POST DELETED
POST DELETED
6 years ago in #life by robertoueti (67)
$1.62
- Past Payouts $1.62
- - Author $1.25
- - Curators $0.37
194 votes
- vlemon: $0.38
- sbi3: $0.15
- casberp: $0.14
- brazilians: $0.13
- majes.tytyty: $0.12
- steem-ua: $0.11
- crypto.piotr: $0.11
- dudutaulois: $0.09
- dineroconopcion: $0.07
- duarte9sousa: $0.06
- joaohazim: $0.04
- travellit: $0.02
- repollo: $0.01
- pedrocanella: $0.01
- crissimoes: $0.01
- steemitbuilder: $0.01
- anitacarolina: $0.01
- trincowski-pt: $0.01
- nachomolina: $0.01
- fucho80: $0.01
- and 174 more
Dear @robertoueti and everyone else reading it :)
I just accidently bumped into your publication. I'm glad I did.
I strongly believe that every aspect of our business and life should be regulated to some certain degree, but all new laws should be well thought through. Unfortunatelly more often than not those who have power to create those regulations do not think about future consequences.
Mentioned example perfectly shows that whoever has been behind those regulations didn't consult it with advisors and didn't think how new laws will affect people and businesses.
I wouldn't consider it waste of time. I would actually expect more time and effort to be wasted in order to analize possible outcomes of new regulations.
I'm honestly curious what other people would think about this particular topic. I hope you don't mind that I will share this post with few friends.
IMPORTANT: can I ask everyone to avoid going to deeply into "politics" in your comments? :)
Yours
Piotr
No, you cannot ask me to avoid going deeply into politics in my reply. Or, more precisely, you are welcome to ask, but I will not oblige you in this regard :)
Jokes aside, this is an intensely political issue. The whole subject of to what extent government should regulate our lives is inextricably bound up in politics, and individuals will inevitably reply to such questions based upon their political weltanschauung. I am a collectivist, and this colors my reply.
The greatest failures of Socialism have resulted from its historical emphasis on central planning. The greatest successes of Socialism have resulted from its emphasis on central planning. Both of these statements are true. So how then does a modern Socialist respond to questions on the importance of government intrusion into such matters? Fortunately, the dialectic offers some assistance.
The government of France today is headed by an oligarch, a former employee of Rothschild. It is a government which shamelessly favors the rich, at the expense of the workers. Obviously such a government is not to be trusted to regulate commerce, because any legislation introduced by such a government will be slanted to increase and reinforce the inequality of income and wealth distribution.
Therefore, I would absolutely, unequivocally, without hesitation oppose such regulation, not because I think the idea itself is bad, but rather because I am sure it would be badly implemented by such an oligarchical government.
Excellent comment re the above post. I love your succinct analysis of the successes and failures of socialism.
And you make a fine point about regulation imposed by oligarchs. Of course, they will only initiate regulation that benefits them. That's very clear if we look at history, and shockingly clear if we look at the recent history of the past 3-4 decades.
One point about regulation is that it often stands in the way of making money. A clear case in point is Boeing, with its horrible crashing machine, the 737 Max 8. Boeing took an old plane (to save money), then re-outfitted and altered and mutated it at the expense of safety.
Then, Boeing managed to convince the regulators that they (the regulators) were not capable of understanding all the fine technical aspects of its 737 crashing machine, leaving Boeing to regulate itself.
So, Boeing saved lots of money by jerry-rigging its 737. Its stock price did well, and its executives got great big bonuses.
Oh, and ... over 300 people died as a result.
Who cares @majes.tytyty? These general public are dying like ants in umpteen numbers, but still profits do matter to them and this factor outweighs than any other thing for that matter!
But there we have an excellent argument against the regulatory agencies themselves, after all, Boeing was only able to do this, because they managed to buy the fiscals to let them fly with this type of airplane.
In addition, Boeing has lost a lot of money on that, as sales of its planes are falling sharply, and that of its competitors are rising.
Does it not matter to you that people died as a result of Boeing’s egregious corporate malfeasance? Does that not matter, simply because that’s the way the wonderful free market works?
You imply that just because Boeing is now losing money and market share, that everything is working out as it should. Do you think that is sufficient retribution for the unbridled greed – and unregulated greed – of Boeing’s executives? They were concerned only with their profits, and not with the safety of their passengers. 346 people were killed as a clear and direct result of that reprehensible greed. And their families and friends will suffer the pain of loss for months and years. But thank god for the free market!!!
As for the silly claim that regulatory agencies only lead to regulatory capture, and that therefore there’s no reason to establish regulatory agencies, that’s a silly and baseless argument. If the financial regulators had done their jobs, the banksters and mortgage lenders would not have been able to defraud innocent customers or the taxpayers. And if the airline regulators had done their jobs, 346 dead people would still be alive today.
As for the various tired libertarian claims – such as “government is bad,” “taxation is theft,” “free markets are benevolent,” and “corporatocracy is divine” – a clear and nuanced perspective soon shows that those simplistic ideologies are not always true, and often complete hogwash. Moreover, it shows a horrible misreading and misinterpretation of the works of Adam Smith and Ludwig von Mises.
I say the same about many lives that is taken out because of regulations. People who doesn’t work because of these kind of view that we need regulations for everything. Besides, in the case of Boeing they had regulations and the problem occours, meaning that this regulation doesn’t work, the same of other kinds of disasters.
The free market kills less people than the regulations.
And your last paragraph, I am sorry, but doesn’t have any kind of point, only falacy.
Posted using Partiko iOS
You sound very upset @majes.tytyty :/
Love your comment @majes.tytyty!
There is always some wisdom in it.
Sad reality :(
Yours, Piotr
Another brilliant feedback @redpossum
You got my full attention right now haha :)
I agree. And yet we can keep it all at "general" level. Without bringing names of politicians or parties we're refering too. Let's just stay safe.
Thank you for sharing your view on that particular topic with me. Appreciate it a lot.
Yours, Piotr
You gave me an excellent idea of a post on the subject. Mainly speaking in central planning and the fact that you believe in favoring it. Thank you very much. ;)
I am a acnarchocapitalist by the way. Cheers!
Hi @robertoueti and @crypto.piotr
The text of the opening graphic "The government is always trying to close doors"
Tends to sum up my feeling about the topic that is the governments always think that they want to retain control
Thanks for being so responsive @thetimetravelerz
Hope we can skype again one day buddy :)
Cheers,
Piotr
Ya lots to catch up it's been a long time
Posted using Partiko Android
The govts around the world do this without caring the utility , pros and cons of the law.
It seriously makes me think who put this guy incharge ?
that I realize it is people like me who do so by sometimes voting for them or sometimes letting them win by not voting for the right person
People don't vote for people who has a good intentions, they vote for people who have more marketing.
Yes goverments always trying to close doors, because this underlying elite wants it that way...
There are many examples of this, such as the reduction of cash and the banks even want to get rid of all the cash, just an example of many!
greetings,
@sternblitz
Hi @sternblitz
Big thx for sharing your opinion. Appreciate your time :)
Enjoy your sunday,
Cheers,
Piotr
It is impossible to separate political and bureaucratic criteria from regulations.
In my poor judgment, in the administrative dispositions of a public nature, good sense seems to have very little place; that's why we can find the most absurd things.
We should rejoice when there are occasional timely measures
The problem with regulations is that bureaucrats are always thinking about them, never about people.
Exactly dear @robertoueti
Nailed it!!
Hi dear @robertoueti, hi Piotr.
Just when I was about to start writing, I read this:
Now it is difficult.
I think that there is always that caste of public officials who seek the constant evolution of society by regulating and sensitizing the established norms. Thanks to these initiatives we have been able to advance as a community and as a society
In the sixteenth century people threw their waste through the windows of their homes. There was no sanitary control.
We had to go through epidemics, endemics and pests to realize that a simple regulation of the rules or the construction of aqueducts could have saved lives.
With our society more and more evolved, the regulations are increasingly "refined". It is always easier to make a criticism highlighting the negative aspects of a proposal, without making constructive statements.
But what is true is that the pros and cons of any approach that will affect a mass of people must be evaluated. So if there are committed jobs and productive commercial activities, I think that all that approach should be reformulated.
Thanks for your interesting article.
I found your comment ...
With our society more and more evolved, the regulations are increasingly "refined".
... very interesting.
I might rephrase it as follows:
If we want to evolve as a society, our regulations will need to be increasingly "refined".
That will be necessary, but very difficult to do.
To leave it to anarchy and chaos and deregulation to sort out is unwise and immature. It's fine for a teen to espouse such movements, but as one grows and matures, one realizes that a bit of regulation is necessary and beneficial.
The trick is, how to do so when it's so difficult? How to do so when leaders might be corrupted or manipulated?
Perhaps this responsibility is very large and important to be entrusted to people whose lack of human sensitivity prevents them from identifying the true needs of society.
Regulations are always made up of human beings who are the most flawed point in the system, but even that is not the main point, since creating a regulation for something that is already working properly has no benefit.
That's true. Most leaders become leaders not because they're qualified or competent, but simply because they thirst for power. Those are exactly the kind of people that should NOT be leading us.
A good leader is truly hard to find.
But there is no anarchy and chaos in deregulation. Want an example? Markets have no regulations. To open a clothing store does not need regulations. Countries that have less labor regulations are the ones that have more jobs.
Deregulation can easily and quickly lead to anarchy and chaos. Want an example? The Glass-Steagall act was repealed in 1999. Within 10 years, the US banks and the entire US economy were in chaos, and barely survived. The only reason the criminal banksters and corporate fraudsters survived is cuz they ran to the government for a bailout.
Just goes to show, the banksters and corporations are as evil as the government.
And logically the state went there and helped them, again.
If you deregulate a certain industry you do not help if some of your players go bankrupt, you let them go bankrupt.
Besides, the Dodd-Frank act is so much better in comparison of Glass-Steagall act.
https://mises.org/wire/why-not-replace-dodd-frank-glass-steagall
if you analyze the history you will see that all regulations were either made to secure the monopoly or benefit parts of one particular sector over another that there are no lobbies. You commented on the garbage being thrown out the window, but the cities did not have to regulate it, since people started doing it before the regulation. Who did it was the low-income people who had no other way of getting rid of the garbage except in this way.
Regulations coming from the government are totally clueless, since private regulations are much more efficient and less invasive in people's lives.
I totally agree with you.
Rulers don't think much before making a rule. Usually they are in hurry to implement it, rather making it relevant. That's why such rules and regulations only create problem for the common people.
The only thing that they want is to steal the money of the population.
Yes, they have no other agenda.
Hey @crypto.ipotr,
Thanks for passing by. You always is welcome to share all my posts that you want.
About the politics in comments totally agree :)
I think that we need regulations too, but not these one made by politics or by the government. I always prefer the regulations made by private corporations like the ISOs and the polices of uses and services written in all the apps. They are very restricted and at the same time small with everything that we need to use.
Here in Brazil we have a lot of that problems, with bureaucrats trying to passing laws that are insane. But not only here, in other countries too. That is why I always have problems with that kind of discussion, when some politcs (right or left) trying to regulate something that is doing well and everybody likes it.
Dear @robertoueti
Hope you enjoyed received interest and engagement. I've read some quality comments here :)
It was definetly interesting topic, easy to promote :)
Yours
Piotr
I like these controversial topics, it is good to know the opinion of each one.
Although you ask me not to tie the policy in it, I can not stop thinking about it, because it is the politicians themselves who manipulate the system at their whim, at their convenience, for a few years here the laws have stopped working for the benefit of the community, morality, coexistence and good habits, to benefit the most empowered.
We appreciate this most clearly, when a government manipulates its constitution to extend its presidential term, regardless of the immediate and future consequences that this would cause. In Summary: Venezuela, a lived case of manipulation of laws, statutes, and of the same constitution, only for the benefit of its economic power and social control, without caring about the real needs of the people, making them puppets.
