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.
Smith warned that a true laissez-faire economy would quickly become a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation.
And "the right" has never stated that businesses won't act in their own self interest.
"The right" in fact recognizes this potential for corruption. And therefore advocates for small government.
Your solution to combat corruption in the government, is to increase the size of government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
Lsissez-faire means basically a hands off approach by govt. in business. This is exactly a right wing ideology.
Laissez faire is antithetical to the dilemma you describe.
Adam Smith, the father of economics and Capitalism warned that a true laissez-faire economy would quickly become a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation. Smith states that the interest of manufacturers and merchants "...in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public...The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.
If Adam Smith were alive today undoubtably, he would be called a socialist or communist by rwnjs.
What Smith was saying is that corporations entice governments to use regulations to promote the corporations interest. This is an argument for less regulations, not more.
Corporations, as long as they are immune fom foreign competition, secretly love regulations. It creates barriers to entry. Thus reducing competition and raising profits.
The baker and the butcher, corporate or not, act in their own self-interest as does the consumer.
You can say thread fail as much as you want. Maybe I am not making this simple enough for you. I will try a little harder.
Smith warned that a true laissez-faire economy would quickly become a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation.
This is why Friedman has been for getting rid of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act since at least 1999 that I know of. The very entities that the Act is meant to reign in so that they don't infringe upon the self-interest of others now have way too much influence on how the rules are applied, thus making the Act useless for all intents and purposes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
Lsissez-faire means basically a hands off approach by govt. in business. This is exactly a right wing ideology.
Libertarian, not right wing, unless you are identifying libertarian as right wing, which I think gets confusing.
But the government is hands-on. In fact both hands, and two arms, and both feet. So if hands-on leads to the current system, what makes you think hands-off would have the same result?
What we have now is exactly what Smith warned against. We have big business lobbyist creating legislation that helps business and is adverse to the interests of the public. I laugh at the ObamaCare debate. The legislation is the same legislation that the Republicans wanted to introduce in the 90's, why, because it helps certain businesses...primarily insurance and the health care industry. Do you really believe that Romney is going to try to get it repealed? Oh sure there may be a couple of things that they want removed that does not help business, but the thrust of it they want to leave in place.
We have a lot of legislation and regulation of business sure, but most of that legislation has been enacted to help certain industries and not to protect consumers and the public at large.
Adam Smith is arguing against crony capitalism and stating that laws and regulations which could possibly serve that end must always be looked upon with suspicion.
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention."
You liberals crack me up. Thread FAIL.
They crack me up, too.
Impressed....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
Adam Smith, the father of economics and Capitalism...
Economics, not Capitalism. Capitalism already existed before Smith was born.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
... warned that a true laissez-faire economy would quickly become a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation.
Okay, so you were warned. What exactly did you do about it?
Nothing.
So why are you sniveling?
Hotair: Doctor it hurts when I stick this fork in my eye.
Doctor: Then don't stick a fork in your eye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
If Adam Smith were alive today undoubtably, he would be called a socialist or communist by rwnjs.
Well, I'm as right wing as you can possibly get, and this what I've said about it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
In one of the greatest signs yet that the 99 Percenters are having an impact, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced an amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end corporate personhood once and for all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
He wasn't the first. A similar amendment was introduced a couple weeks ago. That amendment was useless. This one is marginally better, but still incredibly vague and it allows Congress to regulate it, which defeats the whole purpose.
It looks like a ****-roach wrote the first one, and Deutch's found an alligator to write his.
The language of the amendment must be incredibly precise, and Congresspersons lack the requisite intelligence to write a constitutional amendment with such precision.
A satisfactory amendment that would be barely adequate to achieve a Separation of Corporation and State would include all of the following:
1) prohibition of both money and "in kind equivalents."
"In kind equivalents" would include, but is not limited to, air time on radio, television or cable, low interest loans for candidates, elected officials and their family members, gifts of any kind, air fare, hotel rooms, rental cars, meals, free credit cards, charge cards or coupons (like $20,000 worth of free BP gasoline), etc etc.
2) prohibition in support or in opposition.
It does no good to bar corporations, unions, PACs and special interest groups from contributing campaign money in support of a candidate, only to allow them to contribute to a candidate's opposition.
3) prohibition for both contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, any office.
That would include primaries held by political parties, as well as any other situation where candidates are nominated for a position, prior to actually running for such a position.
4) prohibition applies to ballot issues/ballot measures.
That bars money from flowing into local or State-wide referendum issues, like casinos, giving away the public water works to for-profit corporations, and other such lunacy.
That's 4 things right there that show the weaknesses of Deutch's poorly written amendment.
It also needs to be worded so that only "eligible voters" can contribute money or in kind equivalents, so that bars illegal aliens, legal aliens, resident aliens, convicted felons who have not had their voting rights restored, unions, PACs, all publicly traded corporations, private corporations, limited liability companies and partnerships, limited partnerships, general partnerships, not-for-profit entities and special interest groups, like "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" groups, religious groups, and everything else.
You all need to seriously scrutinize these amendments, because so far, they've all been wolves in sheep's clothing.
I don't suppose you remember that exchange, since it was about a year ago.
