By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 13 June 2012
Edit Thread
badgenome said:
richardhutnik said:

You had said this prior: And I'm well aware that you were being sarcastic. My point is that no one is actually saying, "Derp, less regulation!" Thus it's yet another one of your strawmen.

And now you are actually saying, "Derp, less regulation".  So, now am I to conclude you became no one?  It is without qualification, because there isn't talk of there being a fixing of regulation, it is LESS regulation.  This is what is said over and over politically, and apparently you are in favor of either.  All you are saying is, "get rid of useless regulations".  In your above stament, there isn't any place there above where you say different, just less.  And if the GOP just stood for less regulations, you would be a Republican.  So, there you go, you are saying, "Derp, less regulations!"  

People do change.  It is interesting to see it happen in the same thread though.  If only others changed as fast as you did.

 

"Less regulation is a Republican talking point, ALL THE TIME, in response to everything."

Except for when it comes to drugs. Or letting people marry who they want. Or myriad other issues where they love intruding into people's lives. Those are the reasons I would never be a Republican. If they were as laissez-faire as you always make them out to be with your constant pearl clutching over mythical Republican anarchists, I'd have to reconsider. But they aren't, and simply not being quite the fucking fascists that the Democrats are isn't going to cut it.

However, I did say any regulations that are well and truly needed, let's have them and enforce the hell out of them. You seem to have missed that part. But let's also get rid of the reams and reams of regulations that apparently do nothing whatsoever except pose a burden and make it harder and more expensive for people to do business. I'm honestly not even sure why you find the idea of fewer (and better, and not written by and named after the same two asshats who were at the center of the storm) regulations to be so risible in this case when you explicitly stated your belief that regulations can't and won't stop the JP Morgans of the world from engaging in stupidly risky behavior. Since you don't even believe that getting their fingers burned without any possibility of Uncle Sam bailing them out can't stop them, you must believe that nothing on Earth can stop them. So why even have this conversation?

Ok, this is a good place to levelset with things.  As I believe I wrote before "less regulations" can mean streamlining the rules or reducing enforcement.  The typical thing that happens it ends up with less enforcement, and that is the norm.  No attempt to streamline to make better is done, but usually done so that people can take greater risks and game the system more and not be blocked.   As someone who does game design, I can tell you, that it is NOT a good idea to merely add rules to a game, and expect it to get better results.  I would agree with you on having less rules, more strictly enforced.  Except this isn't what the industry seems to want.  Big business seems to LOVE a big convoluted mess of rules they can game and hide in, and to reduce enforcement.   They know that congress folk will pass more and more laws and turn to them to write it.  It is a big lousy racket set up.

And with corporations, there is a disconnect between management and owners (shareholders), across industries on the whole.  And this is a problem. Management will continue to take stupid risks and leave the shareholders holding the bag.  They earn big bonuses this way, which is why you have risks.  And they will gut things to maximize profits.  You can look to the rise and fall of Carly Fiorina as a prime example of that.  She proceeded to kill the culture that made HP successful, maxed out profits short term, ran the company into the ground, and left with a nice severance package to boot.