NT Political leaning? - Page 10

NT Political leaning?

View Poll Results: How do you see yourself on the political spectrum (NTs only please)?

Voters
215. You may not vote on this poll
  • Far Left

    41 19.07%
  • Far Right

    14 6.51%
  • Moderate Left

    68 31.63%
  • Moderate Right

    35 16.28%
  • Independent

    57 26.51%
Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 10 of 26 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 20 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 258
Thank Tree159Thanks

This is a discussion on NT Political leaning? within the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects forums, part of the Keirsey Temperament Forums category; Originally Posted by BIGJake111 Therefore I find that it is not capitalism that leads to corruption rather it is regulation. ...

  1. #91
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by BIGJake111 View Post
    Therefore I find that it is not capitalism that leads to corruption rather it is regulation.
    But without regulation, capitalism drives businesses to cut corners wherever possible, at the expense of other people and the environment. Take pollution as you discuss. Have you ever saw what the environment was like without the EPA? Rivers literally smoldered and started on fire due to companies dumping their toxic waste into the rivers (because capitalism dictates it's more cost effective to do this than properly dispose of the waste). Also, you think air quality is bad now in the US? Look at China and their lack of EPA and the US would be in the same boat without the regulations we put in place.

    Sure regulations can drive corruption. Look at Citizens United and how corporations try to undermine any regulation out there that costs them money. The thing is, the alternative without regulation, is much much worse.

  2. #92
    ENTJ - The Executives

    Quote Originally Posted by PowerShell View Post
    But without regulation, capitalism drives businesses to cut corners wherever possible, at the expense of other people and the environment. Take pollution as you discuss. Have you ever saw what the environment was like without the EPA? Rivers literally smoldered and started on fire due to companies dumping their toxic waste into the rivers (because capitalism dictates it's more cost effective to do this than properly dispose of the waste). Also, you think air quality is bad now in the US? Look at China and their lack of EPA and the US would be in the same boat without the regulations we put in place.

    Sure regulations can drive corruption. Look at Citizens United and how corporations try to undermine any regulation out there that costs them money. The thing is, the alternative without regulation, is much much worse.
    I completely agree except that I don't think it has to be the EPA to keep things in check. We need an educated public and the fast and prominent spread of knowledge. For example if Honda decides to dump waste into a river the consumer should know, similar to how we have mpg stickers on cars I have no issue with a simple color coded environment sticker on each and every consumer product. Allowing the consumer to know what damage was done to the environment in the creation of that product.

    At that point though it should be the consumers decision on weather they are willing to buy a product with a burning river label or a picture of a skull and cross bones on a ground water well lol.

    I think that's entirely reasonable and results in natural competition between companies to produce the best product.

    For example look at the Porsche 918. Regulation drove Aston Martin to produce the cygnet. A rehashed scion that diluted the brand. However Porsche who had the padding of vw sales to save them from EPA regulations also produced a fuel efficent car. The difference is that the 918 is the fastest car around the ring whilst the cygnet only damaged the brand identity of Aston Martin.

    Through the freedom of Porsche to Produce what they want, they created an Innovative car that has technology that will trickle down and improve emissions for all sports cars, they produced it because it's the way public opinion is going. In stark contrast no innovation came from the Cygnet.

  3. #93
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by BIGJake111 View Post
    I completely agree except that I don't think it has to be the EPA to keep things in check. We need an educated public and the fast and prominent spread of knowledge. For example if Honda decides to dump waste into a river the consumer should know, similar to how we have mpg stickers on cars I have no issue with a simple color coded environment sticker on each and every consumer product. Allowing the consumer to know what damage was done to the environment in the creation of that product.
    You do realize the only reason there are MPG stickers is because the EPA mandates them. Do you think that a car marker is going to spend the extra money on a process to show MPG of a car when they don't have to? Then, if there's no EPA, who sets the criteria for the products to be labeled accordingly? Who enforces that they are labeled properly? Basically what you're suggesting is having some government agency like the EPA to do this, but instead, allow companies to freely pollute. When it comes to a label, most consumers don't care. The only label they really pay attention to is price. That's why organic foods continue to remain a niche compared to conventional foods. There is a subset of educated consumers, but most people don't care, especially if they don't see the firsthand effects of what is going on. Why would someone in Texas care about a polluted river in Ohio?

