The Corporate Takeover of the United States

[JackRT]

Eliminating regulations, would not cause crime to go unpunished. Negligence would still be punished, with or without regulations. Industries would still strive towards fewer and fewer accidents.

Your optimism is astonishing! In the days before unions and regulations, industries for the most part did not give a damn about anything except profits.

 

[Ringo84]

I completely disagree with your claim.

Eliminating police, would mean that crime would go unpunished.

Eliminating regulations, would not cause crime to go unpunished. Negligence would still be punished, with or without regulations. Industries would still strive towards fewer and fewer accidents.

How - the vaunted "hands of the free market" that magically causes corporations to police themselves?

It's simply to make people think "Oh without government, our savior, the big evil companies wouldn't do it!" Which is entirely false.

I never said that the government was our "savior". Only that unregulated capitalism not only doesn't work, but is undesirable and antithetical to our freedom as consumers.

This is a common refrain from anyone who doesn't want, or can't, argue the facts. Instead you just do a character assassination that "You are a tool of the other side!".

It's the truth, isn't it? Your idea that corporations should just be able to do whatever they want is not good for us, but it's sure good for them. They don't want all those pesky regulations getting in their way when they're getting all that sweet profit.

​

In reality, most regulations today benefit the mega-corporations the most.

Some do, and that's a consequences of regulatory capture.

Looking at the facts, not emotional opinion based on ideological talking points... the people in favor of regulation are more tools of the megacorporations, than anyone on the free-market view point, where unrestricted competition would result in lower prices and better products for the the citizens of the country.

People will be dying from unregulated food that isn't cooked right, products that are death traps, monopolies that allow megacorporations that gouge their customers, but hey - we might be able to pay a couple of fewer pennies for the "privilege" of buying from our gods and masters, the holy and wise Job Creators! What a wonderful system that would be.
Ringo

 

[Pommer]

Eliminating regulations, would not cause crime to go unpunished.

No, but pollution, worker injury/deaths, likely would rise precipitously!

 

[Andrew77]

Your optimism is astonishing! In the days before unions and regulations, industries for the most part did not give a damn about anything except profits.

Not true. Factually incorrect. Safety standards were rising before unions and regulations. Why? Profit. Turns out, slaughtering your workers, is really bad for business.

Similarly, the work-week time was declining, before unions and regulations too.

Both are historical facts. Not 'optimism'. Facts, not opinions.

The reason you, and millions of others think that, is because the Unions and the Regulators want you to think that. It gives them power.

 

[Andrew77]

No, but pollution, worker injury/deaths, likely would rise precipitously!

Again, no evidence supporting such a claim.

Prior to the existence of the EPA, the companies along the Ohio River, had formed an agreement with each other, to reduce pollution, in a working relationship with the State of Ohio.

The EPA stepped in, and wiped out that agreement, and imposed their own standards.

As it turns out, the EPA requirement were less, than the agreement the companies had made with the state. So looking at the facts, not your opinion, the EPA actually allowed MORE pollution.

There is no evidence to support your position whatsoever. If you can prove that employers are just going to go out in their warehouses, and remove safety features, I'd love to see that proof.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Prior to the existence of the EPA, the companies along the Ohio River, had formed an agreement with each other, to reduce pollution, in a working relationship with the State of Ohio.

The EPA stepped in, and wiped out that agreement, and imposed their own standards.

As it turns out, the EPA requirement were less, than the agreement the companies had made with the state. So looking at the facts, not your opinion, the EPA actually allowed MORE pollution.

Are you perhaps talking about ORSANCO? Because that was an inter-state agreement (i.e. government), not a coalition of private businesses. And they're also still in operation (though they've been talking about shutting down), including their stricter-than-EPA standards.

If that's not what you're talking about, can you provide a link? Because that's the only pre-EPA Ohio River anti-pollution organization I can find.

 

[super animator]

Wow a guy who is advocating corny capitalism!

 

[variant]

Your optimism is astonishing! In the days before unions and regulations, industries for the most part did not give a damn about anything except profits.

Boeing just built a plane that had software in it that drove it into the ground, I am sure they would be even more diligent about not doing stuff like that if the FAA weren't around. /Sarcasm

 

[variant]

Not true. Factually incorrect. Safety standards were rising before unions and regulations. Why? Profit. Turns out, slaughtering your workers, is really bad for business.

Similarly, the work-week time was declining, before unions and regulations too.

Both are historical facts. Not 'optimism'. Facts, not opinions.

The reason you, and millions of others think that, is because the Unions and the Regulators want you to think that. It gives them power.

The actual history of corporate self policing is a bit more problematic for your point.

