for US the reason why so many Americans are so blinded by American Exceptional-ism is precisely because of the public school system. Really? All of my teachers drilled into my head how bad America is. I don't remember a single word spoken about so called "American Exceptionalism." We hardly even covered American history or discussed people like Thomas Jefferson, etc. If you ask a kid about Thomas Jefferson, the only thing they will know is that he was a founding father who had slaves. The primary topics of discussion in middle through high school in american history were predominantly: slavery, native american genocide, women as second class citizens, etc. In college my teachers spent half the class time criticizing the wars and our economic policies. If anything, our education system has been churning out liberals for decades, which is why places like TL are dominated by left-wing arguments, including absolutely absurd statements that "the public school system teaches american exceptionalism."
That depends entirely on where you went to school. Look at those new Texas changes for example. There Thomas Jefferson wasn't a founding father (not religious enough) and Brown Bear Brown Bear is banned as communist propaganda. I wish I could find the article that listed all of the stuff they were changing, it was pretty silly.
I didn't learn much about world history at all until college. It was all American history. That said Native American genocide was heavily covered. Though shouldn't it be? We did kind of gloss over the dark parts of our past for many years. I mean the stuff is all true, its not like its being made up.
I would imagine the slant you get depends on the color your state votes. That said, I don't think children are mindless idiots so I don't worry about it as much. They can go to the library or get on the internet and make up their own mind.
|
On September 22 2011 04:13 MattyClutch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 03:55 Kiarip wrote:
From wikipedia, all of american households total right now own about 55 trillion dollars... ironically it's just enough to pay off our entire government and personal debt...
Sounds like a good idea right? Just let the government take it all. That is a strawman. I never said anything like that. I said if you want own a large amount of the total wealth you are going to have to have a large amount of the tax burden. I think 10% of the population owning 71% of the wealth qualifies as a large amount.
I never said you did. I'm just saying that you're saying that the top has a lot of money... and i agree, but I was just making a point that the amount isn't that large compared to the debt, so when you're saying that taxing the rich more to cut our debt is an option, I made an extrapolation to show that it's really not nearly enough.
I didn't suggest that you suggested that we should take everything from everyone to pay off our debt, I was just bringing the perspective the size of the debt that you're trying to cut with tax hikes.
as for the rich owning a large part of the wealth I wrote in my last post why I think this is so. When the government hurts the economy with taxes and regulation, the middle and lower classes get screwed the most, because first they get effected by the actual taxes, and then they lose jobs because of regulations and it's harder for them to find new ones.
Meanwhile the richer people that need to spend a significantly lesser portion of their capital on sustenance can start trying to hedge the inflations, and be more conservative with their investments, but this doesn't make them the bad guy, the bad guy is who's taxing and regulating.
Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 03:55 Kiarip wrote:
a lot of them. we have 15 % unemployment... obviously labor is too expensive, so get rid of a lot of the labor laws.
Our healthcare is way too expensive, get rid of a lot of FDA regulation. Our industry isn't competitive enough... a lot of the epa needs to go as well.
How is it a bad idea. everything that those organizations do is heavily influenced by lobbyists, and could be easily negotiable between the customer and the producer.
Constitutional property rights can protect us from a lot of the pollution, don't pick winners and losers by creating regulations on what technology a company needs to use to decrease their pollution, allowing the providers of that technology to inflate their prices... etc etc.
all these things either make labor or manufactoring more expensive. Now we're in a situation where so many people don't have jobs, I think we're protecting the the employees too much if all the employers are scared to hire them. As for your taking away regulations, no thanks. We tried that once before. Corporations are totally cool with abusing its workforce and customers. They don't care and can afford better lawyers and long trials. These regulations were added, we didn't start with them. We tried it without - didn't work. Also that would require me to believe unemployment is based on regulation and we know that to be false. We have had regulation for years and years and had high employment quite recently.
What? regulations aren't added out of actual necessity most of the time... they're added because politicians want to promise people stuff when they run for office, so they promise to regulate in the way that favors the majority (employees) the result? the employers don't want to higher anyone lol... talk about shit back-firing.
