@adornoe@...
This is supposed to be a reply to your comment:
http://www.zdnet.com/tb/1-79815-1554349 This new ZDNet layout doesn't seem to work properly in IE8 or Firefox (on my PC). This comment wouldn't appear in the right spot.
To remove any confusion you might have, I am not defending the USSR's policies or practices.
" In the real world, where the U.S. and the Soviet Union are concerned, the U.S. won the super-power contest called the "cold war". So, the big military of the Soviets didn't "trump" anything... "
Only because the USSR didn't use them. Remember MAD? The USSR was effectively destroyed (economically).
" That would've been the childish way of diplomacy and an idiotic way of running a country. "
Remember the "Arms Race"?
Here's a refresher:
"We can destroy the World 10x over!"
"So what? We can destroy the World 12x over!"
Shouldn't once over have been enough?
" Having lots of money affords a country the means with which to build a strong military. A strong military without a strong economy to back it up is nothing but a farce and a waste. A strong military does not lead to a strong economy. A strong economy will build a lot of wealth and a strong military is much easier to afford and maintain with that wealth. "
Agreed, but the purpose of the military is to prevent other countries taking your "stuff", or to take another countries "stuff". If you want to have and keep your "stuff", you need a military. I stand by my original statement.
" So, you're equating how business is done at the common crime level to how business is conducted at the highest levels of government? "
So no country has ever invaded another one to take its "stuff"? Why did the Nazi Germany pillage Europe? Why did Iraq invade Kuwait?
" The problem with "proper oversight" or "enforcement" is that, when there are problems, the regulators almost always come up with more regulations in order to implement "proper oversight" and "enforcement" ".
I contend that is because the original regulation was faulty, or some "genius" came up with a novel way to circumvent it.
"The U.S. is not a direct democracy. We have a democratic republic type of government here. "
Yes I know that. Australia is the same. You should have heard the idiots howling, after our last State election.
" Goldman Sachs is not a democracy of the people or by the people or for the people. "
Yes I know that, too. However my understanding is that the more shares you have, the more votes you get. If The US elections were held using that system (except $ value instead of shares), the top 10,000 Americans could out vote most of the country (if not all of it). with companies most of the shares would be held by a small number of shareholders (mostly other companies). Here in Australia shareholder votes aren't even binding on the board!
" What Goldman Sachs does with their business is not any business of the government unless they violate any regulations or laws. Sleaziness or non-ethical practices are not things that government should be in the practice of regulating or controlling."
How do you think Laws are created/decided upon? Laws are created because society decides that a behaviour is evil/non-ehtical/sleezy. Take Theft for example. People didn't wake up one day and say, "Let's make a law against theft", they decided that it was evil.
Of course the Government should regulate non-ethical behaviour, example:
You go to your doctor and he/she prescribes a certain medicine. What you don't know is, that your doctor has made a deal with a medical company to recommend their product, in return for a payment. You could have bought the same medicine (different brand) cheaper. Both medicines have the same effectiveness, but you had to pay extra because you didn't have the necessary information and you trusted your doctor. Your position is "caveat emptor"? My position is that practice should be illegal, or the doctor should have to tell about the payment. That way you could decide whether or not, your doctor deserves a bonus.
Another example is "Anti-Monopolistic Behaviour" laws. People decided, that behaviour was evil/non-ehtical/sleezy, and the Government introduced a law. I contend that law is faulty as companies still (allegedly) try it.
