The founding fathers were slave owners

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Duck, Apr 22, 2010.

  1. JackFlash

    JackFlash Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Somebody needs to. Evidently you are not aware of the link between obesity and the corporations that process our food.


    Made in the good ol USA. Since the glasses were made for children, yes, some are likely to chew on the paint, which causes cancer. But then, what a wonderful way to teach your children that personal responsibility you talk about. A few chemotherapy treatments and they'll watch what they eat for the rest of their short lives.

    .
     
  2. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    And that "somebody" should be government? I think there is a greater link between obesity and the food choices made by the individuals. It's one thing to identify which food ingredients are more likely to lead to obesity and another thing for government to control the food choices of individuals.
    Is it not obvious that when government assumes the responsibility of providing something it might also feel it has a right to control the cost? When government is given greater responsibility as that of a provider it's like opening Pandora's box. Freedom is basically the right to make choices, and a little less choice here and there may not appear to be a big deal, but it is a cumulative loss. It's sort of like the aging process. Have you ever been reacquainted with a friend after decades of non-contact and been surprised at the change in appearance that has taken place? Not quite the same as friends you have had constant contact with for the same period of time, is it?

    The glasses made by ARC International in N.J. a French based company has not yet released information on where the paint originates from. What about the fact that the product is made of glass? Broken glass can pose a much more immediate danger to a child.
    An opportunity exists here that you might pass on to your friend. He could buy up all the glasses he can get his hands on and place them for sale on EBAY. They could have some collectible value much greater than their cost.

    I would think that a responsible parent would have enough common sense to not give a child a breakable glass even if it contained no cadmium in the paint. Most likely a child of an age that knows the danger of broken glass would also be unlikely to gnaw on the paint of a glass containing an image. Well, maybe not, I guess we're talking primarily about poorly educated and underprivileged American kids.
     
  3. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Indie


    This is a bit simplistic I mean what are ‘rational regulations’ and what is ‘unnecessary interference’?


    As I’ve pointed out wealth will pursue its own interests and being unregulated would suite it just fine.

    So what some might think of as ‘rational regulation’ they would see as unwarranted interference.

    Those that pushed the neo-liberal agenda were all for deregulation that caused the financial crisis, but at the time such deregulation (or the blocking of new regulations) was promoted as been necessary for financial prosperity.

    *


    LOL – There is a naivety on display here that is almost endearing, a child might think nothing more complex than buying a new playstation takes place with it plastic wrapped warranty and a review online - but people who’ve had experience of the real world know differently.

    One of the problems with the recent financial crisis was that people were buying and selling products that were so complex and opaque that when the shit hit the fan many institutions didn’t know if they held gold or dirt.
    Other institutions were telling there customers they were solid and solvent when the reality was very different but the truth was hidden behind veils of accountancy and commercial confidentiality.

    *

    Oh and the thing about ‘taking responsibility’ is that it is so much easier for someone cushioned form any failure not to take responsibility.

    Let us look at the case of James (Jimmy) Cayne, who seemed to prefer playing bridge and golf to running Bears Stearns although he got a salary of $200,000 dollars to supposedly do it along with huge bonuses.
    Well on paper at one point he was worth in the region of 900 million.
    But then Bears needed Fed help and JPMorgan Chase was paid to snap it up and Cayne cashed in his Bears stock at a rather low price and supposedly only made 60 million or so. But as the New York Times noted even with the ‘loss’ he wasn’t liable to go hungry, in fact “he has certainly accumulated enough to live out his retirement years in comfort”. There is the other investments such as the Plaza hotel apartments he brought for $28 million.
    So lets see - According to US social security the average wage for Americans in 2006 was around 38,651, and remember there are a hell of a lot of people on lower, but lets round it up to 40,000 for convenience.

    So if someone didn’t spend any of their wages and lived off air then it would take them a hundred years, 100 years, to make just 4,million, so it would take them just seven hundred years 700, to raise the 28 million Jimmy paid for his flats and only 1500 years to raise the 60 million he got for his shares.

    So an average American would have had to have begun working in the reign of the dark age Frankish king Clovis, well over 1000 years before America was even discovered to reach the amount that Jimmy made in one day.

    *

    I know I’m using naive a lot but I can’t think of any other term when confronted with replies like these.
    You want me to stalk members of this business community?

    *





    I’ve met this before with right wing libertarians they begin saying something alone the lines of ‘no rules’ but once in debate they end up adding more and more rules that you end up with a regulatory network that even a left winger would be proud of.
     
  4. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    Are you expecting me to write an encyclopedic answer covering each and every facet of life? You and many others appeared quite happy with terms such as "the health care system is broken" or some other thing is broken.

    So what? What do you pursue?

    That's likely.

    Government regulation more often creates an undesirable situation than what would need to be dealt with by allowing market forces to react naturally

    Then try getting out into the real world for a change.

    I assume your talking about the government mandated loans that were being made available to persons who should never have gotten a loan in the first place?

    In any event, someone was ultimately going to be stuck with the bad loans that banks would not have made without government telling them they had to.

    Easier, maybe, but do you feel lack of wealth relieves you of any responsibility?



    Nice job if you can get it.



    But no longer.



    Well he's one less person we have to worry about applying for welfare.



    I remember when it was much less.



    If there weren't those who make the big bucks, who would purchase the high cost items?

    I didn't invest in Bear Sterns so it doesn't bother me much what James Cayne did, or earned.

    I know exactly how you feel.

    What would you do with them once you were able to confront them?

    Not likely. Do you even have an idea of how many rules and regulations there are currently? It used to be said that ignorance of the law was no excuse, but even the lawmakers themselves are ignorant of the vast majority of laws currently on the books, including the ones they most recently have passed.
     
  5. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Indie

    Sorry but your reply comes across as a teenagers self centred strop.

    Now if you just stopped getting huffy or trying to be clever, you might start thinking about the issues under discussion.

    You claim that you are in favour of rational regulations which is fair enough but you have also championed limited regulation.

    The problem is who decides what is good regulation and what is bad.

    The thing is that you an advocate of a neo-liberal free market unhindered by government.

    The problem is that the move to a free market system always seem to strengthen the power and influence of wealth who are pursuing their own self interest which would be for deregulation.

    Basically how do you square the circle?

    But instead of thought I got you getting all huffy “So what? What do you pursue?” and end with yet another slogan “Government regulation more often creates an undesirable situation than what would need to be dealt with by allowing market forces to react naturally”
    And the rest of the post went on in the same vein, more petulance than debate.
     
  6. JackFlash

    JackFlash Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    You've gone on page after page in 3 threads making excuses for the bad actions of corporations and assigning responsibility to the victims. Did you work for a shady corporation that is responsible for harming people? Are you another Bernie Madoff? Could that be why you moved to another country? Are you hiding out?

    I'm not having any fun debating this point any more. I've come to the conclusion that you are cruel and heartless and it saddens me to no end that people like you actually do exist. The only reason I've gone on for this long was to try to find a spark of humanity where it seems none exists. Letting people die so you can pay less taxes is unfathomable to me. The idea that a government of the people, by the people and for the people should turn it's back on human suffering is unconscionable. And trying to shift blame to the victims is a tactic used by con men and rapists.

    .
     
  7. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    Having extracted the more intelligent portions of your post, above, I do admit to being in favor of rational regulations where their existence is necessary, and limited also.
    Before working on who decides what is good or bad regulation, would it not be better to first decide what regulation is necessary?
    Assuming we constrain the discussion to regulations of business, would we have to look at each type of business individually, or might we begin by determining a regulation that would be seen as necessary and applicable to any and all businesses? I would suggest that it would be easiest to deal with either applicable to all, or applicable to one, in order to focus.
    Would you like to provide a starting point?
     
  8. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Indie

    Again you evade rather than respond – you’re purposely ignoring my question and the argument behind it even when it’s explained to you in the simplest of terms.

    The problem is a free market system that you seem to support and promote would always seem to strengthen the power and influence of wealth whose self interest includes deregulation in those areas that hinder the extension of their power.

    So the most germane question is - who decides what are good regulations and what are bad?

    Also your reply seems to indicate a complete lack of knowledge and understanding about the nature of regulation (I think you where more interested in trying to get out of answering the question).

    I will try and explain in the crudest and simplest way to try and help you understand – there was no need of a law against murder until murder was committed.

    Regulation, rules and laws are usually there as a reaction to something that has occurred. In other words there was a reason for them, sometimes the reason has passed and the law becomes seem as useless or anachronistic. And sometimes people lobby to make people thing certain regulations are no longer needed or are not needed.

    After the 1929 crash and subsequent depression many laws and regulations were brought in to limit the financial sector. Over the years these were removed under pressure from the industry and neo-liberal groups and individuals who claimed they were no longer needed and they opposed new regulation that they thought impeded market forces. But if they had been in place the recent financial crisis would not have happened.

    Now can you stop shilly shallying and answer the question?
     
  9. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    You ask questions in the broadest of terms which intentionally make them difficult to answer conclusively.
    You state that quite correctly that a law prohibiting murder was only necessary as a result of the fact that murder was committed. And I don't think you would find very many who would argue against that law.
    Overall a free market regulates itself quite well, although things such as price fixing, false advertising, and product liability might be considered areas where laws have been found necessary.

    How about you being more specific as to what it is you feel needs regulation?

    Or if you wish only to distinguish yourself as an illiterate fool, why continue? Would you care to present a final word or a civil response? The choice is yours.
     
  10. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Indie

    LOL

    Ok you’re unwilling or unable to enter into honest and open debate, claiming that you don't have the time or temper and that anyway you find the questions too difficult to answer.

    But if you’re not here to debate what are you here for?

    I mean you seem to have plenty of time on your hands and your excuse that you find things difficult to answer doesn’t wash since it should raise alarm bell within yourself because it would seem to indicate that your ideas are not thought through or lacking in some other sense. The fact that it doesn’t seem to bother you and that you’re constantly falling back on slogans, would seem to point to your reason for been here is something other than debate.

    *

    And you don’t have to wait before along comes another unsubstantiated slogan.



    Does it, has it? Can you back this slogan up?

    *
     
  11. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672



    At first I had to laugh I mean I wondered how simple did something have to be before you started to grasp what’s been said?

    Then it dawned on me – this is just more evasion. It seem incredibly sad that someone might prefer to seem dull witted or slow on the uptake to get out of open and honest debate but then if they suspected or knew that their ideas wouldn’t stand up in an open and honest debate that might be their only option.

    This isn’t about any specific regulation it’s about the regulatory system and who has control of it.

    To repeat - The problem with a free market system (that you seem to support and promote) is it would always seem to strengthen the power and influence of wealth whose self interest includes deregulation in those areas that hinder the extension of their power.
    So the most germane question is - whodecides what are good regulations and what are not?

    *
     
  12. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    1. You have a product or service you wish to sell.
    2. You price it according to what you would like it to sell for.
    3. Consumers who find the price acceptable will purchase it, or if no consumers find the price attractive the product does not sell.
    4. You adjust the price to what will attract consumers or a greater number of consumers.
    5. If consumers exceed the production level, you either employ more workers or raise the price.
    6. Competition sees a market for the product so others begin to manufacture the same or a similar product.
    7. Consumers then exercise their choice to buy your product or the competitions product.
    8. You increase your market share by either cutting the price, or producing a superior product.
    9. The competition does like wise.
    10. China or some other Asian country sees an opportunity and begins to produce the same product at a much lower cost and sell below your profit margin and puts both you and your competition out of business.
    11. The consumer has a desirable product available at a very attractive price.
     
  13. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Indie

    Once more I’m unsure if you are consciously trying to misdirect or you simple can’t deal with things as complex as context.

    The questions I phrased in the context of the main issue I’ve raised (which I’m sure I’m not the only who noticed you didn’t answer)

    To repeat - The problem with a free market system is it would always seem to strengthen the power and influence of wealth whose self interest includes deregulation in those areas that hinder the extension of their power.
    So the most germane question is - whodecides what are good regulations and what are not?

    *

    Anyway as just a reply on its own it’s rather simplistic and has an unusually emphasis toward the actual making of manufactured goods.

    Was the recent financial crisis brought about and directly related too the making of manufactured goods?
     
  14. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ultimately it is the consumer who should decide what regulations are necessary.

    In my opinion the financial collapse came as a result of too much government intervention in how financial institutions operate, the CRA, Fannie and Freddie being among the greatest contributors.
     
  15. larryelkhart

    larryelkhart Member

    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    1
    During the approximately the first 150 years of our republic, there was little or no regulation, then starting in the early 20th century we started regulating banks, then we implemented social security, in the 50s it was medicare, etc. Now in the 21st century the government is taking over business after business. Oh, I almost forgot during the period of little or no regulation we became the wealthiest nation on earth. Now with all of the regulation we are fast become poorer than most 3rd world countries. Which is better regulation or no regulation?
     
  16. zombiewolf

    zombiewolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,702
    Likes Received:
    12
    Bullshit, regulators either did'nt do thier jobs, didn't understand what was going on, or in most cases were outright mislead. They were usually young, green punks new to the financial industries and they held the powerful investment wizards in such great awe they pretty much accepted whatever BS they were fed by them. In short there was never adequate regulation.
     
  17. TheMadcapSyd

    TheMadcapSyd Titanic's captain, yo!

    Messages:
    11,393
    Likes Received:
    18
    Through most of our history most people also lived in slums or on farms and were dirt poor.

    And actually America became a world power starting around the 1890's, when in fact massive regulation, especially of the railroads and money supply, combined with labor laws and monopoly/trusts legislation starting coming into force.

    You believe in a history that never existed.
     
  18. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    Is "Democracy in America" - Alexis de Tocqueville on the school banned book list?
    When I went to school we still had teachers who did not promote one political philosophy over another, but instead made us aware of some of the differences that existed between them. In grading it was not which philosophy we agreed with, but our knowledge of what their rationales were that counted.
    We seem to have morphed "Liberty and Justice for all" and "Equal rights under the laws" into meaning we should have laws that produce or provide equality for all.
    If we are willing to accept "the ends justify the means" as a way of defining what is right from what is wrong, then ultimately we can then accept as right the elimination of those who refuse to agree or participate in the ways desired, and a Democracy provides a route to those ends.
    In many cases the wrong actions might produce desired results, and that is what government has a responsibility to protect us from, and not to create laws that allows government the authority to do what the individual could not lawfully.
     
  19. JackFlash

    JackFlash Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    If it is, the conservatives would be the ones who banned it.

    .
     
  20. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    That sounds like a comment just for the purpose of making a comment. Why would Conservatives wish to ban it?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice