Complete video at: fora.tv Timothy Carney argues that government regulations tend to help large corporations because new requirements are often more difficult for smaller companies to follow. From tobacco to climate change, Carney believes many big businesses wear the sheen of reform solely to further their own economic interests. —– Are Big Business and Big Government enemies? According to journalist and author Tim Carney, that story is a myth. Both Republicans and Democrats bilk taxpayers to benefit their corporate allies and K Street lobbyists, whether the issue is health care reform, climate change, or defense spending. The Obama administration’s bailouts and “stimulus” package(s) have taken the taxpayer-bilking to historic levels — a remarkable achievement, considering the previous administration. And at the same time the president promises his health care overhaul will put patients first, the legislation he supports has corporate lobbyists once again lined up at the trough. – Cato Institute Tim Carney, CEI’s Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow, is the author of The BIG Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money (Wiley, 2006). He was a 2004-2005 Phillips Foundation Journalism fellow, and before that he was a political reporter for Bob Novak and Assistant Editor at Human Events. He is a columnist for America’s Future Foundation’s webzine Brainwash, and is a contributing editor to Human Events.
Popular Posts:
- Required RFID implanted chip Sec. 2521, Pg. 1000 – The government …
- Assisted Living Facility Startup Complete Sample Business Plan NEW 2008
- Know the Truth about the Government Health Care Bill HR 3200-Key Points.flv
- Glen Beck – Ob@ma, FDR and Regulations
- 8/28/09 – Part 4 – Town Hall Forum on Government Run Healthcare
Incoming search terms:
- regulation helps big business
- government regulation of big business
- government regulation on big business
- big business healthcare bill
- regulations help big business
- is the healthcare bill about big business
- how does government regulation help big business
- how do regulation help big business?
- how can government help regulations in healthcare
- history government regulation of big business
@TheMoravians excellent comment, and because those larger corporations have less competition it allows them to have sloppy business practices, treat their employee’s like crap and give the consumer a raw deal because there are no alternatives for them to go to, in the end those who the regulations are supposed to protect are worse off, and yet the libertarians are said to be “corporate asskissers”?
it was BIG government regulations that pushed the Jews into the ovens at the hands of the national socialists.
Let patients with preexisting conditions negotiate with insurance to, I dunno, maybe pay a little more to get covered. If they can’t afford to, states should set up something like risk pools. Point is, there were several alternatives to this HC bill. But of course, the big-gov’t nanny-state Dems in Congress never consideredt hem. They just wanted “insurance reform”, which essentially means bashing insurance on the head and using paranoid conspiracy theories about them to pass hc.
If a HC reform bill doesn’t lower actual prices of treatments and doctors and expand competition, fuck it. A bill that simply expands moral hazard and insurance coverage will only make things worse in the long run. Expand access to MSAs. Repeal McCarran-Ferguson. Get rid of many of those state regulations on what insurance must cover as a minimum and let INDIVIDUALS and patients negotiate their customized health plans with insurers. More mandates won’t help.
And it just went downhill from there. And as time went on, less people asked for a return to the thriving free market of HC that we knew long before that was quite efficient. I mean, if you joined one of hundreds of those fraternal organizations, you could get high-quality HC for a very low price. Even until the 60s, routine HC didn’t really require insurance. Now you need insurance for EVERYTHING, which is madness. And no one’s encouraged to save money and use insurance for catastrophes.
Unfortunately, everyone else has pretty much given on free market healthcare. We had a thriving free market in healthcare for quite a while until the early 1900s when the AMA decided to really become a powerful anticompetition cartel and fuck things up. And then unions and all sorts of big-gov’t folks thought we needed MORE gov’t control over HC. They got silly ideas in their heads such as “We don’t have enough doctors. Let’s have the gov’t create more medical schools n shit.”
Believe me, a 2700-page federal regulation expansion of healthcare that enriches drug companies and insurance is NOT the way to go for “reform.” You Dems got swindled big time. I can think of many better truly free-market (not corporatist) reforms that would help. But of course, the Dems and liberals have this weird notion that it’s the free-market ITSELF that caused all these problems in HC. It wasn’t! It was bigger gov’t distorting the market and disguising it as “free.”
Both sides would be wise to put their faith in the INDIVIDUAL American, not big business or big government. When you put total faith in either one, you’re gonna get screwed. Maybe the people should start listening to us libertarians, at least once, instead of the GOP or the Dems. They just fuck everything up. Bigger government expands the opportunities for corruption and backroom deals.
I’ve been screaming at (regulation loving) liberals for years that regulations only empower large multinational corporations and act to stifle their competition.
The federal government is in power to do one thing: protect the rights of the individual. No matter what the law says, corporations are NOT individuals.
I’m not anti-corporation are anything like that, but corporate-government collusion only creates monopolies and serves to f*ck the common man.
That was awesome
Beatnick79, I gave you a “thumbs up” because you’re right about big companies getting tax breaks, when I too would rather see individuals get those tax breaks.
You’re not far from a libertarian opinion.
Think of regulations as ocean waves and companies as boats & ships of various sizes. More regulation is like bigger waves, more likely to capsize the smaller boats, while the bigger ones aren’t bothered. Of course larger companies want more regulations, to weed out their smaller competitors.
To my mind, it’s about how you implement regulations, not whether you should.
It’s not that they selectively implement regulations, any regulation reduces diversity, thus pushing artificial profits to the richest companies. This leaves you with a centralized economy.
Basically, when the state implements a regulation, it does so as a monopoly. Only the state gets to create regulations. So we need diverse, independent, regulators rather than one central solution.
It’s definitely true that regulations can be enforced selectively, or in a way that hurts small businesses more than large ones.
And it’s definitely true that regulators can be influenced by lobbyists from industries they’re supposed to be regulating.
But the solution isn’t just to do away with the idea any regulation or legal accountability.
If only stories like this were more in MSM and people cared….
Politicians like to talk about small business that create jobs. What about the larger business that send jobs to foreign lands? What if they brought some of those jobs back to America? Holy shit, Why dont we take the largest corporations that receive the largest taxes breaks, and that have sent the most jobs to foreign countries, and ask them to bring those jobs back to America.
Now I know some people are going to go on a ape shit tirade over my opinion, But the last time I checked I paid my taxes. What if theses companys no longer received taxes breaks?, and the American tax payer did?
good job
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” — James Madison, Federalist no. 51, Father of the Constitution.
And lest you think I’m unwilling to learn subjects counter to my “beliefs”, I just finished Victor Hanson’s “Culture & Carnage” and on my queue are “The Invisible Hook” and “The Not So Wild West”.
Anyway, its been pleasurable. Something tells me this isn’t going to go anywhere, but feel free to share your ideas if you want. I’m always interested to learn, even if I’m too stubborn to change. And thank you for being civil.
Again, it COULD HAVE been dealt with under… The question for me isn’t about possible scenarios but realities. I’m not familiar enough with that era (my area of interest is mostly medieval) but Wikipedia says it was first created in the late 16th century. If you know of any scholarly studies on the subject of debt and its historical development, please feel free to share.
I’m not an anarchist, though I have a lot of respect for those who are. I’m a minarchist.
Bankruptcy is part of civil, not criminal law, and has it’s roots in common law, which originated outside of govt.
Bankruptcy could have been dealt with under non-governmental, voluntary trade rules. EG, when you agree to a mortgage or other loan, you would agree to a certain set of private or arbitration-like bankruptcy rules.
But I have no huge problem with the state running bankruptcy proceedings.
Exactly, and bankruptcy is a legal reform passed by the state. Without the state stepping in to create a formal procedure known as bankruptcy, it did not exist.
I would say all people are, but you don’t see the sort of outrage from the american people on this topic as their is with many other topics. If the people had this and other ideas brough to light, and realised there ARE ways to fight these money interests, they could take back their government. The people need to fight for it.
Instead of slavery for debtors, we have bankruptcy, which is a much better way to deal with the situation of people who can not repay a debt.
The last of Solon’s reforms on Wiki appears to be the draft. Can’t say I approve of that one.