Wealth inequality in the USA.

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby ScaupHunter » Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:33 am

Here is another problem with your argument Jim.

Most of those folks who we would call dirt poor are working hard and living good lives. They don't run around with their hands out crying about how they don't have enough. They bust their butts to get by and enjoy their lives despite our considering them dirt poor. I have seen a lot of the world Jim. The very ideals you push here are exactly what creates massive numbers of dirt poor people. The centralized government model alway fails. It is always corrupt, and it always creates less wealth for everyone.

You want to argue semantics. They are irrelevant. The government cannot pay for anything until it steals money from someone else. Right now they are stealing from your grandchildrens, grandchildren's paychecks. The government has no place looking for more money. It needs to live within it's means just like you and I need to.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am


Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:55 am

Glimmerjim wrote:Spinner. A problem that I have is that those of conservative ilk always contend that those on the lowest economic rungs of society essentially have too much and would be considered wealthy in many countries. Then you argue that due to taxation rates and control of business everyone is hampered in their attempts at upward mobility. So the part I don't get, is that if the poorest amongst us are "wealthy", then what would you deem the position of the lower middle, the middle, the upper middle, the upper, and the 1% classes? Obscenely wealthy? If so, what reason on earth do they have to complain about their lot in life?

First, I don't use the words ilk or obscenely wealthy. I don't think at all like an emotional liberal.

Second, there are two different issues that are pretty much separate.

If you want to talk seriously about this, you cannot disregard age. On average, how much should someone that is in college make? What is a reasonable spread in wealth and income between someone starting their career, someone at their peak, and someone at retirement?

Also, people consciously choose to be starving artists in hopes of hitting the jackpot in Hollywood or in music. If they chose this path, why should other's subsidize it? I easily could be making a lot more money than I do now, but I would have never accepted a path where I could not support myself. However, during my extended period of time in college I lived in statistical poverty for much of it. That may have been tough if I didn't spend many of my breaks at the beach and travel all over the country at that time.

In hindsight, was everybody in the 1700's nearly destitute by the standards of today? How do you even measure poverty? If society continues to advance, the standard of living of today's poor is better than the middle class a generation or so ago and better than the rich another generation or two before that and the same applies in a the future. Stifling growth does incredible harm, not just to those alive today, but to future generations.

Effective marginal tax rates are something that is critically important for the ability for ordinary people to improve their quality of life. Whenever government provides means-tested benefits, they create ridiculous effective marginal tax rates which eliminate any incentive to work harder, to advance, to take a second job, to work more hours, to work harder to try to move up, etc. The extra you earn by working harder is taken away by the government in the form of lost benefits.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16182
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby assateague » Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:59 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:
assateague wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that in the absence of government regulation, we would have hell on earth, and that the only way we can approach heaven on earth (or Valhalla, whatever floats your boat) is through government regulation.

I dispute that. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

Well, I'd say the devil's in the details here, and that you've mischaracterized my position as far more extreme than I would ever dream. But I was using a fair bit of hyperbole myself with the "drown the government in the bathtub" jab too, so maybe I had it coming. I was chiefly reacting to your Gordon Gecko greed hypothesis, which I think is simplistic and dangerous, at best. The Robber Barons were certainly some greedy mofos, but that didn't stop them from working together at times to subvert the market when they thought it was to their advantage. I love me a free market. But freedom isn't free, and this seems to be the only place you right wingers refuse to understand that



While I may partially agree with your premise, there's a HUGE part which is overlooked- the robber barons became what they were BECAUSE of government. Yes, they engaged in influence peddling and outright bribery. But that doesn't change the fact that if the government didn't HAVE the influence to peddle, it would have done them no good. By granting them the ability to regulate basically anything, you are also granting them the power to profit from it, and twist the system.

The robber barons didn't bother bribing the local produce market. Know why? Because they couldn't help them develop their monopolies. But the government darn sure could.

