Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You have failed to identify anyone because thereDeregulation is a constant theme of Republican policy
It is hard for me to admit it, as I live in the US where Republicans preach deregulation constantly in accord with a plank in their party platform. It is hard for me to admit it when I witnessed Republican-championed bank deregulation lead to recession. It is hard for me to admit it when I see red state governors roll back child labor and workplace safety laws. If you want me to admit that none of this stuff is happening you are going to have to give me some help.You have failed to identify anyone because there
is no such person. It Iwouldn't kill you to just admit that.
Nobody says " unregulated" is desireable, or possible.Because it's a capitalist enterprise there are no Christian moral concerns about it save that it should be unregulated.
I won't argue with that; evidently I was talking about something else.Nobody says " unregulated" is desireable, or possible.
Surely that is obvious without imdetail examples of
what "no regs" would do.
Here in China one unaccountable group, one person even, sets regs.
Often with terrible consequences.
In the USA you have a chance- that you generally
blow- to have some dynamic equilibrium, in a contest of ideas.
You, like us, have both over regulation and under regulation. Stupid regs. Good ones.
And sure, one US party generally wants more regs, the other generally less.
I dont know how that's a bad thing, other than the
failure of intelligence, and the concept of being a good
fiduciary with public funds. Which runs top to bottom, side to side in "public service ".
How that system gets translated into that one
party wants no regulations on capitalism is something
only you could say.
OK, OK, I was wrong. Mea Culpa. I had on my mind the current regulatory climate of the US and what the Republicans call their "Deregulatory Agenda" There are, of course, extremists who have called for the end of all corporate regulation, but I'm not sure if that wouldn't make the issuance of a corporate charter legally impossible.I copied your words.
"Excessive" is, as it always has been, "whatever impedes the ability of the donor class to make a large profit."Nope. Doing away with excessive regulation is the constant theme.
Well, some regs can be pretty dumb.How can you tell when it is excessive?
Only in the eyes of the irredeemable radical liberal."Excessive" is, as it always has been, "whatever impedes the ability of the donor class to make a large profit."
See Estrid's comments. When the regs do little to improve safety for consumers and workers but increase the costs to provide goods and services then the poor take it on the chin.How can you tell when it is excessive?
Not really. I've seen no definition that would alter my opinion. These "regulations" that are excessive are those that control businesses and the arguments against them are always about profitability. Other concerns don't come in to question in the opposition to regulation. The profit motive is clearly displayed in the aggregate.There's like a bit more to it than that.
I gave an exampleNot really. I've seen no definition that would alter my opinion. These "regulations" that are excessive are those that control businesses and the arguments against them are always about profitability. Other concerns don't come in to question in the opposition to regulation. The profit motive is clearly displayed in the aggregate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?