Lemniscate Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 What do you think?Is increased government regulation the way to save the economy?I believe that regulation caused the problem in the first place.On a microeconomic level, businesses cannot enter cities due to harsh codes and "prohibitied use" laws.Stores cannot even enter places that generate no tax revenue becuase of prohibitive laws in state, city, and federal government. Debate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 No. Regulation screws up everything. In theory, if we gave the economy a completely free reign, it would eventually right itself. The problem with that being, how long it would take to do that, and how many people would be homeless/jobless/die during that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordtyson Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 nope you guys think about it to much just sit back and let the gov take care of every thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 nope you guys think about it to much just sit back and let the gov take care of every thing let them take care of it? They already screwed it up for us big time. You want them to screw it up even more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 nope you guys think about it to much just sit back and let the gov take care of every thing Do you know what regulation means? It means the government taking control of the economy... -____________- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted January 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Regulation is terrible for businesses.On a microeconomic level, in my hometown. there is a group of light-industrial buildings that have sat empty since being built a year ago.A group of people in the city would like to turn the buildings into medical buildings, but there is a problem.There is a city-ordinance which states that light-industrial buildings only need 3 parking spaces per 100 square feet, but that medical buildings require 10 parking spaces per 100 spuare feet.There is not enough room to put in a parking garage to meet this.The city is refusing to wave the ordinance in this case, saying that it weakens the ordinance by making decisions arbitrary.So the spaces remain empty, not bringing in revenue, when they could be filled with users who want to be there, and be generating revenue for the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabris Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 I post in this thread with the knowledge that I am a relative newbie on business matters. With that settled: Methinks the proper way to approach this is to find a balance between government regulation and private initiative, such that undue speculation is done away with, while at the same time promotin' freer experimentation in the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordtyson Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 let them regulate all they want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 let them regulate all they want The Government that Governs best Governs least. That is generally what the American Economy was baised off of.Think about the bailout, the gov't helpped 1 company, the bailout failed, and now everybody wants a bailout they don't need. You can link this back to FDR and his "New Deal" in the 1930's. He put the gov't in debt, made most of the economy a beauracracy (which is notorious for being inefficiant) and had to rely on WWII to fix everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 I post in this thread with the knowledge that I am a relative newbie on business matters. With that settled: Methinks the proper way to approach this is to find a balance between government regulation and private initiative' date=' such that undue speculation is done away with, while at the same time promotin' freer experimentation in the economy.[/quote'] Theory is fine in a classroom, we are discussing application. Undue regulation is fine in a growth cycle, but when the business cycle goes through one of its slumps, it stops businesses from surviving.What was once your life-raft is now your choke-chain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 let them regulate all they want The Government that Governs best Governs least. That is generally what the American Economy was baised off of.Think about the bailout' date=' the gov't helpped 1 company, the bailout failed, and now everybody wants a bailout they don't need. You can link this back to FDR and his "New Deal" in the 1930's. He put the gov't in debt, made most of the economy a beauracracy (which is notorious for being inefficiant) and had to rely on WWII to fix everything.[/quote'] The government really didn't have a choice in helping those companies. The big 3 provide millions of jobs. Having those companies go under would be disastrous for everyone. Granted, I think it's the government's fault for letting it get to such a position that they had to bail them out (protective tariffs tend to kill the drive to innovate and compete on a global scale), but again, at this point, they have no choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 let them regulate all they want The Government that Governs best Governs least. That is generally what the American Economy was baised off of.Think about the bailout' date=' the gov't helpped 1 company, the bailout failed, and now everybody wants a bailout they don't need. You can link this back to FDR and his "New Deal" in the 1930's. He put the gov't in debt, made most of the economy a beauracracy (which is notorious for being inefficiant) and had to rely on WWII to fix everything.[/quote'] The government really didn't have a choice in helping those companies. The big 3 provide millions of jobs. Having those companies go under would be disastrous for everyone. Granted, I think it's the government's fault for letting it get to such a position that they had to bail them out (protective tariffs tend to kill the drive to innovate and compete on a global scale), but again, at this point, they have no choice. How can you say they had no choice? To treat any company as separate under the law from another company is illegal.I would say the bailout broke the law, violating the 14 Ammendment to the Constitution.Namely... the right to due process. They made the first bailout, so any further decisions are arbitrary, so if they deny any company, that company has the right to sue. They opened themselves up to massive litigation, and didn't even solve the problem, or even help it start to heal. They railed against lack of past oversight, but then they don't even create guidelines as to how the money should be spent, so the businesses give their executives raises!