Official political correctness thread

I pity you TW if you ever have a cyclone hit your banana plantations and you're forced to buy them for 15 dollars a kilo. That'll take a lot of banana cutting. ;)

Sharky wrote:

Kennon wrote:

Some would claim Disraeli and Churchill as the epitome of British Conservative identity. Which is great. As long as you live in the 19th and 20th century.

That assumes their entire identity as conservatives is inapplicable to the 21st Century. Foolish assumption.

Not at all. Any human being is a product of its time. Neither character would be able to cope with current affairs w/o a backstory rooted in modern times, resulting in possibly vastly different opinions and beliefs. Can't really see either agreeing with what currently claims to be conservative in politics.

Hold your applause, nor would they consider what is peddled around here as anything but rugrat hogwash. To them this world would be as strange as Mars. It's a kind of Mickey Mouse worldview that our problems could just be solved by digging out the gnawed bones of ancestors and claiming what they'd do were they alive still. Leave that voodoo to the Teanazis and whatever obscure shamans will have such lunacy.

Kennon wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Kennon wrote:

Some would claim Disraeli and Churchill as the epitome of British Conservative identity. Which is great. As long as you live in the 19th and 20th century.

That assumes their entire identity as conservatives is inapplicable to the 21st Century. Foolish assumption.

Not at all. Any human being is a product of its time.

We all as far I know, none of us are considering cloning Churchill or Disraeli. We're talking about their brand of conservatism. Sure, some of it doesn't apply to today, but nor is it totally of its time either. You take bits and pieces, with a surgical precision.

tiffanywint wrote:

Au contraire, you flat out said that "a company that has achieved a monopoly position will try to "maintain it through prohibited conduct" You can't say that. That does not follow. Rather that's your jaded opinion.

just as your assertion "I defer to the very wise David Mamet. He makes the point that government is by definition corrupt." is his jaded opinion (and apparently yours)
funny how people often can't see their own double standards?

for example was Churchill corrupt? was Lincoln corrupt? was Nerva corrupt? was Hadrian corrupt? was Antoninus Pius corrupt?

successful companies are built by determined and resourceful men however, even if those men manage to retain their scruples, the business will eventually fall under the control of less imaginative ones, who, in response to adversity, will resort to anti competitive practises which are of no benefit to the consumer
you quoted it yourself, "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and monopoly power is absolute power within the context of the particular market in question

however upon reflection I see that I left out the important word "eventually"

"any company that has achieved a monopoly position will eventually resort prohibited conduct in order to try to maintain it"

is that better?

Re: Marmet quote. I think he's referring more to the idea of government, not individual figures of history. It could have been better worded mid you, but it's a spin on the old "a government should fear the people, not the other way round" maxim. Keep the fat bastards on their toes.

colly wrote:

I pity you TW if you ever have a cyclone hit your banana plantations and you're forced to buy them for 15 dollars a kilo. That'll take a lot of banana cutting. ;)

I may yet take up Seve's suggestion and move to New Zealand, where grapefruits are plentiful, everyone has a lemon tree, and no-one's ever heard of a snow shovel.

Seve wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Au contraire, you flat out said that "a company that has achieved a monopoly position will try to "maintain it through prohibited conduct" You can't say that. That does not follow. Rather that's your jaded opinion.

just as your assertion "I defer to the very wise David Mamet. He makes the point that government is by definition corrupt." is his jaded opinion (and apparently yours)
funny how people often can't see their own double standards?

for example was Churchill corrupt? was Lincoln corrupt? was Nerva corrupt? was Hadrian corrupt? was Antoninus Pius corrupt?

successful companies are built by determined and resourceful men however, even if those men manage to retain their scruples, the business will eventually fall under the control of less imaginative ones, who, in response to adversity, will resort to anti competitive practises which are of no benefit to the consumer
you quoted it yourself, "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and monopoly power is absolute power within the context of the particular market in question

however upon reflection I see that I left out the important word "eventually"

"any company that has achieved a monopoly position will eventually resort prohibited conduct in order to try to maintain it"

is that better?

No, not really, because you can't assume criminal behaviour on the part of any company.

There is no double standard regarding Mamet. He simply makes the assertion that government is corrupt by definition because it has power. It has the power to make laws, rules, regulations etc. Businesses on the other hand don't have the same power. They have to follow the laws and often are so burdened by the rules, regulation and red tape that they can't sustain the cash flow needed to meet operating costs and drown in a sea of red ink with government bureaucrats dutifully providing the insolvency paperwork.

Quote :

will resort to anti competitive practises which are of no benefit to the consumer

but what business does not try to eliminate the competition? It's not much of a business if it doesn't. The distinction that needs making is between lawful business practises and non-lawful practises. Consumers do not benefit from non-lawful business practises. Consumers on the other hand are willing participants in helping big companies achieve market concentration, through lawful business practises. They are happily buying the products. I am not sure, there is any such thing as a true monopoly, unless it is decreed into law by government. Otherwise the market is always in flux and any business will have to continually commpete for market share.

tiffanywint wrote:

No, not really, because you can't assume criminal behaviour on the part of any company.

"eventually"

yes you can, it's basic human nature and the law of averages

tiffanywint wrote:

There is no double standard regarding Mamet. He simply makes the assertion that government is corrupt by definition because it has power.

and a business which holds a cartel or monopoly position in a market has power, so by definition it too must be corrupt?

tiffanywint wrote:

but what business does not try to eliminate the competition? It's not much of a business if it doesn't. The distinction that needs making is between lawful business practises and non-lawful practises. Consumers do not benefit from non-lawful business practises. Consumers on the other hand are willing participants in helping big companies achieve market concentration, through lawful business practises. They are happily buying the products.

there's no harm in trying, it's when they are too successful that we have a problem and something needs to be done to reintroduce a competitive element into the equation

tiffanywint wrote:

I am not sure, there is any such thing as a true monopoly, unless it is decreed into law by government. Otherwise the market is always in flux and any business will have to continually commpete for market share.

your forgetting about cartels, which while not being "true monopolies", have the same detrimental effect on the market, removing competition and reducing the incentive to inovate and improve the products and services provided to the consumer

tiffanywint wrote:

colly wrote:

I pity you TW if you ever have a cyclone hit your banana plantations and you're forced to buy them for 15 dollars a kilo. That'll take a lot of banana cutting. ;)

I may yet take up Seve's suggestion and move to New Zealand, where grapefruits are plentiful, everyone has a lemon tree, and no-one's ever heard of a snow shovel.

And eels in your back yard.



Pretty awesome that.

tiffanywint wrote:

colly wrote:

I pity you TW if you ever have a cyclone hit your banana plantations and you're forced to buy them for 15 dollars a kilo. That'll take a lot of banana cutting. ;)

I may yet take up Seve's suggestion and move to New Zealand, where grapefruits are plentiful, everyone has a lemon tree, and no-one's ever heard of a snow shovel.

you're welcome any time aka timmer, and if you have any snow shovelling withdrawl symtoms we can send you to visit the South Island

but if you want bananas you'll have to visit colly, just remember to pack your gum boots, as they've been having a few floods over his way in recent times
;)

Seve wrote:

["eventually"

yes you can, it's basic human nature and the law of averages

OK well based on law of averages, yes we can predict criminal behaviour from some companies, however what I am saying is that just because a company becomes big, doesn't mean it will resort to unlawful conduct. Some will of course but plenty won't and don't.

Seve wrote:

and a business which holds a cartel or monopoly position in a market has power, so by definition it too must be corrupt?

No we are not only talking apples and oranges but rather giant pumpkins (government) and the largest business you can think of (a grapeseed). The power gap is that profound. The "power" a business wields doesn't even remotely compare to the power of government. Government rules the land. It makes laws. It has vast apparatus in place to simply take huge sums of money from the economy- to simply take (as opposed to compete for market share); to take from business and individuals, through its many taxes and myriad fees and licenses. The amount of money that any government pulls in makes the biggest corporation look like a lemonade-stand by comparison. The USA is running trillion dollars deficits. As Mamet suggests, such power breeds corruption. There is nothing to compare. When government runs short of cash, it either raises taxes,invents new fees or borrows by issuing bonds. In the case of the US fed, it simply prints money. It is all powerful, and I am not talking the poltical class so much, but rather the entrenched massive bureacracies,departments and regulatory agencies. These places are like fiefdoms. Their leaders are virtually untouchable. It doesn matter what party is in power. They can't be voted out. I recently did work with a group of companies that had some issues with the broadcast regulator. We tried to work through the ministry. The ministry claimed it had to a maintain a hands-off approach with the regulator. The regulator was essentially all-powerful and accountable to no-one. Such discussions/negotiations are almost surreal. In any normal negotiation one understands one's leverage, what cards you have to play. Dealing wth the regulator, you have none. There is nothing they want from you, unlike a normal business-to-business negotiation. The potential for corruption is stark. It does seem like the only way to deal is to simply ask "what do you want" Its like a protection racket. If you don't pay, Don Corleone will burn down your business. The only oversight the ministry has over some of its departments is to simply introduce legislation to dissolve them entirely. That's it. And where's the political will for that? Nowhere. The candy store is too big.

A business on the other hand must continually compete for the consumer's patronage. Even a business with dominant market share ( are there any true monopolies other than the ones that totalitarian governments have power to create? A business can't raise cash the way government can through mandatory taxes and fees, not to mention massive borrowing on the backs of taxpayers. The U.S. government is so heavily in debt, to the tune of trillions of dollars, no-one is even pretending the principle can ever begin to be paid off. Rather attempts at actually reducing the annual deficit and keeping up with interest payments on the broader debt is considered an austerity. No business can even dream of such debt. The banks would should it down while the red ink was just a puddle, as opposed to the vast oceans of red ink that governments like to swim in.

Clearly the experience of the post-war years demontrates that the social-welfare state is a failure. We've learned that a free society needs to keep the government candy store to a little corner store operation, as opposed to the big-box monstrosity that it has become.

After the fall we can try again and rebuild.

Seve wrote:

there's no harm in trying, it's when they are too successful that we have a problem and something needs to be done to reintroduce a competitive element into the equation

That is madness. Why are you so insistent on revolting against consumer behaviour. Your love of government interference and so called regulation is scary. You would interfere in the market place simply because you thought one company had become too big. This is an entirely arbitrary exercise which presumes that a dominant market-share is something bad. It isn't, and even our anti-trust laws have no qualms with it. You are suggesting radical changes to business law, so that government can just decide that new players need to be introduced into the market. How do you even achieve such a goal? Create a government business to compete, heavily subsidized by taxpayers naturally, so that prices can be artifically depressed, assuming the same competitive quality can be achieved? Or maybe provide government-subsidies, at taxpayer expense, to new businesses so they might have a so-called competitive advantage, and can thus lower their prices, assuming again they can match the product quality of the dominant market player, which is a big assumption, as there is usually a sound reason that one player can earn a dominant market-share These schemes are all doomed to failure and will place an even larger burden on the already strapped tax-payer. What is it we are trying to accomplish here? How do you force this "competitive element?" Do you have such little faith in the consumer, making independant decisions as to how to spend its hard earned money. Fact is these so-called monopolies that you are so fearful of, are in reality a non-issue. What is an issue is illegality, criminal behaviour and we do have laws to deal with that, as we so obviously must. The rule of law is paramount in a free society. We already have laws governing consumer fraud, unfair business practises such as companies formally agreeing, colluding, to price-fix or artifically control supply. But we are never going to introduce a law that makes a a so-called "monopoly" illegal. That would be totalitarian.

If comsumers don't like what's going on in the market, they can cut their grapefruits into quarters, switch to oranges, go without entirely, or move to New Zealand or Florida and plant a grapefruit tree. Life is about choices. The less of them that government makes for us, the freer we are.

Seve wrote:

your forgetting about cartels, which while not being "true monopolies", have the same detrimental effect on the market, removing competition and reducing the incentive to inovate and improve the products and services provided to the consumer

Don't we have laws that government unlawful business practises? Isn't this already covered? Are you suggesting still more regulation and interference in the marketplace? The end result is colletivism, where government controls supply. The result is shortages and bread lines, which ironically is likely where we are headed, once profligate government spending finally collapses our economies entirely.


If we are going to save our societies the answer is not to increase government interference in the market place. Even our political leaders have grudgingly seen the light and are making "efforts" at reducing government spending. Reigning in the public service fiefdoms will be a Herculean task. Rioting and social disorder as we've seen, is probably what we are looking at.

tiffanywint wrote:

Seve wrote:

["eventually"
yes you can, it's basic human nature and the law of averages

OK well based on law of averages, yes we can predict criminal behaviour from some companies, however what I am saying is that just because a company becomes big, doesn't mean it will resort to unlawful conduct. Some will of course...

which is why we need a degree of government involvement, as a referee, in the market

tiffanywint wrote:

Seve wrote:

and a business which holds a cartel or monopoly position in a market has power, so by definition it too must be corrupt?

No we are not only talking apples and oranges but rather giant pumpkins (government) and the largest business you can think of (a grapeseed). The power gap is that profound.

whoa Nelly! what planet are you from?
I'm from New Zealand remember, and there are 1,000s of companies in the world who have a much bigger turnover than my countries entire GDP
some of those companies operate in New Zealand and therefore have an "interest" in what goes on here
some of them exert that interest by using their size to crush any local competition that may arise from time to time
some of them would not think twice about trying to protect or promote that interest through bribery or otherwise trying to influence local officials
we are very small they are large
the power a large company can wield against a small country or one that is already afflicted with a high level of corruption is significant

tiffanywint wrote:

The "power" a business wields doesn't even remotely compare to the power of government.

in any case you're being too narrow in your interpretation of my remark
I'm not saying that the power of a company is as wide reaching in society as that of government
I'm saying that in any situation there is power
the government has power over society, a company has power in within it's market, your boss has power over you
if "absolute power corrupts absolutely" then, according to your friend Mamet, a company in a cartel or monopoly situation must inevitably become, "by definition", corrupt
and if there are no employment laws, then your boss must inevitably start asking you to come and wash his car and shovel his snow for free on the weekend?

