Every business requires some regulation. Monopolies and oligopolies are not only bad for the consumer, but in the long run, bad for business itself. What needs to stop is this crony capitalism, where the government picks winners (Fannie, Freddie, Goldman, GM) and losers (Bear Stearns, Lehman, Chrysler). What government needs to do is curb excesses that lead to "Too Big To Fail" or monopolies/oligopies. Anything else is just interference.
Sure. My intent wasn't to give a complete answer. I assumed that pretty much everyone would agree that OSHA and the minimum wage (as long as it's low enough to continue to encourage employment) are good ideas. The government taking over those roles from unions is the primary reason I think unions have outlived their usefulness.
Many bureaucrats are useless. I never said all of them. Stop operating from the false premise that I want no government whatsoever. It's a cheap debating tactic of which you should try to rise above.
This is why tonight is so great. The people of Massachusetts sent the message that the government is regulated. That regulation is called an election. God Bless America.
wow, I really didn't expect to be agreeing with you in this thread. Just curious, what are your thoughts on the whole "invisible hand" thing? By which I mean, would you agree that with the current corporate structure, managers are more interested in increasing their company's value on the stock market rather than actually increasing efficiency or the quality of their product? One thing I've never understood is why some conservatives (not directed at anyone in particular) seem to be automatically pro-business, anti-government. Personally, I think that both are highly prone to waste and excess, it's just that with a semi-functioning democracy, people have the chance to change who's in charge. As we've recently seen, incompetent CEOs aren't always removed by the board of directors. Whereas a democracy gives the majority of the population a slightly larger say in decisions that greatly effect them.
Stock prices are merely the market perception of the net present value of future revenues. Therefore, efficiency, quality and stock price go hand-in-hand. That's the beauty of Adam Smith's insight on the self-regulation of the market: Producers of goods and services search for profits; as more people try to achieve profit with the same product, the price goes down and quality goes up; the best products at the best price beat out the inferior products at too high a price. You get an optimal outcome without having to do a thing. The problem with government is that it tends to do the opposite. Since there's no profit motive, there's no desire for efficiency. However, I would argue that efficiency shouldn't be the first priority of a bureaucracy; fairness and access should be. That's why the role of government needs to be limited to only the things that demand fairness and access. I'm not saying that government shouldn't strive to be as efficient as possible, because the public's money should be treated as a sacred trust, but that occasionally you need to make sacrifices to ensure that everyone is treated equally. Rural post offices and schools are an example. Corporations don't waste money and don't make negative NPV investments if they know it will cost them the company. What gives rise to risky behavior by the corporations is when they know they're going to be saved by the government. The greatest danger to our democracy is crony capitalism, where business and government meet and pick winners and losers. Leave it to the market, and millions of people making small decisions will almost always arrive at the optimal outcome vs. one player making one large decision.
