Debate Government Regulation

Happy Medium

There has got to be a happy medium somewhere in between no regulation and extreme regulation. I think the pendulum has to swing towards more regulation in this current environment.

The idea that the free market has the ability to regulate itself is ridiculous, though. Corruption and greed are powerful forces, and without oversight they will ruin a system. Without the government controlling many of our actions there would be chaos. What if the government also decided to leave morality up to the free market, removing all laws regarding to the treatment of other people(murder, rape, incest, molestation), and just said that the people can take care of it on their own because they will all act in the country's best interest?

 

I think that businesses ought to be regulated. Not very strict regulation, just keeping tabs on them is what is needed. CEOs should not be able to bail out with their "golden parachutes" and massive salaries. The health industry is regulated so that charges are not ridiculous. Why can't business be regulated as well?

 

Certain industries need to be regulated. Banking needs to be regulated, the air line industry - not so much. Southwest Airlines is a prime example of deregulation.

 

Agreed. The reason for the recession is that several large companies on wall street LACKED regulation in the way that they took risks that they normally shouldn't have, knowing that since they were such large parts of the US economy, that the US Government would HAVE to bail them out if any of these risks were to come out badly. They did this out of greed and the chance that they might profit from the risks. Eventually, of course, they came out badly. The government has now bailed them out. These companies need restrictions on their actions if they are to be backed by the government. I am personally pro-regulatory, because companies will do anything for more money, no matter how sick and terrible these things are. Only the ones who care solely for the growth of the economy, not how it gets there, would support a regulation free economy. Sure, if we were willing to commit these terrible deeds, the economy would be booming and everyone would be rich.....but to me, atleast, morality is more important than money.

 

I think you would have to have a PHD in Economic History to answer this question. That being said, America's rise to the wealthiest nation came about as a result of WW2 not FDR's economic plans. From here I think it would be a great study and hopefully a short one to study the flow of money as well as Presidential policies to decide where our money went. That should make the answer to your question clearer.

My speculation on the housing market. Well, the blame lies with businesses and the people. Poorer communites wanted loans from banks, but were viewed as a financial risk. So, banks decided to lower their standards in order to gain favor and business in these communities. Some banks were unethical in how they did business and many people were selfish. The bottom line is that a bunch of people decided to live outside their means and the banks gave into social pressure in order to avoid government intervention. Should government have stepped in to protect banks from harrassment? Well that would have been a social injustice! Should government have backed up the people? Now some senator's pockets don't run so deep. All-in-all it's a tricky issue.

Sidenote: Barack Obama worked for Acorn which was one such social group.

Off-topic about the economy: As our nation's economy worsen's, the global economy even's out. America has been the wealthiest nation for a time and now we are seeing it decline or maybe the world's economy is balancing itself out. Over these next years we will see a reduction in the quality of life per capita, but globally it should rise.

 

The election is over rusty.

 

Did you learn something? Anyways it was a sidenote.

 

Look at Michigan. Michigan decided to make up so many taxes for businesses that all the businesses left. There are some pretty rediculous taxes out there, some of which my dad as a business owner must pay. He has to pay a tax on the storm drain becuase it's on his property. He must pay for inspections by the government. Some things are just so dumb, government will almost always make a up some bullcrap reason simply because they can.

 

Affirmative action is pretty great. I'm all for the government stepping in and forcing business owners to hire people of color. It's a much better option than, say, allowing minorities to remain perpetually trapped in abject poverty.

 

There was no regulation, which is why the banks handed out those bad loans. If there was any regulation of businesses at all, then you wouldn't be seeing obnoxious salaries and "golden parachutes" when CEOs bail themselves out. Regulation would mean keeping such things under control, which they evidently weren't.

And I'm pretty sure that jobs being outsourced because it is cheaper to hire people overseas like in China.
US Businesses can't compete because they don't have the will to try new things. Look at the US auto industry. They have been making gas-guzzling cars even when their competitors realized the wonders of hybrid and electric cars. Hummers were still being made for goodness sakes, and who wants them now?

 

Even if they are undeserving?

As a business owner, I would hire the person who could make me the most money regardless of race. Dollar is more important than race. If people don't want to remain in poverty they don't have to, if they aren't willing to do what it takes then that's too bad. I'm not going through the hassle of being a charity worker if they aren't going to be cooperative and dilligent. But, if it's a tie between two equally qualified people then I would help a brotha out.

 

If there is a large skill gap then you’re absolutely right, the more deserving person should get the job.

But take things back a couple of decades, to a time when a business owner might claim it is in his best financial interest not to hire an African American because doing so would upset his white worker base. A claim that, considering the time, would be perfectly valid. A claim that, despite its validity, would be wholly immoral and indicative of much needed government intervention.

And I think that in itself is a good argument against a self-regulating market. Short term profits blind businesses to the long term goals that are readily apparent to a just government.

In all honesty though, I do believe that current incarnations of affirmative action are completely justifiable, and I think discussing that with you would be extremely interesting, rusty. But I don't know if we should hijack the thread with such a specific topic.