Regulation: Used by The Powerful Against the Weak

[Beskar]

Hmm, I may have misunderstood you there.

Those who think regulation keeps the small ones down, what about the anti-monopole regulations?
What kind of regulation allowed GameStop to eat up the smaller games shops?
What regulation allowed Intel to more or less ban AMD from some big retailers here until the EU actually stepped in?
Yes, the latter was illegal but it just shows what companies do when no regulation is there or it cannot be enforced.

The only way to deal with this is to give the government an incentive to actually work for all of society and not just some parts of it.
One way may be to tie part of their income to the average effective income(the one that lowers when prices rise while wages are stable) of average middle class people or whatever else is a good indicator of public wealth and cannot be easily raised by just catering to a few parts of society.

That is what Regulation is about. it is used by the weak against the powerful. In this case, it is the powerful in a cartel trying to push through rules to benefit itself. instead of attacking the cartel which is what should be done, Americans have this fetish to attack the government instead and thus, do no regulation, which would allow these big companies to simply swallow the smaller ones anyway.

[Crazed Rabbit]

instead of attacking the cartel which is what should be done, Americans have this fetish to attack the government instead and thus, do no regulation, which would allow these big companies to simply swallow the smaller ones anyway.

GOOD FRICKIN' GRIEF

It's the government passing the laws, not the companies. And the big companies want regulation because they can not simply "swallow" the smaller companies.

THE GOVERNMENT IS RESPONSIBLE.

This is a situation where the government has misused its power - power of the sort that can only be misused. But instead of treating the disease you want to treat the symptoms. The government did not start passing these rent-seeking laws because evil corporations bribed them - corporations began pushing for these laws after they saw the government had the power to pass them. Take the government's power to pick economic winners and losers and they'll be no point to corporations trying to buy politicians. You won't need laws against donations or the like.

CR is.

No I'm not.

I'm asking for very strict limits; only laws against fraud, coercion, and harming people basically.

You don't need laws mandating new vehicles - just hold people responsible if someone is injured in a vehicle.

[Re: law against limos parking in front of hotels]Would be logical in some situations in which parking is at a premium.

No, it's not. If it costs money to park, let them pay it. If there's a time limit, hold them to it.

But singling out people or companies for stricter treatment is the basis of this problem.

CR

[Nowake]

Regulation is often, not just rarely, a tool of the powerful - people or corporations - to use governments and politicians against their competitors. The only answer is forbidding the government from such economic interference in the first place.
I'm asking for very strict limits; only laws against fraud, coercion, and harming people basically.

Yes, well, you only get to write something like this because you either refuse to acknowledge, choose to forget or simply are not aware of the full range of regulatory mechanisms needed.
Where do you place anti-trust laws exactly? And your legislation to separate investment from commercial banking? How do you keep in check global transaction banking? Will your policy on capital and reserve requirements, which you would hopefully put in place to protect people from harm as you write, not see financial corporations trying to influence it? In the same way, your restrictions on large exposures would somehow not motivate banks to lobby against them? Would you forbid monetary policy? You would do away with disclosure provisions?
Mind you, these are just off the top of my head, a qualified person would bury you. All of the above can be placed under your “do not harm the people” umbrella. By changing the name you do not affect the dynamics one bit. Good frickin’ grief? It helps no one if you react after the fact, that one can hold such a view at this point in time is surprising.

[Beskar]

It's the government passing the laws, not the companies.

Blame the Puppet and not the Puppet-Masters?

And the big companies want regulation because they can not simply "swallow" the smaller companies.

Because of the regulation already in place which stops them from doing so.

But instead of treating the disease you want to treat the symptoms.

That is incorrect, you want to treat the flu symptoms by cutting off the head, instead of trying to treat the disease.

The government did not start passing these rent-seeking laws because evil corporations bribed them - corporations began pushing for these laws after they saw the government had the power to pass them. Take the government's power to pick economic winners and losers and they'll be no point to corporations trying to buy politicians. You won't need laws against donations or the like.

So on one line.. "Government is not doing them because evil bribed them"
on the next line "corporations began pushing [see: Bribing] after they saw government had the power to pass them"

"Take the government's power to pick economic winners and losers and they'll be no point to corporations trying to buy politicians. "
Translation: Remove all regulation from governments hands, then corporations won't try to bribe government as they can do what they please anyway regardless.

No I'm not.

I'm asking for very strict limits; only laws against fraud, coercion, and harming people basically.

You don't need laws mandating new vehicles - just hold people responsible if someone is injured in a vehicle.

No, it's not. If it costs money to park, let them pay it. If there's a time limit, hold them to it.
But singling out people or companies for stricter treatment is the basis of this problem.

This is where your rhetoric breaks down, Crazed Rabbit. On one hand, you say one thing then you turn around then say something reasonable which gets lost in firehazard. If you want to promote simplified regulation and want action to stop corrupt policies from entering the law, then I think everyone agrees with you. However, you seem to want to paint 'government' as some big bogeyman and intend on removing the tolls which stop some really big injustices from occuring and not the "puppet-masters" which are in your own words "pushing" "bribing" their way to try to get what they want to benefit themselves.