The 10 Worst Corporations of 2008

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For me its what is allowed to happen impervious to bad regulation that contributed greatly to the mess we're in. Not de-regulation per se, but bad management of the regulation already on the books (and violations in some cases, likely).

I'm of the mindset that no regulation is good regulation.

It's an appealing ideal, no doubt, but one that simply does not work in reality. Just like it would be nice if we didn't have traffic cops to deal with either, or all kinds of other forms of authority within society, but it just doesn't translate well with reality. The Libertarian belief that humans are innately good fails to recognize the duplicity that we are also innately bad. Just like Social Darwinism is doomed to failure, so too is market Darwinism.

[mRx 16]

Case in point. My mom makes the best spaghetti on the face of the planet. Times are tough for her, as she is divorced, living on SS, and taking care of my Downs Syndrome sister (which is a full-time job). A couple years ago, through heavy encouragement, she embarked on a path to start a business selling her spaghetti sauce. The dream was shot down as soon as it took off, because she soon realized that all the licenses, fees, and liability insurance required to legally operate a business in the US made it unaffordable to her. Regulation prevails.....

So who loses with this particular regulation? Well, obviously my 61 year old mother. But more importantly, you. Because you will never have a chance to experience the best spaghetti on the face of the planet.

Sorry to hear that.

Regulation is not to blame though. Take Australia a highly regulated country for example. Yet just look at how well the average Aussie lives. The difference is that over there the federal government would have provided your mum a grant to start her business. Even offered free classes and tutoring for her. All while she received a pension or unemployment benefits as well as aid to assist your sister with negligible medical costs to pay. The costs of starting a business there is probably twice that here, minus the threat of lawsuits.

Being that she lives on SS and taking care of a child with special needs, the government would help her out. That is what we do there, we use our tax to assist those who are in need. Get them on their feet or help those who cannot do so for themselves. Most of us, even conservatives, have no quarrels about do so. Whereas people here with needs or people who are generally poor are basically SOL and pretty much on their own.

I'm not too familiar with the policies of Australia, but a glance at their national debt shows that it is rising. This means whatever they are funding, they are doing so not within their means. Australia also has 15 times less people than the US. So naturally their deficit and debt will be less than ours. And don't forget the staggering cost of the GWOT on the US.

You need to take these variables into account when making a comparison.

Regulation is what got us into all this trouble. It seems economists worldwide have unwaveringly embraced the ideals of John Keynes, so they are unwilling to accept otherwise.

Most of the blame can be handed right over to the Federal Reserve, the ultimate regulator and counterfeiter. Yet the free market will always be the scapegoat.

Here's how the government has given us poverty through regulation: The Fed creates money, gives it to the treasury in exchange for some fancy pieces of paper (bonds), the treasury gives the money to banks or big corporations, or whatever else they want to spend it on. When the newly created money is introduced to the economy, this raises prices, as there is more money chasing the around the same amount of goods. This price raise, or hidden tax, is felt most by the working classes whose wages haven't yet caught up with the price increase. This creates poverty as the poor get poorer. The government solution of which is to tax and regulate more, in order to keep the poor from crumbling.

[mRx 16]

For me its what is allowed to happen impervious to bad regulation that contributed greatly to the mess we're in. Not de-regulation per se, but bad management of the regulation already on the books (and violations in some cases, likely).

I'm of the mindset that no regulation is good regulation.

It's an appealing ideal, no doubt, but one that simply does not work in reality. Just like it would be nice if we didn't have traffic cops to deal with either, or all kinds of other forms of authority within society, but it just doesn't translate well with reality. The Libertarian belief that humans are innately good fails to recognize the duplicity that we are also innately bad.

In our current regulated economy, the innately bad are the ones rewarded.

For example, in a free market, one without inflation, regulation, and most importantly, one with a commodity-based currency, if someone had bad business practices, they would go out of business! That is because failure is punished in the free market, while success is rewarded. Successful businesses are then able to expand, increase production, quality, and efficiency, which in turns creates more supply, reducing demand, and lowering prices. Competition brings prices down. The end result is a higher quality of life for everyone.

But the opposite is true with regulation, failure is rewarded, and success is punished. See: GM, Ford, AIG, Chrysler, CitiBank.

If your interested Steven, check out some works by the Austrian Economist Murray Rothbard. Specifically his book: What has Government done to our money? It's an easy read, absolutely compelling, and free.

http://www.mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf

[Heracles 417]

I'm not too familiar with the policies of Australia, but a glance at their national debt shows that it is rising. This means whatever they are funding, they are doing so not within their means. Australia also has 15 times less people than the US. So naturally their deficit and debt will be less than ours. And don't forget the staggering cost of the GWOT on the US.

You need to take these variables into account when making a comparison.

Regulation is what got us into all this trouble. It seems economists worldwide have unwaveringly embraced the ideals of John Keynes, so they are unwilling to accept otherwise.

Most of the blame can be handed right over to the Federal Reserve, the ultimate regulator and counterfeiter. Yet the free market will always be the scapegoat.

Here's how the government has given us poverty through regulation: The Fed creates money, gives it to the treasury in exchange for some fancy pieces of paper (bonds), the treasury gives the money to banks or big corporations, or whatever else they want to spend it on. When the newly created money is introduced to the economy, this raises prices, as there is more money chasing the around the same amount of goods. This price raise, or hidden tax, is felt most by the working classes whose wages haven't yet caught up with the price increase. This creates poverty as the poor get poorer. The government solution of which is to tax and regulate more, in order to keep the poor from crumbling.

The Federal government there has a budget surplus. They also had a trade surplus last month. As well as a 3.9% unemployment rate. Population has little to do with it considering China's trade surplus. China also has over $1.3 trillion US dollars in liquid cash.

Regulation / deregulation is not the issue. You need rules. That is a fundamental of a society. Can you imagine sport without any rules. Can you imagine life without law and order. Rules are a fundamental of a civilized society. If used correctly, they ensure an equitable outcome. The problem with the system here is the system itself. That is, the bottom-line, short-term, dividend oriented mentality that is now instilled in many corporations. As well as the thirst for the quick buck rather than the honest buck. It is one thing being savvy with your money or starting a google and another simply working the system and exploiting the poor. Or those without proper financial knowledge to make a buck.

What you are talking about is the how the US government has gotten away with spending and paying for things like two wars by means of borrowing money instead of raising taxes.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Aficionado