tiffanywint wrote:

A business on the other hand must continually compete for the consumer's patronage. Even a business with dominant market share

you can think of the "struggle" which is competition as being like a war if it will make things easier
the advances in war technology evolve much faster when there is an armed conflict in progress ( = competitive market situation) whereas during peacetime ( = when there is a cartel or monopoly situation) those advances come at a much slower pace, which is less beneficial to the consumer

tiffanywint wrote:

Clearly the experience of the post-war years demonstrates that the social-welfare state is a failure.

well if you say so
IMO I think the Germans have a Welfare State and have been able to afford it

tiffanywint wrote:

How do you even achieve such a goal? How do you force this "competitive element?"

I haven't said I know how to achieve it, what I've been arguing against is the idea that the "free market" means no government involvement at all
that "less is always more", which is the impression I've been getting from you

tiffanywint wrote:

What is an issue is illegality, criminal behaviour and we do have laws to deal with that, as we so obviously must. The rule of law is paramount in a free society. We already have laws governing consumer fraud, unfair business practises such as companies formally agreeing, colluding, to price-fix or artificially control supply

but they haven't always been applied as they should have been, which is partly why we are where we are today
for example the way Bernie Madoff and co "persuaded" someone that "self regulation" was sufficient
the market is not populated by as much "good faith" as you seem to believe

in some situations less regulation is required, in some situations more, in some situations it's a matter of applying existing checks and balances properly

over here the Pike River mining disaster enquiry has shown what can happen when regulations are relaxed in the name of "making it easier to do business"
laws were changed, resources allocated by government to mine inspections were reduced to almost zero, a marginal mining operation was made feasable, under qualified staff were employed, safety advice was ignored by the company involved and 30 men lost their lives...

Seve wrote:

which is why we need a degree of government involvement, as a referee, in the market

I really don't get you. We have laws. What more do you want? What's this extra refereeing you are campaigning for?

Quote :

I'm from New Zealand remember, and there are 1,000s of companies in the world who have a much bigger turnover than my countries entire GDP
some of those companies operate in New Zealand and therefore have an "interest" in what goes on here
some of them exert that interest by using their size to crush any local competition that may arise from time to time
some of them would not think twice about trying to protect or promote that interest through bribery or otherwise trying to influence local officials
we are very small they are large
the power a large company can wield against a small country or one that is already afflicted with a high level of corruption is significant

I give up. You seem to have a paranoia about big companies "crushing" little companies. If they are not breaking the law, who cares?

Quote :

tiffanywint wrote:

The "power" a business wields doesn't even remotely compare to the power of government.

if "absolute power corrupts absolutely" then, according to your friend Mamet, a company in a cartel or monopoly situation must inevitably become, "by definition", corrupt

This doesn't follow. I'm not going to repeat what Mamet said again but it definitely does not follow from Mamet that a big company with big market share must become "corrupt." That is absurb. That should be obvious. You can't compare governement power with the power of a business. Apples and oranges. I prefer to use more precise terms such as "lawbreaking" rather than "corrupt", because that's all we can deal with; actual law-breaking. If a company isn't breaking the law, who gives a crap. We are a society of laws. That's what we enforce. And again short of government creating monopolies or "cartels", any so-called "monopolies" or "cartels" are perfectly fine so long as they don't break the law.

Quote :

you can think of the "struggle" which is competition as being like a war if it will make things easier
the advances in war technology evolve much faster when there is an armed conflict in progress ( = competitive market situation) whereas during peacetime ( = when there is a cartel or monopoly situation) those advances come at a much slower pace, which is less beneficial to the consumer

So what? Companies need obey the law. That's all we can legally ask of them.

Quote :

tiffanywint wrote:

Clearly the experience of the post-war years demonstrates that the social-welfare state is a failure.

well if you say so

I do say so. The global sovereign-debt problem seems to bear me out. The welfare state is unsustainable. Take a look at Europe and its not much better over here.

Quote :

IMO I think the Germans have a Welfare State and have been able to afford it

Their bond sale didn't go too well this week. In fact it tanked international markets. The sale was an embarrasment. No international confidence in the government's ability to back the bonds.

Quote :

Quote :

[tiffanywint"]How do you even achieve such a goal? How do you force this "competitive element?"

I haven't said I know how to achieve it, what I've been arguing against is the idea that the "free market" means no government involvement at all
that "less is always more", which is the impression I've been getting from you

Who said we don't need laws regulating business at all? Not me. At the very least we need tax laws. And of course the less government regulation of any industry sector the better. That should be obvious when you consider the crippling deficits that governments have been putting up, year aftrer year. Clearly we need to reduce the size of our governments. Not enough government is hardly a problem, although the public-service unions, entitled classes and of course the occupying protestor "armies' would disagree.

