Why do Americans fear government regulation of industry?

@sharra1 (6344)
Australia
October 18, 2008 7:49am CST
I find it hard to understand how you people cannot see the benefits of balance where you have a sensible system that regulates the greedy so that they cannot destroy the economy the way they are at the moment. Every time someone mentions regulation you cry socialism and it is just so silly. Why do you fail to see that extreme socialism and extreme capitalism have the same end result by different means. Both produce worlds where a few have all the wealth and the rest are slaves to the few. One controls everything the other controls nothing both exploit the many. Both lie about their aims. Capitalism claims that everyone can be rich which is a lie as it must have people living in poverty to survive. It can only make wealth by exploiting the poor. Extreme socialism claims that it is making everyone equal but in reality they are all equally poor while the ones that run it are wealthy. Different systems both exploit. What we need is a world that balances the needs of everyone. I am NOT talking about a system where everyone is equal but a system where the worst excesses of greed are capped and controlled by regulation and those who are ill, disabled and unemployed are taken care of. Why are you so afraid that regulation will destroy your country when there are examples in the world to show that it does not do this at all?
4 people like this
6 responses
• United States
18 Oct 08
I agree with you. With biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons we are running out of time. How free are we with bullies running the world and corrupting our laws to make bullying legal? Now very. In America the Robber Baron era resulted in railroad and coal "trusts" as they were called back then. Regulation of these monopolies resulted in anti-trust law designed to prevent bullying by a group that joins to exploit their monopoly on a product or service by charging excessive prices to the consumers who need their product. If you are starving, what would you pay for food? If you are freezing what will you pay for fuel? (Now, both of these questions have become increasingly relevant for tens of millions of Americans and over 2 billion worldwide.) Anti-trust law was largely destroyed by Reagan as were regulatory oversight of what the wealthy can do to the rest of us. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are really coming clean since their parties are really bought-and-paid-for in our insane, contrived political "system." Note that trillions of bailout money has been contributed to the wealthy in the last few months with very, very little regulation reform. We sheep are being sheared in a whole new way! A potential breath of fresh air is Dr. John Forbes Nash whose win/win gaming theory won him the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1994. The Nash model is being successfully used to negotiate business owner and employee agreements as well as trade treaties between nations where there are no losers... I'll try to transcribe the Wiki link: htpp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash Powerful bullies spend lots of money obscuring the great hope that comes with implementing Nash solutions. The above Wiki link does not tell what I just wrote. In the past on other issues that are distorted or obscured in Wiki I soon discovered that I could not get my revisions to stick for more than a few minutes. (Think of Orwell's 1984 where whole rooms of paid worker minions distort history to keep tyrants ruling. We live in an Orwellian world, me thinks.) So now, I mostly work on manuscript for books since the web has been "mastered" by puppet masters... (And dabble a little socially in these myLot experiments to see how long myLot will exist...) For peace on Earth, bullying needs to be outlawed. We Americans can do our part by amending our Constitution to end sanctioning abuses in power. It will go slow but has a better chance for improvement that civil war or WWIII.
@mommyboo (13207)
• United States
18 Oct 08
Yes, bullying needs to be outlawed, made a crime, and punishable by fines and jail time. Maybe then people would wise up and stop.
1 person likes this
• United States
19 Oct 08
When the next President is sworn in, there are some rumors that Bush and Cheney could face charges for ordering and sanctioning torture. Several years ago with the US occupation Iraq a reality, atrocities grew. Not only did Bush and Cheney not do anything to stop the atrocities, things got worse. Repeatedly the US basically allows Presidents to violate Treaties without consequences. If we shipped Bush and Cheney off to Iraq to be tried for war crimes, future Presidents would be more likely to behave... On the large picture, all leaders of nations have the "Sovereign right" to make war. Just like Kings of old. In these United States we need an Amendment against us starting a war. Declaring war on another nation after we are attacked by that nation is justifiable. For instance, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. This "war on terror" is a perpetual "state of war" bullying tactic that can never be won and makes the military industrial complex rich. The is no geographical area defined as a country.
3 people like this
@sharra1 (6344)
• Australia
20 Oct 08
I agree with you. There will always be greedy people but there needs to be some regulation to keep them in check or they crush everyone in their path. It does seem to be more and more Orwellian in nature but if nothing is done to stop it then we could end up with a world where the rich hide in fortresses and the people take up arms to fight for survival. I would hate to see the science fiction writers prediction of urban wars come true. It has not always been like it is now, we know it can be different but if the government is controlled by those that do not want change then nothing will be done.
1 person likes this
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
18 Oct 08
Exactly. As with many things in life, the best route here is a balance. Regulated capitalism is the best of both worlds. Well said.
3 people like this
@sharra1 (6344)
• Australia
18 Oct 08
I am glad you agree but I wonder if you will ever get a system like that in America as there are so many people who seem to view it as the root of all evil when they do not even understand it. From what I have seen of the arguments they are all base on the individual but a country is not an individual it must care for everyone.
2 people like this
• United States
18 Oct 08
Oh yeah, it's coming. A fundamental shift is underway, and the kind of segregation/McCarthyist/etc. "us and them" philosophy is going away, as those people die of old age. The demographic replacing them is FAR more likely to accept this kind of economic policy (which is basically a Democratic policy). The only question is--is it too late for the United States to recover its economy, and its status in the world along with it?
3 people like this
• United States
18 Oct 08
Without amending our Constitution to end bullying and our 2-party system we're toast.
3 people like this
@mommyboo (13207)
• United States
18 Oct 08
Well Sharra, I find this very sensible (and I generally avoid politics). I have been reading more discussions under the political umbrella recently because of the dismal state of Wall Street, the economy, real estate, shall I go on? I agree that the rich are just getting richer OFF THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS and this is like a big ol fat jerk who never missed a meal stealing from the little 7 year old on a street corner who hasn't eaten in three days! I do not feel that *some* regulation is bad at all. There are some things I really believe should be regulated anyway in order to allow everybody access to it without breaking the bank or going without. Anything you MUST have under the law for instance - like medical ins for kids - should be accessible and this means not at a prohibitive cost. Same for car insurance. I also think you should be a legal citizen of the country to have access to either one, to get free education, and to have a driver's license. Gas and electric should be regulated in order to not steal from the consumers because they MUST have it. Same for water. Like you, I think regulation should only step in to CONTROL and ERADICATE the worst of the greed - where a company is huge and making profits hand over fist while bleeding the average citizen dry. I also feel that we need to take care of citizens FIRST and then if we have any extra resources left over, THEN we can take care of people who aren't even supposed to be here. Taking care of others first while neglecting ourselves is causing a huge overspending problem when we already ran out of resources!
3 people like this
@sharra1 (6344)
• Australia
20 Oct 08
I am glad you think it is sensible. There are others who do not see it that way at all. They foolishly think that any regulation is socialism and it isn't. What is hard is finding the right balance so that the system works and generates wealth without exploitation. It can be done but it needs politicians who are about the welfare of all not just a few and at the moment there do not seem to be all that many who are like that. I find it sad that there is so much greed and selfishness in the world today. I heard a bank executive trying to justify a salary of 5 million the other day and he couldn't. No one needs that much wealth. But then I feel the same way about sport star incomes. I agree with you that we should be caring for our citizens first. The worst example of greed is Zimbabwe where most of the population is starving. But that can happen in any country that does not look after its citizens.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14111)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
18 Oct 08
Where to start. Sensably regulated capitolism. We've been bouncing between feast and famine. Too much regulation and not enough regulation, the wrong regulations, out dated regulations, regulating the wrong things, neglecting the imortant fundamentals we threw out a long time ago. Laws do not nessesarily equal success. And complete unbridled running amok doesn't nessesatrily mean everyone gets rich either. The nations financial system IS one of those areaas that is an apropriate function of the federal government. the problem is, our federal government is hulking, lumbering, expensive, clumbsy, complicated, wallowing in layer upon layer of beurocrocy and has become a grossly perverted image of everything the founders of this country created. We used to have a pretty good thing going. Look what we were able to acomplish in our relatively short histoy as a nation. We were able to do this because of the sensable system and framework of government our founders set up, It was pretty much set up for nearly perpetual success as long as the stewereds of the nation stuck with the plan. Update it here and there SENSABLY as technology and world events prescribed and other than that, just leave things alone, shut up and drive. Our federal government functions best when it operates on well defined and basic functions. And in the last centuray, we have heaped so much on to it instead of leaving many smaller things to the stes, the federal government now struggles to perform even the most basic functions with any degree of effectivness, let alone run our nations financial system. Couple that with a money system that has no real value and it became collaping time bomb waiting to happen. Again. Sensable regulation. I don't understand what was so dam-n complicated about that. But I guess for sensable regulation you sensable people and sensable government. We used to have that So after this collapse, what do we do? GIVE MORE POWER AND RESPONSABILITY TO THE GOVERNMENT. our tragic flaw will read in history, that we were a people that couldn't seem to learn from our mistakes.
2 people like this
• United States
18 Oct 08
Not bad but I do not agree that we ever did "fine." At present the United States provides the muscle for the most obscene Orwellian economic empire in history. The Euro-dollar Chinese, and Japanese yen "compete" with the US-dollar. Who will be King of the hill in 40 years? Are you ready for WWIII? Think about it. We have 5 percent of the population. In 2000 the majority of the cash flow on Earth flowed through the US and in 2008 it looks like we've dropped to 40 percent of the cash flow on Earth. That's still an 8-fold per person consumption rate. We "only" consume 25 percent of the oil which is only a 5-fold per person consumption rate. Most of this consumption and wealth belongs to our elite and their do this with legalize bullying.
2 people like this
@sharra1 (6344)
• Australia
19 Oct 08
There was a time when capitalism was sensible. People paid reasonable wages and made reasonable profits. Companies were designed to last not to take over the world. For a long time this worked really well and you had whole generations of families working for the same business. This was sustainable and sensible. They were not greedy. Then something called economic rationalism came along and suddenly the only thing that matter was making money, greed took over and the seeds of destruction were sewn. Regulation is the only way that I know of to stop this greed. Yes it can be hard to get it right but without the regulation individual greed runs rampant and everyone else suffers. The government is the only body able to balance these forces but you currently have a government that seems to believe in self regulation. It does not work. You cannot trust the money makers to restrict themselves they have to be forced to comply.
1 person likes this
• Australia
7 Nov 08
I'm not sure that 'afraid' is quite the right word. It is part of the ideology of both Republicanism and the famous American 'rugged individualism' that people should look after themselves, and what they call "big" government simply flies in the face of that ideology. And since ideologues tend to be highly inflexible, they are unable to accept that there are times when the concept of looking after oneself is simply not possible, and the government has to take a role. Coming from the opposite side of politics I believe the government should take a MAJOR role, but that said, there are things within the private business purvey, like substance use, marriage/relationship issues, lifestyle, etc., in which the government should have no role other than to provide protection for those who might be adversely affected by someone else's lifestyle. For example, if your desire for a twenty foot billboard featuring Pamela Anderson to be the feature decoration of your front wall brings heavy unwanted traffic to the street (curious onlookers) and lowers the value of your neightbours' properties (this actually happened in Melbourne a few years ago), then without some form of government intervention the only recourse would be violence of some kind - in effect, anarchy - where the strongest wins. Lash
1 person likes this
@sharra1 (6344)
• Australia
7 Nov 08
The problem with the billboard idea is interesting as the people who want no government seem quite happy to have a police force that protects private property. It seems to me that the only thing they do not want is government to provide assistance to people who cannot make it on their own. I find this to be a very callous attitude and one that could lead to problems if not solved. As wealth becomes more concentrated in the hands of a few global companies it becomes more difficult for people to become rich from extreme poverty and I would think that it is almost impossible these days without someone giving you a helping hand. I cannot understand why people are so opposed to that helping hand being from the government.
1 person likes this
@ljq897 (77)
• China
19 Oct 08
Absolutely correct!I agree with your point of view.In particularly ,Different systems both exploit! The goernment is going to help the rich and leave the poor and the middle americans to the foot of bill .I am a Chinese,and my government has been going to help the real estate business to raise prices in China.The exploited government let people live in dire stratis.
1 person likes this
@sharra1 (6344)
• Australia
20 Oct 08
Yes both extremes exploit the bulk of the population. Only a society that balances the needs of all will ever work. The other contain the seeds of their own destruction in their nature.
1 person likes this