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.

 

Would you trust corporations to self-regulate?

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Isn't that what they pretty much do already?




posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 


Isn't it possible that Ronnie's views on free markets and self-regulating go hand in hand with his call for sound money and ending the fed?

Like, if the fed were abolished and our currency was restored, wouldn't that in itself limit what banks and corporations could do? And make it more realistic that self-regulation could be successful?

No bailouts means less risk taking means better behavior from our banks and large corporations.

Yes? No? I'm not expert on the economy, but I'm also not entirely clueless



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


I have answered these things thoroughly.

I've been posting more in this weekend than I have in a very long time.
I will be beginning my labor cycles for the week and probably won't return to a pattern of posting here so much, again, for a while... if at all. Productive and astute, and also exceptionally intriguing posts will garner my time, but not likely otherwise. There is just no way for me to justify so much investment into an internet forum while still being productive (unless the forum was my product). See ya here and there.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 


It's quite simple the corporate entity can not be trusted to self regulate, the government entity can not be trusted to self regulate, and the individual person no matter who they are can not be trusted to self regulate.

The only thing you can trust in is there greed, for that is the strongest emotion when it comes to all three entities and no its not love. Love is one of the weakest emotions that they are capable of, especially the human entity.

How does this system stay together then you ask? The answer to that is....it doesn't, it was never meant to stay together and function for long, nor was it designed to do that. Though it will still go on for a while, all three entities and everybody else is just riding the wave, and when the wave crashes so to will they.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


You pointed out what needs to be changed and how it could be better but you didn't really explain how it could come about. That has been my point all along. The system in place didn't just come about. It was put in place by forces that wanted it to be what it is.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
For the "Ron Paul never said that" folks....sorry. I've been hearing him say that he's against government regulation of the market. To me, that just leaves self regulation, as I think it's a bit foolish to think that "the market" is not the huge corps. these days, and that the "informed, concerned consumer" is about as common as bigfoot. I didn't, however, mean to put words in Dr. Paul's mouth. I was just trying to make some sense of his position.

A tip- if, instead of jumping up and down hollering "RP never said that!!!", you were to say "oh, no, that's not what he was saying. Let me explain what he really meant", you'd probably have a better chance of winning more support. I'm sure Dr. Paul would agree.


For the folks who have been answering with just "no" (however many times you want to say it), what's your alternative? Government regulation? Space brothers? I'd guarantee that most of y'all don't trust the gvt. any more than you do the corps. Neither do I, so I can hardly blame you.

I'm just not buying the concept that the market will suffice these days. Once huge profits have been pocketed, the mega-rich don't care if the business survives. Milk it for all you can get, right now, and then let it crash. Their profits are alredy banked, and can't be sued for by the consumer, as it's now personal wealth and not corporate.

The only way I can see the market regulating businesses is to force the corps. to dissolve, and start over with an even playing field. Then, maybe, the market would have a chance. I'm still not real confident in that, but just maybe. However, if that's not considered "government regulation", then I don't know what is.

Feel free to educate me on why I'm wrong. I often am. I'm used to it. I'm not an economist, or a political science major. I'm just trying to...well...deny my own ignorance, I guess.

Just for the record, I still prefer Dr. Paul to anyone else I've seen thus far. Even if I don't agree with him on this issue.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


Um, you need to then start recognizing that when Ron Paul, or any of the other free market priests talk about free markets, it is not how you envision free markets to be, not in any form or frame.

When most people talk about free markets, they most certainly do believe corporations should continue to exist, and essentially rule the world. That is clearly the goal of the free market politicians.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 


In many ways they already do through the manipulation of data which is required to satisfy regulatory requirements.

The regulatory model works poorly, both on the government and corporate level and works poorly for the simple reason in that there is absolutely no transparency to the results of the regulations. Did you purchase a product today from a firm who has been hit for repeated environmental abuses? Without question you did. Can you find out that information prior to making purchases? No. Audits regarding regulations are inconsistently performed and it would be hard not to view the firms they target as either politically motivated or simply the selection of firms that are easy to audit. There is absolutely zero transparency within the government, something Obama indicated was a top priority with the level of redaction increasing on an annual basis - pretty much we'll be getting the title only on FOIA docs.

The regulations are overly cumbersome, incoherently written and the objective of compliance very subjective and based on the actual regulator. Many of the regulations are absolute nonsense and have no real importance, other than it seems to break the ass of those being regulated. Or, they are subjective to what is important to the person writing the regulations, having no societal importance what so ever.

