[ricechex]

Originally Posted by nature scene

Yet, what is proper regulation, as regulation often tends to create more problems? Who gets to decide what the proper amount of regulation should be?
The fact of the matter is that one person (or group) that has the power to regulate does not have the ability to comprehend all of the consequences of such regulation. Often said regulations can actually harm the intended beneficiaries in unforseen ways (A minimum wage increases unemployment among teenagers, one of the demographics it is supposed to help. The Endangered Species Act has actually given incentive for people who find an endangered species on their land to kill it before anyone finds out rather than face the financial burdens that come with government regulation. Zoning regulations make it so that only certain types of buildings may be permitted in certain areas, leading to what some people call "sprawl". I'll be happy to elaborate.)
Since those that are in charge of regulation are inherently self-interested (just as everyone else in the world) they will make decisions that serve themselves as well as the special interests that fund them. Regulation is corruption in the purest form. It is regulation that creates barriers to entry in industries, which reduces the competition and ultimately hurts consumers (which is everyone).
The argument that the market fails and thus intervention and regulation is required is a very tempting argument. However, further investigation often shows that the so-called failures of the market occured, not because the market was free, but because some aspect of it had been previously regulated.

Regulation as corruption, i would disagree with u there. One powerful word is needed to proclaim the need for strong regulation..ENRON. If u saw the Enron movie, the one thing these crooks like Ken Lay mentioned as their sort of buzzword (and they're recorded saying these things) is de-regulation. They got rich off it. They cut off half of California's power supply to up electricity prices and de-regulation let it happen.So it would be strange to say we need less regulation. Regulation is definitely needed, else people,who are inherintly sneaky, make millions off unfair business practices. People are are supposed to trust the law. The regulators are the law, and people have to work at capitalism to reach fairness..not assume regulation, or the law, has a vested interest. That's misplacing the original intent. The original intent is to keep businesses from illegalities.

Wal-mart seems to be a good example of a co. that seems to get tons of strange perks that do not apply to other businesses. We mentioned one already, the state, which is ultimately us, covering workers health care. Regulation is definitely needed, which should be in essence, a level playing field for all. With co. like Enron, Haliburton, and Wal-Mart, we need more regulation.

[nature scene]

Ricechex, I'm not sure that your argument totally supports regulation. I take it as meaning there need to be laws in place that strictly enforce anti-collusion so that something like what happened in California would be less likely to happen.
If laws like these are enforced, government regulation is not necessary, as it is in the interest of competing businesses to "regulate" each other.

De-regulation is what gives you as the consumer the option of choosing more than one service provider. Now, I can see where people might like just one provider of a certain service because they don't want to have to make a decision. However, as long as collusion laws are enforced, de-regulation means more competition and thus lower prices. True de-regulation, a true free market, would create enough competition that a company like Enron would not have the ability to cut off half of the power supply to California.

Enron was corrupt plain and simple, but it wasn't the fact that they used de-regulation and the free market to "take advantage" of people. They broke the law.

I have recently started to wonder if, in a true free market economy, corporations as we know them would actually exist. In a theoretical world with minimal government, and no government interference in the market, it seems that corporations could not exist because right now they receive certain benefits from government such as limited liability and so on.

[ricechex]

Well in the case of consumer's needing another cable service provider i.e,which is a hot topic nowadays, it is more about the one cable co. that is overpowering the freedom to choose another, b/c of the laws that r out there. I think it's regulation, or the law, that is needed to make it possible that that choice is out there to pick another. The one large cable co. has benefitted from LESS regulatory practices,inhibitting the other cable co. to get in on it.

I think we should both agree regulation is needed, but to what extent it is needed. In the case of Enron, they kind of make the case for more regulation by stating deregulation is what is making them get around loopholes. No one knew what the hell they were doing, coming up with hypotheticals for future non-traceable energy value. This took like 6-7 years for the govt to finally figure out what was really going on.

[nature scene]

Just because one company benefits under de-regulation, it does not follow that other companies are inhibited to enter that market. Freedom of competition does not mean freedom to copy another company and expect profit. Competition means offering something that would get consumers to switch to those other cable companies. It is actually probably certain regulations that give a cable company a geographic monopoly like the one you mentioned. I think I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree with you on this point.

[ricechex]

No, i hear u. i think we differ on the defintion of regulation, perhaps..something. haha. but we may want the same results. The defintion of regulation to me is creating fairness.. before businesses can even start to compete. Regulation is like the ground rules and fundamental. I feel there is a reason big ass corps r screaming for less of it..and think of their influence over law, connections, and wealth.

[nature scene]

Yes I do think that we differ in what we were considering regulation. The kind of regulation you talk about is what I would call the creation of legal institutions. Fairness then would be no privileges to certain companies and no legally institutionalized barriers to entry into an industry.
I think we are somewhat on the same page, although I feel I would advocate a lot less government involvement in business affairs than you would.

[guitarpro]

The people for one I hate them stupid ass fucks that walk in to ya and then look at you like you did something wrong. Or when they cut in front of ya and just stop. Don't ya just wanna put them face first in to the ground?

[Lethrneck4]

eh....thats seems like a complaint for every store....not just walmart

people in all stores are stupid ....and walmart isnt just for rednecks (wow, i see stereotyping is big with you guys..although you seem to be agaisnt it when its a group of people you support ..hypocrisy??)

i know PLENTY of middle upper class people who shop at wal-mart

and ill never demonize a store that lets poor low income families exist and live

you should all be ashamed of yourselves

[ricechex]

haha.. thank u Wal-Mart for letting the poor folks live and exist. bow down to the wal-mart, ungrateful bastards!

Wal-Mart is GOD and they are the wealthiest of all
But u MAY live, poor people. Amen!

[Lethrneck4]

yeah, helping poor people be able to afford things is sooooooooooo evil

what was i thinking???

[ricechex]

I have no idea. Wal-Mart is GOD!

[atari 2600]

Originally Posted by Lethrneck4

yeah, helping poor people be able to afford things is sooooooooooo evil

what was i thinking???

the simpleton strikes again i see

 

http://www.walmartmovie.com/

THE CRITICS ARE GLOWING! "An engrossing, muckraking documentary ... but if you're expecting an angry diatribe, you're going to be disappointed." -LA Times

"By the final credits you may want to picket Sam Walton's grave." -Boston Globe
"'The High Cost of Low Price' makes its case with breathtaking force." -New York Times
An "investigative outcry driven by stringent reporting rather than attitude." -Entertainment Weekly "The free market functions effectively only when consumers have all the facts. A brilliant new film by Robert Greenwald tells the real story of the corrosive effects that Wal-Mart wreaks upon the communities in which it operates and the men and women it employs." -Rob Reiner

[Lethrneck4]

yeah, helping poor people is such a simple idea

again...what was i thinking?

[atari 2600]

you're a real prick for acting so daft & being so disagreeable on purpose; either that or you really are incredibly stupid.

Your thoroughly witless "fun & games" have come to an end & you've been placed on my ignore list, Lethrneck4.

A note concerning my post previous to this one:
My definition of "simpleton" is definitely inclusive of persons that have an outdated (& overall Cartesian) worldview & who, in their disavowal of existential truth & utter ignorance through a gross lack of self-awareness, refuse to acknowledge the interconnectedness of all things.

[Lethrneck4]

fhdshhhhhhhhethhhd

[atsonicpark]

I work there, so I am justified in hating it.

[samuel]

I have nothing bad to say about Wal-mart.
Let me know when there's a K-mart thread.
Haha!

[qprogeny79]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

My definition of "simpleton" is definitely inclusive of persons that have an outdated (& overall Cartesian) worldview & who, in their disavowal of existential truth & utter ignorance through a gross lack of self-awareness, refuse to acknowledge the interconnectedness of all things.

so . . . anyone who isn't buddhist?

[Savage Clone]

With the reverence Buddhism puts on suffering, you would think shopping at Wal Mart would be a required activity for personal growth.

[Lethrneck4]

qp, haha