So, why is government regulation the worse option again?

[Greyblades]

(Pardon the source, some of thier guys are so stupidly american-liberal they think the falklands war should have ended in british surrender, but the guy presenting is one of their sane(ish) presenters.)

Well frags has set up multi page threads about random stuff he wont tell us about, so I dont think I have to say anything more than: discuss!

[Xiahou]

Because, you can't trust the fox to watch the hen house....

[gaelic cowboy]

except the problem according to the video is that the hen house is minded by foxes pretending to be the hens inside.

Simply put they should just make a law that bans them moving the metal from one warehouse to another, or better yet tax the movement of metals between warehouses.

the more times you move it the more you pay.

[gaelic cowboy]

banks be they investment or high street should simply be banned from investing in say primary industry.

[Xiahou]

Both sides blame the other for being in corporate America's pocket, but the reality is that it is prevalent on both sides. Goldman Sachs is an example of a company that should be torn down brick by brick, its executives barred from the industry forever and/or thrown in jail, and laws ought to be made to prevent such a stupid conflict of interest ever again.

Alas, both sides will play the blame game until everyone forgets instead.

I readily agree that both sides are in the pockets of corporate interests. If you're a major corporation and you don't have an army of lobbyists in DC buying influence, you're finished. As the saying goes, if you don't have a seat at the table- you're on the menu. Virtually every regulation that is passed is with the approval or even prodding of a lobbying group.

Government creates these behemoth organizations and then we expect government to fairly regulate them- it's not going to happen. Even if you think that new regulations will help- they won't. They just hurt the small players who can't afford to buy their own DC influence peddlers.

Goldman Sachs should have gone out of business instead of being bailed out. If it was "too big to fail", as was claimed, it should have been taken into conservatorship, broken up, and sold off to repay as many of its debtors as it could. Instead, it gets bailed out and has effectively no consequences for its poor choices.

[Montmorency]

The problem is, how do you get elected if you have no stake in the private sector?

Do we only appoint eccentric rich hermits from the 'gentry' to the legislature? Only those who have been homeless and destitute for at least 5 years?

Even coming from the other end and forbidding Congresspeople from ever working in the private sector again (after their terms are up) has clear problems.

[HoreTore]

The problem is, how do you get elected if you have no stake in the private sector?

I have read very little in this thread, and I'm just butting my head in on this single issue:

How 'bout academia? What about letting the smart guys run the show, instead of the greedy idiots?

[Xiahou]

Your pie chart could have used some Bush Administration/Haliburton ties. These sorts of things occur because businesses can get their tentacles into the government easier than ever. Money equals speech, super PACs are legitimized corruption, and there is no way to turn back the clock on campaign finance law when both parties are complicit.

Campaign finance laws are a restriction on free speech. From Wikipedia:

During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or union.[13] In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a political book

It's madness. Book bans are the logical extension of these laws- the government lawyers made that argument themselves.

The regulation should be very simple: Members of the government should have no stake in the private sector. Public service should be something you are willing to sacrifice financial gain for. That's why congress gets paid so damned much, right? So that they don't have to turn to corruption? Right now they are having their cake and eating it too.

And what about the revolving door? Are you going to jail a politician for taking a job after they leave office? What about their staffers? family members? There's nothing simple about it.

[Montmorency]

A law preventing them from having any ties to lobbyists or big business would never pass, because it would step on what these guys do for a living

Small businesses that provide services or goods to, or receive from, big businesses? Which is to say, almost all of them? Or, ultimately, every one, because somewhere along the supply chain there's going to be a big business?

When you decide to run for office, you should be putting yourself in a position of extreme self-sacrifice.

But then, it's the same question: who actually runs, and whom do we actually elect?

Even stuff as simple as family in business should be enough to prevent it. Make it harder than getting a top secret clearance. Got family in the financial sector? Got stocks in Goldman Sachs? Are you currently working for Goldman Sachs? You can't run for office then (or receive a presidential appointment, for that matter), go screw yourself. Better safe than sorry.

I feel like at that point we would be better off just appointing the citizens who are left eligible to the legislature than even bothering to hold elections...