I think we've just witnessed the ultimate expression (for our society) of this: We have owners (ok, not owners, but those at the top) fail miserably at their jobs and still take enormous pay/bonuses. And what did they do next? Lay off workers! That they've done this isn't the worst of it though. The really scary thing is that while they've been doing it they have managed to pit workers against workers. It's the perfect diversion: get workers angry about other worker's pay and you can get away with anything! So much for free markets and democracies.

No snarking about it. I meant what I said, and didn't include anything about capitalism being some glorious system already in place. There is far to much government intervention in corporate operations in my opinion. Breaking up a company that was "too" successful will not bring about a better system.

I don't think I could say it any better than what you wrote. Corporations will do just as a poor a job, but when they fail they can be held accountable or will disappear, leaving behind an example for the future. And frankly, I'd rather a corporation get wealthy off of their work than the government force a successful company, or a private citizen, to subsidize a failing one.

And the only reason that they were able to do that is because the government intervened because they were "too" big to fail. I still don't understand that logic. Let them fail. Someone more responsible and innovative will come along and pick up the pieces. They likely shouldn't have been allowed to get that big and powerful in the first place, but the limiting factor shouldn't be the government. It should be consumers and groups that say, "You know? Company X is getting too big, powerful, and mysterious. They need more transparency before I'll give them more money, because if they fail it'll devastate far too much." At least in that situation the consumer is more educated about where their money is and what could happen to it if the "big, nasty, mysterious company" goes under.

Exactly. Too much interference.


The other item that baffles me is how it seems that everyone seems to treat the idea of giving more freedom to companies as allowing them to write law. It isn't. All it means is that the government can't favor one company over another. In order for a company to "own" you, you'd have to allow them to. You'd have to make the conscious decision to hand over your money for whatever product or service they provide. If they steal your money or go under (which happens now anyway), you'd have the same recourse to go after them that you do now. But you wouldn't have the government giving them more of your money to survive.

If you're concerned about companies having too much power, how do you feel about a government having the aggregate power of all those companies.

That's quite a leap of logic you've made there! So how do you think it came to be that the government decided to step in? You think that the government is sitting around waiting for the chance to interfere? The government got involved for the same reason it always gets involved: it was lobbied by business to do so! This is why it does mean that giving corporations more freedom (they already have more than you or I) means that they will write laws to benefit themselves. That's the only extra freedom they can be granted!

Like the DMCA

Umm, exactly? It's a struggle. That's the point. Just because businesses would want to write laws doesn't mean they'd be allowed to. Sure there will be lobbyists, the point of reducing the power of government is to reduce the power of government! If Congress is not allowed to write laws affecting business, anything they pass which does that would be overturned, just as any other unconstitutional law is.
The current system has no such restriction and leads to things such as the DMCA, as was pointed out.

There are plenty of freedoms that are restricted in the name of regulating business that don't come anywhere near "writing law".

Which "leap of logic" in particular were you referring to?

You can't be that naive. First, Big Business does write laws, and they want to write more. Second, the only way to reduce the power of government is to give some of its power to somebody else. It won't go to you or me, It will go to Big Business, especially if you prohibit Congress from making laws that affect business. By definition, that would mean that Congress couldn't make laws that affected business in a way that business deemed harmful to its interests. That means that laws like requiring seat belts would never have been passed, but laws like DMCA would not only pass, but be more draconian.

Your leap is the belief that somehow Big Business, which often pays lower tax rates than their own employees, is somehow constrained in a way that is detrimental to business. What exactly would you grant to business that would make things better?

Right, that's how it works now. If they were restricted from this because Congress couldn't pass such laws, they wouldn't be able to wield such influence.

Precisely.

Wait, what? If Congress can't pass business related laws, how would they pass business related laws? Am I missing something here?

Businesses pay lower taxes because they exploit tax law to do so. Or in many cases they make use of laws and tax concessions that were specifically passed in order to entice the business to operate in a given location. This all puts aside the idea that government taxes could be much lower if government did not operate such extensive programs.

