Left wing policies are better for the economy

Lol. Yes. Im sure we can go on forever but this generalized and shifting conversation wont get us any conclusions, but it was been fun.

If i.may clarify a few things. "Capitalist" wasnt meant to be derogatory. Capitalism is the game, capitalists are simply the individual players. I would call anyone who opens a business as a capitalist, although workers could also fit that a more technical definition. I dont think businesses are bad, they have specific job, profits, and they have every right to fight for them, although they do not have the right to keep consumers and employees from defending their interests as well.

Of course we should be competitive, but imo, we are over competitive already. Almost all 1st world nations either have stronger regulations, strong welfare programs, and/or higher taxes. These companies are supposed to be lead by entrepreneurs and innovators. They are supposed to find and exploit market opportunities in a given situation, not mainpulate the situation to make business a no brainer! Thats not an entrepreneur, that's a leech. I dont care about the survival of an individual business. Bad businesses are supposed to fail. We should impoverish our people so that they can make money easy.

The GM employees are standing up for their rights. I do not think americans should surrender to the decrees of owners, otherwise we are already a feudalist nation. Teachers have had to buy supplies with their own sparce salaries, a short term strike is better then perpetuating that situation and i question whether the market has done a good job determining salaries. How are bankers paid as well if not better then doctors? A top banker makes a world class neurosurgeon look like a bum with far less education, effort, or societal benefit. Teachers should not be paid like bus drivers. They are valuable and should be rewarded. When we passed laws to favor our car industry, american cars became considered garbage. Businesses should be challenged, not cuddled

I feel as though we can end this here. We have some points we agree on like lobbying being bad. I agree that big corporations can be bad, perhaps to a different degree. Big companies have more efficient supply chains and reach an economy of scale, but I do believe in anti-trust laws because competition is what makes capitalism great! You're right, (I wouldn't use the word 'capitalists') but businesses are to a certain degree anti-capitalism. Competition is pro-consumer and anti-business. We need a lot of competition, which is why I would like to solve our healthcare systems' issues by increasing competition, rather than creating a government monopoly. Parents should choose what plan is best for their family, not the government.

You have to understand that there are a lot of incompatibilities at play here. You say that our products must be competitive to make us a competitive economy. Well, labor unions exponentially drive up costs. GM is losing $50-100 million every day because of the strike. How is that good for us? How has the teacher's union helped our nation's children? You have to understand that, while companies are anti-competition, unions are anti-competition too. They need their business to stay in business to keep their job. They are against immigration, because they would have to compete with them for jobs. Teachers unions are against merit-based pay. Simply paying people more might make the consumer base a bit better off. That can be a good thing, but not if it is at the cost of destroying domestic companies.

I have a lot of classical economic works that I am prepared to read to become more informed. Thanks for the conversation :)

If min wage increases consumer spending and business patronage, what business in its right mind would cut back on staff with a rush of new customers at their door? The increase in sales will partially, if not entirely, negate the increased costs. At least in big cities with large numbers of consumers. This is often missed in the over simplified min wage analysis.

What really hurts our economy is big corporations stifling competition, like amazon making knock offs of any successful product on their small.merchant marketplace and then only advertising their product in searchs. Capitalism needs competition, but capitalists fight to destroy the competition. Yes its possible for government to.pass bad laws, but companies left to their own devices will inevitably create monopolies and abuse our systems to their exclusive benefit. The invisible hand is bullshit. Its a lie just like trickle down economics to get you to shoot yourself in the foot in the name of idealism over reality.

I dont understand how conservatives can claim that unions, regulations, etc stiffle the economy. I get how it seems logical on a very basic level, but so does a stationary flat earth, that doesnt make it true. Most other 1st world nations have higher effective taxes, more regulations, more unions.

It was around 70s or 80s that we started demonizing unions and regulations (even the moderate dems like bill clinton). And guess what, thats about the time the rest of the 1st world (with more regulations, more unions, and similar taxes) started to catch up to us.

Conservatives focus to much on the profits of the wealthy thinking it will all trickle down, but it mostly languishes in savings accounts or gets bounced around the stock.market. this is benefitial only to the few directly profiting from it now, and hurts our entire economy in the long term.

Liberitarianism works in a mom and pop.society. but when the company your dealing with is a goliath, its only fair the people shouldnt have to fend for themselves individually. They should have a right to be represented by a union. United we stand, divided we fall.

The profits of individual companies is not a measure of economic health. A strong consumer base is.

And I am saying that governmental policy can influence supply and make it more expensive. Think of rent control. That create housing shortages and leads to dilapidated infrastructure.

I don't know. I'd like unions to work. That would probably be most efficient, but that would tank our economy and make us super uncompetitive. Minimum wages create unemployment, so that would spur a greater reliance on welfare.

Yeah, progressive taxes are gradual. The fact is that the more you make, the less of your marginal income you get to keep. Why are those additional few hundred thousand less worthy of keeping than the first 10k? Progressive taxes work alright, I'll give you that. Income is very inelastic. That doesn't mean you should pilfer the profits of their labor.

Amazon pays zero in federal taxes. They pay payroll taxes, as well as state and local taxes. I don't think it is okay for buffet to pay less in taxes than his secretary. That is why I am for a flat tax with no deductions for people above the poverty line. Everyone should pay their fair share.

I am looking more critically at my positions. At least in terms of demand side vs supply side economics. I don't see myself flipping, but perhaps becoming a little more moderate.

I might pick a debate such as "People in Red states are better off than those in Blue states"

Or for another angle i can argue con on right wing policies like why the invisible hand is nonsense, or how markets can fail us and themselves. Either direction is fine.

I want to convert you if i can. What issue would most convince you that left wing economics, obviously not every policy, work.

Im sure it will take more then 1 debate to do it. I picked the subject but I ask that you pick the first specific topic, and nothing easy for me. Min wage, Gov interference, government ventures. This debate (not us in the comments) was wholly disappointing.

Regarding the rich and homeless. The rich move to big blue cities because thats where the theaters, museums, restaurants and nightclubs are. The poor move to the city because thats where all the jobs are. Both of these independently create demand, and that raises prices. None of this is a "democratic policy". It isnt a policy at all. Its basic, logical, economics. I stated so before, i think you ignored it and restated your opinion.

This is what happens when you successfully run a city, or potentially any region. But success has nuance as well, and dealing with that nuance, like making sure workers can still make it into the city and that working is worth it. You do want to make work worthwhile right? Because hungry people get desperate, and if work isnt feeding them, crime might. I prefer a min wage, but ill take welfare over police state. Welfare is often cheaper. Most of these arent appeals to your humanity but logical solutions to our problems.

Ill have to look into hong kong, but i will say that democracy worked ok 3000 years ago in tiny greek city states, it collapsed when it got any bigger til 2,500 years later. What works at for a town may not work for our sea to sea nation.

Actually we are all taxed the same! Recently looked this up, forgive the excitement over a new argument. Bill gates first 20k gets taxed about as much as a welfare recepient. We all get to keep nearly all our 20k. When he earns his first 100k, he kept as much of that 100k as any accountant or whenever else in the same jurisdiction. Its only those last excessive dollars that lose 35%. And even then, thats before exceptions. So the "progressive" system is pretty damn equal. We all get taxed the same. We just never get as far up the ladder as the successful. Earning more always gets you more money in the end. And the taxes are very proportional.

+you get amazon paying zero (0) !!!! Taxes
And buffet paying less % (the thing your complaining about) then his secretary in taxes!!!

Let me know any subjects you are willing to debate on. If they interest me, I would be willing to debate once school gives me a break.

:)

Deregulation is just a partisan thing. It makes the base happy. I think it is usually good because it reduces costs and any market inefficiencies they may have caused. They cut thousands of regulations, so listing them all out would be rather time-consuming.

