Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you're against the government regulating and breaking up monopolies, safety regulations, Anticollusion regulations, etc., etc.? The free market is unable to regulate itself because capitalism is driven solely by profit. We wouldn't be chatting here today if "Big Brother" hadn't stepped in and forced AT&T to allow foreign equipment on its lines. The original Dial-Up modem would have never seen the light of day, if the Free Market and Private Enterprise had their way.
Government sets the rules and enforces them. Not make the market.
Doubt Donald Trump would. It's a local interest, not a national one. And why? Of the major Republican candidates he's the least tied to a free-market ideology, if he has a coherent ideology.
If Donald Trump is elected President, would he enact federal legislation to end rent stabilization in NYC?
Would he push for the demolition of NYCHA projects in expensive parts of NYC (NYCHA gets funding from the feds).
Now personally I will be just FINE if Trump is elected President. The poor people dependent on all these programs including rent stabilization on the other hand might be in for a rude awakening if Trump is elected President.
I am voting for whoever wins the Democratic party (they recently pushed through major gains in civil rights for gays including gays in the military, gay marriage, etc), but at the same time it's certainly possible we could end up with President Trump (who I admit is the best Republican candidate).
If he becomes President I think he would be more focused on national interests. Hopefully, we won't get the chance to find out.
So you're against the government regulating and breaking up monopolies, safety regulations, Anticollusion regulations, etc., etc.? The free market is unable to regulate itself because capitalism is driven solely by profit. We wouldn't be chatting here today if "Big Brother" hadn't stepped in and forced AT&T to allow foreign equipment on its lines. The original Dial-Up modem would have never seen the light of day, if the Free Market and Private Enterprise had their way.
Sure, it's survival of the fittest. If that results in a monopoply, then that's the way the ball bounces. Everything from your phone, to your TV, your car, Airplanes, and computers were invented by someopne who wanted to make A Profit. Markets should regulate themselves.
So you're against the government regulating and breaking up monopolies, safety regulations, Anticollusion regulations, etc., etc.? The free market is unable to regulate itself because capitalism is driven solely by profit. We wouldn't be chatting here today if "Big Brother" hadn't stepped in and forced AT&T to allow foreign equipment on its lines. The original Dial-Up modem would have never seen the light of day, if the Free Market and Private Enterprise had their way.
There is still plenty of things government regulates with housing. Getting rid of rent stabilization is just letting off price control.
Sure, it's survival of the fittest. If that results in a monopoply, then that's the way the ball bounces. Everything from your phone, to your TV, your car, Airplanes, and computers were invented by someopne who wanted to make A Profit. Markets should regulate themselves.
No it wouldn't. Established monopolies would be adverse at anything that would disrupt their business, and several technologies would not develop because of that. AT&T had nothing to do with the creation of the internet, yet it's development would not have been possible without the government mandating AT&T to allow foreign devices to use its networks. In fact, lets go back even further. Like cable companies and their boxes today, AT&T produced the only telephones that could be used on their networks. They were large and clunky. When government forced AT&T to allow access, the telephone industry exploded out of the ground, producing better phones, and eventually cordless phones. When you have a monopoly, there's no incentive to innovate. Why would would any company that answers to shareholders, waste money on research and development when they have total control of the market? Thats exactly the reason why set top boxes today are still as clunky as set top boxes 20 years ago (the only difference is a speed bump and a chip card.) Only competition drives innovation.
There is still plenty of things government regulates with housing. Getting rid of rent stabilization is just letting off price control.
I wasn't arguing for rent stabilization, I was merely pointing out to another poster that government intervention is sometimes necessary for the protection of consumers. While on paper, rent stabilization sounds good, in practice, its works poorly. For example, someone making six figures should not have access to a stabilized apartment. That doesn't mean that getting rid of it is the magic bullet. Boston tried it, yet its still relatively expense.
No it wouldn't. Established monopolies would be adverse at anything that would disrupt their business, and several technologies would not develop because of that. AT&T had nothing to do with the creation of the internet, yet it's development would not have been possible without the government mandating AT&T to allow foreign devices to use its networks. In fact, lets go back even further. Like cable companies and their boxes today, AT&T produced the only telephones that could be used on their networks. They were large and clunky. When government forced AT&T to allow access, the telephone industry exploded out of the ground, producing better phones, and eventually cordless phones. When you have a monopoly, there's no incentive to innovate. Why would would any company that answers to shareholders, waste money on research and development when they have total control of the market? Thats exactly the reason why set top boxes today are still as clunky as set top boxes 20 years ago (the only difference is a speed bump and a chip card.) Only competition drives innovation.
A free market would still have antitrust laws enforced by government. You realize that, right? There are less monopolies in a free market economy than in this crony capitalist structure that we currently have and have had for some time now.
Federal government recently was defeated in the courts in an attempt to control marriage (DOMA) which was clearly stated by the SCOTUS to be a state's right issue, but you all now believe it can control local rent control laws.
Just what section of the USC does this premise rest upon?
Federal government recently was defeated in the courts in an attempt to control marriage (DOMA) which was clearly stated by the SCOTUS to be a state's right issue, but you all now believe it can control local rent control laws.
Just what section of the USC does this premise rest upon?
The federal courts later on struck down state anti gay marriage laws. What state's rights? We all know they don't really exist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
