Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: discostu
698 - "Then you need to learn to read. I NEVER said there should be no restrictions period."

So, since you say you never said that, what do you think you said?
705 posted on 04/14/2004 6:46:20 PM PDT by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies ]


To: XBob
What I said, multiple times, is that restrictions need to be carefully considered. Because profitable corporations are a vital ingredient of a healthy economy we have to make sure our restrictions still allow business to be successful. Offshoring shows us that if business can't be successful in America they'll leave, that's because business is about money, corporations exist for profit. In a perfect world maybe corporations would be into things like nationalism and loyalty, but like the Walgreens commercials say "we're a long way from perfect". Out here in reality corporations exist for the sole purpose of making a profit, that is their only duty. This doesn't mean they should be restricted, but the restrictions have to be smart.

You've got to think restrictions through, understand their impact on business, understand business' ability to go elsewhere, understand cost of compliance. Look at Ann Richard's environmental laws when she was governor of Texas compared to Bush's. Ann's laws were much more restrictive, but the cost of compliance was too high and it didn't make economic sense for businesses to follow the law, because of that Texas became the most poluted state in the union. Bush came in, lowered the laws to make it cheaper to obey, increased the fines so they'd be higher than cost of compliance, and it became profitable to obey the law and Texas was rewarded twice for having he most improved environmental quality. Any kind of restriction on business has the ability to be like Ann's or be like Bush's, there's also a third possibility of just driving business away. Only one of those three options is the right one. The other two is what I'm arguing against.

When I said corporations only duty is to profit I was simply explaining one of the oldest truisms of capitalist life. Thomas Jefferson understood that merchants have no loyalty to the ground they stand on and are only loyal to the ground they earn on. That's the simple truth, anybody expecting a corporation to be loyal to a country just because that's where their articles of incorporation are stored might as well expect rain to be dry. Corporations are loyal to profit, that is why they are made, that is why they exist, that is their sole purpose throughout their lifespan. Don't like it? Too bad. Don't blame me for it, I didn't make the rules I'm just quoting them.

And that is what I've been saying all along, but because you rely entirely on pre-packaged insults I still don't expect you to get it.
709 posted on 04/14/2004 7:09:35 PM PDT by discostu (Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 705 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson