headhunt23,Comment Posted By bsjones On 13.02.2009 @ 15:48
Thanks for expecting accountability. It is a rare thing these days.
Once a bank or individual chooses to take welfare or food stamps "We the people" have a right and an obligation to oversee what they do with that welfare payment.
I remember all of the anecdotal 'welfare queen' stories I heard in the early 80's when I voted for Reagan. I also remember liberals saying the government had no right to place restrictions on what recipients could do with the payment (e.g., you can't buy alcohol with your food stamps.)
Today, if a welfare queen gets a Section Eight housing subsidy, she never touches the money; it goes right to her landlord because the government does not trust her to use the money for its intended purpose. This makes sense.
The appropriate conservative response to the liberal 'no strings attached' welfare payment policy is, "If you don't like the restrictions and obligations required of you, then, DON'T TAKE THE MONEY."
This is how it should be. We have the absolute right to place restrictions and impose obligations on those who drink from the public well.
As to the worth of these bumbling CEO's, their banks have failed. As part of the creative destruction that is capitalism, we should be seeing them in the unemployment line or (for Paulson and Geithner) doing the orange suit perp walk. This would allow the true John Galt's of banking to step forward with their real ability and create an improved banking system from the rubble.
Finally, if I lose my job during this recession the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency will have the absolute right to tell me how much I am worth. They may also choose to impose other obligations as long as I take the government check. I will have to look for work, keep a record of my efforts, and check in every two weeks to report on my progress. None of this should be considered unreasonable. I will have a right to the money (what the government decides is just), but an obligation to play by government set rules.Comment Posted By bsjones On 13.02.2009 @ 14:36
Sara,Comment Posted By bsjones On 15.02.2009 @ 12:54
I think I understand your position now. I apologize if I mischaracterized your position on government regulation of industry. Thanks for keeping the discussion going.
Thanks for the response.
I agree with much of what you said. Specifically, there are many frivolous law suits and they cause needless suffering to people that get dragged into the process. (It happened to my wife once, but, I won't bore you with the details.) I agree that lawyers have a strong monetary motivation to file frivolous lawsuits. I also agree that congressmen are show boating media whores. Finally, I agree that Congress is not the FDA (they did create and have oversight over the agency, however).
My problem is this: Sometimes businesses and their owners or employees are negligent. The man processing and selling poisonous peanuts is a pretty good example of this. My evidence for this are the conditions in his facility and the eight dead people.
If Congress should not regulate products for safety because of too much onerous regulation, then it is up to individuals to find relief in the court system. If the lawyers who pursue the cases in court are the Darth Vader's of our justice system (thanks Rush) and must be stopped, then there is no accountability for the business owner who is negligent. Remember, I AM NOT SAYING ALL BUSINESS OWNERS ARE NEGLIGENT. Some are. They need to be held to account.
If we accept that Congress should not regulate AND we accept that the lawyers who sue on the behalf of people who are harmed or killed by negligence should be stopped, there is no accountability.
I believe we must drop one of the premises. Either we accept the trial lawyers as the remedy for negligent business practice OR we accept that regulations are needed to keep our food supply safe. Liberals think we need more of both.
Regarding the peanut man:
If the man who sold the poison peanuts has to sell his business, justice served.
If he has to give the money to the families of the dead, justice served.
If he does jail time, justice served.
If any of the above happens it will be because of a trial lawyer who may have an expensive hair cut.
Do you agree that in some cases a business owner needs to be held accountable?Comment Posted By bsjones On 14.02.2009 @ 13:50
How should it be done?
I do not want to beat on a dead horse, but, I have a question.
To paraphrase, you said that people who are harmed or killed by unsafe products should look to the courts for relief.
What is your position on the trial lawyers who take these cases?
What would your response be if John Edwards won a big cash settlements for the families of the eight dead people who consumed the poisonous peanuts?
I've been a conservative for a long time and it seems we have had trial lawyers in our sights since Reagan.
I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts.Comment Posted By bsjones On 13.02.2009 @ 15:24
While moving paper around in my basement office,I was listening to a radio program where a woman was discussing her new book about how the catalog business (think Ward or Sears) changed retail in the beginning of the last century.
In passing she mentioned the creation of the Food and Drug Administration. Its creation was a response to certain medicine being sold at the time. Apparently, you could purchase medicine for alcoholism that was 40% alcohol, headache medicine with cocaine in it, and other medicines containing opium and arsenic in these catalogs.
She did not go into specifics but I am guessing that some of these medicines caused addiction, birth defects and even death. Since the creation of the FDA, the need to sue for thalidomide-like injuries has been reduced but not eliminated. (A strong argument could be made that a more robust FDA could reduce these drug related problems further.)
A strong FDA might even be conservative. I remember Republicans saying we should not be able to buy inexpensive drugs from Canada (free markets) as they were likely unsafe, presumably because of insufficient standards. After all, these Republicans were arguing, Canada does not have the F.D.A.
I do agree with your point about Congress being publicity whores with little concern for the public welfare. My preference would be for the majority of both houses of Congress to be replaced with fresh blood. Maybe then they could conduct the oversight that I think is necessary in a beneficial and productive way, instead of posturing and pretending to care.
For the record, if I saw Congress flexing its muscles I would be in a state of shock and therefor unable to get turned on.Comment Posted By bsjones On 12.02.2009 @ 23:07
Sara and Lionheart,
John Galt's descendant testifies before the meddlesome Congress here:
Download the clip and enjoy.Comment Posted By bsjones On 11.02.2009 @ 15:37
One more thing....
I found a great slide show that illustrates vividly why "ownership abstraction" is such a bad idea. This is hilarious, informative and not partisan. (Sorry about the Robert Reich links.) It's the real deal!!!
http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&skipauth=true&pli=1&ncl=trueComment Posted By bsjones On 10.02.2009 @ 14:15
Love the analysis about the levels of abstraction.
Should citizens ask banks politely to stop using all their MBA brain power and stop being the smartest man in the room?
In other words, what oversight does Wall Street need? What entity will provide that oversight? and Who will (or who did) create that entity?Comment Posted By bsjones On 10.02.2009 @ 13:57
Robert Reich is probably my favorite Liberal economist. In this video he is defending the stimulus bill to an Australian reporter from the Australian Broadcast Company. Reich gets a lot of softball questions, but I still think it is worth watching. Personally, I agree with about half of what he says. I like everything he says about corporate responsibility.
Enjoy!!Comment Posted By bsjones On 10.02.2009 @ 02:46