Questions for capitalists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-10-2013, 05:36 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(25-10-2013 05:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Fine, I guess the photo was from 1932. See, I'll admit it when I'm wrong.

However, back to the REAL issue, I will ask you again for your opinion. Will you please answer:

Do you agree that the place that enjoyed the greatest growth and transformation in the 50 years after WWII was Hong Kong? If not, what place did better?

I don't give a fuck about your debate.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 05:47 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
This is the most pointless retarded argument I've seen in a while.

500k people in not a fishing village.
BUT in regards to Hong Kong today, with the size of it's economy and dense population etc.. etc.. you can't dispute that capitalism has changed that country from just a British colony into a economic powerhouse.

Look at Singapore. That's a better example because I know actually know Singapore history.
It was established by a man named Raffles (a Representative of the East India Trading company at the time) in 1819. Back than it was literally a bit of swampy forestry land thing that noone really used. Now look at it..


I'm not pro-laissez-faire because I think there needs to be a level of Government regulation, but I'm certainly pro-capitalism.
It's evident that I'd much rather live in Singapore than I would North Korea.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 06:21 PM
Questions for capitalists.
(25-10-2013 05:47 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  This is the most pointless retarded argument I've seen in a while.

500k people in not a fishing village.
BUT in regards to Hong Kong today, with the size of it's economy and dense population etc.. etc.. you can't dispute that capitalism has changed that country from just a British colony into a economic powerhouse.

Look at Singapore. That's a better example because I know actually know Singapore history.
It was established by a man named Raffles (a Representative of the East India Trading company at the time) in 1819. Back than it was literally a bit of swampy forestry land thing that noone really used. Now look at it..


I'm not pro-laissez-faire because I think there needs to be a level of Government regulation, but I'm certainly pro-capitalism.
It's evident that I'd much rather live in Singapore than I would North Korea.

When did you visit those countries?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 06:49 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
@Revenant77x

Quote:I remember seeing your Hong Kong argument decimated in another thread by cjlr or chas

See Chas's last post. He refuses to touch the debate. He doesn't even dispute my claim that the one place that practiced laissez-faire capitalism is also the one place that enjoyed greatest growth and transformation in the 50 years after WWII. The only point I made that he even attempted to argue against was my calling it a 'fishing village'.

Considering that this is immaterial detail doesn't impact my argument, and that I made dozens of undisputed facts that strongly supported my argument, you obviously have a strong bias to read Chas's reply and call that 'decimating my Hong Kong argument'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 07:00 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
Quote:I'm not pro-laissez-faire because I think there needs to be a level of Government regulation, but I'm certainly pro-capitalism.

@earmuffs, I will concede that at time regulation improves the situation. But hopefully you will concede that at times regulation has made the situation worse.

For example, in 1920's liberals were upset that 90% of all trips in the US were done on private, unregulated mass-transit, with nearly every small town in the country having a local metro, and 250k miles of track with trains travelling at 100mph. So they decided to regulate it to "protect" the people. The net result is that nearly all the local metro systems were dismantled, passenger rail was nationalized (Amtrak), and after a century of rapid innovation, we went backwards and the next century saw trains running at half the speed on only 1/10 the amount of track, with Americans largely dependent on gas-burning internal combustion cars that have killed millions of people, resulted in overthrowing Iran to get its oil, and most other wars in the middle east, dumps tons of pollutants in the air, and on and on.

For air transport, it was the same thing. Government took over and set all airfares until 1978 when the industry was deregulated, and prices dropped 90% making air transport affordable for the every day man.

Most of Europe had nationalized telephone service until it was deregulated in the 90's. Having lived in Europe in the 90's, phone calls to the states used to cost $2/minute pre-deregulation, and dropped to around 10 cents/minute within a couple years of deregulating, and now are free.

The failures of regulation go on and on.

Q: What do you think are the major successes of government regulation? What are the problems that a lack of regulation caused in Hong Kong which the US and Canada avoided through regulation?

If you answer that, then maybe we can debate whether the regulation overall has done more harm than good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 02:22 AM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2013 02:34 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(25-10-2013 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-10-2013 05:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Fine, I guess the photo was from 1932. See, I'll admit it when I'm wrong.

However, back to the REAL issue, I will ask you again for your opinion. Will you please answer:

Do you agree that the place that enjoyed the greatest growth and transformation in the 50 years after WWII was Hong Kong? If not, what place did better?

I don't give a fuck about your debate.

Girly rolls with Chas. Get up in our grill if you want. Tongue

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
26-10-2013, 07:43 AM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
Quote:@earmuffs, I will concede that at time regulation improves the situation. But hopefully you will concede that at times regulation has made the situation worse.

Yea of course. I mean Singapore attracted merchants like flys to poo (not a metaphor for Singapore or it's local inhabitants, just a saying) because everywhere else had tariffs on trading goods and Singapore offered free trade.

And there are countless examples everywhere of economic hindering government regulation. Your example for example.
I mean New Zealand (where I live) made everything internally, TV's, cars etc.. and exported all our dairy to the UK. In 1987 the government lifted the tariffs that caused all these home made products to be home made. Today we don't make TVs or cars or 90% of the shit we made back than. People would see this as a bad thing, BUT we're so shit at making that shit... Japan for example is very good at making good cheap cars. We're not. And so it makes economic sense to import cars from Japan.
And so after 1987 prices for things like TVs and Cars, despite the fact that they were imported from America/Australia or Asia, they were so much cheaper AND better quality and so standard of living increased.
At the same time regulation was relaxed heavily. I study Commercial Law (well did). Prior to 87' EVERYTHING was regulated. EVERYTHING. There was literally THICK books of law of regulation in regards to working conditions, pay etc..
Like there was law for every profession. Builders for example, there was law regarding how much they got paid, how much time they got off, what days they weren't aloud to work (public holidays). After 87' the law was shrunk dramatically. All that regulation was scrapped overnight and the law was shrunk down to a 1 page standard A4 (well a bit more than that but you get the idea).
You're smart, I think it goes without saying how business was thus aloud to flourish.
Which boosted the economy, created jobs etc..

But it's been interesting growing up in this country (I was born in 91) in the time period I did because both my parents grew up very much pre-87 and the two different time periods are just so different. And it's all because of forced deregulation of the market (Britain, our number 1 export market, decided the "colonies" weren't working for them and that they'd concentrate on trade with Europe and so we lost our number 1 export market overnight basically) and a change from being a very internally focused country to one embracing globalization.



Quote:Q: What do you think are the major successes of government regulation? What are the problems that a lack of regulation caused in Hong Kong which the US and Canada avoided through regulation?

Well you need government regulation to stop monopolies. I think we can agree that monopolies are bad, it's economics 101 it's what they teach on the first day (I should I know I took a couple economics papers). Even duopolies can bad.
As such you need government regulation to protect, in this case, the consumer.

You need government regulation for quality control.
You need government regulation to protect the consumer, ie: if someone misleads you. "Here buy this apple" when in actual fact it's an orange. Bad example but purhaps a better example would be second hand cars. Everything could seem fine, you could take it for a test drive, have it inspected and all seems right BUT drive it for 500miles and it breaks down and needs an engine replacement or some shit..
You need law to protect the consumer in this case.
You need government regulation in the work place. ie: Safe work conditions.
I'm not convinced that there needs to be a minimum wage however.
You certainly need government regulation surrounding contract law. undue influence etc..


I could talk about this all day, my university major was Commercial Law.
Just to clarify, I'm not pro-government regulation to a heavy degree. I believe there needs to be some government regulation but not to an extent that hinders things like free trade to a huge effect. The examples of government regulation in my previous paragraph a good examples of regulation I'm all for. pre-87 NZ law that regulated everything from how much workers got paid to what percent the government took in tariffs on certain goods, is example of bad regulation I'm against.


As for Hong Kong. I dunno next to anything about Hong Kong so I can't really
comment.


Quote:If you answer that, then maybe we can debate whether the regulation overall has done more harm than good.

Over regulation has certainly done more harm than good.
I'm not advocating heavy regulation, I just believe that absolute freedom like laissez-faire, where there is basically no rules, will result in a worse outcome than heavy regulation.
I'm extremely pro-capitalism, just not pro-laissez-faire capitalism.


OH and I should probably note, I'm against all things like tariffs and subsidies.
I don't think it should be the governments business what get's exported and what get's imported (except illegal shit obviously).

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 09:50 AM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
@earmuffs,

I agree with everything you wrote. The problem is that a system of “only pass good regulation” doesn't work because ALL regulation is considered “good” at the time, or else it wouldn't get passed. So, whenever you give politicians to regulate (ie use threats of physical force to coerce people/corporations into doing things against their will), it's inevitable you're going to get bad regulation along with good, and given your example in NZ, you'll probably agree it takes a very, very long to get rid of the bad regulation.

Therefore, my question would be, can the “good” things be accomplished some other way, so we only get the “good” without the “bad”? Is there a mechanism to accomplish the same things voluntarily instead of with the use of force (regulation)?

I believe it's possible to do a better job of achieving all the good things you described with voluntary solutions, and that the people will be happier since everybody prefers to do something voluntarily because it's a win-win, than to do something because somebody's holding a gun to their head.

Quote:You need government regulation to protect the consumer, ie: if someone misleads you. "Here buy this apple" when in actual fact it's an orange.

You don't need regulation for this. Even in the most libertarian, laissez-faire system, fraud is a crime, and the courts must punish people for intentionally misrepresenting something. Enforcing fraud is, imo, much more effective than passing regulation because it protects consumers in all circumstances. If you rely on regulation, such that products sold as apples must not be sold as oranges, then consumers can still get screwed by pears sold as oranges. A system that enforces fraud catches all circumstances.

Quote:a better example would be second hand cars. Everything could seem fine, you could take it for a test drive, have it inspected and all seems right BUT drive it for 500miles and it breaks down and needs an engine replacement

First, if the seller defrauds the buyer by claiming the car is in good working order when he knows the engine is bad, this is again fraud, and no regulation is needed. So presumably we're talking about cases where the seller genuinely doesn't know the engine will fail. Therefore, what you're describing is regulation that mandates a used car warranty (such as 90 days, 1000 miles). The voluntary alternative is simply to educate buyers to always ask for a used car warranty. The advantage with the voluntary system is that regulators can never know your individual situation. Maybe you're a car mechanic yourself, you've thoroughly inspected the engine, and know that you can repair it yourself if it breaks down, so you want to make an educated decision to pay the dealer a lower price and get the car as-is. Regulation, however, is a blunt tool because it doesn't adapt. If a used car warranty is mandatory, then even our mechanic will ALWAYS end up paying more his car because the cost of the warranty will always be built into the sales price.

Quote:You need government regulation in the work place. ie: Safe work conditions.

Again, if an employer knows a job is dangerous and misrepresents it, that is fraud. So what we're talking about are either hidden dangers, in which case they won't be regulated anyway since nobody knows about them, or known dangers that both the employer and employee are aware of, which is what gets regulated. The big worker safety issue in Los Angeles now is regulators have required porn actors to wear condoms. Everybody knew the dangers, and that's why regulators stepped in. Previously, the actors had the choice of demanding condoms, or taking an informed risk to not use them because they know they'll be more in demand and thus be able to make more money since viewers don't want to see condoms. Thus, regulation simply removes their ability to make a choice, exercise free will and take calculated risks, and now from what I read the business is shifting away for the SF Valley (the part of LA that was the porn capital of the world) so the people are simply losing their jobs. Thus the regulation hurt, not helped, the actors.

IMO it's absurd when people say working conditions improved in developed countries in the 20th century because the government got more involved. For thousands of years prior to the age of enlightenment and laissez-faire capitalism that flourished in the 18th and 19th centuries, government had been very actively involved and yet working conditions never improved. They improved in the 20th century only because in the 19th century government stayed out and this brought about an industrial revolution where machines were invented to take over the most dangerous tasks and rapid economic growth so that workers became valued and needed and could demand better conditions. Before this time, if you offered a horribly dangerous job, you'd get thousands of starving people clamoring to get it and work for peanuts because they needed to feed their families. Regulation would have done nothing to help those people. But when there's a thriving economy, low unemployment, employers have to compete with each other to attract good employees by offering good wages and safe working conditions. Take a modern example. Say you're a factory welder in Bangladesh making $5/day, and you work without the protective helmet that shields your eyes from the UV rays because that helmet costs $500. Passing a regulation that all welders need helmets is NOT doing the welders any favors. Milton Friedman presented empirical studies showing employers only look at the total costs and so extra costs come out of the workers wages. So if they are forced to buy that $500 helmut, they will pay the workers $2/day less to cover the cost of the helmet. But, if you do what Singapore did and build a thriving enterprise so that there are 10,000 job openings for welders and the employers are having trouble finding enough, this drives up wages so that the welders can now make $100/day, and either buy the helmet themselves or demand that the employer provide one, and even with the $2/day deduction, he's still getting $98/day. So, imo, in Bangladesh where people are poor, hungry, and desperate for work, if politicians pass a bunch of 'worker safety' regulation which slows economic growth, you're hurting the people you try to help.

I prefer educating workers to either form unions or demand their employers provider workplace insurance, since the latter ensures that an expert 3rd party (insurance adjuster) will be auditing the workplace to determine the risk and the policy premium, so that the employers will have to provide safer conditions in order to get the insurance. But at least this gives you the ability to exercise your free will.

Quote:Well you need government regulation to stop monopolies. I think we can agree that monopolies are bad

Absolutely agree 100%. But lookup 'monopoly' on wikipedia, and under countering monopolies:


According to professor Milton Friedman, laws against monopolies cause more harm than good, but unnecessary monopolies should be countered by removing tariffs and other regulation that upholds monopolies.

A monopoly can seldom be established within a country without overt and covert government assistance in the form of a tariff or some other device. It is close to impossible to do so on a world scale. The De Beers diamond monopoly is the only one we know of that appears to have succeeded (and even De Beers are protected by various laws against so called "illicit" diamond trade). – In a world of free trade, international cartels would disappear even more quickly.[94]

However, professor Steve H. Hanke believes that although private monopolies are more efficient than public ones, often by a factor of two, sometimes private natural monopolies, such as local water distribution, should be regulated (not prohibited) by, e.g., price auctions.[95]

Thomas DiLorenzo asserts, however, that during the early days of utility companies where there was little regulation, there were no natural monopolies and there was competition.[96] Only when companies realized that they could gain power through government did monopolies begin to form.


Google around to find what percent of monopolies were created without government privilege, and I think you'll find that nearly every academic study done has concluded that only monopolies exist BECAUSE of regulation. This is natural since, when politicians have the power to regulate who gets to participate in an economy, the economy will be concentrated in the hands of those who support the politicians. In the US, for example, the taxi industry is heavily regulated and fares are set in all major cities except Washington DC. Who is lobbying heavily for regulation of taxi's in Washington? It's the taxi kingpins! In New York, for example, Gene Freidman heavily pushed for tight regulation of taxis, and now his company, TCM, has a monopoly on the taxi business in New York. There's some energetic upstarts trying to break the monopoly, like Lyft.com, which matches you with private people who give you rides in their cars. It's a great win-win since the prices are lower and the experience is a lot funner, and the money is going to individual, rather than to a billionaire monopoly kingpin. But the regulators are shutting down these upstart competitors at the request of the existing taxi kingpins.

So, while I agree with you monopolies are terrible and should be stopped, I think were it not for regulation we wouldn't have monopolies in the first place.

Bottom line, I agree regulation can do good in some cases. But I feel it causes a lot more bad, and that the good can be achieved without regulation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 11:02 AM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
Quote:I agree with everything you wrote.

I get this a lot. Big Grin

Quote: The problem is that a system of “only pass good regulation” doesn't work because ALL regulation is considered “good” at the time, or else it wouldn't get passed.

No sir, that is stupid. Of course everything "seems good at the time".
I'm not talking about that otherwise I would be saying communism is fantastic because the Russians saw it as a good idea at the time.
When I say good regulation I'm referring to regulation I would consider to be good.

Quote:So, whenever you give politicians to regulate (ie use threats of physical force to coerce people/corporations into doing things against their will), it's inevitable you're going to get bad regulation along with good, and given your example in NZ, you'll probably agree it takes a very, very long to get rid of the bad regulation.

I think it's inevitable that there will be bad regulation with good because politicians are not implementing law on a purely economic level. They have personal motives, whether it's personal power in the case of say a dictatorship or voters to appease.
And so you get regulation that may not be efficient, but makes people happy for whatever reason.
I do however think that regulation and law can be implemented in such a way that both business and labor force are happy. It's about a balance. I personal favor business and so lean towards that side more. Where as other people may lean towards worker rights before business. Politicians have to deal with everyone on some level. Anywhere from anarchist to communist.

Well yes and no. It depends on the regulation. In the case of state owned enterprises, well currently as I type this the government is selling 49% of one of the state owned power companies (in face of very loud (and stupid) opposition I might add). Selling off state owned enterprises can be a lengthy process.
In the case of law, well that could happen over night or it could takes years. Depends on the government and the people's desire/interest for change.


Quote:Therefore, my question would be, can the “good” things be accomplished some other way, so we only get the “good” without the “bad”? Is there a mechanism to accomplish the same things voluntarily instead of with the use of force (regulation)?

Well the only other viable tool a government has at it's disposal besides regulation to effect the private sector is incentives. It's how governments get corporations to donate millions to charities, they other tax breaks etc.. But really it's just regulation in disguise. It can also be pretty limited depending on what you're trying to achieve. Not to mention expensive.
Take cars for example. If you want to keep car manufacturing in America there's several ways you can do it. You can regulate the market and impose tariffs on all car imports. Make it more expensive to produce cars overseas than at home. This will bring manufacturing (and jobs) back to America, or wherever. An alternative to tariffs would be to give incentives to car manufacturing. ie: tax cuts, start up capital, lower wages etc.. But these are expensive for a government, where as tariffs were actually bringing in money (though free trade is profitable).
It's sort of like what our government is doing, offering start up capital to small tech businesses.
With incentives, like tariffs and pretty much everything else, you need to the number crunching.

I'm struggling to think how you'd use incentives to stop a monopoly though.
You could offer tax cuts to new business in the market, but there's nothing stopping them selling to the monopoly. You need regulation.

Quote:You don't need regulation for this. Even in the most libertarian, laissez-faire system, fraud is a crime, and the courts must punish people for intentionally misrepresenting something. Enforcing fraud is, imo, much more effective than passing regulation because it protects consumers in all circumstances. If you rely on regulation, such that products sold as apples must not be sold as oranges, then consumers can still get screwed by pears sold as oranges. A system that enforces fraud catches all circumstances.

You're basically describing commercial law.
This fraud you speak of would come under commercial law. Consumer Guarantees Act, Fair Trading Act etc.. These basically at their root just fraud cases. Or wrong doing cases. ie: You damage my shit, pay up.
It's basically what civil law is. You basically saying what I'm saying I just don't think you realize it.

You gotta see the law to know what I mean. It's not specific (well it is in a rare few situations). It's very general. The law doesn't say "you must have X level of quality". It say's something like (I can't remember the exact wording), "serious fault, hindering the product from working as intended". And than offers a remedy of which in this case it's up to the decision of the consumer if they want the business to replace the product, fix the product or refund their money. In the case of minor fault it's up to the business if they replace, repair or refund.

So it's not regulation so to speak on quality control, it's more of a remedy for consumers in cases where they have been sold faulty products.
It's basically like suing them for fraud (except it rarely goes to court it's usually just "oi this product doesn't work" "oh sorry about that, here have a replacement").

It's pretty much the same with all commercial law. It's not really regulation. It's just a remedy for people who got shafted. Businesses included.
Like worker safety. There's no law saying this has to this, that has to be that etc.. whatever. The law simply states "foreseeable". Foreseeable is often what the case comes down too. Was it forseeable that if you left your handbrake off while parked on a hill your car would roll down and go through a shop front? yes, thus you are liable.


Quote:IMO it's absurd when people say working conditions improved in developed countries in the 20th century because the government got more involved. For thousands of years prior to the age of enlightenment and laissez-faire capitalism that flourished in the 18th and 19th centuries, government had been very actively involved and yet working conditions never improved. They improved in the 20th century only because in the 19th century government stayed out and this brought about an industrial revolution where machines were invented to take over the most dangerous tasks and rapid economic growth so that workers became valued and needed and could demand better conditions. Before this time, if you offered a horribly dangerous job, you'd get thousands of starving people clamoring to get it and work for peanuts because they needed to feed their families. Regulation would have done nothing to help those people. But when there's a thriving economy, low unemployment, employers have to compete with each other to attract good employees by offering good wages and safe working conditions. Take a modern example. Say you're a factory welder in Bangladesh making $5/day, and you work without the protective helmet that shields your eyes from the UV rays because that helmet costs $500. Passing a regulation that all welders need helmets is NOT doing the welders any favors. Milton Friedman presented empirical studies showing employers only look at the total costs and so extra costs come out of the workers wages. So if they are forced to buy that $500 helmut, they will pay the workers $2/day less to cover the cost of the helmet. But, if you do what Singapore did and build a thriving enterprise so that there are 10,000 job openings for welders and the employers are having trouble finding enough, this drives up wages so that the welders can now make $100/day, and either buy the helmet themselves or demand that the employer provide one, and even with the $2/day deduction, he's still getting $98/day. So, imo, in Bangladesh where people are poor, hungry, and desperate for work, if politicians pass a bunch of 'worker safety' regulation which slows economic growth, you're hurting the people you try to help.

I prefer educating workers to either form unions or demand their employers provider workplace insurance, since the latter ensures that an expert 3rd party (insurance adjuster) will be auditing the workplace to determine the risk and the policy premium, so that the employers will have to provide safer conditions in order to get the insurance. But at least this gives you the ability to exercise your free will.

I think once you read my previous paragraphs in this post you'll get a clearer view of my opinions.

But as for what I've quoted. It's situational. The Bangladesh example for example. Yes it's stupid in that case to make companies buy $500 helmets for people getting $5 a day. In this case of developing countries you should be encouraging the economy. Free trade, low regulation etc.. If you can improve the economy you can increase the standard of living. This is where I think regulation and law comes into play (as I've described though which is minimal). Take Singapore in this same example. I think it makes sense to make a company implement a certain standard of health and safety. It make sense because if you're getting $100/day a $500 investment isn't as financially burdening as it would to someone on $5 a day.
I think as markets grow it makes more sense to improve safety and worker conditions because it's financially viable without halting business.
BUT I wouldn't regulate it. I'd offer law remedies like I've describe above. This would act as an incentive. So for example, a building bashes his head open. He would have a case under the law to sue his boss for not providing hard hats. And so it's incentive for businesses to provide safety measures or they'll get hit with a large law suit potentially. $500 hard hat or $50,000 fine? I know if I was that business owner I'd be safe and buy the hard hat. And because the law is the way it is. It would only cover foreseeable problems. ie: On a build site a worker is dicking around with a nail gun and shoots someone in the eye. That wouldn't be seen as the employers fault. Maybe if the guy dicking around had a history of shooting people in the eye with nails gun..

Oh and I'm a big believer in employee's being able to negotiate or unionize (even though I fucking unions) or whatever. People don't give themselves enough credit and realize how much power they do have. In the right economic situation of course. Right now, ehhh not so much. But the beautiful thing is, it's swings up and down so workers have the advantage today, employers tomorrow.
And because it swings up and down, the government should stay the fuck out. ie: not have a minimum wage.



I'll answer the rest later, it's 6am and I'm tired as fuck.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 04:23 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(26-10-2013 09:50 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Therefore, my question would be, can the “good” things be accomplished some other way, so we only get the “good” without the “bad”? Is there a mechanism to accomplish the same things voluntarily instead of with the use of force (regulation)?

I believe it's possible to do a better job of achieving all the good things you described with voluntary solutions, and that the people will be happier since everybody prefers to do something voluntarily because it's a win-win, than to do something because somebody's holding a gun to their head.

That won't work. Non-compliers will always have the advantage.

Quote:
Quote:You need government regulation to protect the consumer, ie: if someone misleads you. "Here buy this apple" when in actual fact it's an orange.

You don't need regulation for this. Even in the most libertarian, laissez-faire system, fraud is a crime, and the courts must punish people for intentionally misrepresenting something. Enforcing fraud is, imo, much more effective than passing regulation because it protects consumers in all circumstances. If you rely on regulation, such that products sold as apples must not be sold as oranges, then consumers can still get screwed by pears sold as oranges. A system that enforces fraud catches all circumstances.

What is the difference between legislation and regulation in practice?
Is there some magic line of demarcation?

Rules are rules, enforcement is enforcement.

Quote:Bottom line, I agree regulation can do good in some cases. But I feel it causes a lot more bad, and that the good can be achieved without regulation.

You may feel that, but experience shows that voluntary compliance is problematic; if costly, people won't do it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: