[smoothy]

Hello again, smoothy:

You called me a socialist. Here's how I'm not, and your position IS....

In fact, I'm for FREE enterprise. I believe if people are left alone, they'll seek to better themselves, and in so doing, create the greatest economy ever created. That's what we did. That's what make capitalism great.

But, when I say FREE enterprise, I really mean FREE enterprise. That's what I meant, above, when I said "left alone". If business is "left alone" they'll compete in the market, and the BEST products and services will survive. SECOND best will go into the junk heap... That's capitalism personified.

That is, unless SECOND best visits his congressmen to make sure he's "represented". Frankly, I don't know what a businessman NEEDS from congress, unless it's laws favorable to HIS business. But, what kind of laws could a businessman need that helps him compete? Seems to me, he doesn't need ANY. All he needs is an even playing field. To me, that idea canotes an ABSENCE of law. Nope. Your guy only needs laws if he's unable to compete the old fashioned way - by EARNING it.

So, he needs government help, or government subsidy's, or laws that favor his industry... I don't see that kind of corporate welfare any different than poor peoples welfare. You, of course, support government helping business, or to use your words, they will leave.

Nope. I'm a free marketeer. You want the government to intervene. That's positively LIBERAL.

excon

So... you want corporations to be free from any regulation, law, ordinance or tax then?

Because reality is that is none of those are the case, or ever would be... and anyone or any business subjected to any of those should be represented by the elected official in that state or district.

Because those are your words... besides WHO should dictate what SHOULD apply to them? The local treehuggers, the local ludites, The CEO, the Unions, after all it has to be someone if they aren't allowed to be represented, as legal, taxpaying USA citizen or entity.

[speechlesstx]

If I were to put all the laws that CONSTRAIN business on ONE side of a teeter totter, and all the laws thatFAVOR business on the other, the laws that FAVOR business would far outweigh those CONSTRAINING it.

Funny you should say that, the very companies that Waxman is hauling up before Congress for his latest inquisition were only following SEC regulations in revealing the markdowns related to Obamacare.

Hayek's insight into economics and regulation is often called "The Knowledge Problem," and it is a very powerful notion. But recent events suggest that it's not just the economy that regulators don't understand well enough -- it's also their own regulations.

This became apparent when various large businesses responded to the enactment of Obamacare by taking accounting steps to reflect tax changes brought about by the new health care legislation. The additional costs created by Obamacare, conveniently enough, weren't going to strike until later, after the November elections.

But both Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Securities and Exchange Commission regulations require companies to account for these changes as soon as they learn about them. As the Atlantic's Megan McArdle wrote:

"What AT&T, Caterpillar, et al did was appropriate. It's earnings season, and they offered guidance about , um, their earnings."So once Obamacare passed, massive corporate write-downs were inevitable.

They were also bad publicity for Obamacare, and they seem to have come as an unpleasant shock to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. who immediately scheduled congressional hearings for April 21, demanding that the chief executive officers of AT&T, John Deere, and Caterpillar, among others, come and explain themselves.

Obamacare was supposed to provide unicorns and rainbows: How can it possibly be hurting companies and killing jobs? Surely there's some sort of Republican conspiracy going on here!

More like a confederacy of dunces. Waxman and his colleagues in Congress can't possibly understand the health care market well enough to fix it. But what's more striking is that Waxman's outraged reaction revealed that they don't even understand their own area of responsibility - regulation -- well enough to predict the effect of changes in legislation.

In drafting the Obamacare bill they tried to time things for maximum political advantage, only to be tripped up by the complexities of the regulatory environment they had already created. It's like a second-order Knowledge Problem.

These corporations are damned if they do and damned if they don't thanks to a Congress that doesn't understand the rules they make. This wasn't a matter of corporate free speech, it was the necessity of following the constraints set by law. I hope they make Waxman look like a buffoon for calling them out for following the rules.

[speechlesstx]

It appears freedom of speech has won a victory today thanks to a Texas Republican. Joe Barton addressed Waxman's dragging corporation execs in for an inquisition and Waxman subsequently canceled the hearings.

[smoothy]

Precisely... Waxman had his head up his butt BECAUSE... HE penned the law that requires them to do EXACTLY what they were doing... that he was crying like a little girl about them doing.

Obviously the man is either senile or stupid that nobody would notice the law actually REQUIRES them to take writeoffs the moment a law changes that effects them... and being a public company... give public notice.

Still has shown he isn't man enough to issue a mia culpa explaining he had an episode of stupidity.

[excon]

Hello again:

My last word on the subject:



excon

[smoothy]

Hello again:

My last word on the subject:



excon

That picture does sum things up pretty well.

[speechlesstx]

For once, ex, I think we're all in agreement.