Government, rich people, little people, and business

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

Oil companies can build refineries and improve the ones they already own IF THEY FOLLOW REGULATIONS.

But the oil companies don't want to do that, do they?

They'd rather piss and moan about government regulations holding them down and trust the public to be ignorant enough to buy that argument, even when the oil companies are pulling down record profits.

Looks like it's working quite well for them, doesn't it?

And the have deemed that the regulations reduce their profits too much. This is their decision to make, no one elses. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their investors to make a profit.

I believe businesses of all types are over regulated. Some regulation, is of course, required. However, most of it gets ridiculous.

As an example, since the Enron scandal and others, I now spend between 40-50% of my time estimating how long a certain project will take, documenting actual time, filling out forms, blah, blah, blah. I have had program changes requested of my by users (I program accounting software for a defense contractor) that are simple and would literally take 15 minutes to do. However, the bureaucracy involved of estimation and tracking and filling out of forms turns this 15 minute task into about a 4 hour one. Simply insane.

Show me collusion or price fixing between the oil companies, or some illegal activity, and then we can take action on that. A private company making a profit is not illegal in the least.

And Alex, I know that eminent domain has always existed. I simply doubt it was ever intended to allow private property to be confiscated for uses such as a ballpark. Perhaps the property should be condemned, I don't know. I will admit to being hyper sensitive to eminent domain issues, but rightly so because of a recent ruling.

I fear the government much more than I fear private enterprise.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I fear the government much more than I fear private enterprise.

I fear/trust them both in about equal amounts...but the fear part seems to be the one that gets multiplied when they start working together.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

And Alex, I know that eminent domain has always existed. I simply doubt it was ever intended to allow private property to be confiscated for uses such as a ballpark. Perhaps the property should be condemned, I don't know. I will admit to being hyper sensitive to eminent domain issues, but rightly so because of a recent ruling.

If use for publicly owned ballparks bothers you, then you'll really want to keep an eye on Oakland. The new owner of the Oakland Athletics is dedicated to keeping the team in Oakland (there have been years of talk of moving elsewhere in Alameda County or even the Bay Area). He is even willing to forego public financing of the stadium and pay for it himself (as was done in San Francisco for SBC Park) but he wants the cities help in acquiring the necessary land (in a thoroughly blighted part of Oakland). If negotiations fail I expect to see an attempt at an eminent domain seizure for the purposes of building a <i>privately</i> owned stadium (though surrounded by other city-sponsored redevelopment).

Condemnation wouldn't directly result in a transfer of ownership in the property (though it might make the owners more eager to sell). It is a tough issue. I'm pretty strong on private property rights, but there are social responsibilities and unfortunately minor "failures" of the market and regulatory systems will produce pockets that can't easily be reclaimed through standard development.