Elizabeth Warren Why did you lie (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 05, 2024, 02:28:08 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  Elizabeth Warren Why did you lie (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Elizabeth Warren Why did you lie  (Read 973 times)
💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)
peenie_weenie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,538
United States


« on: February 18, 2019, 05:15:45 AM »

The DNA test is a great idiot test - if you care about this test then you are likely an idiot.

I was there. LOL. It’s a shame. She has the best economic platform of the people running and she speaks about race in a nuanced way that Bernie has failed to.

Yeah. The most-regulated sector of the economy definitely needs more regulations.

Yes? Is this post sarcastic?

Also not sure if you're talking about Finance a la stock trading on Wall Street or how corporations are structured more generally but Warren's regulatory plans go far beyond simply breaking up big banks.
Logged
💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)
peenie_weenie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,538
United States


« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2019, 06:23:31 AM »

I don't care about the test, but here's what gets me: After she took the test and realized she was only 1/2048th Native American (or something), why did she even release the results? Honest question here; if anyone knows the answer, please tell me.

Who cares?

And yeah, it's sarcastic. Most regulations discourage startups, discourage innovation, and allow industry insiders to regulate their own companies.

I have a hard time believing the blanket claim that regulations discourage startups or innovation. First, the majority of realized regulations will have little-to-no effect on the value of an innovation - e.g., clean water standards don't discourage innovation. In fact, regulations can encourage innovation with positive externalities, e.g., by encouraging development of better filters or retention systems in the clean water example. The final point is a failure of policy implementation or enforcement, not something inherent to regulation itself.

It becomes impossible for smaller companies to comply with all the bureaucratic red tape, and so they end up being subsumed into larger conglomerates.

Not necessarily true, and when true, often a failure of policy design. For example, these issues can be avoided by having a gradation of regulatory strength that varies by the size of the company like a marginal income tax.

This is how the biggest banks have managed to gobble up all of their competition in the past two decades.

Well, for the majority of the last two decades the banks have barely been regulated at all (and Dodd-Frank could have been much more strict than it actually was). Also a lot of this concentration can be attributed to the Financial Crisis, where many small banks folded but larger banks survived (in fact, were rescued by the government). So, this is not a good example.

I'm sure Warren thinks she's doing the right thing, but I have no faith in the government's ability to put an end to crony capitalism. Monopolies are almost always created through government intervention in the markets.

That's a personal belief which I will acknowledge I will be unable to dissuade you of.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 11 queries.