Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mobilehaathi, May 28, 2009.
I'm staying out of this one. I'm curious what others think.
Of course it does. Try and play a professional soccer match without a referee and see where it gets you. Regulation helps keep things fair and even. It's not even a debate in my opinion.
Competition doesn't require regulation.
Of course. There always have to be rules. Otherwise you end up with chaos. All games have rules, including the economic ones.
Not to be offenseful but I dont think you can do that in PRSI.
I agree with Lee though. Without guidelines at some level, you get abuse damn near always.
Why do we have patents? Are they just useless pieces of paper designed to make an inventor's life miserable?
What if you designed an ICE that gets 250 mpg and costs less than a standard ICE. I send over my spies, get all the details and am first out the gate with the "Engine that will save the world" and make a trillion bucks. You, in the meantime are ground into the dirt by my attorneys.
Ha! I win, you lose. Who needs regulation?
I agree. At least state why you're asking the question.
The Founding Fathers certainly thought so.
Ok, I would vote "Strongly Agree."
I'm not saying that all regulation is necessary or even good. However, I find that a "pure capitalist" system would, in the long term, converge to the point of a total monopoly.
In the business world boundaries/regulation ensure a fair market. In the sports world boundaries/regulation ensures equal and fair competition. You can't really have one without the other.
I think you will have to provide just a tad more reasoning for this stance.
The heck it does!
We dont want the likes of Microsoft or Intel to dominate all mankind using their cash hoards as weapons and then make people pay for really stupid products at really stupid prices.
No matter what system is in place it will always need regulation of some kind, and effective control against corruption and law breaking.
I would say it was good for business as it means there is allot more trust in the system when it works, would you invest money in something without rules?
Of course it does.
In every form of competition in existance, there is some form of governing, neutral body that regulates it.
Strongly agree. To extend it further, competition requires active regulation. A set of rules isn't enough.
I defer to Mr. Keynes on this matter:
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."
That's an interesting quote. However, it raises a question: do we want that most wickedest of men making business decisions in the private sector, or do we want that most wickedest of men legislating policy in the public sector? He's got to work somewhere. Yes, that is straying a bit off topic, but it's something to think about. Again, that's an interesting quote.
The difference between the business man and the politician (at least in theory) is that the business man is motivated only by greed, whereas the politician is held accountable by his constituents. So while both might be wicked people (one seeking money, the other power), the politician should be acting in the interests of his constituents to maintain power, whereas the businessman is acting in his own interest to make money. At least in the politician's case, more people are benefited than just himself.
(Of course this does not apply to all businessmen or politicians. I've plenty of both that are truly good people and don't act merely out of self interest.)
I think it requires a set of rules but not necessarily regulation. These are the things you can and cannot do but beyond that let the companies decide for themselves.
If Apple and Microsoft were heavily regulated would they be making the same products? If the government said every computer had to be made to these sets of standards.
That is not what regulation means at all.
This is regulation. And the causes, if proven valid, are just too!
They are regulated. They have to adhere to strict guidelines as to how they treat their employees, as to how much they can pollute, and until the Bush admin, MS was found guilty of abusing it's monopoly and would have had to comply with whatever punishment they were stuck with even after appeals. Without regulation, we would have a system like they did in the early parts of the industrial revolution (and before I suppose). Children working, people forced to work absurd amounts of time with no breaks, no benefits, I could go on. It's bad enough with having legal monopolies in some markets charging whatever they want for services that most deem these days to be fairly important. See collusion with the oil companies. Also see places like Mexico. Or the lack of mine safety causing so many issues and accidents. Or the poisoned food, toys, etc.
How is this even being debated? Looking at what's been happening in the market without regulation being enforced, some even being reversed, and tell me we need less regulation. Really? I mean, come on, REALLY?!? No one wants over-regulation or bureaucracy, which we kinda already have anyway, but little or no regulation, or even a lack of enforcing, is just... crazy.
I defy anyone to prove it isn't.