http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR3QHoqfhX8

I’ve only seen clips so far, but it looks good (might have to trrnt the first few shows to see if I can buy it down here in Dumfarkistan)

I hate the idea of governments trying to manage by imposing pay caps. I’m horrified at the demagogues determined to seize innocent people’s bonus cheques. Bloodlust and mass hysteria are never a pretty sight. But when you mix toxic debt and toxic compensation with public outrage, the results are bound to be explosive. “Whenever an undesirable impact is not prevented by [business], it ultimately boomerangs,” Peter Drucker said. “It leads to regulation, to punitive laws, and to outside interference.”

Too bad the business elites didn’t pay attention.

“American capitalism has flourished despite being subjected to repeated restrictions by disgruntled legislators. Consider the transformation. In 1889, there was no anti-trust law (1890), no corporate income tax (1909), no Securities and Exchange Commission (1934) and no Environmental Protection Agency (1970).”

What I find disturbing about this paragraph is the failure to realize that those particular regulatory periods were both positive and necessary. All that legislation came to pass because business and business leaders failed to act wisely and caused a great deal of human suffering and environmental damage.

“We have subordinated unrestrained profit-seeking to other values.” This is only correct. Profit over other values demonstrates a frightening lack of wisdom and any moral center.

“through taxes, laws and regulations — weaken the profit motive and interfere with markets” This is true, however we have a clear historical record of the damage that the motive for profit causes when it is unrestrained and ungoverned.

The issue I have is that when conservatives speak in defense of capitalism it is always a euphemism for the the One True Capitalism that is completely free of restraints and regulations, based on the Wealth of Nations. I am personally very tired of this, because we should have enough evidence that lassiez-faire is a colossal failure where the rubber meets the road. Wealth of Nations is predicated on his earlier work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments where, in summary, he states that 80% of people are nice and moral.

Smith failed to realize one crucial thing, its other 20% that are the ones that really really want a “free” market. If you could send Smith a copy of anything by Rand or Neitzche, he’d have revised his own theory, after all an Atlas or ubermensch doesn’t have to follow any of our silly rules, because they’re a superior being their actions are self-justifying. (Although I’d wager it’s not that complex for most of these people.)

This is a sad joke. It’s always said that markets will regulate themselves, yet we have a preponderance of historical evidence that they do not. If one was to suggest that we forgo criminal law, that communities would regulate themselves, perhaps through vigilantism, no one would want to accept this. There are always individuals who’s motive for profit (or motive for other malfeasance) will cause them act in a manner that is destructive for others. This is why we have criminal law, it is an attempt through regulation and resultant penalty to disincentivize destructive actions.

It is only logical that governments would legislate to prevent destructive actions in an economic system, just as they do in other aspects of society.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/american_capitalism_besieged.html

That was a week response shcb. It’s better to fix things right (e.g. repair the severed artery) than to do the expedient thing (e.g. throw more bandages on the gash).

You say “hampering”, isn’t that what one does with dirty laundry?

My basic 5 points still stand. You can add ‘will go before’

This is ultimately a logical end based on the chain of events. There is a CEO bonus culture that doesn’t actually seem to be relative to the success or failure of a given financial institution. In the financial sector, the desire for bonuses has led to egregious behavior that has resulted in worldwide financial panic. This is typically how our system works. Failure to exercise freedom in a responsible manner leads to legislation that attempts to de-incentivize unwise choices.

The individuals who may be subject to this potential legislation are not Andrew Carnegie building America into a manufacturing powerhouse. They lack the patriotism/nationalism of the great ‘titans of industry’ of days gone by and the desire to even whitewash their legacies and be remembered as great men. For the most part, they just seem to want the money and have zero regard for the consequences of any actions they take to get it.

Still this doesn’t bother me. If its a tremendous failure it’ll either be ruled as unconstitutional or be rescinded as law by a future administration.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/23/epa-says-global-warming-public-danger/

In some of these cases simply buying the property is the cleanest solution.

Now of course this is much larger project, imagine how much work went into putting together the money and all the thousands of hours of volunteer time to put together a deal that would allow a private group to buy land half the size of Rhode Island, and now someone wants to just take it away because they think their purpose is more pure. The problem is the solar panel project is just a passing fad, at some point it will become apparent that that huge expanse of land, half a state, full of billions of dollars of glass and plastic produces .03% of the power of our coal plants. But all those turtles will be dead.

Flora & fauna and the rest of nature does not have much cash, and our wellbeing is based on the environment at least as much as it is on cash.

I like it.