|
|
|
|
|
|
by Oletros
3432 days ago
|
|
|
> I'm interested to see what can happen with an effective reset of corporate sponsorship in the highest seat of government I think that until now it is exactly the contrary you say > The proposed rules for regulatory bodies (one in, two out) could considerably reduce the financial and emotional cost of doing business in the U.S. And this is not in favour of the corporate sponsorship, is it? I suppose outing all the evil environment regulations is very good for corporations and business but how about the actual people? > I don't think Donald Trump is necessarily any better of a person than the other candidates; but I think he has a better chance of doing good by accident. You seem to have a very specific definition of good. It only applies to corporations |
|
|
Regulations are actively campaigned for by large businesses to create supply-side pressure (fewer, or no, new companies can meet the basic regulatory requirements of your business, therefore you control more of the market with more certainty).
If you want to talk about effective environmental regulations for people, we could start with strict liability for waste dumping. It took all too much time for Dow Chemical to see any pressure for water contamination scandals, and they still haven't faced much. The other major environmental case I can remember is U.S. EPA versus BMW, but that one is clearly preferential. If it were a U.S. car manufacturer, the penalties would be less dire with near certainty.
As for your last point, I'm sure you see the folly in it. Without getting too far into it, I'd like to point out that I gain nothing from the hegemony of established businesses. There's no reason to imagine that I'm out to make their lives easier.