10 great moments in corporate malfeasance
10 Great Moments in Corporate Malfeasance

The story of the Asbestos information society
“Unleashed on an Unsuspecting World”: The Asbestos Information Association and Its Role in Perpetuating a National Epidemic

A history of the tactics of the Tobacco Industry
Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics

Attacks on wind and solar by the coal and gas industry
Attacks on wind and solar power by the coal and gas industries

Industry fighting safety regulations in their products.
INDUSTRY RESISTS CAR‐SAFETY COSTS

Industry fought worker safety regulations at every single turn.
Government Regulation of Workers' Safety and Health, 1877-1917 | U.S. Department of Labor

The Job Safety Law of 1970: Its Passage Was Perilous | U.S. Department of Labor

 

[Andrew77]

They may well have had inspections, but passed them because they made sure that safety standards were followed while the inspectors were present. If you know of companies not following standards, you can report them to the relevant regulatory body. They aren't omniscient, and rely on tips from employees and concerned citizens to know where to look.

I've asked if they had inspections. They did not.

The actual history of corporate self policing is a bit more problematic for your point.

10 great moments in corporate malfeasance
10 Great Moments in Corporate Malfeasance

The story of the Asbestos information society
“Unleashed on an Unsuspecting World”: The Asbestos Information Association and Its Role in Perpetuating a National Epidemic

A history of the tactics of the Tobacco Industry
Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics

Attacks on wind and solar by the coal and gas industry
Attacks on wind and solar power by the coal and gas industries

Industry fighting safety regulations in their products.
INDUSTRY RESISTS CAR‐SAFETY COSTS

Industry fought worker safety regulations at every single turn.
Government Regulation of Workers' Safety and Health, 1877-1917 | U.S. Department of Labor

The Job Safety Law of 1970: Its Passage Was Perilous | U.S. Department of Labor

But again, you are pointing out things that disprove your position. Your position is that regulations PREVENT these things, and then you post a bunch of citations of things that happened anyway, with all your regulations.

As I said before, you can not point to a single example where endless regulations prevented anything bad from happening.

Not once, have regulation enforcement prevented some terrible thing from happening. Not one time. All the regulations in the world, will not stop a business from doing something terrible, if they determine to do it.

And regulations do not stop a business that had no intention of doing something wrong, because they were not going to do something wrong to begin with.

So pointing out more examples that prove my point, doesn't help your case.

Not one time, has a company determined to do something unsafe, or evil, where a regulator showed up and stopped the evil or dangerous thing from happening. Not one time, in all my research.

More often than not, all those regulations do is enrich the wealthy, and prevent anyone from competing against the rich in the market. It protects the elite, while holding down the poor... and ironically in the name of the poor.

 

[Andrew77]

Are you perhaps talking about ORSANCO? Because that was an inter-state agreement (i.e. government), not a coalition of private businesses. And they're also still in operation (though they've been talking about shutting down), including their stricter-than-EPA standards.

If that's not what you're talking about, can you provide a link? Because that's the only pre-EPA Ohio River anti-pollution organization I can find.

I'd have to look it up. I read the book on it years ago.

However, I like this example. ORSANCO is something I support, over the EPA. I don't believe I said my example was merely a coalition of private businesses. I thought I said a group of private businesses working with the state. It was a similar system to what they have in Germany, where the river itself is incorporated.

I like this for multiple reasons.
One, the state is working "with" the businesses that use the river, not "against" the businesses that use the river.
Two, the oversight is from the people in the states that are affect, rather than a nameless un-elected bureaucrat in a penthouse thousands of miles away in Washington DC.

The fact is, there is no prevision in the Constitution for the Federal Government to be dictating policies to states. And in fact, there is a very specific provision in the Constitution saying all rights are reserved for the states.

The EPA is a direct violation of the constitution, and our agreement with States to protect states right, which was their reason for joining the Union.

Now if the states themselves, which to form a joint coalition to protect the water ways, I fully support that. I think all waterways should be incorporated like in Germany.

 

[variant]

But again, you are pointing out things that disprove your position. Your position is that regulations PREVENT these things, and then you post a bunch of citations of things that happened anyway, with all your regulations.

Your post is demonstration that you are not paying attention, and simply replying from a predetermined orthodox idealism.

Some of my citations are stuff that industry still try's with regulations, and the other half are industry actively not wanting to do things (because not doing them makes them money).

We can also compare pre and post regulation realities to see whether or not the regulations themselves have any effect, so all and all, this simply makes this post of yours mostly just a bunch of wrong assertions.

As I said before, you can not point to a single example where endless regulations prevented anything bad from happening.

Nonsense. Seat belt laws require seat belts in cars that have proven safety effects.

The FAA problematically institutes regulations often AFTER problems crop up, but they do the study and implement change.

Not once, have regulation enforcement prevented some terrible thing from happening. Not one time. All the regulations in the world, will not stop a business from doing something terrible, if they determine to do it.

Wrong.
The regulations on asbestos and lead do quite a bit to reduce asbestos and lead problems actually.

Around 15,000 lives per year are saved by seat belts.
Seatbelts - Saving thousands of lives around the world everyday... - News and Blogs - articles on road safety and youth - Yours

Which would be this regulation here:
Seat belt laws in the United States - Wikipedia

And regulations do not stop a business that had no intention of doing something wrong, because they were not going to do something wrong to begin with.

So pointing out more examples that prove my point, doesn't help your case.

Not one time, has a company determined to do something unsafe, or evil, where a regulator showed up and stopped the evil or dangerous thing from happening. Not one time, in all my research.

Meow meow meow meow already addressed.

Passage and enforcement of regulations have in fact had a proven effect in many areas like pollution that we can both measure and demonstrate. We can tell because pollution got to be less of a problem after the regulations were passed and enforced, and it becomes more of a problem when we don't regulate these things.

Your argument would also be to legalize murder because laws against murder don't actually stop people from murdering one another.

My single word to describe such an argument is "dumb".

More often than not, all those regulations do is enrich the wealthy, and prevent anyone from competing against the rich in the market. It protects the elite, while holding down the poor... and ironically in the name of the poor.

Cite your sources.

 

[Andrew77]

Your post is demonstration that you are not paying attention, and simply replying from a predetermined orthodox idealism.

Some of my citations are stuff that industry still try's with regulations, and the other half are industry actively not wanting to do things (because not doing them makes them money).



Nonsense. Seat belt laws require seat belts in cars that have proven safety effects.

The FAA problematically institutes regulations often AFTER problems crop up, but they do the study and implement change.



Wrong.
The regulations on asbestos and lead do quite a bit to reduce asbestos and lead problems actually.

Around 15,000 lives per year are saved by seat belts.
Seatbelts - Saving thousands of lives around the world everyday... - News and Blogs - articles on road safety and youth - Yours

Which would be this regulation here:
Seat belt laws in the United States - Wikipedia



Meow meow meow meow already addressed.

Passage and enforcement of regulations have in fact had a proven effect in many areas like pollution that we can both measure and demonstrate. We can tell because pollution got to be less of a problem after the regulations were passed and enforced, and it becomes more of a problem when we don't regulate these things.

Your argument would also be to legalize murder because laws against murder don't actually stop people from murdering one another.

My single word to describe such an argument is "dumb".



Cite your sources.

Meow meow meow meow already addressed.

(hey if that's how you can respond to me, then that's what you get back. Have a good one)

 

[variant]

Meow meow meow meow already addressed.

(hey if that's how you can respond to me, then that's what you get back. Have a good one)

If you're going to make the same tired wrong point over and over without reading the materials being discussed then don't expect people to pay much attention.

Consider your argument properly addressed and dismissed with all due respect.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I've asked if they had inspections. They did not.

Again, if you don't report violations that you know about, you don't really have much of a leg to stand on when you complain about regulatory bodies not doing their jobs.

However, I like this example. ORSANCO is something I support, over the EPA. I don't believe I said my example was merely a coalition of private businesses. I thought I said a group of private businesses working with the state. It was a similar system to what they have in Germany, where the river itself is incorporated.

I like this for multiple reasons.
One, the state is working "with" the businesses that use the river, not "against" the businesses that use the river.

ORSANCO is essentially a smaller version of the EPA for the Ohio River watershed. It predates the EPA and imposes more stringent regulations on pollution than the basic EPA standards. As far as I know, local businesses have no more involvement with ORSANCO than they do with the EPA - it's entirely governmental, just on the state level (involving multiple states) rather than federal.

Two, the oversight is from the people in the states that are affect, rather than a nameless un-elected bureaucrat in a penthouse thousands of miles away in Washington DC.

This is fair, which is why it makes sense for more local regulatory bodies (like ORSANCO) to exist on top of a federal agency.

The fact is, there is no prevision in the Constitution for the Federal Government to be dictating policies to states. And in fact, there is a very specific provision in the Constitution saying all rights are reserved for the states.

The EPA is a direct violation of the constitution, and our agreement with States to protect states right, which was their reason for joining the Union.

Now if the states themselves, which to form a joint coalition to protect the water ways, I fully support that. I think all waterways should be incorporated like in Germany.

The federal government has the authority to regulate interstate issues. I would consider that mandate to cover air/water quality because air and water aren't exactly restricted by state boundaries. I believe we've had this discussion before. If you want to have more stringent regulations for your state, that's fine, and within your state's rights, but it makes sense for the federal government to dictate minimum environmental standards.

Incorporating rivers is an interesting idea that I'm not familiar with, but with the scale of American rivers, many of them (and their watersheds) cover quite a few states, to the point that it seems silly to not just have a nationwide organization.

 

[Pommer]

Nonsense. Seat belt laws require seat belts in cars that have proven safety effects.

The auto companies fought those, too, tooth-and-nail!
“Lap belts” yet, (they didn’t tend to do much about head injures, so they wrote a regulation to require “over the shoulder” belt...yeah, there were TWO belts for a while!
After complaints about accident victims needing the post-wreck wherewithal to locate and activate the belt-releases, they amended the regulation so that there WERE 2 belts, but only one latching mechanism).