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.
Truthhurts - and just where is your form of business practiced?
I have noticed that the most efficient thieves do not wear hooded sweatshirts and baggy trousers but do wear the best Brooks Bros. suits and ties. Government must regulate business to keep the thieves in check and the markets defended form the monopolists.
IMHO the last 40 years have shown that we need far more regulation of the business community, not less. We need far less regulation of the private citizen at the same time. The government needs to be in the boardrooms of the nation not the bedrooms.
Truthhurts - and just where is your form of business practiced?
[color=black]I have noticed that the most efficient thieves do not wear hooded sweatshirts and baggy trousers but do wear the best Brooks Bros. suits and ties. Government must regulate business to keep the thieves in check and the markets defended form the monopolists.
IMHO the last 40 years have shown that we need far more regulation of the business community, not less. We need far less regulation of the private citizen at the same time.
Due ot the Sherman act monopolies fall under the regulation of government. However, the Enrons are things that were already regulated and the Enrons of the world only happen every once in a blue moon. These are not things that happen with any regularity in the free-market. What is Enron's stock trading at now? I'd say the free-market did a pretty good job of putting it out of business once it wised up to the corrupt management.
As they say, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time!"
Do you know how costly SOX (Sabanes -Oxley) regulations are to corporations? Do you have any idea how that effects us as consumers? When government regulates and raises cost it creates waves that travel through the entire economy.
SOX regulations may have reduced the likelihood that a number of smaller companies will be taken public, thus reducing their access to capital, reducing their growth, reducing job creation, and eliminating competiton. Do you see where i'm going here?
Government intervention always has very bad unintended effects on other areas of the economy. Bad companies will not last long in a free market, so why does government need to intervene on their behalf? They may reap gains for 3-5 years, but it won't last long, before the market weeds them out.
For instance let's say you start a barber shop (this is a very commonly used example) does government really need to regulate or require you to get a license to do business? If you're good at what you do, you'll offer people good haircuts at a great price and they'll keep coming back to you. However, if you're bad at what you do and snip a few people's ears its likely that the market will close you down, because consumers would choose not to pay for your services. So why would government need to intervene in the free-market? Due to government intervention you have the following 1. reduced competition (hurting consumers) 2. Governments Created high barriers to entry (by requiring you to spend money to get training and a license) 3. They have cost the economy a number of tax paying jobs 4. They have made it much more costly to consumers to get a haircut
Truthhurts - and just where is your form of business practiced?
I have noticed that the most efficient thieves do not wear hooded sweatshirts and baggy trousers but do wear the best Brooks Bros. suits and ties. Government must regulate business to keep the thieves in check and the markets defended form the monopolists.
IMHO the last 40 years have shown that we need far more regulation of the business community, not less. We need far less regulation of the private citizen at the same time. The government needs to be in the boardrooms of the nation not the bedrooms.
Try Kiton and Brioni suits, not Brooks Brothers.
Secondly, what regulation do you have in mind? Would it focus on big business or small business or business? Exactly what is this regulation supposed to accomplish?
Quote:
Originally Posted by truthhurts
As they say, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time!"
The quote is, "You can fool some people all the time, you can fool all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."
Regulating barbers by requiring proper training is necessary because an infected ear snip can kill some customers. Regulating hairdressers is required because people can be badly burned if some of the chemicals are misapplied. Protecting public health is reason enough for this regulation.
Protecting the public financial health, by preventing monopolies, monosophonies (sp?) and cartels, is the reason for regulation of business. Just a bureaucrats cannot be trusted with government capitalists cannot be trusted with business. Both of these will try to increase their control to the detriment of the controlled.
Regulating barbers by requiring proper training is necessary because an infected ear snip can kill some customers. Regulating hairdressers is required because people can be badly burned if some of the chemicals are misapplied. Protecting public health is reason enough for this regulation.
Protecting the public financial health, by preventing monopolies, monosophonies (sp?) and cartels, is the reason for regulation of business. Just a bureaucrats cannot be trusted with government capitalists cannot be trusted with business. Both of these will try to increase their control to the detriment of the controlled.
Look Greg your second paragraph is hard to argue with as i'm not an Anarcho Libertarian, but i'm merely pointing out to you how government interference has negative effects on the private sector. I'm also for government regulating and breaking up monopolies, especially the ones under its own control.
I had this conversation with a doctor friend of mine recently. I argued that governments should not require doctors to be licensed and he made the same argument you're making (in relation to barbers) due to lost productivity, death, illness, and the cost to the economy it is not worth it (eg having unlicensed physicans). However, I made the point, there would be significant cost early on in terms of death and lost productivity, but the market would eventually efficiently gravitate to only the most qualified individuals in these various pursuites. (I also pointed this out in a forum on here debating JustinBoise)
Sure, there would be a window where bad hair dressers ruin a few peoples hair, scalp, and ears etc, but in the long run they would be out of business very quickly and the market would gravitate to good hair dresser, without government involvement.
The argument can also be made in reference to free trade. Why do individual citizens need governments to inact free-trade agreements? Individuals would trade with whomever they wanted as long as government opened up the window for free trade (reduced barriers and quotas) and left it up to citizens to create demand, supply, and agree upon price. Why does government need to do things that citizens would natural do and regulate on their own?
