Republicans Represent the People

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

So we agree on the effect but not the cause it seems.

I would say that we appear to agree on quite a bit and perhaps more than our discussions let on.
We agree on the problem and who is ultimately at fault.
We appear to disagree on the particular whys and what ultimately needs to change to improve the situation.

My solutions tend to involve a direct approach using the existing system whereas yours appear to involve radically altering the system.
Where we seem to argue is that you seem to think your system will be an improvement whereas my points of contention is that your system either doesn't change anything or it makes things worse.

People have been sold this Keynesian shit hook-line and sinker, because of this they vote for politicians who advocate the same principles that ultimately fuck them over. It's not a coincidence that the time that Keynesianism started into full swing was the same time that the wealth disparity started accelerating world wide, nor is it a coincidence that here in NZ we moved away from interventionist economics and the opportunities and motivations for corruption simultaneously decreased.

Correlation doesn't imply causation. This is why many people believe that prayer works, but I'm not being entirely fair when I say that.
But you're not being enitrely fair either. It's easy to point and state that the economic system the US is using is failing when the US is doing poorly when we've been using the same system for over a century - during which we went from being a nation that was barely holding together to a superpower and now we're in an economic recession and this story holds true for other countries around the planet.

To me, it just sounds like you and other economists with a vested interest against the "Keynesianism" system are using the current financial problems of the most powerful nations on the planet to promote a system that hasn't proven itself to be better or worse than the other.
I'll use an analogy -
It's like if a submarine was torpedoed and caused a major leak on the sub. "John" says that this sub is going down because it uses diamondium armor plating but if the sub used Diamondillium, it wouldn't have suffered the blow at all. When, in fact, it was just as likely that the people who constructed the sub just took shortcuts and it had become structurally unsound anyway. Furthermore, even if Diamondillum were used, it would just take a different kind of torpedo to bring down the sub anyway.
This is what your arguement sounds like to me.
It sounds like you're arguing that diamondillium is a major improvement over diamondium when I'm arguing that they're both terrible and that the sub is sinking because the crew is incompetant and that there are flaws in the sub's structure.

You give the government that type of power and the amount of effort needed to create legislation that falls into that sphere is far greatly reduced. If the government did not have that sort of power over other people's productivity and consensual trade then passing a law to take advantage of it would be MUCH harder, it would stick out like a sore thumb - The legislation would not pass as easily, the opposition who complains about anything to seek election, and the media always looking for a good ride, would highlight the out of the ordinary giving people the opportunity to express outrage - When the legislation is seen as 'standard economic fare' however there isn't nearly as much interest.

You want to stop the special interests from getting favorable legislation as easily? That ^^^ is what you do.

And your system either elimintes all stops to that kind of power or the corrupting forces find another use for said government or they make laws that even go against the government's founding principles. You KNOW that people have done this before on both the small scale and large scale.
My own government gives tax breaks to churches despite the fact that our very constitution forbids favoring one religion over another and I'm sure there are examples from yours.
You also know very well how much harder it is to prosecute white collar crimes in any country and, at the very least, your system does nothing to realistically improve this beyond what a regulated capitalist system would feasibly do.
Further, with your system, I see a system in place that can only repair damage already done and will have an extraordinarily difficult time making companies behave when they have so many more opportunities to mistreat the public. Especially if they're powerful enough to control the courts and essentially just write off bribes, jury intimidation, a team of high-priced lawyers, and purchased politicians as cost-of-living expensives that can be far cheaper than bothering to keep their products in check, their working conditions safe, or ever bother to dispose of hazardous waste properly.

It's hard enough to do even in a regulated economy when the public is soundly against a certain company even being around, let alone if they're releasing a harmful chemical in the local water supply that WOULD normally go through a government inspection agency (the EPA comes to mind) EPECIALLY if the chemical hasn't been proven to be harmful yet. Moreso if said company has a vested interest in making that chemical appear to be harmless - like what the tobacco companies did for cigarettes.

Ultimately, not a damn thing gets done.

You think corporations pushed for the smoking laws? No. That is just our government being nanny state jerkoffs.

I completely agree with you. I think smoking should be regulated in the sense of it being a 'public health concern' given that one smoker is essentially forcing people around him to smoke as well against their will. I would be for banning smoking in public buildings and putting warning labels on the packaging of cigarettes, but any more than that would be telling people what to do.

An interesting fact that supports my position is the significant lack of corporate support for Ron Paul, you would think that as a non-interventionist the corporations would be crawling all over him, because according to your confused analysis of the situation, he is exactly what they want. That is NOT the case, the average donations to Ron Paul's campaigns are $70 and 96% of donations are from individuals, that is absolutely dwarfed by the special interest support for the corporatists in the GOP and Dems.

And this is why I respect Ron Paul. As I've said elsewhere, I disagree with him on a number of issues but he's one of the few people attempting to get elected in the GOP who has any integrity and given EVERYONE ELSE in the GOP, that's saying a lot.
I don't see how corperate support (or rather the lack of support) helps your arguement. Republicans typically fight for the wealthiest americans. Ron Paul fights for smaller government that should get out of the economic system entirely.
Peopel who aren't wealthy, as far as how I see things, still get the short end of the stick either way.

You haven't had deregulation!

YES WE DID! It was one of the major things Bush did early in his presidency is lax the regulations (and enforcement of regulations) on many of the companies who had him in their pocket - including banks, oil companies (especially haliburton) as well as defense contractors and probably more than I care to recount.

Oh right. Paper money. That's why my government is in debt.

