Originally posted by mnemeth1
reaching well beyond what?

that's what a patent is, its a licensed monopoly.

that is the definition of a patent.

pat·ent (ptnt)
n.
1.
a. A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time.

A patent is a creation an invention

it is not a market, function or condition of a market

A person can hold a patent and never make a dime, it has nothing to do with the market as a force

Originally posted by lordtyp0

So the SEC which had long been crippled by Bush at the time Maddof came about, is worthless because they didn't do anything... which proves Regulations are a huge benefit for companies becoming Monopolies?

You realize I hope: That Fraud is Fraud BECAUSE of a regulation? ie: A law that regulates behavior and defines legal from not.

But,,, still not seeing any proof or even a single actual regulation that is some how beneficial to a company and/or halting legit growth in any sector of business.

Any specific regulation that facilitates unfair advantage to a company? (the healthcare bill: not a regulation.). Something that backs up your thesis statement of "Deregulation is needed to allow companies to prosper in a fair free-market"?

Anything at all to show regulations as being beneficial?

Fraud is not fraud because of regulations.

Regulations define what companies must do in terms of their reporting requirements, auditing requirements, reserve requirements, how they deal with commercial paper, what they have to pay their employees etc.. etc.. etc...

Those are regulations.

Fraud has nothing to do with regulation of business.

Regulations are supposedly designed to prevent and detect fraud.

However, we see that regulations don't work in preventing and detecting fraud.

In fact, they do the opposite!

They create moral hazard instead.

People assume the government is monitoring these investment houses to ensure they are operating on the up-and-up, yet the SEC is run by a bunch of clueless morons. Bush or no Bush, the SEC is full of idiots.

Madoff was sniffed out by other investors that knew his profits were too large and the fact his ponzi scheme came crashing down.

The SEC played no role at all.



[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Regulations are supposedly designed to prevent and detect fraud.

However, we see that regulations don't work in preventing and detecting fraud.

Regulation takes humans to detect and humans to ENFORCE and if the idea of regulation is contrary to the HUMAN/S Belief set, like you - it cannot work.

You are right there, but that is why I would not vote for you

Capitalism is only good ran in controled conditions.
Who liked the Microsoft monopol generated by capitalism?
The goverment had to step in and slap Microsoft with fake excuses to keep competition up, and this is just an example out of many.

Soon Google will own everything, google nice as a search engine, but google everything? The "capitalistic goverment" will soon have to act agains like a bunch of "socialist slimes" to make google play nice, just as with microsoft. Why? Because once one becomes god there is nothing else left.


[edit on 29-12-2009 by pepsi78]

But,,, still not seeing any proof or even a single actual regulation that is some how beneficial to a company and/or halting legit growth in any sector of business.

OK, lets look at teen unemployment and the minimum wage.

If I start news paper stand and I want to hire a highschool kid for 4 bucks an hour, because that's all i can afford, to run my news stand, I can't do that.

Even if the kid agrees to work for 4 bucks an hour, I can't hire him.

So what's better?

A kid with no job, or a kid making 4 bucks an hour peddling news papers?

This is just one example.

Lets look at another.

Sarbanes Oxley - a total massive farce of regulatory overhead that does absolutely nothing to prevent fraud.

All these reporting requirements costing billions upon billions of dollars in business expenses to comply with, yet the instances of fraud have not decreased in the slightest. That is a MASSIVE waste of productive business capital that could be used elsewhere.

Its just like gun laws. They do NOTHING to reduce crime and murders. Why? Because murders don't give a flying crap about gun laws!

You punish people for murder, you punish people for fraud, but all this regulation isn't going to prevent fraud.




[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by lordtyp0

So the SEC which had long been crippled by Bush at the time Maddof came about, is worthless because they didn't do anything... which proves Regulations are a huge benefit for companies becoming Monopolies?

You realize I hope: That Fraud is Fraud BECAUSE of a regulation? ie: A law that regulates behavior and defines legal from not.

But,,, still not seeing any proof or even a single actual regulation that is some how beneficial to a company and/or halting legit growth in any sector of business.

Any specific regulation that facilitates unfair advantage to a company? (the healthcare bill: not a regulation.). Something that backs up your thesis statement of "Deregulation is needed to allow companies to prosper in a fair free-market"?

Anything at all to show regulations as being beneficial?

Fraud is not fraud because of regulations.

Regulations define what companies must do in terms of their reporting requirements, auditing requirements, reserve requirements, how they deal with commercial paper, what they have to pay their employees etc.. etc.. etc...

Those are regulations.

Fraud has nothing to do with regulation of business.

Regulations are supposedly designed to prevent and detect fraud.

However, we see that regulations don't work in preventing and detecting fraud.

In fact, they do the opposite!

They create moral hazard instead.

People assume the government is monitoring these investment houses to ensure they are operating on the up-and-up, yet the SEC is run by a bunch of clueless morons. Bush or no Bush, the SEC is full of idiots.

Madoff was sniffed out by other investors that knew his profits were too large and the fact his ponzi scheme came crashing down.

The SEC played no role at all.
[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

So which is it? Regulations are worthless and ignored thus should be done away with? Or: Regulations give unfair competition benefits to certain companies at the cost of the free-market?

Madoff was of course a special case: He had buddies in the SEC that forbade investigating. So, he's a special case.

Had the regulations been in place earlier: enron's scandal would not have happened-or at least there would be a bigger record. Regulations came too late for that of course.

The regulations you cited though: Are not really regulations, they are more of a basic business practice set, or are separate laws.

Regulation: Must file quarterly business earnings.
Regulation: Must conform to OSHA.
Regulation: Cannot act on insider information to make a profit.
Regulation: Because different business have different requirements, you cannot mix the profits of subsidies.

Etc.

Still not seeing anything to back your claims I must say. Though, we've been at this all day. Suppose if theres no regulations provided, I should prob bugger off and do something else for awhile.

So which is it? Regulations are worthless and ignored thus should be done away with? Or: Regulations give unfair competition benefits to certain companies at the cost of the free-market?

They do both.

Sarbanes for example creates massive overhead that creates an enormous barrier to entry for new startups when competing against established businesses.

At the same time, Sarbanes is absolutely worthless at its intended function of preventing and detecting fraud.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

But,,, still not seeing any proof or even a single actual regulation that is some how beneficial to a company and/or halting legit growth in any sector of business.

OK, lets look at teen unemployment and the minimum wage.

If I start news paper stand and I want to hire a highschool kid for 4 bucks an hour, because that's all i can afford, to run my news stand, I can't do that.

Even if the kid agrees to work for 4 bucks an hour, I can't hire him.

So what's better?

A kid with no job, or a kid making 4 bucks an hour peddling news papers?

This is just one example.

Lets look at another.

Sarbanes Oxley - a total massive farce of regulatory overhead that does absolutely nothing to prevent fraud.

All these reporting requirements costing billions upon billions of dollars in business expenses to comply with, yet the instances of fraud have not decreased in the slightest. That is a MASSIVE waste of productive business capital that could be used elsewhere.

Its just like gun laws. They do NOTHING to reduce crime and murders. Why? Because murders don't give a flying crap about gun laws!

You punish people for murder, you punish people for fraud, but all this regulation isn't going to prevent fraud.




[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Well mr modern man if you lived in the days where everything was geared to give advantage to capital you might not see it that way. In a mining town, where mining might be the only source of work, what would keep you from getting woefully underpaid or indentured to the boss man? But you can't really experience that now can you, maybe you might move to a country that produces our goods and then report back.

If you cannot meet a basic capital output you have no business in business.
Turn on TV buddy, you see that business is alive and well in the era on minimum wage go figure.

Sarbanes Oxley worked fine until free marketeers, your type of folk wrote this abomination, coupled with a certain regim that shared, these Randian ideals.

gramm leach bliley act of 1999


Note S&L occurred in a state that loves this stuff

Note the consequence of the ideology that gave birth to GLB and the president who did not like regulation just the same

and the producers, sunk the economy with less restriction and oversight

You are peddling an extremist fairy tale IMO

Originally posted by mnemeth1

So which is it? Regulations are worthless and ignored thus should be done away with? Or: Regulations give unfair competition benefits to certain companies at the cost of the free-market?

They do both.

Sarbanes for example creates massive overhead that creates an enormous barrier to entry for new startups when competing against established businesses.

At the same time, Sarbanes is absolutely worthless at its intended function of preventing and detecting fraud.

and only after modifying and disarming Sarbanes with less restrictions and regulations do we see the largest fraud in modern history. Are you trying to prove our point or what?

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by mnemeth1

But,,, still not seeing any proof or even a single actual regulation that is some how beneficial to a company and/or halting legit growth in any sector of business.

OK, lets look at teen unemployment and the minimum wage.

If I start news paper stand and I want to hire a highschool kid for 4 bucks an hour, because that's all i can afford, to run my news stand, I can't do that.

Even if the kid agrees to work for 4 bucks an hour, I can't hire him.

So what's better?

A kid with no job, or a kid making 4 bucks an hour peddling news papers?

This is just one example.

Lets look at another.

Sarbanes Oxley - a total massive farce of regulatory overhead that does absolutely nothing to prevent fraud.

All these reporting requirements costing billions upon billions of dollars in business expenses to comply with, yet the instances of fraud have not decreased in the slightest. That is a MASSIVE waste of productive business capital that could be used elsewhere.