Other times regulations are added because of lobbyists when government picks winners and losers, provides government contracts which are super inefficient. Or when companies want to push their competition out with the help of the government... something the government should be powerless at helping them in.
Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 03:55 Kiarip wrote:
The tax rate now is higher. What NEEDS to be removed is all the subsidies and the loopholes. The loopholes are created by the regulations by the way of tax credits, and etcs. for all types of bullshit. Have a flat corporate tax, and don't tax returns on investment (the interest rates will do that on their own when they go up.)
Maybe even get rid of income tax in favor of just a bigger sales tax... tax people when they're spending money not saving it, but I'm not sure about this.
I think that some corporates are simply being under-taxed through their cheating the system, and this needs to be fixed imo. But I don't necessarily think that you need to higher taxes. First you need to cut the shit out of military, some defense, a lot of entitlements, departments that destroy our economy (the ones you've mentioned,) and etc. No the tax rate is lower. These are extensions of GWB cuts to the Clinton rate. However yes I totally agree we need to have tax reform to close loopholes.
[/quote]
Ok I thought you were comparing us to back when... when the economy was actually doing well.
|
On September 22 2011 03:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 03:41 wakefield wrote:On September 22 2011 03:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2011 02:49 wakefield wrote:On September 22 2011 01:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 22 2011 01:13 weekendracer wrote:On August 17 2011 06:57 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:49 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? Number wise yes, but not percentage wise. I think he mentions it in his article. He pays around 17% while his coworkers pay around 30? HE did mention it. What a crock of crap. I don't mean you, as I know Buffett said it, but first, his tax records are not public, so he can claim whatever the fuck he wants and nobody can verify it. Not even the IRS can come out and call him a liar, as they are bound by disclosure laws. Second, payroll taxes are capped at a certain amount, so his fellow employees pay payroll taxes on their entire income where he does not. He pays the same taxes as they do, and more, up to the cap that applies to social security taxes. Third, he said a lot of his income is from capital gains, which when compared to the wages his employees are making, it's apples and oranges. Fourth, he most certainly has dividend income, which is taxed at a lower rate these days, but that income is being double taxed anyways, as the corporation paying the dividend has already paid tax on that, a rate that you can be sure Mr. Buffett is not including in his 17% calcuation. Fifth, I'm sure Mr. Buffett has plenty of private foundations in his name that he contributes to annually, which he determines how the money is to be spent in charitable ways. These contributions are deducted from his income before calculating his taxes, even though he dictates how the money is spent, instead of the government. Sixth, it's safe to say that his 17% number is based on his total income before all these deductions that he is taking and not based on his taxable income, whereas his "coworkers" do not have deductions to that extent. Misleading at best. The most accurate post in the first 2 pages. Can someone answer this question: Who actually pays the taxes that 'evil' corporations pay. Answer: the consumer. So raise taxes all you want. The actual producer won't pay a dime of it. I started to say more, but found it was just repeating the quoted post for the most part. When you are like me and actually paying taxes you'll realize just how hypocritical the likes of Gates and Buffet really are. There is always something behind the curtain. I swear -- by my life and my love for it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. Or, from each according to their means, to each according to their needs. One theory works, the other does not. The "virtue of egoism", hum? What you tax is not the company altogether, but the dividend that the shareholders are getting. So the consumers are not hit, at all. The ones who are hit are the people who owe the company if the company makes a lot of money (if it doesn't, they don't get that much dividend anyway). Anyway, Warren Buffet is one of the rare ultra-rich businessmen that I respect. He made his fortune by investing on the long term rather than speculating, he does something somehow useful with it, and he is not a plain egoistic asshole who fight for his class and his personal interest. How won't the consumers be hit? If the company themselves will be losing money since their investers will have a lower incentive to invest then the company will be lowering their profit margins. How will this not affect the consumer? Prices are inclined to increase. And then where will the tax money go from there? The government? And then what? Don't worry, you have a long way to go before your economy get hurt by taxes on big corporations and super rich individuals. Really. To answer your second question: and then, it will help the country not to have an unsustainable debt that cost you more and more money every year without fucking up all your public services. Other ideas: you can invest in a good public education, keep reforming your health system so that you don't leave people die like dogs if they don't