Will using tariffs against China give us leverage in negotiations?

Author: bmdrocks21

Posts

Total: 77
#61
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,927
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
No we don't lol. Like I said there's zero reason to have partisan politicians locking crony arms with these huge corporations when there exists in America one tort lawyer per 100 citizens. There is no chance for the government to compete with that amount of people to regulate bad behavior. In almost every actual USEFUL government regulation, it's ONLY after some tort lawyer has already fleeced and bankrupted some company into the ground, because there's no other possible way for the government to know what the hell is actually going on. The government just doesn't have the manpower, the expertise, or the incentive to be good at it.

Why would you want to apologize for crony partnership with the government?
#62
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Your preferred method requires that people take time out of their own lives to constantly watch and make sure companies are behaving. This sounds incredibly strange to me. There is absolutely no chance that greenpeace, or any combination of groups could do this effectively.

Alot of dumping is done in places where people can't see. For example a poorly constructed tailing pond on private property. No one without a government mandate would be able to get in to see it. If it is leaking into the water supply and there is no government agency to enforce rules on them it could potentially take years for people to figure out on their own who is doing that. By that point huge amounts of damage could be done. Large numbers of lives could be lost. 

Another example would an issue that is complicated. most of the time it isn't as clear cut as a man in a black cape dumping a barrel with a skull and crossbones into a river. Alot of the time it is the release of a chemical most people haven't heard of. If people don't really understand what has happened or why it is bad then there cannot be a public outcry to force the company to change their behavior. You need experts to investigate. You know who has the money to hire experts to investigate, the government. 
Topic's author
#63
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
It is their job to watch people, not just a hobby. I believe that if we use government regulation, that often leads to crony capitalism as Mr. Parrot says. Either big companies support regulations that crowd out smaller companies through large barriers to entry/compliance costs, or they get ex-ante regulation, which doesn't apply to established companies at all- it applies to new companies only. So, the difference is that these watchdog groups would cause companies to fail from their carelessness. They don't have the power to pass laws that help special interests.

If it is on private property, it wouldn't be a problem. If it leached into some water supplies, that would be a problem. Forcing companies to report where they dump waste would probably prevent such carelessness. 

The EPA has continuously proven itself incompetent. They caused a huge release of toxic wastewater in Colorado just a few years back. The government is incompetent, and I would prefer not allowing an inflated, slow and expensive bureaucracy to regulate everything.

#64
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,927
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
The EPA says the Federal Tort Claims Act prevents the agency from paying claims the result from "discretionary” government actions. 
This is why we have tort lawyers, to prevent groups from fucking the public, but the government is immune.

#65
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Tort law is in no way a substitute for proper regulation. For example: A company has a tailing pond on private property that leaches toxins into the water. People nearby get sick. Maybe the people can't figure out that the tailing pond is responsible. Even if they do figure it out, they then need to go to court to prove that the tailing pond made them sick. The company says, "well maybe smoking made you sick, or drinking" or any other number of excuses they can come up with.

At that point the onus is on sick people to prove the company hurt them. There is a good chance that a company with a huge legal team can squirm their way out of it. Even if they are found guilty, it could take years for any lawsuits to go through. The company can continue poisoning people the whole time. By the time there are any consequences to their actions much more harm will be done. 

A government can look at this and say, poisoning the water is illegal. They don't need to prove that poison is directly responsible for harming people in order to act. There are simply too many ways for big companies with big legal teams to get away with things. If not properly sealing the tailing pond is illegal, then it is alot easier to make sure the company doesn't poison anyone. The government is able to make sure there are rules in place to prevent the poisoning before it happens, making it much less likely to occur. And if it does occur, they have the power to step in and force the company to comply in a way that tort law never can. They can also act alot faster than the courts. 
#66
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,927
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
They don't need to prove that poison is directly responsible for harming people in order to act. 
This is the problem though.

Government is incompetent and inefficient. It puts regulations on stuff that isn't proven to be bad just cause feelings and then it fails to regulate actual grievances.

Government isn't qualified to know what's best for the public. Government is largely a bunch of entertainers pandering for votes, they don't know a damn thing about rectifying grievances as tort lawyers can.
#67
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
You seem to misunderstand several things there. 

Government isn't qualified to know what's best for the public.
I don't pretend they always know what is best for the public. But they have a priority to do what is best for their constituents. Companies have no such priority. if they could make more money by killing millions of people they would do it. They absolutely, 100%, do not care what's best for the public. Even with regulations, they are killing people. Look at the tobacco lobby. They spent years covering up studies that showed their products were killing people so they could make profits while running ads telling people it was good for your health. They lied to their customers to sell them products that would kill them. They will do whatever it takes to make money. Potential Lawsuits were not enough to prevent them killing millions of people. Regulations could have.

Government is largely a bunch of entertainers pandering for votes
elected politicians are, yes. But that is not who makes most of the regulations. Government is full of career officials who are trained in their fields. They recommend what the regulations should be. The departments then implement those regulations. The "entertainers" are only involved if it requires changes to the law to implement. We don't need elected politicians to be experts, we hire the experts to work in the various departments. 
Topic's author
#68
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, what is the point of having regulators that can't be held accountable? 

+1
#69
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yeah, what is the point of having regulators that can't be held accountable? 
They are accountable, to the politicians. The executive and legislative branches have oversight over the regulators. If the regulators are acting is a way that is unjust then the executive have the power to remove those regulations, or the regulators. And then those executives are, in turn, accountable to the people. 

This way everyone is accountable to a higher power to keep them in check. Your way, the companies are accountable to no one. They essentially are the highest power. They can sometimes get a slap on the wrist from the courts, but no one has the power to stop them doing whatever they want. And since it is well established that they would kill you to make a buck, that is obviously not something anyone should want. 
Topic's author
#70
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't know. That is a second-hand accountability. We didn't vote for them, yet they have just as much power over our lives as the people we did vote for. If a private company inspection company not affiliated with the government screwed it up, there would be hell to pay. A company like that wouldn't exist any longer. However, the government can screw it up, then make rules as to how much they have to give out. It forces a monopoly on that market, so obviously bad prices and bad quality are expected. How does that work?

#71
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
We didn't vote for them, yet they have just as much power over our lives as the people we did vote for.
That is unavoidable. There will always be people you didn't have any hand in picking that have power over you. A police chief has a fair bit of leeway in deciding what the priorities are for enforcement. You don't typically have any say in who that is. They usually answer to a mayor. Judges have alot of power over you as well (which in your version they would be the only oversight for companies) but you don't typically have any say in their selection either. But leaving companies as the highest authority is just leaving that power in the hands of someone with no oversight at all. They can do whatever they want if there is no government oversight. I will take 2nd hand accountability over no accountability at all. 

However, the government can screw it up, then make rules as to how much they have to give out.
And if the people aren't ok with that then they will be removed. This gives them a motivation to do what is best for the people. As opposed to companies that will only do what is best for themselves.

It forces a monopoly on that market, so obviously bad prices and bad quality are expected.
How do regulations force a monopoly? Regulations are rules that all companies have to abide by. It doesn't limit the ability of other companies to operate and compete. And if other companies aren't able to compete while following the regulations, then they shouldn't exist. Why would we want a company to exist if their profit margin relies on them poisoning us?
#72
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,927
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21



#73
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
What are these links you provided supposed to be telling us. if you don't tell us what point you are making then they aren't helpful. 
#74
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,927
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
He can think for himself. I don't have to spoonfeed a particular narrative.
#75
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
He can think for himself. I don't have to spoonfeed a particular narrative.
That isn't a way to have a discussion. Providing sources with no argument or narrative is useless. You and I can both read those articles and come away with different points. If you don't tell people what your point is then there is nothing to discuss. 
Topic's author
#76
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
I will say that I am also a little apprehensive about lawyers. There are negatives to every way of stopping big companies from harming us, obviously.

However, lawyers have an incentive of going too far with "regulating" because that is how they make money. They sue companies that don't really deserve it.

I watch John Stossel, and he made a short video on the matter: https://youtu.be/gTQtVsggZXY

However, if we could change how liability works a little bit, I think I could be down with your idea.
#77
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,927
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't really mind that a few good companies go under as long as the majority of bad companies are regulated.