Capitalism is over, Socialism is over, Communism is over, Fascism is over...

Next step is Globalism and Cooperativism mixed with Environmentalism...

Originally posted by Dragoon01
So the regulations in place did not stop the oil spill. The answer is ...MORE REGULATION?
The answer is that if a big company has an accident like this they are open to lawsuits by those affected. There were enough small businesses in and around the Gulf to sue BP out of existance. The regulations work to sheild just as much as they due to punish. BP was granted protection by the government. I dont have any problem with a civil law that broadly states that operating a commercial enterprise will not adversly affect the environment. I have problems with the EPA taking something like that and making thousands upon thousands of specific codes and requirements to implement that type of civil law. If an individual litigant can show harm then the company should be at fault.

You imply that I think MORE REGULATION is the answer, Which I did not say or mean. IMO the fundamental issue is who is writing the regulation and for the benefit of whom? The regulating agencies have become revolving doors for people coming in/out of the same industries to write regulation for the benefit of that industry. As far as the courts being a fair place for remediation. I have lost faith in the courts as well. The wealthier you are the more you can tie things up in court. This is not justice, it ends up being a war of attrition. I understand what you're saying but given the way the system works now, IMO NO REGULATION would only make things worse. TPTB would love having NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

Originally posted by Dragoon01
You are assuming that jobs belong to the individuals who work them. They do not. Out sourcing is the market at work just not in the favor of the individual worker. The market is telling that worker the cost for his labor is too high. The jobs belong to the owner of the company hiring. They are shopping for labor and if your cost for labor is too high they will shop elsewhere. Labor is only one component to the cost of a product or service. If the other costs are to high or much lower that influences the cost of labor. If all of the factors involved have a high cost that I as a business man cannot easily change then I have to look at labor and how I can reduce that cost. With cheap telecom and cheap shipping the cost of labor in foreign countries became even more attractive.
Yes another country can subsidize its manufacturing. Remove the other barriers to doing business here in the US and you can combat that subsidy.

I wasn't assuming that jobs belong to the individuals. But I was looking at American society as a whole. In a global market, the odds are less and less in favor of the American employee and more in favor of the employer. It sounds like you're saying to hell with the employee and whatever the employer does is fine, because that is the free market. If what you say happens, there will be a whole lot of people in a world of hurt. Corporations don't care about society, the environment, safety, or their employees only profit. IMO I believe the root of the problem is the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking. First get rid of the Fed and the promotion of national debt as being a viable solution, it isn't. It promotes inflation and debt. By its very nature, gives banks an incredible amount of power. If less regulation is the answer, then you must be happy with derivatives and the repeal of Glass Steagall. The problem with the road of less/no regulation is that pretty soon you have no accountability. The corporation by its nature is meant to shield the individuals from litigation. This leads to less accountability. There is a problem with the system. There are so many things intertwined (ie. the monetary system, the legal system, the political system, global corporations, etc...), that to me it is naive to think that the free market will magically solve it,

Originally posted by Dragoon01
Yes the unemployeed have to rely on non government support structures. Reduce the cost of doing business and they will not remain unemployed. Reduce the cost of starting up a business and they will not remain unemployed. Remove the barriers to keeping a business in operation and they will not remain unemployed.
Those CEO's will buy goods or invest their million dollar bonuses and those investments create jobs. The only reason people shelter their wealth offshore is to avoid the high cost of keeping it domestic. High taxes are a cost of keeping it onshore. Remove that barrier and the funds flood back to the US.

I agree that the cost of doing business should not be prohibitive. The cost of doing business is higher, the smaller your business is. The global corporation wants that high cost for their smaller competitors. You are assuming the reason money is off shore is because of taxes, I believe its because the profit is higher. The truth is that China and others will subsidize to gain an advantage

The irony here if those evil rich were an endangered species for that's what they are those people would be begging for government laws for their preservation.

With a country of 310 million less than 5 million can tell the government to stick it which is something i really do believe they are a minority where the majority is going off with their heads and all their wealth is what pays for those social programs and the income they get by working.

When their wealth decreases so does their property taxes which agian they are paying more than everyone else does that pays for all those social government services education,police,fire,ems.

Forgive them for they know what they do.