The market will ALWAYS be subverted. Humanity will ALWAYS be greedy. Politicians will ALWAYS be crooked. Trying to mitigate the effects of this are one thing, and something I can get on board with. But trying to legislate them into non-existence generally just provides them with a better defined avenue of where they need to grease, and makes the problem worse. In quite a silly paradox, trying to obliterate the problems seems to give them more fertile soil in which to grow.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:30 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:I was chiefly reacting to your Gordon Gecko greed hypothesis, which I think is simplistic and dangerous
But you are misquoting him anyways. Even he says, "greed, for lack of a better word, is good."

It's actually not a bad speech. It's not the typical silly cartoon version that you get from today's pathetic writers. What part do you have a strong disagreement with. It's actually has a lot in it that most people agree with.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16182
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:32 am

assateague wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
assateague wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that in the absence of government regulation, we would have hell on earth, and that the only way we can approach heaven on earth (or Valhalla, whatever floats your boat) is through government regulation.

I dispute that. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

Well, I'd say the devil's in the details here, and that you've mischaracterized my position as far more extreme than I would ever dream. But I was using a fair bit of hyperbole myself with the "drown the government in the bathtub" jab too, so maybe I had it coming. I was chiefly reacting to your Gordon Gecko greed hypothesis, which I think is simplistic and dangerous, at best. The Robber Barons were certainly some greedy mofos, but that didn't stop them from working together at times to subvert the market when they thought it was to their advantage. I love me a free market. But freedom isn't free, and this seems to be the only place you right wingers refuse to understand that



While I may partially agree with your premise, there's a HUGE part which is overlooked- the robber barons became what they were BECAUSE of government. Yes, they engaged in influence peddling and outright bribery. But that doesn't change the fact that if the government didn't HAVE the influence to peddle, it would have done them no good. By granting them the ability to regulate basically anything, you are also granting them the power to profit from it, and twist the system.

The robber barons didn't bother bribing the local produce market. Know why? Because they couldn't help them develop their monopolies. But the government darn sure could.

The market will ALWAYS be subverted. Humanity will ALWAYS be greedy. Politicians will ALWAYS be crooked. Trying to mitigate the effects of this are one thing, and something I can get on board with. But trying to legislate them into non-existence generally just provides them with a better defined avenue of where they need to grease, and makes the problem worse. In quite a silly paradox, trying to obliterate the problems seems to give them more fertile soil in which to grow.

1000 points to Assateague.....you are on a roll here lately my friend! :clapping: Kudos. :beer:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57397
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:55 am

Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
assateague wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that in the absence of government regulation, we would have hell on earth, and that the only way we can approach heaven on earth (or Valhalla, whatever floats your boat) is through government regulation.

I dispute that. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

Well, I'd say the devil's in the details here, and that you've mischaracterized my position as far more extreme than I would ever dream. But I was using a fair bit of hyperbole myself with the "drown the government in the bathtub" jab too, so maybe I had it coming. I was chiefly reacting to your Gordon Gecko greed hypothesis, which I think is simplistic and dangerous, at best. The Robber Barons were certainly some greedy mofos, but that didn't stop them from working together at times to subvert the market when they thought it was to their advantage. I love me a free market. But freedom isn't free, and this seems to be the only place you right wingers refuse to understand that



While I may partially agree with your premise, there's a HUGE part which is overlooked- the robber barons became what they were BECAUSE of government. Yes, they engaged in influence peddling and outright bribery. But that doesn't change the fact that if the government didn't HAVE the influence to peddle, it would have done them no good. By granting them the ability to regulate basically anything, you are also granting them the power to profit from it, and twist the system.

The robber barons didn't bother bribing the local produce market. Know why? Because they couldn't help them develop their monopolies. But the government darn sure could.

The market will ALWAYS be subverted. Humanity will ALWAYS be greedy. Politicians will ALWAYS be crooked. Trying to mitigate the effects of this are one thing, and something I can get on board with. But trying to legislate them into non-existence generally just provides them with a better defined avenue of where they need to grease, and makes the problem worse. In quite a silly paradox, trying to obliterate the problems seems to give them more fertile soil in which to grow.

1000 points to Assateague.....you are on a roll here lately my friend! :clapping: Kudos. :beer:

That's a little like saying that if the local police force didn't HAVE the power to selectively enforce criminal statutes, then the Mafia wouldn't have to deal with them so they wouldn't become the you know......Mafia. Your premise is based on the idea that the Robber Barons would have all just played by the book, and let the market play out. Which is nonsense........they colluded like mad whenever it met their purpose, and if government could be used to aid and abet, they did all they could to make that happen. But the idea that a government with no power to control or regulate would have in ANY way stopped them from controlling the markets any way they saw a profit is what I keep calling the most glaring naiveté in the right wing world. It's like the liberal argument against keeping a gun for self-defense, because the bad guy will just use it against you and if you didn't have one, you'd be better off. Which is absurd, on both counts
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby ScaupHunter » Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:05 pm

The robber barons owned the local government and many state and federal officials. They are the classic example of corruption in government allowing the wealthy to rape the poor and disadvantaged under local conditions. They are a great example of why smaller and more honest government are vital to keep us all free. Big government doesn't control greedy people it just sucks in more money and turns a blind eye. The failure to regulate our bonds and stock markets and the fraud going on there is one example. Failure to prosecute for fraud in the economic crash we are experiencing is another.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:10 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:The robber barons owned the local government and many state and federal officials. They are the classic example of corruption in government allowing the wealthy to rape the poor and disadvantaged under local conditions. They are a great example of why smaller and more honest government are vital to keep us all free. Big government doesn't control greedy people it just sucks in more money and turns a blind eye. The failure to regulate our bonds and stock markets and the fraud going on there is one example. Failure to prosecute for fraud in the economic crash we are experiencing is another.

All one has to do is look at some of the evidence "tail of the tape" uncovered by Nanex. The fraud occurs in terraseconds, but it is fraud nonetheless.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57397
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:16 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:The robber barons owned the local government and many state and federal officials. They are the classic example of corruption in government allowing the wealthy to rape the poor and disadvantaged under local conditions. They are a great example of why smaller and more honest government are vital to keep us all free. Big government doesn't control greedy people it just sucks in more money and turns a blind eye. The failure to regulate our bonds and stock markets and the fraud going on there is one example. Failure to prosecute for fraud in the economic crash we are experiencing is another.

They owned them because they had to in order to further their corrupt ends. If there had been no governments there to deal with I'm sure they'd have behaved like perfectly decent citizens, right? This right wing blindness boggles the mind
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:17 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:Your premise is based on the idea that the Robber Barons would have all just played by the book, and let the market play out.
EVERY conservative assumes that no one will play by the book by choice. You are just wrong in this regard. The presumption is that they or someone similarly situated will throw the book out the window at first opportunity. The question is how to best mitigate the consequences of this.

blackduckdog2 wrote:they colluded like mad whenever it met their purpose, and if government could be used to aid and abet, they did all they could to make that happen
Do some homework on economic theory? These people that are willing to lie, cheat, and steal, are not inherently faithful to their partners in crime, are they? I just read some about this a couple weeks ago. Cheaters cheat and the more people that must be part of the conspiracy, the more unstable that conspiracy is.

This is why I harp against the huge economic benefits that came from the strong economy of scale that come with a highly bureaucratic top heavy government. It drives the optimum size of businesses up, which does many bad things, but in this regard it limits the number of conspirators, it rewards corruption, etc.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16182
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:29 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:The robber barons owned the local government and many state and federal officials. They are the classic example of corruption in government allowing the wealthy to rape the poor and disadvantaged under local conditions. They are a great example of why smaller and more honest government are vital to keep us all free. Big government doesn't control greedy people it just sucks in more money and turns a blind eye. The failure to regulate our bonds and stock markets and the fraud going on there is one example. Failure to prosecute for fraud in the economic crash we are experiencing is another.