Quote :

but they haven't always been applied as they should have been,

no kidding and that's never going to change. Cops do their best.

Quote :

which is partly why we are where we are today

No that's not true. Government spending is why we are where are today, not failure to enforce laws.

Quote :

for example the way Bernie Madoff and co "persuaded" someone that "self regulation" was sufficient
the market is not populated by as much "good faith" as you seem to believe

Madoff is only an example of a crook ripping people off, who was eventually caught and is now doing time. Such is life. Investors also need to be smarter with who they give their money to. Guys like Madoff promise better than the market returns, and investors can't resist. Caveat Emptor. I don't blame government for Madoff. He's a crook and he's not alone. I'm sure there are plenty of others running similar scams right now, all over the world. Maybe not involving the same amount of cash but still the ponzi scam is nothing new.

Quote :

in some situations less regulation is required, in some situations more, in some situations it's a matter of applying existing checks and balances properly

over here the Pike River mining disaster enquiry has shown what can happen when regulations are relaxed in the name of "making it easier to do business"
laws were changed, resources allocated by government to mine inspections were reduced to almost zero, a marginal mining operation was made feasable, under qualified staff were employed, safety advice was ignored by the company involved and 30 men lost their lives..

Ok so put some teeth in your mining laws or enforce the law better, but I might also add, its a mine for crying out loud, how safe is it ever realistically going to be?Life is dangerous.

tiffanywint wrote:

Seve wrote:

which is why we need a degree of government involvement, as a referee, in the market

I really don't get you. We have laws. What more do you want? What's this extra refereeing you are campaigning for?

the laws we have were made by men, not God, so they may or may not be perfect
maybe in some areas we need to change them? or apply the existing laws more vigorously

tiffanywint wrote:

I give up. You seem to have a paranoia about big companies "crushing" little companies. If they are not breaking the law, who cares?

what makes you think the law as it stands is perfect? or that it is always applied as intended?
I say they probably are breaking the law, sometimes the problem is proving it
sometimes the law can be very difficult to enforce, especially against those who can afford the best lawyers, but that doesn't always mean justice is being done
for example for 50 years the Mafia thrived in America because it was almost impossible to pin them down under the law
then they came up with RICO

tiffanywint wrote:

Seve wrote:

if "absolute power corrupts absolutely" then, according to your friend Mamet, a company in a cartel or monopoly situation must inevitably become, "by definition", corrupt

This doesn't follow.

you can stick your head in the sand (or in your case snow) if you like, I can't stop you

tiffanywint wrote:

Seve wrote:

when there is a cartel or monopoly situation those advances come at a much slower pace, which is less beneficial to the consumer

So what?

most people seem to want better products asap, if you don't care about such matters, I guess that's your perogative
nature doesn't have markets, animals and plants don't engage in trade, the market is a man made mechanism, therefore man must set the ground rules for getting the best out of a market
I put petrol in my car and set off the chemical reaction which starts the engine and makes the car move
when that petrol runs out I don't just sit there and say "oh well that's that then" I put more petrol in the tank
competition is essential to the well being of a market, when competition in a market is lost, we have to find a way to re introduce competition or else the benefits of competition are lost
in the 90s in New Zealand the government tried various measures to try and introduce an element of "competition" into areas of the public sector with mixed results, but it illustrates the importance they placed on the principle of "competition" as a mechanism for improving performance and efficiency

tiffanywint wrote:

Seve wrote:

IMO I think the Germans have a Welfare State and have been able to afford it

Their bond sale didn't go too well this week. In fact it tanked international markets. The sale was an embarrassment. No international confidence in the government's ability to back the bonds.

that's because they are tied into the rest of Europe, not because of the German economy itself

tiffanywint wrote:

[ Who said we don't need laws regulating business at all? Not me... And of course the less government regulation of any industry sector the better.

you've just contradicted yourself in the same sentence
surely "the less the better" means that you think no law would be the best?

tiffanywint wrote:

Seve wrote:

but they haven't always been applied as they should have been,

no kidding and that's never going to change. Cops do their best.

nothing to do with cops, it's not their job to identify white collar crime

tiffanywint wrote:

Seve wrote:

for example the way Bernie Madoff and co "persuaded" someone that "self regulation" was sufficient
the market is not populated by as much "good faith" as you seem to believe

Madoff is only an example of a crook ripping people off, who was eventually caught and is now doing time. Such is life. Investors also need to be smarter with who they give their money to.

