The Last Thing We Need is a Great Leader
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, September 19, 2025 16:46
VIEWED: 6995
PAGE 8 of 9
Quote:Perhaps. What I'm primarily discussing is Markets, with little reference to government supportive regulation of corporations, because I don't think there should be all that much, if any. I'm discussing the failure of Reganite and Thatcherite economic deregulation in the context of the markets. Markets can't produce optimal results alone, because for them to do so we'd have to have people that make optimal decisions for themselves 100% of the time, and even for the best of us that's simply a fantasy. What I'm saying is that favourable Government support of corporations may make monopolies more likely, but it's deregulated markets that produce monopolies, and a monopoly can take advantage of a deregulated market every bit as easily as they can take advantage of an interventionist Government.
Originally posted by SergeantX:
But the corporate legal structure is what really gives a 'monopoly' its punch. I'm not saying there could never be a privately owned monopoly, but the monopoly problem seems a direct outcome of corporatism.
We're sort of talking in circles here, because you hear 'smaller government and free markets' and think of the Reagan/Thatcher thing. To me, a free market is just an extension of freedom. People ought to be free to trade with each other any way they see fit. That doesn't mean they should be able to negotiate with third world nations to enslave their populations, bringing the spoils home to their stockholders. It doesn't mean they should be free to dominate and control our media and democratic process, passing ever more laws to ensure their dominant status.
Sure, Government bending over for corporations is bad, but removing Government from the picture completely and giving them free reign of the markets is just as bad, and has the added caveat that there are not even any 'good' regulations to produce at least some balance. I see a certain amount of revisionist history on the part of the Reganites and later neo-Conservatives (not that I'm accusing you of being either, bear with me). Both make the assertion that America's rise to #1 super power was garnered through individual hard work, liberty, and the Government getting the hell outta the way. But at best, that's half the story, at worst it's complete sash. America's post Second World War rise had a lot more to do with America having the only and largest untouched manufacturing centre, in a world that needed rebuilding than anything else. However America's ability to take advantage of that situation is interesting, but it has little to do with merely the unfettered exercise of pure liberty. America had shown that it's corporate philosophy was capable of producing some of the most efficient and competitive companies in the world, this was boosted by Government stepping away from Corporate support, it's true. The US began to follow a much less protectionist and isolationist stance, that really exploded after the Second World War, and was a big part of American economic hegemony up too the late 70's/ early 80's. But coinciding with this rise was market regulation, such as the 1914 Clayton Act against monopoly and price fixing, and the founding of the Federal Trade Commission in 1911. Far from being caused by the US Government “getting out of the way”, America's economic success seems more to do with it's inherent Enlightenment principles and egalitarianism than allowing market forces to do their work, it's a history of holding private power accountable, often through Government regulation and the courts, and it worked. Then Reganism came along, the market Regulations were stripped away, and there was no balance to corporate power, nor their ability to lobby Government for preferential treatment.
American's are still living with the egalitarian assumptions of the beginning of the last century, but they're not living with the social structure that implemented them, nor the reality of them. It's where the term “land of opportunity” comes from, the tacit belief that it's all merely about effort, that your start in life d
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Markets can't produce optimal results alone, because for them to do so we'd have to have people that make optimal decisions for themselves 100% of the time, and even for the best of us that's simply a fantasy....
"Optimal results" isn't what I'm after with market freedom. My interest is in the freedom part. Your analysis of the fairy tale of American dominance through free market principles seems dead on. In fact, government collusion with corporations has probably done more to make America #1 than free markets. But I still think it's wrong.[edit: - the collusion is wrong, not your analysis]
You, and others here, envision my general opposition to regulation as advocating the removal of regulations keeping the corporations in check, but leaving in place those that give them unfair advantage. I'm looking for the opposite.
Quote:
Government bending over for corporations is bad, but removing Government from the picture completely and giving them free reign of the markets is just as bad, and has the added caveat that there are not even any 'good' regulations to produce at least some balance.
My point is that corporations in their current form exist because of government. If you truly took government out of the picture, you take the corporations out as well. But it's not necessary to do away with government to achieve this. Just severe the collusion that currently exists between the corporations and government. That collusion often takes the form of benign seeming 'regulations' that play out to protect corporate domination of markets, rather than consumer interests. That's why the vast majority of regulatory efforts, the ones that find their way through the legislative process, take the form of barriers to entry (additional overhead that the corporations can absorb, but private competitors can't). Corps and other vested interests thrive on these kinds of regulations because it maintains their dominance.
