isadore;1191955 wrote:and citizens united helped them.

Yes, but again, they and the corporate lobbies represent large tax bases with a greater vested interest and incentive to be far better informed to make good choices. I mean, what, 2/3 of the country will go into the booth and just blindly vote D or R?

Isn't that really the heart of the problem, and the root cause of how the system has become broken? The majority of voters do not take their responsibility seriously or intelligently. And when that creates imbalances, expect the system to evolve to redress those imbalances.

You can look at probably any election, even highschool student councils, and observe constituencies and voting blocks forming to advance common interests because otherwise individuals get trampled.

isadore;1191918 wrote:Since peope have the right to petition the government for redress of grievance, lobbying will exist at all levels of government. It has though become completely corrupted, a situation that calls for increased regulation.

Yes, lobbyists bribe their pet politicians to write regulations that eliminate competition and fatten their bank accounts, and the solution is more regulations that will be written by some other special interest at the expense of the people.

People have the right to petition the government if one must exist. This means the only way to solve the problem of lobbyists writing laws at the expense of the people is to remove the ability of the government to pass laws that regulate any industry. There is no reason for lobbyists to bribe government officials if they can't grant them any favors anyway.

gut;1191966 wrote:... I mean, what, 2/3 of the country will go into the booth and just blindly vote D or R?

Isn't that really the heart of the problem, and the root cause of how the system has become broken? The majority of voters do not take their responsibility seriously or intelligently. And when that creates imbalances, expect the system to evolve to redress those imbalances.

...

Amen. I couldn't agree more.

Cleveland Buck;1191967 wrote:Yes, lobbyists bribe their pet politicians to write regulations that eliminate competition and fatten their bank accounts, and the solution is more regulations that will be written by some other special interest at the expense of the people.

People have the right to petition the government if one must exist. This means the only way to solve the problem of lobbyists writing laws at the expense of the people is to remove the ability of the government to pass laws that regulate any industry. There is no reason for lobbyists to bribe government officials if they can't grant them any favors anyway.

Lets reward corporations for their bad behavior.
If businesses did not abuse the people we would not need the laws, but they do.

isadore;1191976 wrote:Lets reward corporations for their bad behavior.
If businesses did not abuse the people we would not need the laws, but they do.

Government, Government Employee, Union workers, Politician and Welfare Recipients are reward for incompetency would that be considered bad behavior. The different is corporation create something called Profit .... I know that a dirt word to some but Profit and Profitable is my goal.

Profit gives back something where as those listed above are takers and give nothing in return, only more taking...

isadore;1191976 wrote:Lets reward corporations for their bad behavior.
If businesses did not abuse the people we would not need the laws, but they do.

The government enables them to abuse the people. Without the government's complicity those corporations would be subject to fierce competition and those that abused the consumer would be out of business.

The ulitmate responsibility is the hands of people for making the elected officials accountable.

Cleveland Buck;1192012 wrote:The government enables them to abuse the people. Without the government's complicity those corporations would be subject to fierce competition and those that abused the consumer would be out of business.

Unbridled capitalism simply doesn't work because of lack of perfect information. Consumers can't vote with their wallets on the basis of information they have no way of knowing. That's why you need regulation.

I will agree, however, that with the internet consumers (and investors) have far more information available to them than ever. That should, theoretically, lead to less regulation and not more. But that is giving people too much credit, unfortunately. Still, in the information age there are clearly more efficient methods of "regulation" that warrant exploration.

Belly35;1192006 wrote:Government, Government Employee, Union workers, Politician and Welfare Recipients are reward for incompetency would that be considered bad behavior. The different is corporation create something called Profit .... I know that a dirt word to some but Profit and Profitable is my goal.

Profit gives back something where as those listed above are takers and give nothing in return, only more taking...

government workers who provide us with basic services, union workers who built this country. then the old, infirm and children receiving welfare who you see as drag on society. But of course corporations who corrupt government officials and our political process.

Con_Alma;1192037 wrote:The ulitmate responsibility is the hands of people for making the elected officials accountable.

What are you going to do to hold them accountable? String them up? They don't care if you vote them out of office. They will still get their board positions and their speech fees after they leave office.

Cleveland Buck;1192012 wrote:The government enables them to abuse the people. Without the government's complicity those corporations would be subject to fierce competition and those that abused the consumer would be out of business.

they were doing on massive scale in industries without regulation during much of the history of our nation.

isadore;1192047 wrote:government workers who provide us with basic services, union workers who built this country. then the old, infirm and children receiving welfare who you see as drag on society. But of course corporations who corrupt government officials and our political process.

Except those "evil corporations" employ people and pay wages. So unless you are retired (and not receiving a pension) or collecting welfare, those corporate interests are hardly mutually exclusive to your own. I don't think people really get that.

Cleveland Buck;1192049 wrote:What are you going to do to hold them accountable? String them up? They don't care if you vote them out of office. They will still get their board positions and their speech fees after they leave office.

Yes along with a greater attention to determining who we choose to hold the key to the elected offices.

gut;1192046 wrote:Unbridled capitalism simply doesn't work because of lack of perfect information. Consumers can't vote with their wallets on the basis of information they have no way of knowing. That's why you need regulation.

I will agree, however, that with the internet consumers (and investors) have far more information available to them than ever. That should, theoretically, lead to less regulation and not more. But that is giving people too much credit, unfortunately. Still, in the information age there are clearly more efficient methods of "regulation" that warrant exploration.

I don't know why you think people have no way of knowing this information. The market for it would definitely be there if the government was out of the way. Regulations do nothing to protect consumers, only the companies that wrote the regulations.

gut;1192052 wrote:Except those "evil corporations" employ people and pay wages. So unless you are retired (and not receiving a pension) or collecting welfare, those corporate interests are hardly mutually exclusive to your own. I don't think people really get that.

what I get, is that the relationship between working people and corporations would be completely exploitative except for the protections put in place by governments and unions.

isadore;1192050 wrote:they were doing on massive scale in industries without regulation during much of the history of our nation.

No, they weren't, not without government complicity. What industries are you talking about? The railroads where the government subsidized their favorite customers? The banks where the government allowed them to operate after bank runs where they couldn't redeem a customer's deposit? Factories where they instead of allowing these companies to be sued for polluting private property they simply regulated the amount of pollution they were allowed to emit, leaving private property owners no recourse?

isadore;1192062 wrote:what I get, is that the relationship between working people and corporations would be completely exploitative except for the protections put in place by governments and unions.

Not in a competitive labor market. Good companies recognize the value in good employees. It's why workers are increasingly choosing not to unionize (when they have the choice).

What you said might be true, 30 years ago. But companies and mangement philosophy evolve.

gut;1192067 wrote:Not in a competitive labor market. Good companies recognize the value in good employees. It's why workers are increasingly choosing not to unionize (when they have the choice).

What you said might be true, 30 years ago. But companies and mangement philosophy evolve.

Exactly. Human capital is often times the most valuable asset a company has.

Cleveland Buck;1192060 wrote:I don't know why you think people have no way of knowing this information. The market for it would definitely be there if the government was out of the way. Regulations do nothing to protect consumers, only the companies that wrote the regulations.

Because I'm not going to check the kitchen of every restaurant I go into, or observe their food preparation methods. I'm not going to put my name into a hat to be the one that informs other consumers a drug is unsafe after I die.

gut;1192067 wrote:Not in a competitive labor market. Good companies recognize the value in good employees. It's why workers are increasingly choosing not to unionize (when they have the choice).

What you said might be true, 30 years ago. But companies and mangement philosophy evolve.

if laws were not on the books we would see these businesses pulling every exploitive practice they have learned over the years.

isadore;1191939 wrote:I would think decisions that may effect their future employment would be of interest to them. On many issues they would be on the side of the industry. The teamsters and the UAW on some issues are on the same side as the corporations in their industries.

The vast majority of rules that I see implemented are technical in nature. E.g., determining voltage frequency standards for the integration of wind facilities into the interstate transmission grid. I can't imagine that most of these technical issues have any impact on future employment. If the unions feel differently, they're welcome to intervene and chime in, but most don't because it seems a bit irrelevant. I can't even imagine how one would go about crafting these statutes/regulations governing technical areas without industry input. That would be impossible, I think.

isadore;1192075 wrote:if laws were not on the books we would see these businesses pulling every exploitive practice they have learned over the years.

Just like businesses adapt their practices good employees and people adapt. If a good person s being exploited, it won't last very long.

gut;1192073 wrote:Because I'm not going to check the kitchen of every restaurant I go into, or observe their food preparation methods. I'm not going to put my name into a hat to be the one that informs other consumers a drug is unsafe after I die.

You don't check reviews of restaurants you go to? You don't research medications you are prescribed before you take them? And you do realize that you may still today take an unsafe drug, right? Millions of people die from prescription drugs in this country each year. Or get sick eating at a restaurant? So why is the government putting some companies out of business in favor of other ones if they don't solve the problem anyway?

Cleveland Buck;1192066 wrote:No, they weren't, not without government complicity. What industries are you talking about? The railroads where the government subsidized their favorite customers? The banks where the government allowed them to operate after bank runs where they couldn't redeem a customer's deposit? Factories where they instead of allowing these companies to be sued for polluting private property they simply regulated the amount of pollution they were allowed to emit, leaving private property owners no recourse?

gosh a ruddies all those industries that could sell unsafe products to the citizens. all those industries that could use their workers 12-14 hours a day with no overtime and fire them when they were injured.

isadore;1192082 wrote:gosh a ruddies all those industries that could sell unsafe products to the citizens. all those industries that could use their workers 12-14 hours a day with no overtime and fire them when they were injured.

You can't force a person to work at all ..not even 12-14 hours per day.