Business laws/Regulations create jobs.

reply to post by subject x


We do have the right to conduct trade treaties that protect our citizens from corporate abuse abroad. We do have the right to refuse to do business with countries whose economic goals are aimed at stripping out nation of its wealth.

Sure, corporations can fight regs, but history shows that is a losing game for the corporations. When the U.S. gov does its job, our economy does far better.

Thus my point.

reply to post by poet1b

Sure, but we don't have the right to dictate that other countries start unions, or implement recycling programs, or anything else. All we can do is refuse to trade with them. A small difference, maybe, in the long run, but an important one.

reply to post by subject x


Just as they don't have the right to dictate to us how we run our economy.

Current trade agreements have essentially put that in place, taking control of the economy away from the people and putting it in the hands of the ICs.

What we have now is economics dictating how we are governed, and that is communism.

Funny how that got put into place.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Once again, did you sleep through the last decade?

Tax cuts did not create jobs, they created wide scale fraud. Bigger and bigger pyramid schemes.

I was actually agreeing with you. Did read that post? The line was that "x created jobs ... DOT DOT DOT ... in OTHER COUNTRIES. I was wide awake and well aware that the Bush tax cuts have done nothing to stem the tide of offshoring jobs so please take a big deep breath. That one you did not even need to read into to get. You just needed to read it all the way through. 'Other countries" was key part.

Yeah, that formula works so well for the third world

So ya get my point then?

So your goal is to see the U.S. turned into a third world nation?

Welcome to the machine.

How about you slow down and try that again. I am so far the only person to come here and agree with you. If the sarcasm was not more clear then I guess I apologize.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by 46ACE

 

You need to pull your mind out of the gutter and stop thinking about my private parts.

The company workers who create the wealth are being robbed by the ICs. All the wealth they create goes into the pockets of the bankers these days. Where have you been over the last decade.

You are the one parroting the party line of the ICs.

Are you a subsidiary of another poster here who also says the same thing as a cutesy little quip to people they oppose? It sure sounds familiar.

reply to post by Kitilani


Sorry, totally missed the sarcasm.

Sometimes it is hard to identify, with the things that some people post, actually believing stuff like that.

Now that you point it out, I see it. I was indeed too busy reacting, rather than acting.

Thanks for the support, my bad.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Which thing do they say?

I have used similar quips before, but I always post with the same id, and don't belong to any group. I don't doubt, however, that some groups do exist.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Which thing do they say?

I have used similar quips before, but I always post with the same id, and don't belong to any group. I don't doubt, however, that some groups do exist.

My post you made "light of" (poet1b) was not about your "private parts"( and you know it).

You conveniently sidestepped the part about your more than obvious advocacy of stripping some overly paid CEO ( a.k.a generic"rich devil") of his property. through the use of governmental force.

I pointed out the similarity of such thinking to common theft by force. As you repeatedly side step my points and resort to the same tired arguments and regurgitated class warfare slogans. I refuse to "play".


You say somewhere above you "took a class in "economics". But have you ever spent anytime inside a real working business with a payroll to meet?

Big powerful govt backed by a prison industry; supported by courts laws,regulations (and the means to create such regulations on a whim and a bribe) is an exceedingly dangerous behemouth in our midst.

Imho you are"misguided"and veiling your contempt for the well to do with feigned concern for the common man. We have no common ground; therefore Good day"sir".

reply to post by poet1b


Haha. Right because law has no economic implications? Look at the poverty rate, GDP, any economic indicator since the introduction of free market capitalism. Free markets created the United States and improved the living conditions of virtually every country in the world directly or indirectly since it's inception. You say I should know something about history? Look what free markets economics have done for mankind! Saying "economics" and saying look how bad things are (but please refrain from looking at history and seeing how bad things were prior to the dominance of free market systems) shows your ideology clouds any type of objective reasoning you may possess. Your account of history is slanted or only remembers the last 10 years. Does free marketism have some drawbacks?Of course. Does centralized planning and heavy regulations have greater fallacies and theats of abusive power? Yes, than free markets.

I simply stated my opinion on regulations. You on the other hand responded by declaring yourself the arbitror of history...

reply to post by poet1b


Even if I accepted thay the past decade was full of significant "deregulation" (which I dont- deregulation to govt is making regulations on how to deregulate...doesn't seem right). The past decade compares to all previous decades has more new regulations on business then ever. The US creates 10 new regulations every year for every regulatory deregulation passed. ( which again regulations and rules for deregulations - which isn't deregulation). Finally, to say law and economics are completely seperste and have no cross implications is plainly stupid.

reply to post by 46ACE


Your post should have stayed above the waist line, and was completely out to lunch. You deserved at least a quip.

It doesn't take courage to post insults on the internet, so that kind of talk just makes the poster look adolescent. Especially when that poster is defending the status quo.

Why don't you think rich people should have to obey the laws like the rest of us?

Why do you think it is ok to pollute our water and air, sell poison as food and medicine, and treat people like slaves?

Our representative government is not a dangerous behemoth, it the tool that enables us to establish and hold on to our liberties. The ICs are the monsters poisoning our planet and using children as slaves, and the people who profit from this are crooks.

reply to post by DoesAnythingEverHappen

Free markets created the United States and improved the living conditions of virtually every country in the world directly or indirectly since it's inception.

WOW! You might be the most programmed poster I have ever encountered.

First of all, there is no such thing as a free market, never has been, and never will be, not as defined by the Mises Institute. What the PTB want out of this free market con is to make all the world like communist China, where we are all slaves to the market. That is what communism is all about. The free market is nothing but repackaged communism.

The U.S. was founded on the theories put forth by Jonathan Locke, aimed at establishing liberty, the ability of people to live in a free society, stripped of a status quo, providing opportunity for all. The U.S. constitution clearly establishing the governments role in oversight of business, and the U.S. fed gov has regulated business from the very beginning, which means that the U.S. was never a free market as defined by Mises. Do you even know who Mises is?

Read some history, do some research on your own, and stop listening to right wing radio, those people are poisoning your mind.

By the way, laws that say you can't sell poison as baby food, as done during the GW admin, isn't law interfering with business, it is law doing what it should do. Laws that govern business do not prevent people from participating in the market.

Clearly you know nothing about economics or government.

reply to post by poet1b


Haha. Go do some more wiki research. Yes, some laws and regulations are necessary but the free market principles have created significant prosperity since the 19th century. Laws about selling poison are criminal laws not overbearing business regulations. I can go name drop Locke, Freidman, Mises, Hayek, Adam Smith, Thomas Sowell, etc., but that doesnt mean I know history. I'm only saying the potential negative economic implications of overegulation is greater than the negative implications of free markets.

You realize your not even having a discussion. You're just name dropping philosophers and saying pure free marketism doesn't exist (which is true) but that doesn't mean more regulations lead to economic prosperity. Also, Notice I am not attacking your point of view (I respect different ones) and telling you to stop listening to MSNBC. It is true however, that free market principles, not regulations, have led to economic prosperity, technological
Innovation, increased standards of living, and many other improvements in society seen in recent times. But please name drop some more and tell me how that shows the incredible benefits of regulations, which corporations, not individuals or small businesses, benefit from the most. Again, I refer to regulations as directly effecting strategic business decisions and you incredible misleading selling poison to babies example....you think people don't see through that type of emotional pandering?

reply to post by poet1b


I'm not talking about criminal regulations......your distortion of the discussion and name dropping is just an attempt to focus on something other than the realization that free markets, not regulations, are drivers of prosperity. But hey, you are "almost above top secret," which shows where you get most of your info and spend most of your time. I could never stand toe to toe with such a brilliant intellectual expert of ATS. The most well informed online community. I am still laughing at your Mises And Locke name drop. I wanted a discussion not a whose who of free market philosophers. And the "clearly you know nothing about economics or government statement" statement makes me you think you should be working in the government because only they would be able to make such stupid and groundless conclusion from two paragraphs.

reply to post by DoesAnythingEverHappen

You're just name dropping philosophers and saying pure free marketism doesn't exist (which is true) but that doesn't mean more regulations lead to economic prosperity.

Which by your confession proves all your claims wrong.

We are talking philosophy of government.

reply to post by poet1b


I've said some regulations are needed....the danger I'm announcing is overegulation. Obviously for example some antitrust laws (e.g. Regarding Collusive behavior) is most definitely needed, but overegulation will constrain growth. I think it is easy to misinterprate each other via this communication medium.

I do believe they create jobs. but only if the "jobs" are here to begin with. In addition, they protect the consumer and the worker.

The take seems to be the company would rather shut down or offshore or something than hire someone to ensure that quality/regulatory standards are met. This may well be the case today, but today is not a normal world. Not with companies sending off jobs to places where they can do whatever the hell they please and people have to take it. In other words, where the regulations and laws don't apply. This wouldn't create jobs in the U.S. at all.