Quote:
Well, “bathtub cheese” is actually, a fairly major public health issue. Food absolutely should be regulated and forced to commit to standards.
This gets us back to the heart of the article. As Penn put's it ...
Quote:
We need someone stupid enough to understand that the president of the United States can't solve many problems without taking away freedom and therefore shouldn't try. The only reason John McCain scares me a little less is because I think he's a little less likely to win. They both promise a government that will watch over us, and I don't like that.
I don't want anyone as president who promises to take care of me. I may be stupid, but I want a chance to try to be a grown-up and take care of my family. Freedom means the freedom to be stupid, and that's what I want. I don't want anyone to feel my pain or tell me to ask what we can do for our country, or give us all money and take care of us.
This gets at the core of what real freedom is. If I want to buy bathtub cheese, it's between me and the guy with the bathtub and should be no one else's business. If he's lying about it, if he's telling everyone his cheese is made in a sanitized "clean room" when it wasn't, then he's committing fraud. That is, and ought to be, illegal. At that point, the government has an obligation to step in.
But I don't want the government deciding how cheese should be made in the first place.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I'm generally in agreement with Sergeant, here.
To be precise:
1) I'd like the government to require full disclosure about what's in our food.
2) I'd like the government's Surgeon General to make recommendations about what we should eat and what we should avoid to maintain good health.
3) I'd like the government to slam anyone who misrepresents the content, quality, methodology, or age of their food product.
But I don't want the government telling people they can't make food how they want to (or eat it how they want, for that matter.)
Trust me, if the food label was required to say "5% rat droppings per serving" then the food in question would not be widely consumed.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's all just a popularity contest. It's not about who's going to be best for the country or who's the 'smartest'. It's who says all the right things and promises that everything will be alright. In reality everything will never be alright for everyone.
"So remember, the only way to waste your vote is to vote!"
I could not agree more.
My advice is to ignore it all and just get on with your own life however you want to live it.
I'm sure i had some other things to say, but politics bores me, so.
--------------------
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But by optimal results, I don't mean the most competitive market, though an optimal market will tend to be more competitive over all than a non-optimal one. What you seem to be suggesting is no Government interference whatsoever, even in the case of minimal regulation such as anti-monopoly laws.
Originally posted by SergeantX:
"Optimal results" isn't what I'm after with market freedom. My interest is in the freedom part.
My contention is that, that wouldn't actually produce a free (free as in freedom) market. Stepping back and allowing all to sink or swim, win or lose, cheat or scam as they see fit, and hoping that market forces and private litigation will solve all the problems isn't going to work. Again assuming Market forces and private action is going to solve all the problems, makes some tacit assumptions which seem similar to those made by Reganites and Thatcherites in their economic policies. It seems to assume that all private actors within the market have all the information they need to make good decisions, that they will make those decisions and that all actors have similar power and capabilities.
Of course they do not. With a totally free (free as in no regulation) market the most ruthless experienced and powerful actors will gain more and more power. There's nothing to stop them, because a completely free market is the law of the Jungle, biggest strongest most ruthless takes all. Ultimately a completely free market presided over by a monopoly doesn't contain very much freedom. Sure, the monopoly at the top has all the freedom it could want. It can do what it likes, sell what it likes and charge what it likes, that's some freedom. All the customers of course have no freedom or choice whatsoever, but it's a free market, no regulation:
Quote:Well, it does kinda sound like that Sarge. Maybe I'm missing something, but I've been making the case for Government regulation of Markets with 'good' regulations, anti-monopoly laws and the like which I thought you were arguing against. I'm not making the case for protectionism nor corporatism, quite the opposite in fact. There is a case for Government regulation within the Public arena, and the Private arena where it inflicts on the public.
You, and others here, envision my general opposition to regulation as advocating the removal of regulations keeping the corporations in check, but leaving in place those that give them unfair advantage. I'm looking for the opposite.
I see this regulation as something that should be inflicted on private companies though. A viable Democratic Government is held accountable to the people through various mechanisms, one is elections, another is enlightenment principled social institutions, and another is the rule of law. These are required because Government is a powerful actor within the Public Domain. Private companies are powerful actors within the private domain, and they certainly have a great influence on other actors within the private domain, and they exert influence on the public as well. It makes sense that you'd want similar checks on Corporate power that you put on that of Government. Corporations have no electorate that they are accountable too, they have shareholders, but they are a much more restricted group, and usually only concerned with short term profits, so if anything a bad influence on corporate power. There are Enlightenment inspired social structures that balance corporations, labour unions for instance, but what about the rule of law? There's laws that are aimed solely and only at limiting Government power, so why not laws aimed at limiting Private power within a Market?
