Why "Moderates" can kiss my ass

[The T]

MODERATES are intellectual IDIOTS. There is nothing left to discuss.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

simply put, wrong.
Speaking as a moderate, my personal beliefs is that the government should keep spending at around 18-20%. This is not a temporary view, it is a long term view that I have always had. This basically means that the government can't get any bigger then it already is.

Right now we're at 25% on a cash basis. With unfunded liabilities it's far higher then that and has been for a long time and we're printing money like crazy which isn't counted either and should be. Unfunded liabilities and printing money are the primary ways the left has continually moved us to the left with socialist dependency programs like Social Security and Medicare. They commit us to socialism and the moderates are silent because cash expenditures don't sound as high as what we've committed ourselves to. Then one day the actual bills come...and it's too late...

A moderate who practiced what you preach would be hysterical right now and think the tea party's not going far enough because we are way, way past 18-20% in real spending and it's going up not down.

I dunno if I would say "hysterical". Does it need to be cut down? Obviously. And I think they made a lot of progress towards during the debt ceiling debate, I think the final numbers were 2.4T over ten years or on average of 240B a year.
But the main problem I see with the deficit is the economy. That is what they should be focusing on, creating jobs. I think I read that the 99 week unemployment was costing the government roughly 160B dollars a year, if you put people back to work that number will go down, thats the best way of cutting a deficit, because it increases revenues (without increasing taxes) and it decreases spending (without cutting benefits). And once unemployment numbers start going down significantly the dems wont be able to keep that 99 weeks going, and it will have to go back to 26 weeks.

This is an example of why "Moderates" are simply MUSHHEADS who never seem to understand what is really going on....

you say "...a lot of progress"...? ....sure, i guess you could say the debt deal made a "lot of progress" if going over the cliff at 60 MPH instead of 80 MPH is considered "progress".....

sure we are going to "cut" about 2.4 trillion over the next ten years....BUT.....BO also got his 2.4 trillion which he gets to spend NOW......and after 2012 (if he's elected again) he will be asking for yet ANOTHER 2 or 3 trillion or so for the following year....

In exchange for the debt reduction laid out by the bill, the debt ceiling will be allowed to increase by between $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion. That would cover Treasury's borrowing needs until 2013.

CBO: Debt ceiling deal cuts at least $2.1 trillion - Aug. 1, 2011

and in the meantime the "automatic increases" for government departments continue...not to mention the 100-200 Trillion or so nagging little problem called "unfunded liabilities"....

any truly concerned American would be "hysterical" if they understood what is really going down.....BO is killing our country by simply refusing to tackle the horrendous financial problems facing our government....instead he's on like his 4th vacation this year not counting his innumerable golf games and dinner parties....the "great compromise" (haha) recently made between BO and the House was only a drop in the proverbial bucket.....

 

[kaz]

Libertarians: If we just leave companies alone, they will all become honest, ethical, fair to employees and produce only safe products. If they don't, the Magical Market will make them disappear

I thought you said you were paying attention. That isn't what libertarians think AT ALL. In fact libertarians think that a company left to it's own devices in a vacuum would become corrupt like government. There is nothing inherently honest about any company, that is fundamental to libertarianism. To try to paraphrase libertarians without using the term "consumer" is decidedly not paying attention. Libertarians believe in markets driven by consumer choice, not companies.

 

[kaz]

I think they made a lot of progress towards during the debt ceiling debate, I think the final numbers were 2.4T over ten years or on average of 240B a year

2.5 trillion over 10 years with 35 billion this year and most of it starting in year 8.

This year's deficit is now projected to be $1.65 trillion. And you call that "a lot of progress?"

 

[edthecynic]

MODERATES are intellectual IDIOTS. There is nothing left to discuss.

CON$ervatioves have an inferiority complex, which makes them so insanely jealous of moderates and independents that they feel obligated to try to cut them down to their level.
There is nothing left to discuss!

 

[ABikerSailor]

MODERATES are intellectual IDIOTS. There is nothing left to discuss.

Actually, a person who can see both sides of the equation is farther along than some fringe lunatic such as yourself who can only see 1 way.

Remember.........the Catholic Church taught a flat earth theory as well as a theory that the earth was the center of the Universe. Fortunately, since we've been able to look around at more than one point of view, we've discovered differently.

Moderates are smarter than those who only look at 1 thing and spew rhetoric.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Libertarians: If we just leave companies alone, they will all become honest, ethical, fair to employees and produce only safe products. If they don't, the Magical Market will make them disappear

I thought you said you were paying attention. That isn't what libertarians think AT ALL. In fact libertarians think that a company left to it's own devices in a vacuum would become corrupt like government. There is nothing inherently honest about any company, that is fundamental to libertarianism. To try to paraphrase libertarians without using the term "consumer" is decidedly not paying attention. Libertarians believe in markets driven by consumer choice, not companies.

Um yeah. That reference to "the Magical Market" I made? That would be what you guys call consumers making sure that companies who harm people don't survive. You know, companies like Ford, Squibb-Bristol Meyers, Pacific Gas & Electric... the list is too numerous to name.

 

[flacaltenn]

The true moderates are libertarians.

Left: Let's confiscate more money and redistribute it and increase government control over our lives...

Libertarians: No, let's not, let's back off and leave people alone

Right: Let's crack down on making people's choices for them over their bodies and increase the War on Drugs, violation of privacy, preventing abortions...

Libertarians: No, let's not, let's back off and leave people alone

Anyone who is going along with the left or right and just slowing them down isn't "moderate." Challenging government to back down when they already far exceed the Constitution is moderate.

Okay now this is a really strong post. So let's try some of that debate thing. I've learned a LOT about Libertarians since coming here (to learn about Tea Partiers). I have come to appreciate a lot of your views but guess what? I still disagree with some of your views or the degree to which you would implement them. Let's use your format:

Libertarians: If we just leave companies alone, they will all become honest, ethical, fair to employees and produce only safe products. If they don't, the Magical Market will make them disappear.

Independents: The existence of 99 of the Fortune 100 companies contradicts that. Although we would reduce government a lot (I personally, would completely eliminate over 2 dozen fed agencies), we still feel that there are a lot of areas where federal government "intereference" is a good thing. Although we recognize government is almost never as efficient as the private sector, we realize that sometimes it is the best alternative.

Good to know that you're here to learn. That's a very honorable motive compared to some.

Libertarians: If we just leave companies alone, they will all become honest, ethical, fair to employees and produce only safe products. If they don't, the Magical Market will make them disappear.

This is a weak complaint actually and is ALWAYS used to compare free-markets to anarchal free-for-all. But the reality of the free-market is that there are MANY NATURAL controls on business.. Let's list some..

1) Customer satisfaction -- You get NO WHERE if you violate this one.

2) Contract Law-- Every business transaction has explicit or implied legal terms.

3) Liability -- This includes liability for the entire supply chain for your product if a consumer, supplier, or bystander gets hurt.

4) Competition for Market share -- You cannot easily dictate the market pricing, or specifications. You have to be BETTER in some way from your competitors.

5) Stakeholder Satisfaction -- They want you to make ZERO mistakes and lots of profit.

ALL of those things didn't mention REGULATION or GOVT one single time.. So the "straw dog" you cast out there for Libertarians is actually quite wrong. There ARE many restrainsts on business that are STILL more fundamental and strong than the influence of govt as the SOLE percieved counterbalance to bizness turning mafioso..

Please don't lose sight of the advantages of how these self-organizing systems are as robust as they are..

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW IndependentLogic:

Independents: The existence of 99 of the Fortune 100 companies contradicts that. Although we would reduce government a lot (I personally, would completely eliminate over 2 dozen fed agencies), we still feel that there are a lot of areas where federal government "intereference" is a good thing. Although we recognize government is almost never as efficient as the private sector, we realize that sometimes it is the best alternative.

With a statement like that -- there's no way you could be a modern day Democrat or Socialist. So it kinda fits my personal observation that Moderates and Independents don't really exist unless they are completely politically naive and illiterate. You can be a Moderate Conservative or a Moderate Libertarian or Moderate Socialist -- but no seriously contemplative person is a simple Moderate or truely Independent.

 

[IndependntLogic]

The true moderates are libertarians.

Left: Let's confiscate more money and redistribute it and increase government control over our lives...

Libertarians: No, let's not, let's back off and leave people alone

Right: Let's crack down on making people's choices for them over their bodies and increase the War on Drugs, violation of privacy, preventing abortions...

Libertarians: No, let's not, let's back off and leave people alone

Anyone who is going along with the left or right and just slowing them down isn't "moderate." Challenging government to back down when they already far exceed the Constitution is moderate.

Okay now this is a really strong post. So let's try some of that debate thing. I've learned a LOT about Libertarians since coming here (to learn about Tea Partiers). I have come to appreciate a lot of your views but guess what? I still disagree with some of your views or the degree to which you would implement them. Let's use your format:

Libertarians: If we just leave companies alone, they will all become honest, ethical, fair to employees and produce only safe products. If they don't, the Magical Market will make them disappear.

Independents: The existence of 99 of the Fortune 100 companies contradicts that. Although we would reduce government a lot (I personally, would completely eliminate over 2 dozen fed agencies), we still feel that there are a lot of areas where federal government "intereference" is a good thing. Although we recognize government is almost never as efficient as the private sector, we realize that sometimes it is the best alternative.

Good to know that you're here to learn. That's a very honorable motive compared to some.

Libertarians: If we just leave companies alone, they will all become honest, ethical, fair to employees and produce only safe products. If they don't, the Magical Market will make them disappear.

This is a weak complaint actually and is ALWAYS used to compare free-markets to anarchal free-for-all. But the reality of the free-market is that there are MANY NATURAL controls on business.. Let's list some..

1) Customer satisfaction -- You get NO WHERE if you violate this one.

2) Contract Law-- Every business transaction has explicit or implied legal terms.

3) Liability -- This includes liability for the entire supply chain for your product if a consumer, supplier, or bystander gets hurt.

4) Competition for Market share -- You cannot easily dictate the market pricing, or specifications. You have to be BETTER in some way from your competitors.

5) Stakeholder Satisfaction -- They want you to make ZERO mistakes and lots of profit.

ALL of those things didn't mention REGULATION or GOVT one single time.. So the "straw dog" you cast out there for Libertarians is actually quite wrong. There ARE many restrainsts on business that are STILL more fundamental and strong than the influence of govt as the SOLE percieved counterbalance to bizness turning mafioso..

Please don't lose sight of the advantages of how these self-organizing systems are as robust as they are..

I get that. I really do. And guess what? I would personally eliminate dozens of Fed agencies that duplicate State efforts.
But Ford has KILLED people. And they tried NOT to recall the cars that were doing it. And they're still here.
Pacific Gas & Electric KILLED people. GAVE CHILDREN CANCER. And they had so much money, they almost got away with just continuing it. But the Fed stepped in. Guess what else? They were found to be doing the same things in a dozen places and had others planned! But the Fed stepped in. Oh, and they're still around too.
Exxon? BP? No regs for them because the market and all the factors you name will make sure they never endanger people or the environment, if not regulated?
But hey, let's give you a chance to prove your point: Skadden Arps. What would you as part of the market do about them? Do you even know what the deal is with them? Nope. Unless you have your JD, you probably never heard of them.
Sorry, but I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy about all my plane travel, sans FAA.
So while I think Libertarians have a lot of valid points, I disagree with the degree to which they would implement them.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ford did not PLAN to kill people. Neither did Toyota. And in Toyota's case, they groveled without cause most likely. And I'm sure that the aggreived got a more than fair shot at Ford in Civil Court. Companies lose BILLIONS each year in judgements. MOST of those are settlements for questionable cases BECAUSE they are such fat lumbering targets. Ask anyone with a JD.

If an elevator kills people.. Who gets it in the 'nads? The guy who's govt name was on the safety placard in the death ride? NO Sirreee Bob.. HE gets a bigger staff and a promotion. Did the folks at the Ocean Mining Office (or whateverthefucktheyare) get dragged to Civil court for signing off on the waivers that BP got just days before the disaster in Gulf.. Gee no.. But those waivers were the CRUX of the violations that occurred on that rig. Same with the Massey Mining disaster that killed a couple dozen miners. Was Massey GUILTY? Shit yeah. But the "regulators" that closed that mine 15 times in previous years AND let them CONTINUE should hang alongside -- but face NO consequences..

You should be asking yourself ----
What ARE the ethical motivators for REGULATORS? And where is the list of THEIR liabilities, competition, and customer satisfaction?

One thing you have to realize is that there is a basic conflict of interest in the way that MOST govt regulatory agencies are set up.. They are there to PROMOTE their industry. Not to punish it. Whereas there are myriad of natural restrainsts on free-market biz -- there are virtually none when it comes to reward/punishment for these agencies..

And I need to add yet another NATURAL restraint on free-market biz to my previous post..

7) Independent Assessment and Analysis -- Folks like Underwriter Labs save more lives through product safety every year than ALL the govt regulatory agencies combined. You also have Consumer Reports, and various independent car safety labs besides the DOT. INSURANCE companies spend Millions every year on product and materials testing. ALL without govt dollars or insistence because there is a DEMAND for their certifications..

 

[Immanuel]

Okay, I have a request:

Since we moderates can't think for ourselves per CF, Patrick2 and several others on this thread, please tell us who we must vote for in this coming election.

Immie

 

[BoycottTheday]

Vote for the lessor of the two evils imho, like always.

 

[Iridescence]

Rather than addressing these annoying fuckers one at a time, let me make a blanket statement: If you're a political "Moderate" in 2011, you're either lying or a fucking moron.

The Government has control over every aspect of your life including your health, Social Security is totally broke, Congress shamelessly racks up annual trillion deficits like it was nothing and even though they did it for the wrong reasons, S&P Downgraded our credit.

If you can face that and say "Gee, I dunno if that's bad" you're either a Jake Starkey lying liberal or a moron.

There is no third option

Obviously there are reasons that one ought not make such blanket statements... Some moderates may in fact know better than to completely dismiss something as outright wrong if they have come from a way of life by which was in any way positively influenced by that which is under attack. WHY be moderate on certain individual movements, indeed. No, it isn't popular and no it isn't easy, but then it isn't the weak that manage to overcome, either.

 

[Divine Wind]

This is a weak complaint actually and is ALWAYS used to compare free-markets to anarchal free-for-all. But the reality of the free-market is that there are MANY NATURAL controls on business.. Let's list some..

1) Customer satisfaction -- You get NO WHERE if you violate this one.

2) Contract Law-- Every business transaction has explicit or implied legal terms.

3) Liability -- This includes liability for the entire supply chain for your product if a consumer, supplier, or bystander gets hurt.

4) Competition for Market share -- You cannot easily dictate the market pricing, or specifications. You have to be BETTER in some way from your competitors.

5) Stakeholder Satisfaction -- They want you to make ZERO mistakes and lots of profit.

While there is truth in these statements, they aren't as black and white as you hope they appear.

1. Customer satisfaction only needs to be sufficient to retain the customers. If 1) they have no other place to go or 2) the other businesses are just as bad, then the corporate mindset is "let them bitch, as long as we still get their money".

2. Contract Law. Implied means little as anyone who failed to read the fine print at the bottom of a contract may have found out. Most contract laws regarding business transactions favor the business, not the customer. Even if a customer does sue, how is Joe Sixpack going to be able to fight against a corporate legal team? It takes both finances and legal acumen to go to court. The usual corporate strategy is to consider it an endurance race by stretching out the process until the plaintiff(s), that's little ol' you and me, finally run out of money and give up.

3. Liability. See "Contract Law". Unless it's something on the order of a Ford Pinto gas tank and not just shoddy design, the customer is usually screwed. How many here have bought something which came with a 90-day+ "manufacturer warranty", and the product failed outside the 30 day store warranty? Have any trouble getting it replaced? Yes, you pay all the shipping back and forth just to receive a replacement item of the same crappy product. Whoopeee!

4. Market share. Think monopoly and a good reason for government involvement. "Business is war". If a company provides a good product and uses whatever means available to drive out the competition, once they've won and are the last ones standing, they can control the market. They can also seek to reduce costs by making the product cheaper, cutting back on departments like "customer service/complaints" and other ways. Once they are dominating the market, unless a group like our government stops them, they can prevent any newbies from getting a start or establishing a beachhead simply by undercutting their prices in that area until the fledgling business fails.

5. Stakeholder Satisfaction. Correct on the profit, disagree on the mistakes. Who cares about mistakes as long as the money keeps rolling in? Money is GOD in this country. A corporation is a money engine. It's sole purpose of existence is to produce profits. It has no soul, so it doesn't care how those profits are generated. Quasi-legal isn't illegal. Illegal only means getting caught. Don't get caught, cover yourself in legal mumbo-jumbo with lots of buffers between your management elite and those actually doing anything "quasi-legal" and you're good to make that Friday afternoon tee time.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Ford did not PLAN to kill people. Neither did Toyota. And in Toyota's case, they groveled without cause most likely. And I'm sure that the aggreived got a more than fair shot at Ford in Civil Court. Companies lose BILLIONS each year in judgements. MOST of those are settlements for questionable cases BECAUSE they are such fat lumbering targets. Ask anyone with a JD.

If an elevator kills people.. Who gets it in the 'nads? The guy who's govt name was on the safety placard in the death ride? NO Sirreee Bob.. HE gets a bigger staff and a promotion. Did the folks at the Ocean Mining Office (or whateverthefucktheyare) get dragged to Civil court for signing off on the waivers that BP got just days before the disaster in Gulf.. Gee no.. But those waivers were the CRUX of the violations that occurred on that rig. Same with the Massey Mining disaster that killed a couple dozen miners. Was Massey GUILTY? Shit yeah. But the "regulators" that closed that mine 15 times in previous years AND let them CONTINUE should hang alongside -- but face NO consequences..

You should be asking yourself ----
What ARE the ethical motivators for REGULATORS? And where is the list of THEIR liabilities, competition, and customer satisfaction?

One thing you have to realize is that there is a basic conflict of interest in the way that MOST govt regulatory agencies are set up.. They are there to PROMOTE their industry. Not to punish it. Whereas there are myriad of natural restrainsts on free-market biz -- there are virtually none when it comes to reward/punishment for these agencies..

And I need to add yet another NATURAL restraint on free-market biz to my previous post..

7) Independent Assessment and Analysis -- Folks like Underwriter Labs save more lives through product safety every year than ALL the govt regulatory agencies combined. You also have Consumer Reports, and various independent car safety labs besides the DOT. INSURANCE companies spend Millions every year on product and materials testing. ALL without govt dollars or insistence because there is a DEMAND for their certifications..

Well like I said, I have come to appreciate the Libertarian view on a lot of things but definitely not to the degree that you do. So we can be like so many people on the board who bicker endlessly or we can be gentlemen and offer mutual respect, while we agree to disagree. I would offer the latter.

 

[Iridescence]

a much better suggestion by logic than playing the nitwit...

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Right now we're at 25% on a cash basis. With unfunded liabilities it's far higher then that and has been for a long time and we're printing money like crazy which isn't counted either and should be. Unfunded liabilities and printing money are the primary ways the left has continually moved us to the left with socialist dependency programs like Social Security and Medicare. They commit us to socialism and the moderates are silent because cash expenditures don't sound as high as what we've committed ourselves to. Then one day the actual bills come...and it's too late...

A moderate who practiced what you preach would be hysterical right now and think the tea party's not going far enough because we are way, way past 18-20% in real spending and it's going up not down.

I dunno if I would say "hysterical". Does it need to be cut down? Obviously. And I think they made a lot of progress towards during the debt ceiling debate, I think the final numbers were 2.4T over ten years or on average of 240B a year.
But the main problem I see with the deficit is the economy. That is what they should be focusing on, creating jobs. I think I read that the 99 week unemployment was costing the government roughly 160B dollars a year, if you put people back to work that number will go down, thats the best way of cutting a deficit, because it increases revenues (without increasing taxes) and it decreases spending (without cutting benefits). And once unemployment numbers start going down significantly the dems wont be able to keep that 99 weeks going, and it will have to go back to 26 weeks.

This is an example of why "Moderates" are simply MUSHHEADS who never seem to understand what is really going on....

you say "...a lot of progress"...? ....sure, i guess you could say the debt deal made a "lot of progress" if going over the cliff at 60 MPH instead of 80 MPH is considered "progress".....

sure we are going to "cut" about 2.4 trillion over the next ten years....BUT.....BO also got his 2.4 trillion which he gets to spend NOW......and after 2012 (if he's elected again) he will be asking for yet ANOTHER 2 or 3 trillion or so for the following year....

In exchange for the debt reduction laid out by the bill, the debt ceiling will be allowed to increase by between $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion. That would cover Treasury's borrowing needs until 2013.

CBO: Debt ceiling deal cuts at least $2.1 trillion - Aug. 1, 2011

and in the meantime the "automatic increases" for government departments continue...not to mention the 100-200 Trillion or so nagging little problem called "unfunded liabilities"....

any truly concerned American would be "hysterical" if they understood what is really going down.....BO is killing our country by simply refusing to tackle the horrendous financial problems facing our government....instead he's on like his 4th vacation this year not counting his innumerable golf games and dinner parties....the "great compromise" (haha) recently made between BO and the House was only a drop in the proverbial bucket.....

That is almost the exact definition of progress, getting closer to the final goal... What did you think progress meant? And furthermore my statement was basically saying that the main problem is the economy. A bad economy makes federal spending look horrendous and makes tax reciepts look the same. My guess is that 60% of the deficit is due to a bad economy 30% due to spending and 10% due to low taxes. Yet all the republicans seem to care about is cutting that 30%. Not only is it the biggest part of the problem, if you really want people to be happier, and make america a better place, this should be the focus.
And as far as unfunded liabilites, I've been hearing about this since the 80's and that it would cause the government to crash in the 90's, then in the 2000's. I've become immune to hearing about it, much the same way as I have become immune to hearing about global warming.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

This is a weak complaint actually and is ALWAYS used to compare free-markets to anarchal free-for-all. But the reality of the free-market is that there are MANY NATURAL controls on business.. Let's list some..

1) Customer satisfaction -- You get NO WHERE if you violate this one.

2) Contract Law-- Every business transaction has explicit or implied legal terms.

3) Liability -- This includes liability for the entire supply chain for your product if a consumer, supplier, or bystander gets hurt.

4) Competition for Market share -- You cannot easily dictate the market pricing, or specifications. You have to be BETTER in some way from your competitors.

5) Stakeholder Satisfaction -- They want you to make ZERO mistakes and lots of profit.

While there is truth in these statements, they aren't as black and white as you hope they appear.

1. Customer satisfaction only needs to be sufficient to retain the customers. If 1) they have no other place to go or 2) the other businesses are just as bad, then the corporate mindset is "let them bitch, as long as we still get their money".

2. Contract Law. Implied means little as anyone who failed to read the fine print at the bottom of a contract may have found out. Most contract laws regarding business transactions favor the business, not the customer. Even if a customer does sue, how is Joe Sixpack going to be able to fight against a corporate legal team? It takes both finances and legal acumen to go to court. The usual corporate strategy is to consider it an endurance race by stretching out the process until the plaintiff(s), that's little ol' you and me, finally run out of money and give up.

3. Liability. See "Contract Law". Unless it's something on the order of a Ford Pinto gas tank and not just shoddy design, the customer is usually screwed. How many here have bought something which came with a 90-day+ "manufacturer warranty", and the product failed outside the 30 day store warranty? Have any trouble getting it replaced? Yes, you pay all the shipping back and forth just to receive a replacement item of the same crappy product. Whoopeee!

4. Market share. Think monopoly and a good reason for government involvement. "Business is war". If a company provides a good product and uses whatever means available to drive out the competition, once they've won and are the last ones standing, they can control the market. They can also seek to reduce costs by making the product cheaper, cutting back on departments like "customer service/complaints" and other ways. Once they are dominating the market, unless a group like our government stops them, they can prevent any newbies from getting a start or establishing a beachhead simply by undercutting their prices in that area until the fledgling business fails.

5. Stakeholder Satisfaction. Correct on the profit, disagree on the mistakes. Who cares about mistakes as long as the money keeps rolling in? Money is GOD in this country. A corporation is a money engine. It's sole purpose of existence is to produce profits. It has no soul, so it doesn't care how those profits are generated. Quasi-legal isn't illegal. Illegal only means getting caught. Don't get caught, cover yourself in legal mumbo-jumbo with lots of buffers between your management elite and those actually doing anything "quasi-legal" and you're good to make that Friday afternoon tee time.

but what stops corporations from trying to cover stuff up and hide it from the media. Lets say there was no regulation saying oil companies had to clean up what they spilled. Then a leak started in a pipeline in a remote place. Would they go off and tell the media? I seriously doubt it. More likely they secretly shut off the pipeline, fix the leak, cover up what was spilled and call it a day, the general masses none the wiser. As there are no regulations, they have not broken any laws by doing this.

 

[flacaltenn]

Comments in Green below:::

This is a weak complaint actually and is ALWAYS used to compare free-markets to anarchal free-for-all. But the reality of the free-market is that there are MANY NATURAL controls on business.. Let's list some..

1) Customer satisfaction -- You get NO WHERE if you violate this one.

2) Contract Law-- Every business transaction has explicit or implied legal terms.

3) Liability -- This includes liability for the entire supply chain for your product if a consumer, supplier, or bystander gets hurt.

4) Competition for Market share -- You cannot easily dictate the market pricing, or specifications. You have to be BETTER in some way from your competitors.

5) Stakeholder Satisfaction -- They want you to make ZERO mistakes and lots of profit.

While there is truth in these statements, they aren't as black and white as you hope they appear.

1. Customer satisfaction only needs to be sufficient to retain the customers. If 1) they have no other place to go or 2) the other businesses are just as bad, then the corporate mindset is "let them bitch, as long as we still get their money".

It is VERY rare that customers are held captive to a single source of supply. And if the "let them bitch" attitude shows up, that demonstrates how all the things on this list interract. Because if the product generates a big enough market, the "let them bitch" folks will have NEW competitors moving in for certain. The experience MOST customers have with a class of products that are just "bad" is when GOVT has come in and FORCED products to be the same. Like in toilets, heat exchangers for instance. Where now consumers are FORCED into a choiceless buy.

2. Contract Law. Implied means little as anyone who failed to read the fine print at the bottom of a contract may have found out. Most contract laws regarding business transactions favor the business, not the customer. Even if a customer does sue, how is Joe Sixpack going to be able to fight against a corporate legal team? It takes both finances and legal acumen to go to court. The usual corporate strategy is to consider it an endurance race by stretching out the process until the plaintiff(s), that's little ol' you and me, finally run out of money and give up.

There's a distinct diff between CONTRACT protection and LIABILITY protection. Contracts generally don't come with products (maybe most services). These are intended to control the safety and compliance of the supply chain. So that when your laptop explodes and kills your pet parrot, Toshiba can go to their battery manufacturer and show that THEY were the ones who didn't follow testing and safety. Or that parts for repairs for faulty products will be available. IF Joe SixPack has a legitimate case, it will likely be settled because the company doesn't want to encourage a class action suit that would drag the corporate logo thru the mud. The value of THAT exceeds their willingness to add more lawyers on. See the recent Toyota accusations.

3. Liability. See "Contract Law". Unless it's something on the order of a Ford Pinto gas tank and not just shoddy design, the customer is usually screwed. How many here have bought something which came with a 90-day+ "manufacturer warranty", and the product failed outside the 30 day store warranty? Have any trouble getting it replaced? Yes, you pay all the shipping back and forth just to receive a replacement item of the same crappy product. Whoopeee!

One of the consumer parameters that company serve is price point. They provide an option for consumers to take risks based on percieved savings. We do not prevent "average" tires from being made. You are free to buy 1000 Q-Tips for a dollar. But what is IMPLIED is that a single defective Q-Tip might cost you $4000 in Emer-room bills to extract the wad of detached cotton. It's a risk that CONSUMERS should be voluntarily assuming when they make a purchase based on cost. Can't help you there. And yes, maybe you SHOULD have bought the "extended warranty" if you went with the brand name without a vowel in it.

4. Market share. Think monopoly and a good reason for government involvement. "Business is war". If a company provides a good product and uses whatever means available to drive out the competition, once they've won and are the last ones standing, they can control the market. They can also seek to reduce costs by making the product cheaper, cutting back on departments like "customer service/complaints" and other ways. Once they are dominating the market, unless a group like our government stops them, they can prevent any newbies from getting a start or establishing a beachhead simply by undercutting their prices in that area until the fledgling business fails.

So when govt attacked Microsoft for giving away web browsers for free -- this prosecution was ONLY to give consumers CHOICE? What it DID do was to teach Microsoft that they HAD to hire lobbyists and play politics, because previously they naively thought of themselves as politically neutral. Kinda proves which comes first. Corporate cash or govt meddling. Verizon has NO CHANCE of driving off competitors due SOLELY to pricing. In fact, I worry more about collusion between companies in a single industry to cartel and keep prices high. Which is another naturally balance to the free-market. Govt has to approve ALL large mergers and rarely turns one down anyway. And do you really trust them to be unbiased anyway?

5. Stakeholder Satisfaction. Correct on the profit, disagree on the mistakes. Who cares about mistakes as long as the money keeps rolling in? Money is GOD in this country. A corporation is a money engine. It's sole purpose of existence is to produce profits. It has no soul, so it doesn't care how those profits are generated. Quasi-legal isn't illegal. Illegal only means getting caught. Don't get caught, cover yourself in legal mumbo-jumbo with lots of buffers between your management elite and those actually doing anything "quasi-legal" and you're good to make that Friday afternoon tee time.

Just flat out disagree here. Mistakes are unforgiveable. Including those that cost the corporation legal pay-outs, fines, and failed acquisitions. Corporations don't get punished for not producing TONS of profit -- they get punished for "missing profit estimates" by as little as a penny. So if they SAY they are going to make $0.45 a share and instead make 0.46 -- they are as good to the stockholders as if they made 0.48 or .50. But -- if they MISS by a penny -- all holy hell breaks out. I think you're stretching somewhat about dancing around "quasi-legal". Literally MUCH of the guidance from the IRS is "we don't know til it's tested in court" in regards to new tax law features. That's become SOP because of poorly written legislation --- not just for tax law -- but for regulation as well. In many cases -- 'quasi-legal' can occur simply because 13 specialized attorneys can't AGREE on what Congress or an Agency intended. That's NOT a purely ethical problem.

THe focus here DivineWind was to drop that debate canard "that the govt is the ONLY force that exist in making free-markets safe and responsive" on it's ass. Because as the list shows, that is blatantly untrue and given my examples of the Massey and BP disasters above -- GOVT is generally much less effective than percieved by those who feel that Burger King is their biggest threat to liberty.