Posted on 01/22/2002 3:18:18 PM PST by parsifal
Sadly, in some instances, this is not the case. Enron collapse as well as Global Crossing and others, are perfect examples of WHY the SEC was created in the first place, and WHY controlling rules do help. Peer review (the supposedly non law solution to regulation) that the audit firms themselves instituted to stop legislation 10 years ago, was an absolute joke... just like the "voluntary" end to test marketing R movies to teens and younger. In 10 years of Peer review, not one single auditing firm has raised a flag over anything another firm has done... Consulting by auditing firms in other areas would have been outlawed if the original law had passed, and likely Andersen would not have cow towed Enron's blatant violations preventing much of the chaos that occurred.
The HUGE, absolutely HUGE fraud from 95 on in the stock market would have been prevented with stronger requirements and oversight... Poor investment choices are one thing, blatant fraud is another.
The idea that new regulations are never neccessary is foolhearty as well. I am not advocating government take over of everything, and over regulation is never an answer, but no regulation or static regulation in a world where technology changes ever 6-12 months is a recipe for disaster. There has to be a balance.
That's a good one about Teddy Kennedy and the "great flock". It only rates a "nice try" however. You see the "great society" welfare programs didn't subsidize workers who make too little, it paid "chickens" to have more "chickens" who were paid to have more "chickens" creating a cycle of dependency. The reason I rated it a "nice try" was that it did, and I'm sure this was inadvertant on your part, capture the relationship between "chickens" (welfare recipients) and "chicken farmers" (welfare workers) charged by the state to take care of the "chickens".
I do see some improvement on your part when you begin to realize that some "chickens" do have different needs than other "chickens". Now, if you can just realize that a "one size fits all" approach is inherently unfair.
There is on little bitty detail your "long-suffering and patient philosopher" needs to consider. I would suggest he might wish to discuss with a chicken farmer what happens to the chickens when the cost of maintaining the chickens exceeds the value of the chickens. Hint#1: the price of chicken gets real cheap at the local supermarket. Hint#2: has something to do with a chickens neck, a hatchet, and a chopping block.
One last comment. I would suggest you might review my posts. I've not refered to you as a Marxist. I've only pointed out that many of your arguements have Marxist origins. Your position on this issue is really much closer to National Socialism, aka "The Third Way". Frederick Hayek wrote an excellent book, "The Road to Serfdom" that addresses various forms of "collectivism" including communism, socialism, and National Socialism. I would suggest you might want to read this, short, but excellent book. In brief, Hayek wrote that socialism relied upon the state to provide certain services, food, clothing, health care, housing, etc., directly to the citizenry. Capitalism relied upon the marketplace to provide these services. National Socialism, or "The Third Way" claimed to be more compassionate than captalism and more efficient than socialism and relied upon state mandates to force employers to provide these services to the citizenry. Hayek felt National Socialism was more dangerous than socialism since it hid a state just as totalitarian as socialism behind a pleasing but false facade.
Oh, did you ever answer my question about "comparable worth"? Are you for it or against it?
But, at the lower minimal levels, I just don't see that much danger as long as the amounts are not inflated by a liberal wish list of luxuries. (Like mandated 3 week vacations. Excessive Paid for sick leave. that sort of stuff.)
Now to the chickens. (BTW, I thought this was so clever that I copied it the "Arrogant Imbecile" thread where I am even now engaged in heavy battle with the forces of Neanderthalism.) I guess you could support your analysis of it. I think it is NOT a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Whether welfare trumps wage support is probably not worth arguing about. I think that at any rate, today, the effect of the welfare programs, in large part, supplement the wages the workers aren't getting.
Even the Hoover Institute did a study of low wages which included the base of earned income credit as something that supplemented the low wages.
I think Chuck using gov't to support his business and then influencing other employer's wages downward is an important aspect that need discussion.
You mentioned comparable wages and I do not immediately recall you bringing it up before, but this is a long thread now. IMHO, I am not real supportive of comp wages. It's one of those things which look good in theory, but it requires massive gov't interference in business on a very personal and intrusive level. Is employee A getting enough pay.
When I like gov't programs at all, which is rare, I like them best when they set low maintenance, easy to comply with standards. Like minwage, ovetime, tax rates, stuff like that.
Today you would be making an amazing $3 a year if your pay had grown as much in the past five years as an average CEO’s pay.
Sounds great, doesn’t it? But that’s nothing compared with what you would be earning five years from now if that amount of pay kept growing the way a CEO’s compensation does.
In 2005 you would get paid $7!!
I dunno. Sounds like I'm a day worker in a Thailand rice farm to me.
BTW, if you play the "greed" game, you have to drag the little cars down to the board.
My stand is this on campaign finance reform..., and its REALLY SIMPLE:
If you cannot walk into a booth a vote, you can't donate PERIOD. Corporations cannot vote, Unions cannot vote, etc, therefore they cannot donate.
Only individuals may donate to campaigns, and the names of all donors should be released within no more than 5 working days after their donations are recieved.
That's my view on that topic... anything other than that, is just more smoke and mirrors.
Leave current limits on individual contributors in place... and just adjust them for inflation every year. So no matter how much money you have, you can donate only $XX dollars to a campaign. Doesn't matter if you make 30k or 300 Million, max allowed to contrib is the same.
You can't vote, you can't donate. If you do, no matter who you are you can only donate X. Beginning and end.. no more BS.. no more smoke and mirrors. Of course humans will find ways to indirectly try to influence policies even with these limits, but there will be no more hiding behind bogus organizations etc.
I think anyone who cannot walk into a voting booth and pull the leaver for a candidate should not be allowed to give them a dime, National Party, Politcal Action Committee, Union or otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.