Members banned from this thread: splansing
| || |
Uber built a billion dollar corporation by defying regulators who at the same time suppressed small businesses, they've reduced an industry to less than part-timers who're out to make an extra $20. Now they just put an autonomous vehicle on the road without even trying to conform to California's regulations regarding registration of a driverless car.
Meanwhile regulated taxi cabs receive punitive measures from regulators for having a dome light out or not answering the phone with the correct greeting.
I agree with you in theory but at least in this case regulations have been used to strong arm the companies who were trying to follow the rules
At government level the big thing is how to master complexity. A company faces complexity but much less than an administration because it has a logical aim, which is to make money selling services or products and compete with others to be successful. At the level of an administration it is much more complicated because you need there to deal with many more parameters which often contradict one another. It is why politics is often an agenda in which, through compromises, politicians try to implement their projects and have to consider other politicians projects and try to set priorities. Adn when you have complexity you need regulations, because everything cannot be done at the same time. The risk when you have not enough regulation is like when you put too much in a funnel which stops up. Traffic is a good example and you need regulations there,but if you have too many of them it can lead to traffic jams. Finally it is too short to consider that regulation is only evil and to promote the free fox in the free hen-house, because with that there will be no hen anymore...
Corporate welfare doesn't offend GOP types because they believe that the corporations, allowed to prosper as much as possible, will give us poor slobs (you know, people) jobs, and then we can kiss their asses forever...or they can take away our jobs. Essentially the crux of the argument is this: a corporation can reward someone with a job and with pay because they deserve it, or because the corporation feels like it, freely. Using tax dollars to provide welfare or anything else to people is morally wrong because we can't all choose whether or not to participate.
It's not fair! <stamps foot>
I like to point out that Monopoly is completely fair. Everyone starts with the same money, the same dice, the same board. And every single time, the same thing happens. Before too long, somebody has so much property and wealth that they cannot be beaten. The game ends when money stops circulating. The different between reality and Monopoly is, that is actually the object of Monopoly. If the wealth concentration gets too great in reality, we don't start over. You do not win. What happens is, we're all fucked.
Taxes are the answer to our problems. Progressive tax rates that top 90%, as they did in the 1950's, are the only way to prevent wealth concentration from destroying our society. It is the only mechanism that effectively counteracts the effects of wealth on our political system, by limiting how concentrated wealth can become. Concentrated wealth IS concentrated power. They are the same thing. Concentrated wealth, therefore, is anathema to democracy.
Our economy and government exist to make our lives better. Americans have lost sight of that. Government is supposed to have a PURPOSE. And it isn't as simple as making sure people follow the rules. It's to SERVE CIVILIZATION. To make us stronger, to promote growth-- REAL growth --and development. To provide a mechanism for resolving disputes and making decisions, so we can live together without killing each other.