For an example of detrimental constraints, take the Microsoft and IE anti-competitive monopoly situation. Do you think that the ability of IE to be removed from Windows has had any impact on browser innovation? Of course Microsoft wants to control which browser you use. And it was in their best interest to offer incentives to OEMs which went Microsoft exclusive. This is bad for consumers as it does limit choice. But since when is it a consumer right to be entitled to OS choice? I think Microsoft should have packed it in with that decision. Microsoft felt they could still make money by bowing down to government intervention. How quickly did OEMs start offering other OSs? Has the decision had any impact on OS growth? Apple doesn't license to OEMs and *nix systems can hardly be considered to have a "foothold" in the market. Over time Microsoft has made itself ever more irrelevant, government intervention hasn't changed that. Innovation is far more effective than the government can be in regulating the market. You said yourself (cwtnospam) that government can't run the economy. Why should they be involved in corporations?

Nonsense. Nothing will stop Big Business from lobbying to create laws in its favor. There's just too much profit in it.
Yes, you are. See above.
More nonsense. Businesses don't just exploit tax law, they make it. The problem isn't government interfering with Business. The problem is Business interfering with government. I'm not talking about small business. I'm talking about internationals that are not citizens of any country getting laws passed (or stopping laws) that allow them to pollute, destroy ecosystems, and kill people, all so they can make billions at taxpayer expense.
Because corporations are trying to run the economy, and they can't do it either. Even if they could, they don't have constituents to answer to, only shareholders. Shareholders aren't interested in keeping DDT, lead, mercury, etc., out of your kids food or drinking water. Voters are.


***


I note that you have yet to describe in what way you feel corporations are unfairly restricted. I really would like to see that!

Oh, and you missed the point before:
The problem isn't when they fail (with the exception being in this crisis) but when they succeed. Many of these entities have greater GDP than most countries, and money = power. It's only natural, and absolutely certain that these entities will use that power to their own benefit. The inevitable result is that they will wipe out any semblance of a free market since a free market entails risk to their dominance. I'm assuming that since you'd like the government out of the economy, it's because you'd like a free market. Wouldn't you?

I keep saying the same thing though. Of course businesses will want to keep lobbying for favorable laws. If Congress is Constitutionally prohibited from passing such laws, they won't be passed. Some may slip through (unconstitutional laws do now as well), but they'll still be overturned the same way.

I'm going to make the analogy to religion now, because it's far too apt to ignore. The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Is this to protect religious exercise? Or protect government from religious influence. Debating the effectiveness of the clause can be left for another thread, but the protection works both ways. It protects religion from being influence by the government and it protects government from being influence by religion. These protections would be just as useful for corporations. Again, the effectiveness may be just as valid as with religion, but the intent is that over time there would be less interference in both directions.
I'll also point out that I don't make a distinction between big and small businesses. I don't think there's some magic delimiter where a business can be treated differently. The same laws should apply to any size of business.

Those voters are still consumers. They can still boycott harmful corporations. They can still sue companies which do harm to consumers and the environment. Those have happened, consumers have won.

I actually did provide an example with Microsoft. For a more general view, take the bank, auto, etc bailouts. The government is taking money from citizens and corporations (taxes) and distributing it to other corporations. Someone is deciding which companies will benefit and, by exclusion, which will be harmed. How is that not restricting and favoring some company over another?
For another, consider that it is illegal to compete with the USPS, a public company with an imposed monopoly. Yes, there is FedEx, UPS, etc., but it is illegal to use those carriers for "non-urgent" letters and other services. It's a small distinction and hard to enforce, but it's still a restriction on competing carriers. For companies sending out bulk mail, this could be a great expense.

I would, I also think you underestimate the power of a free market. And it's not a free market that they are threatened by, it's competition. Without competition, those same companies would grow stagnant and open further opportunities for a rival.
And using that power to their own benefit? Like providing better services and products with which to make more money? In the long run, exploiting the consumer is not an effective business plan. Look at the RIAA.

You aren't saying the same thing at all! You constantly and dramatically underestimate the political power of Big Business and overestimate the markets, which are not free from its influence. If you completely remove government from markets they will not be freer. On the contrary, they will be tightly controlled by the largest and most powerful companies.
It's to protect religion, and as a result many religious organizations routinely interfere in government. Laws prohibiting abortion, dancing, alcohol, and many other things have all been written for purely ideological reasons. We cannot afford to make this mistake with Business.

This is so ridiculous I don't know where to begin. Shall we start with Love Canal and the thousands of other Superfund Sites? Or maybe something more recent like the Enron or the Madoff scandal? And sue companies? Doesn't that require laws that affect companies? http://charlottesville.injuryboard.c...oogleid=263606


I didn't ask for an example where a company might make a case for being wronged. I asked for a case where that resulted in the economy being worse. Something along the lines of the damage that the world's Oil oligopoly has done to our economy and our environment.
No, you overestimate the possibility of one actually existing. It's government's job to bring us closer to one by enacting and enforcing the appropriate laws. We will never have a truly free market, but doing away with those laws would completely destroy any resemblance to one.

Well, I'm not saying the same thing as you are, I'm just repeating myself over and over. My main point is that if government is not allowed to make law regarding business, then business will have no influence on government. Or at least, any influence will be excised given time.

That is entirely up to how consumers interact with the market. If they allow the corporations to take control and simply swallow whatever is produced without complaint, then yes they would not be freer. I'm counting on consumers to not let this pass. The corporations are nothing without the consumer.

Constitutional scholars disagree with you.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/...s/jeff1650.htm
The intent was clearly to protect government from religion, just as much to protect religion from government. That there are unconstitutional, religiously motivated laws does not change this.

Are you really arguing that because government has allowed unconstitutional laws to be passed, that we should give up fighting unconstitutional law? It seems that if businesses are bound to attempt to influence government (I agree) then there should be protections against this. Perhaps by prohibiting government from making laws respecting the operations of businesses? Then there would be no influence to be made.

So, because companies have done bad things and existing governments have colluded with them, limited government with less power and influence will be more susceptible to corruption? I'm not persuaded. It seems to me that decreased government power: provides more power to citizens, more freedom to companies AND citizens, and decreases the ability of companies to protect themselves from retribution.

Not specifically, no. If a company dumps waste in your backyard, you have been harmed and can seek damages just as you would if another citizen had done the same. We don't need duplicate laws to govern citizens differently than companies.

That's good. Government influence on the rights of citizens is just as bad as when it interferes with corporations. I'll also counter with this: Federal Reserve to get new authority to regulate any company whose failure could endanger the U.S. economy
Where's the incentive for responsible actions if failure is rewarded with a tax payer bailout?

That's an almost impossible task. I'd be equally interested in such an example, or in one where government action directly improves the economy. Things aren't so simple that such direct lines can be easily drawn. If anything, I'd think that your oil example is an example of the harm that government support of the oil industry can bring.

I think this really gets to the heart of our disagreement. I don't think it's government's job at all to bring us closer to a free market. In fact I think that any government that takes on such a task is more likely to hinder this process than help it. For the most part, it seems that you disagree, though also agree that businesses have too much influence on government.
Is it just a disagreement on how to rein in this influence?

Mostly, but I don't see how Government, at least the US government, has too much power, especially compared to Big Business. Sure, government can do all sorts of bad things because of its size, but that's different from Big Business, where there's tremendous incentive to do bad things: profit. Superfund sites exist because creating them meant more profits. Asbestos, lead paint, cigarettes, etc., the list goes on and on, and they've all been done in the name of profits. Even slavery (it was around before there was a US government) was the result of Big Business. The US Government would have to work very hard at being bad and it would still take many decades to catch up with Big Business.


Here's your government example: WWII. Lots of government spending on heavy machinery (tanks, planes, boats, munitions, etc.) pulled us out of the Depression, which was created by lack of regulation of large financial firms!

Edit: Oh, I know there's some Rush Limbaugh inspired revisionist history about WWII and government spending, but that's been thoroughly debunked. Please don't bring that up.

To be fair, Asbestos, lead paint, and cigarettes are all examples where later research revealed their harm. Of those, only cigarettes are still around and, while I can't imagine why an educated person would start smoking today, I also don't agree with legislating what someone wants to do to their own body.
I think things like the DMCA and the bank and auto bailouts demonstrate the power of government. DHS, TSA, "enemy combatant", etc. are others. It does come down to how much power you think government should have and your interpretation what that entails.

Perhaps, but I still wonder how much of that would be more easily resolved without government intervention. Again, my core bias is limited government, but that doesn't mean that I think government is the root of all evil, just that it might not be the best solution.

I don't know about Rush-esque revisionism (honestly, I've never heard or looked into it in much depth), but my basic research, and what I remember from school, is a decent amount of debate over the causes of the Great Depression. I don't think there is much of any disagreement that WWII helped pull us out, but foreign defense is clearly in the domain of government (I'm a foreign defense, domestic defense, courts guy), so I don't have any issues with that. And I'll admit that wherever the government must interact with the private sector (ie. military and private contractors, etc.) is bound to be a complicated area.

:eek:
That's not being fair, it's missing the point! The problem isn't that later research revealed harm. The problem, and the unforgivable evil here is the resistance to making the necessary changes long after the harm was known. They did/do things like funding counter research to use as propaganda even when they know that the problem was real.

It was/is always done for the sake of short term profit alone, and almost always at taxpayer expense, and usually at great physical harm to citizens! This isn't just about old issues. They're just the recognizable examples. These same types of things are happening right now, and not just in the US. All you have to do is pay attention to the news and you'll see plenty of them. Sixty minutes did a story a few weeks ago about Chevron's oil pits that they left to pollute drinking water in Nicaragua over the last 15 years.

:confused:
So you think that the government getting into something it doesn't want to have to deal with is an example of its power? If it had real power, it wouldn't have to bail them out! This is more an exercise in corporate power than anything else. They're showing the world that no matter what they do, they can't be touched. In the end, the CEOs win. Not the government, and certainly not people who work for a living.
When you're the only solution, you are by definition the best solution. Big Business has had many decades to get these things right, and they've failed miserably. Besides, if they don't want government to be involved, they shouldn't keep involving the government! They should clean up their messes without having to be told to do it. Because they don't clean up after themselves, we need to treat them like the spoiled children they are.

We need to stop making public policy based on what international (foreign in every country) corporations want, and make it based on our best interests.

Since we're talking about greed, here's a little something for those of you who think you've got good health insurance:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...hemselves-foot

It could only be at taxpayer expense if government is involved and supporting the evil. Without government involvement, it would be consumer expense and the company would be held responsible. If there was government involvement, it's a failing on the part of government and seems to argue for less involvement. I sure don't want my tax dollars going to fund research by evil corporations. Government should not be in a position to choose which company survives or fails or which set of corporate propaganda receives better funding.
If it can be proven that the companies knowingly provided dangerous products, it should be a pretty straightforward case in holding them accountable. Regardless, once something has been shown to be dangerous, why would someone keep using it? Surely the offending companies weren't going around forcing people to paint their houses with lead paint? At what point is it up to the consumer to question the study results that are coming from the corporation?

Sounds like they need to be held accountable. Is the government doing that? Is anyone?

? What does "If it had real power, it wouldn't have to bail them out!" mean? It's the government. If it doesn't want to get involved in something, why is it? Because just this once it's for the best?
Corporate involvement with the government is exactly the problem. Removing government power over corporations also removes power that the corporations can yield against the government. The companies "can't be touched" because the government is bailing them out.

So why aren't they allowed to actually fail? Do you think the government should simply take over everything? I'm honestly curious here. If "Big Business" keeps failing, why isn't it outlawed from operating? Is the free market a complete farce that only exists in theory?

Don't get me wrong, corporations love to involve the government. It means passing laws which are favorable to them (citizens don't have the power to lobby on the same level). It means tax payer bailouts and funding when they screw up (why try to be accountable when the government will cover it up). Sure sometimes there are restrictions which are less than desirable, but they'll deal with those in the next round of lobbying.

EXACTLY! Stop bailing them out when they screw up. Stop cleaning up their waste dumping, allow them to be sued or otherwise held accountable for harming citizens and society.


Let me try to clarify my position.
Government influence over corporations is bad because it allows corporations to wield power over government. We would be far better off if corporations had no avenue for affecting government. The only effective way to bring this about is by limiting the power that government has over corporations. If government can't regulate corporate operations, corporations won't be able to influence those regulations. Trying to set up a system wherein government controls corporate operations, but corporations don't get a say in those controls simply won't work. You'll still end up with lobbying to alter the rules. Corporations must be given the freedom to fail; be accountable for their actions.

Your posts include railing against "Big Business" as well as noting that much of their crimes have been funded by tax dollars. Pretend you're the dictator of this imaginary country. Are you for more government control? Smaller businesses? How big can a business get? Who decides whether a business should be split up, and which businesses get a pass? How do you keep businesses from influencing those decisions. How can a government rule over businesses without being corrupted by those same companies? Are you happy with the system as it exists today? What changes would you make?


And the actions and policies taken by those health execs are despicable. I don't see how this isn't useful evidence in proving wrongful breach of contract, etc. They, along with any other company acting in such a manner, should be held accountable.

Your entire position is based on the impossible idea that limiting the government limits corporations. It doesn't! The only thing to keep large corporations in check is government, which is why Chevron (Texaco at the time) felt they could get away with doing what they did in Nicaragua where the government is smaller and the regulations don't exist. That couldn't happen here because we have regulations against it!

It means that these corporations have so much political power that they can screw up completely, yet still make the government do what they want. They're so large that they're thinking of themselves as being outside the law, and you want to reduce government power and confirm their conclusions!

1. Because they have too much political power relative to the government.
2. No, they should be breaking up many of these companies.
3. There are laws against them. They're called anti trust, but see number 1.
4. Yes, the free market is a farce. We can only get close to a free market by reducing the size of Big Business because Big Business is a collection of people organized to collude, and while collusion is fine on the production side it is deadly to a free market.
Which is why what you're advocating is completely impossible.
You do realize that to do these things requires regulation, right? If you're going to have a society based on law, you can't just point at a company and say we're going to fine you if you don't have a law to justify that fine. As for lawsuits, they're rarely effective because most people can't afford to pursue them, and companies have already done the math to confirm that it's cheaper to pollute and stonewall people than clean up. Reduce regulation, and people will have fewer grounds for suing!

Of course, now Big Business is trying to make stonewalling cheaper by claiming that government regulation is too costly for business. I'm sure they appreciate your help.
I would split up any company that has gotten large enough that it begins manipulating the markets instead of competing in them based on the quality and cost of its products/services.
Once again, you're asking for regulation, whether you know it or not. Breach of contract is a civil matter, and the cost of such a suit would be prohibitive for 99% of people affected, especially if they're sick and have unpaid medical bills! It's completely ineffective, which is why the insurance companies can count on getting away with it unless we have more regulation to stop them.

My whole position is that limiting government WOULD make it impossible for corporations to influence government. Especially if government was specifically prohibited from influencing corporations. My position is that doing so shifts freedom to all and power to local government and individuals.

If you don't accept the idea of a free market, or that limited government would limit power over corporations, then of course it wouldn't work. Debating the reality of a free market is also something that I don't even know how to approach debating.

First, limiting government power means that you INCREASE corporate power in relation to government, making the problem worse. Making government unable to influence corporations does nothing to stop corporations from influencing government, and that's where the problem is!

Second, shifting power to "all" is perfect for corporate criminals. You've passed a law against child labor in your state? No problem, they'll set up shop in another state and still do business in yours.

You're essentially asking to take the world wide problem of corporations finding and abusing places with lax laws and bring it to the US. We already have corporations paying people in places like China and India far less than minimum wage. The people who make Nike/Adidas sneakers can't even afford to buy a pair! Why do you want to bring that here?

That's because you have this strange idea that any market without government interference is a free market. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you have a group of private organizations that are each larger than most governments, and that collude to manipulate markets (say like the oil industry's manipulation of gas prices combined with the auto industry's desire to keep selling internal combustion (maintenance = profit center) vehicles instead of electric), you don't have a free market! You can't have one because no one will produce alternative products. (Sure, we're beginning to see electric vehicles now, but that's only because Oil guys like T. Boone Pickens know that oil is running out, not because of market forces. )

You're basically thinking of the economies of the world as if they're weather systems that humans can't control. They're not. Everything that happens in them is a direct response to human action, so humans can manipulate them with or without government.