But Scaup, when you say that "They are the classic example of corruption in government allowing the wealthy to rape the poor and disadvantaged", you are therefore conversely stating that government does and should have the power to PREVENT the wealthy from raping the poor and disadvantaged. We all concur that this will happen regardless of government intervention. So we either have government involved in the "fairness" and morality of the business world, which obviously implies a certain amount of oversight and authority to control, or we don't. I don't think we can have it both ways. Now if this authority and control are beyond the level which we desire, that implies the need for MORE control and authority needed to curtail the expansion of the corruption, not less.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:38 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:ou are therefore conversely stating that government does and should have the power to PREVENT the wealthy from raping the poor and disadvantaged.
Raping is a crime, so who does not believe it should be prevented whether literal or figurative? :huh:

Glimmerjim wrote:We all concur that this will happen regardless of government intervention.
We do not. Because unlike literal rape, a business cannot force you to buy their product, they cannot prevent you from starting a competitive business. If someone is "raping" the consumers, without government intervention, why would every corporation not invest in that and return the profits back to normal economic profits? :huh:

Glimmerjim wrote: So we either have government involved in the "fairness" and morality of the business world
Criminality. Not Fairness or morality. If you want to sell crack, run a whore house, grow food, produce baby food, or cure cancer, the government should not care about the morality of your product or service. They should care about preserving the rights of other people. Are they being defrauded, coerced, unwittingly endangered, etc. and not the fairness or morality, unless of course, I am the one that decides what those things mean?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16182
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby assateague » Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:41 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:The robber barons owned the local government and many state and federal officials. They are the classic example of corruption in government allowing the wealthy to rape the poor and disadvantaged under local conditions. They are a great example of why smaller and more honest government are vital to keep us all free. Big government doesn't control greedy people it just sucks in more money and turns a blind eye. The failure to regulate our bonds and stock markets and the fraud going on there is one example. Failure to prosecute for fraud in the economic crash we are experiencing is another.

But Scaup, when you say that "They are the classic example of corruption in government allowing the wealthy to rape the poor and disadvantaged", you are therefore conversely stating that government does and should have the power to PREVENT the wealthy from raping the poor and disadvantaged. We all concur that this will happen regardless of government intervention. So we either have government involved in the "fairness" and morality of the business world, which obviously implies a certain amount of oversight and authority to control, or we don't. I don't think we can have it both ways. Now if this authority and control are beyond the level which we desire, that implies the need for MORE control and authority needed to curtail the expansion of the corruption, not less.


No. You don't need regulations and government involvement in business to do that. You need laws. And we have laws. They simply aren't enforced. Passing a law prohibiting something is not "regulating" or "involvement". It is simply a law. It is when government decides to tell you how, what, where, why, with whom you can do business that the problem comes in.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:55 pm

assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:The robber barons owned the local government and many state and federal officials. They are the classic example of corruption in government allowing the wealthy to rape the poor and disadvantaged under local conditions. They are a great example of why smaller and more honest government are vital to keep us all free. Big government doesn't control greedy people it just sucks in more money and turns a blind eye. The failure to regulate our bonds and stock markets and the fraud going on there is one example. Failure to prosecute for fraud in the economic crash we are experiencing is another.

But Scaup, when you say that "They are the classic example of corruption in government allowing the wealthy to rape the poor and disadvantaged", you are therefore conversely stating that government does and should have the power to PREVENT the wealthy from raping the poor and disadvantaged. We all concur that this will happen regardless of government intervention. So we either have government involved in the "fairness" and morality of the business world, which obviously implies a certain amount of oversight and authority to control, or we don't. I don't think we can have it both ways. Now if this authority and control are beyond the level which we desire, that implies the need for MORE control and authority needed to curtail the expansion of the corruption, not less.


No. You don't need regulations and government involvement in business to do that. You need laws. And we have laws. They simply aren't enforced. Passing a law prohibiting something is not "regulating" or "involvement". It is simply a law. It is when government decides to tell you how, what, where, why, with whom you can do business that the problem comes in.

I feel you are positing a difference without a distinction, AT. Is not the Judicial System part and parcel of our govt? And can it not be used to achieve the same, nefarious means to an end as the other depts in our govt?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:05 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:Is not the Judicial System part and parcel of our govt? And can it not be used to achieve the same, nefarious means to an end as the other depts in our govt?
This is a critical part of the oversight that our representatives must do. This is why there are need for checks and balances, because absolutely, the courts can get out of control as they currently are. They should no more be trusted than any other branch of government and in some ways are the most dangerous because they have the least accountability.

Oversight is the most overlooked part of what the legislatures must do. It is vital. It is of course not as fun as spending with an unlimited credit card, nor is it a way to pay back your donors or buy votes.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16182
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby ScaupHunter » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:05 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:The robber barons owned the local government and many state and federal officials. They are the classic example of corruption in government allowing the wealthy to rape the poor and disadvantaged under local conditions. They are a great example of why smaller and more honest government are vital to keep us all free. Big government doesn't control greedy people it just sucks in more money and turns a blind eye. The failure to regulate our bonds and stock markets and the fraud going on there is one example. Failure to prosecute for fraud in the economic crash we are experiencing is another.

But Scaup, when you say that "They are the classic example of corruption in government allowing the wealthy to rape the poor and disadvantaged", you are therefore conversely stating that government does and should have the power to PREVENT the wealthy from raping the poor and disadvantaged. We all concur that this will happen regardless of government intervention. So we either have government involved in the "fairness" and morality of the business world, which obviously implies a certain amount of oversight and authority to control, or we don't. I don't think we can have it both ways. Now if this authority and control are beyond the level which we desire, that implies the need for MORE control and authority needed to curtail the expansion of the corruption, not less.



The answer is not more control Jim. We have had the necessary laws in place to handle these issues since the 1800's. What we need is an honest government that enforces the existing laws. The larger our government has gotten the less effective it has become at enforcing our laws. We used to hang criminals which ended their crime sprees. Now we don't even bother arresting them, we just let them carry on.

The government's job is not and never has been fairness. The governments job is ensuring that the country is protected, international and interstate trade are performed honestly, and criminals are tried and handled appropriately. Nothing more and nothing less. We have a government that does none of these things. Our government protects the criminals now. Every time you try to argue for more government you are acting the fool. No large government has ever been good for it's people. Nor has it ever led to a time of increased prosperity for it's people. Big government is a classic symptom of the death of a society. Having people actually argue and believe it is a good thing is the real problem.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby assateague » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:33 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:
No. You don't need regulations and government involvement in business to do that. You need laws. And we have laws. They simply aren't enforced. Passing a law prohibiting something is not "regulating" or "involvement". It is simply a law. It is when government decides to tell you how, what, where, why, with whom you can do business that the problem comes in.

I feel you are positing a difference without a distinction, AT. Is not the Judicial System part and parcel of our govt? And can it not be used to achieve the same, nefarious means to an end as the other depts in our govt?



Yes. But the difference- and it's a big difference- is that with regulation you are prohibited from doing something, and with law you are punished for doing it. That's a pretty damn major distinction.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:36 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:ou are therefore conversely stating that government does and should have the power to PREVENT the wealthy from raping the poor and disadvantaged.
Raping is a crime, so who does not believe it should be prevented whether literal or figurative? :huh:

Glimmerjim wrote:We all concur that this will happen regardless of government intervention.
We do not. Because unlike literal rape, a business cannot force you to buy their product, they cannot prevent you from starting a competitive business. If someone is "raping" the consumers, without government intervention, why would every corporation not invest in that and return the profits back to normal economic profits? :huh:


they can when they have a literal monopoly by design. most people can not chose who they buy their electric power from, though they can elect not to buy any at all and go off the grid. Same with natural gas.

