U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-09-2011, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,113,309 times
Reputation: 12105

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi View Post
Capitalism is the only system that will work without the initiation of force.
Adam Smith didn’t think so. Quote:


“To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker, for any sum whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them, or to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbours are willing to accept of them, is a manifest violation of that natural liberty which it is the proper business of law not to infringe, but to support. Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments, of the most free as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed.”
(The Wealth of Nations)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-09-2011, 10:46 AM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
6,652 posts, read 7,142,704 times
Reputation: 2840
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Adam Smith didn’t think so. Quote:


“To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker, for any sum whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them, or to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbours are willing to accept of them, is a manifest violation of that natural liberty which it is the proper business of law not to infringe, but to support. Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments, of the most free as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed.”
(The Wealth of Nations)
That is not inconsistent with what I am saying. Endangering the whole system could be considered initiation of force. Again, I want an even playing filed as I outlined here. http://www.city-data.com/forum/18191760-post408.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2011, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,113,309 times
Reputation: 12105
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi View Post
That is not inconsistent with what I am saying. Endangering the whole system could be considered initiation of force. Again, I want an even playing filed as I outlined here. http://www.city-data.com/forum/18191760-post408.html
It is in contradiction to what you’re saying. I took the following piece out of your post as it relates to the current discussion.

“A government referee would regulate a lot, they would punish those who cause harm and they would punish people who violate contracts (corporate charters). The shareholders would punish executives who took too much risk, or caused harm to others.”

You avoid suggestions of “government should regulate” and prefer to say “government should only be a referee”. In other words, you support only reactionary measures, dealing with the aftermath and assuming it will make up for the losses and security and welfare of the nation. I disagree. Addressing Shay’s Rebellion was reactionary. It couldn’t fix the losses. It required formulation of a system that provided a framework to create laws, an effort to prevent such things from reoccurring.
Government’s role is to regulate. It was put in place to be a regulatory body, not a reactionary body. There are other measures to deal with situations that demand reaction and punishment.

Where we might agree is on the subject of extent of regulation, but definitely not on absence of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2011, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Some T-1 Line
520 posts, read 818,801 times
Reputation: 448
As an aside, I will say that this has been one of the more civilized debates on CD. So far.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2011, 11:49 AM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
6,652 posts, read 7,142,704 times
Reputation: 2840
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
It is in contradiction to what you’re saying. I took the following piece out of your post as it relates to the current discussion.

“A government referee would regulate a lot, they would punish those who cause harm and they would punish people who violate contracts (corporate charters). The shareholders would punish executives who took too much risk, or caused harm to others.”

You avoid suggestions of “government should regulate” and prefer to say “government should only be a referee”. In other words, you support only reactionary measures, dealing with the aftermath and assuming it will make up for the losses and security and welfare of the nation. I disagree. Addressing Shay’s Rebellion was reactionary. It couldn’t fix the losses. It required formulation of a system that provided a framework to create laws, an effort to prevent such things from reoccurring.
Government’s role is to regulate. It was put in place to be a regulatory body, not a reactionary body. There are other measures to deal with situations that demand reaction and punishment.

Where we might agree is on the subject of extent of regulation, but definitely not on absence of it.
Your assumption is that regulations would stop bad from happening. I don't trust them at all. Again, look back at how I define regulations. (compromises between lawyers). I prefer very clear foundational rules, either allow something or not, if you don't follow the law, punish those who violate (cause harm) the rule.

Plus if a regulation is set to a point where it still causes harm, corporations could fall back on the fact that they were "within government regulations". There are a lot of sick, dead or poor people hurt by government guidelines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2011, 11:52 AM
 
8,811 posts, read 5,370,502 times
Reputation: 3691
Quote:
Originally Posted by EuroTrashed View Post
I overlooked this one... I'm inclined to say people should be trialled and executed for saying this. Free speech be damned, this is outright speaking against liberty, humanity and prosperity. How in the nine layers of hell can anyone but an individual assess the value of a good or service. Every time this has been done in history it ended up in shortages across the board, explained by simple basic economic principles, but every time again you have these uneducated MORONS who will just blurt out their ignorant bull**** about how they think the economy can or should be centrally planned. I can take a lot of crap like that but price fixing is not one of them. Go **** your uneducated self
As Orwellian and Creepy as it may sound, I've got news for you ... what was described by the poster :

Quote:
"6) Establish a federal "Department of the Economy," which will set minimum and maximum prices for all products, minimum and maximum wages, set production schedules of essential goods and control monetary and fiscal policy.
isn't that far off of what we have going on right now ... his dream of a "Department of the Economy" has already come true ... it goes by the name of "The Federal Reserve". Let's look at each of the points:

Price Fixing: there are some exceptions, but by and large, big ticket items and corporate produced products available at different distribution outlets have very little deviation. A Ford or a Chevy has a fixed MSRP ... an Apple Computer or iPod will cost pretty much the same, and the Banks pretty much dictate real estate value based on what they are willing to loan (that's how the bubbles are created). Stock market is manipulated and fixed, as are the commodity prices, along with Gold and Silver. Even food prices for national brands are relatively the same wherever you go (regionally) ... variable by a small margin one way or the other for attracting consumers.

Wages there is a minimum wage. No real maximum wage, but with the graduated income tax, and the unseen tax of inflation, median incomes of the average American is stagnate or falling ... which produces the same result as a fixed wage.

Production control of production is a complex matter that would require pages to define accurately, but is nevertheless in place ... suffice it to say that through regulations, market subsidies, collusion among connected corporations, available capital, etc ... this is in place. Gasoline is a classic example of production and price control .... although most don't know this ... there is plenty of crude oil .... the bottleneck in supply comes from a dwindling base of oil refineries, which keep production levels near demand, with any disruption an inbuilt excuse for contrived increases.

Monetary and Fiscal Policy All firmly controlled by the Federal Reserve .... of course they readily admit the Monetary control ... but insist that fiscal policy is in the hands of congress .... you know ... those guys that NEVER READ THE LEGISLATION that they pass into law, or seem to even know what is contained in those bills?

Apparently, the poster of the quoted material is a staunch Socialist/Communist extreme leftist. And, they should be extremely happy to awaken to the fact that their dream has already come true ... they already live in the "People's Republic of America", but apparantly don't even realize it. They have Premier Bush and Chairman Obama to thank ... (in reality ... Greenspan and Bernake and their gang of criminals).

I tell you ... I'm speechless and astounded at the lack of knowledge and understanding of what is actually going on in this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2011, 12:03 PM
 
19,216 posts, read 12,528,323 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
And likes of Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan only existed in Utopia.
Mytopia keeps getting shattered all the time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyyLOOvwIts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2011, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,113,309 times
Reputation: 12105
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi View Post
Your assumption is that regulations would stop bad from happening. I don't trust them at all. Again, look back at how I define regulations. (compromises between lawyers). I prefer very clear foundational rules, either allow something or not, if you don't follow the law, punish those who violate (cause harm) the rule.

Plus if a regulation is set to a point where it still causes harm, corporations could fall back on the fact that they were "within government regulations". There are a lot of sick, dead or poor people hurt by government guidelines.
No. I’m under no impression that regulations are the magic wand that can address every possible scenario. That doesn’t apply even to the US constitution. But to have a framework and regulations can help alleviate pain and reduce the effect on the populace and consequently the nation. It is how many countries avoided or at least reduced the economic debacle we have experienced in recent years.


And having regulations doesn’t mean there is no room for reactionary measures. But to take away regulations is the perfect recipe to invite trouble. Did you not agree with the quote by Adam Smith? It clearly isn’t talking about punishing the corrupt, but regulating exchanges to help prevent corruption.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2011, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Southern Minnesota
5,990 posts, read 11,239,438 times
Reputation: 3200
I'm not an extreme leftist or a socialist, and I'm certainly not a communist. I just support economic reform and fiscal democracy. Yes, we need regulations. Regulations, like laws, protect freedom, not take it away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2011, 12:31 PM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
6,652 posts, read 7,142,704 times
Reputation: 2840
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
No. I’m under no impression that regulations are the magic wand that can address every possible scenario. That doesn’t apply even to the US constitution. But to have a framework and regulations can help alleviate pain and reduce the effect on the populace and consequently the nation. It is how many countries avoided or at least reduced the economic debacle we have experienced in recent years.


And having regulations doesn’t mean there is no room for reactionary measures. But to take away regulations is the perfect recipe to invite trouble. Did you not agree with the quote by Adam Smith? It clearly isn’t talking about punishing the corrupt, but regulating exchanges to help prevent corruption.
Again, where you say "regulation" I am saying go deeper, regulations are compromises, I want it more clear. Here is an example from the finance world. Nassim Taleb talks about how regulations are not the answer. Nassim Nicholas Taleb on Regulation at the Buttonwood Gathering | The Fundamental Analyst

Not allowing an investment that takes on more risk than can be covered is not a regulation, this is what I am talking about.

Standards (some may call them regulations) are often times better served in the non-government world except for contractually. Look at UL Labs and ISO. I trust an organization dedicated to one thing and one thing only more than I do a bunch of politicians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top