Chavez loses bid to become president-for-life

[JUDE]

I think you will find, with the increase in fuel costs, combined with larger vehicles inherent fuel inefficiencies, that sales and therefore production of the dreaded SUV's has been in steady decline for a few years. I would argue that the market will force the manufacturers to come up with lower cost more efficient vehicles, much like when Honda and Toyota took huge market share in the 70's as a direct result of them fulfilling a need for a small fuel efficient vehicle during the gas crunch.

 

If/When Toyota or Honda brings an affordable fuel cell vehicle to market; you will see giant shifts in the industry. The government and/or any regulations set forth will have very little to do with it.

[Guest Golyadkin]

I

[MattZ]

Big business can claim they want a laissez-faire free market economy all they want. They are the ones yelling loudest for the Fed to cut interest rates to (artificially) stimulate the economy and/or a government sponsored slush fund to rescue the lenders that made their own bed in this mortgage crisis. They will also be the ones yelling loudest for the government to bail out the next Long Term Capital Management. And there will be one.

 

At the end of the day, big business wants whatever is best for them in any scenario. Whether that mean the government getting involved, or staying out of, whatever the issue at hand is.

 

I dont blame BB. Everyone (including BB) should be out for their own best interest. But I wish BB would spare us the transparent and holier than thou "supply and demand" and "government should stay out" theoretical arguments that only get trotted out when it suits them.

[MrRain422]

You do not want to live in a free society. You want everyone to live in your society.

 

I do want to live in a free society. But freedom ends where someone else's freedom begins. Environmental damage affects everybody, and therefore other people's freedoms have to be taken into account as well.

[Guest Golyadkin]

Big business can claim they want a laissez-faire free market economy all they want. They are the ones yelling loudest for the Fed to cut interest rates to (artificially) stimulate the economy and/or a government sponsored slush fund to rescue the lenders that made their own bed in this mortgage crisis. They will also be the ones yelling loudest for the government to bail out the next Long Term Capital Management. And there will be one.

 

At the end of the day, big business wants whatever is best for them in any scenario. Whether that mean the government getting involved, or staying out of, whatever the issue at hand is.

 

I dont blame BB. Everyone (including BB) should be out for their own best interest. But I wish BB would spare us the transparent and holier than thou "supply and demand" and "government should stay out" theoretical arguments that only get trotted out when it suits them.

 

I agree with you and I do not think we should bail them out. When they fail and fall, others will pick up the pieces and learn from their mistakes. If the Gov bails them out we will learn nothing.

 

I am not a proponent of BB I am proponent of freedom.

[caliber66]

I am not a proponent of BB I am proponent of freedom.

I suppose you'll say something else to the people mistakenly incarcerated at Guantanamo for the last six years, right?

[Guest Golyadkin]

I do want to live in a free society. But freedom ends where someone else's freedom begins. Environmental damage affects everybody, and therefore other people's freedoms have to be taken into account as well.

 

I Agree. However, I think many environmental "concerns" are just avenues for more control, such as preventing someone from driving an SUV, or getting divorced.

 

I suppose you'll say something else to the people mistakenly incarcerated at Guantanamo for the last six years, right?

 

Standing behind Doug I would tell them wrong place at the wrong time. (Gay ass smile w/ wink goes here)

[caliber66]

I don't really think about whom my emoticons care to have sex with.

[EL the Famous]

I do want to live in a free society. But freedom ends where someone else's freedom begins. Environmental damage affects everybody, and therefore other people's freedoms have to be taken into account as well.

 

while i agree in theory, it's never that simple. the are very few 'freedoms' w/ universal definitions that EVERYBODY is in agreement with...

 

for example: freedom of speech, unless you are saying something i don't want to hear.

[bjorn_skurj]

a automobile that runs on...love.

I had a 1982 Renault Alliance that was set up for that.

 

Now, that's what I call journalism.

[ikol]

Big business can claim they want a laissez-faire free market economy all they want. They are the ones yelling loudest for the Fed to cut interest rates to (artificially) stimulate the economy and/or a government sponsored slush fund to rescue the lenders that made their own bed in this mortgage crisis. They will also be the ones yelling loudest for the government to bail out the next Long Term Capital Management. And there will be one.

 

At the end of the day, big business wants whatever is best for them in any scenario. Whether that mean the government getting involved, or staying out of, whatever the issue at hand is.

 

I dont blame BB. Everyone (including BB) should be out for their own best interest. But I wish BB would spare us the transparent and holier than thou "supply and demand" and "government should stay out" theoretical arguments that only get trotted out when it suits them.

 

That was pretty much my point. Increasing government regulation of businesses provides more opportunity for big businesses to lobby the government to pass regulations that hurt their competitors.

 

I had a 1982 Renault Alliance that was set up for that.

 

I'm guessing you couldn't fill it up in public.

[bjorn_skurj]

I am going to note that I fear and loath big business as much as anybody, but many regular people, either directly or through mutual funds, hold stock in large corporations and depend on their well-being for their own well-being. It's not as cut-and-dried as an us v. them scenario.

 

I'm guessing you couldn't fill it up in public.

Had to drop acid twice a week to keep it going.

[Beltmann]

I like Beltman... however Doug is picking up a little sarcasm.

Yeah, but only in jest.

[EL the Famous]

I am going to note that I fear and loath big business as much as anybody, but many regular people, either directly or through mutual funds, hold stock in large corporations and depend on their well-being for their own well-being. It's not as cut-and-dried as an us v. them scenario.

 

they are also employed by them. it's not just a big skyscraper w/ one giant boardroom and nothing but corner offices populated by old guys smoking cigars in three-piece suits...there are a lot of good 'regular' people, not all of them rolling in dough, that work for various 'big businesses'.

 

it's so easy to make these things soooo black and white, us vs. them. life, no matter how you want to look at it...isn't like that. frankly, just saying 'c'mon gang, let's get creative and show some civic duty' isn't a plan either...if you have that much of a problem, YOU be creative and pony up some real-world ideas.

[MattZ]

That was pretty much my point. Increasing government regulation of businesses provides more opportunity for big businesses to lobby the government to pass regulations that hurt their competitors.

 

I have never met a pure conservative economist who practiced what he preached. Unless he was teaching a class or arguing on a message board. So I am not sure we are saying the same thing. My point is that everyone -- even the folks arguing that government should stay out of [insert issue A] -- will turn around and demand the government get involved in [insert issue B] if that second issue benefits them in some way. In other words, if you are telling me you dont think the govt should ever get involved, I dont believe you. Respectfully, of course.

 

I am not saying it is the govt's responsibility to set fuel efficiency levels -- or that the market isn't the best way for the best solution to be reached. The market may very well be the best way to solve the problem. But people (ie, car companies) arguing that "govt should just stay out" are being disengenuous. Especially if they ever need a bailout like the airlines did after 9/11. Because you know they will be looking for handouts then. And by then they will have forgotten their laissez-faire ways.

[MattZ]

I am going to note that I fear and loath big business as much as anybody, but many regular people, either directly or through mutual funds, hold stock in large corporations and depend on their well-being for their own well-being. It's not as cut-and-dried as an us v. them scenario.

 

 

it's so easy to make these things soooo black and white, us vs. them. life, no matter how you want to look at it...isn't like that. frankly, just saying 'c'mon gang, let's get creative and show some civic duty' isn't a plan either...if you have that much of a problem, YOU be creative and pony up some real-world ideas.

 

I hope these aren't responses to my posts about big business. I wasn't trying to make the point that BB is doing anything wrong by looking out for itself. Just that I am frustrating by people (and they are often in BB) arguing that they want the government to stay out, and then demand the govt get involved when it suits them. Let's call a spade a spade. Don't get on a high horse about how the government should stay out of your backyard if you invite them in when it suits you.

 

It was more of a theoretical argument than an anti-BB argument. Of course I agree that there is a lot of good (eg, products, employment, etc) that comes from BB looking out for itself.

[bjorn_skurj]

I'm not mad at anybody in this thread except for that dude that told me to go to bed, and that's not even this thread. He is not the boss of me.