Therefore, I consider a waste of time, regulate something that is already being used and works perfectly, only when it is for the benefit and manipulation of an economic or political power and not for the benefit of the people.
Love your comments @equipodelta!
Exactly. The main problem is that the government will always try to talk regular that is best for you, but in the end, he is only thinking in themselves.
govt are always creating laws that do more harm than good. this may be a general statement but holds good in a lot of cases.
It would be better if governmets take the opinion of people before they create a law
Dear @crypto.piotr, thank you for inviting me to participate in this conversation.
As I said in my previous comment, if there are no regulations we run the risk of falling into anarchy and that is disastrous for any society. The menmantemante for us in our South America, we have had very bad experiences with our rulers, many specific problems without solutions, electricity, drinking water, health, education, jobs, which leads us to think that it is there for profit and not to serve the citizen.
I agree that whenever a resolution is approved by the government, it is necessary to wait a reasonable time to issue opinions on whether it works or not.
Thank you
Pr EV
But there is no anarchy in an absence of regulation. There are private regulations that are ALWAYS more consistent and easier to follow than state regulations.
You are right in that, it may be because those who implement such regulations are directly involved with the project and study the implications in more depth.
Indeed.
I fully agree with you that all aspects of life must be regulated to a certain level, in consultation with those involved so as not to affect or partially and totally limit their activities.
I believe that with the accelerated development of technology, governments and their officials are overwhelmed in their regulatory functions, resulting in absurd or useless laws that may restrict basic citizenship rights, such as freedom of movement or the right to work, as described in this post.
Thank you for this invitation to share my opinion on this critical topic.
Yours, Manuel
Hi @manuelgil64
Big thx for sharing your opinion. Appreciate your time :)
Enjoy your sunday,
Cheers,
Piotr
Hi @crypto.piotr,
Taking the negativity perspective of the higher institutions into consideration, I just made a simple search as to whether there are any countries who are doing much for the benefit of the general public.
https://www.elle.com/life-love/news/a36652/countries-with-generous-social-benefits/
I don't know the authenticity of this website so any Venerable Steemians who are living in the countries mentioned in the website, please tell us whether their respective countries are taking care of the general public that much and that the info given in the website is 100℅ true.
Thanks for sharing that link with me @marvyinnovation
What about you? Are you citizen from one of those mentioned countries?
Yours
Piotr
No @crypto.piotr. I am from India.
Greetings,
The problems of rules these days is the "Golden Rule"
Whoever has the "Gold" makes the "Rule"
It is ironic though that we follow them.
That is why I believe schools are made to make us follow.
They teach us to follow the rules and the government.
Only very few schools, teach us to harness our talents and creativity to be what we should be.
Regards
I am totally in favor of schools. so in favor that I believe that people can teach their children at home, if they want
Nice to hear that
But I believe, like the telephones which evolved to the cell phones of today.
Education in school should also be improved.
The way they teach using black boards and chalk since world War I, in most school, is still being used. Industrial type of teaching where you follow the leader is still the norm.
Those few who adapt like Bill gates, Steve Jobs made it.
Regards
Posted using Partiko Android
In wider scale, it is all about power. In 1913 when first central bank was established, few people had 30% of all the world's net worth. To to that (and to keep it that way), you have to have people in every country who will obey and listen and even help you to achieve your goal. Those people are politicians. If you pay them well, (bribery) they will do what you tell them to do. Politicians give ordinary people some kind of feeling that average citizen has a power to change the way of life and quality of citizens by voting. In fact, that's not the case.
Regulations are only the way, that the good ideas to make life better- ideas that people have and are actually doable, can not be realised without a big cut to go into politician's, banker's, and world secret society's pocket.
As @redpossum is saying, we are on the way of oligarchic society. Not just in France. Middle class is getting away. There are rich people and poor people. But poor people do not realise that they are poor, that's the problem. In last few years the prices of electricity, food, telephone and net services....went straight up. But wages didn't. Or did for 2-3%... That is nothing, compared to the rise of the prices. It is hidden inflation, that I ve been talking about for long time. Even here on Steem.
Another brilliant feedback @worldfinances
Indeed it is all about power. Just like you said.
So few people had 30% but noone had debt, right? And now few people have 90% of it and everyone around is in debt. Is that right?
ps.
Thank you for sharing your view on that particular topic with me. Appreciate it a lot.
We're clearly quite on the same page with judgement of current situation and future progress.
Yours, Piotr
Right. Debt is a way to keep majority of people on their knees and have them in control. It has always been like that. That's why China is keeping big portion of USA debt, so they can release it if USA does not listen to them. If that happens, US dollar loses value big time.
Hidden inflation is showing up in products we buy. They are getting smaller and smaller, but prices stay the same. But this is just one case. There are many...
Dear @worldfinances
Isn't situation with China and US like a two sided sword? If US dollar loses value then China biggest customer (US) would be in trouble. And also buying power would decrease.
EU is obviously importing loads of goods from China, but it's still not enough to replace demand from US.
At the same time growth of Chinese economy has been all about construction. Property market has been an engine for all that growth for past few years. And amount of ghost towns being build is only proving that this market is dead already and it's the biggest property market bubble in history of mankind (even prices in 2008 were nothing comparing to current bubble in China).
So it's not like China can do much. Especially if you add growing political unrest and mass arrests of practicioners of falun gong. China is facing tons of challenges and best times for them are already over. Wouldn't you agree?
So now the real question is: if China will enter recession (which may happen) and perhaps property bubble will burst - then how huge of an impact can it have on europe and US. This I would love to understand and be able to "partly predict".
Any view on that issue_
If China does not produce any more (like some politicians are saying) "let's make stuff at home" ... and I say "please do it already". Than you will see how much Apple phone (or almost any electronic device) really costs (around 10k USD for phone). To have big mouth is really easy, but to do that is like shooting yourself in the foot (or worse).
China can always find buyers. But if USA gets off the trading deal, China has to do so much more in Africa, EU and South America. They are making big trading way between China and Europe (One belt one road). And US wants to cut that trading wave with their military in Iran. But I think that will be almost impossible.
From my point of view, US is in much bigger problem as China. Because China is big, fast, cheap and reliable producing machine. US producing is extremely low, but they have the biggest banking cartels. China has challenges, but not as big as US has. If let's say....world would cancel working and trading with China, that would be devastating for them. But on the other hand, every country would have to find new way to produce HQ things cheaply (or quickly find the cheap and reliable producer nearby - just to get through the crisis). After that countries would have to get a deal about the new trading ways and producing and all these stuff.
Mark my words: Next recession is not going to be for one country or only for Europe or US... Just like recent one, this one will swipe the world, but a lot harder than in 2008. There will be lot of dead people.
My latest blog: https://steemit.com/busy/@worldfinances/bubble-of-debt-largest-we-have-ever-seen-in-the-history-of-the-world
PS: when you will have time you can listen to Greg Manarinno on X22 report.
I will definetly mark your words @worldfinances
Thank you for this amazing feedback.
Yours, Piotr
Greetings @crypto.piotr. The rulers are not interested in people, but in their own interests. They are usually in a hurry to implement them, rather than make it relevant. That's why such rules and regulations only create problems for ordinary people
Institutions try through regular force to society so that they can always win something in return!
Today I am reminded of the twenty three month old person that had his life support withdrawn by the courts. Its is such actions as this that will bring down our system.
Indeed.
What do you think of India banning Bitcoin? even in Australia the Reserve Bank has attacked the Bitcoin and all cryptocurrencies investments.
Great question @cosmophobia
Do you have any opinion on that topic?
@crypto.piotr
Ever since Bitcoin fell there has been lots of articles written against Bitcoin and the Cryptocurrencies almost on a daily basis.
Yet despite these attacks the Cryptocurrencies has continued to defied the experts such as RBA Governor Philip Lowe, and many others. On top you have Sigal Mandelker that serves Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. Sigal Mandelker that alleges that suicide bombers are using Cryptocurrencies to finance their terror against us.
So what do I think about investing in the Crypto Currencies? I have been in Steemit now for over a year and in that time I have invested in the Steem both here and on mine exchange and I have enjoyed it a lot.
I dont like trading but I prefer staking, buying the different currencies and keeping them for a long investment period of time. Because when you buy a currency it never stays the same and it might go down or up. If it go down I buy more the cheaper the better and I dont listen to the fear mongering about a bubble bursting or anything like that.
I also like currencies that give me passive income such as ont, vet,neo,pivx, all of them gives me passive income from the exchange that I use.
Finally I believe that everyone should invest in what ever Crypto Currency they prefer and taking a stake on them bulding it slowly and receiving passive income in return.
Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe "bitcoin is a 'speculative mania"
Amazing comment @cosmophobia
Loved reading it. I seriously appreciate your time and effort.
Yours,
Piotr
Hi @cosmophobia,
When i searched the net, I came to know that India banned Bitcon for two reasons, one being the transactions are "pseudonymous" and the second one being its prices are volatile. I agree with the second one, but the first reason confused me a lot.
@marvyinnovation
Thank you for reading my post and for commenting on it.
Hi there!
In my own point of view, society today is very fast evolving.
To cope with the ever growing conflicts and needs of different groups of interests, I think the government also needs to constantly revise or check its regulations.
Well, it is maybe a time wasting effort, but if for the good of the entire society, then it's worth it.
Posted using Partiko Android
I agree that it has to always analyze its regulations, but instead of creating more, try to reduce the current ones, since as society advances, the laws are obsolete.
Hi there, I followed you, please follow me too so we can be friends here in Steemit community and keep in touch with each other. Thanks!
Posted using Partiko Android
Love to see how responsive you are @paulcesna
Done! ;)
Hi @paulcesna
Big thx for sharing your opinion. Appreciate your time :)
Enjoy your sunday,
Cheers,
Piotr
Dear @crypto.piotr, my opinion is that the government don't hear to the citizens and these cause problem and discussions in the countries, like in my country, but I don't want to profundis more about this by respect.
No government hears the population. They force citizens to follow that law, even if the majority is not in favor.
Here in our country, there are regulations and/or laws that were passed but sometimes it stops there. Some are implemented but up to a certain point. It will not be monitored until it becomes history. It is election season here in or country and many of the candidates are highlighting what laws they have passed and which ones were approved. I am surprised that there are laws/regulations that are not being followed. I have to agree that some laws were not thought through. They were just passed to add color to the name of these politicians.
This is one of the main problems of today's society, politicians are only thinking about how they will get more money from the population not thinking that people today already use the products and services and are happy with the result.
I appreciate for assessments about this topic. I consider that these kind of restrictions make blockchain stronger and bigger. The main idea in Blockchain technology invention is overcoming these obstacles easily. Thank you for this valuable post
But how can blockchain help solve this problem?
Do you think those who have power are free? Every Staron has its own problems. Of course, I am against stupid laws. Who does not need anyone and just pour money into the budget. But what output do you see? He is not)
I believe that governments do not need to regulate a thing that is already working because they are never interested in the population, but in the taxation.
I respectfully disagree with your desire for centralized regulation @crypto.piotr, because a true free market (through unfettered competition) always regulates itself most effectively. The arguments for and against this are quite involved so we can probably agree to disagree on this point. ^_^
Dear @jbgarrison72
I respect your view.
However, your definition of true free market is something that would allow "bad players" to abuse such a market. Wouldn't you see that could easily happen?
2017 in crypto was an excellent example of such a free market.
I think as hard as it is - we always need to find a balance between "free" and "regulated".
Yours
Piotr
Abuse always occurs when you have high demand and low supply. However, due to the free market, companies are adjusting themselves in the best way possible, without the need of a governmental legislation for this. An example today is that we have almost no more ICOs, projects that are serious are using other ways to show their investors that they want something visionary, and this was not done by a government but by private companies.
The topic (title) or the issue? If accidents happen because people who walk are run over by those on scooters it is time for a change.
This law has nothing to do with wasting time or taking people their jobs away.
Posted using Partiko Android
The question that should be discussed is, how are you going to be able to solve the problem of electric scooters being that they can not go to the streets as it is more dangerous to the people they use but also can not stand on the sidewalk because they cause problems? If there is another question, are problems between scooters and pedestrians solved when they occur?
I hope my discussion only skimmed the surface of "politics." ☺
You are right !
I think the opposite ;)
Hello @robertoueti very interesting topic
The governments have never worked well in any of their areas, corruption is the most important thing for them to continue improving in this area for their benefit and to corrupt the people ... Now about the issue you're dealing with in your publication, of course it's serious as well. How is it possible to try to destroy something that already works perfectly.
It is impossible to know how politicians think, the mentality they have makes us see them as a lack of knowledge, and this happens in all countries. Abuse the population with unnecessary restrictions and regulations, because of this many people lose their jobs because they do not have enough money to follow these rules when they need to pay any tax.
It is important to say and as it may be possible that this can only benefit the rich, it should be the opposite, that all restrictions and new regulations imposed by governments on the population, are a fair and equal benefit to all, without distinction.
We can continue to talk about all the bad work of the rulers and make very large lists of all the problems that governments are not interested in solving as you comment health, education and security, and without missing POVERTY, hunger ... And to add many more...!!
I agree on all points.
Governments do not help any population. Regulations only make services more expensive when they do not, prohibit by absurd laws that businesses can function, so that rulers can continue to earn their dirty money.
Yeah, that’s right..!!! Many people are suffering with this particular problems caused for governments, but what can we do with it...??
The only most important thing that we can do is to continues improving our knowledge and probably we can fix this in the future with a complete technology..!!!
Posted using Partiko iOS
Love your comments @edgarare1
There is always some wisdom in it.
It surely is difficult to understand how do those people think/
Yours, Piotr
Indeed a nice topic to talk about. I think these things nice and people already using it. Putting a ban on it or controlling it completely is not going to help anyone. Govt have many other things to do for the betterment of country and they should invest their time and energy there rather than wasting for this which actually don't even required their intervention.
Even in my country few unnecessary regulation happens and when people oppose them then they take it back.
Nice post @robertoueti
Thanks @crypto.piotr for sharing this nice post.
Love your comment @alokkumar121
There is always some wisdom in it.
The biggest problem with regulations I see is the fact, that regulators seem to focus on punishing "abusers" and not on building awareness of the public.
Yours, Piotr
Absolutely friend.. we have same view on the topic.
Hi @alokkumar121,
Well said.
Posted using Partiko Android
Thank you.
Thank you for showing me this post @ crypto.piotr and good before all apology for not responding to your good wishes before but I was busy with my work as students.
I have always thought that regulating things already prewritten that serve as current facibles in the use of the human being is stupid, the clear example is in my country where they regulate companies and demand that they lower prices doing that this becomes a total entropy and in another side It is also good to regulate to see how they behave with this regulation, but in my humble opinion I think that these regulations are silly and without any good reason.
Regulating something that is already working is the same thing as saying that you do not know what you are doing with your life and the state needs to show you how it actually does, according to what it thinks right.
Hi @memes777
Appreciate your comment.
Personally the biggest problem with regulations I see is the fact, that regulators seem to focus on punishing "abusers" and not on building awareness of the public.
Woudn't you agree?
Yours, Piotr
Of course, in one it is the main drawback, the regulations are not bad in the first instance, the problem is their abuse and mopolirization of the goods obtained from them.
Greetings @robertoueti arrive here thanks to the recommendation of @crypto.piotr, very striking and important what you comment in your post.
These things are the ones that make me think sometimes, that many times they are business things, I mean I explain (yes, I know it may sound like conspiracy theory but that's the way it is or at least I see it); they do not want these to be used for some reason that maybe the commercial side goes through.
As for example happens as the case of Singapore which I saw in these days in a video explaining something that I did not know (which were the impressive costs that cars can have there, eye I'm not talking about ferraris cars or something like that no, cars like a simple Toyota Corolla that in any country costs 15-18K $ varying some things among their models of course, there cost 40K $ or more) and that is what we are going to say so they are "forbidden" if you do not have the money enough to pay the high taxes (which sometimes exceed 100% of the cost of the car) which limits a large number of people using them.
And is that something will justify there with the use of scooters and others and maybe (hopefully not) at that point because maybe for some reason it is not convenient to have such private services. Or as they may also justify that being themselves the government to take their own income with laws (coincidentally fair) with necessary guidelines and essential for the use of them.
Excuse me if I sound crazy or half conspiranoic but I see it, thanks again @crypto.piotr for the recommendation and I do not leave without first wish you a great week, God bless you.
Good point. I lived in Singapore for a few years, and can clarify some of your statements.
The car tax is about 200%. The reason for that is not to "forbid" those who dont have the money from buying a car. The whole point is the very reasonable one of limiting the number of cars in the tiny island of Singapore.
In that way, Singapore has avoided the major problem facing all developed and developing cites – traffic congestion. In Jakarta or Bangkok or Munich or Rio, the plethora of cars causes chaos and immobility. Not in Singapore.
Instead, Singapore has developed a truly superb, efficient, and inexpensive system of public transportation. So, a few people might wish they could buy a car, but the greatest percentage of people are content to use public transportation – even if it's not as convenient as using a private car.
There are many other ways in which Singapore regulates and limits behavior, but it's always done for the benefit of society, for the benefit of all. In that sense, such regulation can be said to be beneficial and even wise.
To conclude, the govt of Singapore "closed the door" to many car buyers. But, clearly, that's not a BAD thing. In fact, it's a case where the govt closing the door is a GOOD thing.
Hi @majes.tytyty......really an eye opening comment.
"...... limiting the number of cars in the tiny island.... "
It seems that this country has filled the sinGAPore between government and the general public and has set a sterling example in the governance, city planning, economic reforms, controlling traffic congestion and many more people-centric measures.
Whenever a country's top positions are occupied by "Dedicated Sacrificians" who always think 24x7 for the overall development of that particular country, it will resemble SINGAPORE!
So @majes.tytyty....... I just want to say thank you thank you thank you!
Posted using Partiko Android
You seem to have understood quite well about Singapore. Indeed, any country that follows its example will certainly do well.
Greetings @majes.tytyty, you're right you opened my eyes about this, thanks for your clarification.
I had not thought about the congestion vehicle considering it is an island, and the problems that could cause. And surely if people prefer public transport is because it has good qualities (not like my country unfortunately), thank you for the correction, have a great day, God bless you
You're welcome! Glad I could inform you about that great city-state.
Very true. I had similar impression of Singapore
Love your comments @jjqf
There is always some wisdom in it.
Yours, Piotr
Hi @robertoueti,
I must thank @crypto.piotr for sending me the memo and also for sending the link of this very important people centric blog post.
".......France will not allow electric scooters to walk on the sidewalks, applying a fine of more than one hundred euros..... "
Instead of applying fine, they can increase the width of the sidewalk area and put a partition between sidewalk area and the sidescootering area. If they do this way, they can pave way for the development and avoid accidents as well.
"...rulers want to waste time regulating something that is already being used and works perfectly... "
With regards to this point, the mistake is on us because albeit the onus is on us, if we make the deadliest mistake of electing a wrong person to the top job, they are sure to do such nonsense sort of things and waste our invaluable time and money FOR SURE.
Each and every country will have its own set of issues and the sour truth is that these aren't complicated issues, but the rulers out there are making it complicated unfortunately.
For example, take our country India as an example.
The present government has promised many benefits pre-elections, but post elections, they are doing post mortems on many dead bodies due to their inefficient handling of some issues, which erupted as a result of their miscalculation.
While the first bloody thing took many lives (many old aged pill died while standing in ATMs to get money from the banks), the second one brought many businesses to a grinding halt and throwing many entrepreneurs onto the streets.
Regulatory measures are indeed needed to put things under control, but it should not like kill the very society that it was designed to protect.
Love your comment @marvyinnovation. One of the best I've read today :)
There is always some wisdom in it.
The biggest problem with regulations I see is the fact, that regulators seem to focus on punishing "abusers" and not on building awareness of the public.
Yours, Piotr
I love your point, I agree with you
In my country, despite having a serious economic problem (which is killing us) and with this serious problem, insecurity problems increase, (robberies are the order of the day) the problem of education, (there is much school desertion due to many issues that are directly linked to the economy) chaos in the health sector, there are no medicines, treatment centers for chronic diseases are in dire conditions, even doctors are giving up their jobs due to the low income (they are forced because a decent life style is not sustainable)
Among many other problems that are directly linked to the economy, and the government is focused on other things, which I can assure you do not seek a solution to our real problem.
The governments of the world believe that implementing so many laws will have absolute control of the nations, that is something that could not happen, I am not an expert in those issues and the politics of truth that is a subject with a lot of fabric to cut, but if I am in agreement with you, I feel that politicians are dedicated only to regulate laws for their own benefit and do not seek solutions to collective problems, and that should be their function.
Thank you very much for your post, it was very interesting.
I totally agree. If more laws and regulations meant a more prosperous country, my country, Brazil, would be far more prosperous than the countries of Europe. Only it is not. ;)
Hey @robertoueti came here via @crypto.piotr.
Interesting choice of topic. I think every country has some issues with the e-mobility at the moment.
Maybe the US doesn't but that is another topic for another day.
I think you make a valuable arguement
But I also have to defend the government authority a bit because at least in Germany they try to make streets safe. When I think about that an e-bike would go on the "bike road" with 50km/h plus, it would mean that it would be dangerous to drive without an electric engine on that road.
I know that many laws are dumb or at least seem to be so but most of the time there is a valid reason behind it.
Keep up the good work buddy
Hi @mcnestler
Appreciate your comment.
Personally the biggest problem with regulations I see is the fact, that regulators seem to focus on punishing "abusers" and not on building awareness of the public.
Woudn't you agree?
Yours, Piotr
Thank you for sharing this interesting post to me @crypto.piotr.
Dear @robertoueti, I think the reason why they do it is to ensure the safety of pedestrians as side walks are meant for people who walk i.e. the pedestrians. A good way of implementing it is by creating a bike lane which can be used by bike and scooter users so that it will be safer for the riders as the main road might not be as safe due to larger and faster vehicles. On the other hand, I do think that the economical status of the riders of the lower income group and those who are unemployed should be taken into consideration and given a subsidy to cover the costs of using the services.
Posted using Partiko Android
Thank you for dropping by @yashny and sharing your thoughts with us.
Appreciate it.
Piotr
As I understand it well the law is that scooters are not allowed on the sidewalk.
I don't think this is a bad rule. I hate to be run over by scooters, electric wheelchairs, bicycles, motorbikes, and those 45 km cars!
A sidewalk is for people who walk!
An exception can be the center of the city, etc.
Many people use electric bicycle and they can walk very well.
Many can't and they have to jump aside.
I don't know about sidewalks, bicycle roads, etc in France, but in my country, they are everywhere and can be used.
Posted using Partiko Android
Love your comments @wakeupkitty
There is always some wisdom in it.
Yours, Piotr
Thanks
Posted using Partiko Android
Well, I think that sometimes goverments like to regulate worthless things. For example, In my country we have some issues with drug wars, therefore regulating the use of scooters is extremely irrelevant in comparison with figthing with Narcos/criminals gangs.
I think politicians use this popular topics to sell their agenda or as a smoke curtain to cover other things. On the other hand there is a lot of people who are activist of worthless things, in my opinion they lost the sense of urgency / priority.
Your title and theme both a express a sweeping generalization. Granted, it's often true, but not always.
As for regulation, I'd agree with Piotr in that a certain degree of regulation is necessary. To say that it's not necessary is rather naive. As a case in point, just see what deregulation has done to the economies of the US and other countries which have followed its lead over the past few decades. The new robber barons have been allowed to engage in fraud and asset-stripping, with the result that the wealth gap has reached an insane extreme. And it's continuing on its parabolic growth. Anyone who thinks that's healthy and productive should open their eyes.
