Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › The Anti-Regulators are the Job Killers
- This topic has 210 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 21, 2011 at 8:13 AM #657867January 21, 2011 at 8:18 AM #656747
Arraya
Participant[quote=CA renter]
I don’t have too much of a problem with capitalism, if only we could find an actual example in the real world that is devoid of corruption and monopolies that eventually lead to the implosion of an economy, with the poor being made to suffer for the benefit of the wealthy. This is where we stand today, unfortunately.[/quote]Corruption, crises, monopolies and cartels are a feature not an aberration. Or rather a systemic tendency – with wealth concentration and accumulation as the driver of these features. People can go round and round about regulations being good, bad, too much too or too little as reasons for these issues(and astute observers and skilled writers can be, on some level, correct about many interpretations) but the common denominator is always accumulation of capital. Being that is the object of the *game* we all play, it is heretical to shine a light on that as cause. Actually, regulation is often a matter of whom does it benefit, rather than, is it good or bad. Now, you will not find much regulation, or at least major regulation, over the past few decades that does not support wealth accumulation to the people that are most influential in crafting said regulation. Rising tides lift all ships, don’t you know
January 21, 2011 at 8:18 AM #656809Participant[quote=CA renter]
I don’t have too much of a problem with capitalism, if only we could find an actual example in the real world that is devoid of corruption and monopolies that eventually lead to the implosion of an economy, with the poor being made to suffer for the benefit of the wealthy. This is where we stand today, unfortunately.[/quote]Corruption, crises, monopolies and cartels are a feature not an aberration. Or rather a systemic tendency – with wealth concentration and accumulation as the driver of these features. People can go round and round about regulations being good, bad, too much too or too little as reasons for these issues(and astute observers and skilled writers can be, on some level, correct about many interpretations) but the common denominator is always accumulation of capital. Being that is the object of the *game* we all play, it is heretical to shine a light on that as cause. Actually, regulation is often a matter of whom does it benefit, rather than, is it good or bad. Now, you will not find much regulation, or at least major regulation, over the past few decades that does not support wealth accumulation to the people that are most influential in crafting said regulation. Rising tides lift all ships, don’t you know
January 21, 2011 at 8:18 AM #657408Participant[quote=CA renter]
I don’t have too much of a problem with capitalism, if only we could find an actual example in the real world that is devoid of corruption and monopolies that eventually lead to the implosion of an economy, with the poor being made to suffer for the benefit of the wealthy. This is where we stand today, unfortunately.[/quote]Corruption, crises, monopolies and cartels are a feature not an aberration. Or rather a systemic tendency – with wealth concentration and accumulation as the driver of these features. People can go round and round about regulations being good, bad, too much too or too little as reasons for these issues(and astute observers and skilled writers can be, on some level, correct about many interpretations) but the common denominator is always accumulation of capital. Being that is the object of the *game* we all play, it is heretical to shine a light on that as cause. Actually, regulation is often a matter of whom does it benefit, rather than, is it good or bad. Now, you will not find much regulation, or at least major regulation, over the past few decades that does not support wealth accumulation to the people that are most influential in crafting said regulation. Rising tides lift all ships, don’t you know
January 21, 2011 at 8:18 AM #657546Participant[quote=CA renter]
I don’t have too much of a problem with capitalism, if only we could find an actual example in the real world that is devoid of corruption and monopolies that eventually lead to the implosion of an economy, with the poor being made to suffer for the benefit of the wealthy. This is where we stand today, unfortunately.[/quote]Corruption, crises, monopolies and cartels are a feature not an aberration. Or rather a systemic tendency – with wealth concentration and accumulation as the driver of these features. People can go round and round about regulations being good, bad, too much too or too little as reasons for these issues(and astute observers and skilled writers can be, on some level, correct about many interpretations) but the common denominator is always accumulation of capital. Being that is the object of the *game* we all play, it is heretical to shine a light on that as cause. Actually, regulation is often a matter of whom does it benefit, rather than, is it good or bad. Now, you will not find much regulation, or at least major regulation, over the past few decades that does not support wealth accumulation to the people that are most influential in crafting said regulation. Rising tides lift all ships, don’t you know
January 21, 2011 at 8:18 AM #657877Participant[quote=CA renter]
I don’t have too much of a problem with capitalism, if only we could find an actual example in the real world that is devoid of corruption and monopolies that eventually lead to the implosion of an economy, with the poor being made to suffer for the benefit of the wealthy. This is where we stand today, unfortunately.[/quote]Corruption, crises, monopolies and cartels are a feature not an aberration. Or rather a systemic tendency – with wealth concentration and accumulation as the driver of these features. People can go round and round about regulations being good, bad, too much too or too little as reasons for these issues(and astute observers and skilled writers can be, on some level, correct about many interpretations) but the common denominator is always accumulation of capital. Being that is the object of the *game* we all play, it is heretical to shine a light on that as cause. Actually, regulation is often a matter of whom does it benefit, rather than, is it good or bad. Now, you will not find much regulation, or at least major regulation, over the past few decades that does not support wealth accumulation to the people that are most influential in crafting said regulation. Rising tides lift all ships, don’t you know
January 21, 2011 at 8:34 AM #656762Anonymous
GuestThere’s been a lot of talk about preventing “too big to fail” scenarios, but nothing has been done.
A basic problem is defining, quantitatively, what “too big” means.
In some industries, particularly insurance, bigger can actually mean more stable. There are tradeoffs.
Another problem is determining the actual fix once an institution becomes too big: Force it to break up, prohibit it from taking on new business, …?
There are lots of details and lots of potential loopholes.
But any solution to the “too big to fail” problem will require the government to have more power over business. This is just a practical reality.
If anyone is to claim they are sincere about a working toward a solution, they have to acknowledge that it will involve “bigger” government. Since smaller government is the current political fashion trend, I don’t think anything is going to happen.
January 21, 2011 at 8:34 AM #656824GuestThere’s been a lot of talk about preventing “too big to fail” scenarios, but nothing has been done.
A basic problem is defining, quantitatively, what “too big” means.
In some industries, particularly insurance, bigger can actually mean more stable. There are tradeoffs.
Another problem is determining the actual fix once an institution becomes too big: Force it to break up, prohibit it from taking on new business, …?
There are lots of details and lots of potential loopholes.
But any solution to the “too big to fail” problem will require the government to have more power over business. This is just a practical reality.
If anyone is to claim they are sincere about a working toward a solution, they have to acknowledge that it will involve “bigger” government. Since smaller government is the current political fashion trend, I don’t think anything is going to happen.
January 21, 2011 at 8:34 AM #657423GuestThere’s been a lot of talk about preventing “too big to fail” scenarios, but nothing has been done.
A basic problem is defining, quantitatively, what “too big” means.
In some industries, particularly insurance, bigger can actually mean more stable. There are tradeoffs.
Another problem is determining the actual fix once an institution becomes too big: Force it to break up, prohibit it from taking on new business, …?
There are lots of details and lots of potential loopholes.
But any solution to the “too big to fail” problem will require the government to have more power over business. This is just a practical reality.
If anyone is to claim they are sincere about a working toward a solution, they have to acknowledge that it will involve “bigger” government. Since smaller government is the current political fashion trend, I don’t think anything is going to happen.
January 21, 2011 at 8:34 AM #657561GuestThere’s been a lot of talk about preventing “too big to fail” scenarios, but nothing has been done.
A basic problem is defining, quantitatively, what “too big” means.
In some industries, particularly insurance, bigger can actually mean more stable. There are tradeoffs.
Another problem is determining the actual fix once an institution becomes too big: Force it to break up, prohibit it from taking on new business, …?
There are lots of details and lots of potential loopholes.
But any solution to the “too big to fail” problem will require the government to have more power over business. This is just a practical reality.
If anyone is to claim they are sincere about a working toward a solution, they have to acknowledge that it will involve “bigger” government. Since smaller government is the current political fashion trend, I don’t think anything is going to happen.
January 21, 2011 at 8:34 AM #657892GuestThere’s been a lot of talk about preventing “too big to fail” scenarios, but nothing has been done.
A basic problem is defining, quantitatively, what “too big” means.
In some industries, particularly insurance, bigger can actually mean more stable. There are tradeoffs.
Another problem is determining the actual fix once an institution becomes too big: Force it to break up, prohibit it from taking on new business, …?
There are lots of details and lots of potential loopholes.
But any solution to the “too big to fail” problem will require the government to have more power over business. This is just a practical reality.
If anyone is to claim they are sincere about a working toward a solution, they have to acknowledge that it will involve “bigger” government. Since smaller government is the current political fashion trend, I don’t think anything is going to happen.
January 21, 2011 at 9:17 AM #656782Guest[quote=CA renter]Just a cursory look at the top 20 shows quite a few are heirs to fortunes, not self-made…[/quote]
Sam Walton had a few kids.
Some trivia: Sam opened his first Wal Mart when he was 44 years old. There’s still plenty of time for many of us to make it to the top!
[quote]We have to decide if we want to continue rewarding gambling and speculation over productive labor. […] pushing everyone into “investing,” rather than working. This is not sustainable over the long run.[/quote]
Have you been reading Marx? That’s pretty much a summary of his main argument.
The fundamental flaw in his verbose ramblings is that he essentially valued labor for labor’s sake, and neglected the value of investment choices that continually makes labor more productive.
The foundation of economic progress is not work, it is choices.
January 21, 2011 at 9:17 AM #656844Guest[quote=CA renter]Just a cursory look at the top 20 shows quite a few are heirs to fortunes, not self-made…[/quote]
Sam Walton had a few kids.
Some trivia: Sam opened his first Wal Mart when he was 44 years old. There’s still plenty of time for many of us to make it to the top!
[quote]We have to decide if we want to continue rewarding gambling and speculation over productive labor. […] pushing everyone into “investing,” rather than working. This is not sustainable over the long run.[/quote]
Have you been reading Marx? That’s pretty much a summary of his main argument.
The fundamental flaw in his verbose ramblings is that he essentially valued labor for labor’s sake, and neglected the value of investment choices that continually makes labor more productive.
The foundation of economic progress is not work, it is choices.
January 21, 2011 at 9:17 AM #657443Guest[quote=CA renter]Just a cursory look at the top 20 shows quite a few are heirs to fortunes, not self-made…[/quote]
Sam Walton had a few kids.
Some trivia: Sam opened his first Wal Mart when he was 44 years old. There’s still plenty of time for many of us to make it to the top!
[quote]We have to decide if we want to continue rewarding gambling and speculation over productive labor. […] pushing everyone into “investing,” rather than working. This is not sustainable over the long run.[/quote]
Have you been reading Marx? That’s pretty much a summary of his main argument.
The fundamental flaw in his verbose ramblings is that he essentially valued labor for labor’s sake, and neglected the value of investment choices that continually makes labor more productive.
The foundation of economic progress is not work, it is choices.
January 21, 2011 at 9:17 AM #657581Guest[quote=CA renter]Just a cursory look at the top 20 shows quite a few are heirs to fortunes, not self-made…[/quote]
Sam Walton had a few kids.
Some trivia: Sam opened his first Wal Mart when he was 44 years old. There’s still plenty of time for many of us to make it to the top!
[quote]We have to decide if we want to continue rewarding gambling and speculation over productive labor. […] pushing everyone into “investing,” rather than working. This is not sustainable over the long run.[/quote]
Have you been reading Marx? That’s pretty much a summary of his main argument.
The fundamental flaw in his verbose ramblings is that he essentially valued labor for labor’s sake, and neglected the value of investment choices that continually makes labor more productive.
The foundation of economic progress is not work, it is choices.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.