have the money to pay for very expensive treatments, you can get a decent cultural life so that you have enlightened citizen who stop believing the crap mass medias tell them, you can get working infrastructure since american infrastructures are horribad, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc But I guess the fact that some businessmen can have one more billion dollar at the end of his career or that Goldman Sachs makes even more money that it's actually doing in order to pay their speculators with a little bit more obscene salaries is much more important. Just because two members of the super-rich say they don't mind being taxed more, do you think these views represent the views of all of them? Why don't you think some will believe that the incentive to invest while being in the US is lowered? Also, do you honestly think that governments will do any of those following ideas? The original point you had I can reason with but the others... Take for example the NHS that I have access to. When it got taken over by the government, competition was essentially nulliefied, with private demand falling dramatically. The government, over the 12 years of control build..... 0 hospitals (This was 60 years ago where there wasn't full coverage). As well as that, the number of beds was REDUCED, with queue times increasing. Do you have a clue of what was the state of both education and health services in your country when Tony Blair came into office? A friend of mine was working in a public school, she said they had leaks from the roof, and that it was basically raining in the classroom. NHS sucks. It sucks because when you destroy a service like that the way Tatcher and Major have, it's nearly impossible to fix it. Now, the quality of NHS is a zillion times better than what you get inn the US if you can't afford a private health insurance. Now, your first point: I am sure the super rich don't want to get taxed. And what? You think if you tax them they will get all their money and put it under a pillow and stop investing? Seriously.
Here you are forced to pay more than the equivilant of private health insurance, you don't have an option to not pay. If I want to run the risk of not having treatment then it should be in my right to choose to opt out. Instead of this, my money is being taken from me, being allocated by government bureaucrats and then being put into a monopoly system being abused by pharmaceutical and medical resource companies. The intentions of the system were good but realistically it isn't ideal.
I couldn't comment on the french system but I sure as hell know more about my system so don't question my knowledge of my own country. The schooling sector is one of the same principle of the NHS. The government fails every time they try to bring in this false sense of equality with 'free' systems that can be abused left right and centre by its users and suppliers.
I know they won't stop investing but it's all about incentives, whether that incentive is distorted by 1% or 100%, its still apparent.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 22 2011 04:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:
That being said, if a democratic State works towards the interest of the citizens, and that's the case in any functional democracy, that's not the case of private interests.
What I find astonishing with some Americans is that they are so eager to see evil in their democratically elected government that should have no reason to work for any other interest than the ones of their people, but that the idea that private interests, that are structurally not directed towards the common good, could be a source of oppression and tyranny doesn't even cross their mind.
wow, you are naive.
There are so many giveaways, bailouts, subsidies, sweetheart contracts, lobbyist written bills, and outright corruption. Under your paradigm for democratically government, that'd all be inconceivable.
So... The government is always there to help. Its agents can do no wrong. It's always positive influence on your life.
If that isn't brainwashing, I'm afraid to ask what is.
|
On SeptemberWhat? regulations aren't added out of actual necessity most of the time... they're added because politicians want to promise people stuff when they run for office, so they promise to regulate in the way that favors the majority (employees) the result? the employers don't want to higher anyone lol... talk about shit back-firing.
Other times regulations are added because of lobbyists when government picks winners and losers, provides government contracts which are super inefficient. Or when companies want to push their competition out with the help of the government... something the government should be powerless at helping them in. 22 2011 04:27 Kiarip wrote:
That is why I asked specifics. People always say they want to cut regulation and I think a healthy dose of that would be good, but not the safety ones. Just look at history, business have done some nasty stuff in the name of a quick buck and people lacked the ability to go after them. FDA, EPA, OSHA etc stuff needs to stay in my opinion.
On the taxes bit I think we both got swapped around, I am saying we had a good economy and higher taxes on the rich under Clinton.
|
On September 22 2011 04:35 MattyClutch wrote:Show nested quote +On SeptemberWhat? regulations aren't added out of actual necessity most of the time... they're added because politicians want to promise people stuff when they run for office, so they promise to regulate in the way that favors the majority (employees) the result? the employers don't want to higher anyone lol... talk about shit back-firing.