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Zero Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 What do you think?Is increased government regulation the way to save the economy?I believe that regulation caused the problem in the first place.On a microeconomic level' date=' businesses cannot enter cities due to harsh codes and "prohibitied use" laws.Stores cannot even enter places that generate no tax revenue becuase of prohibitive laws in state, city, and federal government. Debate...[/quote']You are wrong my friend. What caused this problem was during the Clinton "rule" his Head of Teasury (who is considered one of the best) made a dreadful mistake. During that time the housing market was going well and everyone wanted a nice house. Well he kept lowering the interest rates for loaning amoney to buy a house (bad move). So instead of people buying houses and prices go up, but everyone kept buying and prices went down. So when he left the natural order of the interest rate was to rise. It rose passed what others could pay and there you go, your problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 What do you think?Is increased government regulation the way to save the economy?I believe that regulation caused the problem in the first place.On a microeconomic level' date=' businesses cannot enter cities due to harsh codes and "prohibitied use" laws.Stores cannot even enter places that generate no tax revenue becuase of prohibitive laws in state, city, and federal government. Debate...[/quote']You are wrong my friend. What caused this problem was during the Clinton "rule" his Head of Teasury (who is considered one of the best) made a dreadful mistake. During that time the housing market was going well and everyone wanted a nice house. Well he kept lowering the interest rates for loaning amoney to buy a house (bad move). So instead of people buying houses and prices go up, but everyone kept buying and prices went down. So when he left the natural order of the interest rate was to rise. It rose passed what others could pay and there you go, your problem. You just proved my point.During Clinton, regulation was set forward to keep interest rates low, people bought houses, gambled on a seller's market, and put us in the predicament we are currently in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 let them regulate all they want The Government that Governs best Governs least. That is generally what the American Economy was baised off of.Think about the bailout' date=' the gov't helpped 1 company, the bailout failed, and now everybody wants a bailout they don't need. You can link this back to FDR and his "New Deal" in the 1930's. He put the gov't in debt, made most of the economy a beauracracy (which is notorious for being inefficiant) and had to rely on WWII to fix everything.[/quote'] The government really didn't have a choice in helping those companies. The big 3 provide millions of jobs. Having those companies go under would be disastrous for everyone. Granted, I think it's the government's fault for letting it get to such a position that they had to bail them out (protective tariffs tend to kill the drive to innovate and compete on a global scale), but again, at this point, they have no choice. How can you say they had no choice? To treat any company as separate under the law from another company is illegal.I would say the bailout broke the law, violating the 14 Ammendment to the Constitution.Namely... the right to due process. They made the first bailout, so any further decisions are arbitrary, so if they deny any company, that company has the right to sue. They opened themselves up to massive litigation, and didn't even solve the problem, or even help it start to heal. They railed against lack of past oversight, but then they don't even create guidelines as to how the money should be spent, so the businesses give their executives raises!!!!!! I'm saying by the time the big 3 were about to go under, there really wasn't the option to NOT bail them out. As I said before, millions of American jobs are on the line. Not only would that be disastrous to the country as a whole, but more importantly (from their perspective), it would kill their political career. Do you really think people are going to re-elect a congressman who voted to not save millions of American jobs?And admittedly, the bailout wasn't completely thought out, but time was of the essence. It was the government's fault to begin with, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that there really was no other viable option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Zero Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 It doesn't matter if the "big 3" or the huge banks go under. If they do it is only a matter of time until another company comes and takes there spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 let them regulate all they want The Government that Governs best Governs least. That is generally what the American Economy was baised off of.Think about the bailout' date=' the gov't helpped 1 company, the bailout failed, and now everybody wants a bailout they don't need. You can link this back to FDR and his "New Deal" in the 1930's. He put the gov't in debt, made most of the economy a beauracracy (which is notorious for being inefficiant) and had to rely on WWII to fix everything.