Need rebuttal: "too much faith in business"

[VoteRonPaul2008]

"The thing that bugs me about Ron Paul, actually Republicans in general is that they put too much faith in business.
No one likes regulations but the fact is there are a lot of crooks and dishonest people in business. They have no values. We need more regulation that is enforceable, not less, especially with friggin' baby boomers, the Me generation. They have no morals or values. (there are exceptions. they need to speak up more.)"


???

[bdmarti]

"More regulation" is not the answer. The assertion that it is going to help is absurd.

Two well worded laws dealing with liability and fraud is all one needs. The key is the "enforcement" of them.

If you enforce liability and fraud laws properly things are fine.

If you create 1000's of regulations that you don't enforce properly, what good are they?

More regulations will almost certainly cost more, and absent very solid evidence that they will be more effective than focusing on enforcement of existing liability and fraud laws, they should be avoided.

[iladelphxx]

There is a difference between business and monetary policy. Right now, the businesses ARE DICTATING MONETARY POLICY!!!!

The Federal Reserve is a creation of centralized banking, and only looks to serve the interests of big business by creating inflation and raising prices.

[bbachtung]

Ron Paul has always opposed corporatism. Just watch his interview with Jon Stewart in which he said that corporatism is as bad as big government.

Here are some choice quotes:



Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It’s not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military- industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!

To condemn free-market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today. We are deeply involved in an interventionist-planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political spectrums. One may condemn the fraud and the current system, but it must be called by its proper names- Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=688



This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care dating to the 1970s. These non-market institutions could have only gained control over medical care through collusion between organized medicine, politicians, and the profiteers, in an effort to provide universal health care.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=117

[beerista]

"the fact is there are a lot of crooks and dishonest people in business..."
This is quite true. There are probably nearly as many crooks in business as there are in politics. But would we really advocate handing the power of coercion to the crooks in politics to deter the powerless crooks in business? If I don't like a product offered by a company, I can go to their competitor. Not so with government.
The only time a crooked businessman has the power to back up his crookedness is when he borrows (or more usually rents) it from the government. Which brings us to...

"...No one likes regulations..."
This ain't exactly so. The surprising thing to tell your friend is that those same businessmen she so distrusts are more often than not the same ones lobbying for regulation. Monopolies, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, are frequently supported because those who can afford to comply with burdensome regulations are the ones who ask for them, thereby creating an insurmountable barrier to entry into their field. It's all very "no, don't throw me in the briar patch."

[VoteRonPaul2008]

thanks for the answers, so what does Paul exactly plan to do then, just enforce the regulations we already have or take them away?