I don't see how we are talking past each other about selective regulation. Let us say you make a regulation(that you say is industry-wide). Now lets say a Republican gets rid of that regulation. How would that not also have an industry-wide effect of deregulation?

Hong Kong would be my ideal economic example. They are the freest country in the world according to the economic freedom index. They have a median income that rivals ours, and they hardly have any natural resources to prop up their economy!

The government allows the rich to make the most of their resources. Keyword: their. It is their property that they have a right to. Just because they were more successful doesn't mean they have less of a right to that.

I'm fine with local/state minimum wages because of different costs of living. I'm certain we agree on that. Federal minimum wages are kind of trash. Another big reason that it is expensive to live in blue states is high taxes! Regulations on buying houses in Washington, Oregon, and California make housing much more expensive. Economics is part of the rising costs. However, with stifling regulations, you inhibit producers from making more, affordable housing for the consumers. You create inefficiencies by interfering in the market.

My connection was showing how "wealth inequality" and "helping the poor" are always at the center of Democrats' debates, but the effects of their policies show another story. I can't name one major city in a Blue state that doesn't having overwhelming poverty and high crime rates. Detroit, Chicago, New York are all run by Democrats and the poor there suffer tremendously.

Is there any topic you wish to debate me on? I find the limited rounds and audience help focus the subject and make reaching a conclusion much more likely.

Im not sure your point about deregulation/regulation.

I do not mean the right selectively deregulates. My concern is that they blindly deregulate. All trump (and others) do is brag how many regulations they eliminate without discussing or caring about which regulations the eliminate or their individual pro/con.

I also dont understand selective regulation. Unless you mean promoting an industry like renewables, just like the gov promoted railroads, motorvehicles, buclear, and many other revolutionary technologies that were too new and risk for private investment but were for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Left wing regulations regulate whole industries and are not company specific so it cannot be selective except in some very nuanced ways. The good thing about government is we can demand investigations, answers, and leadership changes if we do smell something fishy. We have no say in private enterprises.

We have amongst the loosest regulations are the first world, who do we have to be more competitive then? Do you want a race to the bottom so we can start competing with 3rd world nations for shit jobs? I would rather invest in education and start stealing the good jobs from the first world, solidifying ourselves as a superpower for the next century.

The goventment enables the rich to make the most of their resources, i dont see why it cant do the same for the poor. And either way, my reasons for supporting the poor is to maintain a functioning consumer base and a stable economy so that we as a nation can prosper in addition to the bleeding heart idealism.

Im not sure what connection you are trying to make between wealthy and homeless both living in expensive blue cities. Wealthy want to live in places with things to do. Restaurants, clubs, high rises with big views. Therefore they go to cities. The poor want to live in places with available work, which also ends up in cities. Everyone wants to live in cities, which drives up demand, land value, and rent. Rising rents cause more and more poor to become homeless. This is economics, not political policies. The millionaires are not causing the homelessness, the democrats are not causing the homelessness, economics and the so called "invisible hand" is causing the homelessness. And without affordable housing or other assistance programs the workers the city needs will not be able to available anywhere near, and the whole system collapses. Democratic policies like affordable housing and minimum wage ensure that the cities have workers who can afford to live there. Workers the cities badly need. Maybe thats why most cities, especially the successful ones, are deep blue, even in red states. Laissez faire policies would destroy a city.

This presumed connection between the wealthy and homeless that you tried to make, but in all honesty could only say "isnt that suspicious" and couldnt actually connect. Is a dumbing down of reality in order to reach a convenient conclusion.

Im trying to focus the discussion so we can reach a conclusion, so i skipped a few points like guns and neocons that could be whole conversations themselves. Feel free to bring them up later.

I was thinking of a clip of Elizabeth warren calling them "costs" instead of taxes. Let me be clear: I know our health insurance system is trash. I think that a single payer system would be better than what we have now. I just think that solving it through the private sector would be optimal. We need to deregulate and increase competition. I would be fine with offering vouchers for people below the poverty line to use to find a health insurance plan.

You see, I agree the government "helps" the rich become wealthy through the enforcement of laws. That is the role of all governments. However, those laws are applied to everyone equally. It is therefore not the role of the government to then give special treatment to those who didn't fair as well. I have problems with bailing out GM and the banks. That was terrible. That is special treatment that should not have happened.

I am pretty sure that poll was referring to "hate speech". That would be things like racist comments. While I don't support people who speak like that, I support their right to speak.

Blue states, like I said, have some of the highest concentrations of billionaires. When you contrast that with Blue states having some of the highest rates of homelessness, it really makes me begin to question if your party gives a damn about the poor. Also, do you have any proof that rich people both move to Blue states and then fund out of state Republicans? Are you neglecting that state and local laws, taxes, and regulations exist? https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report/

I have seen that you said you agree with our grievances and not our solutions. Fine. Difference of opinion. However, you then state that our party is corporatist. You say that we support only deregulating for certain companies, and then you pretend that your party doesn't do the exact same thing! Your party selectively regulates. I know that you personally are against that. I am too. Unfortunately, neo-cons and neo-liberal sellouts exist within our parties. That is not what a conservative supports and I am sure what your party does is quite often against your ideology as well. I don't know much about McConnell to be honest.

I would need proof that right-wing (pro-business) policies are holding us back. There are lots of RINOs and Neo-Cons that are ruining my party. We should find more pro-life, pro-gun leaders who are against lobbying.

I think that, if you pass enough tests you should be able to own darn near any gun. I would have to ponder on how to structure them, but psychological and gun safety tests would be a good start.

yeah blue states have the most wealthy, the wealthy can choose where they live, and blue states that invest in their people and their areas through taxes are good places to live. Sure they have their ghettos, and red states have their trailer parks, but overall the areas are far more desirable. Thats not a bad thing. Having millionaires doesn't mean you support the policies they believe in. You can live in sunny LA and still send money to the traitor in alabama who wants to lower your federal tax burden. The oligarchy doesn't come from where you live but from how the laws set up, this point is moot.

As is the point of my characterization of the right. I've said it many times (at least once on this site, but i'm rather new), I agree with many right wing complaints, just not right wing solutions. I have nothing against most of the people, until they do/say something dumb but that goes same for the left like Maij23. I do have a problem with the LEADERSHIP, and their counter productive sometimes treasonous solutions. Obviously not every member of the house, but top leadership hell yeah. And it isn't a generalization when I give specific names like McConnell, who I consider to be the most corrupt person in modern american politics. So I reject your claim about me, and demand proof.

I'm glad I got you to agree that democrats are fighting money's influence over our politics while republicans fight to maintain its hold on us. I dont see how all the other issues combined can be more important then that, but why can't republicans find pro life, pro guns leaders who aren't trying to give rich people vip access to them? I hope that in the future I can prove that the democratic platform is fighting to defend the american dream. Do you think those mindless factory jobs could have afforded an american dream without strong worker and union protections from the government? Left wing policies made us a super power, right wing policies are letting the rest of the world catch up.

banning a few extreme forms of guns is not the same as banning guns. Why dont we fill our streets with full automatic, or miniguns? how about some grenade launchers? we can keep escalating this all the way, at some point we have to stop. Where would you stop?

Bernie doesn't dance around it, he openly does the math. Your taxes go up, but your premium goes down. It only makes sense that cutting out the middle man helps costs. Would you feel better if the government just called it a premium instead? its the same money, only you save.

The wealthy did not attain that wealth independent of government, but often with government help, whether enforcement of laws, building of infrastructure, provision of loans, or an educated and healthy workforce. those things dont happen magically. Now that the wealthy have used our society to make their wealth, they wish to cry victim when its time for them to pay their part. You will not become wealthy no matter how much you work if a car accident or an illness (not all of which comes from life choices) bankrupts you. You will not make it if you live in a neighborhood isolated without public transportation or road access. And you will not make it if your illiterate or otherwise undereducated. These things require taxes. Taxes are not a dirty word.