The thing is, any regulators have to work for the benefit of all, for the benefit of society as a whole. That might be a challenge, as oftentimes, those who become the regulators are either incompetent or corrupt, or both.
But it was exactly the government, not the recordings, that brought about the rupture of the 2008 crisis. Contrary to the imagined, the crisis was due to the fact that the government guaranteed the population deficit through tax money or EDF loans.
Before this policy of credit expansion the banks were not making any mistakes.
It was not the government that devised the collaterized debt obligations, the various structured investment vehicles, the credit default swaps, and all the other fraudulent financial instruments.
It was not the government that engaged in all the predatory lending and foisted the many liar loans and NINJA loans on borrowers who would never be able to repay them. (Of course, the government did facilitate some of those shady actions, including the repeal of Glass-Steagall.) It was the banks and the mortgage companies that did so.
As for the banks' "not making any mistakes," I might agree with you there. They were too busy engaging in fraud and other criminal activity.
They were making no mistakes. They knew what they were doing, they knew when the shit was about to hit the fan, and they knew they had to cover their asses while making out like bandits.
Someone should have closed the door on those bankster-criminals and their reprehensible activity. Unfortunately, government failed to do that, meaning that the govt is as complicit as the banksters.
The government did nothing of the sort, it just opened the door for all this to happen, injecting real estate credit and securing collateralizations. Before that, if you look at the history of the banks' activities, they were in line with reality. After the government started the credit injection everything went astray.
It's the same thing today in Brazil, where people can not afford to buy a property because the amounts are absurdly expensive and many people are failing to pay their debts due to the facilitated credit that the government gave the population.
None of this would have happened had the government not intervened in the free market.
Hmmm, the overall thesis of your post is that the govt "always closes doors." And yet here in your comment you state that the govt "just opened the door" – implying that the govt is solely responsible for the 2008 crash and "all this to happen," because it allowed the fraud and chicanery to happen.
And if – as you say – the govt "just opened the door," then your reasoning falls flat. That implies that the lauded free market was allowed to do all its grand and noble work, and lead us to financial utopia. It didn't. In fact, it destroyed economies and countries.
As for looking at the history, I've already done that. Over the past decade or so, I've read 100 or more books (and thousands of articles) about the recent crashes (1997-98, 2000-01, 2008), as well as about the various economic trends leading to and causing the crashes.
To assume that the government caused the crashes by its interference in the free market is ludicrous. As stated very clearly in the first 2 paragraphs of my above comment, it was the banks and mortgage lenders and various other corporations. That's an undeniable fact, supported by empirical evidence.
The government closes the doors to new technologies and innovations by creating regulations that are not really necessary at all.
The government "opens the door" to bureaucracy, and bubbles that would not have been possible had it not intervened in the economy. As I said earlier, the banks did what they did because the government simply gave them carte blanche, which would not be done if there had not been the previous government stimulus.
Empirically, the last crises, from 1929 to the crisis of 2008, including this next crisis of credit of the governments, were ALWAYS caused by the governments and their Keynesian method of intervention in the economy. It is not I who say this, only historical facts that demonstrate this.
Here are some examples of what I'm talking about.
https://mises.org/library/crisis-10-points
https://mises.org/library/great-depression
Seriously I love your little convo you're having here @majes.tytyty :)
Seriously I love your little convo you're having here @robertoueti :)
Decentralized authorities to displace the centralized city authority would be the ideal solution. When a city's population gets large enough, it is no longer a city... it is effectively a state... and should be broken up into districts which are self-governing for a more ideal (and fair) distribution of governance... such that the rich catering bureaucrats of one district are not making decisions for other districts.
Decentralization is always a stronger solution for governance (if any such need for authority exists at all). A free market always provides the best solutions to any given problem... and even a free market of competing governance is better than a non-competitive one.
Hi @jbgarrison72
Appreciate your comment.
Personally the biggest problem with regulations I see is the fact, that regulators seem to focus on punishing "abusers" and not on building awareness of the public.
Woudn't you agree?
Yours, Piotr
Government has a limited set of tools to work with. For every carrot a government provides, it must somewhere obtain that carrot through the use of stick.
Government operates with the assumption that all resource managment is a zero sum game.
The free market assumes that new and greater value and resources can always be identified and cultivated.
Any "mixing" of these two polarized approaches yields varying degrees of success, but make no mistake, these two ideals are absolutely in opposition to each other. :)
My estimate @robertoueti, although it is necessary to have certain controls to avoid anarchy, I agree with you that governments always want to have control of everything, people who come to government positions apparently come with desires of domination which makes them have that behavior.
Now, there are multiple problems and needs in the most unprotected communities and they apparently do not take it for granted, there are so many projects in which they must invest and they simply put them aside because they may not leave sufficient commissions to make their accounts banking.
Unfortunately that is the sad reality of our Latin America.
Blessings and thanks for sharing.
Pr EV
But we have a control, the private control, that already works and everyone likes it. That is why I always said that the government did not need to regulate anything, since it already has regulations that work.
The problem with electric scooters is that they cause externalities: costs that are borne by others, usually from misuse. Scooters themselves are dangerous: current one's have killed riders and collided with others because of manufacturing and/or design problems. Nonetheless, this seems to be an overreaction, given that there's no process in place to revoke the ban should safety issues be fixed.
France, in particular because of it's legacy of dirigisme, and Europe, in general, have worse problems. Once-hired-never-fired laws reduce employment by making businesses reluctant to hire workers lest they be unable to fire them. Trade unions like these laws because they raise their wages and create sinecures.
The fundamental problem with the EU is that its governance structure is antidemocratic. The current structure was created in opposition to popular will expressed in referenda. Parliament is impotent. It has limited ability to revise the budget that self-interested bureaucrats in Brussels prepare. The Council of ministers acts as the main legislative body, rather than an upper house. While many regulations regarding standards are useful by promoting business, others are anticompetitive in an annoying way. It is one thing to declare an appellation controlée for Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese, it is another to ban Parmesan-style cheese made in other areas. Of course, the P-R producers are happy to receive excess profits. This is the sort of annoying regulation that citizens don't like and Parliament can't overturn.
