Automation is coming no matter what. We're heading for a future where there won't be enough jobs available and more people will have to drop out of the work force. I'd rather rip off the band-aid now than try to artificially delay it by paying people absurdly low wages.

Or, companies can blur the lines between worker and manager, thereby employing people to do more work for less money and cutting out the higher paid, management-only types. Or, at least one or more lower levels of them.

As I have phrased it for quite a while now: we have a population that is surplus to need

Just look at the banking industry. Banks all around me have been closing their drive-thrus. Couple PNC branches closed. People just don't need to actually go to a bank that often. Wonder how many teller jobs have been lost in that industry.

I was in my local Sam's Club recently. They've semi-recently introduced a "Scan & Go" app that allows the customer to use their phone to scan the bar code of an item to purchase and then pay for the purchase when done, completely eliminating the checkout process for those who use it. As I was walking toward an empty checkout line to go past it and out, the cashier asked if I was ready to check out. I told her no, that I had used Scan & Go. She responded, "Yeah, I LOVE that app!!!"



Uhhhhhh.....

It's not really basic economics. The "higher wages for our employees will cause inflation" is just dumb stuff CEOs trot out to scare the public into thinking they should make less.


I'd love to see a breakdown of how much Amazon benefits from our infrastructure, economic system, and technology. Then compare it to the $0 they pay in taxes each year.

I agree automation is coming, but I'm not sure there won't be other jobs created. We've gone from an economy that grew things, to one that made things, to one that sells things, each transition rough for some but overall improving the economy (and unfortunately for Jon, increasing standard of living and population). I imagine there will be an increase in health and climate industries.

In a perfect world teens would be the only ones working retail. Both the employer and employee see each other as something they have to tolerate to get what they really want- $.

I think Amazon/Wholefoods, and fast foods are already making the transition (social engineering) to using our phones to buy and order. That New York Amazon store is amazing and scary. Cashiers in a few years are going to be as rare as travel agents today. Add self driving/delivering vehicles and all of a sudden the largest company in the world has just eliminated most of its overhead.

It sounds like we need to blame our politicians and tax policy rather than Amazon.

Also WTF is happening with the stock market today?

Actually, travel agents do still exist (I know at least 4 personally, odd thought that may be) ... they're simply used by the upper single-digit incomes

Service would simply become something that only the economic elite get.

edit to add: make that 5 travel agents, now that I think about it (and if you're generous with the phrase I "know"). 2 exclusively corporate, 3 consumer.

Good morning, Mr. Tyler. Going... down?

Reaction to interest rates going up, supposedly

The travel agency business is actually growing a little bit right now. Organizations like state governments use them. And they can save individuals a ton of time at zero or minimal added expense.

That's going to be the big one. There are a LOT of truck driving jobs out there currently. (not to minimize the loss of cashiers, but those big box stores, at least, are going to need people to do around the store jobs at the least)

The Supreme Court denied a stay in a case where ND has implemented voter ID. The ID must have physical address and thousands of Natives use P.O. boxes. The law was passed shortly after Heitkamp won six years ago with strong support of Natives.

In GA, the Sec. of State is blocking 53,000 registration applications, 70% of them from black residents.

The GOP is working hard to make sure only the right people get to vote.

Truck drivers will never go away though.
The thought is that automation can improve fuel economy and safety. But I cant imagine a time in our lifetime where 80,000lb machines are going to be on the road with passenger vehicles without a human in place at the very minimum for emergency input.


Heck locomotives have been automated for at least 30 years ad there is still an engineer on board everyone.

I think you'll see it. They want pilotless planes in our lifetime and they are much further along in development with trucks. The US interstate system lends itself perfectly for the kind of non stop cruising is what they want to use them for.

So more dollars chasing the same amount of goods does not lead to inflation?

It's that raising the minimum wage does not lead to more dollars. It just redistributes them. Every dollar that goes to an employee comes from somewhere else. The government can cause more dollars by printing more of them.