Quote:And I agree, the US Government has wielded the full vista of it's hard and soft power
Your analysis of the fairy tale of American dominance through free market principles seems dead on. In fact, government collusion with corporations has probably done more to make America #1 than free markets. But I still think it's wrong.[edit: - the collusion is wrong, not your analysis]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cit, you bring up a lot of good points, as usual. Unfortunately, my phone service is out from a storm and won't be fixed until Tuesday. I'm at a public location right now, with limited time, but I'd like to get in a couple of comments in response.
The problems you cite from early product safety issues were solved with a government regulatory approach. But that wasn't the only way to solve them. In fact, other approaches were in the works when government stepped in, effectively short-circuiting evolving consumer protection efforts. Private agencies can, and have, served the role or consumer advocacy. And they do so without the rule of law, without force. They leave freedom intact.
That leaves people free to take their chances if they wish, and allows those who feel they don't have enough information to look for the seal of approval of their favorite consumer protection agency. But the ubiquitous force of government, with its one-size-fits-all solutions, undercuts these efforts and promotes a sense of security and complacency in consumers that, in the end, is quite dangerous. It promotes an attitude that everything available is safe because the government is supposed to be monitoring it all. It dumbs down the consumer base and makes them increasingly vulnerable to scams. (It makes them vote for GW twice in a row)
We're facing a similar situation now with the health care crisis. Solutions are emerging. Solutions that would respect consumer freedom and not create bloated government bureaucracy. Regulation is actually inhibiting many common sense solutions to health care - especially ones that cut the insurance companies from the equation. That's what needs to happen more than anything, but it will never be allowed because the insurance companies control the regulations.
So, just like the product safety issue, we'll hit the healthcare problem with the hammer of government, effectively crushing more organic, non-governmental attempts to solve the problem, likely even outlawing them. All in the name of preserve the current medical industry profits and power.
I don't have time to edit this so that it makes more sense, I'd like to come back to it. My main point is that people aren't idiots. They can solve their own problems and will. All too often its government that's standing in the way of those solutions, treating people like children and promoting a sense of dependency that keeps the rich and powerful rich and powerful.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Solutions are emerging. Solutions that would respect consumer freedom and not create bloated government bureaucracy. Regulation is actually inhibiting many common sense solutions to health care - especially ones that cut the insurance companies from the equation.
Good point.
Case in point, my wheelchair, for when my bum leg doesn't wanna work and my left knee is having a bad day...
Through my doctor or the medical care industry, a wheelchair of the type desired - $750.00USD
Through an insurance company, same chair, same company - $1125.00USD
Purchased directly from the manufacturer - $316.00USD but only available in 18" which is a little small.
Fuck em, I bought mine at Harbor Freight tools.
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=45735
And I paid less than that since I got it on sale.
$119.95USD
But you know, if I HAD insurance, it'd prolly be unlawful or against regs for them to aquire a wheelchair from other than an official dealer of medical equipment, yadda yadda...
And get this, it's the SAME DAMN CHAIR, and it meets *my* Q&A specs, which are pretty high.
So what does the insurance company do with the rest of the money, eh ?
Why, lobby for more laws to give it bigger advantages, of course.
That's just asinine.
-F
BTW - I posted that link deliberately in case y'all have any sick or elderly folk who could use one and don't wanna be the insurance companies bitch for it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The DPRK was always ahead when it came to Woke Cancel Culture.... North Korea 'bans laughing' during mourning for anniversary of Kim Jong-il's death – video
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2021/dec/20/north-korea-bans-l
aughing-for-11-days-during-mourning-for-anniversary-of-kim-jong-ils-death-video
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
‘Have communication with Kim Jong-un, will do something’: Trump says on North Korea leader
https://indianexpress.com/article/world/communication-with-kim-jong-un
-trump-on-north-korea-leader-9917137/
Trump says his administration is in 'communication' with North Korea's Kim
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/04/01/asia-pacific/politics/tru
mp-kim-north-korea-communication/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump says he wants to meet North Korea's Kim, during South Korean president's visit
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/trump-wants-meet-north-korea-kim
-jong-un-trade-talks-south-5313616
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME