RE: The government is always trying to close doors
No, you cannot ask me to avoid going deeply into politics in my reply. Or, more precisely, you are welcome to ask, but I will not oblige you in this regard :)
Jokes aside, this is an intensely political issue. The whole subject of to what extent government should regulate our lives is inextricably bound up in politics, and individuals will inevitably reply to such questions based upon their political weltanschauung. I am a collectivist, and this colors my reply.
The greatest failures of Socialism have resulted from its historical emphasis on central planning. The greatest successes of Socialism have resulted from its emphasis on central planning. Both of these statements are true. So how then does a modern Socialist respond to questions on the importance of government intrusion into such matters? Fortunately, the dialectic offers some assistance.
The government of France today is headed by an oligarch, a former employee of Rothschild. It is a government which shamelessly favors the rich, at the expense of the workers. Obviously such a government is not to be trusted to regulate commerce, because any legislation introduced by such a government will be slanted to increase and reinforce the inequality of income and wealth distribution.
Therefore, I would absolutely, unequivocally, without hesitation oppose such regulation, not because I think the idea itself is bad, but rather because I am sure it would be badly implemented by such an oligarchical government.
Excellent comment re the above post. I love your succinct analysis of the successes and failures of socialism.
And you make a fine point about regulation imposed by oligarchs. Of course, they will only initiate regulation that benefits them. That's very clear if we look at history, and shockingly clear if we look at the recent history of the past 3-4 decades.
One point about regulation is that it often stands in the way of making money. A clear case in point is Boeing, with its horrible crashing machine, the 737 Max 8. Boeing took an old plane (to save money), then re-outfitted and altered and mutated it at the expense of safety.
Then, Boeing managed to convince the regulators that they (the regulators) were not capable of understanding all the fine technical aspects of its 737 crashing machine, leaving Boeing to regulate itself.
So, Boeing saved lots of money by jerry-rigging its 737. Its stock price did well, and its executives got great big bonuses.
Oh, and ... over 300 people died as a result.
Who cares @majes.tytyty? These general public are dying like ants in umpteen numbers, but still profits do matter to them and this factor outweighs than any other thing for that matter!
But there we have an excellent argument against the regulatory agencies themselves, after all, Boeing was only able to do this, because they managed to buy the fiscals to let them fly with this type of airplane.
In addition, Boeing has lost a lot of money on that, as sales of its planes are falling sharply, and that of its competitors are rising.
Does it not matter to you that people died as a result of Boeing’s egregious corporate malfeasance? Does that not matter, simply because that’s the way the wonderful free market works?
You imply that just because Boeing is now losing money and market share, that everything is working out as it should. Do you think that is sufficient retribution for the unbridled greed – and unregulated greed – of Boeing’s executives? They were concerned only with their profits, and not with the safety of their passengers. 346 people were killed as a clear and direct result of that reprehensible greed. And their families and friends will suffer the pain of loss for months and years. But thank god for the free market!!!
As for the silly claim that regulatory agencies only lead to regulatory capture, and that therefore there’s no reason to establish regulatory agencies, that’s a silly and baseless argument. If the financial regulators had done their jobs, the banksters and mortgage lenders would not have been able to defraud innocent customers or the taxpayers. And if the airline regulators had done their jobs, 346 dead people would still be alive today.
As for the various tired libertarian claims – such as “government is bad,” “taxation is theft,” “free markets are benevolent,” and “corporatocracy is divine” – a clear and nuanced perspective soon shows that those simplistic ideologies are not always true, and often complete hogwash. Moreover, it shows a horrible misreading and misinterpretation of the works of Adam Smith and Ludwig von Mises.
I say the same about many lives that is taken out because of regulations. People who doesn’t work because of these kind of view that we need regulations for everything. Besides, in the case of Boeing they had regulations and the problem occours, meaning that this regulation doesn’t work, the same of other kinds of disasters.
The free market kills less people than the regulations.
And your last paragraph, I am sorry, but doesn’t have any kind of point, only falacy.
Posted using Partiko iOS
You sound very upset @majes.tytyty :/
Love your comment @majes.tytyty!
There is always some wisdom in it.
Sad reality :(
Yours, Piotr
Another brilliant feedback @redpossum
You got my full attention right now haha :)
I agree. And yet we can keep it all at "general" level. Without bringing names of politicians or parties we're refering too. Let's just stay safe.
Thank you for sharing your view on that particular topic with me. Appreciate it a lot.
Yours, Piotr
You gave me an excellent idea of a post on the subject. Mainly speaking in central planning and the fact that you believe in favoring it. Thank you very much. ;)
I am a acnarchocapitalist by the way. Cheers!