Why do you assume that anyone who is economically conservative is a republican?

I'm a Libertarian. Shanklinmike is obviously a Libertarian.

And it is not the useful regulations that we are talking about. Of course there should be laws and government enforcement against monopolies and price fixing. That is obvious.

The problem we have with the government is the ridiculous amount of unnecessary regulation.

As Shanklinmike put it, many of these huge companies that are now receiving bailouts gave massive campaign contributions to both the political parties.

AIG for instance gave over $100,000 to Obama's campain and about $55,000 to McCain's. The only reason McCain received less money is because they didn't expect him to win.

When it comes time for government officials to "effectively regulate" these companies, as you believe it is being done, they make policies with loopholes on purpose.

AIG was allowed to choose the organization that regulated it. How ridiculous is that?

AIG went with a small organization called the Office of Thrift Supervision, who only had ONE insurance specialist on staff.

The organization allowed AIG to do just about anything it wants, even if the OTS wanted to effectively regulate AIG, the staff was so small that it would be impossible.

Companies can exploit these loopholes and make more money, while the public is none the wiser. They take that money and contribute a portion of it to future campaigns. It is a continual cycle of corruption.

And yet everyone seems to think that 'the new guy' in town is going to put a stop to this corruption. Republicans think it will be their guy, Democrats think it will be their guy, while these politicians are laughing all the way to the bank.

Applying free market ideals does not mean evaporating safety in labor standards, or take away any rights offered by the constitution.

If we had an attitude that was directed at free market trade, it doesn't mean that bosses would all of the sudden start physically abusing their employees.

Deregulation on the level being bandied about by the some on here would without doubt lead to degradation of quality of life and working conditions. Money has no conscience. Read the post by Amber_Taylor I agree 100 percent.

That is not true. You do not lose your bill of rights when you step into the workplace.

Free market ideals and deregulating safety standards/workers rights are two completely different issues.

And where are you employed? Obviously you havent spent much time working in non union shops or as a laborer. Even with the laws we have today they still treat you like a piece of dirt. Again just study the history of the working man in America and you will see how they were treated before "government intervention". Who do you think is really behind this push for deregulation? These tea baggers and ron paul fanatics are just pawns being used by the very people and institutions they rail about.

Unions cost more money than they are worth.

That comment doesnt even justify a real response.

I currently work at a screen printing shop. I do manual labor all day. There is no union. Everyone is ok.

Workers were treated badly before information became so easily spread and journalism found its role in American society.

It was articles like The Jungle that truly helped the workplace, not government intervention.

Unions were once necessary, but in a post industrial, 21st century society such as the United States, they are nothing but a nuisance.

And you really think that newspaper artilcles got us better working conditions? That the men that died and fought didnt mean that much?

What does men dying have to do with government intervention creating better working conditions?

That is your point right?

Am I not aware of some senator that fought someone in congress and died trying to get legislation passed to further laws for safety in the workplace?

Or are you changing your argument to a completely unrelated subject in an attempt to sneak past proving that OSHA has made any sort of significant, beneficial change?

OSHA boasts that they significantly reduced workplace accidents since the creation of the safety institution in 1970. If you look at a chart of workplace fatalities in the United States, it was going steadily down since 1937.

http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/OSHAGraph.bmp

1937 was a peak, and it occured well after the Child Labor Laws, and workplace safety laws. Unions, who were quickly gaining in strength became heavily regulated and limited by the National Labor Relations Act, passed in 1935.

Two years after heavily restricting the power of labor Unions, workplace fatalities started to drop.

Yet, radio journalism rapidly expanded in this decade.

So your argument is that work safety was because people on the radio said bad things about factory owners? I you want to believe that unions and government intervention had nothing to do with the safety and wages you enjoy today the you are welcome to your delusions.

No goofball, reporters exposed companies with bad working conditions.

The owners were then forced to change them or they would have negative repercussions on the goodwill of the company.

The Jungle is a perfect example of how impacting a critical news story can be on businesses.

And you really think that sweat shops and coal mines in the 30s, 40s and 50s gave a rats ass of public opinion? Your problem is that you are trying to extroplate current marketplace conditions to a society that you have no clue about. I suggest that you so some serious studying for a few months starting in the gilded age (about 1855) of the history of American business and labor before you start making these kinds of assumptions.

Ill give you that companies involved in direct market sales are much more capable of being influenced by the media than companies producing raw materials.

I will also agree that back in the 1930s and 40s, labor unions had a purpose.

Today, in the United States, they do not.

Teachers' unions for instance, like New York's teachers' union, fight things like school choice and merit pay.

It is nearly impossible to fire teachers for incompetence.

Even when they sexually harass students, they cannot be fired.

