The Glade 4.0

Are you saying this is the law now? Or what you think it should be?

It seems to me like if the "Government (tm)" wants to set the terms for a bailout in advance of the deal being made, and the company agrees to be bailed out under those terms, then so-be-it. But should they be allowed to change the conditions after the fact? What are the laws regarding bailouts and the responsibilities of the companies being bailed out? Are there any? Or are they just makin' **** up as they go along?

"I have altered the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further!”

/sagenod

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

The Constitution doesn't really authorize public ownership of corporations, either.

Hey ... maybe you're on to something here? Maybe the current President should be impeached for violating his Oath of Office? You know, the one he's **** shattered against the wall of ideology?

_________________

Nor does it establish corporations as individual citizens.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

That doesn't really matter, as corporations are run by the laws of the state they're incorporated in and under a strict literal interpretation of the Constitution, the states can do pretty much anything they want.

I'm sure there's some interpretation of the Commerce Clause that lets the federal government do what they do.

There's a point at which federal power becomes too strong but in the 21st century if the Constitution was interpreted literally the federal government would be far too weak. We wouldn't be a country, we'd be 50 seperate countries that chip in on a common military. Regulation of anything would be impossible. The federal government wouldn't have the power, and every corporation would simply move to the state with the least regulation and sell their products to the others as the privileges and immunities clause would prevent the other states from discriminating against them.

And?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

/thread

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

And? Without regulation on employers, your entire value as a person would be defined pretty much entirely by how much you can produce. Every state would probably have its own currency, and due to how the free market functions the currency of the state with the least regulations and most corporations would be worth the most. Welfare and health standards wouldn't exist, as implementing them would make business run like hell to other states and destroy your economy and currency.

Human life would have no value. Unskilled laborers wouldn't even get basic safety standards, as preserving their lives isn't cost effective. They're a dime a dozen, if they die, just grab the next guy down the line. The next tier of workers could look forward to 80-hour weeks just to remain employed. The whole thing would be cutthroat in the extreme, the required work ethic/work hours for most people would make Japan look tame in this regard, because if you're not willing to step up and work 12 hours a day, you'll get replaced by someone who is. Only the wealthiest and most skilled could have any quality of life, as they would actually have the ability to negotiate shorter hours with their employers.

Constitution reserves the production of currency for the Federal Government.

_________________

I could have sworn reading about the US having state-specific or at least regional currencies in the 1800s that were not legal tender in the rest of the country.

And if some states dropped welfare and health standards (or some implemented them, and others didn't), the companies would *want* to run to the ones that didn't, but the employees would want to run to the ones that did. There would be a balance struck. The states would have differing levels of regulation, to be sure, and individual companies and potential employees would weigh their location's regulation vs. the ease of connecting employer with labor (and vice versa) in that location. Some companies would be okay with heavier regulation, and would hire the presumably more plentiful individuals who demanded it (and thus sought out regulated locales), others would shun regulation, and pay a premium for the scarcer market of labor willing to accept the risk in exchange for a higher value of their employment.

So, even to those points, I reiterate.. And?

Also, ninja-edit: I believe you're thinking pre-Constitution, Xeq. There were a handful of years in there post Revolution and pre-Constitution, when we'd signed the Articles of Confederation, but hadn't laid out the final groundwork for dividing Federal and State responsibilities. Those handful of years in which there were multiple currencies are what prompted the concession that currency should be issued at the Federal level only. If you want to look a bit closer, I did a quick Wiki to find a starting point.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

So what you're saying Xeq is that until government mandated that people do not discriminate - no one's lives had any value because it is your employer who tells you how valuable you are in all possible contexts?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I can see where you're going with health/safety standards, which would only be excluded to the lowest class of workers? But welfare? You can't do welfare when you have totally free trade and freedom of movement. The states without welfare would simply dump their entire welfare population on the states that do have it and make THEM pay for it. Hell, the state government would probably pay them to leave to lower crime rates and such. I'm not sure how you'd ever get around this, Article Four would prevent the welfare states from excluding or discriminating against the impoverished that all run to or get dumped on them.

You can look at the EU to see what happens when you implement free trade and freedom of movement amongst uneven economies. This is despite the fact that the European Comission and European Council have far more power than this theoretical American federal government. Without trade and movement barriers, the capitalist countries feed off the socialist ones. The best example I can think of was when the recession really hit in 2008. The German government was initially opposed to doing any kind of bailout. (Not that I'm saying Germany is by any means highly capitalist, but in this example they definitely take that role.) The theory was that if they didn't do a bailout, Germans would not have extra money, so prices in Germany would remain low. But every other government would do one, so prices in those countries would rise. The result would be everyone spending their bailout money in Germany due to the lower prices, allowing Germany to "bailout" itself with everyone else's money without spending a dime. This would dilute the effort in every other country, so they pretty much had to be kicked and shamed into line on this issue.

Actually, the socialist countries in the European Union feed on the pseudo-capitalist states. People who can cross borders to do shopping and banking tend to do so, because the can dodge VATs and deposit taxes. They also find themselves spending less on staple goods and luxury purchases.

_________________

The solution is simple, Xequecal. Don't implement welfare. OR, implement only as much welfare as the populace feels comfortable subsidizing to ensure their own security, knowing that it will attract leeches.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

You need look no further than some portions of the northeastern US to find similiar tendencies.

According to this site, the United States didn't consolidate currency until 1910 1866.

Notably:


edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Banking_Act

_________________

Isn't that exactly what we're doing?

While I get that folks here rail about welfare all the time, there are plenty of the populace that feel that it's not too bad as it is right now. Or only needs minor reforms, not some major overhaul.

You mean the people who've never seen an inner city slum?

_________________

We're doing it on a national level, I suppose. However, there are regional differences in attitude and preference (look to States that supplement the Federal welfare, to see where these are) that contribute to the conflict around welfare. Also, the, for lack of a better term, momentum of our welfare system tends to stifle restructuring attempts and such, which would benefit from having different levels where there's some competition between varying levels.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

You guys are trying to convince me that welfare as we do it today is wrong. That's not my point, or what Kaffis was advocating.

My point is, that we already do what Kaffis is advocating. And as he pointed out, not only on the national level, but also on the state level, where states that feel that the national levels aren't adequate they supply additional assistance.

All handled through the normal democratic process, etc.

You guys are just grumpy because you don't agree with what the majority of the population does. Or alternately, with what the majority of the population doesn't really have a strong opinion on.

Actually, I'm grumpy because places like California and Massachusetts like to create floors below which States can't undercut. You can pass laws supplementing (or implementing, in the absence of) welfare at the Federal level, you can't pass laws reducing the Federal level within a State.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
What kind of logic is this? The majority of the population has no mechanism to register an opinion on a matter, therefor they support it? Really? Ignorance, apathy, and a complete lack of the ability to affect change in the system are now assent?

_________________

Just because you believe that no one has the ability to affect their elected officials and that their vote doesn't count anymore, doesn't mean that everyone else agrees with you Khross.