Well, now that the United States is being compared to Burma, I hope we can at least stop dredging up those Nazi Germany references. That was getting a bit tiresome. I foresee a new era in inaccurate and hyperbolic comparisons and sincerely thank Tim for leading us down this new path. This should definitely provide some good sport.

yep, i cant wait for this one to pan out…the US is no better than Myanmar, and our buddhist monk population better watch out, next step is guantanamo, after all, we just throw ANYBODY in there who was innocently walking down the Khandahar road at the wrong time…

i cant wait for them to start bashing this humble libertarian as some kinda Nazi thug

ugh

If the thing that concerns you the most about this is the hyperbole then I guess it doesn’t make sense to try explaining how serious this is.

I hope these 5 men find a resolution soon. 4 years of life wasted in military imprisonment … If it were me, I’d probably be so hateful at that point that I’d devote my life to killing the men who held me there if they ever let me out.

Well, I’m just sure, it’s “getting tiresome to be equated with the Nazis but, “Wait-there’s more!”
BFOOO-
If the Boot fits, Wear it!

Suppressing peoples rights, controlling the media, allowing Corporate to influence “Wars”, stifling education for the masses to prevent the public from being educated and informed of what their government is REally Doing, robbing the infra-structure to Pad the Wealth of the Wealthy, allowing cities to crumble, people to die(needlessly), censoring the press, falsely pumping up “Nationalism” to promote the acceptance of “Wars” without Basis or allowing the “decision” to be challenged, still puts Bush and the Repulsicans in the “Nazi/Fascist” Group, guy…Sorry, but Truth isn’t always pretty! Neither are Bush and his Lap-Dogs!

We the People took the first blow as soon as Bushdum was in “office”(Ha)for several months-George-Boy over-turned “Workers Protection” legislation…Not a good omen.

Fascism is alive and well(America isn’t so well) in the U.S.A.

Burma’s plight is beginning to sound familiar-and we ain’t seen Nothing Yet! And they count on people like you, BFOOO to laugh it off-put a distance on it and, feel nice and complacent!

“Suppressing peoples rights, controlling the media, allowing Corporate to influence “Wars”, stifling education for the masses to prevent the public from being educated and informed of what their government is REally Doing, robbing the infra-structure to Pad the Wealth of the Wealthy, allowing cities to crumble, people to die(needlessly), censoring the press, falsely pumping up “Nationalism” to promote the acceptance of “Wars” without Basis or allowing the “decision” to be challenged, still puts Bush and the Repulsicans in the “Nazi/Fascist” Group, guy…Sorry, but Truth isn’t always pretty! Neither are Bush and his Lap-Dogs!”

You make a lot of baseless vague incendiary statements. You don’t really make an argument or try to persuade through some sort of rational process. This kind of estrogen-fuel catharsis might make you feel better, but it doesn’t amount to much except a transference of your frustration and anger to the rest of the world. Of course, I am sure that you and plenty of others need this kind of forum to unleash all of that fear and hate.

I feel nice (not complacent) because I am confident that what I do every day contributes to a strong and civil society. I have spent many years of disciplined hard work building the skills and knowledge-base that supports my contention. Maybe you have talents to offer the world that will help realize the vision that moves you. Something that involves growth and development. I would encourage you to pursue that route, over seeking fulfillment by cultivating, harvesting and distributing rage.

Ole,

I was very disappointed to read your response. You resorted to the time honored ruse of filling half your post with Cake’s remarks. As if we didn’t know what he said, as if the repetition of them somehow discredits them, or is it simply to provide volume in the place of substance.

Cake’s rage speaks volumes. Your aloof, above it all superiority does as well. Cake speaks for a significant segment of this country. You do as well, more the pity. Cake speaks for the masses whose only voice is through the electorate, a vehicle which has arguably been taken away from them. You speak for the gentry, a class that history has shown is not averse to subverting laws, both legal and moral, to maintain its control of power.

There would also seem to be, in your dispassionate rebuttal, the suggestion that passion and logic are mutually exclusive. It’s a mistake the gentry has made before. And it’s okay, it tells me you’ve learned nothing from the lessons of history. The great unwashed take it for a time, limiting themselves to ‘incidiary (sic) statements.’ That’s pretty much what Maximilien Robspierre and Ferdinand Marcos thought.

You also resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, which gets closer to the truth. Cake provided you with the benefit of the doubt, intelligence. The various indictments against Bushney have been stated, defined and restated elsewhere a number of times. I’m sure Cake assumed you had the retentive powers necessary to maintain the discussion. You, on the other hand, feign ignorance, at least I hope that’s the case, and choose to debase his failure to articulate. In the future, I suppose, it will be necessary, for the sake of dim-witted Cons, to itemize, catalog, categorize and articulate each and every transgression committed by Bushney.

Pulease, I believe you to be above such rhetorical sleight of hands. I will chalk this lapse on your part to fatigue, or water in that part of the world.

“You make a lot of baseless vague incendiary statements. You don’t really make an argument or try to persuade through some sort of rational process.”

HA! Oh this is too good. On a site that frequently provides investigative reporting or links to investigative reporting, often finding damning evidence of collusion between government and business and you throw around words like baseless? HAHAHA!

Heres a tip, if you are going for the ignorant blank slate arguer who has been in a hole for the past decade, try sounding a bit less certain. The truly unaware would be hesitant to go either way.

For the last time, if the administration “controlled the media,” do you really believe that we would be hearing any bad news coming out of Iraq? Do you think that Bill Clinton would be able to force GQ to pull it’s negative piece on Hillary in order to do a piece on him? Would Dan Rather have been able to run with a story based on fraudulent allegations about the president? Would I be looking outside my office at a billboard for a radio station asking “President Bush: How many more lives? Would Katie Couric be voicing her opposition to the Iraq War to the National Press Club?
I’ll grant you that Rupert Murdoch and Fox News definitely fall on the right, but the great majority of those in the media are left-leaning.

I am not the elitist. I am not the one who uses terms like ‘unwashed masses.’ I don’t think about people that way. I don’t divide people into the ignorant and the enlightened, princes and paupers. I consider myself extremely privileged to enjoy the life I lead, which is probably not that fundamentally different from yours or 90% of the people who read Rolling Stone, listen to the evening news, log into a message board. I enjoy a certain level of prosperity, but the very core of my prosperity is much more basic than reading the news on the internet or driving a fast car. When I talk about opportunities that bring me fulfillment, I am thinking about waking up in the morning with my health; a reasonable degree of law and order; more than sufficient food supply; a family. All the other opportunities that I have enjoyed, that someone else hasn’t, were made available because other people in my family have worked very hard to make that so. I try to honour that gift as best as I can. I do this by realizing my potential, not by trampling upon someone else’s.

You refer to a class structure with archaic terms like proletariat, bourgeoisie, gentry. Do these terms mean anything in our society today? I doubt it. Without arguing a preference or a distrust for the civilization we live in, I think these terms are absolutely useless. They’re dusty old words that might have described Europe at the dawn of the industrial age, but since then, have lost any connection with the global, post-industrial world we live in. By all means, please continue to question whatever social forms you see fit, but the idea of a society stratified along the lines that you describe when you use those old words is a complete distortion of reality. Perhaps I am guilty of the same kind of reliance on antiquated words like ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative.’ I will resolve to exercise restraint when it comes to those terms; I will definitely concede they can lead to similar distortions of reality.

What strength is there in forums, you ask? I don’t know where to begin to address this, if you truly want the answer. Forums for discussion play an enormous role in shaping public opinion. Even the people who would seek to manipulate public opinion must at the very least acknowledge public opinion. I actually think this is not too far off certain things I have heard you mention when you express doubt that this country could turn into a totalitarian state. Only an absolute rule by force could maintain the luxury of a total disregard for public opinion. I don’t think that describes the world we live in.

Do I question your patriotism or anyone else’s patriotism? Not if patriotism is something you claim. Anyway, I could care less about some silly concept of patriotism. It would hurt me more to be called unromantic or boring. I am a pragmatist at rock bottom. I believe that any patriotism that I might exhibit is ultimately rooted in a respect for a country that is capable of allowing the pragmatist to create prosperity without inhibition – to do what you feel you ought, instead of simply what you are told to do. I am sure someone is apt to interpret that to mean, ‘a country that allows you to do whatever you want with no regard for anyone else.’ No, not quite, I mean a country that allows everyone to do what everyone wants, so long as that doesn’t diminish or degrade anyone. Certainly the degree to which that conception has been realized is far from complete, but the trajectory has been established, and that is where my conviction lies.

Ole,

I am SO glad you are here. Please don’t go away.

I LOVED what you had to say. It was wonderful. Of course, I’m going to take exception to the interpretation, not the verbiage, of just about everything. But not tonight. I’m old and I’m tired and can’t ‘play’ any more.

But manana I shalt return with the single-minded objective of slaying the dragons of deceit and deception that you throw in my path.

Whilst I was out laboring/toiling today, a question occurred to me. Riddle me this, name me a conservative who contributed to art. Mozart? Hardly. Shakespeare? Get real. Each challenged the orthodoxy of their profession. Michelangelo? Right!! The truth is, love, beauty and pursuit of beauty are NOT matters associated with the conservative approach to life.

Boy, I REALLY love having the high ground.

PS That was a great post.

I am not going to play the ‘was so and so a liberal or conservative’ game. It degrades beauty and the pursuit of beauty to associate its inspiration with a political perspective. As I noted, the terms tend to distort reality and have resolved to exercise some restraint with respect to these words.

Whether or not our society is stratified or not, the fact that millions of people continue to seek (legal and illegal) entry to the United States suggests enormous social mobility. Using antiquated terms to refer to class structure in our country which exists in an increasingly global civilization is useless. Coin your own new terms for all I care. Tell me about the poor, unwashed masses in the inner city, but acknowledge the passage or time and the changes it’s brought. You acknowledge that in the eyes of the law, all are equal. That is good enough for me as far as government is concerned. Any further advances must come from somewhere else. I place very little value in the capability of government to solve problems for people, particularly those involving opportunity and social perceptions. You claim to be a student of history. When in history has government meddling created opportunity

Midman,

Of course the administration doesn’t control the media. That’s hyperbole. Hell, this administration can’t control anything.

However, the media acquiesces to the media and therein lies the problem. The media is (I know, I know, I’m not ‘pluralizing’ but I hate to be dictated to by archaic English precedence.), by and large, a Jeckyl and Hyde entity. As long as you give them quotes and sound bites, they will eat from your hand.

But the smell of blood will cause them (I know, I know, inconsistent as well) to morph into Mr. Hyde. The problem, it would seem, is they currently need a blood bath to catch the scent.

Please note the conspicuous absence of the term ‘manipulate.’ Lord knows the administration tries to manipulate the media, but who doesn’t? Even the Cub Scouts do. Whether or not those attempts are successful is problematic. But closing off the viewing of returning fatalities at Dover and the submissive acquiescence of the media would seem to indicate some success.

You can forgive some who, in their passion, might see this as controlling.

Ole,

Somehow I don’t think ‘mobility’ is the prime motivator behind immigration. Not being an immigrant, I can’t say for sure. However, I think quality of life might be a bit higher on the motivation scale.

Marvelous, your solution to failure is to cease trying. You must have gotten a LOT of help on your upward climb. Equally enchanting is your criteria as to just which terms are acceptable or no. You rule out of hand many, but have no trouble categorizing social engineering as ‘meddling’. Of course it’s meddling when it interferes with your agenda.

So, young man, can I toss out terms I believe to be ‘useless’ and polemic? Or is that a right granted only to those in the elite?

Ole,

Shame on me/us. The very thing we’re disagreeing about is the prime motivator for immigration: opportunity. Inherent in that opportunity is improved quality of life and, nod, mobility. (I’m assuming that since you used mobility, it’s okay for me to as well.)

That last bit is precisely what I was getting at.

I never said anything about not trying to help people. I meant that people should stop turning to GOVERNMENT as the solution. Government is not the answer to social problems. If you are so concerned about fascism, why would you suggest that government and industry expand their relationships? Do you think that the stamp of government guarantees legitimacy? Or do you just think government is a better steward of wealth than the people who create it?

in my opinion we must find ways for other institutions to contribute to improving social welfare. I am not talking about this lame faith-based initiative thing. I am talking about radical new ideas. Energy production and distribution offers incredibley inspiring new frontiers for this kind of arrangement. Unfortunately, too many people are looking for government for the answers to the energy conundrum. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this issue and would love to discuss it greater depth, but I will hold off for now.

I think that the most government can do is ensure that the private sector is not inhibited by unnecessary regulation. Distribution of wealth is not nearly as difficult as creating it. The ability of the private sector to continue creating wealth is what motivates people to cross the border in droves. The ability to capture a piece of that wealth is precisely what I mean by mobility – i.e. getting to a place in life where wants and needs can be met to a greater extent than before. Today’s landscaper can be tomorow’s landscaping-entrpreneur in this country. This is why I think terms that reflect entrenched social classes are misleading. They might have applied for a while – as a hangover from feudalism – but the events of the 20th century have erased those old forms. Perhaps what has replaced this structure is no better – I would argue that it is – but it is definitely much different.

I don’t believe I specifically addressed social engineering as meddling, but now that you have I will endorse that statement. It is meddling in my opinion because engineering implies directed-purposes. Social forms should be left to evolve toward more efficient structures without constraining society to conform to enforced ideals. A society whose structure is left to evolve on its own will probably retain the diversity necessary to meet unexpected challenges. Enforcing ideals of what society ought to be from the top down will never achieve the flexibility, diversity and abundance that one left to its own. The top-down approach has proven to be a miserable failure and has left the world with a dangerous hulking relic to remind the world that better-living through social engineering is not all its cracked up to be. If you haven’t done so already, I encourage you to visit the former Soviet Union to see for yourself – the damage that was wrought will take generations to repair. In terms of poverty, crime, the environment, education and culture the United States is far from where I would like to see it, but the groundwork has been laid for bigger and better things. This achievement is only capable in a society where the basic needs of day-to-day subsistence can be met to the extent that they are in a nation such as the United States. Without the repose that this kind of prosperity offers, we cannot consider more inspiring goals. To the extent that government would seek to interfere in social development, it risks undermining the structures on which future development might be founded.

Blood: “I think that the most government can do is ensure that the private sector is not inhibited by unnecessary regulation.”

I have to take serious exception to that statement and here’s why:
By letting the private sector control energy, and only being taxed by the government, we are stuck in a world dominated by oil. Suppression of other fuels and energy advancements has stagnated us into fighting for oil.
A fact that needs to be faced: The private sector, in general, is only going to try to enrich themselves. That’s why I believe in government intervention/subsidization in industries that are ‘necessities’. That way we can, somewhat, control the ’screwing’ done by industries. What are those industries that are necessities? Transportation, health (food and medicine), and peace. All other industries aren’t necessities and therefore can be for-profit. But, when the ‘for-profit’ industry controls who lives and who doesn’t, we face a bit of a conundrum.

“we are stuck in a world dominated by oil. Suppression of other fuels and energy advancements has stagnated us into fighting for oil.”

It simply isn’t true that big business is suppressing alternative energy. The fact is that it is very difficult to find alternatives.

Blood: No it’s NOT difficult to find alternatives.

Diesel
Electricity
Hybri d
Hydrogen
Ethanol
Blah, blah, blah.
Remember the EV1?

Ole,

Wow, you were doing SO good. Until you mentioned that bit about stewardship of wealth, which, by the way, why does it have to be defined as ‘wealth?’ Rhetorical, I guess. But to redress your statement, “HELL YES!!” Break out the history books. Read again about the ‘Roaring Twenties.’ A utopian land where ‘everyman’ was making hand over fist. However, the ‘ins’ were making hundreds times more using insider trading and fake companies.

Right there you have established the threshold between conservative (can I use that term) and liberal (ditto). Trusting the $$$.

Hopefully a thread will emerge where we can address energy. One of my favorites. Be forewarned, we can’t ignore global warming in such a forum.

The MOST the gov’t can do is ensure that the private sector is not ‘inhibited?’ Make that TWO thresholds between our worlds. The ‘ability of the private sector to create wealth (that word again)’ is BECAUSE of the gov’t, NOT in spite of it. If you don’t realize that, then we need to back up ten paces. Let me make this VERY clear: A secure, stable, democratic gov’t that recognizes the value of ALL individuals is the perfect environment for ‘capitalism,’ so to speak. Remove that qualification and you have an economy servile to capriousness(?). You can’t have it both ways. The society that creates entreprenurialship(?) is also the society that protects it. UNTIL it becomes a threat to other entreprenial enterprises (phew, what a mouthful). None of those words are in the dictionary, but I think you know what I mean.

I had a feeling social engineering was a buzzword for you. Thought I’d test the waters. While your rebuttal is trenchant, it overlooks a few delicate matters. Matters that can await another discourse.

DD-

I’ve mentioned before, I have training in geology and geophysics. I am not a climate change debunker, so talking about global warming is not a delicate matter for me.

Cocerning the word wealth, I am not attached to it. We could use the term ‘grow the GDP’ instead of ‘create wealth,’ but I think that means essentially the same thing to me.

I think we are playing a chicken-and-egg game when we argue what is more fundamental to a society: economy versus politics. I suggest that these two have been inextricably connected since the stoneage. I think, though, that a more evolved society is the one where the caveman with the biggest stick (government) doesn’t always get the biggest share of what is produced. The enlightened cavechief steps out of the way and allows his fellow cavesters the opportunity to find new ways to attain/produce what the tribe needs. I think you can extrapolate what I am saying to a more developed civilization, so I want elaborate on this.

Concerning insider-trading. I think that is a practice that threatens the ability of the marketplace to regulate itself. So, nothing in my ideal vision of society would preclude government from cracking down on that practice. I think even most of the most ferocious capitalists would agree with you that insider-trading threatens the integrity of financial markets.

Ole,

I think there’s a hint of utopianism in your discourse(s). Either that or your cynicism does not match that of mine. Dare I say you see the world in black and white (a contention I expect you to vigorously deny but one I project for argumentative purposes) whilst I see ‘a brighter shade of gray.’

If you accept the premise that man needs gov’t to survive, which I believe you do, then the issue becomes how MUCH control to grant that gov’t. When it comes to the economy, I turn to the pages of history which shows, with a nod to Jed, that man’s greed knows no bounds and requires the greatest of control

Turning those pages of history ahead some, we discover, lo, that greater control does NOT, in fact, restrict the prosperity and growth of said economy. We have a dubious anniversary nearing this month (no, NOT the Russian revolution, we’re talking economy here) that resulted in the tightest restrictions ever placed on an economy. And the result of those restrictions have been? Prosperity. In fact, so much so that the disparity between ‘classes’ (you just KNEW I’d get around to that sooner or later didn’t you? But don’t go off point on that, it can wait) has grown into an unsightly beast threatening to undermine the health of this experiment we call America.

In theory, you are correct, but in practice, I am correct. Which is the more valid condition? And I couldn’t address this subject AND the anniversary (why else insert it?) without pointing out, to you, that the very captains of industry you would wish to give control of the economy begged, it bears repeating, begged, FDR to save them. Only to turn on him whence, what a surprise, whence the economy did improve.

My point? ‘THEY’ want regulation to protect them, read Alexander Hamilton for a starting point, but they DON’T want regulation to protect the public. Somewhat cynical, wouldn’t you agree? Once again, Ole, I find it necessary to point out to you that you can’t have it both ways.

I am not following your last post.

careful Dennis– if one remembers history correctly, FDR’s plans didnt do much for industry…only the total mobilization of WWII reallly kickstarted things and thus ended the Depression(this isnt to knock FDR, the man was a fine president and did what he could in dire times)

and if taken to a certain point, greater control does restrict prosperity–when taken to its logical conclusion, control will eventually lead to “equality” of prosperity…whether one works for it or not, the outcome will be equal…so whether one works hard or not, it doesnt matter, one still gets compensated. Thus it spurr everyone to their “least common denominator”, lowers productivity, etc. If more government control was a good thing, than the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe should have had roaring economies, and the opposite was true…one of the reasons China is doin so well economically is because the government has taken a step back and let industry run its course (china also has a total lack of conern for worker and environmental casualties, but thats another story)

in all fairness, some government regulation is needed, and government does serve a role– similarly to a referee of a game, it can set the rules and penalize, but ultimately it is up to companies to comply and follow those regulations…as you probably already know, the more government has more influence in things it necessarily should not have, the more uneasy i get

enforcment of existing regulations is the key, not more of them

Merk,

If you read closely, I did NOT credit FDR with the improvement. I was referencing the pernicious way in which the ‘Captains Of Industry’ turned on FDR after they had so prostrated themselves a short time before. (Obviously I LOVE phrasing that in such a demeaning way.)

In 1933, the economy improved and employment was on the rise. It’s difficult to believe that any plans implemented by FDR could caused the improvement in so short a time. I believe most historians would agree that the confidence imbued by FDR was the catalyst. MY reading is that he was pretty much bungling everything his first four years but the charisma of the man and the fact he WAS doing things was enough.

Sometime in his first term things came unhinged and it is absolutely true, as you said, that WWII was the real depression buster.

Ole couldn’t follow my post and you seem to read more in than I intended so I guess I failed in adequately expressing myself. I don’t believe I was championing MORE regulation, I believe, as do you, in ‘correct’ regulation. I do stand by my assertion that because of the prosperity this country has experienced even after the securities and exchange regulations, some implemented pre-FDR, indicate that the economy is NOT over-regulated. Not that anyone said it was although Ole’s position would seem to call for less regulation.

Given the raft of violations of existing regulatory statutes, an argument could be made that the government needs to get tougher. I’m sure a lot of former Enron employees would applaud that notion, albeit sarcastically.

Your argument against regulation, comparing communism in the Soviet Union with that in China, is a little too simplistic for the real world. Both countries have centuries old cultures and beliefs that far outweigh any force a social ‘ism’ might possess. Factor in the vastly different personalities of Lenin/Stalin vs Mao/Chou and you can see that a host of variables come into play. I daresay a ‘democracy’ (nod to 13) along the lines such as ours (nod to realism) would not ‘play’ either in Russia or China. Perhaps in the next millennium.

How can the current regulations be implemented an enforced when the departments in charge of oversight are so woefully understaffed as to make them inneffective and some would believe inexistant.
Regulations do not prevent growth, they keep those who would prefer to act on the basest of animal urges from doing things like enslaving people, profit from the proceeds of slavery, making insane markups on products, creating monopolies out of necessitites and otherwise cheating the customers in order to keep showing growth in a market that is designed to never reach a stable plateau or a balanced condition.

Jed-
Your command of economic theory is staggering. Can you provide an example of what you’re saying, or is this just something you’ve derived a priori?

Ole,

If he won’t, I will. Does the name JP Morgan ring a bell? More recently, Henry Ford? More recently, Ken Lay? (I could name a HOST of miscreants in the 20’s but most of those names are not household.)

Or are you holding Jed to the condition that someone be guilty, simultaneously, of ALL the malfeasances he listed?

it’s kind of hard to figure out what the kid is trying to say. First he goes into a surreptitious personal attack, since I know he thinks industry is this great benevolent entity that has the health of the whole at heart and that government is worthless because republicans have politicized the different departments and defunded them to the point that government is innefective. Somehow he seems to have forgotten that inherent in his repudiation of government, is the fact that regulatory bodies have been defunded and understaffed for so long that it is almost as if they are non existant. I’m not quite sure how a convent or rectory fits into his equation of things but I can imagine he is merely missusing the word. That aggravated miniscule medula oblongada getting in the way again I guess.

Just one example, you’ll love this one since it’s near and dear to you. The Justice Department is in charge of enforcing FCC rules, the FCC itself does not have authority to enforce it’s laws. To monitor and acertain compliance of the whole of the country, with it’s thousands of radio and television outlets as well as countless other media formats, the department makes due with about 200 employees? Can you really say they can be efficient? Just look at the example I provided with how they enforce regulations on cell phone tower emissions. Apparently the FCC can’t even request more up to date science on which to base it’s rulings… then again the communications companies don’t want them to realistically look at the science.
The FDA, an organization charged with protecting the safety of imports, regulating the development and introduction to market of new drugs, and protecting the safety of our food supply. If it is such an important agency, why does it not count with independent laboratories to test drug company claims instead of relying on data provided by the companies themselves? doesn’t that type of logic lend itself to abuse and more incidents like the vioxx debacle? that agency has been rendered pretty much useless other than being a rubber stamp for big pharma.
The FTC… wow, do I really need to go into this one? with the complexities inherent in business trading and money management introduced by sorbanes oxley the FTC only increased it’s staff by a fraction of one percent… it was understaffed to begin with, making indiscretions by corporations only detectable by wistleblowers from the inside rather than from any regulatory or auditing action by the department.

The list goes on and on, makes one sick to ralize how we are being bilked by the political elites and the corporate hustlers that own them. What government in their right mind would allow it’s industry to move offshore and partake in the abuse of others for the sake of profit? Are we americans or merely ferengi?

Republicants have deteriorated and rendered our regulatory institutions useless in order to prove their point that government is the problem… until it suits them of course. Why is government that is supposed to be of and for the people stacked so far against the public and in benefit of corporations, companies and industry? Is a bit of wealth more important that the health of your country and your homeworld?

Jed,

The Cons have it all wrong. It should be the trickle UP phenomenon. Provide more wealth to the masses and what do you think they’ll do with it? Save? Right!!

that’s the way it should work, profit out of the efficiencies added to the system, not bilking off profit from the inneficiency and decay theyve generated in a system.

People who have never had much have a tendency to spend as soon as they get it… at least that is general convention. Truth is somewhat different. The success of microlenders would tend to belie the elites contention that poor people are irresponsible and unreliable as well as addicts and drunks that need to pay way higher interests than more affluent people. This is merely another excuse to apply even more pressure to the poor, the uneducated, that have trouble understanding the complexities of economy and banking.

Putting more money in the hands of the regular Joe Bloe on the street will do more to generate more commerce and improve the economy than giving a bunch of rich people more money to put in their bank account.

hey bloody, did you not like the example I originally posted or is it too much for you to read and still comprehend?

Jed-
I don’t think the examples you’ve provided amount to much. I am not saying that regulation is ineffective at achieving its ends. I am saying that regulation is something that leads to reduced output for firms.

anyone not following the rules can improve ‘output’ as you say. Actually you mean ‘profit’, see, if a company knows that it can save $5million by dumping it’s waste in the river at night and that IF it gets caught he’ll only have to pay $500k, then there is no incentive to play by the rules and no disincentive to playing without.
It does not surprise me that you would not see anything of value within, they don’t support your points and if taken at their value make you look like a myopic, self centered being.