It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

corp deregulation is naive...

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

I have no issue with trying, but the goals should be realistic. Just like golfing. You don't start with your putter on a par five.




posted on May, 12 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: JUhrman

I have no issue with trying, but the goals should be realistic. Just like golfing. You don't start with your putter on a par five.


It's not unrealistic. If all countries but one agree, then it becomes easy to use economical or political pressure against said country.


It's OK being realistic but your response so far show mostly a pessimistic view of the world.

What would you propose then? What would you do to solve the issues discussed here at an international level?



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

I see no solution as long as human nature is involved. Maybe that can change with time.
If that's pessimistic, so be it. I call them as I see them



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
But, these goals are not the first around. A much more modest set, the Millennium Development Goals, conclude this year. The SDGs, which I posted, are the successors.

Yes, these goals are ambitious as hell. But, to the credit of the international community they have been agreed upon. Will some not come to fruition? Yes. Will some countries balk once it comes time to do? Yes. As you pointed out, issues such as human rights still face problems in many countries. On the other side, the big powers such as US or Russia still enjoy giving their middle finger to international law regarding war or covert ops.

Quite literally, outside of the UN Charter itself, these goals are the most comprehensive and ambitious international agreements ever made. That has been said at the UN.

Also to the credit of the UN, these were negotiated over the course of about 14 months, with representatives from every country, virtually all major NGOs, corporations, etc.

Here is where it is at now. They are now negotiating the more particulars. Financing, means of implementation, evaluation indicators, etc. sustainabledevelopment.un.org...

I can post this link below because my name is not on it (staying anonymous on ATS). I wrote this on these topics. www.stakeholderforum.org...
edit on 12-5-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

OK so you have nothing better to propose. Thus the current solution is not that bad



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

OK so you have nothing better to propose. Thus the current solution is not that bad


Lol, not exactly what I meant. Not having a better idea doesn't make the other idea a good one.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
It is easily demonstrated that most every corporation will put a dollar above all else, including human health and welfare. Even when a company "voluntarily" recalls a product, rather than being forced to do so by a State or Federal agency, it is usually found that the corporation knew of the defect or tainted product long before action was taken.

It is only when the bad press from related deaths or injury arise, these corporations pull the product.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: stormson

The traditional agrument against regluation is "The Market will Take Care of It".

You might want to look up the docuemtary "The Corporation" for a psychological diagnosis of the corporation. It's very interesting.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
A good first step in reducing the growing rate of corruption with corporate controls is to simply bring back the regulations that have been tossed into the waste bin over the decades.

The very reason why corporations have been able to gain such corruption and control over these past several decades is because the short leash they were originally tethered to has been removed, one piece at a time.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Sorry. I disagree. The 'living wage' argument is bogus, IMO.

As is the wont of the left, redefining concepts is the main tool. In this instance, the original definition was entry level wages. They were never intended or capable of being a living wage.

In the day, a couple married, they then followed the precept of two living as cheaply as one. They saved their monies as they both worked, perhaps for years. They didn't blow their money on the modern goodies like I-Phones and flat screen T.V.s. They stayed home except perhaps Saturday nights. Listened to the radio, played cards or just visited.

Down the road, when the man moved up in his chosen field, receive raises as his competence increased, hence his 'value', They'd buy a house, get it in order, Then, and only then, did they have kids!

Now? Because it's cool to indulge kids are having kids. Zero preparation for life and little to no income. So now, we the consumer have to pay higher prices-the corporations will pass the increased costs to us the consumer which is thee and me- largely due to an inability to keep your DNA to yourself??

Spare me, your kind compassion. A little more responsibility might be the key.

As far as your comment on stuck with low wage jobs?? GARBAGE! There has never been more job training available as today, On-line college and trade courses, paid truck driver training at many companies, subsidized courses all over the country by county, state and federal gov't programs.

Furthermore, people are, have been and will continue to move up, both with their current employers and moving to better jobs. If they are stuck, it's their responsibility/issue. That doesn't translate to giving them a 'living wage'.

For one thing it's never enough. The 15/hr crowd in Seattle want 20 plus ASAP.

Once again, one party pushes this around election time, usually when their polls are low, and EASILY could have increased those minimum wages when they had full control of both houses and the Presidency....

Back to 'regulations", If you doubt the amount of sheer crap a company has to go through to just function, call someone you know in the human resources field or a neighborhood small businessman. You will get an earful!

Make it easier for business to create more jobs. Cut the illegals being legalized, as Hillary says, "they have a 'right' to come to America and be given work". The demand will for employees will go up, the number looking for work will go down and the wages will improve....as will the opportunity to find better jobs.....


edit on 12-5-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

The flaw is the Gov't is a corporation. With decreasing over-site almost on a daily basis.

Balance between the two is what worked before, imperfect, yet, it worked pretty well....



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Trusting a corporation is foolish.
Trusting a government agency to regulate corporations is just as foolish.


Who else than a government can regulate the corporate world? Please share you solution.


The people that buy things.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: stormson

We don't need government regulations, in fact, government regulations cost more money--which gives companies incentives to cut costs in other sectors (like dumping waste in a river).

Also, politicians can be paid to look the other way.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman


It's not unrealistic. If all countries but one agree, then it becomes easy to use economical or political pressure against said country.


When all else fails--coercion is the answer.

You actually sound a lot like the US government.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Regulations are out of control. The problem is that regulations are often dreamt up by bureaucrats who have no concept of how the industry they are regulating works. Nor do they ever attempt to assess and understand if said regulations are even effective. In addition, many regulations are actually designed to limit competition and act as a form of protectionism. Big business pays off politicians to create regulations that stifle new market entrants.

I don't know that any conservative has ever said there should be no regulations. The issue is we have all these unelected bureaucrats at alphabet agencies effectively making laws with little to no accountability.

In addition, no free market supporter has ever said corporations are just and moral. If anything, corporations are typically amoral. People vote with their wallets. History is littered with mega-corporations that have gone out of business by not keeping up with technology, poor corporate strategy, etc. The free market works because it is efficient, consumers vote with their wallets, and employees are free to trade their services for pay.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Trusting a corporation is foolish.
Trusting a government agency to regulate corporations is just as foolish.


Who else than a government can regulate the corporate world? Please share you solution.


The people that buy things.


Ahah sure, we can see everyday how rational the consumers are keeping their money in the same banks that have been screwing them over and over.

If there is one thing that you learn in business school it's that consumer are not rational agents. They are misinformed, emotional and easily manipulated.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: JUhrman


It's not unrealistic. If all countries but one agree, then it becomes easy to use economical or political pressure against said country.


When all else fails--coercion is the answer.

You actually sound a lot like the US government.


It's not coercion when the majority decides it. It's called democracy.

You are part of the problem thinking individual freedom is more important than common well-being.

All societies are based on the concept of the social contract. All. If you don't like it you can still live like an hermit. Until then, you too are part of this system and you too must bend to the laws that have been decided by the majority. If you don't like it, leave it.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman


Ahah sure, we can see everyday how rational the consumers are keeping their money in the same banks that have been screwing them over and over.

If there is one thing that you learn in business school it's that consumer are not rational agents. They are misinformed, emotional and easily manipulated.


Ah, I see. So a human being in the role of consumer is an idiot, but the moment that same person votes in an election or gains political power, he magically becomes rational and well-informed with good intentions.

Of course!



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: JUhrman


Ahah sure, we can see everyday how rational the consumers are keeping their money in the same banks that have been screwing them over and over.

If there is one thing that you learn in business school it's that consumer are not rational agents. They are misinformed, emotional and easily manipulated.


Ah, I see. So a human being in the role of consumer is an idiot, but the moment that same person votes in an election or gains political power, he magically becomes rational and well-informed with good intentions.

Of course!


In short, yes, more than the average joe and certainly more than a mass of consumers. That's his job. There are still corrupted and idiotic politicians of course, but the very fact that some governments and international organizations are acting at the international level to regulate the abuses of the corporate world, while consumers never boycotted a bank whatsoever despite whining all the time about them clearly shows you can't expect customers to do anything worthwile to solve white collar crime and greed.


Free to you to imagine individual consumers will magically fix the system, so far the facts are showing they only want their latest iPhone even if tainted by the blood of thousands of people.
edit on 13-5-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: JUhrman


It's not unrealistic. If all countries but one agree, then it becomes easy to use economical or political pressure against said country.


When all else fails--coercion is the answer.

You actually sound a lot like the US government.


It's not coercion when the majority decides it. It's called democracy.

You are part of the problem thinking individual freedom is more important than common well-being.

All societies are based on the concept of the social contract. All. If you don't like it you can still live like an hermit. Until then, you too are part of this system and you too must bend to the laws that have been decided by the majority. If you don't like it, leave it.


Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. There is a reason the US is a REPUBLIC and not a democracy. Democracy at its core is mob rule. The mob is not always right and certainly not rational.

So if the majority says they want to hold you in slavery are you saying that is ok?




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join