Atlas Shrugged

KomradeBishop wrote: »

^^ Interestingly, PermaBear mentioned before that his work may have involved 'financial innovation' in developing new financial instruments, if I recall correctly - I'd be curious if that includes financial instruments, for sidestepping regulations, much the same as the ones banks used there?

Mod:

The line of "inquiry" is bordering on personal and potentially defamatory - the subject being that maybe permabear was involved in side stepping regulations. Please, retract this statement. Or present your evidence to the relevant authorities. In either case, please don't involve this site by publishing such speculation here.

Thanks,

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's a very long winded way to agree with my assessment of your argument.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The notion that corporations would be in any way answerable to the public if there was no regulation is stupid. Not naive, not uninformed, just plain stupid. Someone mentioned it before, but I'll say it again - read Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre. It is full of examples of drug companies hiding flawed research, bribing scientists or doctors, and releasing ineffective or dangerous drugs because all they care about is profit. Hell, read Bad Science by the same author, that's full of examples of pseudoscientists essentially doing the same thing.
Look at the kind of things that the likes of Bayer, Nestle and Chiquita did to protect profits (sell HIV causing drugs in non-regulated markets, convince breast feeding mothers to change to baby formula in countries where the mothers could neither afford sufficient formula nor clean water, cause a war to keep their land monopoly).

You don't stop a cheater in any game or sport by removing the ref.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Someone mentioned it before, but I'll say it again - read Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre. It is full of examples of drug companies hiding flawed research, bribing scientists or doctors, and releasing ineffective or dangerous drugs because all they care about is profit.

I've read this book and another which covers the same topic more or less is The Emperor's New Drugs by Irving Kirsch. All of these offenses and frauds you speak of were committed by both the corporations AND the regulators. Where do you think the research was buried? In FDA archives. Who do you think accepted the bribes? FDA officials. Kirsch wanted to complete a meta-analysis on the unpublished studies on the effectiveness of anti-depressant medication and the FDA only handed over some of the buried studies after a freedom of information request was lodged. Have you considered the fact that certain corporations might not be so malignant if they couldn't buy off a powerful regulatory agency (i.e. if they didn't exist) ? What do you think lobbying is?

You seem to endlessly ignore any governmental department's role in corruption, instead happy to blame exclusively those offering the bribes im the first place. The libertarian appreciates the corrupting influence of state regulatory agencies in the first instance - if their powers were strictly curtailed or limited the corporations would have nobody to bribe and would be without the state's power to limit competition, and pass favourable laws. Ireland could have used such curtailment of state power before they handed billions over to their banking pals. Big corporations and their regulators are as bad as each other and the corporations will always and have always used them to further their own ends.

Mark Hamill wrote:

You don't stop a cheater in any game or sport by removing the ref.

No, you're just happy to keep the ref who is getting backhanders from one of the teams. The libertarian says fire the ref and decide on something new - but not a different ref from the same company who says 'this time we'll be fair'.

Regulatory capture need to be addressed but it seems only the libertarians, who aren't wedded to the idea of a large coercive state solving the world's problems, can see that centralised command-and-control regulation is only benefitting those at the top - in the corporations AND in government.

Valmont wrote: »

Why would they avoid a bubble when their pals in Leinster house were going to cover their losses regardless? They would have avoided a bubble had they something to lose (rationally) but the Irish state made sure it was win-win for the banks and lose-lose for the people.

So in libertarian world the banks would have collapsed, people lose their life savings, pensions etc wiped out. Associated businesses go bust, a great recession that made the last few years look like a walk in the park, because freedom!!

Valmont wrote: »

I've read this book and another which covers the same topic more or less is The Emperor's New Drugs by Irving Kirsch. All of these offenses and frauds you speak of were committed by both the corporations AND the regulators. Where do you think the research was buried? In FDA archives. Who do you think accepted the bribes? FDA officials. Kirsch wanted to complete a meta-analysis on the unpublished studies on the effectiveness of anti-depressant medication and the FDA only handed over some of the buried studies after a freedom of information request was lodged. Have you considered the fact that certain corporations might not be so malignant if they couldn't buy off a powerful regulatory agency (i.e. if they didn't exist) ? What do you think lobbying is?

You seem to endlessly ignore any governmental department's role in corruption, instead happy to blame exclusively those offering the bribes im the first place. The libertarian appreciates the corrupting influence of state regulatory agencies in the first instance - if their powers were strictly curtailed or limited the corporations would have nobody to bribe and would be without the state's power to limit competition, and pass favourable laws. Ireland could have used such curtailment of state power before they handed billions over to their banking pals. Big corporations and their regulators are as bad as each other and the corporations will always and have always used them to further their own ends.

No, you're just happy to keep the ref who is getting backhanders from one of the teams. The libertarian says fire the ref and decide on something new - but not a different ref from the same company who says 'this time we'll be fair'.

Regulatory capture need to be addressed but it seems only the libertarians, who aren't wedded to the idea of a large coercive state solving the world's problems, can see that centralised command-and-control regulation is only benefitting those at the top - in the corporations AND in government.

So we we took away all the police forces and courts and prisons etc crime would disappear ? Is that really what you are saying ?

No one is arguing for a large centralises state, this is a bogeyman that you lot keep attributing to other - without foundation ,I might add - so that you can then knock it down and leave unanswered the questions put to you.

Valmont wrote: »

Why would they avoid a bubble when their pals in Leinster house were going to cover their losses regardless? They would have avoided a bubble had they something to lose (rationally) but the Irish state made sure it was win-win for the banks and lose-lose for the people.

Which is an argument to show that we can't trust them to even consider doing anything in anyone else's interest but their own short-term financial interest, regardless of the damage it causes the country and them in the long run (yeah, they were bailed out, but that money came from their customers who now aren't spending nearly as much money in banks, thereby reducing their profits).
Which for some reasons becomes an argument to let them do what they want instead of fix the regulator to stop them damaging everyone else?

jank wrote: »

Well, France is on its what.. 6th Republic? Meanwhile the US are still on their first.
What does that tell us?

It tells us nothing . Why would you think it would ?

jank wrote: »

So, obviously the government must protect us from ourselves. Hence bank guarantee and authoritarian powers that follow. Round and round we go..

We don't need protection from ourselves but I don't trust corporations to protect the environment or not to trade recklessly. No one is saying the system if perfect, far from it just that the libertarian view of deregulation seems unrealistic. It would be interesting to hear a description of how one thinks it would work under such a system.

jank wrote: »

Really? One country that still has the same constitution and as far as I know is the longest running Republic in the world today. Versus a country that is on its 6th 'reboot' as a nation never mind the death and destruction that its own revolution turned into which manifested into an authoritarian dictatorship that emerged under Napoleon.. it tells us nothing?

The French have always put more of an emphasis on Égalité while the Americans preferred to focus on Liberté.

The history of France tells us a great deal , as does the history of every country . My point is that it tells us nothing about the subject under discussion . It is just another example of the type of kitchen sink tactics used ad nauseam without any attempt to relate it to the discussion in hand .

So may I ask what has the relevance of the type of French government to the Libertarian philosophy ?

robindch wrote: »

Betcha it won't involve TVG's

Would the French involvement in CERN also be ignored in this discussion?