I think that it's more that our current system does a really bad job of maximizing the human potential out there. I'm not saying that I have a solution, but we haven't really changed our thoughts on how to allocate human labor since the industrial revolution. It is due for an update.

I still think the driverless vehicles is a long ways away. I know some companies have circumvented cities they have well-mapped routes out beforehand. But there are still a ton of things to work out.

First, Level 4 is considered highly automated. It can do what a human can do. But it requires an extremely well-mapped area. It requires good weather. This limits it a great deal to cities. Also to only specific routes that don't provide issues (lot of human traffic, confusing intersections, etc). So a city like Boston would be much more difficult than one like Chicago due to it's grid. This technology is still likely a decade away at best from becoming a consumer staple in cars. And that's assuming we've hashed out all the legal issues.

Level 5 is where you'd need to be for truck drivers. Where you can fill up a truck and send it cross country without a driver. No one is even remotely close to this. People working on this say it's still just science fiction at this point. They're probably 20 years away or more.

By then who knows where the world will be. I still think drone technology is the sneaky technology that will surpass the need for a lot of the self-driving technology. Sure it can't transport everything, but a lot of smaller goods can be shipped from city to city without the hassles of the issues the road offers. Imagine Amazon filling up a small plane with goods to be sent from Kentucky to Illinois and having a machine fly the whole thing from one warehouse to the next. Imagine you moving your home and instead of filling up a moving truck you fill up a container that gets put in a drone and flown to around your new destination in a fraction of the time. It would require an overhaul of flight patterns and such (to not interfere with traditional air travel), but it would work.

To start, it would be nice if more families could get by as single-income households. Or if you didn't have to work until 75 to be able to survive as a senior.

There aren't more dollars in the economy. Inflation is caused by excess money in the system (usually by printing too much or providing easy access to it at low interest rates).

There's an argument that raising minimum wage causes prices to go up. But in Amazon and many other businesses cases, that's malarkey scare tactics. So many factors go into price of a product or service.

I heard the most likely first use will be at ports and factories . A huge number of drivers, within a closed system. Plus, the air health risks to the drivers has been devastating.

I recently discovered my bank's app. After physically going to the bank at least every other week for ~25 years or so, I haven't been in one in 2 months. Feels liberating.

If we get to the point where national or worldwide goods delivery can be done automatically - we really don't need jobs. Bring on the robot slaves!

You are actually still paying it, just that you are paying it to Medicaid and SNAP through your taxes. Most of these hourly employees at McDonalds qualify for food stamps and medicaid. So McDonalds right now keeps their prices low by having you subsidize their benefits (or lack thereof) through taxes.

Also, not everything is a good. I pay a goodly amount (probably too much, really) for internet, cell service, satellite.

This is spot-on.

To add to this, the false argument that gets trotted out is that McDonalds now has to raise their prices to compensate. It's a simplistic view of economics and people making it likely know that going in. There are other factors at play.

If McDonalds raises their rate to $15/hour, they may get a better employee. Someone who is more efficient and better at their job. Someone who provides more value than the $8/hour employee.

There are other areas the company can cut. For instance, McDonalds made over $5 billion in profits last year. This isn't a company that is hurting financially and couldn't sustain it. In fact, it would be such a tiny percent of their profits in the first place. You can look at executive compensation. Their CEO made over $21 million last year. He's not really worth that to the company and I doubt would quit if it was cut a bit.

And for those who say they wouldn't do either and just raise the prices, they can't. They have competition. If McDonalds decides to sell their burger for $2 instead of $1, Burger King and Wendy's can jump in and undercut them.

To see a raise in prices you'd have to see one of two things. 1) The company unable to maintain profitability with the higher wage. 2) A company being a monopoly or forming a cartel with their competitors. Both of which are illegal.

Not quite spot on. About a 1/3 of McDonald’s workers are teens, another 1/3 is under 25-20. The over 25 group includes many of the managers and up. But yes, there are a lot, too many in the over 25 (especially single moms) that are being exploited by the corporate evil mongers.

Also, with 25 and under crowd the business model is actually attrition. They do not want employees to work more than 6 months. After that an employee is earning too much for a job they can get cheaper- thus the dummy proof kitchen. Often to get rid of these “good” workers they give them an awful management job, that usually gets them out.

In a way, it’s all more social Darwinist than we care to admit.

Nobody ever complains about inflation when rich people take more money.

How much of a raise do you think an employee gets after 6 months? They're pretty much making the same as when they started and that 6 months of experience is very important.

Top 1% own 38.6% in 2016


Bottom 90% own 22.8%.


A little kick at the bottom isn't going to tip the scales when the gap looks like this.

And Thu futures are bad also, down 350 or so.

If we are going to do this, let's get to a bear market and get it over with. Trump has good cover blaming the Fed so it won't necessarily be bad for the GOP mid-terms.

No stopping automation for sure. New jobs will be created and many will be left behind in the transition.

I'm ready for self driving technology to go mainstream and do think Uber, truck etc. drivers are going to be endangered sometime in next 20 years.

All-in-all, a net positive for the economy and the US. If we don't lead the way, another country (e.g. China) will and definitely prefer to be in the fore-front.

TBH, I am looking forward to how she answers the questions.

Melania Trump Addresses 'the Jacket' and Husband's Alleged Infidelity in No-Holds-Barred Interview | Inside Edition

Benefits often kick in. But the most devious part is this is one of the fast foods most successful strategies at preventing unions. They know after 6 months workers can get uppity, so creating an environment where most leave is worth it. And again, promoting to management stems the unionization.

Yes, and already happening. Saw a study that said America is basically the only country where people like and prefer to drive and don’t want that freedom taken away. Whereas most other Asian countries can’t wait to rid themselves of driving.

I must not be the typical American. Driving to work and home every day is the single most unpleasant aspect of my life.

Would you rather take public transportation?

So they create an environment where the workers want to leave, but they also give them benefits? Exactly what is this changing work environment you speak of?

Can you imagine the freakout if Obama hosted a rapper in the WH and he said motherfucker to the press pool?

We do some work at the Charleston port and at the two remote intermodals. They already have automated "jockey trucks" at two of these three locations. Essentially its a big rig that backs up to a line of under carriages then moves itself over to the craning zone, the containers are set on the unders, the jockey truck drives over and back that carrier and container into a parking spot. The craziest thing is to watch at each end a human is required to set the hitch pin and pull it out to drop the trailer. Here is a truck driving itself around a yard, backing up perfectly....but we need bubba and a crow bar to pull a pin and win a landing gear down.

The guys you talk to there tell you stories of regular breakdowns, either component failures, loss of communications, signal interruptions. Whatever. The solution in that closed environment is when anything malfunctions the unit abruptly stops, a human can climb in and pilot the truck.


Ive got an employee with a Tesla Model S with the autopilot technology. Its insane. At 60 mph you can whip the wheel and it will self correct. She has demonstrated this....much to my undershorts dismay. I get that the tech is feasible. I just think you need a driver on board on stand by for when it breaks down.

:banghead:

Depends on the public transportation. I love taking the train in to work because I can sit back and read a book the whole time. Then again I get impatient and stressed driving in gridlock. Not a big fan of the bus though.

I have to admit that I look forward to the day that a self-driving car can take me to work while I read a book, play video games, or take a nap along the way.

Yes. Without a doubt. The only reason I don't is I currently work in a metro Atlanta area that refuses to allow MARTA expansion. I will soon be going back to school to get my Masters and will take public transit every day.

The threshold tipping point to where public transportation really takes off in a city is when it's faster and cheaper than driving. But what % of Americans live in a place, like New York or Boston, where that's true?

I live in a metro area of 750k where you can drive and park pretty easily wherever you want. So it's really tough to get people on the buses. Consequently, the buses only have very inconvenient hours, and they increase commuting time and greatly decrease flexibility of when you want to leave and where you might need or want to go along the way.

To be fair, the metro area votes no because 1) the current system is poorly run and no one expects that to improve as complexity increases and 2) the plan is largely tax the entire metro area (if not state) and improve very little for those outside city limits. Oh, and call anyone that doesn’t want to pay more taxes racist.

Snob County?

And GSU or Tech? Both are easily reachable from MARTA. I live a half mile from a MARTA station and work right next to another one. It's fantastic, I read tons of a books a year on the train.

1 is decidedly not true. It's ontime stats are comparable, if not better, than most mass transit systems in the country. 2 - if you want MARTA lines to your county, why the fuck shouldn't you pay for it? And 2.5 - if you don't want MARTA lines because it brings 'crime', you may just be using a dog whistle for black people.

Also dumb shit like this: $553 million to extend the Atlanta Streetcar!

I don’t know what you are talking about. I live in Fulton and would need to walk 5 miles to get close to a bus line, much less rail. And there is no way they follow any sort of schedule.

You didn’t even read what I said. The argument is why vote yes when nothing will be expanded near me

To be fair, the metro area votes no because 1) the current system is poorly run and no expects that to improve as complexity increases and 2) the plan is largely tax the entire metro area (if not state) and improve very little for those outside city limits. Oh, and call anyone that doesn’t want to pay more taxes racist.

My mother in law is a Fox News truther.

They are currently showing a graphic stating the DOW is undergoing a market correction. Love it that they praise the hell out of Trump about the economy, but when the market tumbles its a "correction"

It is amazing how they brainwash these people. She also tried to tell me last night the wall was well under way. When I prodded her for proof she of course said it was on the news.

Because why wouldn't you want to extend rail to the Beltline, one of the main reasons it was created (not just as a glorified sidewalk)? And considering that this has been called for by a good number of Atlantans and the money is coming from the additional tax that Atlantans vote for, it's actually quite smart.

You said poorly run, not that it doesn't go near you. I ride MARTA every single work day. It is 95% on time. That's what people mean when they talk about how it's run. And if buses are in the same traffic as the rest of the city, rather than having rapid trasit lanes, then yeah, they are probably going to have issues with timing.

And look at what's going on in Atlanta. They voted for expansion with a half-penny tax, and all sorts of Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit is coming in to expand the reach of the system. If the rest of Fulton wants to pay for expansion, it'll happen.

Gwinnett (where I see progress is being made pending a March referendum). But I have worked in Cobb before and their CCT system is horrible.


GSU. I went there for undergrad and took MARTA the whole time. I loved the additional time to read, do assignments, pay bills, etc. Even if it cost more, it would be worth it for the improved quality of life.

Yep. Really good movement. Unfortunately its during "special election time" rather than general election. I have seen polls that most Gwinnett folks are for MARTA, even with the 1c tax (I remember a few years back that Gwinnett was for MARTA but against it if it required a tax - how did they expect it to get paid for?!)

So what is the deal with Kanye?

Absolutely. If I lived some where like DC I would take it every day.

I live close to the VA (actually bordering on Brookhaven), but #1 is completely true. MARTA costs more than most other transportation systems (did I mention they just changed cards too, sot eh ones you had to buy a few weeks ago for $5 just to ride are no longer valid. It goes almost nowhere, and the buses are even worse. They just canceled our bus line that runs along Briarcliff, which is amazing since a 2000 person high school now has no public transportation options.

The only good news is that they will be expanding the Emory corridor so MARTA may actually go there, but I probably live too close for it to work for me.

Trump supporters made a controversial trade of the NFL in exchange for Kanye in order to further strengthen their icons with mental stability issues position.

Play to your strengths.

It's different here, obviously, but since I moved to Japan I've really come to enjoy taking the train to work. Like others said, I can read books, take a nap, whip out the computer and do some tasks, etc. Beats trying to deal with rush hour traffic and knuckleheaded drivers and all that stress. Plus, it's a 10-minute walk from my nearest station to my house, and another 10-minute walk between my job and its nearest station, so I get at least 40 minutes of exercise each weekday.

I'm not sure what I'd do if I have to go back to Birmingham, Alabama, or someplace else in the U.S. with terrible public transportation.

Let’s be honest, if Obama thought he could get away with campaigning during the storm, then he would have been in Ohio on Monday.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 30, 2012

Having seen the traffic in Asia, I fully understand why.

I do wonder if it'll work in Asia or places with alot of motorcycles and bicycles zipping in and out like crazy.

This is just a weird story. Hard to believe SA would be this stupid, if they wanted him dead, go hire some ex-Mossad or like to do it where it can't be linked back to them.

The prince seems to be more progressive (e.g. women driving), I sure hope he didn't order it.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkey...te-report-says

You should have asked her who was paying for it!

Everybody sees Putin got away with it & thinks it's easy...

No, MBS is not progressive. The women driving thing was already going to happen, and his real consideration is how to consolidate power, give up ground where necessary & tighten the ruling "family" so they can stay in power longer.

I am a little curious if Turkey (or the US) will have to burn tech sources or if it's just that sloppy by the Saudi's, because I do doubt that actual a/v Intel would come from & be admitted to from a human asset inside the embassy that quickly. Did they even try to use a black room? Either way its also unbelievable that they'd argue he just left via a different exit and they don't have any record of that.

They had been trying to lure him to SA for some time to no avail. And I think it'd be a much bigger story if they had come to the US to assassinate him. This was probably their best opportunity that offered a little plausible deniability.

I don't think the new Prince is better, he's just better at PR. The women driving thing, the holding concerts and wrestling events, etc. But the human rights abuses still take place.

Whether it's stupid or not is yet to be seen. The biggest risk they ran is alienating the United States. But our own President has called the press an enemy of the people and has a soft spot for authoritarians. He's already brushed it off which seems to go with the Saudis reading the room correctly.

The way I read it they dismissed all the Turks for the day and it was enough except for the welcoming committee and the reporter.

Not discounting the human rights angle, but how dumb do you have to be to write exposes on SA government, self exile yourself in the US a d then willingly return to get...divorce papers so you can marry your new sweetheart?

It's undefeated guys....never beaten.

I wonder how many people who criticize MARTA are familiar with other American mass transit systems (I remember one time stopping one of my friends short by pointing out that Seattle only has one light rail line). $2.50 one way flat fee is generally cheaper on average than most other mass transit systems in the US because other systems tend to charge based on the distance you have traveled. And the change from blue to silver cards has been in process for like 3 years (I got my silver card a few years back when they were giving them out for free when announced the change).

And of course, it goes enough places that it's the 8th largest mass transit system by ridership in the country. The issue is that the state doesn't fund a single cent of it - which is rare among major mass transit systems in the US. So they have asked counties to approve additional funding, which the City of Atlanta did overwhelmingly in 2016, which is where you find all these additional projects being funding (Beltline rail, Clifton Corridor - because Emory being frustrated by DeKalb County dragging its feet on the MARTA splost asked to join CoA).

There is always a tweet.

It's Thursday and only 26 days until the election. How many illegal donations from China and Saudi Arabia did Obama collect today?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 11, 2012

Always. A. Tweet.

Yesterday Obama campaigned with JayZ & Springsteen while Hurricane Sandy victims across NY & NJ are still decimated by Sandy. Wrong!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

How is this Saudi thing just now breaking? Sportdigs had it last week some time.

No one sane anyway.

Given that we're talking about the ATL, umm ... I'm sure there are some who do expect that.

Michael Cohen has registered with the Democratic Party-just in time for the Nov elections. Apparently he was a registered Democrat until Trump ran for office. Now he's switched back, so we Democrats will forgive him?


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...m_npd_ms_fb_ma

Why does anyone have to forgive him? Who cares what his registered affiliation is?

He's hoping the judge when he's sentenced and the public will. Read the article, his lawyer put out a statement about it.

I read the article - I don't see any statement from his attorney on why he switched parties. What does his political affiliation have to do with "we Democrats" forgiving him? What does the public's perception, or Democrats in particular, matter?

And why would a judge care? I'm honestly confused. A judge is really going to give him a more lenient sentence because he changed his party affiliation? He could have voted for Trump as a registered Democrat, so we're basically saying a judge is going to acknowledge that not being a Republican means you should get less time for committing a crime?

sorry look at the tweet on the left side of the article, its from Lanny Davis, his lawyer. I'm not saying a judge will care-his lawyer hopes for a reduced sentence if Cohen is "squeaky clean" come sentencing. In June he was still the Republican Deputy Finance Chair. Cooperating with NY State, and telling Mueller every last secret about Trump, without lying about any of it, or holding back anything. Returning to the Democratic Party, which is definitely not the party of Trump, could be part of that process at least in his lawyer's mind.



I hope the judge is not impressed and he goes to jail for a long time, but given the gift Manafort was given after fighting Mueller the whole time, and losing pretty badly, Cohen and his lawyer have seen the "light", and are doing all they can to get an even bigger gift than Manafort.

Still some confusion as to how there was a recording but it may have been his iPhone and/or iWatch.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/middl...ntl/index.html

Everything's a con.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/13/u...ical-data.html

Trump is selling his donor list to other campaigns, PACs, and private businesses.

Huh? I just took MARTA yesterday and used the same card I've had for years.

It is most definitely NOT his iWatch or iPhone. The Turks can't just say "yeah, we got the whole Saudi embassy bugged to the gills, so we see and hear everything that happens there," so the need a plausible cover story for how they got the audio/video. It's lame, but it maybe could have happened, right?

Has anyone even heard the audio yet?

Honestly, I don't really want to, nor do I know why anyone else would.

Or do you mean, has anyone heard it?

I believe that the Post has and has shared it with intelligence.

As far as I know the only people to have reported on the existence of the audio is a Turkish newspaper. I just wonder if the recording has been shared with someone a little more trustworthy and has been reported exactly what's on it.

I'm not a fan of torture personally and don;t want to hear it myself.

US spies say they have video and audio proof of Jamal Khashoggi's final moments, as Uber and NYT pull out of Riyadh conference | The Independent

So without government regulations, we would all be cool with accidents like the limo crash up in NY, right? The business will clearly go bankrupt from nobody else riding with them, and another company will step in and run things how they want, and that'll be good enough? I mean, the bad company went away and that is the desired social impact, isn't it? Because that'd the general argument for less regulations and less government oversight and more capitalism, right?

I know, I get it. It doesn't count for safety and stuff that really matters, like emergency recovery stuff. We can't have people just milling around with no governmental help after a hurricane, but why not?

Shouldn't that be exactly what the small government people be pushing? I didn't choose to live there. They have to take responsibility and bounce back and survive. Businessmen will come in and redevelop the area and make money on it again. Isn't that how it's argued? No regulation, all capitalism, no empathy, all responsibility?

Isn't that exactly what the government is? Isn't this exactly why things have to function for the greater good, even if people it doesn't directly benefit don't want to? You can't have it both ways. You can't have small government that gets out of peoples lives, without having a government that can't protect it's people. Argue the fine line all you want, but somewhere, someone is going to argue that your line is the wrong line. As has been said before, the government you want during an emergency is the government you need every day.

I hear how WWII was the example of how America rose up and became the greatest nation because we all pulled together to win the war. Do people remember just how overbearing the federal government was on businesses across the board? I'm sorry, but there is no way that the current legislative mindset that exists in Washington would be brave enough, or strong enough to pull anything like that off right now. They might even be called Communists for even suggesting such a thing. How convenient.

In the early 1900s when Galeveston, TX got hit hard by a hurricane, the citizens took it upon themselves to raise the island about 9 feet on their own. They didnt get a lick of help from the federal government.

Just throwing that out there since you mentioned hurricanes.

Honestly, in todays society, you have to have big government. Too many people are attached to it.

I guess it is your perception. We will never be without big government. Unless it starts starving the population. Then you would see some serious change.

You're talking early 1900's. The end of the Gilded Age. The point where the government literally picked the winners and losers in business in order to develop the country, and it worked, at the vast expense of human rights and quality of life, but it did work. That's neither here nor there I guess, but it's not exactly representative of the current political arguments for or against government support.

Looks as if there is enough evidence for a bunch of people/companies dropping from that conference in SA. Some pretty sad shit.

I still don't get it, there are many other ways to get rid of someone besides inside your embassy. If true, it shows a lot of arrogance and hope there is a high price to be paid.

Saudi Arabia has literally beheaded and f***ing crucified an 18 year old pro democracy protester and the world didn't do a thing except promote SA to chair the Human Rights Council in the UN. Why should they think anyone cares about a little embassy murder?

Dumb smaller government guy responding here...

Sounds like all the regulations you want are already in place and the accident still happened... ineffective overstretched big government failed to act. Maybe because they have 8 million other things they are regulating as well? Your solution is more government? Please explain...

I know we're numb to Trump, but take some time to look at clips from his interview with Lesley Stahl. In it he said that climate change is real, but we shouldn't do anything because at some point it will change back, that NATO wasn't created to stop WW3 and that he knows more about it than Mattis, and dismissed Putin's assassination attempts in the UK because it's not in our country.

So just because something bad happened means that we just give up trying to keep it from happening or trying to prevent bad things from happening where we can? That's essentially what you're arguing here, right? It's the same argument against gun control. Why try to stop it? All the owner has to do is decide to break the law, who's gonna stop him from doing that if he really wants to?

Safety and regulation is always a bracketing. Do we all benefit and spend less overall when businesses aren't allowed to just do what they want? We should totally get rid of the FDA, the FAA, the CDC, I mean, shit's gonna happen, right? What's the point? Why bother even having an EPA? Let's just do what third world countries with shitty governments do, where they 'accept' all the money and any assistance from corporations in exchange for giving up regulatory control because of profit.

That's pretty much the entire argument that I hear from anti-government folks. It's like some people are anti-any government. They feel like they'd be better off on their own, and they don't owe society anything at all. It's a pretty ludicrous argument.

Asked if he believes he treated Ford with respect, the President said, "I think so, yeah. I did."
"You know what?" Trump added when told it appeared he had accused Ford of lying in a speech. "I'm not going to get into it, because we won. It doesn't matter. We won."

He’s just a vile human being. Of course I did get a chuckle out of him referencing himself as “not a baby” on more than one occasion. I can’t recall a time I’ve been in conversations with other adults who have to remind me they are not babies.

Not saying that at all. I'm just wondering why you chose this particular case to make your case with. If anything government didn't do the job you think it is capable of doing with this company. It's pretty clear they were not supposed to be operated that limo.

Regulation has it's place, that's my point. I'm not calling you out specifically. You're much too smart to believe that everything is bad. I'm talking about others, in my region, who firmly believe that all regulation is bad. They hear what they are told. They feel that every time they hear of something getting cut or unfunded that it's more money for them and not wasted somewhere else. They can't understand why they even need regulations. Between Massie and Paul here in NKY, the rhetoric is so constant and overblown against any kind of regulation that these people can't understand why they would even want any at all, or that the less the better. That businesses will always have the best interests of people in mind, and that the fewer restrictions on them, the better. My point was, situations like this, proves that regulations are needed to keep people safe and the general welfare of the population is better off with things like this. So the regulations didn't stop the accident, but it should have, it tried to. My point wasn't that they would have, but that they are necessary for public safety and many regulations are necessary, even when people don't understand them.

Wouldn't the better example have been where regulation worked, not where regulation was in place but failed anyway? I get your point, but you're arguing against your point with that example. Should have, tried to, etc., suggests there's no point to it.