Other times regulations are added because of lobbyists when government picks winners and losers, provides government contracts which are super inefficient. Or when companies want to push their competition out with the help of the government... something the government should be powerless at helping them in. 22 2011 04:27 Kiarip wrote: That is why I asked specifics. People always say they want to cut regulation and I think a healthy dose of that would be good, but not the safety ones. Just look at history, business have done some nasty stuff in the name of a quick buck and people lacked the ability to go after them. FDA, EPA, OSHA etc stuff needs to stay in my opinion. On the taxes bit I think we both got swapped around, I am saying we had a good economy and higher taxes on the rich under Clinton.
Well safety regulations are important because the legal system is fucked. If we could unfuck the legal and contract system, then safety regulations could be negotiated with employees without the interference of government which of course would save resources for everyone.
I think you need to remove the shit that's piled on top of other shit first, you don't want to reach for the the foundation of our garbage system and pull it out right away because then everything will crumble, but you need to gradually disassemble the system of immoral, counter-productive, lobbyist-influenced, and unnecessary regulations, because the Constitution guarantees protection of most rights that people want anyways.
|
I'd really like an itemized list of these loopholes and inconceivably bad tax breaks that are so blatantly hemorrhaging money that it's a crime against humanity to let them continue, so I can actually be informed about the situation, rather than sit here listening to two people bicker over the supposed detriment of this blanket 'loopholes/tax breaks' term.
|
United States43729 Posts
On September 22 2011 04:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:08 TanGeng wrote:
Under the horrors of totalitarian rule, public school are the perfect propaganda centers. A bit of hyperbole, but for US the reason why so many Americans are so blinded by American Exceptional-ism is precisely because of the public school system.
places like TL are dominated by left-wing arguments, including absolutely absurd statements that "the public school system teaches american exceptionalism."
You know you've been reading the general forum for too long when you see TanGeng being accused of being left wing.
He's been the rational face of the right wing on tl since before you heard of Starcraft.
|
On September 22 2011 04:35 MattyClutch wrote:Show nested quote +On SeptemberWhat? regulations aren't added out of actual necessity most of the time... they're added because politicians want to promise people stuff when they run for office, so they promise to regulate in the way that favors the majority (employees) the result? the employers don't want to higher anyone lol... talk about shit back-firing.
Other times regulations are added because of lobbyists when government picks winners and losers, provides government contracts which are super inefficient. Or when companies want to push their competition out with the help of the government... something the government should be powerless at helping them in. 22 2011 04:27 Kiarip wrote: That is why I asked specifics. People always say they want to cut regulation and I think a healthy dose of that would be good, but not the safety ones. Just look at history, business have done some nasty stuff in the name of a quick buck and people lacked the ability to go after them. FDA, EPA, OSHA etc stuff needs to stay in my opinion. On the taxes bit I think we both got swapped around, I am saying we had a good economy and higher taxes on the rich under Clinton.
Regulations reduce the window for innovation, when the FDA was introduced there was a 50% fall in development. Also in real terms, to bypass the government regulations it has extended the time and increased the cost of development e.g (take inflation into account) it took 25 months to develop a drug and $1m; 20 years later with the FDA in play it costed $54m and 8 years on average. This would decrease the supply of this market sector, evidently.
A better system would be to have private testing companies in place as a replacement for these government sectors which companies would pay to have them test the products in a competitive environment where their products/services would be scrutinised and therefore companies can broadcast that they have been tested against these standards. If not, then the action the consumer does will only affect the consumer in most cases. The government should be there to protect the third parties, not the choices of the consumer.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 22 2011 04:52 Bibdy wrote:
I'd really like an itemized list of these loopholes and inconceivably bad tax breaks that are so blatantly hemorrhaging money that it's a crime against humanity to let them continue, so I can actually be informed about the situation, rather than sit here listening to two people bicker over the supposed detriment of this blanket 'loopholes/tax breaks' term.
It's pretty hard to enumerate them when the IRS code is 20000+ pages. For a simple sample you can see the ones that Obama wants to try to close for the Oil/Gas/Coal industries in his 10-year plan (tax increase/budget cut proposal)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf
|
On September 22 2011 04:55 wakefield wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:35 MattyClutch wrote:On SeptemberWhat? regulations aren't added out of actual necessity most of the time... they're added because politicians want to promise people stuff when they run for office, so they promise to regulate in the way that favors the majority (employees) the result? the employers don't want to higher anyone lol... talk about shit back-firing.
Other times regulations are added because of lobbyists when government picks winners and losers, provides government contracts which are super inefficient. Or when companies want to push their competition out with the help of the government... something the government should be powerless at helping them in. 22 2011 04:27 Kiarip wrote: That is why I asked specifics. People always say they want to cut regulation and I think a healthy dose of that would be good, but not the safety ones. Just look at history, business have done some nasty stuff in the name of a quick buck and people lacked the ability to go after them. FDA, EPA, OSHA etc stuff needs to stay in my opinion. On the taxes bit I think we both got swapped around, I am saying we had a good economy and higher taxes on the rich under Clinton. Regulations reduce the window for innovation, when the FDA was introduced there was a 50% fall in development. Also in real terms, to bypass the government regulations it has extended the time and increased the cost of development e.g (take inflation into account) it took 25 months to develop a drug and $1m; 20 years later with the FDA in play it costed $54m and 8 years on average. This would decrease the supply of this market sector, evidently. A better system would be to have private testing companies in place as a replacement for these government sectors which companies would pay to have them test the products in a competitive environment where their products/services would be scrutinised and therefore companies can broadcast that they have been tested against these standards. If not, then the action the consumer does will only affect the consumer in most cases. The government should be there to protect the third parties, not the choices of the consumer.
Yes, but its a necessary evil in order for us to coexist as a functioning economy. I really wish we could run accurate simulations of what life would be like without various government-funded organizations around. Oh wait, we can just look at the past, when these organizations didn't exist. Man, life was great when our children were playing with lead paint, watches were filled with highly radioactive substances (just to make them glow in the dark) and companies were dumping radioactive material by the wayside because it was cheaper than safely putting it underground in a big block of concrete.
I couldn't give a shit how much innovation and development it costs. I don't want to live in a society where my personal livelihood is destroyed because some assholes wanted to save some money. It's already bad enough with companies like Toyota installing cheap, faulty brake pads and BP purchasing improper safety equipment on oil rigs, all in the name of making short-term savings at the expense of risking long-term company survival. One ruined company later and we don't get back the lives that were lost.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 22 2011 04:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 22 2011 04:08 TanGeng wrote:
Under the horrors of totalitarian rule, public school are the perfect propaganda centers. A bit of hyperbole, but for US the reason why so many Americans are so blinded by American Exceptional-ism is precisely because of the public school system.
places like TL are dominated by left-wing arguments, including absolutely absurd statements that "the public school system teaches american exceptionalism." You know you've been reading the general forum for too long when you see TanGeng being accused of being left wing. He's been the rational face of the right wing on tl since before you heard of Starcraft.
:D
To be fair I would have been solidly on the left in mid-19th century England.
|
On September 22 2011 04:55 wakefield wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:35 MattyClutch wrote:On SeptemberWhat? regulations aren't added out of actual necessity most of the time... they're added because politicians want to promise people stuff when they run for office, so they promise to regulate in the way that favors the majority (employees) the result? the employers don't want to higher anyone lol... talk about shit back-firing.
Other times regulations are added because of lobbyists when government picks winners and losers, provides government contracts which are super inefficient. Or when companies want to push their competition out with the help of the government... something the government should be powerless at helping them in. 22 2011 04:27 Kiarip wrote: That is why I asked specifics. People always say they want to cut regulation and I think a healthy dose of that would be good, but not the safety ones. Just look at history, business have done some nasty stuff in the name of a quick buck and people lacked the ability to go after them. FDA, EPA, OSHA etc stuff needs to stay in my opinion. On the taxes bit I think we both got swapped around, I am saying we had a good economy and higher taxes on the rich under Clinton. Regulations reduce the window for innovation, when the FDA was introduced there was a 50% fall in development. Also in real terms, to bypass the government regulations it has extended the time and increased the cost of development e.g (take inflation into account) it took 25 months to develop a drug and $1m; 20 years later with the FDA in play it costed $54m and 8 years on average. This would decrease the supply of this market sector, evidently. A better system would be to have private testing companies in place as a replacement for these government sectors which companies would pay to have them test the products in a competitive environment where their products/services would be scrutinised and therefore companies can broadcast that they have been tested against these standards. If not, then the action the consumer does will only affect the consumer in most cases. The government should be there to protect the third parties, not the choices of the consumer.
I really don't think you can outsource safety regulations to private companies. I mean the entire reason we made those regulations was because private companies didn't care to put consumers, employs, and anyone near any of their operations at risk.
That also really only addresses products going to market, not things like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_girls or companies dumping waste.
|
On September 22 2011 04:29 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:
That being said, if a democratic State works towards the interest of the citizens, and that's the case in any functional democracy, that's not the case of private interests.
What I find astonishing with some Americans is that they are so eager to see evil in their democratically elected government that should have no reason to work for any other interest than the ones of their people, but that the idea that private interests, that are structurally not directed towards the common good, could be a source of oppression and tyranny doesn't even cross their mind.
wow, you are naive. There are so many giveaways, bailouts, subsidies, sweetheart contracts, lobbyist written bills, and outright corruption. Under your paradigm for democratically government, that'd all be inconceivable. So... The government is always there to help. Its agents can do no wrong. It's always positive influence on your life. If that isn't brainwashing, I'm afraid to ask what is.
Well, the main problem with the State, and especially your State is when their is collusion with private interest.
That's corruption, but that's also what lobbies are about, etc...
That you can fight against.
Now, obviously, no government is perfect. Obviously, even the most democratic States have flaws because they are run by people and that people are never perfect.
That being said, the principle of a democratic State is the interest of everybody. The principle of a corporation or a hedge fund or whatever, is the interest of its owner.
I don't think the State is the solution to everything, and many evil can come from too much state. I am just astonished that some people seem to consider that the State is inherently evil, without taking into consideration the fact that maybe private interest can be a source of tyranny, of oppression, and of slavery.
If I go to the hospital, I prefer to know that the hospital belongs to the whole nation and that its purpose is to cure anybody the best way possible, rather than thinking that the hospital is owe by some shareholders who don't give a flying fuck about anything if not their return on investment.
I've been to a public school, and it was fantastic. And my parents didn't pay anything. And my musical education was free also, and I am a professional musician. And all my life I have been having excellent healthcare that I never paid for. And I think it's an amazing thing that everybody in France can have the chance of having a great education, to go to a conservatoire, or to get himself cured regardless of his income.
|
On September 22 2011 05:04 MattyClutch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:55 wakefield wrote:On September 22 2011 04:35 MattyClutch wrote:On SeptemberWhat? regulations aren't added out of actual necessity most of the time... they're added because politicians want to promise people stuff when they run for office, so they promise to regulate in the way that favors the majority (employees) the result? the employers don't want to higher anyone lol... talk about shit back-firing.
Other times regulations are added because of lobbyists when government picks winners and losers, provides government contracts which are super inefficient. Or when companies want to push their competition out with the help of the government... something the government should be powerless at helping them in. 22 2011 04:27 Kiarip wrote: That is why I asked specifics. People always say they want to cut regulation and I think a healthy dose of that would be good, but not the safety ones. Just look at history, business have done some nasty stuff in the name of a quick buck and people lacked the ability to go after them. FDA, EPA, OSHA etc stuff needs to stay in my opinion. On the taxes bit I think we both got swapped around, I am saying we had a good economy and higher taxes on the rich under Clinton. Regulations reduce the window for innovation, when the FDA was introduced there was a 50% fall in development. Also in real terms, to bypass the government regulations it has extended the time and increased the cost of development e.g (take inflation into account) it took 25 months to develop a drug and $1m; 20 years later with the FDA in play it costed $54m and 8 years on average. This would decrease the supply of this market sector, evidently. A better system would be to have private testing companies in place as a replacement for these government sectors which companies would pay to have them test the products in a competitive environment where their products/services would be scrutinised and therefore companies can broadcast that they have been tested against these standards. If not, then the action the consumer does will only affect the consumer in most cases. The government should be there to protect the third parties, not the choices of the consumer. I really don't think you can outsource safety regulations to private companies. I mean the entire reason we made those regulations was because private companies didn't care to put consumers, employs, and anyone near any of their operations at risk. That also really only addresses products going to market, not things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_girls or companies dumping waste.
There are negatives for both reasonings, but think about the tough job the government actually has when a new proposal is brought forward:
1. They pass it, and as a result there's a chance that there is a cost to life
2. They refuse to pass it incase it causes threats to third parties. Then this new innovation will be ignored for years.
The issue is, how do you put a price on the wellbeing of a person? Would you be willing to pay $2 for 1 person to have their life saved? What about $200? $2000000? That's essentially what governments have to do for regulations, it detracts from the principles of the consumer making a choice (and in that case, the worker) and attaches a price of... 'X'.
|
On September 22 2011 05:12 wakefield wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 05:04 MattyClutch wrote:On September 22 2011 04:55 wakefield wrote:On September 22 2011 04:35 MattyClutch wrote:On SeptemberWhat? regulations aren't added out of actual necessity most of the time... they're added because politicians want to promise people stuff when they run for office, so they promise to regulate in the way that favors the majority (employees) the result? the employers don't want to higher anyone lol... talk about shit back-firing.
Other times regulations are added because of lobbyists when government picks winners and losers, provides government contracts which are super inefficient. Or when companies want to push their competition out with the help of the government... something the government should be powerless at helping them in. 22 2011 04:27 Kiarip wrote: That is why I asked specifics. People always say they want to cut regulation and I think a healthy dose of that would be good, but not the safety ones. Just look at history, business have done some nasty stuff in the name of a quick buck and people lacked the ability to go after them. FDA, EPA, OSHA etc stuff needs to stay in my opinion. On the taxes bit I think we both got swapped around, I am saying we had a good economy and higher taxes on the rich under Clinton. Regulations reduce the window for innovation, when the FDA was introduced there was a 50% fall in development. Also in real terms, to bypass the government regulations it has extended the time and increased the cost of development e.g (take inflation into account) it took 25 months to develop a drug and $1m; 20 years later with the FDA in play it costed $54m and 8 years on average. This would decrease the supply of this market sector, evidently. A better system would be to have private testing companies in place as a replacement for these government sectors which companies would pay to have them test the products in a competitive environment where their products/services would be scrutinised and therefore companies can broadcast that they have been tested against these standards. If not, then the action the consumer does will only affect the consumer in most cases. The government should be there to protect the third parties, not the choices of the consumer. I really don't think you can outsource safety regulations to private companies. I mean the entire reason we made those regulations was because private companies didn't care to put consumers, employs, and anyone near any of their operations at risk. That also really only addresses products going to market, not things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_girls or companies dumping waste. There are negatives for both reasonings, but think about the tough job the government actually has when a new proposal is brought forward: 1. They pass it, and as a result there's a chance that there is a cost to life 2. They refuse to pass it incase it causes threats to third parties. Then this new innovation will be ignored for years. The issue is, how do you put a price on the wellbeing of a person? Would you be willing to pay $2 for 1 person to have their life saved? What about $200? $2000000? That's essentially what governments have to do for regulations, it detracts from the principles of the consumer making a choice (and in that case, the worker) and attaches a price of... 'X'.
Yes, but as we found out prior to regulations that price seems to be roughly '$0 up until the point where if we get sued we might actually have to pay out more than we made - assuming we don't just lawyer our way out obviously'. Having another private company in the mix just makes 2 private companies in the mix. It isn't any form of regulation or protection.
I never pass up a chance to link good Cracked articles so here are another 2 wonderful tales of unregulated businesses. http://www.cracked.com/article/89_the-6-most-horrific-bosses-all-time_p2/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