The entire regulatory model needs to be scrapped and replaced. Corporations should not self regulate, but the regulations they need to comply with should be simple and the results published in an easy to read format with like enterprises listed side by side. If that information was available, the free market would have an impact as consumers could make more informed decisions.

The model today is a failed one based on the bias that everything needs to be regulated. When everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. Figure out what is critical, develop simply, quantitative measurements, publish the results and severely punish those who purposefully manipulate results. Make the punishments harsh - for example, should a big pharma firm manipulate data, not only do those responsible get fined and go to jail, the firm loses all rights to active patents, pushing all of their drugs to generic immediately which would cost them billions. Things like that would get the boards of directors far more engaged as well.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by subject x
For the "Ron Paul never said that" folks....sorry. I've been hearing him say that he's against government regulation of the market. To me, that just leaves self regulation

A tip- if, instead of jumping up and down hollering "RP never said that!!!", you were to say "oh, no, that's not what he was saying. Let me explain what he really meant", you'd probably have a better chance of winning more support. I'm sure Dr. Paul would agree.


Its very frustrating to see you say that because I disagree completely that I didn't explain in full. First I explained how Ron Paul has never advocated for self-regulation, then I explained what regulation free-market proponents do want. Ron Paul, being a politician, is likely more in favor of a mandated civil court system as the primary regulatory framework for businesses (corporations would not exist under a free-market but businesses would exist). Whats clear is that is is certainly at the very least in favor of the civil court system. Here is what Paul has said in response to the BP oil spill:

Ron Paul: Well, they have to pay, everybody knows that, and I think they know that, too. So they might as well concede to this. But I don’t think BP is being a good example of the free enterprise system. You know, I think that they’re very much in tune with big government, and here the process is sort of suspicious. Under what law have they done this? There’s not even an executive order, not even a congressional approval, and here they’re dealing with 20 billion dollars. I think they should pay 100 billion dollars if there are a 100 billion dollars worth of damage.

David Asman: They should pay… by the way, isn’t there an actual provision in this supplemental bill that they’re trying to push through Congress, a 100 billion dollars, or whatever it is now, to force some of the cleanup that BP should be paying? Aren’t they forcing some of the costs of this on tax payers instead of BP?

Ron Paul: That’s right. And that’s exactly the opposite of what it should be. It should be the corporation that did the damage that should pay for this. So I just don’t like the process; I think they should pay and there are legal ways of doing this. But I’m very suspicious of how this has come about. And this whole idea that somebody defends the rule of law and says that you shouldn’t beat up on a corporation and drive them into bankruptcy, yeah, they should be dealt with in a legal fashion and hopefully they don’t go bankrupt. Fortunately, they are a wealthy company.

So they should pay the bills and I think they’re capable of doing this. But this whole idea that you have to close down all oil wells in the Gulf, and that means it will hurt BP even more plus all the oil companies, plus all the people who now are going to lose their jobs in addition. And this is absurd to say that because Obama issues an order, closes down all the other oil rigs, that they make BP pay for that damage. They have enough to pay for.

Source: www.ronpaul.com...

So, while I have not read any of Ron Paul books to know for sure, its a fair bet he would advocate a strong and efficient system of civil court to keep businesses from committing fraud and polluting.

While I don't object to mandated civil court systems, I believe that ethical shopping is the far-and-away winner when it comes to regulating businesses. By ethical shopping practices, I mean people should join consumer unions or buy goods with certain certifications. For example, buying only UL-certified electronics, and buying only fair-trade certified bread would be examples of ethical shopping programs.

The fair trade logo is going to do 1000% more to ensure living wages are paid in comparison to the Federal minimum wage, which only guarantees that jobs will be shipped overseas! Living wages are something that a system of civil court is unable to address, the US Federal government is unable to address although people are fooled into thinking such a ridiculous thing, but ethical shopping practices can address. That is the main point and hopefully you can see the value in it.
edit on 3-10-2011 by seachange because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by seachange
 


I think you accurately capture Paul's views here. This is a great example how a libertarian view is manipulated by the elites who see more freedom as a threat to the power of the state.

"Ron Paul wants to free polluters to ruin the environment" statements like that when in reality, based on a solid civil court model, the polluters are in fact treated far more harshly. Paul would also be supportive of the model I described above where transparency provides information that enable people to make informed, free choices which would bring more market forces to bear and reward competent and socially responsible management. People suggest that a more lax regulatory environment would enable companies to compete on price and as such irresponsible acts of the firm would have no impact as people would choose the lowest cost choice. If the cost of irresponsibility via civil action was as high as it should be, that behavior would destroy the firm's margins making at a minimum that behavior poor business and ultimately destroy that firm. Before that would happen, certainly the board either on their own or through pressure from shareholders would remove management due to their destruction of shareholder value.

The state has used regulation to run around the legislative process for decades. By far the largest expanse of the government has been through the implemention of regulations, not legislation. Paul and other libertarians would halt that process, which is easily viewed as unconstitutional due to the scope of the regulations, the extent to which they impact society and the original intent that such matters be implemented through the legislative process rather than executive branch fiat.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by seachange
Its very frustrating to see you say that because I disagree completely that I didn't explain in full. First I explained how Ron Paul has never advocated for self-regulation, then I explained what regulation free-market proponents do want.

Sorry to frustrate you. The interview with RP you linked to only had him saying "the market would regulate", unless I missed something. He didn't get much more into it, from what I read. I propose that the market is the corporations, or if not them, certainly their owners. That means that they would be actually self-regulating.
That's how I'm seeing it, anyway. Feel free to show me otherwise, I'll listen.

Ron Paul, being a politician, is likely more in favor of a mandated civil court system as the primary regulatory framework for businesses (corporations would not exist under a free-market but businesses would exist).

It's a little late for that, isn't it? The corps. already exist, and they're not going anywhere peacefully. If the government tried to dissolve them, they'd just move to another country. If no country would take them, they'd buy one.

Whats clear is that is is certainly at the very least in favor of the civil court system.

Once the money has gone from corporate wealth to private wealth, there's not much to sue for, and since we already have corporations, the private wealth is legally protected. Go ahead, sue Exxon into recievership. Shut them right down. The owners will take the write-off, and open up under a new name, maybe in a new country.

While I don't object to mandated civil court systems, I believe that ethical shopping is the far-and-away winner when it comes to regulating businesses. By ethical shopping practices, I mean people should join consumer unions or buy goods with certain certifications. For example, buying only UL-certified electronics, and buying only fair-trade certified bread would be examples of ethical shopping programs.

Yeah, that'll happen. I guess you, like Dr. Paul, have a better opinion of humanity than I have. Everthing I see tells me that the vast majority don't care, just buying whatever's cheapest, and have no interest in being educated otherwise.

Living wages are something that a system of civil court is unable to address, the US Federal government is unable to address although people are fooled into thinking such a ridiculous thing, but ethical shopping practices can address. That is the main point and hopefully you can see the value in it.

Absolutely. I see the value, and agree 110% in principal. However, as I just mentioned, I don't believe that's going to happen.

So here we have a system in which the corps. are beyond the control of civil court, and the populace to ignorant/apathetic/distracted to exert control via ethical shopping. That pretty much leaves them effectively self-regulating. If the world was a fair, equal, ethical place, it might be different, but it's not.

That's how it looks to me, anyway.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

Again, I specifically listed general possibilities. Besides, when still dealing with setting goals and assessing our current position, the particular path between those two points is temporarily moot; Your inquiry does not serve a purpose at this juncture. There is an order to good progress and a charity to good progress.

reply to post by poet1b
 

Sorry, no time to keep replying to nonsense. It's as though you refuse to actually comprehend the matter.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
the consumer base regulates the free market.

corporations regulating is a joke.
governments regulating is a joke.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


And the right to print money allows the Feds to get away with such unwise conduct.
The states should not and do not have that right. Money should be a national issue, but deregulated and locked down so that it is not manipulated by The Corrupt Money Changers.

I find it interesting that people are not responding to the post I just linked to. It says a lot about the thoughts and subconscious of people.

Oh, and nothing is wrong with competition. If one state can offer a product cheaper than another, then there is probably a good reason, so stop whining (not you personally, AwakeInNM).
edit on 10/2/2011 by Dasher because: (no reason given)


I was responding more to the interstate competition subject, but I agree.. the federal government is supposed to create currency, not a private corporation, which the federal reserve is (as we all know by now).



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


Not at that point of the plan? Honestly many people know what is wrong and how it can be fixed. They have talked about it for at least a couple hundred years. They just can't seem to get the ball rolling so they keep walking around in circles at the planning stage.

Even popular movements that have brought about social change have never really touched the core of the government construct.


edit on 3-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


The quick answer I can offer now is that I, overall, hold to a very passive version of "revolt," as "the tower" has a record of falling onto itself anyway. The primary issues I push are that there are better ways, we should move towards them in whatever way is best for each locale and in wisdom, and since they will expose themselves by the failure of false liberties eventually, it is better to do so willingly and in unity. I understand reality enough to know it is not likely, however, why should that stop a good and peaceful man from communicating good understanding? It won't, for me. Needing to be a good father, husband, son, brother, servant, innovator, judge, etc is what usually prevents me from being more of a "teacher." Nearly anyone I speak to in person for more than a handful of minutes about something "real" suggests I be a teacher/leader of some sort, but it is not time.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
The OP might have just as well asked "would you trust a pedophile babysitting your 4 year old daughter?"



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by subject x
I guess you, like Dr. Paul, have a better opinion of humanity than I have. Everthing I see tells me that the vast majority don't care, just buying whatever's cheapest, and have no interest in being educated otherwise.

I'm not saying what Libertarians envision would be a utopia but rather I'm saying it would be something similar to Hong Kong where government spending is only 15% of the economy, giving them the closest thing to a free market you can find anywhere. There is still poverty there just like everywhere in the world, but poverty in Hong Kong is in generally better than other places except for the lack of living space, which is unavoidable under any system because there are about 16,000 people per square mile in Hong Kong, and therefore poor people often end up with a very tiny amount of living space. There is a large middle class in Hong Kong and also a large upper class.

The biggest factor you are not considering here is that it does not take a majority of people to be good people for ethical shopping to work. Rather, it takes a minority of consumers who raise hell when there is something wrong going on.


The corps. already exist, and they're not going anywhere peacefully. If the government tried to dissolve them, they'd just move to another country. If no country would take them, they'd buy one.
...

Once the money has gone from corporate wealth to private wealth, there's not much to sue for, and since we already have corporations, the private wealth is legally protected. Go ahead, sue Exxon into recievership. Shut them right down. The owners will take the write-off, and open up under a new name, maybe in a new country.

So you're telling me they'll skirt around the civil law regulations. I agree, but I don't agree that is an argument in favor of regulation. It is actually an argument against regulation for the simple reason that it just plain isn't very effective. And again, by saying "against regulation" does not mean I object to civil regulations but rather don't view them as the most effective solution. Corporations don't only try to slither out of civil lawsuits, but criminal cases too, as the Occupy Wall Street protests highlight. The things you're pointing out here are a reason progressives and libertarians should come together on the idea of ethical shopping practices as a solution and at least give that effort some focus. As far as I know, there has never been a movement that has tried to do that. But I do know the organisations I've referred to (fair trade, local labels, etc) show that such things are very much possible.


I see the value [in ethical shopping], and agree 110% in principal. However, as I just mentioned, I don't believe that's going to happen.

So here we have a system in which the corps. are beyond the control of civil court, and the populace to ignorant/apathetic/distracted to exert control via ethical shopping. That pretty much leaves them effectively self-regulating. If the world was a fair, equal, ethical place, it might be different, but it's not.

It is not working now, so I can't blame you for disagreeing. But, who is focusing on that as a solution? Left-wingers are focused on the Occupy Wall Street movement. Right wingers are focused on "anyone-but-Obama" or Ron Paul. That leaves virtually nobody left focusing on ethical shopping as the best solution, even though its been proven to be effective. To be honest I think its the one and only solution. Either start the nearly non-existent movement of ethical shopping or accept a fate of corporate doom.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


Nothing wrong with thinking that way and spreading the idea around but they are really good at dividing so getting the unity to effect change is hard enough. Even if you do, it will be met with resistance or, worse still, negotiations which make it seem like things are changing when in fact they remain the same.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 



Did you purchase a product today from a firm who has been hit for repeated environmental abuses?


No, you didn't. You might have bought cheap chit from Walmart, which was made by companies who commit horrible environmental abuses, but it is legal for them to commit those abuses, because they operate in deregulated third world countries.

Regulations work fine, otherwise airplanes would be falling out of the sky on a frequent basis, and the U.S. would be an environmental disaster like China or Mexico, and our productivity would be in the toilet like those countries that do not enforce regulations against corporate abuses.

Like everyone else who clings to the free market fantasy, you completely ignore the reality that when regulations were being enforced, our country did far better, and when not enforced, business in the U.S. concentrates on pyramid schemes.

It is really pathetic.




top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join