On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:07 AM, G Money <gm0n3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I say "Fiscal policies should be tailored with the interests of businesses > in mind" and you turn that into "completely de-regulate the markets on the > whim of businesses". > > It's a misleading question that bears no resemblance to the remark upon > which it is based. I mean...come on, let's do better than that.
I think that the problem there is that you don't mention any counter-balancing interests. When you say "tailored with the interests of business" and don't mention any other interests people can assume that you mean no regulation because that would be what a lot of business interests want. Of course the opposite problem happens a lot too, where people will say "we need to regulate big business better" and people immediately jump to the conclusion that you don't care about private industry and are trying to use government as a tool to totally regulate the economy in favor of government power (see RoMunn's comments on Obama). I'd say that most people come down in between the two. There needs to be a balance between freedom for private industry to develop, innovate and compete and the need to have curbs on business activity that protects the public welfare. The tough problem is figuring out that balance and then distilling it down to functional laws and institutions. No mean feat. Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:327989 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