Their skirting regulations BY going offshore because of course it's all for profit and all at a cost to something or someone. This can't really go on too much longer though. Eventually the cash cow will dry up and people will get fed up, as we're finally seeing.

Sort of along these same lines, I remember when AT&T and IBM were being investigated/sued for monopolistic practices, the number of jobs created just to save and archive all materials was pretty significant, not to mention all the related offshoot opportunities created for new business.

reply to post by poet1b

Environmental laws, and laws that protect workers health and safety, force corporations to buy equipment and hire employees.

Not necessarily. Corporations do not have bottomless wallets. Further - many of the methods forced upon companies are horribly out of date and have since been succeeded by technologies and methods that are simply better. The issue is that mandates mandate equipment that is substandard - which prevents the development of other markets.

Corporations spending money on equipment and labor is a good thing. The money goes back into the economy instead of into the stock portfolios of the corporate execs.

This, right here, is where your motivations fall apart, completely. You cannot use the government to mandate how a business spends its money. End of story. You can raise taxes to 99% - and their prices will go up to cover the tax. You can mandate they overhaul their industry to whatever standards and processes you set forth - and they will respond with raised prices to cover the cost of government demands.

Upper tier management will only see greater pay increases as there are a very few people in the world competent enough to juggle those kinds of demands and put rubber to the road.

Obama's recent backtrack on new environmental requirements to meet tighter pollution standards we a big mistake. That corporate spending would have created jobs and helped our economy.

This is like saying raising minimum wage is going to help the people working food service. It doesn't really help much when the price of a hamburger jumps 20% and your average cost of food jumps 10% with a 30% cost of housing leap.

... Get what I mean, sparky?

What we should be demanding is that all of our trading partners start meeting our environmental, health and safety requirements, and that would be a huge boom to the world economy.

Good luck with that one. We've been trying it for decades. It seems more worth our time and effort to flip them the bird and invade.

Rather than continuing to exist in this planned obsolescence, disposable society, we could work smart, build quality, and spend more time with our families enjoying life.

If you want to see the economy take off, you will simply pull the government out of business as much as possible. Allow every tom dick and harry with an idea of how to sell a good or service get out there and do it without having to hire a team of lawyers and tax accountants.

"But, Aim, they should be buying those services!"

Not when they don't have enough money to cover the absolutely horrendous starting costs of any business, these days - due mostly to the legal and tax side of things; it's a mess of mumbo jumbo that serves only to intimidate people with good ideas for their own business/practice and keep them locked into employment under some other person'(s) company.

reply to post by DoesAnythingEverHappen


I agree, over regulation is bad. What we need is a fair set of evenly enforced rules. Government officials who overseas business operations to protect the public should work with the businesses to meet compliance, not play power trips.

Also, from what I have seen, it is local authorities, state and county, that tend to come down the hardest, and pick on small businesses, while bending over backwards for the giant corporations. The local authorities are easier to bribe, and control by the big internationals, into driving small businesses out of business, enabling the big corporations to take over.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Originally, it was proposed that overseas manufacturers would have to gradually meet 1st world protections of the environment, health, and safety, but the third world nations complained that this put them too much at a disadvantage, so it was agreed to hold off putting standards on third world manufacturing. Well, not the time has come to start basing our trade agreements on improving environment, health, and safety standards, as well as rising wages in third world nations. The way things going, slave labor will continue to be the growing norm until such trade requirements are put in place.

The only way the U.S. has continued under current circumstances is by creating huge levels of debt, which is completely unsustainable. With all the money going to the top, as is our current situation, there aren't enough consumers to keep the world economy going.

What we really need is a reset, cancel all debts, and tell the debt holders to go pound sand. Almost all that debt was created under corrupt deals with phony baloney money in the first place.

If we could find a way to shave off the giant bureaucracies of the ICs, and their grossly over paid exec cores, we would be freeing ourselves from a giant parasite. Through manipulation of the money supply, the ICs have robbed us of everything they could steal.

Who does it benefit to manufacture goods on one side of the planet, and ship it to the other side of the planet?

If you said the oil companies, then you got it right.

We should manufacture locally and consume locally. That is what we used to do. It is far more efficient. The only reason things changed, is so the ICs could have more control. This is what free market philosophy has done to us. The ICs have played every dirty trick in the book.

And, from what I understand, these new reg requirements would have been on utility companies, so they can't move overseas.