Would you trust corporations to self-regulate?

I'm just wondering, because Ron Paul seems to think so.

With central planning, everything shifts from one’s own judgment about safety, wisdom and relative benefits of a behavior, to the discretion of government bureaucrats. The question then becomes “what can I get away with,” and there will always be advantages for those who can afford lawyers to find the loopholes. The result then is that bad behavior, that would quickly fail under the free market, is propped up, protected and perpetuated, and sometimes good behavior is actually discouraged.

source

Now, I don't know enough about economics to know whether he's right or not, pertaining to his point that the market would correct "bad behavior" on it's own. I do, however, know enough to be pretty damn sure that corporations (huge ones, anyway) will always gravitate to policies that maximize profits, regardless of any "collateral damage" that may be caused. If this means that they go out of business (after pocketing the cash), they do so willingly, take the write-offs, and restart under another name.

Of all Dr. Paul's views, this one gives me the most pause. I'm not a fan of govenment interference in the market, but it seems plain that corporations can not be trusted to make the right decisions for society in general, that they are in it for profit...now!...and could care less about any problems these decisions might cause.

So, can anyone clarify why no government regulation would be better? We appear to be pretty deep into a corporatocracy already, and we can see the problems it's causing. Wouldn't removing regulation from the corporate world be similar to an open bar at an AA meeting?

Where did he ever say self regulate?

would you trust people to self-regulate? If not then the only other option is to trust a government to regulate everything and everyone.

P.s. most of the dangerous corporations are already working with the government and have no regulatory oversight. Haliburton, for example.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint

Well, if no-one else is regulating them, that just leaves themselves.
I would have thought that was obvious. I guess not...

Originally posted by filosophia
would you trust people to self-regulate?

No, not at all.

most of the dangerous corporations are already working with the government and have no regulatory oversight. Haliburton, for example.

So, it seems that no, they can't, or won't, self regulate.

The free market would regulate itself, however we do not have a free market. Do not take my statement as support of large, especially multi-national, corporations. I think the first thing a "free" market would need is an end to huge corporations, and especially an end to giving any business the same rights as people. Corporations strangle free market economics just as badly as government interference does. Some regulations are necessary, mainly those dealing with worker safety and child labor. Aside from those areas, and MAYBE some REASONABLE pollution laws, the government should stay out of the free market's way.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
The free market would regulate itself

Yeah, that's what Dr. Paul says, too.
Could you explain how it would do that?

reply to post by subject x


as governments worldwide actually are doing all the regulation corporations need, why change?
to answer your question : no way I would allow corporations self regulation. I could start drafting some arguments, but i feel others gave better answers already.

Here's a great insight in the development and the effects of corporations.

Here's what they think the documentary is about: :-)

About the Film

WINNER OF 26 INTERNATIONAL AWARDS! 10 Audience Choice Awards including the 2004 Sundance Film Festival.

Provoking, witty, stylish and sweepingly informative, THE CORPORATION explores the nature and spectacular rise of the dominant institution of our time. Part film and part movement, The Corporation is transforming audiences and dazzling critics with its insightful and compelling analysis. Taking its status as a legal "person" to the logical conclusion, the film puts the corporation on the psychiatrist's couch to ask "What kind of person is it?" The Corporation includes interviews with 40 corporate insiders and critics - including Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Milton Friedman, Howard Zinn, Vandana Shiva and Michael Moore - plus true confessions, case studies and strategies for change.

Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes
as governments worldwide actually are doing all the regulation corporations need, why change?

Well, it doesn't seem to be working out to well, judging from the markets and the collapsing economies of the world.
That would be a pretty good reason, I think.

reply to post by subject x


Would I trust corporations to self-regulate? Hell no. But that's not what Ron Paul has in mind. He doesn't want the federal government to regulate. States could have their own regulations.

reply to post by subject x


TWO WORDS H-E-L-L NO!!!
This is a joke right, a hypothetical ruse, no?
WTH? That's like giving a heavy crack head 30 lbs of crack and beleiveing they'll regulate it to last them for a month or two...you know it'd all be gone in a day!!!

Corporations cannot be trusted to regulate themselves, especially when shortcuts can lead to larger profits.

Given the opportunity we'd find companies once again leveraging child labor and dumping toxic chemicals in public water. This is why we create laws to halt such practices.

There is another word for what RP is advocating, It is "communism".

Economics does not work as a form of government. Governments exist to enforce the standards a nation lives by, enforcing laws against things like murder and rape, and fraud as well.

RP advocates legalizing fraud.

reply to post by subject x


The transferring of value is a vote. I tend to vote (via money, at this time) for clean food sources, well run local businesses, and well run online business which offer society an advantage which local business either cannot fill or are not currently filling.

In a free market, a person has real choices about how and where to spend their vote. If a business is exposed for being corrupt, people should be diligent enough to stop voting for it. The reason that a government becomes imperial is because people do not do their jobs as good judges.

Thank you for your thread, it certainly is a good way to point out the obvious weakness in anti-free-market thinking. Everyone wants businesses like BofA to go down, and meanwhile, the government props them up. How can a person, except by basic ignorance, not understand that certain systems should not be regulated by anyone else than the parties involved?

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
... however we do not have a free market... I think the first thing a "free" market would need is an end to huge corporations, and especially an end to giving any business the same rights as people. Corporations strangle free market economics just as badly as government interference does. Some regulations are necessary, mainly those dealing with worker safety and child labor. Aside from those areas, and MAYBE some REASONABLE pollution laws, the government should stay out of the free market's way.

couldn't agree more with the analysis
besides safety and child labour, "externalities" should be included (too short: externality is an economical reality that tends to have others pay for as much costs as possible), we should kill the "socialize costs, privatize profits" mechanism as well. There's nothing wrong with using collective, public means (tax money) for industrial purposes as long as the "return on investment" is indeed returned to ALL investors.

It should be a true democratic governments' task to define what the "externalities" are and who's going to pay for it.

Originally posted by subject x
reply to post by Rockdisjoint

 

Well, if no-one else is regulating them, that just leaves themselves.
I would have thought that was obvious. I guess not...

You have to be more specific.... what type of regulations are you talking about? Like, financial regulations or food and drug regulations or something else?

reply to post by subject x


I am not fully sure what you are communicating in this post, but do you understand that the current system we are under which is failing, is a regulated system? And that under a non-regulated system, businesses like BofA would be gone and the harm that current government regulations are trying to hide would already have begun healing? Instead, the economic (and social) wounds are infected because of the lack of wisdom in modern thinking.

reply to post by Cuervo

That kinda makes sense, but then again, a free market is a free market, with no regs from fed. or state government. Which is what he's calling for, from what I've read.

Bear with me, I'm just trying to understand Dr. Paul's position here. I agree with lot of what he says, but I can't seem to wrap my head around this one. It seems to me that the "free market", as referred to by Paul, is a corporate paradise, where they can do anything they want. I can't see that working out too well.

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by subject x

 

I am not fully sure what you are communicating in this post, but do you understand that the current system we are under which is failing, is a regulated system?

The problem is that certain kinds of deregulation have allowed the banks to run roughshod over the country?

Good, sensible, and practical regulation is needed. Enough to make sure that it keeps the criminal actions of the corporations under control, while ensuring that they are not totally handicapped to the point where they cannot provide jobs.

reply to post by poet1b


That's an interesting way to look at it, and while I understand the basis for your conclusion, it is entirely based on a poor understanding of free-market values and also a poor understanding of the motives behind communism. On paper communism is very "moral," but it is a very naive way to facilitate that which should come by volition. In fact, the common manifestation of communism is never "for the people," and the same goes for national socialism.