My perspective is that the larger the organization is, the more likely it’ll get a carve-out in the law. The more complex the law, the more carve-outs special interests get.

So making more laws isn’t the solution here, we should be striving to make simpler laws. For example, instead of a complex system of carbon emissions standards for vehicles based on type, just charge a carbon tax that approximates the cost of removing that carbon. The former gave us massive SUVs because they’re regulated as light trucks instead of passenger cars (so they have lighter regulations), the latter would encourage higher efficiency without a slew of regulations.

get the motivations to line up correctly

That’s the preferred solution imo.

But I can’t think of any practical solutions that also align with freedoms.

A lot of leftists look at government as the hammer to solve problems. Sometimes that’s the right approach, but often it’s not.

What seems to work consistently is to make bad things expensive/criminal. If people die due to negligence (e.g. irresponsible cost cutting), put anyone involved in jail. If the payoff is higher than the penalty for bad behavior, increase the penalty.

Anyone who self-identifies as a Republican at this point in time is either delusional or psychotic. Full stop.

I am not opposed to wealthy people or billionaires or whatever. What I am against is the companies running the show and having undue influence over the government. People like Zuckerberg have way to much power over the government and that isn’t good.

It’s the same picture.

If you’re against people like Zuckerberg. You’re against billionaires etc. If you’re not against billionaires you’re not against people like Zuckerberg. You just want one you agree with. Musk maybe?

I used to be against heavy regulations but we have gone to the other extreme of too little regulations.

If only we knew who pushed for, and funded this. I mean it absolutely was not the wealthy or chad billionaires. They’re just good honest bros. They wouldn’t use that vast wealth to manipulate and lie to us.

I am tired of my insurance being tied to my employer. I am tired of forced arbitration agreements

Guess who. Guess who. Those things are in the vested interest of the wealthy and especially billionaires. Though they would never leave themselves subject to them.

The problem isn’t capitalism but human nature.

Oof, cognitive dissonance wins again. Capitalism that isn’t so tightly regulated that it struggles to exist. Only reinforces and encourages the worst of human behavior. They’re both a problem. Together they’re a perfect storm. Literally every one of your complaints can be directly attributed to your voting habits. (If you are truly Republican) You’ve enabled it all. (So have Democrats to a much lesser extent) And still stick with identifying as the problem. Note, I’m not saying Democrats are the solution. Slightly better problem perhaps. But certainly not a solution as they currently exist. But friend, you really need to work through the cognitive dissonance and indoctrination issues. In the end you will thank yourself if you do. And that’s what matters right?

we have gone to the other extreme of too little regulations

The real problem is that consequences for bad behavior just aren’t crippling enough to deter bad behavior. Regulations often just place a price on bad behavior, and companies optimize for costs, so usually violating a regulation is just a cost of doing business.

Regulations don’t necessarily improve behavior, they just fix a cost to it. So we should increase corporate liability so execs face criminal charges far more often (can’t pass that on to customers) and charge for negative externalities (like carbon taxes) so they have a consistent cost to factor into their balance sheets.

outsourcing jobs to other countries, building all our crap in China

Why? We have low unemployment, so we should be outsourcing our low value work so our workers can have the higher paying jobs. Making stuff here just makes it cost more, and reduces our labor pool.

too big to fail

The reason they’re too big to fail is because of cronyism. They use government to protect themselves from failure.

I agree, we shouldn’t let companies get that big, but the solution isn’t forceful break-up, but removal of those protections that they’ve built up over the years. So things like cable companies throwing obstacles (read: regulations) in the way of competitors.

We need to remove bad regulations and probably create some good new ones. But it all starts by removing protections so market forces can work.

I am tired of my insurance being tied to my employer. I am tired of forced arbitration

Do you know why that is? Wage and price controls during wartime forced companies to find ways to entice workers other than increasing wages, so we got the comprehensive benefits situation we have now. That worked its way into government, so things like the ACA take workplace benefits into account when determining what benefits you can have.

So we should start by removing incentives for businesses to offer healthcare. Some ideas:

• require employers to offer the cash value of any benefits they offer if the employee refuses them
• replace workplace retirement options with a simplified and expensed IRA (let employers contribute like they can with HSA, but keep the same caps regardless of if they contribute)
• restructure SS to be something like UBI instead of a retirement “plan” - simplifies retirement planning since you don’t need to factor in average income and whatnot

In short, make W-2 employment look a lot more like self-employment so switching jobs doesn’t leave employees with a not of confusing decisions, they just pick based on pay and work environment.

The problem isn’t capitalism but human nature

Preach!

In my opinion, the role of government is to police that human behavior, as in, ensure everyone is playing by the rules. Large organizations get a seat at the table that most of us don’t, and that needs to change.

But as you said, the problem here isn’t “capitalism,” it’s special interests, and those exist regardless of economic system. The goal should be to make the system as transparent as possible so us plebs (read: journalists and independent auditing groups) can see and help fix problems. Thinking about the issue as “more” vs “less” regulation misses the point, the goal should be in simplifying government so it’s easier to catch those who cheat.

I’m a progressive and think conservatism is a totally valid political viewpoint - to continue doing what worked. And that is the social systems that worked so well for many decades. Unfortunately the GOP has become more and more reactionary for decades now (“paleo conservative”). So social democrats should be seen as conservatives really. And capitalists have accumulated so much money and power that it isn’t working any more.

The problem isn’t capitalism but human nature. We see it in every type of government or economic system. People get greedy and jack crap up.

I’d say the problem is that we don’t account for human nature in systems. We’ve elevated infinite greed as a totally valid and natural viewpoint, when it’s just not. In an environment with the right rules and basic fairness and decency you can absolutely tell most people to do something not for their own benefit because it’s for the public good, for your country, for your patients, and most people will be quite happy doing that.

That gives cover to the few percent of people who are eternally greedy, see nothing but materialism, the “sociopaths” and narcissists and narrow minded ideologues. That really requires a kind of reconstruction.

We need to specifically start thinking and talking about politics and business as systems that must be safeguarded against excess, and actively prevent people who care about nothing but money or power from advancing.

And specifically because of climate change we need to start thinking about a plan. Because it’s an emergency similar to a war “all or nothing” economy we need to create a “limited planned economy” for certain sectors and allow for eminent domain to transfer sectors into public hands - at least for sectors that you can’t reasonably assume they can be induced with market regulations and things like carbon taxes. Because capitalists will always game the system and maximize profit. That has to be understood and CEOs put in charge that understand that besides profit, they are not to oppose regulations or rules of the game set by society.

I’d be very curious if you think conservatives in the GOP could be convinced by any of this?

Cuba is doing much better than most Latin American countries. In most areas it’s doing MUCH better.

I was just in Cuba last year. A doctor makes $35 per month. The cab to the airport cost almost that much. A cab drive makes more than a doctor’s monthly salary from two fares. Their money is ridiculously screwed up. The official exchange rate is something around 24 CUP to the dollar. But at the airport it’s like 1/3 that value. And in the black market it’s 1/6 that value. People live in poverty while the government buildings are immaculate marvels. The people I talked with there know how messed up the country is.

China is doing infinitely better than any other comparable country, like India.

You mean the country where capitalism is thriving and labour unions are illegal? Where billionaires dominate the ruling party? China is communist in name only.

The USSR was also doing much better than any country in a comparable situation when it did exist.

It was doing great… until it collapsed? Great success story!

Sorry but whatever you’re reading isn’t very accurate.

We do need to give them the Ma Bell treatment.

Well, specifically what changed was that under feudalism power in society was determined solely by birth. Either you were born a noble or you weren’t. Capitalism was rich merchants overthrowing the nobles and democratizing the oppression of the workers. I do agree that for the most part it is an iteration of the same system though.