Glimmerjim wrote: So we either have government involved in the "fairness" and morality of the business world
Criminality. Not Fairness or morality. If you want to sell crack, run a whore house, grow food, produce baby food, or cure cancer, the government should not care about the morality of your product or service. They should care about preserving the rights of other people. Are they being defrauded, coerced, unwittingly endangered, etc. and not the fairness or morality, unless of course, I am the one that decides what those things mean?
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57397
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:39 pm

question for the liberals-why has the massive number of ongoing frauds since 2007 not been stopped? Why are their no prosecutions? We have regulations. Is it doing any good?

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it”

― Frederic Bastiat
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57397
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:49 pm

assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:
No. You don't need regulations and government involvement in business to do that. You need laws. And we have laws. They simply aren't enforced. Passing a law prohibiting something is not "regulating" or "involvement". It is simply a law. It is when government decides to tell you how, what, where, why, with whom you can do business that the problem comes in.

I feel you are positing a difference without a distinction, AT. Is not the Judicial System part and parcel of our govt? And can it not be used to achieve the same, nefarious means to an end as the other depts in our govt?



Yes. But the difference- and it's a big difference- is that with regulation you are prohibited from doing something, and with law you are punished for doing it. That's a pretty damn major distinction.

I'm sorry AT, but I am having a hard time seeing the difference. A regulation that prohibits you from doing something must have the same negative consequences as a law if you decide to ignore the regulation. The regulation must have some teeth or no one would be afraid of getting bitten. Can you provide examples of the difference just so that I can understand your point?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:56 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:
No. You don't need regulations and government involvement in business to do that. You need laws. And we have laws. They simply aren't enforced. Passing a law prohibiting something is not "regulating" or "involvement". It is simply a law. It is when government decides to tell you how, what, where, why, with whom you can do business that the problem comes in.

I feel you are positing a difference without a distinction, AT. Is not the Judicial System part and parcel of our govt? And can it not be used to achieve the same, nefarious means to an end as the other depts in our govt?



Yes. But the difference- and it's a big difference- is that with regulation you are prohibited from doing something, and with law you are punished for doing it. That's a pretty damn major distinction.

I'm sorry AT, but I am having a hard time seeing the difference. A regulation that prohibits you from doing something must have the same negative consequences as a law if you decide to ignore the regulation. The regulation must have some teeth or no one would be afraid of getting bitten. Can you provide examples of the difference just so that I can understand your point?

see my above post.....^^^^^^
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57397
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby assateague » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:32 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:
No. You don't need regulations and government involvement in business to do that. You need laws. And we have laws. They simply aren't enforced. Passing a law prohibiting something is not "regulating" or "involvement". It is simply a law. It is when government decides to tell you how, what, where, why, with whom you can do business that the problem comes in.

I feel you are positing a difference without a distinction, AT. Is not the Judicial System part and parcel of our govt? And can it not be used to achieve the same, nefarious means to an end as the other depts in our govt?



Yes. But the difference- and it's a big difference- is that with regulation you are prohibited from doing something, and with law you are punished for doing it. That's a pretty damn major distinction.

I'm sorry AT, but I am having a hard time seeing the difference. A regulation that prohibits you from doing something must have the same negative consequences as a law if you decide to ignore the regulation. The regulation must have some teeth or no one would be afraid of getting bitten. Can you provide examples of the difference just so that I can understand your point?



I cannot open an electric company on my back 40. I cannot sell insurance to my friends. I cannot farm deer. I cannot start a bank.

I suppose there was an "implied" part that I did leave it, and it's important- what I meant was "prohibit from doing without government permission". That is the regulation I speak of, not the "don't dump toxic waste in the Bay" sort of regulation. I agree that a regulation must have "teeth" just like a law, but an imposed penalty really shouldn't carry the weight of law. But regulations generally punish folks for NOT doing something, whereas laws punish you for DOING something. That's what I feel is effed up.


Honestly, I've always wondered about how that works- how did regulatory agencies, from the EPA down to local planning and zoning commissions, somehow get the authority to not only fine, but have people imprisoned for violating policies they came up with? I thought only legislatures could make law, and that one always has recourse in the form of an appeal (yet that is not the case in an awful lot of these "regulatory" cases)
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby cartervj » Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:38 pm

Indaswamp wrote:question for the liberals-why has the massive number of ongoing frauds since 2007 not been stopped? Why are their no prosecutions? We have regulations. Is it doing any good?

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it”

― Frederic Bastiat



I was just about ask a similar question, no need to check back, I doubt there will be a reply
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7329
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:27 am

Indaswamp wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:ou are therefore conversely stating that government does and should have the power to PREVENT the wealthy from raping the poor and disadvantaged.
Raping is a crime, so who does not believe it should be prevented whether literal or figurative? :huh:

Glimmerjim wrote:We all concur that this will happen regardless of government intervention.
We do not. Because unlike literal rape, a business cannot force you to buy their product, they cannot prevent you from starting a competitive business. If someone is "raping" the consumers, without government intervention, why would every corporation not invest in that and return the profits back to normal economic profits? :huh:


they can when they have a literal monopoly by design. most people can not chose who they buy their electric power from, though they can elect not to buy any at all and go off the grid. Same with natural gas.
But your examples are monopolies literally designed by the government. However, I think in most states you can buy your natural gas from multiple vendors and they have done a decent job of actually creating a competitive market. There is probably some value in creating a monopoly on the distribution of these, but there was no excuse for the monopoly on supply and production. Of course, all the money is in supply and production and not distribution, but, the politicians always want more control and the business more money, so they didn't limit the monopoly to what arguably would have been more efficient and used for social benefit (e.g. rural electrification) and left the major larger portion to the competitive market to innovate and drive down prices.

Natural monopolies while they can in theory exist are extremely rare. There are almost always substitutes or other business that could enter the market if the single supplier were to seek profit margins above normal economic profits.

Oligopolies are more common, but they too are generally the creation of terrible regulations. There are tremendous economy of scale benefits in highly regulated, bureaucratic, industries. This makes it nearly impossible to enter the market and drives the industry to merge to be able to compete with the biggest player.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16182
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:50 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:ou are therefore conversely stating that government does and should have the power to PREVENT the wealthy from raping the poor and disadvantaged.
Raping is a crime, so who does not believe it should be prevented whether literal or figurative? :huh:

Glimmerjim wrote:We all concur that this will happen regardless of government intervention.
We do not. Because unlike literal rape, a business cannot force you to buy their product, they cannot prevent you from starting a competitive business. If someone is "raping" the consumers, without government intervention, why would every corporation not invest in that and return the profits back to normal economic profits? :huh:


they can when they have a literal monopoly by design. most people can not chose who they buy their electric power from, though they can elect not to buy any at all and go off the grid. Same with natural gas.
But your examples are monopolies literally designed by the government. However, I think in most states you can buy your natural gas from multiple vendors and they have done a decent job of actually creating a competitive market.

Depends on if the gas is not pipped to the house, but put in tanks. houses that use tanks probably have a choice where to buy.

There is probably some value in creating a monopoly on the distribution of these, but there was no excuse for the monopoly on supply and production. Of course, all the money is in supply and production and not distribution, but, the politicians always want more control and the business more money, so they didn't limit the monopoly to what arguably would have been more efficient and used for social benefit (e.g. rural electrification) and left the major larger portion to the competitive market to innovate and drive down prices.

Natural monopolies while they can in theory exist are extremely rare. There are almost always substitutes or other business that could enter the market if the single supplier were to seek profit margins above normal economic profits.

Oligopolies are more common, but they too are generally the creation of terrible regulations. There are tremendous economy of scale benefits in highly regulated, bureaucratic, industries. This makes it nearly impossible to enter the market and drives the industry to merge to be able to compete with the biggest player.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57397
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests