...for the "all businesses are good" and the deification of corporations crowd. ...oh, and the 'no regulations let the market do the policing' crowd

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 1:28 PM GMT



    ...an ounce of prevention is worth a plane-load of dead people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 2:41 PM GMT
    The bad publicity automatically gets the airlines realizing they need to change this, even if they don't want to. The crashes have resulted in awareness and anger -- and rightfully so.

    Believe me, bad publicity will end up ruining an airline if they don't make efforts to correct major concerns the public has.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 2:50 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidThe bad publicity automatically gets the airlines realizing they need to change this, even if they don't want to. The crashes have resulted in awareness and anger. icon_smile.gif

    Believe me, bad publicity will end up ruining an airline if they don't make efforts to correct major concerns the public has.



    mmmm...okey dokey. Acceptable loss of life first, eh, Mock? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 3:46 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkie saidThe bad publicity automatically gets the airlines realizing they need to change this, even if they don't want to. The crashes have resulted in awareness and anger. icon_smile.gif

    Believe me, bad publicity will end up ruining an airline if they don't make efforts to correct major concerns the public has.



    mmmm...okey dokey. Acceptable loss of life first, eh, Mock? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Unless you believe in electing some dictator whom you feel is going to do exactly what's best for society and know just the right combination of regulations to enforce for the good of society, I really don't believe there's any way to close every loophole for something bad happening in society before there is awareness to fix it.

    Earth to meninlove...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 3:53 PM GMT
    Reality to Mock, if that had been your bf on the that plane and he died, no amount of boycotting the airline (which many conservatives think (boycotting) is a useless exercise) will bring him back.

    Love your reactionary extremist thinking, btw. Dictatorship, rofl!

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 4:11 PM GMT
    meninlove said Reality to Mock, if that had been your bf on the that plane and he died, no amount of boycotting the airline (which many conservatives think (boycotting) is a useless exercise) will bring him back.

    Love your reactionary extremist thinking, btw. Dictatorship, rofl!

    -Doug


    Stop using hurt and grief to justify these ridiculous abstract ideas you have about creating a Utopian society. Horrendous things happen and anyone who is the victim is going to feel angry about what is.

    If I'm hiking through some mountains and a rock falls on my loved one maybe I'll be angry enough to sue the park? Maybe I'll feel that there should have been more regulation to make sure that there were no dangerous "loose" rocks that could fall and randomly kill someone I love? Anyone can lose perspective in a tragic situation.

    And yes, that is exactly what you want more or less, a loving and compassionate dictator. I really hope that whoever you put in power though actually does all the wonderful things you hope they will.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 4:13 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said Reality to Mock, if that had been your bf on the that plane and he died, no amount of boycotting the airline (which many conservatives think (boycotting) is a useless exercise) will bring him back.

    Love your reactionary extremist thinking, btw. Dictatorship, rofl!

    -Doug


    Stop using hurt and grief to justify these ridiculous abstract ideas you have about creating a Utopian society.

    And yes, that is exactly what you want more or less, a loving and compassionate dictator. I really hope that whoever you put in power though actually does all the wonderful things you hope they will.




    lol, you post like such a dolt at times. Bill's killing himself laughing at your dumb-ass speculation about what 'I want'.

    icon_lol.gif

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 4:18 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said Reality to Mock, if that had been your bf on the that plane and he died, no amount of boycotting the airline (which many conservatives think (boycotting) is a useless exercise) will bring him back.

    Love your reactionary extremist thinking, btw. Dictatorship, rofl!

    -Doug


    Stop using hurt and grief to justify these ridiculous abstract ideas you have about creating a Utopian society.

    And yes, that is exactly what you want more or less, a loving and compassionate dictator. I really hope that whoever you put in power though actually does all the wonderful things you hope they will.




    lol, you post like such a dolt at times. Bill's killing himself laughing at your dumb-ass speculation about what 'I want'.

    icon_lol.gif

    -Doug


    Then what do you want exactly? You seem to be saying that somehow anything bad that happens in the world can be preventable by some sort of government intervention making sure that it doesn't happen? Give me some insight.

    BTW, you've never said you want a dictator, but almost every perspective you have on how society should be, would require one. Kind of hard for you to comprehend that though.

    "and just tell me where in the world you're going to find these angels who are going to organize society for us? I don't even trust you to do that" -- Milton Friedman talking to Donahue
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 4:44 PM GMT
    What I'm showing here is why regulations and regulators are needed. Not some airy fairy speculation by you that I want some kind of dictatorship. lol, where do you get some of this weirdo extrapolation from?

    O.o

    You need to think outside your blinkers.

    Tom Keil Blinkers
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 5:23 PM GMT
    meninlove said What I'm showing here is why regulations and regulators are needed. Not some airy fairy speculation by you that I want some kind of dictatorship. lol, where do you get some of this weirdo extrapolation from?

