Why do you think there should be government intervention in businesses?

[anonymouschris]

or the vice versa if thats how you feel...

 

[PsychoAndy]

you want clean air and water, you have an EPA
you want decent beef and bread, you have a USDA
you want honest businessmen, you have an SEC

basically, the threat (or lack of it, depends on your POV) of force or action is enough to where a lot of companies are afraid they will lose investor confidnence/market capitlization.

as for the lassiez-faire economists, the smith philosiphy can only go so far. if you dont supervise anything, all hell will break loose. its the law of: if the cat's away, the mice will play.

 

[Scouzer]

Look at Canada. Leave intervention to a minimum.

 

[gopunk]

i feel there should be intervention because often times, what is in the best interest of companies, is not in the best interest of our country/society.

btw, i mean intervention insofar as stuff like environmental regulations, safety regulations, etc. i don't support the government subsidizing too many things.

 

[Garet Jax]

Because companies are driven to make money. This means that they will take short cuts where necessary to make as much money as possible. These short cuts normally have negative affects on society. Look at car manufacturers, gun makers, alcohol brewers, tobacco companies, etc.....

Governments are there to ensure these companies don't lose sight of society and its people.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Because companies are driven to make money. This means that they will take short cuts where necessary to make as much money as possible. These short cuts normally have negative affects on society. Look at car manufacturers, gun makers, alcohol brewers, tobacco companies, etc.....

Governments are there to ensure these companies don't lose sight of society and its people.

i disagree with many of those examples... some products wouldn't have a negative effect on society if it weren't for dumb people, and it's my belief that companies should not be penalized for the incompetance of others.

 

[DigDug]

GoPunk
what do you define as dumb?

If I sold a car to you with a poorly designed, yet fully functional transmission system that at the slightest mis-shift by you, would cause you to lose control of steering ability, should you be to blamed as an "incompetent" for not discovering this "flaw", despite the fact that a knowledge of advanced engineering would be required to spot it?

After all, its a fully functional system; its not the companies fault that your mis-shifts cause steering loss!

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: BlipBlop
GoPunk
what do you define as dumb?

If I sold a car to you with a poorly designed, yet fully functional transmission system that at the slightest mis-shift by you, would cause you to lose control of steering ability, should you be to blamed as an "incompetent" for not discovering this "flaw", despite the fact that a knowledge of advanced engineering would be required to spot it?

After all, its a fully functional system; its not the companies fault that your mis-shifts cause steering loss!

that's why i used hand wavey terms like "most" and "some" 🙂 i was thinking of alcohol and tobacco when i wrote that post.

 

[anonymouschris]

so i assume most people do in fact advocate government intervention correct?

 

[TNTrulez]

Yes

 

[Tripleshot]

so i assume most people do in fact advocate government intervention correct?

Yes, most people want government protection that covers issues that they, by themselves, would have little power to change. The level of protection is what defines political parties and ideolegies.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Because companies are driven to make money. This means that they will take short cuts where necessary to make as much money as possible. These short cuts normally have negative affects on society. Look at car manufacturers, gun makers, alcohol brewers, tobacco companies, etc.....

Governments are there to ensure these companies don't lose sight of society and its people.

i disagree with many of those examples... some products wouldn't have a negative effect on society if it weren't for dumb people, and it's my belief that companies should not be penalized for the incompetance of others.

His sentiment was right, just used poor examples. Pharmacudical, chemical, and food companies would have been better. If you are really interested in the issue, go to pbs.org and look for transcripts from a show called Trade Secrets. Hell, even if you aren't interested, read it anyway, and I bet then you will be.

 

[woodie1]

I don't like the term "intervention" but do find that regulation is essential since you can't seem to trust companies to do the right thing.

Drug, tobacco, communication, food and oil companies have proven over and over that they will do anything to make a buck.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Scouzer
Look at Canada. Leave intervention to a minimum.

EH?

US still in recession, Canada has the highest GDP growth rate in the Industrialized world.