The Fear of Ron Paul's Deregulation

I tell everyone who questions deregulation that if dereg. Was going to just let the corporations run wild, the wouldn't Ron Paul be the favorite to win with all of his contributions coming from corporations, yet curiously the case is not so. Lol that'lle get em thinking and then explain that markets are monopolized by regulating their competitors to death through corrupt congressmen, and agencies it's just that goddman simple, :) hope that helped.

Corporations have already "taken over" because they use the force of government to change the laws to benefit them.

Tell your friends and neighbors to look up the word "corporatism", then see how that term describes everything that has been happening under the Bush and Obama administrations.

EVERYONE including the poorest of us have mobile cell phones because Reagan deregulated the phone industry and created a competitive free market.Inferior products are just not purchased sending that company out the door.

"It is big government that gives out tax breaks to engineer behavior, often creating large pockets of malinvestments. It is government that created the FDIC and the Fed as lender of last resort which all encourages moral hazard. It is big government that gives bureaucrats the ability to bail out cronies with taxpayer dollars while screaming that the economic sky is falling if they dont. It is big government that every year adds new layers to the already labyrinthine regulatory code that smaller businesses cant keep up with while simultaneously preventing new businesses from emerging. It is big government that misdirects economic productivity into bankrupt businesses that they consider to be too big to fail." Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcxLl8u30l8

Regulation brought us "too big to fail". A type of crony capitalism where losses are socialized, and gains are privatized. This sort of crony capitalism that incentivizes huge risk taking is slap in the face to the free markets. Government chooses winners and losers in the market. They bailout their masters in wall-street, and tax payers fits the bill.

Congressman Paul argued that the market corrections needed to be allowed to happen so that the inevitable stabilization could occur. He argued that allowing the companies to fail and declare bankruptcy would be the best "bailout" as the economic realities could be dealt with by the market. He argued against the concept that an entity could be too big to fail or should be given special treatment because it represented an economic incentive to act.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Pa...

Here's one:

http://www.dailypaul.com/181089/can-some-explain-why-more-go...

In another, I posted about strong fraud laws. Can anyone locate that one? Thanks.

As for the poster, I would recommend that your friends read Economics In One Lesson.

It's funny you bring this up. I have a friend who rehashes an argument with me every week about net neutrality. I explain it pretty reasonably I think but he will always then say that I'm "idealistic" and "naive" to think that corporations wouldn't end up "exploiting the consumer" to "make a profit." The people who say this have no idea how business works. He will ask, for example, why Comcast wouldn't cut a deal with Bing to block Google from being accessed because that would "obviously" increase profits. I bring up the thought that people would switch to a competitor if this happened. He then says that every ISP would do this so they could all make more profits, and it goes on and on. It's like he is permanently on a lower plane of thinking.

The only way to get people to understand is to try to explain how the rational interest of a business (which they call "greed") is directly tied to customer satisfaction and how competition is greatest regulator of all. Consumers will pick the product or service which most satisfies their demands. When someone calls for regulation, there must have been an admission on their part that consumers don't know what's best for themselves. The argument comes down to deciding who is the best consumer: the government or the actual consumer? In the age of the internet, it is absolutely apparent that it is the latter. You'll never find that the demand for regulations comes from consumers because the market would have reacted long before it would come to that. It is usually just announced and the public, if they ever hear about it, says, "That sounds reasonable," without ever actually thinking about the true intent or implications.

What should be the best argument for you to make is comparing the most and least regulated industries in the US (health insurance and technology, respectively). Which provides the greatest customer satisfaction? It's not an accident that it's the latter. The only time a consumer buys a product that they don't like is when the industry is heavily regulated.

Take it for what it's worth. I was actually going to post something like this last night because I'd like to find a video or short story that explains these things. The above arguments never get through to people for some reason.

Ask the person you are speaking to this simple question, and be prepared to help them out when they can't answer. Who do you think it is that writes all these regulations?

The simple explanation is this: one should always want regulation to occur at the most localized level. Where the consumer is unable to regulate a market (although these examples are few and far between), then one can make an argument for local government regulation or state regulation. Public utilities are an instance where one can make that argument. The counter argument, in nearly every instance, is that consumers react quickly and government regulators react slowly.

I have found it helpful to remind people that when it comes to our Federal government, a very thoughtful document is in place that delineates what the Federal government should do... and it should do no more than is stated within it (the Constitution). Whether or not regulation is needed for certain industries is irrelevant to what the Federal government should and should not do because any regulation that is needed should be done at the state level since those duties are not outlined in the Constitution that governs our largest governing body. The arguments for state regulations are far more nuanced, but irrelevant when it comes to voting for a president. If regulation is so important, the states will do it themselves, and then at least we don't have a one size fits all situation even if they do decide to regulate. This is what many people have dubbed the "50 laboratories of innovation" and rightfully so.

As for the argument against regulation even at the state level, the broad argument is this: when governments regulate an industry, they take away the market regulation, which is in nearly all cases much more punishing to those who do harm than the government regulations. One not need look much farther than Bernie Madoff to see that in the free market, without the rubber stamp sign off of the SEC he would have defrauded far fewer people and been sniffed out by the market way before he was imprisoned. Also, when they regulate, they remove consumer choice, which I find offensive and irritating.

One more thing that seems to carry some weight when debating government regulation: if the government is so effective at doing something, why do they need a monopoly? Why is it that the FDA doesn't allow drugs without FDA approval on the shelves? If it doesn't say FDA approved, a shopper doesn't have to buy it (hey, they could even say that it MUST say NOT FDA APPROVED on the bottle). If it doesn't work, people won't buy it. But, please, stop trying to protect me from myself. In the case of the FDA, hundreds of thousands of people have died every year (a guess, but it is definitely a large number) because they are not allowed to take "experimental drugs" that the FDA has not approved. Well, if I'm dying, shouldn't I have the right to try something experimental by my own choice????? The problem I have with the government is that they always "KNOW BEST".

Sorry for ranting, but I hope this helps.

I am a big fan of the Discovery Channel show Gold Rush. On the last episode Federal mine inspectors came in and shut two gold mines down because the workers did not have training from a certified safety trainer. It cost over $1000 to hire the certified trainer and another couple grand in lost production.

These men have worked for decades mining, yet someone can come in and shut them down because their workers did not get instructions from someone who has never set foot on that perticular mine.

Now that might seem small and petty, but that kind of stuff happens litterally hundreds of thousands of times all across the nation. It cost production, time, money and was a downright worthless endeavor by those Federal mine safety guys.

Ron Paul explains this in his book, The Revolution, when he talks about free trade and sugar quotas, see chapter 4. But I think pointing them towards the SOPA/PIPA issue would be a good current event to use as an example. It shows how:

1) Big media corporations lobby government to promote regulations which benefit their preferred business model.

2) How big corporations use government regulations to stifle competition by creating tougher barriers into the market. The SOPA bill would make it prohibitively expensive for startup websites to cover themselves in case of fraud/copyright infringement. This means that only big corporations would be able to afford to take the risk. The risk/benefit ratio for smaller web companies wouldn't be worth it. Innovation will be pushed overseas.

This was good video on how SOPA/PIPA would effect e-commerce : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhwuXNv8fJM

Ron Paul is pro contract enforcement, fraud law enforcement, and property rights enforcement.

So while he may be against government regulation, it's not that he just wants to do away with regulation and replace it with nothing, but rather that he wants to increase the enforcement of contracts, laws against fraud, and property rights.

In the same way, it's not that Ron Paul wants to get rid of our military, he actually wants to increase our national defense and decrease overseas spending to actually protect America with our military, rather than foreign countries.

the corporations are already running everything, PRECISELY BECAUSE there are regulations created and enforced by gov't which are specifically done to allow the corporations to rule everything. That's what regulations are for. They have nothing to do with "protecting" anybody. Except the corporations.

The "way out" is to stop doing what we're doing with this regulation, and let the free market rule. Stop the madness.

Basically, people who are scared sh!tless of removing gov't controls over everything have been brainwashed into thinking what the corporations and government want them to think.
They are ignorant that there can even be any other way.
This really requires teaching a whole new world view that they don't even realize exists. They are completely creatures of programming from the ground up. It takes a lot to wake a person like that up, and a real dedication to educate them out of the Matrix.

Would you agree that what we currently have is a Corporate run government?

Large Corporations lobbyists write the bills OUR Congressmen introduce and pass into laws (with great sounding names).

The people heading many of the Federal level departments were formally employees of these same Large Corporations (revolving door).

These department heads (formally corporate employees) put into place rules and regulations that help Big Corporations and shuts down small and medium businesses who don't have the clout.

The answer to your question is COMPETITION, COMPETITION, COMPETITION I can not say it enough and we should all be pushing for COMPETITION. LARGE CORPORATIONS HATE COMPETITION and take every opportunity to squash it.

Competition brings down prices, improves quality,and personal service. Big Corporate Government is a tool of Big Corporate Business.

Take away the tool and big business loses control over the customer and competition.

as opposed to the politically motivated and all too easily swayed (or bribed) bureaucrats and regulatory agencies that we now have.

Some of us are old enough to remember how expensive it was to make a long distance phone call, or take an airplane flight, before those industries were deregulated.