The founding fathers put many limits on speech. Speech is not perfectly free. 1 out of 3 republicans also supported restricting speech in that same survey. Until it is clear what kind of speech they are limiting, this point is meaningless.

If you want to talk about "stealing this nation from the people" and the super wealthy, you should understand that Blue states have some of the highest concentration of billionaires per capita. That is where the oligarchy is coming from.

Also, you want to talk about mischaracterizing the left, what about your representation of the Right? You think we all are these neo-conservatives, and those people are sh*t bags.

It isn't priority #1 because the rest of your policies are terrible in my opinion. If your party adopted good economic policies that won't rob me of my future, I would consider voting for you. Also, social issues like killing babies are a no-no.

"Hell yeah we are going to take your AR-15s and Ak-47s". - Robert Francis O'Rourke
Not all of them are this crazy yet, but we are definitely on our way there. There are calls to repeal the 2nd Amendment. All authoritarian movements take guns, and that is exactly what will happen.

They want to increase taxes for the middle class, as well. Warren and Sanders try to dance around it, but it is true. I want to be wealthy some day, and people like that want to kill that dream- The American Dream.

They are coming for my speech. Countries all over Europe and Canada have done it. They just need to screw up the Constitution or rig the Supreme Court like Bernie Sanders wants to. When most Democrats are for legislating "hate speech", I think it becomes a legal matter.

Maybe you don't support this, but leaders and large members of their base do.

you know i didn't read the 500 page bill and neither did you. Half our representatives probably didnt read it either. Its details arent the point. Congress is supposed to discuss and negotiate the fine point. not bar it from ever even getting 1 vote. Other bills will come, from the left. And the right wing leadership will do all they can to stop it. Can you show me any bill from the right that does anything to address this probably? I suspect that I can find some that directly support the problem coming from the right. They are creating an oligarchy. They are stealing this nation from the people. This is treason. How is this not priority #1!?

I think special interest groups are ruining the discourse of every single issue and creating the hyperpartisan state we are in. I think it is the primary problem in this country. That being said, democrats arent coming for your guns, slippery slopes arent healthy. They aren't coming for your income... unless you are incredibly wealthy and earned it using the many institutions and infrastructure of this nation, or just were born into it. And democrats aren't coming for your speech. political correctness is a social movement, not a legal one. it is speech. These are all caricatures of what the left actually stands for. Its like getting your us news from chinese newspapers... really?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9qv8RSreIM

---RFD---
Interpreting the resolution:
The description clarifies this is left vs right wing.

Gist:
Debate got trolled... If not just trolling, even when asked, con could not name even a second conservative president to support his case.

1. Stock Market: Pro
Pro uses evidence (Forbes) to show better stock market growth.

2. Blue States: Pro
Pro asserts that blue states generate most of the nation’s wealth.
Con counters that they are desirable to homeless people, so it’s impossible that they’re wealthier...

3. God: WTF?
Con asserts that all liberals have lost their eyesight due to intervention of a malevolent demon. The implication being that if you turn liberal, you lose your eyesight, and too many people suffering this would be bad for the economy.

4. Trump: Pro
Con shows that manufacturing jobs had a much faster growth rate under Trump than Obama. Then he wondered off topic to things that have nothing to do with the measurement (such as people being gullible).
Pro counters that this is anecdotal, and that the averages need to be looked at. And that further the trend of decreasing unemployment began under Obama.

5. Obama: Pro
Con showed that the deficient nearly doubled under Obama, and claims this is the worst growth rate it has ever had (side note: Reagan). Pro counters that analysis worry Trump is creating double the deficit growth as Obama attained in 8 years (this highlights the problem of singling out a sitting president, as their impacts have not concluded).
Con highlights some decisions he dislikes for an emotional appeal. He goes so far as to claim more than 50% of tax dollars were given away to foreign interests as gifts. Pro proves that con was lying, with a source which shows foreign aid was only 1.2% of the budget.

---

Arguments: Pro
See above review of key points.

Sources: Pro
Giving this in large part for con being caught directly in multiple intentional lies to which his evidence did not support. It poisons the well on the rest of his evidence, to make no one be able to take his case seriously. Pro’s Council on Foreign Relation’s source was a highlight, which proved this problem.
Some of con’s sources even hurt his case, like when he sought to prove how much more desirable to live in blue states are (this hurt it even before pro pointed out the problem).
From con, I do appreciate the inclusion of Neon Cat, even if no liberal is able to see it (since they’re all apparently blind).

S&G: tied
Con has improved his legibility. Leaning pro, but I could understand what con was trying to say.

Conduct: tied
Forfeiture vs blatant lies...

Also, did you read the entire bill? It also includes a national holiday, automatic voter registration, and more.

Republicans are saying it will subsidize House campaigns.

It is a 500 page bill. Maybe some of it would be passed separately, but we cannot know that. The Democrats want to pass massive bills to load in a lot of stupid provisions, and they know it will not be passed. They just want to make their voters think they are trying so hard to get money out of politics, when they are actually making a crap bill.

I mean yes, I would like some more transparency. There are things the Republican party doesn't or doesn't do that upset me. There are about 5-10 issues I care about most, and the Republicans are more likely to deliver those than Democrats, which is why I vote Red. I would like to get rid of lobbying. I think special interests screw us all. However, I don't want my guns, vast majority of my income, and my free speech taken away. So, while I would like to end money influencing politics, I am not going to be a single issue voter for it.

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Christen // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 1 point to pro for conduct, 4 points to con for arguments and conduct

>Reason for Decision: See below

>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. This is not done.

To award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G. S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible. The voter fails to show why pro's arguments are incoherent.

Conduct point is fine.
************************************************************************

Crossed's arguments were overall better and more detailed, so I gave 'em the arguments.
Both side's sources seemed decent enough.
Crossed had multiple spelling errors and also should have had a capital letter instead of a lowercase letter, in multiple instances.
Nemiroff forfeited rounds, so conduct goes to Crossed, too.

sorry forgot about this one.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/08/701455283/house-passes-extensive-election-and-campaign-finance-overhaul-bill

new dem house promptly passed a bill to limit and reveal dark money, as well as other campaign finance reforms. McConnell wont even allow it on the floor for a vote. I don't see much else on the national level but that goes to show after republicans owned congress for years. We can compare democratic states vs repub states in openness.

https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_comparison_of_campaign_finance_requirements

As a whole, Democrats have been leading the charge to limit the influence of individuals who trying to receive undo representation. Republicans have actively passed laws helping the wealthy gain more influence. Many of their states have no limits at all! How can you stand by that?

I don't see how you could find his arguments persuasive per this topic.
He speaks of a single president, which is anecdotal, whereas my topic refers to the general policies of an entire wing, as proven over time.

furthermore his anecdotal arguments were largely refuted.
I have flagged the vote for review, perhaps we can debate this subject if I remake it? I don't think that either of my opponents on this topic really challenged my case.

citing virtuoso and bsh due to seeing rational madman do it previously, hope this is the correct way.

I don't really think that the Democratic party as a whole is trying to get money out of politics. I have seen no such legislation. Provide some if I am wrong, but I have really only heard Bernie talk about it.

The whole point of conservatism is limited government. So, we are trying to take power away from the corrupt institution.

