Should the government help provide a level playing field for business?
 

Is too big to fail OK or should it have been prevented?

If it should have been prevented, do you still think that would be acceptable regulation if we get a smaller government?

If they would stop PROVIDING A HOPELESSLY SLANTED PLAYING FIELD and stay the FUCK out of it IT WOULD BE A FAIR PLAYING FIELD for chrissakes :(

There are no such things as "fair" and "level playing field" and there will never be.

Those things only exist in the minds of the seriously naive.

Prevention would have been allowing them to fail.

Misbehave in class, you get the ruler.

The government should prevent anything being too big such that it protects the country and it's citizens which is one of it's prime purposes in the first place. "Enemies" of a country and not just those armed with weapons and/or that have the intent of doing harm to it's citizens and way of life. IMO a company who's policy and actions bring harm or can bring harm to a country and it's citizens must be viewed as a type of "enemy". In the case of companies, they need to be regulated "enough" so that those circumstances don't come about. Seriously. If companies had a free reign to do whatever they want they would destroy everything and then move on to the next place. History has shown this time and again.

A drunk guy doesn't get in his car and drive home with the intent of killing someone. Laws are in place to prevent him from doing that as a byproduct of his irresponsibility towards his fellow citizens. Companies are no different.

You mean like getting the chinese to build our infrastucture because their bids are less, but first have to train them how?

Will they be leveling the playing field for the chicken parts industry too?...

http://f.bandcamp.com/z/25/72/2572848836-1.jpg

Helloooooo Cleveland!

There are so many recent instances of federal government over reaching that I don't even know what instance we are talking about. The problem is you have people making decisions who don't even have a basic understanding of economics. It's outrageous.

Let's let our D_E_M_O_C_R_A_C_Y decide...

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...49808645_n.jpg

It was prevented up until the early 80's when we started de-regulating the financial sector. De-regulation led to the Savings & Loan crisis, the Dot-Com bubble, and the most recent financial crisis. Laissez-faire capitalism creates an environment for these extreme boom and bust cycles.


The icing on the cake was that these huge institutions with the money to lobby Washington got them to remove the restrictions that were unfavorable to them(i.e. repeal of Glass-Steagall), but left in place the ones to keep them afloat through taxpayer money if they gambled with it and lost.

This is a pretty good documentary that explains the recent crisis: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radi...-pool-of-money

I'm asking because I'm trying to figure out if I align more with Tea Party or OWS as I believe in some of the things each promote.

Let me rephrase it using an example from our industry:

Content producers are capitalists. Content thieves that monetize content other ways are capitalists. Should government have laws that product the content producers from the pirates? That is government regulation. Would that still be acceptable to the Tea Party folks?

I like the Tea Party because I believe in lower taxes and less regulation, but I feel some regulation is necessary ... I think you have the protect the good capitalists from the bad capitalists.

I hate the whole God angle and the fact that many really do seem to be purely racist. I think that less government should mean less rules for people too; marry who the fuck you want, personal use OK (even though I don't use), etc. Tea Party is too far right for me.

I think we need to open our borders up to more immigrants, but not leave the borders wide open. I don't think we should let immigrants come over here just to collect money; make your own or go home. While we let the best of the best immigrate, I think we need to let some regular folks do it, too.

I think welfare is OK, but there should be drug testing and limits. It is supposed to be a safety net for when you hit hard times, not a career.

I've experienced first hand how our health insurance is fucked up. I don't necessarily support single payor healthcare, but I'm not necessarily against it. More than anything, I want anybody that wants it to be able to acquire affordable health insurance.

OWS is too far left for me for many of the reasons stated in countless threads on this very board.

I support a fair flat tax. Since we don't have that, I don't want the guy that has $10 million to be taxed to death, but I want the book thrown at the companies that derive most of their income in America but then do every trick under the sun to not pay hardly anything in taxes.

Is there a movement for me? If so, what?