[QUOTE=sgman91;51938516]Stop saying this. It's patently false and I've never said it myself.
About your questions: Sure they influence things, but so do individuals. Political leaders have HUGE influences. I'm not sure how the fact that they can influence things establishes anything.[/QUOTE]
And who influences political leaders the most? Giant companies with more money and more weight to throw around
you yourself were just explaining the problems of lobbyism and the corruption
leaders are not incorruptible and are often the first things to be corrupted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51938531]And who influences political leaders the most? Giant companies with more money and more weight to throw around
you yourself were just explaining the problems of lobbyism and the corruption
leaders are not incorruptible and are often the first things to be corrupted[/QUOTE]
I agree. The only partial solution to governmental corruption, in my opinion, is keeping it small. This helps in 2 ways:
1) It allows us to keep an eye on them. When you have hundreds of thousands bureaucrats, it's impossible to keep track of them.
2) They don't have the power to be effective for lobbyists. You won't see people lobbying for things that they know the government doesn't have power over. I'm sure Walmart would love to be given a national monopoly charter by the government, but they don't lobby for that because they know it's futile.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938548]I agree. The only partial solution to governmental corruption, in my opinion, is keeping it small. This helps in 2 ways:
1) It allows us to keep an eye on them. When you have hundreds of thousands bureaucrats, it's impossible to keep track of them.
2) They don't have the power to be effective for lobbyists. You won't see people lobbying for things that they know the government doesn't have power over.[/QUOTE]
So then how does that fix a situation where [B]giant[/B] corporations are the source of the problem? Again to Exon Mobil, who lied, bald faced fucking lied, about climate change in the 70's. They had research and evidence that was greater that what existed outside of their company, and because their bottom line matters more than anything else, that news is buried, and hidden.
So, a massive change to the world occurs because a lie was told, but again, you and me bear the brunt of the cost, consequences, and problems, but they get no fines, no problems, and a pat on the back from some even.
How do you prevent that with a tiny government that itself can't oversee much?
How do you oversee a potential outbreak in bad beef, one might say "Customers should just know better than to buy bad beef" but how the fuck would they know that if a beef plant was contaminated. Sure, the company is unlikely to succeed going forward but that has no bearing on the avoidable damages
it basically seems like corporations can do whatever the fuck they want, and you and me will pay for their actions, and they will rinse, and repeat.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938421]They can unionize. I have no problem with unions forming on their own, as they did originally, and will again if the conditions got bad enough.
You're also ignoring the part where I said that the society should provide the minimum living standard instead of forcing it on businesses.[/QUOTE]
There is a difference between [I]can[/I] and [I]able to[/I].
Yes, I can unionize. If I do, I'll be replaced within weeks by someone else who will work for less. We live in a world where labor force is high but work is low. There is always someone to replace you if you don't do what you are told.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51938561]So then how does that fix a situation where [B]giant[/B] corporations are the source of the problem? Again to Exon Mobil, who lied, bald faced fucking lied, about climate change in the 70's. They had research and evidence that was greater that what existed outside of their company, and because their bottom line matters more than anything else, that news is buried, and hidden.
So, a massive change to the world occurs because a lie was told, but again, you and me bear the brunt of the cost, consequences, and problems, but they get no fines, no problems, and a pat on the back from some even.
How do you prevent that with a tiny government that itself can't oversee much?
How do you oversee a potential outbreak in bad beef, one might say "Customers should just know better than to buy bad beef" but how the fuck would they know that if a beef plant was contaminated. Sure, the company is unlikely to succeed going forward but that has no bearing on the avoidable damages
it basically seems like corporations can do whatever the fuck they want, and you and me will pay for their actions, and they will rinse, and repeat.[/QUOTE]
TBH, the FDA's effect on food safety is hugely overhyped. The same story happens over and over again: a trend of improvement begins, the government creates a program that relates to it, and then the government claim to be the cause of the improvement trend, even though it started before the government program.
for example, there's an indpeth look at the effectiveness of the FDA's egg salmanella regulations: [URL]http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-15-24.pdf[/URL]
In concludes that they have had no statistically significant impact on actual cases of salmonella being contracted.
This is a tough area because of the lack of real research. ([url]https://www.mercatus.org/publication/fda-regulations-should-be-safe-and-effective[/url])
[editline]9th March 2017[/editline]
Chipotle didn't need the FDA to tell them to fix their salmonella problem. As soon as customers found out, Chipotle either needed to fix it or go out of business.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.