[/quote'] The government really didn't have a choice in helping those companies. The big 3 provide millions of jobs. Having those companies go under would be disastrous for everyone. Granted, I think it's the government's fault for letting it get to such a position that they had to bail them out (protective tariffs tend to kill the drive to innovate and compete on a global scale), but again, at this point, they have no choice. How can you say they had no choice? To treat any company as separate under the law from another company is illegal.I would say the bailout broke the law, violating the 14 Ammendment to the Constitution.Namely... the right to due process. They made the first bailout, so any further decisions are arbitrary, so if they deny any company, that company has the right to sue. They opened themselves up to massive litigation, and didn't even solve the problem, or even help it start to heal. They railed against lack of past oversight, but then they don't even create guidelines as to how the money should be spent, so the businesses give their executives raises!!!!!! I'm saying by the time the big 3 were about to go under, there really wasn't the option to NOT bail them out. As I said before, millions of American jobs are on the line. Not only would that be disastrous to the country as a whole, but more importantly (from their perspective), it would kill their political career. Do you really think people are going to re-elect a congressman who voted to not save millions of American jobs?And admittedly, the bailout wasn't completely thought out, but time was of the essence. It was the government's fault to begin with, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that there really was no other viable option. I am saying that the companies shouldn't have been bailed out, they should have filed for bankruptcy and divulged themselves of their contracts, they should have reformed their structure, and then re-hired the employes with new contracts.The only aid the federal government should have given would have been a temporary increase in funds to unemployment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 let them regulate all they want The Government that Governs best Governs least. That is generally what the American Economy was baised off of.Think about the bailout' date=' the gov't helpped 1 company, the bailout failed, and now everybody wants a bailout they don't need. You can link this back to FDR and his "New Deal" in the 1930's. He put the gov't in debt, made most of the economy a beauracracy (which is notorious for being inefficiant) and had to rely on WWII to fix everything.[/quote'] The government really didn't have a choice in helping those companies. The big 3 provide millions of jobs. Having those companies go under would be disastrous for everyone. Granted, I think it's the government's fault for letting it get to such a position that they had to bail them out (protective tariffs tend to kill the drive to innovate and compete on a global scale), but again, at this point, they have no choice. How can you say they had no choice? To treat any company as separate under the law from another company is illegal.I would say the bailout broke the law, violating the 14 Ammendment to the Constitution.Namely... the right to due process. They made the first bailout, so any further decisions are arbitrary, so if they deny any company, that company has the right to sue. They opened themselves up to massive litigation, and didn't even solve the problem, or even help it start to heal. They railed against lack of past oversight, but then they don't even create guidelines as to how the money should be spent, so the businesses give their executives raises!!!!!! I'm saying by the time the big 3 were about to go under, there really wasn't the option to NOT bail them out. As I said before, millions of American jobs are on the line. Not only would that be disastrous to the country as a whole, but more importantly (from their perspective), it would kill their political career. Do you really think people are going to re-elect a congressman who voted to not save millions of American jobs?And admittedly, the bailout wasn't completely thought out, but time was of the essence. It was the government's fault to begin with, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that there really was no other viable option. I am saying that the companies shouldn't have been bailed out, they should have filed for bankruptcy and divulged themselves of their contracts, they should have reformed their structure, and then re-hired the employes with new contracts.The only aid the federal government should have given would have been a temporary increase in funds to unemployment. Meh, even unemployment funding (such as welfare) will decrease the drive for a steady job.When it comes down to free money or work, people will go for free money (which is also why every company is asking for a bailout) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 let them regulate all they want The Government that Governs best Governs least. That is generally what the American Economy was baised off of.Think about the bailout' date=' the gov't helpped 1 company, the bailout failed, and now everybody wants a bailout they don't need. You can link this back to FDR and his "New Deal" in the 1930's. He put the gov't in debt, made most of the economy a beauracracy (which is notorious for being inefficiant) and had to rely on WWII to fix everything.[/quote'] The government really didn't have a choice in helping those companies. The big 3 provide millions of jobs. Having those companies go under would be disastrous for everyone. Granted, I think it's the government's fault for letting it get to such a position that they had to bail them out (protective tariffs tend to kill the drive to innovate and compete on a global scale), but again, at this point, they have no choice. How can you say they had no choice? To treat any company as separate under the law from another company is illegal.I would say the bailout broke the law, violating the 14 Ammendment to the Constitution.Namely... the right to due process. They made the first bailout, so any further decisions are arbitrary, so if they deny any company, that company has the right to sue. They opened themselves up to massive litigation, and didn't even solve the problem, or even help it start to heal. They railed against lack of past oversight, but then they don't even create guidelines as to how the money should be spent, so the businesses give their executives raises!!!!!! I'm saying by the time the big 3 were about to go under, there really wasn't the option to NOT bail them out. As I said before, millions of American jobs are on the line. Not only would that be disastrous to the country as a whole, but more importantly (from their perspective), it would kill their political career. Do you really think people are going to re-elect a congressman who voted to not save millions of American jobs?And admittedly, the bailout wasn't completely thought out, but time was of the essence. It was the government's fault to begin with, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that there really was no other viable option. I am saying that the companies shouldn't have been bailed out, they should have filed for bankruptcy and divulged themselves of their contracts, they should have reformed their structure, and then re-hired the employes with new contracts.The only aid the federal government should have given would have been a temporary increase in funds to unemployment. Meh, even unemployment funding (such as welfare) will decrease the drive for a steady job.When it comes down to free money or work, people will go for free money (which is also why every company is asking for a bailout) That's true for a percentage of people. But when there aren't jobs to give, it doesn't matter how willing a person is to work. Which is why the government is bailing these companies. They need to preserve the jobs (as well as their own). I blame all the damn protective tariffs we've had over the years for companies such as the big 3 failing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Zero Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 The media isn't helping either. If everyone would start spending there money then this mess would lighten up but since the media tells everyone of a "series" problem and to save your money it gets us deeper down in this slump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 let them regulate all they want The Government that Governs best Governs least. That is generally what the American Economy was baised off of.Think about the bailout' date=' the gov't helpped 1 company, the bailout failed, and now everybody wants a bailout they don't need. You can link this back to FDR and his "New Deal" in the 1930's. He put the gov't in debt, made most of the economy a beauracracy (which is notorious for being inefficiant) and had to rely on WWII to fix everything.[/quote'] The government really didn't have a choice in helping those companies. The big 3 provide millions of jobs. Having those companies go under would be disastrous for everyone. Granted, I think it's the government's fault for letting it get to such a position that they had to bail them out (protective tariffs tend to kill the drive to innovate and compete on a global scale), but again, at this point, they have no choice. How can you say they had no choice? To treat any company as separate under the law from another company is illegal.I would say the bailout broke the law, violating the 14 Ammendment to the Constitution.Namely... the right to due process. They made the first bailout, so any further decisions are arbitrary, so if they deny any company, that company has the right to sue. They opened themselves up to massive litigation, and didn't even solve the problem, or even help it start to heal. They railed against lack of past oversight, but then they don't even create guidelines as to how the money should be spent, so the businesses give their executives raises!!!!!! I'm saying by the time the big 3 were about to go under, there really wasn't the option to NOT bail them out. As I said before, millions of American jobs are on the line. Not only would that be disastrous to the country as a whole, but more importantly (from their perspective), it would kill their political career. Do you really think people are going to re-elect a congressman who voted to not save millions of American jobs?And admittedly, the bailout wasn't completely thought out, but time was of the essence. It was the government's fault to begin with, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that there really was no other viable option. I am saying that the companies shouldn't have been bailed out, they should have filed for bankruptcy and divulged themselves of their contracts, they should have reformed their structure, and then re-hired the employes with new contracts.The only aid the federal government should have given would have been a temporary increase in funds to unemployment. Meh, even unemployment funding (such as welfare) will decrease the drive for a steady job.When it comes down to free money or work, people will go for free money (which is also why every company is asking for a bailout) That's true for a percentage of people. But when there aren't jobs to give, it doesn't matter how willing a person is to work. Which is why the government is bailing these companies. They need to preserve the jobs (as well as their own). I blame all the damn protective tariffs we've had over the years for companies such as the big 3 failing. But then you get a "Lend-Lease Act" scenario, wich ruined a lot of businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 You know what the Lend-Lease act ALSO did?It helped stop Germany from winning WWII, "freund"!!!!!!! (Yes, I can speak German) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 let them regulate all they want The Government that Governs best Governs least. That is generally what the American Economy was baised off of.Think about the bailout' date=' the gov't helpped 1 company, the bailout failed, and now everybody wants a bailout they don't need. You can link this back to FDR and his "New Deal" in the 1930's. He put the gov't in debt, made most of the economy a beauracracy (which is notorious for being inefficiant) and had to rely on WWII to fix everything.[/quote'] The government really didn't have a choice in helping those companies. The big 3 provide millions of jobs. Having those companies go under would be disastrous for everyone. Granted, I think it's the government's fault for letting it get to such a position that they had to bail them out (protective tariffs tend to kill the drive to innovate and compete on a global scale), but again, at this point, they have no choice. How can you say they had no choice? To treat any company as separate under the law from another company is illegal.I would say the bailout broke the law, violating the 14 Ammendment to the Constitution.Namely... the right to due process. They made the first bailout, so any further decisions are arbitrary, so if they deny any company, that company has the right to sue. They opened themselves up to massive litigation, and didn't even solve the problem, or even help it start to heal. They railed against lack of past oversight, but then they don't even create guidelines as to how the money should be spent, so the businesses give their executives raises!!!!!! I'm saying by the time the big 3 were about to go under, there really wasn't the option to NOT bail them out. As I said before, millions of American jobs are on the line. Not only would that be disastrous to the country as a whole, but more importantly (from their perspective), it would kill their political career. Do you really think people are going to re-elect a congressman who voted to not save millions of American jobs?And admittedly, the bailout wasn't completely thought out, but time was of the essence. It was the government's fault to begin with, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that there really was no other viable option. I am saying that the companies shouldn't have been bailed out, they should have filed for bankruptcy and divulged themselves of their contracts, they should have reformed their structure, and then re-hired the employes with new contracts.The only aid the federal government should have given would have been a temporary increase in funds to unemployment. Meh, even unemployment funding (such as welfare) will decrease the drive for a steady job.When it comes down to free money or work, people will go for free money (which is also why every company is asking for a bailout) That's true for a percentage of people. But when there aren't jobs to give, it doesn't matter how willing a person is to work. Which is why the government is bailing these companies. They need to preserve the jobs (as well as their own). I blame all the damn protective tariffs we've had over the years for companies such as the big 3 failing. But then you get a "Lend-Lease Act" scenario, wich ruined a lot of businesses. wait what? How does that apply at all to what I was talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 let them regulate all they want The Government that Governs best Governs least. That is generally what the American Economy was baised off of.Think about the bailout' date=' the gov't helpped 1 company, the bailout failed, and now everybody wants a bailout they don't need. You can link this back to FDR and his "New Deal" in the 1930's. He put the gov't in debt, made most of the economy a beauracracy (which is notorious for being inefficiant) and had to rely on WWII to fix everything.[/quote'] The government really didn't have a choice in helping those companies. The big 3 provide millions of jobs. Having those companies go under would be disastrous for everyone. Granted, I think it's the government's fault for letting it get to such a position that they had to bail them out (protective tariffs tend to kill the drive to innovate and compete on a global scale), but again, at this point, they have no choice. How can you say they had no choice? To treat any company as separate under the law from another company is illegal.I would say the bailout broke the law, violating the 14 Ammendment to the Constitution.Namely... the right to due process. They made the first bailout, so any further decisions are arbitrary, so if they deny any company, that company has the right to sue. They opened themselves up to massive litigation, and didn't even solve the problem, or even help it start to heal. They railed against lack of past oversight, but then they don't even create guidelines as to how the money should be spent, so the businesses give their executives raises!!!!!! I'm saying by the time the big 3 were about to go under, there really wasn't the option to NOT bail them out. As I said before, millions of American jobs are on the line. Not only would that be disastrous to the country as a whole, but more importantly (from their perspective), it would kill their political career. Do you really think people are going to re-elect a congressman who voted to not save millions of American jobs?And admittedly, the bailout wasn't completely thought out, but time was of the essence. It was the government's fault to begin with, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that there really was no other viable option. I am saying that the companies shouldn't have been bailed out, they should have filed for bankruptcy and divulged themselves of their contracts, they should have reformed their structure, and then re-hired the employes with new contracts.The only aid the federal government should have given would have been a temporary increase in funds to unemployment. Meh, even unemployment funding (such as welfare) will decrease the drive for a steady job.When it comes down to free money or work, people will go for free money (which is also why every company is asking for a bailout) That's true for a percentage of people. But when there aren't jobs to give, it doesn't matter how willing a person is to work. Which is why the government is bailing these companies. They need to preserve the jobs (as well as their own). I blame all the damn protective tariffs we've had over the years for companies such as the big 3 failing. But then you get a "Lend-Lease Act" scenario, wich ruined a lot of businesses. wait what? How does that apply at all to what I was talking about? Sorry, I meant to type Hawley-Smoot Teriff Act. (I always get those confused)Basically, Government involvement in the economy (creating Tariffs on imported goods) hindered many large businesses that exported goods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Supreme Gamesmaster Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 To respond to the above and break the quote pyramid, if we don't tax imported goods, America will lose all of its businesses due to the high standards of living, minimum wage, et cetera established here, fall into poverty as companies refuse to operate in America, and then be exploited by foreign companies as a depressed citizenry desperately seeks wages, even if the poor degree of those wages are inhumane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.