Its just like gun laws. They do NOTHING to reduce crime and murders. Why? Because murders don't give a flying crap about gun laws!

You punish people for murder, you punish people for fraud, but all this regulation isn't going to prevent fraud.




[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Well mr modern man if you lived in the days where everything was geared to give advantage to capital you might not see it that way. In a mining town, where mining might be the only source of work, what would keep you from getting woefully underpaid or indentured to the boss man? But you can't really experience that now can you, maybe you might move to a country that produces our goods and then report back.

If you cannot meet a basic capital output you have no business in business.
Turn on TV buddy, you see that business is alive and well in the era on minimum wage go figure.

Sarbanes Oxley worked fine until free marketeers, your type of folk wrote this abomination, coupled with a certain regim that shared, these Randian ideals.

gramm leach bliley act of 1999


Note S&L occurred in a state that loves this stuff

Note the consequence of the ideology that gave birth to GLB and the president who did not like regulation just the same

and the producers, sunk the economy with less restriction and oversight

You are peddling an extremist fairy tale IMO

The fairy tale is a socialist utopia.

Its always just one more regulation away.

Originally posted by Janky Red



and only after modifying and disarming Sarbanes with less restrictions and regulations do we see the largest fraud in modern history. Are you trying to prove our point or what?

So you think Sarbanes would have detected the Madoff fraud?

LOL

Do have any idea how much fraud is going on right now in the markets?

We got a quadrillion dollar derivatives market.

We got a central bank handing out trillions with absolutely no oversight what-so-ever.

We got banks operating a massive carry trade with the fed's outrageous zero percent interest rates.

ALL FRAUD!

The banks are re-capitalizing themselves right now with phony money!

Sarbanes is a complete joke.

It didn't stop madoff, more requirements wouldn't have stopped madoff, nothing would have prevented it.

What ultimately sniffed him out was other investors questioning his massive profits and the fact his ponzi collapsed.

The entire god damn monetary system is a fraud!

Fraud is fraud, you don't need regulations to prevent and detect it. You need to change the monetary system and get rid of regulations that create moral hazard to prevent it.



[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by mnemeth1

But,,, still not seeing any proof or even a single actual regulation that is some how beneficial to a company and/or halting legit growth in any sector of business.

OK, lets look at teen unemployment and the minimum wage.

If I start news paper stand and I want to hire a highschool kid for 4 bucks an hour, because that's all i can afford, to run my news stand, I can't do that.

Even if the kid agrees to work for 4 bucks an hour, I can't hire him.

So what's better?

A kid with no job, or a kid making 4 bucks an hour peddling news papers?

This is just one example.

Lets look at another.

Sarbanes Oxley - a total massive farce of regulatory overhead that does absolutely nothing to prevent fraud.

All these reporting requirements costing billions upon billions of dollars in business expenses to comply with, yet the instances of fraud have not decreased in the slightest. That is a MASSIVE waste of productive business capital that could be used elsewhere.

Its just like gun laws. They do NOTHING to reduce crime and murders. Why? Because murders don't give a flying crap about gun laws!

You punish people for murder, you punish people for fraud, but all this regulation isn't going to prevent fraud.




[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Well mr modern man if you lived in the days where everything was geared to give advantage to capital you might not see it that way. In a mining town, where mining might be the only source of work, what would keep you from getting woefully underpaid or indentured to the boss man? But you can't really experience that now can you, maybe you might move to a country that produces our goods and then report back.

If you cannot meet a basic capital output you have no business in business.
Turn on TV buddy, you see that business is alive and well in the era on minimum wage go figure.

Sarbanes Oxley worked fine until free marketeers, your type of folk wrote this abomination, coupled with a certain regim that shared, these Randian ideals.

gramm leach bliley act of 1999


Note S&L occurred in a state that loves this stuff

Note the consequence of the ideology that gave birth to GLB and the president who did not like regulation just the same

and the producers, sunk the economy with less restriction and oversight

You are peddling an extremist fairy tale IMO

The fairy tale is a socialist utopia.

Its always just one more regulation away.

I am not that hard core - I am not a communist or a free marketeer either way.

They are both fairy tales, both extreme

I believe in moderation myself

Originally posted by Janky Red

I am not that hard core - I am not a communist or a free marketeer either way.

They are both fairy tales, both extreme

I believe in moderation myself

If regulation actually worked, I'd be all for it.

Of course, it doesn't work, it hasn't worked, and it does nothing but damage market competition and create moral hazard.

We got epic fraud going on right now due to the SYSTEM we have setup. The problems are SYSTEMIC - that means you can't fix them with band-aid regulations that supposedly will prevent and detect the fraud.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Janky Red



and only after modifying and disarming Sarbanes with less restrictions and regulations do we see the largest fraud in modern history. Are you trying to prove our point or what?

So you think Sarbanes would have detected the Madoff fraud?

LOL

Do have any idea how much fraud is going on right now in the markets?

We got a quadrillion dollar derivatives market.

We got a central bank handing out trillions with absolutely no oversight what-so-ever.

We got banks operating a massive carry trade with the fed's outrageous zero percent interest rates.

ALL FRAUD!

The banks are re-capitalizing themselves right now with phony money!

Sarbanes is a complete joke.

It didn't stop madoff, more requirements wouldn't have stopped madoff, nothing would have prevented it.

What ultimately sniffed him out was other investors questioning his massive profits and the fact his ponzi collapsed.

The entire god damn monetary system is a fraud!

Fraud is fraud, you don't need regulations to prevent and detect it. You need to change the monetary system and get rid of regulations that create moral hazard to prevent it.



[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Whos talking Madoff?

I am talking the other stuff... worse stuff

And NO we are a nation of rules and laws, why should the rich be the only ones that get to create their own framework, thats BS.

Moral Hazard - I say criminal hazard - laws are expressions of morality that are solidified.

Are itching for an elite system and a common man system, you seem to be advocating
a wild west for capital, I say extremism

And you failed to address why anti trust laws were put into place before the birth of the communist state.


The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914
Robinson-Patman Act of 1936
Celler-Kefauver Act of 1959.

Point is - communism was not in practice when the first of the cartel busting took place

The Bolsheviks took control in 1917- the BEGINNING of Communism in practice

So if this was addressed before communism was a threat - how does your theory stand?

Explain

thanks for the vigorous debate, it is people like you that keep me coming back

Indeed Capitalism and Socialism create different threads of influence, but "Corruption" is the cancer that once introduced into either one works just like cancer and slowly begins to kill the host body regardless of your politics.

We must remove the cancer within America and if that means surgery we better hope we dont get a Democratic affirmative action surgeon. He will most likely not be qualified to perform surgery but heck, even a retard can figure out that all cancerous material must be remove from the body politic and must be prevented from returning to the body. What we have to worry about is the desire to begin removing the cancer from within our mists as soon as possible. Failure to remove the cancer that sickens America will ensure that we will perish into history and if that happens, the last bastion of freedom and liberty will have truly passed into a dark history of inaction.

All bets will be off because if we do not cut out the cancer eating the core politics of America, we will die. Socialism or Capitalism or Communism or Nazism it wont matter because corruption dooms all its victims to a slow death. Death is final. Surgery is an elective process allowed to benefit the body and as such we should begin to cut out the cancer of corruption so we can begin to live again. Our life depends on it.

"The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church" Ayn Rand

The women knows what she is talking about.

while in this case monopolies can and will come into existence, the market , left to its own devices will see these monopolies limited by economic forces until such time as market pressure results in competitive alternatives or even a total change in the technology

Originally posted by Phedreus
"The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church" Ayn Rand

The women knows what she is talking about.

while in this case monopolies can and will come into existence, the market , left to its own devices will see these monopolies limited by economic forces until such time as market pressure results in competitive alternatives or even a total change in the technology

Rand is an extremist...

Left to its own devices competition is smashed - just like the railroads, steal and standard oil teamed up in the 1800's, they dealt only with eachother, watered down stock and fixed prices... Exactly why the anti trust was invented - born of a free market.

Or just as walmart takes a hit on prices to out compete new store hosting areas, they lower prices below cost, kill ma and pa and then corner the market.

This is elitist propaganda

Read pages 1,2, and this one.

Started getting macroeconomics 201 dyslexia.

Regulations such as anti-trust and the like are for the very purpose of causing monopolies and the like.

Let me put it this way, if a law is written to supposedly stop something, it invariably does the exact opposite.

Why were corporations allowed to form?

Simple, to protect the capital of the ones incorporating.

LLC's and their like protect the capital of the original investors.

How do you now start a company?

Use someone else's money, like the taxpayers or other investors. Limit your liabilities and maximize your ability to steal other peoples money legally.

Sole proprietorships are things of the past. They require the owner to HAVE to be legit. If not, than their assets are seizable.

Regulations are a way to control the marketplace and institute non competitiveness.

As for safety, if a product hurts someone, instead of allowing lawyers to limit liability to money, how about throwing their sorry arses in jail. Problems solved.

Corporatism, lawyers, politicians and their ilk, love to say that their regulations will institute protection for the consumer. But in real world applications, they have the exact opposite effect.

Sorry to wade in so late OP. Some of these things may have been covered.

A couple of things to consider-Trusts-Foundations-Etc-Etc
Do any of these things exist in a Free Market? NO!
One must be responsible for the very actions of the company you run.
I never once heard of a CEO going to jail for killing someone, only when they steal the wrong peoples money!