For my Libertarian friends

timothy leary wrote: "Wal-Mart wields its power for just one purpose: to bring the lowest possible prices to its customers. At Wal-Mart, that goal is never reached. The retailer has a clear policy for suppliers: On basic products that don't change, the price Wal-Mart will pay, and will charge shoppers, must drop year after year. But what almost no one outside the world of Wal-Mart and its 21,000 suppliers knows is the high cost of those low prices. Wal-Mart has the power to squeeze profit-killing concessions from vendors. To survive in the face of its pricing demands, makers of everything from bras to bicycles to blue jeans have had to lay off employees and close U.S. plants in favor of outsourcing products from overseas." let`s whine some more http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

As much as I agree, we all know the response to this already...

Tell me oh ye Libertarians... Do you really think, as thy words give the idea that you do, that everything that is not. 100% free market with zero government regulation is socialism? And that communism is just a matter of making it a little more extreme? (with hammers and sickles and funny moustache gus with stars on their hats)? Is there no middle ground possible for you? Is it the free way or the slave way?

You negate many of our posts asking for more regulation by immediately painting a picture of government intrusion to a degree that would make Brother Number One blush... In the words of the lawyer against good old Mc Carthy, do you have no decency? (i'm just joking with this last one...)

You're the next contestant on what do these things have in common?
1929 Stock Market Crash
1980's Savings and Loan Crisis
2008 Financial Sector Meltdown
2010 BP gulf oil disaster

If you answered "too much regulation"  ooooh strike one.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 19 2010 at 07:34

I would limit them to washington d.c., let the beltway be electrified with a force field, but yes in reality it is hard to know what limits but we all know when they step over the lines

Add to that the Massey Coal Mine disaster of 2010.

It is just total coincidence that during the 20's, 80's, and 2000's were periods of low regulation "supply side economics" and then there were recessions?
Especially during the 1920's what regulation was there?

Sadly, I dont have it in front of me from data I've seen I thought things slowly, but steadily got better under FDR, until the late 30's when a backslide occurred. I will admit, FDR's refusal to lower tariffs (that Hoover put in place) probably did contribute to it. That being said, over regulation caused the Great Depression? I do not see how that was the case.

And Anton Im getting a bit ticked at how you just assume we are going to disregard everything you put up. Whether or not I agree is one thing, but I've read every one thus far...
On that note, maybe I'm a little confused about that article but it said in '80 and '82 S&L's "were set free  to become more like commercial banks" Wouldn't that be de-regulation?

Indeed I looked into the acts passed in 1980 and 1982 and they were deregulatrory acts. Wouldn't that mean they were now like banks, but without the regulation of them? While maybe later regulation had some negative impact, it seems that lack of it...may have been the roots.

The current recession has blame for EVERYONE. Regulation (going back to the 90's and Clinton) did cause the "cogs" to act as they did. It cant be denied. However, the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act (which was a regulatory law) has been blamed for being a major key to the current recession. It allowed banks to act irresonsibly.
And how's this Anton, a fun lil cartoon that I think explains the recession pretty well and perhaps a good reason why regulation was needed to stop EVERYONE involved from acting irresponsibly.....
http://www.businesspundit.com/sub-prime/page4.php


As for the BP spill, OK fine.. I'll bite. It was gvmt regulation that caused them to move farther off shore/into deeper water. However, we all know the corners that were cut for the sake of saving time and $. How can you say lack of regulation had nothing to do with it? If BP was beign regulated those corners would not have been cut.
And if you want be technical yes, neither is to blame DIRECTLY for the accident. Of course an accident is an accident....only saying it since you brought it up.

It just makes sense to me, the private sector if left to its own will act irresponsibly. Its not even that they are bad or anything but the point is profit right? Thus without regulation they will do anything to maximize it, that is just economics. And I dont want to hear choice, and their responsibility because we all know without being made to...corners will be cut and everything that can be done irresponsibly WILL be done.

 I need to run as well, peace

JJLehto wrote: Sadly, I dont have it in front of me from data I've seen I thought things slowly, but steadily got better under FDR, until the late 30's when a backslide occurred. I will admit, FDR's refusal to lower tariffs (that Hoover put in place) probably did contribute to it. That being said, over regulation caused the Great Depression? I do not see how that was the case.

A backslide? The 1937 recrash was as bad as 1929. It's the only time in our history we've had two crashes following right after each other. There's not enough time to go into all of FDR's policies which prolonged the depression. Without his policies we could have recovered from the crash in a little over two years, instead we suffered through chronic unemployment into the 40s.

In regard to your question...because cutting corners, especially in regards to safety is IMO just wrong.
I dont even care what you say about me, rights be damned! If cutting a corner does not infringe on the right of others then whats the problem? I dont know, isn't all this about responsibility? Are you saying as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights then be as irresponsible as you want?

And no economic incentives? How so?
Lets say there is no regulation. I am the CEO of an oil company.
I could drill relief wells at the same time as the main one, so if there is an accident they will already be in place. But its not like I have to. So why spend the time and money to do so?

Explain to me why, in an unregulated world, there is no incentive to cut corners?
If cutting corners would save some money...why wouldn't they? And Im not trying to attack or anyhting, its just fact. The point of a firm is to maximie profit, so if they can save a bit by cutting a corner why wouldn't they? Especially if there is no one around to monitor them.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: In regard to your question...because cutting corners, especially in regards to safety is IMO just wrong. I dont even care what you say about me, rights be damned! If cutting a corner does not infringe on the right of others then whats the problem? I dont know, isn't all this about responsibility? Are you saying as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights then be as irresponsible as you want? And no economic incentives? How so? Lets say there is no regulation. I am the CEO of an oil company. I could drill relief wells at the same time as the main one, so if there is an accident they will already be in place. But its not like I have to. So why spend the time and money to do so? Explain to me why, in an unregulated world, there is no incentive to cut corners? If cutting corners would save some money...why wouldn't they? And Im not trying to attack or anyhting, its just fact. The point of a firm is to maximie profit, so if they can save a bit by cutting a corner why wouldn't they? Especially if there is no one around to monitor them. Suppose I'm building a house for you, if I decide to cut corners by making the foundation out of sand instead of concrete, when the house collapses you will sue me. This is not a very smart business move on my part seeing as I just lost money. Compare this with acceptable cutting corners. I make pillow cases. I can either double stitch the seams or cut corners and single stitch. I cut corners and single stitch so that I can offer my pillowcase $.50 lower. The consumer who needs not the luxury of two stitches now has a viable economic option.

Hell, I'll sell you a pillowcase I made out of beer cans for $3. 


Edited by Epignosis - July 19 2010 at 20:19

Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: In regard to your question...because cutting corners, especially in regards to safety is IMO just wrong. I dont even care what you say about me, rights be damned! If cutting a corner does not infringe on the right of others then whats the problem? I dont know, isn't all this about responsibility? Are you saying as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights then be as irresponsible as you want? And no economic incentives? How so? Lets say there is no regulation. I am the CEO of an oil company. I could drill relief wells at the same time as the main one, so if there is an accident they will already be in place. But its not like I have to. So why spend the time and money to do so? Explain to me why, in an unregulated world, there is no incentive to cut corners? If cutting corners would save some money...why wouldn't they? And Im not trying to attack or anyhting, its just fact. The point of a firm is to maximie profit, so if they can save a bit by cutting a corner why wouldn't they? Especially if there is no one around to monitor them. Suppose I'm building a house for you, if I decide to cut corners by making the foundation out of sand instead of concrete, when the house collapses you will sue me. This is not a very smart business move on my part seeing as I just lost money. Compare this with acceptable cutting corners. I make pillow cases. I can either double stitch the seams or cut corners and single stitch. I cut corners and single stitch so that I can offer my pillowcase $.50 lower. The consumer who needs not the luxury of two stitches now has a viable economic option.

OK we're getting theoretical again. In reality, you have to grant there is a difference between single stitching a pillowcase and making a poor foundation. Yes, if YOU were to build me a house that would be stupid to do, but if a large company is doing it, well we all know about the Pinto (or stories like it). Just letting a flaw go ahead, since they calculated it would be cheaper to pay lawsuits/damages than recall and fix it.
And maybe not ALL would act irresponsibly, but some will. Some will look only in the short run.

And Rob that would be a mighty uncomfortable pillow