A description of capitalism in my sociology book

[vita]

"without restrictions, business firms can mislead consumers, endanger workers safety, and even defraud the companies investors--all in the pursuit of greater profits. That is why the government of a capitalist nation often monitors prices, sets safety and environmental standards for industries, protects the rights of consumers, and regulates collective bargaining between labor unions and management."

just a quick excerpt from my sociology book, i was just curious to hear everyones reactions.

[Iudicious]

My reaction is simple. How exactly do these business firms that "mislead consumers, endanger workers safety, and even defraud the companies investors" expect to make greater profits? They won't make better profits by doing any of those things.

For a subject (sociology) that seeks to study and explain society, it sure isn't doing a good job.

[Tyco]

"without restrictions, business firms can mislead consumers, endanger workers safety, and even defraud the companies investors--all in the pursuit of greater profits. That is why the government of a capitalist nation often monitors prices, sets safety and environmental standards for industries, protects the rights of consumers, and regulates collective bargaining between labor unions and management."

just a quick excerpt from my sociology book, i was just curious to hear everyones reactions.

- 'mislead consumers' -- 'monitor prices'

the implied argument makes the leap from a price being too high to consumer's being actually 'misled.' Because it is only implicit they author doesn't need to construct an argument why pricing can 'mislead' anyone

- 'protects the rights of consumers'

by using the word 'rights' the author is making a heavily loaded argument. if the proper word had been used - 'consumers interests' - a fairer debate would likely ensue

- 'endanger worker safety' -- 'sets safety and environmental standards for industries'

Greenspan has some good points about this in C:TUI. He argues that 'bad protection drives out good protection,' and that safety regulations merely create a corruptible process, a shortcut for shady businesses to gain credibility, and a burden for responsible businesses to carry

- 'defraud the companies investors'

fraud would always be illegal under any proper legal system. presumably this is about insider trading and things like that. the counter-argument is that where (once again) the government does not provide illusory, 'bad', protection, investors will be much more cautious and the chance for reputable companies to swindle will be much smaller

- 'regulates collective bargaining power between labor unions and management'

not sure what is meant here

[Gramlich]

"without restrictions, business firms can mislead consumers, endanger workers safety, and even defraud the companies investors--all in the pursuit of greater profits. That is why the government of a capitalist nation often monitors prices, sets safety and environmental standards for industries, protects the rights of consumers, and regulates collective bargaining between labor unions and management."

just a quick excerpt from my sociology book, i was just curious to hear everyones reactions.

Unsurprised. I've read sociology books before...

[rebelconservative]

Unsurprised. I've read sociology books before...

what he said.

[JayR]

what he said.

I just threw up in my mouth, a little bit.

j..