BF2S Forums DAST Chat

True... But it is the nypost.

Macbeth wrote:

he coulda pulled himself up before he got hit

apparantly so

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

me: we've already agreed not all regulation is bad.  so why list that as a negative
you: regulation compliance hurts small business.  It's a great way to destroy competition
me: so make it more reasonable
you: lol

your statement didn't address my question - why you list regulation as a negative when we've previously agreed it isn't.  you don't think regulation compliance can be more reasonable?

Or did Adam Smith tell you businesses will regulate themselves hahahaha

We've had this argument before. You know how it ended. The majority of regulations are written by lobbyists looking to empower their company or industry at the expense of others. Career bureaucrats and the lawyers that we elect don't have the working knowledge to generate any of that crap, and you should know that.

Isn't your first point more proof that business won't regulate itself than government's failure? We both agree big business more or less runs the government right? So is your argument that government fails because businesss is firmly entrenched in the decision-making process? You've said before that business should regulate itself and government fails at regulating business. Then you make the argument that one of the reasons government regulation fails is because lobbyists representing business are key players in the crafting of regulations. But then in the same breath you mention that career bureaucrats don't have the intricate knowledge needed to enact proper regulations, inferring the inherent need of industry insiders (let's call them lobbyists) to enact regulation.

Sounds like serious cognitive dissonance. Its akin to receiving a paycheck from the government, taking federal handouts and then championing a reduction in government workers and reduction of federal handouts.

Businesses regulate themselves constantly. Societies like iEEE and ANSI dominate the engineering and construction professions for example. When businesses band together you end up with cartels, the bane of anti-monopolists everywhere. You end up with fixed pricing, fixed output, and near zero competition between these businesses. Sometimes, these cartels are explicitly endorsed and backed by the government, which is what farming subsidies are designed to do. Farmers have a quota they have to meet and a fixed price for their product. This is a system that was pushed by William Jennings Bryant at the turn of the last century. Farmers didn't have to worry about their neighbors overproducing, driving down the price, and driving them out of business. Works well for the farmers, but it keeps food prices higher than they would be in a free market. An example of a private cartel is what we saw in the 19th century among businesses like the steel industry where the heads of the various companies would meet once a year to set the price for their product. Anyone who violated the pricing scheme would be slapped with patent infringement lawsuits that would send them out of business. Again, worked for the steel companies and made men like Andrew Carnegie very wealthy men, but the consumer suffered.

Some regulation is ok. OSHA regulations tend to work ok for the parties involved, most of the time, although compliance is a pain in the ass and a lot of unions use the system as an excuse to file grievances to slow down production.

Most regulation is not ok. Here's a recent example. The IRS put forth new rules last year that required anyone who wanted to make money doing people's tax returns to attend a class and receive a license. Big companies like H&R Block and Turbotax were exempted. Who happens to be one of the senior members at the IRS at the time of the rules passage? The former CEO of H&R Block. He just killed off most of his competition with a single rule that sounds good in practice (we all like licensed vendors, it makes us feel safe) but terrible in practice. When I talk about lobbyists writing regulations, this is what I mean. Lobbyists don't give a flying fuck about the American public, they care about their very narrow interests in their small corner of the market.

There is no cognitive dissonance Ken, you just don't want to believe the truth. You'd rather maintain your fairy tale world where the government is your buddy and they write regulations to help you, not to harm you. Bureaucrats do not have the knowledge to regulate. Therefor they should not regulate what they do not understand. They should not bring in lobbyists to write regulations for them, no matter how much money they donated to the presidents campaign fund. Your argument essentially boils down to: you hate monopolies/cartels (dozens of posts where you bash big business), but as long as they do their cartelizing through the government and give it the weight of law it's ok.

Jay, I've gotten through two sentences so far and have this rebuttal - you offered two examples of professions (not businesses) that set regulations.

Here's the rest - the tangent about farming subsidies is not really related to the argument about regulation.

I want the government to be my buddy - its supposed to be a tool for the people (and corporations are not people, despite the misinterpretation of the 14th amendment and the citizens united case). Corporations/business hijacking the government is the biggest issue politically in the US. If business won't regulate itself - a conclusion I draw by looking to history for examples, who else will?

I guess my fairy tale is that big business won't separate from government. Your fairy tale is that business will self-regulate. For the record, I take issue with the practices of big business. I'm not antibusiness. I'm for ethical business practices, but ethics are all too often thrown out the window  when profit is the sole motivation.

Most regulation is not ok. Here's a recent example. The IRS put forth new rules last year that required anyone who wanted to make money doing people's tax returns to attend a class and receive a license.

They also have laws that makes anyone who wants to make money being a doctor have a medical degree. And anyone who wants to make money giving legal advice have a law degree.

Are you really this fucking stupid?

Macbeth wrote:

Most regulation is not ok. Here's a recent example. The IRS put forth new rules last year that required anyone who wanted to make money doing people's tax returns to attend a class and receive a license.

They also have laws that makes anyone who wants to make money being a doctor have a medical degree. And anyone who wants to make money giving legal advice have a law degree.

Are you really this fucking stupid?

Its not the rule that's the issue- its the exemption of hr block. I take issue with that as well. However, the separation of ideology between jay and I is where he thinks the government is inept because its in the hands of big business, and that businesses should regulate themselves (even though according to him, business already passes favorable regulation laws through government), whereas I think business will only regulate themselves reactively, and only at the bare minimum to appease the public.

We both agree the government is rife with big business cronyism. I want the people to take back the government. I think jay would rather see the government fail and let the invisible hand of economics run the show. I'm not really sure which position is more delusional, but I would rather put my faith in humanity.

pirana6 wrote:

i think if any other country had their own take, the US would be way worse. and rightfully so

edito: in case you don't want to read, that's a map of corrupt govt's

I don't see how North Korea can be considered "corrupt".

Apparently iron-fisted censorship laws aren't pushing Australia down the scoreboard. gg

And what about NZ? Don't they suffer under the rule of Sauron?

Also lol Norway. "Come work in Norway! Just make sure to leave before you can take advantage of our welfare system."

And why do they call it "Korea (North)?" Just use North Korea.

-Whiteroom- wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/us/despite-doles-wish-gop-rejects-disabilities-treaty.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — Former Senator Bob Dole of Kansas sat slightly slumped in his wheelchair on the Senate floor on Tuesday, staring intently as Senator John Kerry gave his most impassioned speech all year, in defense of a United Nations treaty that would ban discrimination against people with disabilities.

Senators from both parties went to greet Mr. Dole, leaning in to hear his wispy reply, as he sat in support of the treaty, which would require that people with disabilities have the same general rights as those without disabilities. Several members took the unusual step of voting aye while seated at their desks, out of respect for Mr. Dole, 89, a Republican who was the majority leader.

Then, after Mr. Dole’s wife, Elizabeth, rolled him off the floor, Republicans quietly voted down the treaty that the ailing Mr. Dole, recently released from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, so longed to see passed.

A majority of Republicans who voted against the treaty, which was modeled on the Americans With Disabilities Act, said they feared that it would infringe on American sovereignty.

Have they no shame?

What politician has any?

Guess after the 9/11 first responders bill was shot down they couldnt get much lower so this shouldn't really surprise anyone. But you gotta feel sorry for Dole.

Last edited by AussieReaper (2012-12-05 16:09:04)

If I'm getting paid to do someone else taxes, I'm in quite a position of power over them. If I report an incorrect amount, that person could face jail time for tax avoidance/evasion.

Making sure the person you pay is qualified is a safety net. Crying that it stifles competition is just bizarre.