Also would you mind explaining why you believe government should control most "natural resources?"
Last edited by truthhurts; 02-21-2008 at 08:10 AM..
Regulating barbers by requiring proper training is necessary because an infected ear snip can kill some customers. Regulating hairdressers is required because people can be badly burned if some of the chemicals are misapplied. Protecting public health is reason enough for this regulation.
Protecting the public financial health, by preventing monopolies, monosophonies (sp?) and cartels, is the reason for regulation of business. Just a bureaucrats cannot be trusted with government capitalists cannot be trusted with business. Both of these will try to increase their control to the detriment of the controlled.
Regulating barbers? You mean like requiring a license?
It is very true that the defined benefit pension plan is going away rapidly. I'm currently in a defined benefit pension plan. We had an opportunity to convert over to a cash basis plan. The company nearly begged everyone to do this. One quick calculation and you found out that the defined plan was better by hundreds of thousands of dollars when you're with the company for over 20 years. I stuck with the defined plan like most everyone else that was in it. All new employees get the cash basis plan and they're not happy about it when they hear what the previous plan was like.
My company also provides a 401K plan linked to profit sharing. I'm in this also. 401K plans are OK, as long as they are coupled with a nice defined benefit plan.
Ya, I work for a company that changes very slowly and I like it this way; especially when it comes to employee benefits. I also get nearly 6 weeks of PTO time and tele-commuting privileges. I got it pretty good and I know it.
Much the same here. I began work for the Army (Federal Civil Service) in 1972, at which time they only offered a defined benefit plan known as Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS, called 'sirs'). About 1986 they stopped offering CSRS to new employees and put in a 401-k deal called Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) for the newly hired. They also tried to get CSRS people to change over to TSP. When I compared the two, TSP was a huge setback that would require working to at least age 62 and pay a lot less. I stuck with the old CSRS and retired with 30 years of service at age 55, getting about 60% of my pay as my monthly pension (before taxes & insurances). I could have worked another ten years, to age 65, and with 40 years of service I could have gotten a pension of almost 80% of my pay. I didn't consider that worth it so I got out at the soonest, as the basic pension and my other investments allow us to live in the manner we were accustomed to while working.
I too consider myself very lucky, though there were many times over the years that private industry was very attractive. I recall the late 1980's and well into the 1990's when the IT sector was so red hot that people were given lots of stock options, profit sharing and huge bonuses, some guys even getting $10k bonus for every pal they enticed to come work for some of these companies. I stuck it out with the Army and walked out the door at 55. Not having kids sure helped, as did a wife that also worked. As soon as she got her CSRS pension we left the DC area for Colorado and haven't looked back.
Posted by Mike from back east: During the leveraged buyout craze of the late 1980's, many old firms were bought up and their pension funds looted by corporate raiders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
And everyone knew they were doing it. It was in all the papers. Everyone knew what the long-term consequences were and where they would fall. Nobody in power at the time cared at all.
Posted by Mike from back east: Seems these economic scams run rampant during Republican administrations (LBO's, S&L Scandal, Sub-Prime loan mess, etc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Lack of, or lax, regulation and oversight. Laissez-faire capitalism rather than managed capitalism. You don't have to be as perceptive as Stephen Levitt to understand the connection. Republicans as economic referees are about as effective as the third man in the ring in the WWE...
Agree fully. I read about it in the papers. They raiders bought up textile firms, fired the people, stripped the pension funds, shipped the machinery to Asia and walked off rich. All explained in the papers. And all while the Reagan and Bush-41 admins watched it and told us about the global economy.
Government's job is to take the ragged edges off capitalism, not be a willing partner in the destruction of the economic base for one-time or short-term gains by Wall Street raiders.
I recall studying old Supreme Court cases in the transportation biz where the old justices showed a keen sense for balancing the need for healthy (non-destructive) competition, the need for a fair return on assets and a need for the public to be well served. These days, the public can go to hell as far as our elected leaders are concerned, all the politico's care about are the vested interests who donate money to them.
.... Sure, there would be a window where bad hair dressers ruin a few peoples hair, scalp, and ears etc, but in the long run they would be out of business very quickly and the market would gravitate to good hair dresser, without government involvement.....
Okay, take YOUR elderly mom to an unlicensed idiot and let HER eyes get burned. Following that, the FIRST words out of YOUR mouth will be THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW....WHY DOESN'T THE GOVERNMENT DO SOMETHING!!!!
Okay, take YOUR elderly mom to an unlicensed idiot and let HER eyes get burned. Following that, the FIRST words out of YOUR mouth will be THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW....WHY DOESN'T THE GOVERNMENT DO SOMETHING!!!!
She could just as easily get burned by a trainee hairdresser and it does happen.
Being a barber or a hairdresser is not like being a doctor, they don't have people surrounding them for every step of training. And if it ever comes to that point, I hope you enjoy your $70 haircuts at the corner barber shop.
I can't believe we have actually gotten to this point, people are talking about regulating and licensing f--king barber shops like it was a neurosurgery practice.
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.
