CPAPtalk.com

So why don't you start one?

ChicagoGranny wrote:

But you can't pick and choose what you like in the Constitution, and ignore the rest.

But you keep voting for Republicans and Democrats who ignore Article 1, Section 8 and act as if the Commerce Clause gives them power to write any legislation covering any point.

Mob rule.

Since the overwhelming majority of today's senators and house members are owned lock, stock and barrel by commercial interests, I see an inherent contradiction in your conclusion that they are engaging in too much regulation of commerce. To the contrary, they have been systemically destroying sound regulations which had formerly been in place for years to protect the public from unscrupulous commercial and banking practices.

Take a moment, if you will, to listen to Elizabeth Warren's history lesson on:

http://www.upworthy.com/cnbc-hosts-deci ... -done-that

Regards, Nate

Julie wrote:So why don't you start one?

MInd if I start one, Julie and Stormynights?

Just did.

NateS wrote:
Since the overwhelming majority of today's senators and house members are owned lock, stock and barrel by commercial interests, I see an inherent contradiction in your conclusion that they are engaging in too much regulation of commerce. To the contrary, they have been systemically destroying sound regulations which had formerly been in place for years to protect the public from unscrupulous commercial and banking practices.

Take a moment, if you will, to listen to Elizabeth Warren's history lesson on:

http://www.upworthy.com/cnbc-hosts-deci ... -done-that

Regards, Nate

You are only talking about Glass-Steagal. I thought everyone had seen Warren's interview? She is very convincing.

I know little about banking and won't comment. We do our business banking with a one-location small bank that avoids the messes going on with the big boys. You might be surprised at how efficient our small bank is with our international business.

My husband and I own a small custom manufacturer. Small business (< 500 employees) account for a little more than half of the workforce. And they do a better job of hiring minorities, women and disadvantaged workers.

Commercial interests cannot buy legislators unless you elect legislators who are willing to be bought. And you are doing that at a high rate.

Now back to those small businesses. We are unable to protect ourselves from your regulators. We don't have the funds to buy them. Even in our small business we had to hire a regulatory specialist to keep up with everything coming at us. Soon we will have to hire an admin asst to help her. This is despite a contract with a company who keeps us abreast with new regulations in our industry.

Get out and talk to some small businessmen. Subscribe to the Federal Register for a year. We are being driven out of business by regulation. It is a key reason production of so many items has been moved offshore.

NateS wrote:
Since the overwhelming majority of today's senators and house members are owned lock, stock and barrel by commercial interests, I see an inherent contradiction in your conclusion that they are engaging in too much regulation of commerce. To the contrary, they have been systemically destroying sound regulations which had formerly been in place for years to protect the public from unscrupulous commercial and banking practices.

Regards, Nate

I was just in a focus group today about a proposal that will be voted on this November. We were not told who proposed it, but some of us suspected, and it was conformed by my dad. The proposal is for the CITY of Seatac (WA) to raise the minimum wage from $9.19 to $15 for employees of CERTAIN job in hospitality and something (forgot the wording) and then later it mentioned "specified employees". The actual proposal, as written for the ballot, is very vague and doesn't explain it.

What we learned is that the larger businesses would be required to pay the higher wages, except for unionized businesses. They would be exempt. The whole idea is nice, to give people better wages, but it didn't make sense to require some businesses to do it and not others. So, a hotel with 100 rooms has to pay $15 an hour for maid service, but a hotel on the same black with 80 rooms can pay $9.19. In different ways both businesses would suffer. One has to pay more and raise rates and possibly lose business. The other will have a hard time getting and keeping employees unless they also raise wages, which they may not be able to afford. Also, why should one hotel have to pay $4 more per hour than the hotel one block over in a different city. Seatac is not a normal city. There is no downtown Seatac. Even those of us who have lived her longer than it is been a city (used to be unincorporated King County) think of it as the area around the airport. Legally a city, but not like a city. Most of us go elsewhere to shop since there are office stores, pet stores, department stores, etc 15 minutes away if you go north, south, west, or east. But not much of that in the city limits of Seatac. And none of us really know what the city limits are anyway as it is a really peculiar shape. I live at the southern tip. Less than a half mile west, and it is Des Moines. Less than half a mile east or south, and it is Kent.

Anyway, if this passes, the city of Seatac would have monitor this process, respond to complaints, investigate, etc. And that would come from local tax money. While most of the employees live outside of Seatac. As a focus group, none of us could see who truly benefits without knowing who proposed the idea. It did not seem to benefit very many people in Seatac. We do we need to waste city tax money to regulate how much money a hotel or restaurant pays its employees? We already have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum. The more laws we have, the more time and money goes into enforcing them.

ChicagoGranny wrote:

NateS wrote:
Since the overwhelming majority of today's senators and house members are owned lock, stock and barrel by commercial interests, I see an inherent contradiction in your conclusion that they are engaging in too much regulation of commerce. To the contrary, they have been systemically destroying sound regulations which had formerly been in place for years to protect the public from unscrupulous commercial and banking practices.

Take a moment, if you will, to listen to Elizabeth Warren's history lesson on:

http://www.upworthy.com/cnbc-hosts-deci ... -done-that

Regards, Nate

You are only talking about Glass-Steagal. I thought everyone had seen Warren's interview? She is very convincing.

I know little about banking and won't comment. We do our business banking with a one-location small bank that avoids the messes going on with the big boys. You might be surprised at how efficient our small bank is with our international business.

My husband and I own a small custom manufacturer. Small business (< 500 employees) account for a little more than half of the workforce. And they do a better job of hiring minorities, women and disadvantaged workers.

Commercial interests cannot buy legislators unless you elect legislators who are willing to be bought. And you are doing that at a high rate.

Who is this "you" - whom are you addressing? There are no incorruptible politicians. Our system is broken.

Now back to those small businesses. We are unable to protect ourselves from your regulators. We don't have the funds to buy them. Even in our small business we had to hire a regulatory specialist to keep up with everything coming at us. Soon we will have to hire an admin asst to help her. This is despite a contract with a company who keeps us abreast with new regulations in our industry.

Get out and talk to some small businessmen. Subscribe to the Federal Register for a year. We are being driven out of business by regulation. It is a key reason production of so many items has been moved offshore.

You have a very legitimate complaint. There is no one looking out for small businesses. For too many years, small business owners believed the chant that politicians owned by big business were "looking out for small business people" - it is a myth. To big business, little businesses are nothing more than little fish to be swallowed up or driven out of business. While big business is opposed to their own regulation, they don't care how much small businesses are (over)-regulated.

Nate

The whole idea is nice, to give people better wages,

Only Republicans & Democrats think minimum wages are "nice".

Clear thinking people, without intentions to favor one group over another, know that the market should set the labor prices. Minimum wages cause job loss, loss of worker skills and other market distortions that cause our populace difficulty in life.

ChicagoGranny wrote:

The whole idea is nice, to give people better wages,

Only Republicans & Democrats think minimum wages are "nice".

Clear thinking people, without intentions to favor one group over another, know that the market should set the labor prices. Minimum wages cause job loss, loss of worker skills and other market distortions that cause our populace difficulty in life.

The workers also think a living wage is nice, but those are just people and they don't count in your world.

BlackSpinner wrote:

ChicagoGranny wrote:The question is why does one person or one group of people or a majority of people think they have the right to tell other people what choices to make.

A secondary question is who is wise enough to be granted the power to decide what other people should do.

No the question is whether you want to be conned into buying cheap and shoddy goods for a high price that have not met any real standards of quality. Will you need a phd in medical technology before you can safely and confidently buy medical equipment?

YOU CAN NOT MAKE A "GOOD CHOICE" IF DON'T HAVE ANY GUIDES TO MAKE ONE!

Even though I lean strongly libertarian, BlackSpinner hits upon what I consider to be a proper function of government. If you leave people to make their own decisions and either reap the rewards or suffer the consequences, people need reliable information to base their decisions on. I don't think that is practical in a world where anyone can put antifreeze in a bottle and claim it is for use as a cough suppressant.... then when someone dies just shrug their shoulders and say, "well, I guess you should have checked the efficacy as a cough suppressant and the safety of the ingredients yourself." In that world we would spend all our time fact checking.

Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to sell antifreeze in a bottle... just that if you claim it is effective and safe for a particular purpose then you had better have the data to substantiate the truth of that claim. This is particularly important in the safety and efficacy realm. In the case of cheap and shoddy goods, goods that were so shoddy they didn't deliver the claimed treatment should legitimately be prohibited. If they are just cheaply made, I'm sure a company like consumer reports would be all over testing the accuracy, value, and reliability of OTC DME.

djhall wrote:

BlackSpinner wrote:

ChicagoGranny wrote:The question is why does one person or one group of people or a majority of people think they have the right to tell other people what choices to make.

A secondary question is who is wise enough to be granted the power to decide what other people should do.

No the question is whether you want to be conned into buying cheap and shoddy goods for a high price that have not met any real standards of quality. Will you need a phd in medical technology before you can safely and confidently buy medical equipment?

YOU CAN NOT MAKE A "GOOD CHOICE" IF DON'T HAVE ANY GUIDES TO MAKE ONE!

Even though I lean strongly libertarian, BlackSpinner hits upon what I consider to be a proper function of government. If you leave people to make their own decisions and either reap the rewards or suffer the consequences, people need reliable information to base their decisions on. I don't think that is practical in a world where anyone can put antifreeze in a bottle and claim it is for use as a cough suppressant.... then when someone dies just shrug their shoulders and say, "well, I guess you should have checked the efficacy as a cough suppressant and the safety of the ingredients yourself." In that world we would spend all our time fact checking.

Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to sell antifreeze in a bottle... just that if you claim it is effective and safe for a particular purpose then you had better have the data to substantiate the truth of that claim. This is particularly important in the safety and efficacy realm. In the case of cheap and shoddy goods, goods that were so shoddy they didn't deliver the claimed treatment should legitimately be prohibited. If they are just cheaply made, I'm sure a company like consumer reports would be all over testing the accuracy, value, and reliability of OTC DME.

I agree. What ChiGranny is advocating is NOT "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but Laissez-faire, one of the most immoral economic theories ever formulated. The founding fathers were absolutely opposed to Laissez-faire:

Frank Bourgin's dissertation on the Constitutional Convention and subsequent decades argues that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.[31] The reason for this was the economic and financial chaos the nation suffered under the Articles of Confederation. The goal was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny. Others view Bourgin's study, written in the 1940s and not published until 1989, as an over-interpretation of the evidence, intended originally to defend the New Deal and later to counter Reagan's economic policies.

In his 1973 study of the economic principles established at the foundation of the United States, E.A.J. Johnson wrote:

The general view, discernible in contemporaneous literature, was that the responsibility of government should involve enough surveillance over the enterprise system to ensure the social usefulness of all economic activity. It is quite proper, said Bordley, for individuals to "choose for themselves" how they will apply their labor and their intelligence in production. But it does not follow from this that "legislators and men of influence" are freed from all responsibility for giving direction to the course of national economic development. They must, for instance, discountenance the production of unnecessary commodities of luxury when common sense indicates the need for food and other essentials. Lawmakers can fulfill their functions properly only when they "become benefactors to the public"; in new countries they must safeguard agriculture and commerce, encourage immigration, and promote manufactures. Admittedly, liberty "is one of the most important blessings which men possess," but the idea that liberty is synonymous with complete freedom from restraint "is a most unwise, mistaken apprehension." True liberty demands a system of legislation that will lead all members of society "to unite their exertions" for the public welfare. It should therefore be the policy of government to aid and foster certain activities or kinds of business that strengthen a nation, even as it should be the duty of government to repress "those fashions, habits, and practices, which tend to weaken, impoverish, and corrupt the people."

As were many noted economists:

The British economist John Maynard Keynes condemned laissez-faire economic policy on several occasions.[39] In The End of Laissez-faire (1926), one of the most famous of his critiques, Keynes argues that the doctrines of laissez-faire are dependent to some extent on improper deductive reasoning, and, Keynes says, the question of whether a market solution or state intervention is better must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Laissez-faire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

Respectfully, Nate

djhall wrote: I don't think that is practical in a world where anyone can put antifreeze in a bottle and claim it is for use as a cough suppressant.... then when someone dies just shrug their shoulders and say, "well, I guess you should have checked the efficacy as a cough suppressant and the safety of the ingredients yourself." In that world we would spend all our time fact checking.

Which world are you from? All fifty states of the U.S. have "fit for purpose" laws and there are cases in court every day prosecuting violators - both civil and criminal cases. What are you asking for? Another redundant law?

Why make up a silly strawman argument (antifreeze for cough suppressant) and then argue against it? You discredit any further comments you make.

BlackSpinner wrote:
The workers also think a living wage is nice, but those are just people and they don't count in your world.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? In the U.S. around 5% of all workers work for minimum wage. Employers voluntarily pay 95% of workers more than minimum wage. Markets make this possible - not government bureaucracies and government-set wages. Government drags down the earnings of all, including the low income. Markets build it up.

And BTW, of the 5% making minimum wage, about half of them live in households where the household income is over $50,000. These are students working in malls and grocery stores and retired ladies working part time in my friend's consignment dress shop in order to make a little extra spending money and get out of the house a few hours per week. They already have a "living income" and are not looking for a "living wage". So don't paint the picture that minimum wage workers are poor people with malnutrition. They are not.

Those workers "count in my world". They "don't count in your world" since you don't have any idea who they are. You only cling to a concept. Touch some real flesh and blood someday. Talk to a teenager in an intercity (like Chicago) with no job skills and no experience who cannot get a chance because of the minimum wage laws.

NateS wrote:
As were many noted economists:

The British economist John Maynard Keynes condemned laissez-faire economic policy on several occasions.[39] In The End of Laissez-faire (1926), one of the most famous of his critiques, Keynes argues that the doctrines of laissez-faire are dependent to some extent on improper deductive reasoning, and, Keynes says, the question of whether a market solution or state intervention is better must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Laissez-faire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

Respectfully, Nate

Interesting that you should quote highly discredited public figures especially that scumbag Keynes.

Go read von Mises and other Austrian economists for six weeks and then come back and we can have a discussion.




ChicagoGranny and ChicagoGramps

Speaking of "highly discredited" . . .

I hear that one day you will be able to purchase one of Ro(o)ster's fake personalities at Walmart.

ChicagoGranny wrote:
Interesting that you should quote highly discredited public figures especially that scumbag Keynes.

Only in your mind are all these people and others, including the founding fathers and most highly respected economists, "highly discredited public figures"

Go read von Mises and other Austrian economists for six weeks and then come back and we can have a discussion.

You think I'll find them more credible if I read them again as an assignment?
I'll pass on your further discussion invitation, thank you.

We are ships passing in the dark of night.

Regards, Nate

ChicagoGranny wrote:
Interesting that you should quote highly discredited public figures especially that scumbag Keynes.

Go read von Mises and other Austrian economists for six weeks and then come back and we can have a discussion.

Are these those people who couldn't figure out how to use a spread sheet?