Fundamental reason Govt needs to regulate corporations.

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
This BP fiasco is a prime example of why corporations need to be regulated by the government.

BP's "hart" is its duty to the shareholders financial concerns so they do everything with that interest in mind. The government is responsable to the majority of the voters and its the voters health and happyness that is of concern.

Now thats in a perfect world, to get that to work better we need to get lobbying by corporations out of control of the government and make some other fixes to keep the government more responsave to the people. TO make it work we also need a highly educated electorate.
 
NigelTufnel said:
He's against all new regulations whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Assuming for a moment that this is true, perhaps because a lot of the regulations that we have now are unreasonable. But I don't believe Boehner would put it quite the way that you did. Feel free to provide evidence otherwise.
 
I think he is confusing the "no NEW regulation" ban idea he threw out there with getting rid of all regulation.
 
Damocles said:
Told you!

I was right, he has confused "no new regulations" with "no regulations at all"...
Click to expand...


No. I'm not at all confused. As I said, Boehner is against all new regulations. That means he's against any and all new regulations, reasonable or unreasonable.

I mean, I think we could all probably agree that some form of regulation on the financial services industry is a reasonable thing to do. John Boehner doesn't. We could almost all probably agree that some sort of regulation on deep water drilling is a reasonable thing to do. John Boehner doesn't. He's against any new regulations, even if the proposed regulations are like the most reasonable regulations ever written.
 
Jarod said:
This BP fiasco is a prime example of why corporations need to be regulated by the government.

BP's "hart" is its duty to the shareholders financial concerns so they do everything with that interest in mind. The government is responsable to the majority of the voters and its the voters health and happyness that is of concern.

Now thats in a perfect world, to get that to work better we need to get lobbying by corporations out of control of the government and make some other fixes to keep the government more responsave to the people. TO make it work we also need a highly educated electorate.
Click to expand...
You've pointed out conservative opposition to environmentalism in a nutshell. Much of conservative political ideology is wrapped up in decreasing the role of government, particularly in regards to regulation of commerce. Environmentalism though is predicated on doing just exactly that. Regulating commerce in order to protect human health and the environment. No matter how fundamentally obvious the need for those regulations are say, for example, the regulations regarding the management of hazardous waste, conservatives will oppose them mainly due to their ideological opposition to regulation in general.

You've also defined precisely the fundamental need for government regulations in commerce. The primary obligation any manager of a company or corporation has is to the financial prosperity of that enterprise. All other obligations are secondary to that and this is the way it ought to be as business needs to focus on profitability in order to be viable. Thus the need for government regulation to assure a fair and level playing field in commerce and to protect consumers from faulty or bad products, services or business practices as well as to protect the public from harmfull products, services and practices. Unfortunately many conservatives do not see this as a legitimate function of government. In this they are wrong.
 
NigelTufnel said:
No. I'm not at all confused. As I said, Boehner is against all new regulations. That means he's against any and all new regulations, reasonable or unreasonable.

I mean, I think we could all probably agree that some form of regulation on the financial services industry is a reasonable thing to do. John Boehner doesn't. We could almost all probably agree that some sort of regulation on deep water drilling is a reasonable thing to do. John Boehner doesn't. He's against any new regulations, even if the proposed regulations are like the most reasonable regulations ever written.
Click to expand...
That isn't what you said, you quoted me asking where there is anybody saying we should get rid of all regulation. And you also discount the fact that he wants it to be temporary to spur growth, not forever and not to remove ALL regulation.
 
Damocles said:
That isn't what you said, you quoted me asking where there is anybody saying we should get rid of all regulation. And you also discount the fact that he wants it to be temporary to spur growth, not forever and not to remove ALL regulation.
Click to expand...


I've made myself clear. Quibble all you like.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I've made myself clear. Quibble all you like.
Click to expand...
I've also made myself clear.

1. Boehner proposed a temporary politcy, something he believes will spur growth.
2. You took it out of that context and tried to make it "more" than what he proposed.
3. I caught you at it, even posting before you provided the link what I thought you had done.

That ain't quibbling, it is informing people of what the man actually said.

Now can you provide any person in government anywhere that is proposing no regulations whatsoever?
 
BTW - IMO, Boehner's suggestion is kinda stupid. While it would provide businesses with a bit of assurance that the rules wouldn't change mid-stream, I don't think it is wise to "ban" all new regulation in order to spur growth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top