corp deregulation is naive...

People that support deregulation, like getting rid of epa issues or min wage, seem to think corps operate out of some strange sense of good and will do the right thing.

It has happened that way a few times, but its rare, very rare.

A corp is amoral. They don't care about right and wrong. They only care about money. If it increases profit its good. That's all that matters.

Its far cheaper to dump waste in a river rather than dispose of it properly. Without the epa they still would be.

Without min wage, they would pay far less then they do now. Just look at how they pay their overseas workers. Just look at server pay. A corp should pay u regardless of whether u get tipped or not. That's the cost of doing business.

Another way to look at it is this way. Corps are people right? Well people need laws to keep them from misbehaving, so why shouldn't corps? Or are corps superior people following a higher calling?

"But the free market will regulate them," u say. If corps are people, then their society would be the free market. Well, look at how the "free market" (society) corrects a deregulated (lawless) people. Can u say Somalia, or Chicago?

Yes, I compared corps to war lords. That's because they are. All they want, all they think about is gaining more market share (territory) and gold. Just like war lords, and they will do anything to get it. Even breaking the regulations (laws) that are in place.

Just saying...

originally posted by: stormson

Its far cheaper to dump waste in a river rather than dispose of it properly. Without the epa they still would be.

They still are, EPA be damned.

a reply to: NthOther

I know, and that's kinda my point.

People say we need to get rid of the epa, as if corps will stop polluting on their own. Or that "market forces" will stop them.

How can that work if the law doesn't?

A lucid and far too rare opinion on ATS regarding the corporate world.

Yes it is amoral so if we don't make sure they stay within the realm of ethics and morals we are basically allowing our own enemies to do what they want with us and the world as long as it provides a return on interest.




Proponent of deregulation are liars and irresponsible. Usually they have personal interests to advocate for deregulation so they only support it to increase their wealth regardless of the consequences.

a reply to: stormson

I agree totally on the 'water' example and disagree on the minimum wage one.

There's 'deregulation' and the there's selective deregulation. For example, there is, if I have it right, a 30% tax on monies brought back into the U.S. by corporations from overseas profits. There is no tax if they keep those monies outside the country! Those monies returned to the U.S. would allow investment in our economy instead of China's or whoever's.

In other words, selective deregulation. I don't know anyone who actually wants every rule deregulated.

On the minimum wage, that is flat out wrong. IMO. With the exception of entry level or low skill work, few work for minimum wage. I don't. You probably don't, either.

That is in contradiction to 'they' would pay as little as possible to anyone they could. They do pay as little as they can. I agree. The fact is, politically, the subject of raising the minimum wage only comes up when the Dems are having a hard time getting traction on their usual 'policies'. Everyone would like 'more money', so they push that button when it's necessary for votes.

As with almost every left policy, some few get rewarded at the expense of the remainder. Those Corporations pass that cost on to the consumer of their now more expensive to produce products...thee and me. Yes, the low end jobs haven't kept up with inflation. Nor can they when the supply of workers ia increasing artificially via immigrantion, legal and otherwise.

In my day, I'd shovel snow off of business' sidewalks for 50 cents to a buck, cut grass for neighbors..delivered newspapers!
Now? Kids get busted for selling lemon-aide in their front yards for not having business licenses.

There is much more to this subject than this, but a federal 'minimum wage' and most federal regulations, for that matter, don't take into consideration the different economic levels between rural areas and cities, different states, some with no state income tax, 10 if my count is correct, and those that do have state income tax.

The issue, to a large degree is better off on a state to state level, not all, but many issues fall in that category.

The bottom line is, there is good regulation and bad. Almost none are clear cut either way. They have some good sides and some down sides, as well.

We are over regulated, in general, as a society.

Of course, you will not agree with this view of it. (I'd bet your considerably younger than me.) That's fine, this is merely a rebut, in general, of your take, Nothing personal....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I don't know anyone who actually wants every rule deregulated.

Libertarians and various proponents of ultra-liberalism?

Bravo Zulu, Stormson. You have the situation sussed. The US free market died in 1913. It has been a conspiracy since then and, blindly, people still have faith. Think of Rome. History repeats itself.

a reply to: JUhrman

Libertarians, IMO, suffer from an ill thought out concept. Usually, they claim a pit bull-like toughness on the Constitution and a laissez faire attitude on personal rules. They tend to avoid these very issues. As a conservative, I believe the EPA, in it's current form, is psychotic. Yet, we need an 'EPA' for the very reason cited in the OP. Pressure from the stock-holders to perform on a quarterly basis puts unbelievable stress on Corporate execs. Short cuts are too tempting, as a result.

Besides, enforcing 'regulations' is contradictory to that laissez faire mentality. Just more rules.....

Trusting a corporation is foolish.
Trusting a government agency to regulate corporations is just as foolish.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Trusting a corporation is foolish.
Trusting a government agency to regulate corporations is just as foolish.

Who else than a government can regulate the corporate world? Please share you solution.

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Trusting a corporation is foolish.
Trusting a government agency to regulate corporations is just as foolish.

Who else than a government can regulate the corporate world? Please share you solution.

There is no perfect solution when you consider the world economy. One company cannot compete with another company while having totally different rules to run with. That's why everything is made in china.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Trusting a corporation is foolish.
Trusting a government agency to regulate corporations is just as foolish.

Who else than a government can regulate the corporate world? Please share you solution.

There is no perfect solution when you consider the world economy. One company cannot compete with another company while having totally different rules to run with. That's why everything is made in china.

That's why we should work for regulation to come from a supra-national level.

There have already been some initiatives to try that (GMOs; financial sector and speculation; environment) but there are usually vetoes from the US and other big countries.

That's why we need the support of the US population too as their voice can tip the balance of the status quo.

a reply to: stormson

We do not have the freedom to transact peacefully with whomever we choose. We do not live in a free market.

I believe we have established the ineffectuality of most (if not all) state economic intervention, interference and criminalization.

What you are immediately declaring is that undoing that mistake is off the table. You would therefore seem to believe that the solution must be to double down, to completely assert control. That is what is known as a totalitarian attitude which is quickly followed by totalitarian policy and action if left unchecked.

I do think that releasing people from the grip of crushing regulatory burden is the solution but, you don't want to try it.

a reply to: JUhrman


Supra national level?
You need to read the history of the United nations and see how well that works. All take and no give.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Oh well. Let's just be happy with the current situation and not try to change anything then since nothing is good enough.

a reply to: JUhrman


Well what exactly have you tried to do about the problem?
Have you researched a solution?
Talked to your local representatives?
Written letters of inquiry to anybody?
Set up a group of friends to help find a solution?
Or have you just typed your complaint about the subject on a website?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: stormson

I agree totally on the 'water' example and disagree on the minimum wage one.

There's 'deregulation' and the there's selective deregulation. For example, there is, if I have it right, a 30% tax on monies brought back into the U.S. by corporations from overseas profits. There is no tax if they keep those monies outside the country! Those monies returned to the U.S. would allow investment in our economy instead of China's or whoever's.

In other words, selective deregulation. I don't know anyone who actually wants every rule deregulated.

On the minimum wage, that is flat out wrong. IMO. With the exception of entry level or low skill work, few work for minimum wage. I don't. You probably don't, either.

That is in contradiction to 'they' would pay as little as possible to anyone they could. They do pay as little as they can. I agree. The fact is, politically, the subject of raising the minimum wage only comes up when the Dems are having a hard time getting traction on their usual 'policies'. Everyone would like 'more money', so they push that button when it's necessary for votes.

As with almost every left policy, some few get rewarded at the expense of the remainder. Those Corporations pass that cost on to the consumer of their now more expensive to produce products...thee and me. Yes, the low end jobs haven't kept up with inflation. Nor can they when the supply of workers ia increasing artificially via immigrantion, legal and otherwise.

In my day, I'd shovel snow off of business' sidewalks for 50 cents to a buck, cut grass for neighbors..delivered newspapers!
Now? Kids get busted for selling lemon-aide in their front yards for not having business licenses.

There is much more to this subject than this, but a federal 'minimum wage' and most federal regulations, for that matter, don't take into consideration the different economic levels between rural areas and cities, different states, some with no state income tax, 10 if my count is correct, and those that do have state income tax.

The issue, to a large degree is better off on a state to state level, not all, but many issues fall in that category.

The bottom line is, there is good regulation and bad. Almost none are clear cut either way. They have some good sides and some down sides, as well.

We are over regulated, in general, as a society.

Of course, you will not agree with this view of it. (I'd bet your considerably younger than me.) That's fine, this is merely a rebut, in general, of your take, Nothing personal....

No, see, where the right is completely wrong on corporate deregulation is propagandizing that regulations are "socialist" or "controlling." Like the minimum wage argument, or environment.

Minimum Wage: Facts. A lot of people are on minimum wage and have few other options. Fact. Many people suffer from the effects of inter-generational poverty which includes lowered access to education and so on. Reality. All having a "living wage" means is corporations sharing in the wealth created in part off of the workers and two, paying a wage that keeps pace with the inflation, rise in productivity, and rise in upper class wages.

Environment: All regulations are doing is forcing corporations to pay the REAL cost of doing business. Corporations often do not account for the social, economic, and environmental cost of their business plan. GOOD Regulations simply internalize these "externalities," or true costs.

These "Leftist" regulations or policies are not helping the few, they are protecting the commons, resources, and vulnerable FROM the few, i.e. the wealthy or elite.

As someone else said, once someone realizes that not only will most corporations not internalize all of the true costs so society, and simply extract or exploit common resources (labor, environment, land, etc) for their own benefits, then they can only be lying or manipulating for political and economic gain when they block GOOD (not bad) regulations.

And if someone thinks they aren't necessary, then they are ignorant of the above.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: JUhrman


Supra national level?
You need to read the history of the United nations and see how well that works. All take and no give.

Please elaborate... I've worked there so interested to see your view..

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Trusting a corporation is foolish.
Trusting a government agency to regulate corporations is just as foolish.

As someone else said, who else would do so? That.... is.... one... of the jobs of the government. To protect the commons and all of the community's rights, not just the few.

originally posted by: JUhrman
A lucid and far too rare opinion on ATS regarding the corporate world.

Yes it is amoral so if we don't make sure they stay within the realm of ethics and morals we are basically allowing our own enemies to do what they want with us and the world as long as it provides a return on interest.

Proponent of deregulation are liars and irresponsible. Usually they have personal interests to advocate for deregulation so they only support it to increase their wealth regardless of the consequences.

^Yup. They are either ignorant or liars and manipulators. The second category just wants more money, and me me me me. Cost to society or environment be damned! I don't see any other options.

The idea that corporations and the free market will take care of it by themselves is intellectually dishonest, one, and completely irresponsible, two. In reality, in very few circumstances have corporations self-regulated without any check from the outside. I lived in China, where environmental regulation was almost non-existent at the time. Companies pollute like you wouldn't believe anywhere in the US.

Prior to regulation in the 20th century, many parts of the US and Europe became extremely polluted. England saw the rise of animals such as butterflies adapting their entire color pattern to the soot on the trees and in the air from industry.