Originally Posted by Prana25
Doesn't lack of regulation allow the few with the most power to crush out small companies before they can really get started? I personally don't see a major issue with regulation as much as the people in charge of the regulation having their hands in the profit. That's why I emphasized independent reps from each nation. It would be an open book situation for consistent checks to ensure no one company is granted special treatment. In our own government, there's so many officials in bed with special interest groups, what's best for the American people is secondary to their own bank accounts. (For the record, both sides are just as guilty - I hold no loyalty to any party).
So, wouldn't lack of regulation allow any country to open a production facility wherever they want, exploit the people and crush out any smaller companies? I know I seem to contradict my original view, but again, I'm just trying to understand where the balance should be.
Some time ago, I remember the concept that was brought up in "A Beautiful Mind". I don't claim to be slightly intelligent about economics, but I remember the idea of what was referred to as Governing Dynamics (which may have been misstated. It was, after all, a movie). Either way, it was the idea that everyone can win when we look out for the best interests of the individual along with the group. If there's any validity to that, could it just be that we've never quite moved away from thinking only of the individual?
I don't mean to come across as overly idealistic. I just think it coincides with the problem that, as a society, we've become so focused on immediate gains, that we'll end up suffering in the long term as a whole. Our momentary greed will cost us our long-term global stability. As it was once said:
The ego is not the self. The ego is a nexus of strategies for short-term
gain at the expense of group values and even long-term personal gain.
Again, I really appreciate your views and insights on this. As much as I may not agree with every point youâ€™re making, examination and careful consideration of all sides is how I usually come to my conclusions on any given subject.
If your first question above is in relation to nations, then the choice of being regulated falls entirely on the decision of the larger power. For example, let's say that some trade cartel decides that Dell is unfairly selling computers of immense capability at a price that undercuts competitors because Dell is willing to sell at a loss to gain worldwide market dominance. So everybody meets in say, Strasbourg and has a show of hands and tells the USA that if the USA doesn't reign-in Dell that the cartel will enact sanctions against the USA.
Now the USA has a choice. It can go along with the decision in the interest of international comity or it can tell the cartel to get stuffed and buy their wheat somewhere else other than the USA while their people starve or they can leave Dell alone. Or something like that.
Or say that the cartel goes after Saudi Arabia for fixing the world price of oil above it's market price by intentionally not pumping at capacity. The Saudi princes are going to a) apologize and accede to the cartel or b) tell the cartel to buy the oil somewhere else if they don't like it.
the point is that for trade sanctions to work the country with the power to deny the cartel must be willing to abide by the cartel because there is NOTHING that the cartel can do to force another country to comply.
Unless the cartel has some sort of military force to back-up it's rulings.
Concerning "independent reps." Independent reps are beholden to no democratic process. Do you really want some unelected satrap, who owes NOTHING to any electorate, to have control of any portion of your life? I don't. I'd rather have 535 semi-crooked elected reps than one honest leader beholden to no electorate for his job. At least the 545 would be fighting and squabbling with each other. If they are all filled with avarice and mistrust, teh chances are that they'll sell-out one of their own that gets too powerful. An unelected person in power has nobody to answer to.