Would you trust corporations to self-regulate?

Anyone answering this question with "yes" has NO CLUE about how business works

A business' goal is to make PROFIT, that's their main goal. They are amoral constructs and self-regulation evidently doesn't work.

Not after reading this excellent Rolling Stone article posted in another recent thread.I thought I had a good concept of the corruption at GS..: I find I had no idea;read these 6pages:

www.rollingstone.com...
(It changed my mind on more than a few things)
"burn them!!!!"

Originally posted by 46ACE
Not after reading this excellent Rolling Stone article posted in another recent thread.I thought I had a good concept of the corruption at GS..: I find I had no idea;read these 6pages:

www.rollingstone.com...

(It changed my mind on more than a few things)
"burn them!!!!"

edit on 1-10-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

I started a thread about this very article last week. Many more people have to read that, because it seems most don't realize how deep that conspiracy goes. The entire population is being played!!! And instead of waking up, they focus on that ridiculous left vs right crap, or some stupid planet X we have no objective evidence for. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

Self regulation and profit are diametrically opposed. Believing in the concept of self regulating corporations is like leaving a bone in front of a greedy, untrained dog and expecting that he won't eat it.

IRM

Absolutely not! corporations obviously can't self-regulate but when you take the power away from the federal government and in the hands of the people/free markets, the corporations can no longer circumvent the people and lobby the government for 'favors'.

Let's look at the anti-GMO movement, there are obviously non-profit groups that are fighting GMOs and Monsanto all the way but Monsanto has so many strings set up in D.C. that the people are powerless. Imagine what could happen if the power was given to the people, total scrutinization and the corporations can't run to the government for help through bribes and lobbying.

Self regulation by any group is a joke and never ever works. As soon as anybody/group states they want this then the alarm bells should ring loudly because they obvioulsy have something to hide.

I'd like to thank everyone for their replies. This thread went farther than I though it would.

It appears that the issue is split, opinion-wise. Very few people would trust the corps. to self regulate, myself included. At the same time, very few people would trust the government to regulate them, myself included.
I'm not sure where that leaves us, but it seems the major problem is the size of some of these corps. The free market might work well if everyone started out even, and size was restricted to prevent too much growth. I know, communism and no motivation to succeed. Personally, once someone's in the 7-figure range, I don't care if they ever make another dime. With $1,000,000, I'd be "retired guy" for life. I, however, have no desire to be "Elmer Fudd, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht".

At this point, though, I don't see the free market working. The corps. are just too big to hurt. Suppose that one car company, with zero regulation, bought up every car company on the planet. Whether people liked them or not, they're going to keep buying cars. There's not a lot a free market could do if you're the only game in town. Upstart companies could easily be crushed by the conglomerate, making competition nonexistent.

So, in the end, I see no real solution, but at least I know that I don't go along with Dr. Paul on this issue, which is why I started this thread in the first place, to clarify my views on it. I still like a lot of his ideas, but this one, not so much.

How come you interventionist never get specific? What are some govt regulations you guys support and why? Do you interventionist believe there is a such thing as a bad regulation? Or are all govt regulations sacrosanct?

How come regulations didn't stop the savings and loan crisis, Madoff, Enron, WorldCom, etc?

How come countries with more economic freedom have far less corporatism than we do? The U.S isn't even in the top ten any more when it comes to economic freedom, but even though we keep piling the regulations and restrictions on, the corporations still get bigger and more powerful and our standard of living keeps going down....

How come Canada has a housing bubble, even though their banks are heavily regulated? How come Australia has a housing bubble and their banks too are heavily regulated? Or how about Sweden and Norway, they are often praised for having the right mixture of regulation and freedom, but they too are bubble economies -- how come their regulations didn't stop their bubbles from forming?

reply to post by Rockdisjoint

How come regulations didn't stop the savings and loan crisis, Madoff, Enron, WorldCom, etc?

Because the regulations that would have prevented all this were systematically removed!!! Mostly through lobbyists paying off politicians...which is the same reason the BP oil spill happened. If proper regulations would have forced BP to apply proper safety measures, it wouldn't have happened. Sadly the oil (and banking) lobby is incredibly strong and basically using politicians as sock puppets to remove regulations. That's why you have fools like Bachmann proposing to drill at the Everglades

Bush removed the last few loan and real estate regulations that would have prevented the crisis...most of it with this single speech:



"Loans for everyone, doesn't matter if they can afford it. Yaaaaayyyyy!"

Makes perfect sense, right?

As for you asking regarding housing bubbles in countries with more regulation, you don't seem to understand how real estate works. Bubbles aren't necessarily the result of regulation or deregulation...there's a ton of price factors.

Regarding the title question; You've got to be kidding, I'd trust them about as much as I would trust a new born baby not to crap in their freshly changed diaper.

reply to post by Dasher


Sorry, but what you are posting is pure idealistic belief, and completely ignores the reality of a free market system as proposed by the Mises Institute. Under a free market system, average people are turned into slaves serving their corporate masters. Corporations are allowed to write and enforce their own laws, typically turning local governments into their personal police force.

Unless you live in Andy Griffith's Mayberry RFD, you can not march in and protest at the desk of the mayor.

Most of us live in suburban sprawls these days, which are a direct result of free market policies, concentrating the populations to drive up home prices, increase driving time, insurance costs, and all that.

Try going into the local mayors office in some suburban sprawl. You will find yourself unable to gain entry, and attempts to force your way in will either result in your arrest, or suicide by cop. Besides, most of the power at the local level belongs to the judge, who issues warrants from their bench.

The free market presidents of Reagan, Bush and Bush have done everything in their power to eliminate individual rights. They fully believe in regulating the lives of individuals, while turning a blind eye to the crimes committed by corporations. This is the real world reality of free market ideology.

Market economies only function efficiently when they are government by an evenly enforced fair set of rules, when government instituted by the people, uses its derived power to secure our liberty by protecting us from those who would deprive us of our liberty, and in this day and age, that is the giant ICs.

What we need now more than anything is to end giant corporations as we currently know them. On this last part, I think we agree.

reply to post by MrXYZ

As for you asking regarding housing bubbles in countries with more regulation, you don't seem to understand how real estate works. Bubbles aren't necessarily the result of regulation or deregulation...there's a ton of price factors.

First you say regulations would have prevented this current crisis, then you say regulations don't have much to do with it.... in fact Canada's so-called perfect banking system proves that a lack of regulations have nothing to do with business cycles.

Interventionism, such as central banking causes these distortions.

No I dont care how good hearted they are. It cant work for one reason "If I dont do it, somebody else will". It just takes one competitor to not be a goodie2shoes, to drive the others out of buisness, unless they adapt.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

As for you asking regarding housing bubbles in countries with more regulation, you don't seem to understand how real estate works. Bubbles aren't necessarily the result of regulation or deregulation...there's a ton of price factors.

First you say regulations would have prevented this current crisis, then you say regulations don't have much to do with it.... in fact Canada's so-called perfect banking system proves that a lack of regulations have nothing to do with business cycles.

Interventionism, such as central banking causes these distortions.

edit on 2-10-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)

There are multiple reasons for real estate bubbles, not just deregulation. In the case of the US housing bubble build-up and resulting crash, deregulation was without a doubt the main cause.

The problem is, deregulation of the investment business is directly responsible for a whole range of other issues. Take oil prices for example. If more regulation were in place, the price of gas would be around 40% cheaper...mostly because that's how much speculation (sometimes without even having to fill orders) drives up prices.

A bubble can also form if the economy is doing well in a sustainable way, that's correct...but compared to a country where the entire market has been systematically deregulated, a market with proper regulations in place will suffer less. Take Switzerland for example, housing prices are inflated in a lot of high-end destinations such as Zurich or Geneva....yet when the housing market crashed, it only happened for a few short months...they're already rising again. Why? Because the market's quite heavily regulated in Switzerland.

Of course there's some unnecessary regulations, but in that case, it's just a matter of making it BETTER...not just come out and say "no regulation would be best, let business regulate themselves"...that idea in itself is ludacris!!

reply to post by subject x


Nice summary.

Essentially under free market principles, through leverage buyouts, and corporations owning large chunks of each other through various different names, it is all pretty much one giant corporation these days.

Here is a good thread that provides some information on this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I see representative government as the only possible tool available for breaking this growing power and influence of corporations in their drive to turn us all back into slaves.

We need to end giant corporations.

Originally posted by poet1b
I see representative government as the only possible tool available for breaking this growing power and influence of corporations in their drive to turn us all back into slaves.

Maybe you mean representative government in a different way but I see representative government as the reason corporations even exist. I guess a buddy question for the one in the OP is "Do you believe elected officials actually represent you?"

In our reality where corporations are regulated by the lobbied/bribed federal government, the will of the people is automatically bypassed no matter how much effort is put into it. But in a free market where the power lies directly in the hands of the people, what do you think will happen? The more local the power, the more influence they have, the more immediate their actions take effect.

reply to post by MrXYZ

There are multiple reasons for real estate bubbles, not just deregulation. In the case of the US housing bubble build-up and resulting crash, deregulation was without a doubt the main cause.

That doesn't make sense. If Keynesianist and other interventionist claim that economic downturns would not occur if the economy was heavily regulated and they boast that Canada has the best banking system in the world because they are heavily regulated, but Canada still has a housing bubble, so the interventionist claim that strong regulations prevent booms and busts is a lie.

I'm not sure how you can deny that.

The problem is, deregulation of the investment business is directly responsible for a whole range of other issues. Take oil prices for example. If more regulation were in place, the price of gas would be around 40% cheaper...mostly because that's how much speculation (sometimes without even having to fill orders) drives up prices.

Serious question: Do you interventionist accept economic laws such as supply and demand? And you accept that inflation tends to drive prices up?

Take Switzerland for example, housing prices are inflated in a lot of high-end destinations such as Zurich or Geneva....yet when the housing market crashed, it only happened for a few short months...they're already rising again. Why? Because the market's quite heavily regulated in Switzerland.

No, they are starting to rise because they are printing money again.

Of course there's some unnecessary regulations, but in that case, it's just a matter of making it BETTER...not just come out and say "no regulation would be best, let business regulate themselves"...that idea in itself is ludacris!!

Well, imo the OP's use of self-regulate is very misleading, this thread should be more of a discussion of market regulation vs govt regulation..... since firms already ``self-regulate``, the govt doesn't tell them how many goods to produce or how many employees to hire. The govt doesn't tell store owners what time to open shop or what time to close.

At the rate interventionist are going though, the govt will soon explicitly begin to dictate how private businesses operate, like in Nazi Germany.

Originally posted by daskakik
I guess a buddy question for the one in the OP is "Do you believe elected officials actually represent you?"

There's the quandry. Corporations are corrupt, so we can't trust them to self-regulate. Government is corrupt, so we can't trust them to handle the regulation. Where does that leave us? Stuck between the rock and the proverbial hard place.

I'm thinking more and more that our only viable choice is to just ride it out 'til it crashes. It's just a matter of time before something happens to upset the house of cards we currently live in. Maybe just the crumbling infrastructure. Maybe some cosmic event that kills our electricity/communications. Maybe the economy will do it. I just know that if just one vital resource takes a hit, the rest are sure to follow, post haste.

Say something simple, like gas getting to expensive to make trucking financially viable. Shortly after, we run out of food, fuel, everything that moves by truck is no longer on the shelves. With no fuel, we won't have electricity very long, the water plants shut down, people can't get medications, hospitals are back to bandages and needles, people die by the millions. All these systems are too interconnected, to centralized, to stand independently, and the loss of any one, will bring the rest with it.

That's the point where we have the chance to scrap it, and start again. With everything already trashed, we don't have to worry about upsetting the apple cart, as we do now.

Kinda grim, but it's starting to look inevitable. At least, to me.

reply to post by daskakik


As Jean Paul Zodeaux clearly pointed out, corporate entities derive their existence from the states, not the federal government.

I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. constitution, to find out the purpose of representative government.

Stop voting for politicians who seek to undermine our representative government, and seek out representation that will serve the will of the people. It has been done before, and it will be done again.

At the end of WW II our nation was even deeper in debt, and coming out of the great depression. The U.S. not only reduced its own national debt down to very low levels, it helped rebuild the nations of its former enemies, and greatly expanded out nations infrastructure, leading to the economic boom of the sixties, and they did it all with high taxes on the rich and corporations, and sound regulation.

History has proven that not only does sound regulation work, but also that representative government can work, and is the best form of government in existence.

You might want to consider that you have been duped by a bunch of idealistic propaganda nonsense.