And what have you done about it?
Nothing.
Good for you.
I also said this a few months ago:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
One of the worst decisions ever. It ranks right up there with Dred Scott.
The 1st Amendment does not protect newspapers nor does it imply that newspapers have a right to "free speech."
It is the editor(s), not the newspaper, who is protected. I would hope people can see the difference (but perhaps I'm expecting too much).
The solution here is quite simple, and will resolve multiple issues and protect people.
You need a constitutional amendment that states in no uncertain terms that only those people eligible to vote in an election or on a ballot/campaign issue may vote.
That would automatically bar unions, corporations, PACs, Think-Tanks, special interest groups and an host of others from dumping money into the election process.
I chose that specific wording because it also restores the integrity of the Constitution and the sovereignty of each State.
As a Democrat or Republican, you would be barred from contributing money to elections and ballot issues outside of your State. That means that people and other entities in California would no longer be able to dump money into Ohio to influence elections or ballot issues there -- and yes, it does and has happened.
If Americans truly want to regain control of their country, then the first step is removing the money from the equation.
Since Congress would never introduce a bill for an amendment such as that (they will not bite the hand that feeds them), it will be up to the State legislatures to do it. And since they won't for the same reason, it would be up to citizens to form groups and have the measure introduced and passed by popular referendum.
You can, naturally, expect intense anti-ballot measure initiatives and a media blitz of glitzy commercials on radio and television to block your attempts sponsored by unions, PACs corporations, Think-Tanks, and special interest groups, since they have no desire to give up their power.
Constitutionally...
Mircea
As I've repeatedly said for about 5 years here on C-D, Congress will never enact any meaningful campaign finance reforms, or take any action to limit the political power of unions, corporations, think-tanks, PACs, special interest groups or the 60-odd Olde Tyme Big Power Political Money Families (who run your country), and neither will the State legislators.
So if you don't like "Crony Capitalism" and you want to put an end to it, this is what you must do:
1] Set up a non-profit organization; and
2] Recruit others in at least 40 States, preferably all States to become subsidiaries; and
3] Recruit volunteers to go out in public and get people to sign a petition in accordance with the laws of their State to call for a State-wide public referendum; and
4] Campaign to get the public referendum passed, which would call for Special Constitutional Convention (with limited powers) to get a campaign finance reform amendment passed that bars groups from contributing money or anything of value to election campaigns and ballot issues.
5] Campaign really hard to get the Special Constitutional Conventions in each to the get ratified by public referendum.
I guess you'll either do that, or continue to whine and snivel about "Crony Capitalism" and seeing how whining and sniveling doesn't really require any physical or mental exertion on your part, I guess you won't be pushing for campaign finance reform to end "Crony Capitalism."
I know of no one who supports a true laissez-faire economy. Rothbard is probably the closest of the notable economists of the 20th Century. Even the Austrian school calls for government.
What we have now is exactly what Smith warned against. We have big business lobbyist creating legislation that helps business and is adverse to the interests of the public. I laugh at the ObamaCare debate. The legislation is the same legislation that the Republicans wanted to introduce in the 90's, why, because it helps certain businesses...primarily insurance and the health care industry. Do you really believe that Romney is going to try to get it repealed? Oh sure there may be a couple of things that they want removed that does not help business, but the thrust of it they want to leave in place.
Yet your side loves it.
Case in point. Couldn't have pointed out a better example.
Economics, not Capitalism. Capitalism already existed before Smith was born.
Okay, so you were warned. What exactly did you do about it?
Nothing.
So why are you sniveling?
Hotair: Doctor it hurts when I stick this fork in my eye.
Doctor: Then don't stick a fork in your eye.
Well, I'm as right wing as you can possibly get, and this what I've said about it:
I don't suppose you remember that exchange, since it was about a year ago.
And what have you done about it?
Nothing.
Good for you.
I also said this a few months ago:
As I've repeatedly said for about 5 years here on C-D, Congress will never enact any meaningful campaign finance reforms, or take any action to limit the political power of unions, corporations, think-tanks, PACs, special interest groups or the 60-odd Olde Tyme Big Power Political Money Families (who run your country), and neither will the State legislators.
So if you don't like "Crony Capitalism" and you want to put an end to it, this is what you must do:
1] Set up a non-profit organization; and
2] Recruit others in at least 40 States, preferably all States to become subsidiaries; and
3] Recruit volunteers to go out in public and get people to sign a petition in accordance with the laws of their State to call for a State-wide public referendum; and
4] Campaign to get the public referendum passed, which would call for Special Constitutional Convention (with limited powers) to get a campaign finance reform amendment passed that bars groups from contributing money or anything of value to election campaigns and ballot issues.
5] Campaign really hard to get the Special Constitutional Conventions in each to the get ratified by public referendum.
I guess you'll either do that, or continue to whine and snivel about "Crony Capitalism" and seeing how whining and sniveling doesn't really require any physical or mental exertion on your part, I guess you won't be pushing for campaign finance reform to end "Crony Capitalism."
Regurgitating...
Mircea
Opinion and no cites. Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. Post some cites and I will take a look.
bored
Hotair2.
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.