no they shouldn't have to, in his case there were meant to be regulatory checks and balances to prevent a ponzie scheme being perpetrated, but the intention of the law had been circumvented by Madoff and his cronies under the guise of "making it easier to do business"
yes ponzies schemes have been around since the 30s and probably before, and laws were created to try and prevent their recurrence
each individual investor doesn't have the money to spend doing due dilligence on every investment they make, that's why we have regulatory bodies and auditors
where such laws exist investors are entitled to rely on those laws
that is governments role in the market, to act as a referee, in order to try and ensure "good faith" dealing, which all economic theories require to work effectively

Seve wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Pike River mining disaster

Ok so put some teeth in your mining laws or enforce the law better, but I might also add, its a mine for crying out loud, how safe is it ever realistically going to be? Life is dangerous.

it was an example of why your simplistic "less is more" approach to regulation is wrong
my point is there were regulations in place previously, however they were diluted in the name of "making it easier to do business" result = disaster
it was the same with the leaking homes issue we have here, there were regulations in place previously, then they were diluted in the name of "making it easier to do business" and the result was a mess

Seve wrote:

the laws we have were made by men, not God, so they may or may not be perfect
maybe in some areas we need to change them? or apply the existing laws more vigorously

then I suggest you write your local legislature and get going on getting those laws changed.

Quote :

what makes you think the law as it stands is perfect? or that it is always applied as intended?
I say they probably are breaking the law, sometimes the problem is proving it

don't know, maybe you could do a dissertation on what the concept of a perferct law might be. Now you are fretting over the notion that our laws might not be "perfect", whatever that means.

Quote :

sometimes the law can be very difficult to enforce, especially against those who can afford the best lawyers, but that doesn't always mean justice is being done
for example for 50 years the Mafia thrived in America because it was almost impossible to pin them down under the law
then they came up with RICO

again get working on that perfect law system.

Quote :

competition is essential to the well being of a market, when competition in a market is lost, we have to find a way to re introduce competition or else the benefits of competition are lost

when you find that way, bottle it. Just think, some day the perfect market, with the perfect level of competition. Utopia.

Quote :

that's because they are tied into the rest of Europe, not because of the German economy itself

that's quite the indictment then. The social-welfare state, is on the brink of bringing down the entire Euro zone. Wonderful.

Quote :

tiffanywint wrote:

[ Who said we don't need laws regulating business at all? Not me... And of course the less government regulation of any industry sector the better.

you've just contradicted yourself in the same sentence
surely "the less the better" means that you think no law would be the best?

Sentence looks fine to me. Keep government regulation to the minimum? does that work better for you? Not likely. Government knows best.

Quote :

nothing to do with cops, it's not their job to identify white collar crime

If its not law enforcement's job then, I can't imagine whose job it might be?

Quote :

no they shouldn't have to, in his case there were meant to be regulatory checks and balances to prevent a ponzie scheme being perpetrated, but the intention of the law had been circumvented by Madoff and his cronies under the guise of "making it easier to do business"

Again Madoff was a crook. Ponzi schemes are all over the place. I even worked for a guy that was running one to the tune of about 3 million dollars, that he was diverting from investment funds that he ran stateside, to fund his business ventures up here. But the laws got him. Don't know what happend to him, although I'm sure he can't cross the border. Probably cooking up another scam. That's what crooks do. Men have been scamming each other, probably since the cave-man days. You can assert all you want that investors shouldn't have to fear being ripped off, but until you make the investment-of-money illegal, investors will get ripped off, that is until you invent that perfect system of laws you are apparently working on, along with perfect enforcement.

Quote :

Seve wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Pike River mining disaster

Ok so put some teeth in your mining laws or enforce the law better, but I might also add, its a mine for crying out loud, how safe is it ever realistically going to be? Life is dangerous.

it was an example of why your simplistic "less is more" approach to regulation is wrong.

Well as I'm sure you realize, all government regulation costs lots of cash to administer. It all falls into the broader cateogory of government spending, bankrolled by the taxpayer of course. And considering the hundreds of billions of dollars, trillions even, of sovereign-debt that is threatening our western economies, I don't think its a stretch to say, that maybe just a little less government might not be a bad idea; a few fewer federal, provincial, state or civic departments-of-this and departments-of-that, all staffed by public-service employee unions naturally, with jobs for life of course, and fat guaranteed-pensions of course, that they will be rioting in the streets to collect of course, even when the private sector has run out of cash to give.

I think Ambler said it best a few pages back. We live in a society where private sector workers have to work their asses off in jobs, (that they could actually be fired from), to underwrite the guaranteed pension commitments to bloated public sector unions, when they can't even come close to paying for their own pensions.

Its amazing all the things government can waste money on. Imagine what the global economy would be like, if all that money was out there in the real world doing real good.:shock:

tiffanywint wrote:

Seve wrote:

competition is essential to the well being of a market, when competition in a market is lost, we have to find a way to re introduce competition or else the benefits of competition are lost

when you find that way, bottle it. Just think, some day the perfect market, with the perfect level of competition. Utopia.

it's not about achieving the perfect market, it's about always striving to have the better market and not settling for a less, but there will always be change and adjustment, as the environment is dynamic and there are too many factors to ever control or achieve a long lasting balance

tiffanywint wrote:

Seve wrote:

nothing to do with cops, it's not their job to identify white collar crime

If its not law enforcement's job then, I can't imagine whose job it might be?

Rudi Giuliani was a cop?
but I see you've changed to "law enforcement" now so that's ok

tiffanywint wrote:

Again Madoff was a crook... You can assert all you want that investors shouldn't have to fear being ripped off, but until you make the investment-of-money illegal, investors will get ripped off, that is until you invent that perfect system of laws you are apparently working on, along with perfect enforcement.

there are laws intended to prevent people offering investments that don't comply sound business practice and a system to monitor them, yes, it costs money, but letting people like Madoff run wild costs more, as has been demonstrated more than once in the last century

tiffanywint wrote:

I don't think its a stretch to say, that maybe just a little less government might not be a bad idea;.

no argument from me in there general terms, or about public sector staffing levels and spending
but please leave the business regulations out of it, because it's dilution or circumvention of the intention of business regulation that allowed people like Madoff to do what they did, causes leaky homes and sometimes dead miners
not excessive regulation

tiffanywint wrote:

I think Ambler said it best a few pages back. We live in a society where private sector workers have to work their asses off in jobs, (that they could actually be fired from), to underwrite the guaranteed pension commitments to bloated public sector unions, when they can't even come close to paying for their own pensions.

going forward we can't afford to pay for anyone's pensions over here, due to the ageing population factor (and most people rely on the public pension scheme, whether or not you work in the private sector or public). also it's pretty much as hard to sack a private sector employee as a public sector one over here

tiffanywint wrote:

Its amazing all the things government can waste money on. Imagine what the global economy would be like, if all that money was out there in the real world doing real good.:shock:

yes, I'm sure it would be just like the society in James Caan's "Rollerball"

Seve wrote:

it's not about achieving the perfect market, it's about always striving to have the better market and not settling for a less, but there will always be change and adjustment, as the environment is dynamic and there are too many factors to ever control or achieve a long lasting balance

what is scary about your thinking is your notion of the "better market". That you think there is some way for government to be constantly interfering to find and regulate this better market. How exactly might this better market be achieved other than by passing laws and enforcing them?

Quote :

there are laws intended to prevent people offering investments that don't comply sound business practice and a system to monitor them, yes, it costs money, but letting people like Madoff run wild costs more, as has been demonstrated more than once in the last century

but you seem to forget, Madoff simply broke the law. His crime wasn't offering investments that failed to comply with "sound business practises". His crime was that he failed to invest the money as he said he would. He put it in his pocket and issued false statements. Plain old fraud.

Quote :

also it's pretty much as hard to sack a private sector employee as a public sector one over here

you got realy problems then. It should be easy to sack anyone. Good business people however, know how to get rid of unproductive employees. But in government there is no will to sack bad employees. Public sector managers build fiefdoms; the bigger your budget, the more staff you have, the more powerful a mandarin you are. Even when politicians offer lucrative buyout packages to employees, in order to get rid of the job, public-sector managers step in and declare the employee "essential," even when the employee accepts the package. And the taxpayer has to pay for this public-sector empire-building.

Quote :

tiffanywint wrote:

Its amazing all the things government can waste money on. Imagine what the global economy would be like, if all that money was out there in the real world doing real good.:shock:

yes, I'm sure it would be just like the society in James Caan's "Rollerball"

your faith in pouring money into government coffers is indeed ominous.:shock:

tiffanywint wrote:

That you think there is some way for government to be constantly interfering to find and regulate this better market.

it's what they've been doing ever since time and markets began (whether the "government" was a tribal leader or a king or a parliament)
:king:

tiffanywint wrote:

Madoff simply broke the law. His crime wasn't offering investments that failed to comply with "sound business practises". His crime was that he failed to invest the money as he said he would. He put it in his pocket and issued false statements. Plain old fraud.

IMO in the context in which Madoff operated the fraud he committed is a form of "unsound business practise"
:*e*:

tiffanywint wrote:

Seve wrote:

also it's pretty much as hard to sack a private sector employee as a public sector one over here

you got really problems then. It should be easy to sack anyone. Good business people however, know how to get rid of unproductive employees. But in government there is no will to sack bad employees.

you continue assume every country is the same as your own aka timmer
over here, as a result of big shake up the late 80s and early 90s, the public sector has plenty of experience on how to reduce numbers, the organisation I have just joined has and will continue to shed staff, they understand the ins and outs of "restructuring" without always having to offer a large redundancy packages
however I will also concede that they also know how to build their fiefdoms back up afterwards
:oops:

tiffanywint wrote:

your faith in pouring money into government coffers is indeed ominous.:shock:

I have no faith aka timmer, your the guy who's into faith, IMO over estimating the degree of "good faith" present in the market
"faith? my faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof yeah, proof is the bottom line for everyone"
;)

Seve wrote:

it's what they've been doing ever since time and markets began (whether the "government" was a tribal leader or a king or a parliament)

And with disastrous results.

Quote :

IMO in the context in which Madoff operated the fraud he committed is a form of "unsound business practise"

Agreed. Theft is not generally sound business practise.

Quote :

over here, as a result of big shake up the late 80s and early 90s, the public sector has plenty of experience on how to reduce numbers, the organisation I have just joined has and will continue to shed staff, they understand the ins and outs of "restructuring" without always having to offer a large redundancy packages
however I will also concede that they also know how to build their fiefdoms back up afterwards

Once the public-sector unions get a foothold, you're entire society is screwed. Head for the hills.

Quote :

I have no faith aka timmer, your the guy who's into faith, IMO over estimating the degree of "good faith" present in the market

Faith doesn't enter into it. Man aspires to be free, and a vibrant market economy burdened only by very limited government is the ticket. Mind you I am fully aware that a significant strata of the population prefers not to be free but rather to be regulated and provided for by nanny state. So sad.

there are a number of very serious problems facing the world at the moment
all I know is that they won't be resolved by slavishly repeating simplistic dogma
there is no magic bullet

your contradictions continue to amaze me aka timmer
a company that resorts to anti competitive practices in putting up barriers to prevent new players entering a market
is no different than a country which puts up trade barriers, import taxes etc to protect it's domestic market from overseas competition
I sure you are against protectionism by government, so I'm at at a loss to understand why do you find it acceptable behaviour from a company?

in any case the biggest problem facing the world at the moment is neither the credit crunch or global warming
it is runaway world population growth
that is the elephant in the room that no one likes to acknowledge
the problem that no one really has any idea how to address
China has tried to impose birth restrictions, which will only result in an ageing population bomb which will make our own look like a pimple
while Indians seem to regard the fact that their population will soon exceed that of China as a great achievement to be celebrated, rather than the alarming tragedy that it is
when I was in Egypt many moons ago I was told their population at that time was about 40 million, 20 million of whom were under the age of 20
no wonder North Africans are pouring across the Med from their marginal desert homelands in ever growing numbers
how is the free market and smaller government going to solve that one?

If I might interput Seve and Tiff's lovefest, this just in:

Quote :

A leading union is taking urgent legal advice over "appalling" comments made by BBC presenter Jeremy Clarkson about the huge strike by public sector workers, it has been announced.

Unison called on the corporation to sack the Top Gear presenter, who said on BBC's The One Show on Wednesday that the strikers should be "shot". He added: "I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families."

Clarkson also said: "I mean, how dare they go on strike when they've got these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?"

Unison, which represents more than a million public sector workers, said it was considering whether the comments should be referred to the police.

Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, said: "Clarkson's comments on the One Show were totally outrageous, and they cannot be tolerated. We are seeking urgent legal advice about what further action we can take against him and the BBC, and whether or not his comments should be referred to the police.

"Public sector workers and their families are utterly shocked by Jeremy Clarkson's revolting comments. We know that many other licence fee-payers share our concerns about his outrageous views.

"The One Show is broadcast at a time when children are watching - they could have been scared and upset by his aggressive statements. An apology is not enough - we are calling on the BBC to sack Jeremy Clarkson immediately. Such disgusting statements have no place on our TV screens.

Why does the left have to be so bloody humourless? :) I mean, I'll fight to the death to protect Rave's honour, but I don't think Jezza meant it for a moment.

They all seem to be the grandchildren of Ellsworth Monkton Toohey. Listen to the whole show, and you'll see the comments were taken out of context.

Quote :

It should be patently obvious to anyone who is familiar with his style or has seen one of his programmes – ie: everyone in the world – that Clarkson didn't mean it. For one thing, being an informed fellow he would be perfectly aware that the government simply hasn't the money to spend on bullets right now. For another, he must know that it's perfectly possible that among all the diversity outreach consultants, renewable energy/recycling advisers and union reps who spent their day on the picket lines/early Christmas shopping in Bluewater yesterday at least a handful might actually have jobs which make some tiny contribution to the nation's well being – so killing at least those ones would be counterproductive

.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100120977/jeremy-clarksons-critics-should-be-taken-out-and-shot/

As usual Delingpole hits the nail on the head, though I try to forgot the article where he attempted to make the case for Michael McIntyre being a better comedian than Bill Hicks.

McIntyre - Boyle - Shipping Container - Cricket bat