[ikol]

I have never met a pure conservative economist who practiced what he preached. Unless he was teaching a class or arguing on a message board. So I am not sure we are saying the same thing. My point is that everyone -- even the folks arguing that government should stay out of [insert issue A] -- will turn around and demand the government get involved in [insert issue B] if that second issue benefits them in some way. In other words, if you are telling me you dont think the govt should ever get involved, I dont believe you. Respectfully, of course.

 

I am not saying it is the govt's responsibility to set fuel efficiency levels -- or that the market isn't the best way for the best solution to be reached. The market may very well be the best way to solve the problem. But people (ie, car companies) arguing that "govt should just stay out" are being disengenuous. Especially if they ever need a bailout like the airlines did after 9/11. Because you know they will be looking for handouts then. And by then they will have forgotten their laissez-faire ways.

 

We seem to be in agreement that big businesses don't really want the government to stay out, even if they claim to be in favor of a laissez-faire economy and that they are being disingenuous when they argue against government involvement. I just believe that -- regardless of what the businesses say -- the government should stay out. I'm not saying the government should have absolutely no involvement, just that the threshold for government regulation should be much higher.

[JUDE]

We seem to be in agreement that big businesses don't really want the government to stay out, even if they claim to be in favor of a laissez-faire economy and that they are being disingenuous when they argue against government involvement. I just believe that -- regardless of what the businesses say -- the government should stay out. I'm not saying the government should have absolutely no involvement, just that the threshold for government regulation should be much higher.

 

But every citizen, regardless of economic position, has a constitutional (I was going to say God given, but that

[Good Old Neon]

You do not want to live in a free society. You want everyone to live in your society.

 

That

[Dreamin']

I do want to live in a free society. But freedom ends where someone else's freedom begins. Environmental damage affects everybody, and therefore other people's freedoms have to be taken into account as well.

 

As Viktor Frankl said, "the Statue of Liberty on the east coast should be complemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the west coast."

[EL the Famous]

I hope these aren't responses to my posts about big business. I wasn't trying to make the point that BB is doing anything wrong by looking out for itself. Just that I am frustrating by people (and they are often in BB) arguing that they want the government to stay out, and then demand the govt get involved when it suits them. Let's call a spade a spade. Don't get on a high horse about how the government should stay out of your backyard if you invite them in when it suits you.

 

matt, my comments weren't really directed just at you...but really, let's call a spade a spade and wade throug hte countless # of posts on certain issues here where there are a lot of non-BB types arguing that they want the government to stay out, and then demand the govt get involved when it suits them. high horses w/ conflicting ideals based on personal wants/needs exist on both sides of the fence, yeah?

 

Aggressive capitalism has us all believing that product choice is somehow synonymous with personal freedom, when in reality, that is rarely the case.

 

going to need you to explain that one further...

[MattZ]

matt, my comments weren't really directed just at you...but really, let's call a spade a spade and wade throug hte countless # of posts on certain issues here where there are a lot of non-BB types arguing that they want the government to stay out, and then demand the govt get involved when it suits them. high horses w/ conflicting ideals based on personal wants/needs exist on both sides of the fence, yeah?

 

Absolutely. No argument from me. People have conflicting ideals on both sides of the fence.

 

But at the same time -- the hands off/stay out position -- is generally speaking, a conservative/republican one. Not a liberal/democrat position. After all, liberals/democrats want the govt involved in everything.

 

So, my main gripe/focus was on the conservative/republican crowd that cherrypicks when it's ok for the government to get involved.

[Guest Golyadkin]

That

[Guest Golyadkin]

Absolutely. No argument from me. People have conflicting ideals on both sides of the fence.

 

But at the same time -- the hands off/stay out position -- is generally speaking, a conservative/republican one. Not a liberal/democrat position. After all, liberals/democrats want the govt involved in everything.

 

So, my main gripe/focus was on the conservative/republican crowd that cherrypicks when it's ok for the government to get involved.

 

The Government can do three things for me...settle interstate disputes, protect me from foreign enemies and one more... whose got it... come on someone knows the third one

 

anyone?