*Facepalm*

Do you not get what Keynesianism is? It is a fully fledged economic theory, not just "fiat vs gold".

Paper money isn't exclusively Keynesian and to be honest it's a relatively insignificant position in principle, you could have a fiat system with a fiscally responsible government just fine - Gold has such a huge appeal right now because Keynesian economic policies are destroying the value of currency and bolstering inflation, the reserve banks are printing money to buy government treasuries and bonds so the US doesn't go flat broke and have a debt crisis - This is only escalating as countries like China and Japan drastically lower the number of Government bonds they are buying - The Fed now buys 70% of us Government debt - How do they afford that? By printing more money - What are the effects of that? Lower purchasing power and rising prices that raise the cost of living, the single biggest problem for the working class. Gold standards force fiscal responsibility because you can't just fire up the printing press to inflate your way out of interest payments - If there wasn't such reckless fiscal management you would see but a fraction of the current support for a gold standard.

I understand that.
I also understand that there are ways to artificially inflate the value of raw materials. Oil companies have done this a number of times in recent years and I'm sure there are other methods to cheat this system as well. Failing all of that, lie about the amount of gold you have for spending.
You can easily replicate the same problems through one method or another given the time and opportunity.

It's much much much harder to knock down the wall that it is to slip your buddy some $$$ so he can open the gate... At least when you're swinging the sledge passers by (the public) and the guy who wants to take the gate manager's job (the opposition) have a chance to do something about it.

People have a chance to do something about it now and just as many chances to fix it.
The only difference is there is a wall instead of a gate. The rich ones are still breaking the rules and crossing the wall.

Bullshit! Suppose there is no FDA tomorrow, do you think they're going to start making poisonous chocolates? And even if they did the absence of a regulatory body DOES NOT suddenly make fraud and negligence legal, someone selling you unsafe food under the guise of safety is breaking both of those conditions - You do not need an organization dedicated to being a watch dog in order to secure those basic obligations.

Not immediately, no, thanks to their previous influences.
Not going to stop a lot of people from getting sick and/or killed and assuming the leaders in this company get anything other than a slap on the wrist (because they're a large chocolate company that can afford a team of high priced lawyers).
Now think about what the healthcare industry is doing now to people who get sick and require expensive treatments and thus promptly dropped from coverage. How many people need to die from their neglect before someone does something (assuming that their contracts are worded in such a way that means that their neglect isnt' neglect legally - yes, they have done this also.)

You're damn right they do it anyway. Yet, you're promoting a system that makes it harder for them to do by removing the vast majority of the regulations and laws that prevent them from taking advantage of an unsuspecting public and robbing them blind with far fewer roadblocks to do so.

Here is the typical false use of the word 'stealing' or 'robbery' I suspect. How exactly are the Robbing the people?

Take your pick from the litany of the worst companies that ever existed.
The comopany from the Erin Brockovich movie is a classic example of this, but now imagine that there arent' any EPA regulations for them to break.

My argument is that the same powers that result in regulations also give out the advantages and privileges, taxpayer funding etc to special interests as well as treating EVERYONE like a potential criminal because someone else somewhere else will do something wrong - that is ultimately WORSE than no powers at all - None of that disallows these organizations being prosecuted for committing a crime.

I'm fine with a health inspector going around making sure there isn't rat feces in the food I eat.
I'm fine being checked at the airport (at least I was before the TSA got body scanners and started molesting all passengers).
Yes, this means I and said restraunt 'gets treated like a criminal' assuming that having to pass through a metal detector or having a guy go through a checklist to make sure that the restraunt I eat at is safe and sanitary for people to eat there. These things happen because lawsuits are expensive, lives could be seriously affected (or ended entirely), and TONS of money lost just from lost, damaged, or destroyed property as a result of the worst that could happen. All of this, of course, could have been prevented completely by just paying a guy to go around and check restraunts and another guy to check passengers for a fraction of the cost in lives, money, and property.
Yes, it probably makes the restraunt feel bad and I certainly wish I didnt' have to deal with airport security at all, but I put up with it because I like to not get sick from eating at my favorite restraunt and I'd like to make it from one city to another without a terrorist blowing me up in the interim.

... and you're telling me that it's *better* to eliminate the regulations for food safety and the laws forcing airline companies to work with the TSA because they can be prosecuted afterwords?
Absolutely not.

You have the most corrupt government in the western world and it's getting worse, even though you are becoming more and more regulated. What you need is NOT more regulations, but cracking down on and more thoroughly punishing people who break the ones you already have. Send a message that people fuck with society get imprisoned or shut down, not that they'll get more red tape to dodge.

Most corrupt compared to what? Cuba? Mexico?
You can't even connect the corruption we have to the problems you say is the cause of our problems, let alone that we're "the most corrupt in th western world." Bull.

Not "regulated", just forced to play by the same rules as everyone else and are open to punishment if they do not. In the free markets if they use the same tactics that they use on the government to get an advantage they don't just get to pass a law and call it legal, avoiding all responsibilities for their actions and taking a bit fat chunk of taxpayer cash while they're at it.

Yes it would. Then it just goes back to who has the most money.
That person or persons win. Society Fail.

You do not need a myriad of tiny bullshit nitpicking regulations, you need a consistent and consent focused approach.

Which regulations have and continue to prove effective at doing.

We're going around in circles here, so let's just cut it for now and move on to the next round.

I think there's still a few more points we can cover - I think it just seems that way because our statement-by-statement posting styles tend to invovle making repetative points.
I'll attempt to be more concise, but if things don't improve, then we can move onto other topics later, I'm sure.