Yes, impoverished governments do have too much power. Check out the economic freedom index. There is pretty good correlation between freedom and prosperity. https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

I don't know in which ways Europe and Japan out compete us. Japan's cars are probably better because they don't have unions bankrupting the company with pension plans. Japanese car companies in America are almost all non-union.

define left wing

Corruption can creep into any institution. Rather then blindly eliminating necessary institutions due to a flaw, lets try to solve the flaw. As far as money in politics, many individual are just as guilty of republicans of taking bribes, but it seems that it is the republican platform to increase the influence of money in politics, and i see that as treason. You need money to win elections, and i do not support any individual politician to unilaterally disarm, best intentions mean nothing if you dont win office, but i support the democratic agenda of minimizing as much as possible the influence of money in politics. Corruption in the regulatory system is a great argument for an audit, it is a terrible argument to simply give up on otherwise necessary laws. Done right regulations increase consumer confidence and are a boon to the economy.

I will try to find examples. I dont see how impoverished governments can carry out "huge oversight". They may have strong laws on the books, but no competent mechanism to enforce anything. Most searches for most liberitarian nations focus only on the 1st world, and the US with all its terrible regulations and high taxes, is near the top of most lists.

Europe and japan have much stronger regulatory controls and worker protections, they also have more reasonable employee/executive pay differences. how are they able to out compete us?

I am for some environmental regulations. Some food/drug ones, but a lot of agencies since the FDA are bought out. Big Pharma essentially owns the FDA, so as little power as possible should be given to politicians, bureaucrats, etc so that they cannot cause harm from their corruption.

I'm also in favor of patents because we need to innovate. Anti-trust regulations are good, too.

Could you mention some of these libertarian 3rd world countries? Most to my knowledge in central America and Africa have huge government oversight. Our automobile market is uncompetitive and so are many of our schools, at least K-12. I blame unions for a lot of that, though.

Just to clarify, you are against almost allregulations? We established your against any construction site safety and food/drug quality and ingredient assurance? Which regulations do you support.

The point of regulations is not to promote the market, but to make sure the market functions safely and for our benefit. Although some regulations like intellectual and property rights do actively support the market, should we remove them as well?

Which markets are we not competitive in? Cause most 1st world countries have MORE regulations then we do, and as stated before, the only nations with anything close to a liberitarian economy are 3rd world nations, and often not by choice but because their governments lack the ability to enforce anything.

So... competition-killing regulation is good. Got it. Because the market isn't self-regulating or anything. Maybe I feel safe walking by a construction site because the company would get a heck of a lawsuit and bad publicity if I got killed by a falling beam? I'm not arguing for no regulation. But the oversimplified stupidity lies in the idea that government bureaucrats know exactly how the market should function and should be given unlimited power to restrict markets that they likely have no experience in.

You wonder why we aren't competitive in many markets worldwide? Because regulations act as a tax. Compliance is expensive, and makes me pay more as a consumer.

Federal Regulations were around 95,000 pages in length at the end of Obama's presidency. Luckily, Trump cut those. Compliance costs were about $2 trillion/year.
https://mises.org/wire/our-huge-hidden-tax-government-regulations

Let me just be more general about an issue: rent control. That is a bad regulation. It leads to housing shortages and dilapidated housing.

Personally i believe money in politics (including but not limited to lobbying) is the biggest issue we have. Get overrepresented special interests out of the way, and i believe political discourse will improve.

Despite any abuses of the regulatory system, it is still necessary. I know right wing media has turned regulation into a dirty word, but why do you think you feel safe walking past a construction site or have confidence consuming the food and medicine? Regulations. Companies exist to satisfy a demand. They are started by entrepreneurs who see an opportunity and seize it. They conform to our needs. The people do not need to conform to corporate needs. Thats complete backward thinking. We have to make sure the consumer is safe and has confidence in their purchases. We have to make sure the economy and our public resources are sustainable and their utilization is not hoarded or destroyed by self interested individuals, at our expense. Regulations ensure companies arent laundering money for gangs or supporting international terrorists. This anti regulation crusade is oversimplified stupidity.

Yes, bad regulations should be removed, on individual merit. Not cause someone thinks we have too many or too few. If each one has a good purpose, it doesnt matter how many we have. If one is bad, it still doesnt matter how many we have. We need the good ones and we should eliminate any bad ones. Like the hypothetical ones who referenced.

Can you name any federal regulations you feel are hurting more then helping?

Absolutely agree. Lobbying is a big corruption issue.

My point is that this goes both ways. Right-winged people can deregulate to help a company. Left-wing people can help build monopolies by regulating competition. These bootleggers are the exact same as the deregulated companies, just in reverse.

Absolutely, but also it can be seen as a general comparison of overall performance between the parties

which policies?

devil in the details

Please dont jump to conclusions regarding my sources of information and dont dismiss my arguments until after ive made them and youve responded to them.

I already stated who im referring to, the mainstream american right and the republican party and the ideas on its platform. Including a range from corporate subsidizing and liberitarian talking points. Whether they are neo, classic, or mixed, what im talking about what is in reality, and the policies right wing representatives actually pass.

These bootleggers sound like they found a loophole in an otherwise good system. That definetely should be addressed, mostly via the left wing push to get money out of politics, and make sure any money left in is openly accounted for. It is the right that promotes the practice of lobbying that is the root of most government evil today. This loophole that needs closing does not change the massive benefit that is sensible regulation.

So shall we agree, lobbying bad, regulations still up for debate?

Im probably going to restart this debate since crossed clearly trolled me, would dare to contend?

You are referring to neoconservatives, not real conservativism. Here is what conservatives believe: "Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation and free enterprise". Since conservatives want less regulation, that would mean that they would want less regulation for everyone, lower taxes for everyone, etc. You are also very much mistaken saying that liberals always like to equally implement regulation. Ever heard of bootleggers and baptists? It is a phenomena in which companies lobby for more regulation to keep newer competitors out of the market. So, wouldn't they be choosing the winners as those companies in existence rather than potential future competitors? Also, ex-ante regulation is regulation that doesn't apply to companies already in existence. Are you saying that this isn't choosing winners or being corrupt and bought? If you think so, then I don't think this conversation can go much further. You really need to stop listening to ultra-biased news sources and realize that anyone from any party can be corrupted and when that occurs, they are no longer true to their values and can be corporatists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#United_States_2

I will spend some time sharing my thoughts about it once I finish my argument in the theism debate I'm currently in. I need to finish up my constructive today

Do you have any intention of participating in this debate that you accepted just because "it was debate number 777"? Forfeit or back out. This was uncool.

Sorry, replied to you previously but forgot to mention you.

As a liberitarian, how do you feel about my comparison of an equally regulated economy, vs hand picked competitive advantage deciding actual winners and losers?

I have less then zero respect for the majority of the republican party both for the reasons you stated (betraying all of their values if convenient), and their support for unrestrained money in our politics (treason). However liberitarians are the exception. I respect them. But i far from agree with them. They have a set and simple ideology, and they dont waiver for convenience routinely. However, theres a reason no first world utilizes liberitarianism. Outside of an oversimplified mom and pop economy, it does not work. Workers do not have the power to negotiate, and consumers don't have the ability to run chemical tests ensuring they arent eating lead in their milk or one of many historical free market tragedies. Just like communism will likely deteriorate into a dictatorship, liberitarianism will deteriorate into feudalism. Where a few nobles (executives) rule over impoverished masses. Capitalism loves competition. Capitalist players hate competition. The government is required to maintain competition and protect the public. I do not trust the government, but i can demand oversight over the government. I cannot do that with private companies.

I might take this because it is the 777th debate

I'd say you're correct about conservative politicians in general making stupid decisions at times, such as promising to shrink an overbloated bureaucracy but yet blowing it up even more. Conservative social values with libertarian economic policy is perhaps where I would fall on the spectrum. Although, unlike conservatives I am not very fond of the government having massive executive powers under the banner of "national security."

as always