My problem with Republicans, part 1:

[Bob Juch]

I've observed that Republicans are much more trusting of corporations than government. I am baffled at how anyone can trust a corporation whose only obligation is to make money for its owners (including stockholders). They somehow think the executives are looking out for the best interests of their customers. They think politicians are crooks, only out for themselves. They say politicians are bribed (mostly legally through campaign contributions) by the same corporations they trust. They believe that we'd be better off if government didn't regulate corporations.

I believe the job of government is to protect me. That includes protecting me from corporations that are out to take advantage of their employees and customers. Corporations don't want regulations for the same reason bank robbers want fewer cops on the street.

I'd much rather have people who we can elect or vote out every 2, 4, or 6 years running this country.

[Spock]

Oddly enough recently, I have been having some trains of thought related to this post.

>>>I believe the job of government is to protect me.<<<<

Many of the "Great Crimes" of US history are government induced-and are often described as such by liberals.

The genocide of the indians (largely government policy)-The Tuskegee syphilis thing, the internment of Japanese Americans etc etc. Even Vietnam and Iraq were government actions(good or bad as the case might be)

It seems a bit naive to put your trust in government and automatically assign pure motives and policies to government.

Why do you automatically trust the same government that promulgated these policies?

[Bob Juch]

Oddly enough recently, I have been having some trains of thought related to this post.

>>>I believe the job of government is to protect me.<<<<

Many of the "Great Crimes" of US history are government induced-and are often described as such by liberals.

The genocide of the indians (largely government policy)-The Tuskegee syphilis thing, the internment of Japanese Americans etc etc. Even Vietnam and Iraq were government actions(good or bad as the case might be)

It seems a bit naive to put your trust in government and automatically assign pure motives and policies to government.

Why do you automatically trust the same government that promulgated these policies?

I didn't say I trusted them. The government doesn't always do its job right. However I'd rather have the government running things than the corporations.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Corporations can be given the death penalty. Worst case scenario: Corporation and Government working together .

Get your Kronies action figures here http://thekronies.com

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/texas-tea ... the-stars/

Faith in government

Teacher qualifies for green card gets PNG letter instead

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

with an alternative view of the new aristocracy, Professor Glenn Reynolds

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... /12266651/

[flockofseagulls104]

Some of the worst crimes in history have been perpetrated by governments. Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR, Cambodia. China, it goes on and on. Nothing that any corporation has done can even be compared to what governments have done. Corporations produce something or some service that is useful to someone, or they wouldn't exist. Yes, some corporations may go to excess in their zeal to make a profit, but there is always a recourse to deal with that. They are not the last word. With the Federal Governement, there is no appeal, they are the last word.

I would say there are good and bad people that run corporations, and there are good and bad people that get elected to high office. I would say there are more dishonest and unethical people in government than there are running businesses. The only qualification to getting elected to a high office is a lot of money and and the ability to sway people to vote for you. To be in charge of a corporation, you must prove that you have the ability to do so. There are a lot of people who want to exercise power. It's a lot easier to get it by getting elected than to work your way up the ladder in a corporation.

And it is very disheartening that there are so many people like you that can't see that.

[Bob78164]

With the Federal Governement, there is no appeal, they are the last word.

I started to realize you were right around the middle of President Nixon's fourth term.

More seriously, we can (and have) fired large components of our federal government in the past, and we can do it again. And if you don't believe me, you can ask the House Majority Leader. We have no similar recourse against corporations. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Yes, some corporations may go to excess in their zeal to make a profit, but there is always a recourse to deal with that. They are not the last word. With the Federal Governement, there is no appeal, they are the last word.

Yes, we have laws and regulations that hold corporations in check, but the same people who seem to distrust the government to act in the public interest want to do away with these "burdensome" regulations, either legislatively or through court decisions that uphold "corporate rights."

Almost every bad economic downturn is U.S. history was preceded by a period in which big business was allowed to operate virtually at will and their short term, self-serving decisions have cost this country dearly.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

i guess if we just had better regulations we would not have recessions


One of the factors in the financial crisis of 2007-2009 that is mentioned too infrequently is the role of banking capital sufficiency standards and exactly how they were written. Folks have said that capital requirements were somehow deregulated or reduced. But in fact the intention had been to tighten them with the Basil II standards and US equivalents. The problem was not some notional deregulation, but in exactly how the regulation was written.

In effect, capital sufficiency standards declared that mortgage-backed securities and government bonds were "risk-free" in the sense that they were counted 100% of their book value in assessing capital sufficiency. Most other sorts of financial instruments and assets had to be discounted in making these calculations. This created a land rush by banks for mortgage-backed securities, since they tended to have better returns than government bonds and still counted as 100% safe.

Without the regulation, one might imagine banks to have a risk-reward tradeoff in a portfolio of more and less risky assets. But the capital standards created a new decision rule: find the highest returning assets that could still count for 100%. They also helped create what in biology we might call a mono-culture. One might expect banks to have varied investment choices and favorites, such that a problem in one class of asset would affect some but not all banks. Regulations helped create a mono-culture where all banks had essentially the same portfolio stuffed with the same one or two types of assets. When just one class of asset sank, the whole industry went into the tank,

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2 ... ition.html