Do Liberals understand government regulation restricts business's to have more options?

O

Obama: Why So Socialist

New member
Now of course basic regulations like child labor laws don't do anything. They can just hire someone of older age.

How ever with the Oil Companies, how much of a free market is it, when laws keep getting passed to prohibit them from drilling any where? How can they have cheap gas if it becomes "Rare" due to lack of drilling. The costs will go up. If oil companies could drill any where, there would be a bigger quantity, which will reduce the value since there is more. In scarcity the value goes up.

Same with the banking industry. I don't care if banks get audited. That's fine to make sure their books are balanced. How ever when you pass regulations like CRA that force banks to give loans to people that don't qualify for "Fairness", you wonder why banks fail.

If I am wrong on the banks. How do all the banks fail at once. You either A) Assume everyone had bad business practice, or B) You know legislation effected all of them causing them to fail.

I've yet to see a market that has minimal legislation all fail at once.

I've yet to see Circuit City go bankrupt, dragging down everyone else that sells electronics, like Best Buy, Wal*Mart, Costco, Target, Etc...

It won't happen. That's why.
Think of a product/service that had everyone that provided it fail at once. Like Oil Companies, or Banks.

You can't. You'll never find one.
Coach: Wait so you're saying it's greedy for an individual to privately start a company, and it becomes successful and they enjoy the fruit of their labor. When a company you privately own becomes very big, does it all of a sudden need to be nationalized? Really because I don't see the point of private ownership rights if I am so successful it has to be regulated. I love how your avatar has a football helmet for an NFL Franchise. How about we regulate the NFL, and force them to give up their wealth. Let's see how many franchise owners leave the league.
vesaversa: uh...Bail outs are unconstitutional. So in my version of no government intervention the tax payer wouldn't be involved. If a business is corrupt. Who cares, it will only hurt it's self and the share holders. So what it doesn't effect tax payers.
 
1929 was a very bad year. All markets sunk at once. And how much regulation was there? Hardly any.
Oil costs are high because of oil producing nations and speculators, not because of government regulation. If you adopted drill baby drill all you would get are a lot of holes in the ground. The price of OIL is determined globally, that's why OIL is valued higher globally than it is valued in Texas, and the global value is what it costs.
 
well first of all how much money does the goverment give those companies? Second the reason we do these things to protect and conserve or we will end up hurting ourselves. Why was bush praised for letting people buy houses at a high by conservatives but obama is bashed when it goes sour?
 
I am glad to see you advocate for keeping all the money and power in the hands of a few. The deregulation that occurred from Reagan to Bush II is the reason we are in the mess we are in now. The elimination of Glass-Steagel especially did damage as invest banks and commercial banks were allowed to co-mingle their funds, all in the name of profit. What it brought about was the creation of things like derivatives that contributed to the sub-prime mess. The elimination of Glass-Steagel was all about greed . . . and what a great concept . . . the big banks are private entities when they are making gobs of money, but when they fail they are socialist as they are bailed out by the government.

Failure to have appropriate regulation will result in more greed and corporations making money off the backs of ordinary people.
 
Back
Top