The New York City School's Chancellor, Joel Klein, has dealt with this problem by putting these problem teachers in an empty building where they go to work everyday, and sit around and do nothing.

They are called rubber rooms, and the teachers are still on full salary.

Unions create these types of problems all over the country, in many different industries. They are very political, and will do just about anything to stay in power.

Workers that choose not to join a union in a union controlled workplace are often ostracized, and sometimes even harassed for not joining in on strikes and rallies.

I don't think the request is that they stay out of it all together as much as it is that they should not be in it as much as they are right now.

J, so what do you think ought to be the middle ground? Where does gov intervention ought to start and where does it ought to end?

I believe it to be reasonable that government should set a group of standards and then each state works within said standards and 'watch groups' make sure the state does as it should with said standards. States should work as business in that citizens can look at one state and like how they do this that and that and move there because that works with what they want. If states want to keep a population or whatever they'll have to adjust how they do things or do things better.

No bail out. I think setting up programs or making things better so that it effects the long run is far more appeasing than throwing money at the problem to help give people joy for a mere moment.

Countries are like a HUGE corporation in a sense. There should be some form of uniformity that makes people realize that each state is under the United States. It cannot be constraining.

If that is not clear give me an example to work with.

Well, no, this doesn't actually answer my question. The man in the first video seems to want a reversal of hundreds years of economic progress by collapsing the banking industry altogether. Since the trade in money (and some amount of usury to go along with it) is natural, given the existence of a common currency, this would, in the end just equal regulation, since the government will need to tell us to stop collecting interest on loans on a personal basis (lest any one or two of us make too much money and develop an "industry"). What he is advocating is basically a very poor world of barterers. His interest is sociological rather than economic, as he expressly started out with a sociological question.

The second video just seems to confirm that interventions should be instituted, but stuck to. Also that more effort should be taken to remove the banking interests in Washington.

Economics is a subset of Sociology. You cannot have an economy outside of social interaction. This is a reality that must be understood if we are to oppose oppression via economic manipulation. Our economy is manipulated for social programming purposes played out on a global political stage. If economics is ever to be understood as predictable in regards to prices, wages, and an increase in the standard of living, we have to understand the forces that shape tomorrow's economy, and their motivations. When those forces use government intervention via lobbyist, or the latest trade scheme and monopoly granting legislation, they are distorting the free market.

There are numerous facets to this answer, but I'll just address what I consider the biggest step we as individuals can take to correct this:

If we support our local businesses, instead of international franchises and corporations then we would limit their influence on our government. We send our wealth out of our local society to forces that may not have our interest in mind, which gives them the wealth needed to influence governments. Obviously this part of the problem will take years to correct, but this is a problem, and we won't start correcting it until we come to firmly believe it.

It seems a limit of these sciences (or of human intelligence) that they cannot simultaneously be conceived of as specifically as they are highly integrated. Interactions amongst all things are simply too complicated for any person to understand. This is why I brought up the differentiation of economics and sociology. To me, under the umbrella of social science, sociology is the interaction among humans and societies while economics is another specialty which is concerned with the operation of capitalism, mainly (which is not holistic, but happens to be the most frequent application). Ofcourse, this also has to do with human interactions but as a matter of practicality limits itself to only a few principles of human interaction. Somehow, economics is thought of as beyond simple human interaction by virtue of an "invisible hand" or "machine" that guides our behavior.

Now, the reason I really hate videos as in the "Life inc"example is that they appeal to reason, but do not consider many of the specifics that one would find if looking through the eyes of someone who is specialized in economics. To be honest, my reasoning would have stated that it is a byproduct of individualism combined with capitalism in general that had caused his neighbors to be upset for publishing where the mugging had taken place (although there are limitless actual reasons --population increase, dissolution of the family unit). It is a leap to say that his neighbors' behaviors are linked to laboring in a very corporate America. This seems like an unimportant fact after the whole thing is said and done, but don't forget that this is the data collection which he is analyzing.

Also, don't forget that for a long time before these corporations, even the Renaissance, laborers existed, exchanging only their time for wages. These kind of general issues were almost certainly occuring during that time period.

Finally, the truth is that no one really knows what would happen if we all of a sudden only supported local businesses. It is more than likely that new monopolies would reappear. If not, economies of scale would evaporate, creating costly goods and the inability to trade in the world market. We would potentially become an extremely poor and isolated economy. Actually, by applying a moral to the free market such as "help thy neighbor first" or "buy local" you are really doing more to fundamentally distort the free market than much of the corruption that is taking place.

Anyway, I don't think there is anything that will stop people from shopping at Walmart. Though the situation is depressing, I believe the incremental change of applying guidelines to these corporate-government associations can do more good. The responsibility is ours to keep our eyes open and speak up.