"Since the people at the top always win more than others during these periods"
That statement reveals more about your thinking than anything else you said. Yep, free markets and capitalism is nothing but a venture to be "won". It's all just a big gamble. No work required. No intelligence required. Right out of the Missouri Representative Dick Gephardt's "game book" where he described the portion of us who were successful and wealthy as "Winners of life's lottery"
Actually the premise of your question is terribly flawed. Conservatives are NOT opposed to government regulations. Any orderly, healthy and growing society needs rules, laws and orderly ways to carry out commerce that are fair and safe for everyone. Of course it becomes a matter of magnitude and logic to the rules.
Government regulations, by definition, get in the way of an individual or entity from carrying out their intended plan. They restrict ones ability from reaching a goal. If they are great and wonderful regulations then these restrictions and barriers are good thing right? Usually, but nearly all regulations have unintended consequences. And some regulations are not great and wonderful. Almost all stifle development and growth. That can be a good thing if the greater good (or even one personal life or one’s safety) is more important. But it’s never that black and white and regulations never seem to stop. Plus, they are made by PEOPLE. Often time people that are not informed or at least ill informed.
We (conservatives) simply believe that we should always try to get by with fewer regulations rather than more. Decisions made by individuals are almost always more productive, more intelligent, and more ingenious and more creative than decisions made by committees. Or put another way, 100 people working individually will be more creative (higher overall successes) than a committee of 100 people. I’m not saying that individualism is always greater. Certainly there are many many tasks that simply could not be accomplished by one person. Larger groups of people are needed for any number of productive things, but they are not generating that certain “spark” that many individuals generate.
Let me ask you this. If government regulation is such a great thing, then all we need for greater and greater success is simply more and more regulation. Total control of everything by the
“central collective”. No, that’s NOT what you’re implying, right? Then who decides when your regulations have gone too far?
What you and your game theory gurus don’t realize (or they failed to reveal to you) is that with too much regulation, people will simply refuse to play the game. The outcome has then been pre-decided, the benefit of "winning" is known before hand and the players decide that the proscribed "benefit" is just not worth their time. Or worse yet, they come to know that they will receive the "standard benefit" (at least for awhile) whether they play or not.
One other aspect I suggest you study is that which is called “zero sum game”. A free economy is NOT a zero sum game. Just because someone wins, does NOT mean that someone else has to lose.
-- Modified on 2/1/2008 5:22:52 PM
Even a superficial examination of economic history of the U.S. will reveal that periods of economic growth have been longer and more vigorous since the Great Depression and the introduction of government regulation of the 'free' market. Since the people at the top always win more than others during these periods, why do so many on the right see government as the enemy.
This is especially perplexing also because those people at the top of the economic ladder can so easily 'capture' the very agencies which regulate their businesses.
Finally, anyone familiar with the fairly recent applications of the math of game theory to analysis of the market? Interesting stuff. In a nutshell, what it reveals is that any game which has winners and losers will ultimately fail as the winners are able to insulate themselves from the losses they incur in the game. Eventually the winner(s) have so much of whatever resource the game requires that the game is 'over'. That's exactly what happens when we have a market failure such as the Great Depression. It seems reasonable that, if we want the game to continue, we need to make sure that all people have access to sufficient resources to keep playing. That means taking a disproportionate share of wealth from the winners and redistributing it. Call it socialism if you want, but it appears to be the only way to keep the game going. it also appears to work very well.
Of course, people who can only analyze public policy through the lens of their own ego or prejudices can't look at things this way, whether they are on the right or the left.
Right wingers LOVE regulations on individuals; they just hate em’ when applied to business and corporations.
G-Dubya’s wishes for FISA are to invade and eradicate any semblance of 4th Amendment privacy rights for American citizens; but he wants to give full retroactive expost facto immunity to the various corporations violating American citizen’s 4th Amendment right to privacy. 
just the kind Doc Gonzo and wormwood claim is lacking in this forum
i guess they're just not looking in the right place..
It's tough to find a needle of intellect in a haystack of bullshit BK.
But I'm pleased to see you recognize the depths to which this forum has sunk in recent times.
Must be the foul odor from the campaign seeping up to the sewers. Yes, I said UP to the sewers :P
-- Modified on 2/1/2008 9:17:36 AM
"Since the people at the top always win more than others during these periods"
That statement reveals more about your thinking than anything else you said. Yep, free markets and capitalism is nothing but a venture to be "won". It's all just a big gamble. No work required. No intelligence required. Right out of the Missouri Representative Dick Gephardt's "game book" where he described the portion of us who were successful and wealthy as "Winners of life's lottery"
Actually the premise of your question is terribly flawed. Conservatives are NOT opposed to government regulations. Any orderly, healthy and growing society needs rules, laws and orderly ways to carry out commerce that are fair and safe for everyone. Of course it becomes a matter of magnitude and logic to the rules.
Government regulations, by definition, get in the way of an individual or entity from carrying out their intended plan. They restrict ones ability from reaching a goal. If they are great and wonderful regulations then these restrictions and barriers are good thing right? Usually, but nearly all regulations have unintended consequences. And some regulations are not great and wonderful. Almost all stifle development and growth. That can be a good thing if the greater good (or even one personal life or one’s safety) is more important. But it’s never that black and white and regulations never seem to stop. Plus, they are made by PEOPLE. Often time people that are not informed or at least ill informed.
We (conservatives) simply believe that we should always try to get by with fewer regulations rather than more. Decisions made by individuals are almost always more productive, more intelligent, and more ingenious and more creative than decisions made by committees. Or put another way, 100 people working individually will be more creative (higher overall successes) than a committee of 100 people. I’m not saying that individualism is always greater. Certainly there are many many tasks that simply could not be accomplished by one person. Larger groups of people are needed for any number of productive things, but they are not generating that certain “spark” that many individuals generate.
Let me ask you this. If government regulation is such a great thing, then all we need for greater and greater success is simply more and more regulation. Total control of everything by the
“central collective”. No, that’s NOT what you’re implying, right? Then who decides when your regulations have gone too far?
What you and your game theory gurus don’t realize (or they failed to reveal to you) is that with too much regulation, people will simply refuse to play the game. The outcome has then been pre-decided, the benefit of "winning" is known before hand and the players decide that the proscribed "benefit" is just not worth their time. Or worse yet, they come to know that they will receive the "standard benefit" (at least for awhile) whether they play or not.
One other aspect I suggest you study is that which is called “zero sum game”. A free economy is NOT a zero sum game. Just because someone wins, does NOT mean that someone else has to lose.
-- Modified on 2/1/2008 5:22:52 PM
for a well-stated reply.
First, you mistakenly assume that I'm advocating more regulation. I'm merely stating that the existing regulations have served us very well and that those regulations, as well as a progressive tax policy, are part of the reason for the remarkable economic prosperity in the U.S.
I think you must not listen to many right wingers, though. Invariably, they complain about the burdensome regulations (never mind that U.S. individuals and corporations are pretty much the least regulated in the developed world) and chant the mantra of tax cuts (never mind that U.S. individuals and, especially, corporations bear pretty much the smallest tax burden in the developed world). The right wing ceaselessly blames government for societal ills, just as many have the knee-jerk policy of blaming economic ills on corporations.
In reality, we need corporations to drive the modern economy but we cannot expect those corporations to provide the greatest good for the greatest number unless we also have appropriate regulations. Looking at historical data, it should be fairly clear that those regulations and tax policy were in place and functioning well until the 1980s. Since then there has been a massive shift in income and wealth toward the top http://www.lcurve.org/ and that is what is currently threatening our economic growth. Circulation of wealth is the lifeblood of a capitalist system and if too much wealth is concentrated in the hands of too few people that circulation slows until the market fails.
My game theory 'gurus' take no position on regulation. They only point out that the math of chaos/game theory can be an important tool in understanding how a market functions and why, prior to direct government regulation, the cycle of boom and bust existed and the 'game' came closer and closer to complete failure as the cycle became more extreme.
You also mistakenly assume that I believe that winners exist only at the expense of losers. I completely understand that people who risk their own resources and who hone their talents and intellect are the people who are responsible for much of the creation of wealth shared by all and that they should also be appropriately rewarded. The problem arises when the people at the top are rewarded far beyond any actual contribution they made to the creation of wealth. Bob Nardelli, anyone?
Good point that regulations are made by people and that people make mistakes. However, aren't corporations run by people? Why is it that we should trust people more when profit is the motive rather than the public interest, especially since the people at the top in large corporations are far more insulated from public displeasure than people in government?
Again, thanks for a well-stated reply with only the smallest hint of the meanness and rancor that I see from most right wingers.
“First, you mistakenly assume that I'm advocating more regulation.”
So, you’re in favor of LESS regulation? Nobody is totally in favor of the status quo regulation. Either you like it (clearly so) and it (regulation) therefore needs to be implemented more efficiently and better. You’re in favor of being constantly on the look out for areas that need more regulation.
OR
One is like me and realizes that some regulations are part of the basic tenants of life and society , others are a required good to show people an acceptable path and others seem to be a necessary evil but many others are just plain illogical due to one or two immoral or STUPID people popping up from time to time.
I AM one of those people (they are not always conservatives) that knows there are far far too many regulations in our society. Come on. I bet that even you can come up with a quick list of useless, pointless government regulations that are designed to protect us, but actually do far more harm than good.
Here’s one of which I have personal experience. Quinine, once used for the treatment of malaria, is now obsolete for that purpose. One alternate use is for the treatment of severe leg cramps in people suffering from things like liver failure. It used to be available very inexpensively, over the counter and was used successfully by tens of thousands of people. After someone died from an overdose, records showed a handful of related cases (over a 30 year period). Soon a prescription was required, then it was outlawed EVEN UNDER PRESCRIPTION as a treatment for leg cramps. The “regulations” observed that there was never a study showing that it was an effective treament for this purpose. Do a study right? Problem is that the patents have run out and there is not enough money in it for anyone to afford to pay for the study AND make a profit. I guess we just need more regulations requiring the government to pay for such studies.
“. . . never mind that U.S. individuals and corporations are pretty much the least regulated in the developed world”
I don’t know where you get that idea from, but I can’t find, nor do I see any evidence to support it. One measure of regulation would be litigation. One needs something or some rule broken to sue over, right? Who has more lawyers per capita and more law suits per capita?
Also, I'm an engineer for an international company and have for many years been involved in our industry's regulations (here and abroad) regarding things like public safety.
It’s the right wing’s job to curb the left from needlessly increasing the regulation burden. Do you think if we all (conservatives) just disappeared that the left would finally be able to get the regulation “just right”?
You actually think that regulation has DECREASED since the 1980’s?
There aren’t fewer “wealthy” people today. Far from it, there are many more. I agree though that some CEO’s are way over paid. Maybe you think some wage controls are needed. Actually, I don’t think they all are. I’d bet some are even under paid, but we don’t hear about them.
If you’re going to call me a tiny bit mean then I feel fine saying you are most definitely a little bit condescending. Maybe you think a little more regulation is needed in that regard.
-- Modified on 2/1/2008 9:43:41 PM
I wish I had your restaint...
I am in favor of less regulation in some areas and more in others. Conditions change constantly and the regulatory environment should follow suit. Of course, anyone's views on this also are influenced by their own decisions about what the more important aspects of life are. Personally, I think more environmental regulation would be a good thing, or at least enforcing the regulations we have now. I think deregulation of education would be a good thing. Like you, I also think that the prescription drug industry is over-regulated.
My basic point is that most right wingers seem to hate ALL government regulation. They seem to always respond with the knee-jerk response that, "OH, the free market will solve that problem better without government interference" even though, as I said before, just a glance at history reveals that this is far from true.
Yes, government regulation has decreased since the 80s. I taught economics and this was a particular interest of mine. Air transportation was deregulated, Financial services were deregulated. Agriculture was significantly deregulated. NAFTA was passed deregulating international trade. Many new anti-labor laws were passed, removing an important self-regulatory tool within corporations. of course, there have been some cases of increased regulation, especially in regard to pollution control, so I'm not trying to make the case that all regulation has decreased but the overall burden of government regulation is lower now than in 1980.
My ideas about whether U.S. corporations are regulated less than foreign counterparts comes from many, many conversation with businessmen from Europe and Japan. corporations there are mush more heavily regulated in terms of workplace safety, labor laws, environmental impact, food safety, and actual tax payments.
As for taxes, the U.S. corporate tax rate may be relatively high, but actual payments of taxes tell another story. The percent of total taxes paid by corporations is at its lowest level since 1983- about 7% of overall revenue. This is down from a peak of about 16% of overall revenue. as a percent of GDP, corporate taxes have dropped from almost 5% of GDP in the 1950s to a little over 1% in 2003. In effect, the corporate tax burden has been cut by more than 50% since 1983, regardless of what the tax rates are.
If this had been accompanied by regulations which caused the increased wealth accumulated by corporations to be shared with workers, etc. then this would be no problem. Instead, what has happened is a huge increase in accumulation of wealth at the very top. Did you look at the L Curve site? If so, how can you dispute actual numbers. The people at the very top have accumulated so much wealth and have such enormous incomes that it's beginning to threaten our economic health. It's also easy to see that the tax burden is not too great on the people at the top. Yes, they pay a great deal in taxes but their incomes have increased at rates faster than their tax payments.
I'll make no apologies for my little bits of condescenscion just as you didn't for the meanness. A little of that helps stimulate the debate, as long as that doesn't become the issue being 'discussed', which is what I mainly see on this board. Obviously we each think that we are smarter and better informed than the other and it's difficult for people with dicks not to try to make that known. In actuality, there are areas in which I am better informed than you and vice versa and, if we actually take the time to state our positions and support them and listen to each other, then we can probably come to areas of agreement about government regulation. That's exactly what establishing public policy is about.
As for Quad and his ilk, there's no point in trying. He's ignorant and content to be one of the sheeple who lets someone else do his thinking for him. In his case, it's Rush or Hannity or Coulter. Of course there are also people who let people like Al Sharpton do their thinking for them and I have no more use for them.
Much of the developing world is lowering corporate tax rates-- the US now has the 2nd highest in the developed world. Not sure where you get your info on Corporate Taxes but read this article from The Economist and then check out the link below on corporate tax rates in 2000 versus 2006.
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9596317
"Might want to check your facts...
Posted by George_Sorryos, 2/1/2008 8:21:55 PM
Much of the developing world is lowering corporate tax rates-- the US now has the 2nd highest in the developed world. Not sure where you get your info on Corporate Taxes "
NOT SURE where they get their info????? I will tell you ..They either make it up,dream it and actually think it is real, take a hit of LSD and hallucinate it and believe it is real, or they are at a Kum Ba Ya Party and someone tells them some lie and they trust it is real..
A very big reason the Lefties don't like Rush is he exposes their lies..
I was actually trying to be polite- my bad
It is rather obvious that Wormwood is at the very least, uninformed. I wanted to give him an opportunity to explain himself before I mocked him... You took all the fun out of my set-up...lol.
Not sure what the point of your Rush comment is as I tend to read business and tax periodicals for my financial info. I don't need Rush or anybody else to make my arguments for me. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the political pundits and radio guys and listen when I am so inclined. But I am a multiple source kind of guy for info, particularly financial data, as it is easily manipulated and misinterpreted...I really was interested to hear the source of Wormwood's contention on corporate taxes if he actually has one.
"Not sure what the point of your Rush comment is as I tend to read business and tax periodicals for my financial info. I don't need Rush or anybody else to make my arguments for me. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the political pundits and radio guys and listen when I am so inclined. But I am a multiple source kind of guy for info,"
Rush is quite the blowhard very similiar to Doc in conceit although Rush is light years more intelligent than our friend Doc.I was just saying the Left hates Rush because even though it takes hours for him to expose the lies of the left he does it more than anyone... Sure I can google " new left lies of today" and find plenty but I do have to work sometimes//and I am able to work while listening to Rush...
Posted by wormwood, 2/1/2008 5:49:22 PM
"(never mind that U.S. individuals and corporations are pretty much the least regulated in the developed world)"
"the least regulated" maybe you should check and see how easy it is to develop land with a swamp spit hole in the center....or divert a 6 inch wide creek or try to open a oil well in a virgin area..Or build a boat house on the river...or a skimpy deck.. or maybe cut a couple of trees to get a better view.. etc. etc..Some simple facts for simple minds with tunnel vision ...Many people can't buy starter homes because with all the Gov regulations it is much more profitable for developers to suit lots with larger homes..It would be better if you did research before spouting off gump..Exactly what subject did you try to teach?? In case you still don't catch on the extreme Gov regulations hurt the poor the most...
It is very evident that you were not a acid head in school..