Dina W
Lv 6
Dina W asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 10 years ago

Can a liberal please explain wanting more regulations on businesses for me?

I don't get it..

We have so many regulations now, that our government can not keep up.

Creating more regulations, will only create more bureaucracy..

And it is apparent, that the government does not follow up on standards and regulations in place now...

Or the BP explosion would never have happened, Berni Madoff would not have scammed millions of dollars, and the eggs would not have been tainted with salmonella..


oc.. Obama increased everyones budget..

So the BP mess, and the eggs happened on his watch.. with regulations in place.

Update 2:

Much of the new money at FDA is directed at food safety, which has become a top priority of the Obama administration after a series of deadly outbreaks of foodborne illnesses. A Salmonella outbreak earlier this year that was linked to peanut products killed nine people, sickened at least another 700 and triggered the largest food recall in U.S. history. Under the proposed budget, $259.3 million would be added for food safety to pay for stepped up inspections, better surveillance of food safety problems and enhanced ability to contain outbreaks of foodborne illnesses. The spending plan proposes that the FDA charge the food industry $94.4 million in new fees, money that will be used to register and inspect food manufacturing facilities, issue export certifications for food and animal feed, reinspect facilities that have failed to meet FDA safety standards

Apparently you don't know what you are saying

6 Answers

  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    The BP explosion happened due to corruption and/or inattentiveness in the bureaucracy, not due to the regulations or lack thereof. Had the regulators been doing their job, the whole thing would likely not have happened.

    The egg fiasco is a problem of deregulation, where the FDA has been compromised due to the lack of funding driven by political cuts based on industry re-writing of legislation, allowing the industry to "self-inspect." Had the FDA been properly funded and had actual inspectors and laws based on good science to enforce, the whole fiasco would never have happened. Eggs are only the most recent and visible case. The food industry has so many politicians in their pockets and has re-written and diluted so much regulation that the FDA that we know today is barely a ghost of what it once was, in terms of funding, manpower, meaningful regulations, and ability to enforce what regulations there are, much less what there ought to be. Think of enforcing law in NYC with a police force of, say, 50 police officers -- and all they are allowed to enforce with is their uniforms, no laws, no guns, no billy clubs. The improvements in the coming years are a step in the right direction, but it is going to take a great deal of political will to keep that momentum up.

    I think the Bernie Madoff case could also be argued in the reduced workforce of the federal government, as well as relaxed regulations. But, to be honest, I think he would have done the same thing regardless of how tough the laws might have been. If anything, we might have stopped him sooner, at best.

    So, why more regulations for businesses? Because the profit motive in businesses seems to be stronger than the do-the-right-thing motive in businesses. As soon as we can instill a sense of basic decency and community in the impersonal, limited liability, publicly traded, corporate profit mindset (which could be done by the simple elimination of the concept of limited liability), I think regulations could be relaxed. Even Google, with its motto of "Don't be evil" seems to have a hard time of it, can you imagine companies and industries with less benevolent founders or patriarchal/matriarchal leadership being better at being good for the community, doing better for more than just the stockholders? It is possible to be profitable and responsible, but few corporate entities even try.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Orion
    Lv 4
    10 years ago

    It's not just about creating more regulation it's about creating a sustainable system. And granted they need to enforce the existing regulations. It's not that there are too many regulations as there are too many incompetent and / or corrupt regulators. By tearing down all of the walls of regulation and allowing countless entities to merge you end up with many monopolies which drives out competition and increases costs to consumers. While this may be strictly capitalistic it may not be sustainable. When enough businesses merge and or go offshore for cheaper labor costs this makes it harder for the small business to compete with a company using this outsourced labor and match there prices and when these companies go under, merge, or go offshore the economy suffers from less jobs being created or available. And most of the wealth is made up by consumer spending. Most of the regulations people are talking about is an attempt to allow a level playing field for new entrepreneur's to come into the market, stem off-shoring, and attempt to buffer merger's creating stifling monopolies. These are the same protections that they put in after the great depression due to lessens learned that have slowly been repealed over the last few decades. It's not about government ownership but a market that is sustainable, not always bubble and burst for the short term gain over the long term stability and profitability, and provides a level playing field for others wanting to start a capitalistic venture.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • xxxxx
    Lv 4
    10 years ago

    That all happened because there are not a lot of regulations, and the people supposedly regulating the corporations are in bed with them. The government is owned by the corporations, it's not the other way around. Large corporations are given the rights of the individual, but not as many restrictions. They're not individuals, they're entities.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    Oil companies were deregulated and safety inspections were suspended by bush.

    The Department of Agriculture that inspects food facilities had their budget slashed by bush.

    The FDIC had their funding slashed and their inspectors were sent off on wild goose chases to find "terrorists'' by bush.

    Less regulation led to the disasters.

    But hey, why don't we eliminate all driving laws and remove the police from the highways, after all can't we trust the people to do the right thing? They won't speed, they won't drive drunk and they will all have insurance. That is the concept behind conservative deregulation.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • buczek
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    i think of you have given the superb precis of conservative financial rules I easily have seen on Yahoo. If human beings won't be able to get on board with those concepts, they're balloting in basic terms ideologically and not on sound concepts. @ Kakos: is this why Democrats stick to Keynesian concepts, stepped forward interior the early twentieth century and why Republicans join the later Austrian college of economics?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    liberals don't realize that big business loves lots of regulation because it is easier to buy a politician then it is to compete in a free market.

    EDIT- look up "Hein Hettinga" to see how corporations use over regulation to walk all over the little guy.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.