    O.o

    You need to think outside your blinkers.

    Tom Keil Blinkers


    But you showed no such thing. You showed just the opposite. The only alternative I have is to believe that, prior to the free market forces pressuring airlines to correct these problems, you believe the government should have "known" that this was going to happen and formed some sort of legislation making sure that this didn't happen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 5:29 PM GMT
    Nope. The purpose of the thread is to point out that regulations and regulators are necessary. They will never and can't ever be perfect, goofy. But they are a lot better than having slews of people die (life is so cheap to you, lol) while 'market pressure' is applied. Btw we both notice your gigantic silence whenever a topic comes up about boycotting, and there have been many.

    So tell us all, does boycotting work?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 5:43 PM GMT
    meninlove said Nope. The purpose of the thread is to point out that regulations and regulators are necessary. They will never and can't ever be perfect, goofy. But they are a lot better than having slews of people die (life is so cheap to you, lol) while 'market pressure' is applied. Btw we both notice your gigantic silence whenever a topic comes up about boycotting, and there have been many.

    So tell us all, does boycotting work?



    Hello? All you showed us is that growing public outrage from people in a society is starting to spark action in making sure that the airlines start to conform to the realization that airline pilots are being pushed too hard and that things need to change. So far it appears that the airlines are acknowledging it. If they don't, bad publicity will continue to make sure that something is done or the airline will suffer. That's how capitalism works.

    So far there has been no needed government regulation for this problem The situation is, as of now, auto-correcting itself. That's what makes no sense about your post.

    Need me to say it again? Hello?

    I also like how you denied my assessment on what you feel is a "solution", but if we look at what you said in the OP:

    "...an ounce of prevention is worth a plane-load of dead people."

    It proves that you think some prior government action SHOULD have been done to prevent a tragedy from occurring.

    Why would you say "nope", when it's "yep"?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 5:52 PM GMT
    I can only imagine how or why meninlove simplified arguments into strawmen that have little to do with what anyone actually believes. Personally I think your arguments come across as foolish but let's parse your argument here:

    (1) ...for the "all businesses are good" and
    (2) the deification of corporations crowd. ...oh, and
    (3) the 'no regulations let the market do the policing' crowd

    You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who believes #1 or #2. One of Adam Smith's most famous passages for those who even bother to understand what he meant by the invisible hand is as follows:

    "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty or justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."

    Corporations are useful insofar as their legal status allows for individuals to come together to raise money pursue ventures together share in risk and reward. It's an innovation so important especially for entrepreneurs that it is one of the leading reasons entrepreneurs can succeed - which in turn is vital to the health, growth and development of any country. That being said, are all corporations "good"? That is a ridiculous assertion that can be made only by someone with the poorest grasp of law, economics and/or business. Are they on balance good though? Most definitely yes - for the simple fact that business requires customers and clients to survive and in doing so meet the needs wants and desires of society far more efficiently than governments as history shows repeatedly.

    On your third point, this is where most libertarians argue there must be a balance at least in the short term, but insofar as this relates to airline safety, I wonder if you actually understand what the current statistics are for airline safety:

    http://www.observer.com/node/40329
    "From 1980 to 1992, the average number of fatalities in the United States was 37 times greater in passenger cars and taxis than on scheduled flights per mile traveled."

    So let's look at pilot fatigue within this context. Especially considering this is "post-regulation" given that it is "regulation" that you seem to love. Airlines actually like regulation - as all incumbents do, because it creates costs which in turn serve as barriers to entry.

    One of the primary arguments against deregulation of airlines even in Canada were over passenger safety which has actually improved according to IATA statistics over time. Those like you at the time of deregulation in 1978 made the argument that "the carriers would undercut the economic stability of the industry and possibly cut corners on safety and maintenance of aircraft in an effort to reduce costs to compete more effectively with the other carriers". (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Commercial_Aviation/Dereg/Tran8.htm)

    Are there issues with pilot fatigue? Possibly. But I note that the report from ABC is remarkably short of facts. It doesn't even mention the crash of February 2009 which spurred the FAA to look into the issue (http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=11857) which I find totally bizarre since it even bolsters the case.

    As Mock points out, ABC last I checked was a private corporation. Reports like this help them make money so long as people trust their reporting. Further, for countries who don't exactly have significant competition and because of the growth of discount airlines, corportations like Archer Daniels Midland have created a market for private reports of airline safety with which they direct their employees not to use (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/grossman/2008-02-04-safe-airlines_N.htm). This is why markets are as Mock points out, also self regulating - and often, but not always even more effective and efficient than government which tends to either be slow to react or completely reactionary as the financial and health reform acts show.

    A few points here: a few anecdotes do not data make. Airline safety has improved following deregulation - and substsantially. Airline safety is already many multiples better than auto/highway safety. But bizarrely you are waving around one report as a condemnation of corporations and those who believe that regulation can often be harmful? Who is the rube here?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 10:15 PM GMT
    *giggles* OK riddler lets' start with YOU and #s 1 and 2

    exhibit A

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1360303/


    Lol, the rest of your diatribe is speculation. The intent is to show regulations are necessary and so are regulators, in the face of extremists on RJ saying do away with both altogether. Mmmmhm, melamine in the rice protein, yum yum. By bye kidneys.

    OH wait, it was your choice to eat rice protein, and you never investigated the company providing it the the protein drink maker so it's your fault and so no health care money for you.

    icon_lol.gif


    You guys are so fun!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 10:20 PM GMT
    meninlove said *giggles* OK riddler lets' start with YOU and #s 1 and 2

    exhibit A

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1360303/


    Lol, the rest of your diatribe is speculation. The intent is to show regulations are necessary and so are regulators, in the face of extremists on RJ saying do away with both altogether. Mmmmhm, melamine in the rice protein, yum yum. By bye kidneys.

    OH wait, it was your choice to eat rice protein, and you never investigated the company providing it the the protein drink maker so it's your fault and so no health care money for you.

    icon_lol.gif


    You guys are so fun!



    And bye bye company and business!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 10:20 PM GMT
    All I get is


    "sorry this video is not available in your area"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 10:41 PM GMT
    meninlove said *giggles* OK riddler lets' start with YOU and #s 1 and 2

    exhibit A

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1360303/


    Lol, the rest of your diatribe is speculation. The intent is to show regulations are necessary and so are regulators, in the face of extremists on RJ saying do away with both altogether. Mmmmhm, melamine in the rice protein, yum yum. By bye kidneys.

    OH wait, it was your choice to eat rice protein, and you never investigated the company providing it the the protein drink maker so it's your fault and so no health care money for you.

    icon_lol.gif


    You guys are so fun!



    Did you bother not to read the link Doug? I confess I wasn't expecting a reasonable response and you didn't disappoint. Naughty and silly you icon_wink.gif . Try reading sometime. To be more explicit, the corporation is a remarkable innovation that I pointed out - I don't idolize it, but it's development has spurred the development of countries and is integral to development and growth. Like I said - but for you, I'll repeat it again: not all corporations or businesses are good, but on balance they are. Do you understand the difference here?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 10:49 PM GMT
    rofl, of course I do, but can't stand the extreme rhetoric I see to often on here.

    I bring up your topic because you leapt into the fray.

    Clearly you are in violation of Mock's as-things-should-be extremism:

    ..let people get harmed first, then leave it to consumers to get outraged and bpycott etc the offending corp ( oh wait boycotting doesn;t work does it?) O.o

    -Doug
    So far with Mock, aside from the above:
    Abortions are WRONG unless they're privately paid for by the individual.

    There is no medical reason for anyone on the planet to have a sex change paid for by their healthcare plan, private or public. Oh, unless they're privately paid for by the individual.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 10:59 PM GMT
    meninlove said rofl, of course I do, but can't stand the extreme rhetoric I see to often on here.

    I bring up your topic because you leapt into the fray.

    Clearly you are in violation of Mock's as-things-should-be extremism:

    ..let people get harmed first, then leave it to consumers to get outraged and bpycott etc the offending corp ( oh wait boycotting doesn;t work does it?) O.o

    -Doug
    So far with Mock, aside from the above:
    Abortions are WRONG unless they're privately paid for by the individual.

    There is no medical reason for anyone on the planet to have a sex change paid for by their healthcare plan, private or public. Oh, unless they're privately paid for by the individual.





    I will also point out that libertarians are more than supportive of the use of torts to repair harm (though they have gotten a little out of control with jackpot justice). ie following the specific issue of airline safety if it turned out an airline had a crash because of pilot fatigue almost certainly the cost to that airline would be massive - and rightfully so.

    The liability for harming others is high - which it should be. But on the topic of melamine in rice for instance, I have to wonder - do you not kill people Doug only because there are laws that prevent you from doing so? In the similar way, the legal liability alone let alone the fact that people were executed for the melamine in milk should be a deterrent - but regulations alone don't prevent bad things from happening. Ensuring the right incentives exist however is far more effective - which is what markets do.

    Get a bad reputation? You lose business. And you don't need to lose reputation either. You can fear that you will - which already has an effect.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 11:04 PM GMT
    Tobacco companies had very good reputations that they went to great (criminal) lengths to preserve. And their business model is to create addiction of the customer.
    Who trashed their reputation?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2011 11:48 PM GMT
    Mrs. Bernadette Bentheywaithe, of the Mimico neighborhood of Toronto, has written to the Toronto Star to suggest a national law be enacted to prohibit driving any automobiles in a geographic area when the Weatheroffice has indicated icy conditions for the specific area. The Weatheroffice would be empowered to designate such areas. Mrs. Bentheywaithe explained that such a regulation is required to prevent the needless deaths that occur in icy conditions. As part of the proposed law, a fund would be established by the Federal Government to provide hotel reimbursement for drivers and passengers impacted by such emergency orders.

    As part of the Star's policy of getting diverse opinions from around Canada, we contacted Doug, who is approximately one half of the well-known, extremely ubiquitous Canadian internet handle, Meninlove. Doug enthusiastically embraced such a regulation, and proposed a new tax be established to fund the hotel reimbursement policy. Doug stated that anyone opposed to such a regulation would have to personally answer for all the traffic deaths in icy conditions. Doug went on to explain he never heard of a regulation he did not embrace or a tax he did not enthusiastically support, so his response here was consistent with his policy.

    Tomorrow the Star will solicit input from another Canadian.

    Added later after seeing the upset, hurt feelings from MIL.
    Note to Real Jockers - This is entirely fictional. Should be obvious to most people. I thought MIL would find some humor in it, but he/they did not. Apparently it came too close to representing his actual position.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2011 12:07 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidTobacco companies had very good reputations that they went to great (criminal) lengths to preserve. And their business model is to create addiction of the customer.
    Who trashed their reputation?



    As I recall the Government had a heavy hand involved in bringing out the truth about the Tobacco industry. The repubs fought and fought it, dragged their heals and yelled foul in every way they could against the Government intrusion, of course the righties like now with the big bands and other large corps, were getting huge amounts of support from the tobacco industry.

    THE CONSERVATIVES ARE ALWAYS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF PROGRESS, unless of course the progress is followed by money in their politicians pockets.



    (disclaimer, this is not to say that dems aren't bought on other fronts)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2011 12:10 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said Reality to Mock, if that had been your bf on the that plane and he died, no amount of boycotting the airline (which many conservatives think (boycotting) is a useless exercise) will bring him back.

    Love your reactionary extremist thinking, btw. Dictatorship, rofl!

    -Doug


    Stop using hurt and grief to justify these ridiculous abstract ideas you have about creating a Utopian society.

    And yes, that is exactly what you want more or less, a loving and compassionate dictator. I really hope that whoever you put in power though actually does all the wonderful things you hope they will.




    lol, you post like such a dolt at times. Bill's killing himself laughing at your dumb-ass speculation about what 'I want'.

    icon_lol.gif

    -Doug







    Are you fellers misbehaving again ??? LOL !!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2011 1:10 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidMrs. Bernadette Bentheywaithe, of the Mimico neighborhood of Toronto, has written to the Toronto Star to suggest a national law be enacted to prohibit driving any automobiles in a geographic area when the Weatheroffice has indicated icy conditions for the specific area. The Weatheroffice would be empowered to designate such areas. Mrs. Bentheywaithe explained that such a regulation is required to prevent the needless deaths that occur in icy conditions. As part of the proposed law, a fund would be established by the Federal Government to provide hotel reimbursement for drivers and passengers impacted by such emergency orders.

    As part of the Star's policy of getting diverse opinions from around Canada, we contacted Doug, who is approximately one half of the well-known Canadian internet handle, Meninlove. Doug enthusiastically embraced such a regulation, and proposed a new tax be established to fund the hotel reimbursement policy. Doug stated that anyone opposed to such a regulation would have to personally answer for all the traffic deaths in icy conditions. Doug went on to explain he never heard of a regulation he did not embrace or a tax he did not enthusiastically support, so his response here was consistent with his policy.

    Tomorrow the Star will solicit input from another Canadian.



    * a note to other realjockers, this is entirely fictitional, and something I thought Socal would be a bit above, but apparently not, so......*

    citations please Socal, a link preferable.

    Go ahead. icon_lol.gif

    Good points about the tobacco companies, Q, which are thriving in spite of Mock's theories about the market killing them bad businesses. icon_lol.gif

    But then, I heard from the tobacco industry and they tell me Socal and Mock of realjock have huge investments in cancer stick sales and would horrified at any attempt to regulate the poison. icon_lol.gif

    http://www.cigarettesreviews.com/tobacco-profits-up-despite-fewer-smokers

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2011 3:15 AM GMT
    Corporations are amoral--their sole purpose is to maximize profit. They can be a force for good (as defined by the morals of the day) or bad. They'll do anything if it is profitable, short of being found guilty in a court of law and have to pay an exorbitant fine.
    I can't wait for the day when corporations have social good coincide with their profit motive. It may be already here--when "social good" is redefined as "as little taxation as politically possible, and everyone for him/herself."