In other words, while I’m not religious, I put some stock in the Christian (and otherwise widely held) belief that we have to take care of one another. I take that to mean that power should have limits. Since money is power, we have to make sure those with wealth (power) equivalent to millions of individuals don’t use their wealth (power) in a reckless or evil way.

Morality and ethics must be considered. Hence this discussion.

And hence my belief in the importance of education. It is fairly inexpensive to provide information to people, who can then often make changes for themselves, which helps to eradicate a problem like poverty or hunger or disease while taxing global resources less than by investing in huge, unfocused infusions of expensive technology.

1) I believe most of the US Critical infrastructure/key resource (CI/KR’s as they are referred to in govt’ circles) are own privately. This includes most utilites including power & water. Privately owned but heavily regulated (like Nuclear Power Plants are government by NRC). I believe most major cities have moved out of the running public utilities business for years.

2) Water is plentiful (70% of the Earth landmass is water). Potable water for drinking and irrigation is a problem in parts of the world – especially Africa and Middle east.

3) There are companies and technologies that are regularly used to create clean water. Small scale desalinazation have been around for decades (in nuclear subs and space program). Multi billion dollar desalization plants are common in the middle east… they’re almots always run by private companies.

The realiy is these things are EXPENSIVE. They are capital intensive in ways most people can’t imagine the scale of. You have choices – entrepeneurs can raise millions to create companies to invest and start making clean water (or whatever else happen) and make profit for themselves and their business partners (shareholders, venture capitalists, etc). This is the same for Smart Energy efforts, clean coal, you name it.

Profit is a double edged sword. Gordon Gecko said it best “greed is good” – as it can allow us to invest in and achieve things not imaginable like desalinzation plants size of small cities and well the internet!

Just ask Halliburton. They’re quite happy in their palacial HQ’s in the United Arab Emirates in Dubai paying 20% corporate taxes than they were while they were in Houston.

Legislation leaves unintended legacy for decades and not something to be taken lightly especially on mattesr as nebulous as “social justice”.

FYI: David, the US was NOT founded upon ” one of helping each other move up and succeed.” It was founded upon over-regulation/repression (e.g. garrisoning of red coats in Boston via the intolerable acts), and over taxation(stamp act) by King George over wealthy merchants in NE. If the Crown taxed the colonies less and let colonials serve in the british army equally, I believe we’d still be drinking tea at 4PM.

Working on capitol hill I see these types of efforts all the time. There is a principle there which is valid “excessive profiteering off of the distressed is bad”. That being said – how do we operatationalize that with a piece of legislation which will address that big problem.

The issue is that there is a process that all legislative efforts go through which makes these bill impossible in the modern era. Here’s kinda of a distilled, insider’s look at how legislation happens.

A bright, eyed legislator from a left leaning state/district decides to write “The Anti-Profiteering and corporate corruption Act). Aptly it’s given an acronym that everyone can pronounce (ACCA). It hits the floor (probably in the house side due to the topic). Gets to committee (likley OGR – Oversight, Governance, and Reform) for study.

This is the point where the “process” really steps in. During this time hearings are held and stakeholders are given time to review. Backbench meetings are held continuously with everyone with a stake (corporations, non profits, unions, whoever) get’s to have a say in the bill in private. There is where most bills (say 99%) die as everyone changes the bill with the biggest influencers (with big PAC dollars, get their say and pronounce their support/opposition – opposition likely means reduced PAC $ going to those who vote for it, or worse yet or donating to the opposing candidate’s efforts during a campaign).

Mainly due to the fact the legislators need support of these bills from the people it matters the most. Bill intended to reduce limit “corporate excesses” will never pass or even be introduced. the running gun battles will happen over definitions “what’s excess?” “what’s profiteering?” “what about overseas companies that this bill does not apply to?” “we’ll just move our HQ’s overseas like Haliburton and lay off everyone in your district and run some ads with this ad! how about that!!”

That is why most bills never leave committee and die there. Just bottom line unless there is some criminal act that individuals are performing (e.g falsifying 8K filing to inflate profits – that’s how Sarbanes Oxley 2002 got passed ) it’s just too impractical to pass a “the company’s are making too much money off the poor” type bill.

I hate to say this but the best way to get things done is to pass a small, narrow scope amendment and attach it to something completely unrelated that is unopposable – like Defense, Homeland Security, or Intelligence authorization or appropriations bills.

I figure now that I’ve been a “stick in the mud” in another post I’ll try to provide a bit of a personal perspective on tihs section (if my participation helps with a viable click-driven business, even better).

I have a bit of a personal attachment to this as I live in DC and work on capitol hill (not a federal employee however) on policy issues.

I think there is a big difference between polls and policy. Polls in the end – don’t matter a damn. And by the way all of the polls (check Rasmussen, Gallup, RCP,etc) has POTUS’s rating under 50%. Nearly half of all americans disagree with what he is doing than agree. But again that’s a general pulse – not much more.

The problem is that POTUS is the most detached, uninterested POTUS we’ve had in DC in decades when it comes to leading legislation to closure. He’s got both houses of congress. He should be able to (if he showed leadership in his own party) to pass legislation with pracical impunity. He’s allowed his factions in the democrat party in the house/senate to balkanize policy and guarantee no substantive change on anything for the remaindre of his term(s).

While the young folks in may be happy with his performance so far. How does that align to what he’s accomplished in making a difference in “affecting real change” that he’s promised. pretty short.

FYI, the differences between two parties are actually very large on policies. Take a look at draft bills of the exact same topc (legislation, healthcare, governance) over the years and you will see a striking difference between the two in approach/funding etc. The only thing both parties have in commons is that they kick policies/hard choices down the road when it’s politically hard (deficit spending, social security, immigration).

Anyway, “POTUS is doing just fine” is both and over and understate of the job he’s doing. it’s overstating the confidence the general populus is having (opposed to a narrow band) and understanding his lack of will in passing laws/policies that are important to him and his party.

If you’re wondering, I hold a variety of liberal and conservative views on policies/topics like most Americans. I do have a pattern of supporting on the hill free market self regulation, smaller govt, less taxes. etc.

I think some of the power has to be put more efficiently into the hands of the people. The water supply is probably a good example of not doing that, you’re right. But aside from an occasional inspection, what can the FDA do, for example, about food-bourne illness besides set rules? Isn’t the fear of expensive lawsuits and recalls far more worrisome to a farmer than the threat of a visit from an inspector? In some of these cases, I think perhaps a government agency can set rules or guidelines and then spend their money educating the populace rather than performing inspections.

To bring it back to the debate topic, maybe in some cases the poor and the sick can be given more education and resources. Maybe in others it really is necessary to force an industry (especially one purveying goods or services necessary for subsistence-level living) to give the disadvantaged a break.

You seem to be arguing that it’s unethical to overcharge an unemployed, mourning parent for their loan debt. But the question is really whether or not the government can or should step in and stop this from happening. Regulation is too costly, regulators are too few, and business transactions are too many for government to effectively do this proactively. And the challenge with doing it as a response to complaints (like consumer protection agencies, for example) is to get enough information to the consumer for them to know when they are being badly wronged.

Here’s where I think the government could play a more effective and efficient role—in disseminating information and education about fair business practices, safe use of products, and such. I think information is power in these cases. And it might be the most efficient way to try to prevent lots of types of abuses.

Question for you: what are the primary goods or services you feel the disadvantaged are being screwed on to the point that the government should step in? Food? Utilities? Health insurance?…

How about this: if someone said they could cure cancer with a single shot but wanted to charge 1 million dollars per shot it would be wrong wouldn’t it? And if this cure was easily duplicated and doesn’t require overly rare materials to make and the actual cost of manufacturing was say tens of dollars – shouldn’t the price reflect that? And is there ever a moment when such things should be free?

I get paying for cold medicine – I rarely use it when I get sick myself so it’s not a necessity to live. I get paying for pain medication and even some psychiatric medications but the cost should not be excessive, for the well being of any one of us effects the sum total of us. And if cost was the only thing keeping someone from death – don’t we have an obligation to provide the help even if it’s not profitable? Isn’t that the moral, even American thing to do?

If there was a shot developed that cured a whole litany of horrible diseases and it would save the country’s population billions of dollars -shouldn’t it be supplied at cost? Wouldn’t that be fair? Must there always be a profit?

We’re all willing to use Facebook for free or even this site. But there are somethings, for whatever reason, we justify must be paid for and not only paid for but feed on top of. In the financial end of things – someone’s debt can be bought and sold, new terms set, all without talking directly to the debtor. There were two parties in that original agreement but we as a society act as if one of those party’s, the debtor, is less than the creditor. So we’re okay that they are charged extra. Even if we don’t realize that they lost their job, had someone in their family die and were trying to raise their children and the extra charges on their bills mean their kids don’t get what they need and they can’t pay their mortgage. We forget the personal human behind the number, the credit score, the balance. And shouldn’t there be a limit to some of that?

I list extremes as examples but the reality is, as you state clearly, there are no absolutes. A modest profit might need to be worked in if the extra money went in to more research or better materials but does it mean someone deserves a ten million a year bonus? In society there are a number of ways to profit free and clear of moral ambiguity – it needn’t come just from the core product.

At what point do we allow all to benefit from something? At what point do we simply collectively agree – we will take care of this for each other?

It may be idealist but let’s not forget – man made money to make life easier – there are always things that we do for each other that we do not attempt to profit from. Finding examples in the modern world gets harder but historically if someone found a watering hole they did not charge their fellow tribesman a fee to drink from it.

Now someone might sell you something to keep the water in.