jump to last post 1-32 of 32 discussions (63 posts)

What drives government regulation?

  1. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 … k1%7C77674

    If businesses could play by the rules, perhaps they wouldn't need to be watched...

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      people still use landlines?

      People still use companies that "cheat" them out of money? (no where in the article did it actually say what the money was used for).

      People still use companies that "give them the run around"?

      ... people want government to fix this?

      ... these "humans" you speak of are quite interesting folk.

      1. kerryg profile image87
        kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Land lines have much better connection quality than cell phones, are not associated with increased risk of brain cancer, do not go off in obnoxious fashion in the middle of concert halls, movie theaters, or fancy restaurants, and do not encourage morons to share the intimate details of their love lives with the 39 closest strangers in the grocery store checkout line, so yes, some of us still have land lines. tongue

    2. preacherdon profile image78
      preacherdonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      As we spoke about in Bible study tonight, laws are created to benefit the lawmakers. The people are the ones who usually pay the price.

    3. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
      wba108@yahoo.composted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I believe there are necessary regulations but they should only be implemented as a last resort. To often regulations only serve to empower politicians and give advantages to large and better politically connected corporations at the expense of smaller competitors.

    4. Obscure_Treasures profile image58
      Obscure_Treasuresposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The real cause is the growing regulatory state.  Without regulation, there would be only limited incentive for corporations and individuals to make large political contributions.   Regulation (combined with taxation) is the fountain from which most campaign money springs.  Threaten to regulate a sector, and you automatically put politicians in the position of creating winners and losers, both of whom will spend money to try to improve their fates.

      1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
        wba108@yahoo.composted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Excellent insights, regulations certainly do create winners and losers in the market place. My painting business can attest to that because the new lead paint regulations have severly hurt small painting businesses and favored larger businesses that can absorb to costs of this new regulation, it also favors the vinyl siding industry.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There are good reasons, however, to control water and air quality but those powers do not belong to, nor are they best executed by a distant, all powerful centralized authority. 

          There were complaints by liberals about GWB undoing a Clinton executive decision to increase water standards.  Those new water standards called for the elimination of the last few percent of arsenic from drinking water.  Sound great on the surface but it would have destroyed the ability for desert communities in the Southwest from producing enough drinking water to be self sustaining.  The drinking water was safe as it was but because a distant command was given it threatened the existence of entire communities.

          Regulation over reaches constantly pushing corporations off shore or shutting down lemonade stands it is all too often oppressive, unreasonable and intrusive while hiding behind the whiners who love the Nanny/Mommy state.

          1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
            wba108@yahoo.composted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Amen to that, what really drives the regulatory state is a lust for power and control. Thier one size fits all approach does much more harm than good. It subverts the Constitution by assigning legislative power to unelected bureaucrats, it allows Congress to avoid voting on tough issues for their own political advantage. It follows in the footsteps of the failed European social democrat economies, that have sucked the life out of the private sector, leaving little opportunity for growth.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Now, that having been said, let us not forget Nannies and Mommies usually want what is good for their babies.  If anything this should be even more infuriating because it comes from a sick and twisted compassion that cripples and maims its victims and its practitioners.

              The infantilizing of whole populations renders then amenable to forces not so compassionate  and cripples their ability to identify tyranny or resist it.

              1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
                wba108@yahoo.composted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Even the mindset of the state being a parent to the poeple,should throw up red flags. If the government is telling you what to do for your supposed good,they've ceased to be servants and taken the role of the master, which is the definition of tyranny.

                Unless you were born yesterday, you know that with greater power comes a greater chance of abusing that power, especially if its power give over to policially and economically dependant unelected bureaucrats.

  2. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    What drives government regulations? The workers, who else? If it wasn't for government regulations, we'd still have issues like child labor, discrimination, wage discrimination, no L&I, OSHA, etc, etc, etc. There was a time in this country, from the industrial revolution all the way up to the early 20th century) when there was little to no government regulations. Yeah fun times, unless you were one of the owners of the company.

  3. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Evan, I wrote an article about Pacific Gas and Electric (which one can then tie to Enron)...

    Companies are liable to no one....except their shareholders (depending on the types and amounts of shares one holds...that term is very misleading)...

    Government is the same thing, except we are all shareholders (and the same concerns with that word apply within the government model as well)...

    The problem is not simply "business" or "government", but the mentality that has developed within these intertwined spheres...

    But, as in the issue of redlining, there are times when the only way to crack down on corrupt business practices is through government...the force of law is all we can turn to...

    If Walmart is taking advantage of its employees (or at least segments of them), where does one of these workers turn?  To the company chain of command?  Not a chance...

    It is not that government inherently needs to regulate corporate activities, it is just that there is an institutionalized way that many companies and industries operate, whether it be Enron, PG&E, Walmart, financial institutions, car wash shops, restaurants and countless other "private" entities have operated that leads one to not trust them...especially if one is among the traditionally "less desireable" populations...

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Companies are liable to no one... except their shareholders"

      Oh? Last time I checked, I don't give GMC my money, but I happily gave Mazda (Ford), and Honda my money. (I refuse to buy Harleys, GMCs and other companies because they got enough of my money through bailouts).

      I don't buy McDonald's, but I buy Wendy's.

      Sounds to me like a lot of these companies are VERY liable to ME.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Why are they still in existence then? By your reckoning, they should have gone to the wall long ago.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Did you read my post?  GMC and Harley Davidson still exists because money was stolen from me and given to them through government violence.

          Millions of people (billions?) eat at McDonald's, so my own refusal to eat there is not as detrimental to their business model. But the simple fact remains that I can voluntarily punish them.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You aren't even in their target market!

            To think that your refusal to spend your money with them will make one jot of difference to the way they pay their staff is naive beyond belief.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Then why doesn't McDonald's use Styrofoam anymore?

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Because not doing so saved them about $6 million a year.

                Oh, and they still use styrofoam cups.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  a lot of that "saved money" was from people still volunteering to eat there because Styrofoam was considered bad for the environment.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this


  4. kateperez profile image60
    kateperezposted 5 years ago

    Because you have to put a notice on a blow dryer to not use it in the shower.  Some people just don't think.

    1. American View profile image61
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      LOL thats funny

  5. JON EWALL profile image49
    JON EWALLposted 5 years ago



  6. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago


    It is evident that you didn't read anything except the title of this posting...

    That is too bad...

    So, in your book, Eron was doing the right thing?  Goldman Sachs, B of A...no need for regulation regarding their financial policies?

    PG&E should be able to do what they want with minimal to no government oversight?

    That would be really stupid and ignorant to do...

    Can you post a real, substantive response?

    1. JON EWALL profile image49
      JON EWALLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You said ‘’If businesses could play by the rules’’, ‘’It is not that government inherently needs to regulate corporate activities,’’
      The facts are that the Obama administration has placed a multitude of regulation on certain types of business. As far as Enron and other companies in the past, the problems were that the government agencies didn’t do their job of protecting the American taxpayer. Fannie May ,Freddie Mac , the banking fiasco and Congress were part of the problem in the cause of the great recession.

      It is hard to believe that our government would assist and close their eyes to the way business was being carry on during 2006 -2010.

      DO YOU APPROVE  ‘’a real, substantive response?’’


      1. 0
        Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting response...useless, but interesting. How about this...do you drink water out of the faucet? Do you take a shower with faucet water? Well, you are welcome. Without the EPA regulating dumping of energy and chemical companies, you couldn't do that. Regulation is a reaction to a problem, an abuse. JUST LIKE ENRON. Regulation didn't become invented during Obama. Republicans like you don't like regulation because it cuts into your profits, which is the single thing that drives you.

  7. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Evan...McDonalds isn't liable to you, the potential customer...

    In fact, based off what they are feeding their customers, this reinforces the concept that they are only really liable to their shareholders...

    If people choose to boycott, that is something different...but that has not happened, has it?

    McDonalds preys on the ignorance, lack of time, and personal weakness of those who consume its porducts...  I wouldn't consider tobacco companies being "liable" to their customers either....

    And it has only taken government regulation to 1) compell cigarette/tobacco producers to tell the truth about what their products actually do to the consumer's health, and 2) to force them to pay money to those who's lives they've ruined...

    "Oh, but the consumer has a choice"....

    Addiction is a painful thing.....and, like McDonalds, cigarrette/tobacco manufacturers know this...which is why they would increase the amount of nicotine in their products.... This is why McDonalds worked so hard (Happy Meals and other crap) to prey on the future wills of little children....pitting kids against their parents....

    Without government regulation "Joe Cool" and the "Marlboro Man" would still be truly powerful marketing ploys, and the amount of calories consumed in a single Big Mac would have remained unlisted on the McDonalds menu...

    But, then again, the government regulations in these models exist because citizens, having been denied a voice by the companies, had no alternative but to turn to the government for assistance....

    And this is a primary role for government....to serve as a mediator between disputes, and to help find a solution that can protect other American citizens (but what Bush would use synonomously was "consumers")...

    You could have taken the trains back in the 19th century, but it would most definitely be safer and the price would be much fairer following the regulation of the railroad industry by the federal government.... 

    Have we not all benefitted from the regulation of the railroads?  I most definitely believe that we have...

    Evan, you can nitpick over specific moneys given to, for example, GMAC in "bailouts"....but Ford receives government funding of diverse types, and they make a load of money through their supplying of government auto fleets...

    https://www.fleet.ford.com/showroom/sta … efault.asp
    https://www.fleet.ford.com/showroom/fed … efault.asp

    And then there's this:

    http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/201 … rnmen.html

    As for Honda....where would they have been without American tax dollars following World War 2?

    This is a good book:

    http://books.google.com/books/about/Ame … 4l3qWIIh4C

    "By the 1960’s, a growing consumer movement was calling for governmental controls to force manufacturers to produce automobiles that were safer, consumed less energy, and emitted less pollution. Ralph Nader’s influential book Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile (1965) helped promote this movement. In 1965, Congress first mandated emissions standards in the Vehicle Air Pollution and Control Act, which would be modified frequently in subsequent years. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 mandated a number of improvements for passenger safety. In 1975, moreover, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which attempted to double the fuel efficiency of new cars by 1985 by mandating the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (CAFE) for passenger cars."  From http://american-business.org/2323-autom … ustry.html

    These were good moves on behalf of the auto purchaser, were they not?


    You can talk about companies "of the past", but you are continuing to deny the ongoing corruption taking place.... PG&E is still up to these B.S. shenanigans that I referred to in this thread, and that I wrote about in my article here on hubpages...

    Government is not perfect, and neither is private industry.... Government can carry and enable corruption, and so does private industry...

    But, government serves as a tool to redress grievances.... It was, for example, the influence on Capitol Hill of tobacco manufacturers (like Boehner passing out tobacco lobbyist money on the House floor) that muddle the protectionist aspects of government:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/opini … rbert.html


    1. American View profile image61
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      When did McDonalds become an addiction? What medical journal can I find that in?

  8. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago
  9. JON EWALL profile image49
    JON EWALLposted 5 years ago


    MY COMPANY was scammed in the 2000,s by a third party. Here’s how it works. A call comes in and a series of questions are asked. They record the yes answers and use the yes answers  to claim that you approved the third party charge. I seldom view the telephone bills. Since my secretary was on vacation, I had to do the bills. That’s how I discovered the charge. I called and they said that they got the approval from someone in the office on a certain date. Well, I was the only one in on that date.
    Was I pi….d, you bet. I notified my telephone company of the problem and explained that I would only pay their portion of the bill. Because of the yes answer they were able to direct my phone company to add the charge to my bill. Sneaky and corrupt, yes sorry to say.
    Mike don’t condemn the legitimate business owner,  ONLYa small portion of them are crooked.

  10. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Many like to tout the "it's just a few bad apples"....but it isn't...

    I had a friend who worked in the mailroom of a law firm. They, as a matter of institutionalized practice, overbill their clients. They know that, with the amount of paperwork and hours being logged, that there is no way (aside from a whistle-blower) the clients are going to find out.

    The proceeds of these illegally and unethically (esp. being that they are lawyers) gained funds are then distributed to every member of the firm, including the mailroom staff.  Hush money works well for many...really well...

    I come across enough examples of private enterprise corruption to know that it is far more pervasive than you want to admit...

    I will never condemn the legitimate business owner.....but I will give the legitimate government employees and departments that exist the same consideration. 

    It works both ways...

    The more I read about the Glass-Steagall Act, the more I am in favor of this and similar regulation...

    Enough financial houses have proven that corruption is not just isolated to a "troubled few".....

  11. 69
    logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago

    Do you know how many members of Congress are business owners or stockholders?
    Can they be trusted to write legislation to protect the average worker or citizen?
    Do you know how many members of Congress are crooks or unethical?
    Do you know how many members of Congress are for sale to the highest bidder?
    Do you know how many members of Congress are only in it for themselves and could care less about the taxpayer, the average consumer, or the average worker?
    Lots of legislation is written to make people dependent on, or beholden to legislators. 
    The reality is regulators and regulations are not always altruistic as the may look.

  12. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Deregulation isn't as "freedom friendly" as it seems... 

    The "laissez faire"/"free market" does not regulate itself and has not proven itself to be "consumer friendly."

    There have been many pieces of good legislation composed and passed over the course of our history, and I cited one in my last message...

    While I agree that many politicians are looking out for their own interests over those of the larger society, they can be changed...  Perhaps if we can reinvest in our system of education and enhance social cognizance in this nation, perhaps we could look forward to better public servants in the future... 

    At the same time, we select those politicians.....whereas we have limited to no voice in the boardroom....

    1. JON EWALL profile image49
      JON EWALLposted 5 years ago in reply to this


      ‘’At the same time, we select those politicians.....whereas we have limited to no voice in the boardroom…’’.
      WE DON’T HAVE ANY RIGHT in the private sector to tell management what to do or not to do. Stock holders and investors do have some power in the company’s decisions.

      In the government, public sector we do have the power of the vote to elect our public representatives. When we vote for those public servants we give them the right to decide for us as to what the laws of the land will be.
      THE PEOPLE NOW MUST WAKE UP, the government is not listening to the will of the people but they are abiding by the party leaders wishes, not the peoples wishes.
      Our only recourse is to VOTE THEM OUT THE NEXT TIME AROUND!

  13. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Thank you for agreeing with me about corporate tyranny.. 

    Many stockholders, to most arguably, have no voice or influence in the boardroom either...you are correct...

    The problem we face, in my view, deals with correlating the identities of corporations with those of citizens... 

    There is far too much entanglement between big business and government....but this is a problem that stretches back to the founding of our nation...  Crony-politics and economics is the name of the game...

    I am coming to the opinion that donations to politicians and parties come as private donations from citizens only... No church donations, no corporate donations....

    One citizen one contribution....if he or she decides to do so....

    The big business of political campaigning, in my mind, needs to come to an end...

  14. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    It's more than simply volunteering, Evan... You know this...

    http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy& … mp;bih=496

    This is a good one:

    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q … &pli=1

    Let us then have a real discussion about this word "choice"...

  15. ahorseback profile image54
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    The deregulation by the feds can be linked directly to the cases such as enron , the latest fiascos on wall street. Fannie freddie , on and on! Energy co.s are playing supply and demand games without regulatory oversight ! Regulators by the roomfulls did nothing as Madoff  'made off" with billions! The trading of employees from government to lobbyism to corporate boardrooms goes on unchecked!  Wheres you're  401 K profits . How much of ceo pay bonus's have you paid for? Yes corporations need to be regulated. And its not all about Osha or  school lunches.  Corporations are crooks , no concience, no ethics.  Have you tried to claim on any warentees in the last few years?
    The supreme court just recently gave corporations more costitutional rights than individuals , Who do you think you're congressman  votes for  ? Your ten bucks  or G.M.'s twelve million dollar donation. Call him and ask him to call you back today. He won't!

  16. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    That's exactly why I am coming to believe that corporate-business donations should be banned...

    One citizen, one donation to whoever he or she decides to donate...if they decide to do so...

    Enron is a great example how politicians (beginning with Bush and working its way down) influence the shape of regulations and how they are enforced. 

    The solution is not to end regulation....but to put better people in office....  We need to cut the influence peddling that corporate dollars instigate (Boehner on the House floor during a vote on tobacco regulation handing out money from tobacco lobbyists por ejemplo) .......

    Corporate lobbying......based on how pervasive it is, and how much money is thrown around...it seems there's plenty of money that can be used for job creation and development...

  17. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago
  18. ahorseback profile image54
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    To put it simply , It will take a voter revolution !  Right and Left is how they keep us divided!  Democrat- Republican , two parties , either - or !  Thats how  they control the individual vote here now. An awakening  has to happen soon!  Yes , I think consevatively  and you liberally ,  but together we think our system is broken.....so , what do we do together? Vote all incumbants out and take our chances !

    1. JON EWALL profile image49
      JON EWALLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The leaders of both parties will again meet with Obama on Saturday morning, again behind closed doors.
      Whatever happened to a promise to have transparency in the Obama and Pelosi/ Reid Congress?
      Another push to pass legislation so that we can find out what’s in the bill?


      Hubbers, just remember that the US Government employs the most people IN THE COUNTRY. The US government manages the worlds largest healthcare system.
      Big big business owned by the citizens of the us. Deep in the red, asking for more borrowing to be able to spend more on the world and social problems.
      The US Government don’t need profit as a private sector entity. The private sector creates wealth, the government creates debt.

  19. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    The U.S. government should have the most employees...

    It makes the laws, supplies the law enforcement/military, and provides the courts that mediate disputes...

    We could always fall back to the "Hatfield/McCoy" private management of social/economic/and political issues...but I don't think we need to open the door to violence and dischord..

    There is no private equivalent source of any of these things...nor should there be..

    You pointed out yourself how even shareholders face little to no access in boardroom decision-making...we can't elect the CEO or board of Walmart...our largest private enterprise employer..

    And we see how good of a job they do of taking care of their own:

    http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy& … mp;bih=496

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp … mp;bih=496

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp … mp;bih=496

    I'm not sure I want this running my society...

  20. JON EWALL profile image49
    JON EWALLposted 5 years ago


    HERE IS THE LATEST' see my hub. check it out!

    President Barack Obama and The 112TH Congress , a work in progress involving constitutional law. On Sat July,23,2011, President Barack Obama and the leaders of Congress met..... http://hubpages.com/t/2794d6

  21. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    What defines "last resort"? I argue that it has been deregulation...the active destruction of regulations as opposed to "wait and see" that "last resort" asserts...that has led to the financial disaster..

    http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy& … &cad=b

    The deregulation of California's power industy culminating in the Enron disaster is another example that supports this theory:


    Watch the whole film...

    1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
      wba108@yahoo.composted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with tight regulation on government sponsored programs but more often than not the government interference in the private sector creates more problems than it solves. The housing bubble was created by government subsidized loan programs that extended loans to buyers who couldn't afford them. the need for regulation in this instance was caused by an unnecessary government intrusion.   Government regulations often encourages corruption and a collusion between business and industry.

      The envirnmental regulations enacted in the Kyoto treaty were actually lobbied for by Enron. Why? lucrative government energy contracts and the elimination of their smaller competitors because of  huge start up expenses. General electric loves government regulations so much they actually publically announce that the government is a welcome partner in business.
      GE also gets to create products that could never compete in the free market because of government subsidies and contracts.

      On a more personal level, I'm a house painter and
      thanks to the strict new lead paint laws my
      business has taken a decline because these new laws raise the cost and risk of doing business. The timing of the new regulations couldn't have come at a worse time, in the middle of a recession. Never mind that the problems with lead paint were 3-4x worse 30 years ago. Never mind that the paint industry
      phased out almost all lead paint in the 1950's because customers didn't want to buy lead paint. Never mind that 99% of contractor work is done in neighborhoods were lead problems are non-existent.

      regulatory agencies often subvert free government by taking decisions that should be voted on by our leglators that are now decided by bureaucrats
      Regulation is direct government control and I for one would like less not more government in my life.

  22. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    I'd rather have the regulation than families living in lead-painted homes.

    There are different types of regulations...we can agree on that. 


    This is the type of regulation that I am in support of...and I think you will find that, because of its diminished role, Fannie and Freddie were able to turn into the monster that we witnessed....

    Why was Glass-Steagall weakened?

    1. Moderndayslave profile image59
      Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "I'd rather have the regulation than families living in lead-painted homes."
      Just think,that generation is running the country now. So that's why things are so screwed up.

  23. 61
    ElvisHanposted 5 years ago

    I agree somewhat, yet I think some regulation or at least oversight is necessary. I'm talking about Credit Default Swaps, for instance. No regulations whatsoever was obviously a bad thing.

    Wrinkle Cream

  24. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Politicians have always been in the middle.  When the railroads were being built spanning the U.S. there was pretty much no regulation...but there were still winners, losers, and their political cronies..

    I cited a specific regulation that was in place prior to the creation of the housing bubble...I believe that this former policy worked...deregulation brought about something else altogether...

    As for the lead painting business...again...lead is toxic...

    Think not only of the painter, or of those who will live in that now poisoned home...but what of the men/women who have to make the paint itself? 

    Of course...did you "WBA" also let your consumers know that you were selling them/using lead paint?

    Or is it "let the buyer beware"?

    As for the addiction and McDonalds....I left several links already..  Research has been done...

    But here is another:

    http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/03/30/fast … dies-find/

    There is no perfection in the world...there is no way to get rid of corruption. Our political system lives (and has always lived) off corruption.

    It is not that corruption is bad....wheels just need to get greased sometimes....  However, the example of current Speaker Boehner (prior to this latest appointment) passing out cigarette lobbying cash on the House floor prior to a vote on cigarette regulation is something else..

    How many wheels had to get greased in order to get Congress to levy regulation against cigarette manufacturers or, for that matter, lead paint producers?


    Let us not be free to poison and destroy others....

    1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
      wba108@yahoo.composted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Monopolies and Political cronism are driven by government intervention because they were granted exclusive priveleges through regulation, subsidies and exclusive agreements.

      Some contend that capitalism encourages the development of monopolies. But its government intervention and socialism not the free market that encourages monopolies.

      The robber barons success was do to government intervention and subsidies not the free market. Free markets and a limited constitutional government prevents the consolidation of power and the cronism that goes with it. Big government liberalism with its huge regulatory agencies causes what it pretends to prevent,the consolidation of power and corruption.

  25. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    The monopolies were granted because there was no distinction between company/government lines...  Not much has changed today... 

    I point to the example of Los Angeles....  The first real government was business....the Chamber of Commerce...and big business ran the show...  The Huntington name is everywhere...Huntington Beach, Huntington Park, Huntington Library...numerous Huntington Streets and so forth..  They put their representatives into public office, or "served" themselves (Leland Stanford, for example)...and then "served themselves" to the credit that a tax base offers...


    I noticed you failed to answer concerning your desire for the "Freedom" to install toxic chemicals in peoples' homes and businesses...

    Freedom is not free.....the lives lost/ruined to the production of your poison paint...to those who use it...and then to those who inhale its particulates over their lifetimes....

    I don't see the worth of freedom in that scenario...

    However, there are laws set in place because groups of people (not heads of corporations or high-end lobbying firms) banded together to demand action...


    http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/10/ … egulation/

    Please, don't tangent...  I want you to credibly argue against the government regulation that prohibits you from painting poison on the walls of your neighbors...

    Tell us why you should be free to do such a thing?

    1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
      wba108@yahoo.composted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is true that in the early days of the old west those with the most guns and gold called the shots. Today the another factor added to this equation, is the power of the government itself encouraging monopolies through the power of the regulatory state.

      Politicians seek to control the private sector to thier own political advantage. Big businesses who are rewarded government favors in turn, pay off thier government benefactors. A recent example of this is Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. Obama's campaign recieved many times more political contributions from Wall Street banks, big unions, the large pharmaceutical and insurance companies than did Senator McCain.
      The bailouts served as payoffs to his political allies. The auto bailouts funneled billions into union coffers. Obamacare served to ensure large insurance companies success at the expense of smaller competitors. The troubled asset relieve rewarded his buddies on wall street.

      I did address the lead Paint issue in an earlier post, I responsed in detail a couple posts ago, you are free to look it up and respond to it.

  26. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    WBA....your comparison of "parent government" to tyranny...


    In our mindset we have "Founding Fathers" who gave "birth" to this nation..

    There are age requirements for high office,and most are middle-aged or older..so they are definitely peers or "elders"...   

    Elected officials, appointees and government workers are fellow citizens. They aren't aliens. In a sense they are our family, are they not?

    The state does play a parent role, as well...  When the private family fails their children, the government is there...as it should be.  People can complain about problems in the foster system....there are many difficulties and challenges...there is abuse...

    But, if I am to look at "private alternatives"...churches have traditionally filled the role of "parent" to orphans or the abused... And there is a track record of abuse from these organizations as well... 

    Tyranny is not only found within the setting of state governance..and it is not in practice now in the U.S...  Rather, it is also a characteristic of business...and it is, especially in an unregulated (non-unionized) setting..

    I know that greater power enables the opportunity for greater abuse....but you fail to realize that the party of "less government" is enabling the concentration of power amid hands that, following "small government" principles, leave then to do as they please....  Again..executive boards and ceo's (or traders in Enron's case) are only liable of their crimes if there is a strong, critical government to pound their heads..  Their own shareholders are left out to dry..this internal dynamic of public ownership of companies (Wall Street) fails to control or limit the corruption that is at the heart of our financial industry collapse

    The decline of regulations separating public banking led to the subprime crisis...  The stripping/gerrymandering of regulation in California enabled Enron to exist...and the manipulation of federal regulators by friends of Ken Lay (the Bush Family), made sure that cries for help from California didn't come...

    Strong, critical government....not strong and in cahoots..

    The issues we face are of human nature...and this means that it doesn't matter if the forum is government, corportate, religous-based, or anything else..

    Heavy regulation needs to be placed on financial contributions to elections.  We will all be able to see what "deregulation" of elections vis-a-vis the Citizens United ruling will become...  We will be able to compare it to the previous way and see what "liberalization" of finance and politics means...

    I say that no corporation of any kind can contribute to individuals, parties, or causes. 

    Only individual citizens can give of their own private funds, or else these contributions plus a government subsidy derived from an elections fund. If corporations (non-profit, for-profit) wish to donate to the election fund, that is another story...but no direct contributions to a person, party or cause by a group...

    1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
      wba108@yahoo.composted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The vision of the founding fathers was opposite to the Parent government vision or nanny state vision promoted by the left. The founding fathers envisioned a government and nation for the poeple, of the poeple and by the poeple. The left's vision is more of a government run by an enlightened elite and politically neutral bureaucrats. The founders saw our elected officials as the servants of the poeple not and not benevolent all knowing masters.

      Tyranny is much more likely from a government rather than a private source because even a low level bureaucrat has more control over your life than a multi-millionaire businessman. If you don't like to work for the businessman you have the choise to go elsewhere, if you don't like what he sells you can take your business elsewhere. The government on the other hand has no competitors and his decisions can be enforced by force of arms.

      I have no problem with strong government action as long as its confined to its constitutionally delegated roll, a roll that I believe has been greatly abused. As I stated earlier the collusion of goverment and business is more likely in an environment where government exceeds its constitutional limits by excessive intrusion into the private sector.

      The sub prime mortgage was brought on by government intrusion into the banking industry, unwise Loans where extented due to government subsidies to the banking industry.

      The citizens united ruling was correct in that the first Amendment protects speech and says nothing of the speaker.What is a corporation, its a group of poeple, all of which should be able to voice thier opinions as a group. After all the press is a corporation also and you wouldn't want the government regulating thier speech either.

  27. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    "The Founding Fathers saw our elected officials as servants of the people"

    As long as the people were not black, Catholic, or women...and as long as they had wealth...  Right?

    A government by the elite for the elite....

    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q … &pli=1

    Regarding the Kyoto Protocol, the United States was wrong to not ratify it... Debasing its credibility based on "guilt by association" (connection with Enron) is flawed logic.

    "Greening" means a transition to more electricity usage...which they directly stood to profit from...

    Imagine the profits that could be made in an electric-car dominated society? Amplify these by the tactics used by Enron "like turning a switch on and off" to artificially inflate electricity rates to astronomical levels..

    Insider connections of the corportate kind....power line owners telling power producers to shut down..."find a reason to go off line.."

    I reiterate:


    Imagine the world they saw.... 

    http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.o … te-policy/

    Many, the biggest, stood to gain by not supporting the agreement:

    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q … OKpdO2vs5A

    The continued comparison of regulation to "nanny" and "mommy" governance do not in any way support the opposing premise that less regulation on behalf of public protection and support is beneficial. 

    Someone/thing has to clean up after the mess that companies like Enron, Exxon, and Walmart create...

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corpo … lfare.html

    http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news/fo … subsidies/

    http://www.newrules.org/retail/news/new … -taxpayers

    The problem is that access to public office is dependent on the few who control and profit the most from the established economic order...

    I continue to support regulations banning lead paint...  Just because someone loses profit over its removal is unimportant... 


  28. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    The statement made that bureaucrats in government have more control/influence over an American's daily life than a corporation is incorrect...

    Which mid-level bureaucrats can you point to?  I will respond with the numerous corporate counterparts who will exercise as much, if not more on your life...

    Exxon had a world of influence over the U.S. government...ensuring its tyranny over our economy lives on...and it is negatively affecting the political, social, economic, and environmental future of our world....

  29. Moderndayslave profile image59
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago

    What drives government regulation? Bribes,campaign donations and promise of jobs after government life or overpaid positions for your family

  30. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Actually, that is what enabled Enron to escape the regulatory agency (DOE) that was supposed to investigate it...

    Guys and industries like these need to be regulated:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6svTm7zC … re=related

    Ken Lay and Enron...the epitome of corporate integrity.. Watch the entire meeting....enlightening..


  31. mikelong profile image82
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAZLUsbz … re=related

    Freedom is most definitely not free....  It's extremely expensive..

  32. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    The voter drives it all at least in theory, so America, blame yourselves. smile

    People for the most part get the government they deserve. If you want it to change, chuck out the congressmen who you don't agree with.

    America goes on about the presidency being at fault, but it is Congress and it's lobbyists who have the real power, and the American public can vote them out.

    1. 0
      kimberlyslyricsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Earnest hello

      Can you help me understand which vehicle they're driving


      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sure thing Kimberly!

        It is a battered T model with about a million miles on the clock! lol