*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, October 26th, 2010 8:00pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

the government said I couldn't downvote it until I upvoted it.

Chuck sure changes his mind a lot.

Ugh. The YouTube description is just full of crap. Sometimes, regulations can be counterproductive, but the idea that the best way out of the recession is to cut regulation is just silly. Keynesian economics works. The stimulus helped save jobs, but it was too small, not too big. Stifling regulation didn't cause this crisis. Deregulating the financial sector was the real cause.

>> ^MrFisk:

Chuck sure changes his mind a lot.


Shhhh! You're gonna expose our biases!

>> ^Fjnbk:
Keynesian economics works. The stimulus helped save jobs, but it was too small, not too big. Stifling regulation didn't cause this crisis. Deregulating the financial sector was the real cause.


Oh boy. Ridiculous. "Too big to fail" should've truly been "too big to succeed." But that doesn't drum up fear does it?

Obviously we need a stronger federal government to reign in excessive local regulations. =D

>> ^Psychologic:

Obviously we need a stronger federal government to reign in excessive local regulations. =D


lol yes. This and the "Chuck changes his mind a lot" post both expose the terrible logic behind the sentiments of the video.

I mean, a giant city like Miami probably has a pretty good reason for regulating street vendors. Obviously the other stuff is silly, but you'd have to pass state or federal laws to prevent local municipalities from making laws like the ones in this video. So, you've got to have bureaucracy somewhere to stop bureaucracy elsewhere.

government means the people, the people want those rules, maybe chucks neighbors dont want him opening a business next to them. maybe they dont want his signs or people parking in their yards. some asshole would open up a jumkyard next to me. thats why we have zoning laws etc. only completely ignoarant people would buy into this...oh...hello teabaggers.

As a home remodeling contractor, all of my best jobs are under-the-table. But that means I don't get any protection to ensure payment or any insurance in case of injury. It's an interesting decision to have to make.

It's adorable how corporatists always make their arguments against regulation about the little guy. Why am I not surprised that the Institute for 'Justice' is funded by uber right wing corporatists, big oil's David Koch and trustfunder magnate Richard Mellon Scaife:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Mellon_Scaife
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/oil/report.aspx?aid=347

David Koch net worth: US $21.5 billion
Richard Mellon Scaife net worth: $1.2 billion dollars

Actually, the first three specific regulations they raised sound like ones that should be repealed.

The Miami street vendor thing sounded totally fine, as did the thing about making full disclosure of assets when you dissolve a corporation.

At the local level, there are plenty of situations where liberals should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with libertarians.

For example, why should someone need a license to be a hairstylist? That's just corporatism on a small scale.

Although I disliked the video, and although their not correctly located, I enjoy the time labels on the bottom conceptually. They're a good hack for something that will inevitably be integrated in internet video (and already is in more niche environments, viz. HowCast, Hulu to a lesser extent), hopefully sooner rather than later.

Institute for Justice @ Wikipedia
Institute for Justice @ SourceWatch

According to SourceWatch, IJ does support campaign finance reform. (though details are sketchy) Provided it takes corporate/union/pick your poison money OUT of campaigns, can we agree on that piece?