Posted using Partiko Android
Love your comments @rufusfirefly
There is always some wisdom in it.
Yours, Piotr
Thank you! I knew the economics would be useful one day, but the pay is bad 😉
Posted using Partiko Android
Dear @robertoueti,,
I understand your concerns regarding this latest legislation to ban scooters or bikes in the sidewalks. Yes. I agree with you that it would really be a big disadvantage to people especially those in the lower class.However, have you ever considered the other side of the equation like, the government is banning its use because it causes injury to the people?For me, a sidewalk got its name because, its actually a place for pedestrians to safely travel down the road without the risk of being hit or injured by a moving vehicle. No matter how you rationalize that its a simple 2 wheeled vehicle, its still a transport means aka its not a human or animal walking.
For me, I have never really been hit by a bicycle or a scooter but, I have seen a lot of people who were hit by one. What if there's a compromise that says, they will not allow it on the sidewalks but makes a designated place beside the road for bicycles and scooters to run without the risk of injuring anyone?
Let us accept the fact that in this world, nothing is for free and that means investing in security either online or in the physical world is now a priority. just like in the real world where you pay a small fee to buy a lock and key that you have installed in your doors, gates or windows, people who make on line application that specializes on security do deserve their own cut on their own.
Why would you run the risk of robbers stealing your identity, investment or data? Or, in the real world, your personal effects? It all comes down on what you think is precious or important for you. If it comes down on these two categories, I suggest that you invest in security to preserve or prolong their value and eventually for you to reap their benefits in the long term.
I quite agree with you @nurseanne84
I agree that it is dangerous but that is exactly why the company says that if there is any harm to someone or to some property the person is responsible for reimbursing the damage. Also you need to comply with these rules if you want to use this mode of transport. If it is already provided for by private regulations, there is no need to have regulations like these that they want to approve it.
I agree with you on that. Is there no boundary like, a new rule that intermingles the two principles? Like a compromise of some kind?
Hi there ! Indeed they forbid electric “trottinette” (very light scooter 🛴) as they are VERY dangerous.
When they were launched they could go as fast as 80km/hour and were causing a lot of accidents on the sidewalk.
I think this is a good thing but now that they are on the road with cars in Paris there are some deaths (especially teenagers) as they get reckless on the road with it.
Posted using Partiko iOS
I believe that the biggest problems are that the rulers do not want this type of means of transport and are doing everything to get a little tax of it.
Thank you for dropping by and sharing your thoughts with us @vlemon
Appreciate it.
Piotr
hi @robertoutie I know this post from @ crypto.piort if in my view of government is who has the power of him who wins, indeed everything must be done and done by law because without law what does it mean to a country, and every regulation set by the government must be done because otherwise we will violate the law, essentially every law and regulation must be carried out properly because the present government is more decisive than before
Posted using Partiko Android
The problem is when you create laws that do not have to be created.
yes, that is the government, the small people cannot refuse
Posted using Partiko Android
Don't know much about the laws their, but the government doesn't want clean energy vehicles to prosper I don't know why
Posted using Partiko Android
because they want to earn it somehow.
With this sentence you just said what's wrong with most governments. By regulating "meaningless" things and actions they avoid solving important problems and give the impression of them being very active and occupied.
It simply reminds me of a child who doesn't want to do his homework so he/she pretends to be doing something else... And when these problems persist for too long, we see crowds in yellow vests all around the same France which banned electric scooters... I mean who the hell will ride it on the sidewalk when there are people ruining whole streets...
I think governments are trying to regulate something that now is not the time to think about regulation. We need to solve the bigger problems later, we solve the small problems.
Thank you for dropping by and sharing your thoughts with us @modern-trojan
Appreciate it.
Piotr
Electric scooters are also under a review here in Lanzarote.
More for their use on sidewalks and in pedestrian areas as they are not allowed on the roads, which is ludicrous, because electric is the future of transport.
If we are to save our beautiful planet, they need to be licensed for road use and on special routes.
Many are left around the towns for use by tourists and people who need them for work.
They are unlocked and charged to your card by using a special website.
This is a great idea but not according to the authorities.
China is so far ahead of the world with this new way of travel because they don't allow red tape to get in the way of the future.
Most western governments only want to make money from its citizens.
In Brazil, many of the places where we have scooters and electric bicycles are in places with many business buildings, so people use this transportation for service.
It turns out that many of the streets in Brazil are not suitable for these vehicles, so the streets are not yet an option. I believe they should first enable them to use the sidewalks, clear the streets, and then think about saying something about letting them use the streets.
On governments wanting to steal more and more of the citizens, this sure, after all, is the main goal of any government, stealing money through taxes of its citizens.
@robertoueti, People have to wake up because when they gave their life decisions to rulers and then rulers are misusing it by making only one class happy. Unfortunate to hear this.
I totally agree.
👍
there are Favorable also there are harm
Many things, they don’t want to be supervised by the government
And when they work, they will appear in a cheaper or more convenient way.
Some people will to use them,because cheap or convenient .
They know that there is some risk .
But they thought cheap or convenient
result , after the accident,
They want the government to aftermath them.
So it’s should up to the government to supervise it.
.............
有利就有幣.
很多事務 他們不想被政府給監管,
而當他們運作的時候 他們就會用比較便宜或者便利的方式來出現,
而貪圖便宜或者便利的人們就會去使用他們,
在他們使用之前 他們知道有風險,
但他們貪圖便宜或者便利,
結果在出事之後,
又要政府出面來善後,
所以還要該有政府來監管才對.
In my country people understand that there are rules and consequently risks. However, the state believes that people do not understand this by imposing regulations.
They think they know more than the population itself.
Its not sensible to ban sportive activities.
Posted using Partiko Android
what?
I mean regulating scooters and bicycles
Posted using Partiko Android
Hi @robertoueti!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 3.767 which ranks you at #4765 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has dropped 9 places in the last three days (old rank 4756).
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 212 contributions, your post is ranked at #64.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
Congratulations @robertoueti!
Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following category: