The idea of governmental oversight in corporations has been stewing around in my head for a while now, and I wanted to see the views of others on here.
Should we allow completely unrestricted capitalism to occur, with a truly free market? Or should we provide a restrictive basis of regulation in industry?
My view is that corporate regulation is necessary - but it must be strict. Lax regulation will most certainly lead to regulatory capture, which is an inherent problem in capitalistic government oversight. The issue that I see is that with the growing privatization of the world, eventually we'll be reduced to nothing more than bodies privately owned, living on land privately owned. That's probably a bit too pragmatic, but it's always a possibility. Although, I suppose this is a conflict of ideologies, so we can't exactly say which direction a situation will head in.
I am afraid, however, that the lack of corporate regulation will lead to issues of democracy in the future. With the Citizen's United case declaring that corporations are people too, does that make them any more accountable? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm hoping to see both sides to this debate here. I don't think that corporatism is completely wrong, there are certainly merits to the freedom to operate as you please, but there are also merits to the opposite side, wherein capitalism is flawed and one cannot privately own everything.
So, is corporate regulation/government oversight necessary? If so, to what extent is healthy for the growth of a democratic and capitalistic nation? Does it ever become inhibitory either way?
Consider the time before unions - what were working conditions like then?
Why do we need corporations to meet cleanliness standards through things like the Clean Air act or any similar EPA regulations?
Why does OSHA exist? Why do are there health inspections and safety inspections conducted by third parties?
The answer is that corporations are not to be trusted in any degree with respect to environmental or fiscal regulation because they will decide in their profit's interest.
[QUOTE=Kogitsune;35665095]Consider the time before unions - what were working conditions like then?
Why do we need corporations to meet cleanliness standards through things like the Clean Air act or any similar EPA regulations?
Why does OSHA exist? Why do are there health inspections and safety inspections conducted by third parties?
The answer is that corporations are not to be trusted in any degree with respect to environmental or fiscal regulation [b]because they will decide in their profit's interest.[/b][/QUOTE]
I'm sick of constantly reading this statement as an argument. Yes, profit maximisating IS the basic goal for all businesses to aim for, but many businesses raise the bar and push corporate social responsibility. You make it out that if there was no regulation, then all businesses would perform unethical practices and not give a shit for the environment as well. However, implementing proper corporate social responsibility can often be used as a powerful marketing tool, and often you'll get big players in the market who do practice this social responsibility. For example, McDonalds in Australia (not sure about elsewhere in the world) operates an entire damn charity - the Ronald McDonald House Charities, the purpose of which is to support the families of children with serious illnesses. Plenty more examples as well.
However of course, if you do have a regulated market then there will (hopefully) be guarantees to things such as workplace health and safety, appropriate pay issued to employees and so on. But saying that an un-regulated market will mean ALL businesses or even plenty of them will be doing unethical things is pretty damn stupid.
A healthy and safe workforce, fair completion, and protected environment is the least you can ask business to abide by.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;35665817]I'm sick of constantly reading this statement as an argument. Yes, profit maximisating IS the basic goal for all businesses to aim for, but many businesses raise the bar and push corporate social responsibility. You make it out that if there was no regulation, then all businesses would perform unethical practices and not give a shit for the environment as well. However, implementing proper corporate social responsibility can often be used as a powerful marketing tool, and often you'll get big players in the market who do practice this social responsibility. For example, McDonalds in Australia (not sure about elsewhere in the world) operates an entire damn charity - the Ronald McDonald House Charities, the purpose of which is to support the families of children with serious illnesses. Plenty more examples as well.
However of course, if you do have a regulated market then there will (hopefully) be guarantees to things such as workplace health and safety, appropriate pay issued to employees and so on. But saying that an un-regulated market will mean ALL businesses or even plenty of them will be doing unethical things is pretty damn stupid.[/QUOTE]
What if a corporation is running a charity, but while its factories are polluting local rivers? They aren't 100% good or 100% bad. The ability to be 50/50 is well out there.
And of course the said corporation would only advertise its charitable attributes.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;35665817]I'm sick of constantly reading this statement as an argument. Yes, profit maximisating IS the basic goal for all businesses to aim for, but many businesses raise the bar and push corporate social responsibility. You make it out that if there was no regulation, then all businesses would perform unethical practices and not give a shit for the environment as well. However, implementing proper corporate social responsibility can often be used as a powerful marketing tool, and often you'll get big players in the market who do practice this social responsibility. For example, McDonalds in Australia (not sure about elsewhere in the world) operates an entire damn charity - the Ronald McDonald House Charities, the purpose of which is to support the families of children with serious illnesses. Plenty more examples as well.
However of course, if you do have a regulated market then there will (hopefully) be guarantees to things such as workplace health and safety, appropriate pay issued to employees and so on. But saying that an un-regulated market will mean ALL businesses or even plenty of them will be doing unethical things is pretty damn stupid.[/QUOTE]
You don't need to advertise your product when you have a monopoly.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;35665817]I'm sick of constantly reading this statement as an argument. Yes, profit maximisating IS the basic goal for all businesses to aim for, but many businesses raise the bar and push corporate social responsibility. You make it out that if there was no regulation, then all businesses would perform unethical practices and not give a shit for the environment as well. However, implementing proper corporate social responsibility can often be used as a powerful marketing tool, and often you'll get big players in the market who do practice this social responsibility. For example, McDonalds in Australia (not sure about elsewhere in the world) operates an entire damn charity - the Ronald McDonald House Charities, the purpose of which is to support the families of children with serious illnesses. Plenty more examples as well.
However of course, if you do have a regulated market then there will (hopefully) be guarantees to things such as workplace health and safety, appropriate pay issued to employees and so on. But saying that an un-regulated market will mean ALL businesses or even plenty of them will be doing unethical things is pretty damn stupid.[/QUOTE]
The reason corporations "push the bar?" It's somewhat complicated, but has to do with both public relations(putting on a good public image so people will buy your shit) and having to do so, because of the aforementioned controls on business in place. It's more complex than that but if the copntrols were removed altogether and we went back to total [I]laissez faire[/I], shit would hit the fan so goddamn quickly you wouldn't have time to get out of the way.
Hell, take the 2007 Stock Market Collapse for instance. One of the major causes of it being so bad was George W. Bush relaxing those controls on a number of industries including the Housing Market and the Banking Establishment.
Yes,it is required if you want to prevent exploitation of the workers,prevent injuries,to enforce environmental standards etc...
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;35673285]The reason corporations "push the bar?" It's somewhat complicated, but has to do with both public relations(putting on a good public image so people will buy your shit) and having to do so, because of the aforementioned controls on business in place. It's more complex than that but if the copntrols were removed altogether and we went back to total [I]laissez faire[/I], shit would hit the fan so goddamn quickly you wouldn't have time to get out of the way.
Hell, take the 2007 Stock Market Collapse for instance. One of the major causes of it being so bad was George W. Bush relaxing those controls on a number of industries including the Housing Market and the Banking Establishment.[/QUOTE]
The US has [i]never[/i] been a completely free/"laissez faire" market, so there is no baseline to say that it doesn't work.
Also, saying you need them to prevent X bad thing is ignorant of the fact you can just sue the fucking company.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;35675467]The US has [i]never[/i] been a completely free/"laissez faire" market, so there is no baseline to say that it doesn't work.[/QUOTE]
Nor a remote suggestion that it would. "There's no proof X doesn't work because we have never seen true X" is also an argument "there's no proof X works because we have never seen true X". Irrelevant of what you're arguing about, that's a meaningless statement.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;35675467]Also, saying you need them to prevent X bad thing is ignorant of the fact you can just sue the fucking company.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, except the laws they'd be violating wouldn't actually exist, because it's kind of the definition of deregulation to cut the laws that would hurt businesses
[QUOTE=Greenen72;35676731]Yeah, except the laws they'd be violating wouldn't actually exist, because it's kind of the definition of deregulation to cut the laws that would hurt businesses[/QUOTE]
The difference is the government oversight. With regulation, you have the government taking an active role in the company and the way it functions.
Regulations only work if we see all other people as our neighbors.
"[I]You can dump all your toxic waste into the river, but only if it doesn't lower real estate value and give people cancer down stream[/I]" is the kind of mindset lawmakers need when creating regulations.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
