2824 Shares

Can someone translate this question? "Regulation against fraud necessary in Economy?

Can someone translate this question? "Regulation against fraud necessary in Economy? Topic: Against homework arguments
May 22, 2019 / By Breanna
Question: my friend has this i think economy homework not sure and it's asking this...we have no idea what it means. am not really asking for the answer but for someone to help me understand the question. answers are welcomed too though haha "come up with arguments as to why regulation against fraud is necessary in capitalist economies?"
Best Answer

Best Answers: Can someone translate this question? "Regulation against fraud necessary in Economy?

Aletha Aletha | 5 days ago
It seems very straight forward to me, It's asking you to explain why it's important there be no false marketing or deceiving behavior in the modern capitalist economy, take example America, then, think if there was no regulation against lying to your costumers about prices or supplies, the economy would be built on an illusion of what "is said to be", nobody would be sure exactly of what they would be getting or not getting. I'm sure what you intended was not so dramatic, but it's happened before. Like in 1929 with the fall of the New York "Purse".
👍 178 | 👎 5
Did you like the answer? Can someone translate this question? "Regulation against fraud necessary in Economy? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Against homework arguments


Aletha Originally Answered: JFK reduced taxes & regulation to stimulate economy. Was he the last honest democrat caring more about people?
Kennedy was the last Democrat President who refused to work for the people around the world, mostly out of Europe who own most of the Fed, who are out to destroy the US, crash the system, and bring us back under European Imperialist Control, like the rest of the world. That's what the Fabian Society is all about. Carter did worked for them, Clinton did, and Obama is. Guess who crashed our economy? It was done with fuel prices to ignite the banking bomb, and using the corrupting of mortgage backed securities to create the banking bomb. Who screwed with banks ability to choose who they lent to? Community reinvestment act, Carter / Clinton kicked it up. Then Clinton put big time democrat insiders as CEO of Freddy Mac & Fanny Mae. Who pushed up fuel prices, actually all energy prices over decades with lies, & regulation based on lies? Democrats allies. Who pushed Speculation in oil to the point it was so high the economy ground to a halt setting up all the foreclosures democrats set up to fail? Goldman Sachs, Meryl Lynch, others heavily invested in the Chicago Climate Exchange, that Obama funded through the machine of the criminal Billionaire George Soros, the Joyce Foundation. Who's pushing the global warming farce? Intimidating scientists? & also pushing for Cap & Trade which will make that collective group of criminal scum bags trillion + $? Obama is, like crazy, and some of his allies. That Cap & Trade will be the last nail in the coffin of our economy & our freedom in the US & really it would go world wide at that point with the US out of the way.
Aletha Originally Answered: JFK reduced taxes & regulation to stimulate economy. Was he the last honest democrat caring more about people?
No they don't seek power they have different ideas about how to solve the crisis. When you get past your own ideological hubris you will see there is a set of economic ideas behind stimulating the economy and taxation. As well as a very strong economic argument accepted by most mainstream economists for healthcare regulation. To be honest I think the people who constantly smeer their rivals and ignore their arguments instead of grappling with them and label them as power mongers and communists are the ones in the wrong. They are silencing their rivals with fear rather than discussion are the ones who are really only concerned with their ideas and power and not how they could help the situation and people. Also I find it odd that you say people argueing against tax cuts " are either lying, or just stupid". Why? because either of these could apply to you for your horrendous represent on of the laffer curve. Its not that all tax increases reduce revenue. That would imply that an increase from 0 to 1% would decrease revenue even though none was received before. The laffer curve just means that at a certain point the costs of taxes exceed the benifits of setting up bussinesses. Fair enough that at a certain point this would happen. The argument of keynesian economics is that for businesses in a recession the unsold inventories and excess capacity mean that producing more that wont be sold is not benificial. So taxes will take this money and invest it for them making jobs, with incomes to buy and reduce those excess inventories. There are debate about that yeah and they are much more valuable for people that calling your enemies power hungry.
Aletha Originally Answered: JFK reduced taxes & regulation to stimulate economy. Was he the last honest democrat caring more about people?
As much as I disagree with some of his views on the role of govt, JFK was the last Democratic PResident who TRULY cared about America and its greatness.
Aletha Originally Answered: JFK reduced taxes & regulation to stimulate economy. Was he the last honest democrat caring more about people?
This shows a lot about the USA's culture of hatred towards their fellow man, that they would rather keep money to their self than have tax money going to help people less fortunate than themselves. I am a student studying Chemical Engineering. I know when I graduate my salary will be hugely taxed, as it is a very well paying job. Where will that money go here in the UK, public health care, unemployment schemes and housing. Will any of that be of any use to me? No but I wouldnt have it any other way as I would rather money went to help people than sitting in my bank doing nothing.

Aletha Originally Answered: Insurance Fraud question?
No, it's not illegal for the surgeon to tell that to the patients. He's absolutely right, insurance doesn't cover cosmetic surgery. But he ALSO has no obligation to tell the person what is, and is not, covered under their plan. You can always tell the patient to call the insurance company, and give them the codes that you'll be billing to procedure under, so they can check the benefits themselves. And in the end, it's perfectly ok for the patient to submit their OWN claim to their insurance company. One thing you're missing, is that the initial "verification of coverage" is NOT the same thing as pre-approval - there's NEVER any "guarantee" that the insurance company will pay something. It's ALWAYS subject to review.
Aletha Originally Answered: Insurance Fraud question?
He is not making them pay 100% out of pocket for the cosmetic portion. They would have to pay 100% out of pocket for the cosmetic portion no matter what he told them. The only possible difference is that if someone tried to submit the cosmetic portion to insurance, then the insurance might not be as willing to pay for any portion, so they might have to pay more for the medically necessary portion. They would still have to pay 100% out of pocket for the cosmetic portion.
Aletha Originally Answered: Insurance Fraud question?
The cosmetic portion can't be submitted to insurance because it IS cosmetic. It wouldn't be wise to submit it because the insurance company may try to get out of some or all of the portion that isn't cosmetic. And, it's pointless since you already know they don't cover it.

If you have your own answer to the question against homework arguments, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.