    Basically all your plan would do is allow corporations to become even more greedy and you talk about corruption, look at how hard corporations fight labeling requirements as it is. They would just pollute and then work to get the labeling laws changed so they didn't have to report their pollution. In turn, your idea would be a horrible system.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #94
    ENTJ - The Executives

    Quote Originally Posted by PowerShell View Post
    You do realize the only reason there are MPG stickers is because the EPA mandates them. Do you think that a car marker is going to spend the extra money on a process to show MPG of a car when they don't have to? Then, if there's no EPA, who sets the criteria for the products to be labeled accordingly? Who enforces that they are labeled properly? Basically what you're suggesting is having some government agency like the EPA to do this, but instead, allow companies to freely pollute. When it comes to a label, most consumers don't care. The only label they really pay attention to is price. That's why organic foods continue to remain a niche compared to conventional foods. There is a subset of educated consumers, but most people don't care, especially if they don't see the firsthand effects of what is going on. Why would someone in Texas care about a polluted river in Ohio?

    Basically all your plan would do is allow corporations to become even more greedy and you talk about corruption, look at how hard corporations fight labeling requirements as it is. They would just pollute and then work to get the labeling laws changed so they didn't have to report their pollution. In turn, your idea would be a horrible system.
    I didn't say abolish the EPA or that mpg stickers are there for another reason.

    We should not force companies to do something. We should have transparency then speak with our dollar.

    If someone doesn't care about a river in Ohio then that's on them. The people of Ohio can take it up with them. If you have a problem with consumers then so be it, if you think humanity is dumb or terrible and want to assume such a narcissistic stand point, then so be it.

    I think the idea of a color coded label placed on products is and ideal way to deal with pollution. It places the burden on the average human being rather then the power being in the governments hands (which really shouldn't exist for anything other then to collect taxes, maintain roads, defend against intruders, and educate.)
    ientipi thanked this post.

  6. #95
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by BIGJake111 View Post
    I didn't say abolish the EPA or that mpg stickers are there for another reason.
    Well when you say, "I completely agree except that I don't think it has to be the EPA to keep things in check. We need an educated public and the fast and prominent spread of knowledge," that pretty much implies abolish the EPA. What would they be doing if you took their ability to regulate the environment away? Sitting there and playing video games?

    We should not force companies to do something. We should have transparency then speak with our dollar.

    If someone doesn't care about a river in Ohio then that's on them. The people of Ohio can take it up with them. If you have a problem with consumers then so be it, if you think humanity is dumb or terrible and want to assume such a narcissistic stand point, then so be it.

    I think the idea of a color coded label placed on products is and ideal way to deal with pollution. It places the burden on the average human being rather then the power being in the governments hands (which really shouldn't exist for anything other then to collect taxes, maintain roads, defend against intruders, and educate.)
    You're naive as heck to think that companies would do the right thing. Study history. You know how the FDA was created? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

    Things like this stemmed the EPA being created (that's right, a river on fire):
    Cuyahoga_River_Fire_Nov._3,_1952.jpg

    And honestly, ever hear the term, "not in my backyard." People only care what directly effects them. This makes it easy for multibillion dollar corporations with vast legal resources to easily come into little podunk towns and do whatever they want. Nestle does this with local aquifers for their bottled water: Nestle Continues Stealing World's Water During Drought

    You don't see people caring that they're buying bottled water and caring about the many environmental impacts it has such as the draining of aquifers or the plastic bottle waste. Why would they suddenly care about some color coded label? I mean we have nutrition labels on all of our food yet suffer from an obesity crises. You can't tell me 1/3 of the population that is obese cares enough to read labels and that is something directly effecting their health. Now imagine something that is happening far away that is out of sight, out of mind.

    You think the residents of a small town of 1000 people can go against a major corporation in the court system? If you do, that's another being naive on your part. We should indeed force companies to do anything. Since they're legally "people" and their main goal, by law, is to maximize profits within all legal means, this effectively makes them sociopaths that will stop at nothing to make an extra penny of profit. If they had to bulldoze through a group of people to make an extra nickel, and they could legally do so, they would.

  7. #96
    ENTJ - The Executives

    Quote Originally Posted by PowerShell View Post
    Well when you say, "[COLOR=#333333]I completely agree except that I don't think it has to be the EPA to keep things in check. We need an educated public and the fast and prominent spread of knowledge," that pretty much implies abolish the EPA. What would they be doing if you took their ability to regulate the environment away? Sitting there and playing video games?



    You're naive as heck to think that companies would do the right thing. Study history. You know how the FDA was created? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

    Things like this stemmed the EPA being created (that's right, a river on fire):
    Cuyahoga_River_Fire_Nov._3,_1952.jpg

    And honestly, ever hear the term, "not in my backyard." People only care what directly effects them. This makes it easy for multibillion dollar corporations with vast legal resources to easily come into little podunk towns and do whatever they want. Nestle does this with local aquifers for their bottled water: Nestle Continues Stealing World's Water During Drought

    You don't see people caring that they're buying bottled water and caring about the many environmental impacts it has such as the draining of aquifers or the plastic bottle waste. Why would they suddenly care about some color coded label? I mean we have nutrition labels on all of our food yet suffer from an obesity crises. You can't tell me 1/3 of the population that is obese cares enough to read labels and that is something directly effecting their health. Now imagine something that is happening far away that is out of sight, out of mind.

    You think the residents of a small town of 1000 people can go against a major corporation in the court system? If you do, that's another being naive on your part. We should indeed force companies to do anything. Since they're legally "people" and their main goal, by law, is to maximize profits within all legal means, this effectively makes them sociopaths that will stop at nothing to make an extra penny of profit. If they had to bulldoze through a group of people to make an extra nickel, and they could legally do so, they would.
    You misunderstood the quote. It's not the epas place to tell me what I can buy. They should exist so that we may know of pollution and I am okay with them stepping in at the case of mal practice such as improper disposal of nuclear waste.

    I don't think companies would do the right thing. I think that the buyer would, and if they don't. That's on them. A company will go where the money is and if people refuse to buy red labeled products (or even better retailers refuse to carry these products) then you are defeating pollution one the same but while protecting the liberty of the individual, be them a CEO or hobo.

    I know of the river on fire. I like to think that in today's global market driven by the media that if that happened today. Regardless of EPA. People would boycot the companies that dump in that river and nonprofits if not my opinion of an EPA that fights for information rather then restriction would make sure people know who is responsible. Leave it the public buying their product, retailers stocking their product, and even better shareholders scared of bad pr, to manage the environment.

    Few humans think global warming is a lie by now thankfully. Now they should just act based on that. I think they will, you think they won't.

    When entering an argument it grows apparent that collectivist like you are driven by a superiority complex as apposed to a heart outreach to the underdog be it the impoverished or the environment. Rather then thinking the environment or impoverished deserve help it's usually more of a distrust in humanity to help themselves.

    You have a bleak view on many things, why not have the same view towards government as well. Many would find your obesity comments offensive and if you think the government should limit if I may eat or burger or not that's absurd. Your analogy about obesity and food is actually a reflection of how labels as apposed to regulation does help.

    Notice what's on fast food menus today and the amount of calories in it as compared to 20 years ago. Weather some are still obese or not, that's their choice and the consequences are on them. But overall due to public opinion, education, the media, and forced transparency. Lives are being saved. Let's treat the environment the same.
    ientipi thanked this post.

  8. #97

    Centre-right.

    I'm a Conservative voter, despite having typically leftist social leanings.

  9. #98
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by BIGJake111 View Post
    You misunderstood the quote. It's not the epas place to tell me what I can buy. They should exist so that we may know of pollution and I am okay with them stepping in at the case of mal practice such as improper disposal of nuclear waste.
    They're not telling you what to buy. They're merely setting a standard to protect the environment on products that are sold. Kind of like the health department sets a minimum standard that employees have to wash hands or food has to be handled in a certain way. The health department isn't prohibiting you from buying any food. They just make sure the business selling the food doesn't poison you. The EPA is doing the same thing but instead of directly poisoning you, they make sure the environment that everyone relies on isn't poisoned.

    I don't think companies would do the right thing. I think that the buyer would, and if they don't. That's on them. A company will go where the money is and if people refuse to buy red labeled products (or even better retailers refuse to carry these products) then you are defeating pollution one the same but while protecting the liberty of the individual, be them a CEO or hobo.
    But buyers don't care, as I pointed out. Even if they care, there's often not a lot of choices. Looks at half the products we have, including the computer you are reading this post with. Do you think there wasn't some sort of slave labor used into gathering the materials and manufacturing it?

    I know of the river on fire. I like to think that in today's global market driven by the media that if that happened today. Regardless of EPA. People would boycot the companies that dump in that river and nonprofits if not my opinion of an EPA that fights for information rather then restriction would make sure people know who is responsible. Leave it the public buying their product, retailers stocking their product, and even better shareholders scared of bad pr, to manage the environment.
    Yet companies get bad PR, and life goes on. Look at BP. They committed one of the worst environmental disasters in modern history, yet I still see BP gas being sold. By your theory everyone would have started buying Shell or Mobil gas and BP would have been put out of business. As far as I can see, BP is still selling gas pretty much everywhere (and I have been a lot of places in my traveling to see).

    Few humans think global warming is a lie by now thankfully. Now they should just act based on that. I think they will, you think they won't.
    And if they care so much, why when gas is now under $2 a gallon people are swarming to buy SUVs and bigger gas guzzlers? If they truly acted like you said they did, the demand for gas sipping cars would be rising, despite low gas prices. Honestly the lower gas prices and people swarming to buy big SUV's proves my point that people only really think with their wallets.

    When entering an argument it grows apparent that collectivist like you are driven by a superiority complex as apposed to a heart outreach to the underdog be it the impoverished or the environment. Rather then thinking the environment or impoverished deserve help it's usually more of a distrust in humanity to help themselves.

    You have a bleak view on many things, why not have the same view towards government as well. Many would find your obesity comments offensive and if you think the government should limit if I may eat or burger or not that's absurd. Your analogy about obesity and food is actually a reflection of how labels as apposed to regulation does help.

    Notice what's on fast food menus today and the amount of calories in it as compared to 20 years ago. Weather some are still obese or not, that's their choice and the consequences are on them. But overall due to public opinion, education, the media, and forced transparency. Lives are being saved. Let's treat the environment the same.
    I am far from collectivist. I just don't have absolute faith in a completely unregulated market and that corporations and consumers will do the right thing. Fast food calorie labels are required federal by law: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/bu...menu.html?_r=0 You're right, it has raised some awareness, but on the other end, people don't care. I don't care how offense my obesity comment is, it's the truth. People just don't care and even with labels will continue to stuff their faces with garbage. That's why 1/3 of the population is obese. Sure, a small subset of people might change but the vast majority of people don't care.

    Seriously, observe people. Yourself and this forums (along with many internet forums) is a bad place to deduce human behavior. People in these places tend to be more rational, and if everyone were like that, you might be right. The problem is, however, the average person is pretty much a lazy slob who just really doesn't care. Their lives are really of mere existence by working some mindless job they hate, coming home, eating the same garbage and watching the same garbage. Most importantly, they don't think for themselves. They let things be fed to them and just don't care.

  10. #99
    ENTJ - The Executives

    Quote Originally Posted by PowerShell View Post
    They're not telling you what to buy.
    That must be exactly why it's so easy to find a naturally aspirated v12 new car for sale.
    ientipi thanked this post.

  11. #100
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by BIGJake111 View Post
    That must be exactly why it's so easy to find a naturally aspirated v12 new car for sale.
    Stop exaggerating thinking you're proving a point. If you are as market oriented as you say, you do realize there's limits on what customers demand. Just like how there's extra large value meals, they don't serve an XXXL value meal with 3 burgers and 4 containers of fries with a 5 gallon bucket of cola.

    Here's an article outlining what is going on: Cheap Gas Prices Slow Small Car Sales, Help SUVs, Crossovers

    Also, it takes several years to design and bring a car to market. I remember there being a V10 Ford pickup before gas prices spiked. You never know, they might come out with V12 engines if gas stays cheap enough. Right now the market demands are anywhere between a 4 cylinder and a V8 with a few outliers.


     
Page 10 of 26 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 20 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] Prove your anti-social leaning here?
    By Silverflame in forum ENTP Forum- The Visionaries
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-24-2015, 06:22 PM
  2. [INFP] Leaning on people
    By Courtalort in forum INFP Forum - The Idealists
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-13-2014, 07:44 PM
  3. [ISTJ] Leaning to ISTJ
    By Death Persuades in forum ISTJ Forum - The Duty Fulfillers
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-24-2012, 06:38 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:24 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0