Wealth Redistribution YEY!

[Silverhandorder]

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2004).

Figures like these are often thrown around by redistribution proponents. Now what I usually hear advertised is that the wealthy would be made to pay a higher percentage via a progressive tax. Let’s ignore the whole argument whether it is moral or not because neither side can agree on the fundamentals of each other’s arguments.

I have a different approach to this. Let’s say we get the socialist state rolling. We have a big progressive tax going that has raised the standard of living of the bottom 80% (according to the above quote). Ultimately numbers don’t matter just pay attention to what happens next.

Who do you think has easier time controlling this system. The 80% of disorganized people holding 16% of the wealth or the top 1% holding the 33% of the wealth? To me it seems naive to expect to achieve lasting benefit by making gov't responsible to provide for you. What I think that will happen is that the second you enact this change the ultra rich will buy out all the regulators on their side and you will end up with gov't on their side. Oh they may even be taxed more, but they will make all this money back through the monopolies you will help them establish through regulation.

What happens then? The poor are provided for, the rich keep their money and the only people left to get screwed are the middle class. So now all that will be achieved is that the wealth is redistributed from those who are well off to those who are not. But the amount of wealth that will be available to the poor will not come from the top 1% or even 20%. It will come from the same people as them. You will get reshuffling of 16% of the wealth among the 80% so everyone within the 80% is more equal.

I believe this system is set up for complete failure. If you think a working man has the time to pay attention to politics to know how to vote against different kinds of regulation you are mistaken. It is better to simplify the formula and just make all regulation illegal. So if the regulation comes up you can oppose it right away to prevent potential abuse.

Rich don't have the power to use force on you. Once you establish departments with the government that can regulate wealth redistribution you give them this tool.

[Lindorn]

The funny thing is...well no it isn't funny at all...but anyhow.

If you follow the money around in the current system. i.e: you actually know how the FED works and how artificial inflation affects the monetary system etc. you will see that these regulatory bodies that are supposed to be creating economic stability are actually the ones driving the entire machine that creates such a huge stratum of wealth in this country. The artificial manipulation of a non gold backed fiat currency is the ultimate way to bring all of the economic assets into the hands of an elite few. The elites understand and always have that assets are the true measure of wealth. Through their machine they have us playing with monopoly money and owing our entire livelihoods to them. Too bad most people are dense enough to be incapable of seeing the fed as anything other than a benevolent force.

[Incanam]

So your saying the government is so corrupt that any attempt to help the lowest rung of society will result in the rich gaining monopolies?

Edit: at OP

[Silverhandorder]

I am saying something like that. I think that all systems are corruptible. However a system that has regulation and wealth redistribution is much harder to change or fight then a transparent system where everything is simplified.

I believe that inequality is in both systems. However the system where regulation is allowed is much harder to maintain uncorrupted.

[Incanam]

I am saying something like that. I think that all systems are corruptible. However a system that has regulation and wealth redistribution is much harder to change or fight then a transparent system where everything is simplified.

I believe that inequality is in both systems. However the system where regulation is allowed is much harder to maintain uncorrupted.

Hmm.

I don't really see this as an argument for or against anything. I mean, as you said every system is corruptible.

If there was a wealth redistribution sysemt that minimized corruption (I'm not even a hundred percent sure what type of corruption you are talking about, so I can't say how exactly), the only argument for or against it would be morality correct?

[Silverhandorder]

Have you read my OP? Can you aress specific parts you do not agree with?

Both systems are corruptible but one gets corupted faster, brings marginal benefit and has potential for far more harm. That is the system that has regulation in it.

[Shaehl]

And before we get someone spewing garbage like, "Well, socialism might be bad, but capitalism is DEFINITELY bad! Just look at America!"

America does NOT currently have free markets, nor has it had them for almost a century. In fact, even before then we weren't completely capitalist. The Federal Reserve is the ultimate force in government regulation and interference with the economy.

Add to that the incessant stream of federal bullshit legislation (NAFTA, CDA [bill Clinton's wonderful idea to force banks to give out subprime loans...], WTO, etc., and you have a system that resembles capitalism in propaganda only.

[Incanam]

Have you read my OP? Can you aress specific parts you do not agree with?

Both systems are corruptible but one gets corupted faster, brings marginal benefit and has potential for far more harm. That is the system that has regulation in it.

Yeah. What you said provided for a system in which all regulation is illegal. You claim this is better. What if corruption in the system forces regulation through anyway. I mean look at the 14th and 15th amendment and how they were almost completely ignored in the South. Just because it was illegal to ban the ability to vote by race doesn't mean it didn't happen.

So basically, in your OP, you're saying in Syatem A (Socialism/Social Democracy) there is a possibility of corruption and corruption will occur so it is a worse system.

In system B (no regulation), there is a possibility of corruption, but you are saying it won't happen.

I think that's sophistry.

[Silverhandorder]

No you don't understand the crux of the problem. System A gives the gov't or to be more precise the people who can buy the gov't out the tools that let them coarse you with force. It is legal for gov't to use force, it is illegal for a private individual. You potentially open yourself up for far worse abuse.

Secondly most people do not have the resources and the will to look over various gov't departments to make sure the regulations they are making are good. It is easier to see that you are getting screwed when you don't have to keep track of your own gov't. So when/if rich take over system B you will see right away because regulations will start forming.

[Shaehl]

Yeah. What you said provided for a system in which all regulation is illegal. You claim this is better. What if corruption in the system forces regulation through anyway. I mean look at the 14th and 15th amendment and how they were almost completely ignored in the South. Just because it was illegal to ban the ability to vote by race doesn't mean it didn't happen.

So basically, in your OP, you're saying in Syatem A (Socialism/Social Democracy) there is a possibility of corruption and corruption will occur so it is a worse system.

In system B (no regulation), there is a possibility of corruption, but you are saying it won't happen.

I think that's sophistry.

In system B, corruption and it's fruits are far easier to notice and combat because regulation will stand out like an isolated island.

In a system where regulation is not only the norm, it is the rule, spotting corrupt legislation will be like trying to find a particular piece of shit in a whole mountain of shit.

[Incanam]

Okay, I see now.

Your argument against social democracy is either A, people don't care or B, people are dumb. Or both.

[Silverhandorder]

Okay, I see now.

Your argument against social democracy is either A, people don't care or B, people are dumb. Or both.

You can not simplify it like that.

[Incanam]

You can not simplify it like that.

But isn't that what you're saying?

People will either be too apathetic or ignorant to differentiate between corrupt and uncorrupt regulation?

[Silverhandorder]

But isn't that what you're saying?

People will either be too apathetic or ignorant to differentiate between corrupt and uncorrupt regulation?

I think even a smart person will have a hard time keeping track of all the BS that the gov't does.

[Incanam]

I think even a smart person will have a hard time keeping track of all the BS that the gov't does.

I think a smart person will easily be able to keep track of BS.


Now what?

Edit: We dance!!!

[Ozzy Wrong]

YAY WEALTH DISTRIBUTION!
Wait, we're not being serious?
I felt like cheering.

[Silverhandorder]

I think a smart person will easily be able to keep track of BS.


Now what?

Edit: We dance!!!

Perhaps but you can only say that when you reduced my entire argument to one sentence. How about adressing the fact that one system makes it easier for you to see when gov't is corrupt and also eliminates the tools the gov't needs to bring on the worser abuse.

[Kailas]

Morality has nothing to do with it, anyway. The fact is that rich people can pay more so they pay more. It's just practical. Warren Buffet is my friggin hero, I pretty much agree with everything he has to say on economic policy. Seriously what a BAMF.

"I don't have a problem with guilt about money. The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It's like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GNP would go up. But the utility of the product would be zilch, and I would be keeping those 10,000 people from doing AIDS research, or teaching, or nursing. I don't do that though. I don't use very many of those claim checks. There's nothing material I want very much. And I'm going to give virtually all of those claim checks to charity when my wife and I die."

If every rich person were like Warren Buffet we wouldn't need wealth redistribution or tiered taxes.

[Silverhandorder]

Kailas how adressing my points? I said I will not argue whether it is right or wrong to take money from the rich. I am saying that it is not to your advantage to create such a system.

[Traep]

No you don't understand the crux of the problem. System A gives the gov't or to be more precise the people who can buy the gov't out the tools that let them coarse you with force. It is legal for gov't to use force, it is illegal for a private individual. You potentially open yourself up for far worse abuse.

Secondly most people do not have the resources and the will to look over various gov't departments to make sure the regulations they are making are good. It is easier to see that you are getting screwed when you don't have to keep track of your own gov't. So when/if rich take over system B you will see right away because regulations will start forming.

I don't think you need to use force to be in complete control of a country. If there are absolutely no regulations of anything that gives anyone with enough money the ability to do whatever they want. Money would be complete power in that scenario. Have billions of dollars and want to destroy the competition? Go ahead. I'm sure you can find plenty of unfair ways to do it, thereby giving the people one place to go for anything that may need or want.

Maybe those regulating bodies can be corrupted to work for those with the most money but that doesn't mean that without those bodies corruption would be at a minimum. They may not be perfect but they're pretty much the only means for people to stop corporations who would stomp all over people for their own gain (not all corporations).

Honestly, there are two ways to keep those with enough money to do some damage in check. You have market forces and when market forces aren't enough you have government regulations. I personally think it's folly to believe that either one of those methods can be an end-all solution.

Maybe I'm responding to an argument that's not being made though. This is a pretty vague topic.

[Killuminati]

Morality has nothing to do with it, anyway. The fact is that rich people can pay more so they pay more. It's just practical. Warren Buffet is my friggin hero, I pretty much agree with everything he has to say on economic policy. Seriously what a BAMF.

"I don't have a problem with guilt about money. The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It's like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GNP would go up. But the utility of the product would be zilch, and I would be keeping those 10,000 people from doing AIDS research, or teaching, or nursing. I don't do that though. I don't use very many of those claim checks. There's nothing material I want very much. And I'm going to give virtually all of those claim checks to charity when my wife and I die."

If every rich person were like Warren Buffet we wouldn't need wealth redistribution or tiered taxes.

Lol, warren buffett


The guy who made his millions by exploiting the estate tax :rolleyes:

[Incanam]

Perhaps but you can only say that when you reduced my entire argument to one sentence. How about adressing the fact that one system makes it easier for you to see when gov't is corrupt and also eliminates the tools the gov't needs to bring on the worser abuse.

Okay, but you are referring to only the government being corrupt. What about the corruption of businesses in a regulation free society. Ever read The Jungle? I'd say that is much worse than government corruption?


Can we still dance??

[Traep]

Lol, warren buffett


The guy who made his millions by exploiting the estate tax :rolleyes:

You mean billions?

Not to get off track but I'm curious as to what you're referring to. I don't know much about Buffett's biography.

[Silverhandorder]

The only difference between system A and B as far as I am trying to convey is that system A has extra tools to ruin your day.

[Killuminati]

You mean billions?

Not to get off track but I'm curious as to what you're referring to. I don't know much about Buffett's biography.

What he did was go after family owned businesses that were soon facing the so called "death tax" when the owner finally died the family was willing to sell the business for cheaper than its value to people like Buffett. Some businesses were forced to sell their businesses because of the tax, and Buffett was always there in order to bargain with them. It happened with the Buffalo News which he purchased for way less than what they were making annually.

That's the reason why you have these "benevolent" rich guys wanting to help everyone. They are full of shit and are only trying to hide their real intentions.

[Incanam]

The only difference between system A and B as far as I am trying to convey is that system A has extra tools to ruin your day.

Government wise. Not private tools (pun not intended) who will also ruin your day.

[Silverhandorder]

Government wise. Not private tools (pun not intended) who will also ruin your day.

Private can't come to your door with a gun. In system A private own the gov't eventually. So it turns into System B but where gov't is looking out for private in the guize of trying to help you.

[Traep]

The only difference between system A and B as far as I am trying to convey is that system A has extra tools to ruin your day.

Remember when Microsoft lost their monopoly case? That was a regulation that stopped them from killing off innovation in the industry. Both systems will give plenty of "tools to ruin your day" if taken to extremes.

[Traep]

Private can't come to your door with a gun. In system A private own the gov't eventually. So it turns into System B but where gov't is looking out for private in the guize of trying to help you.

They don't need to come to your house with a gun when they own you.

[Silverhandorder]

They don't need to come to your house with a gun when they own you.

Again how is it any different in System A? They own you but they also own the guns.

[Tharkon Fargor]

You're wrong from the start. Socialist states have very low taxes. This because much of heavy industry is *owned* by the government and profits go to the people and not to individual owners while the workers and CEO's retain much more of their salaries than in almost any social liberal or social democratic country.

[Silverhandorder]

You're wrong from the start. Socialist states have very low taxes. This because much of heavy industry is *owned* by the government and profits go to the people and not to individual owners while the workers and CEO's retain much more of their salaries than in almost any social liberal or social democratic country.

That is outright socialism, in which case you are either a small country or you going to have an economic collapse.

[Tharkon Fargor]

That is outright socialism, in which case you are either a small country or you going to have an economic collapse.

I'm not biting the propaganda, sorry. But no, that is socialism. Everything ellse is *not* socialism. The USSR and China never collapsed. Fact remains that outside funded protests and propaganda drove the overthrowement of the governments while in Russia even that didn't work so a military coup was performed against the ELECTED communist party which had retained the majority of seats in the last election.

The whole world could have been said "collapsed" during the 1990, before that communist countries had alot fewer "collapses" compared to the many economic crisis of the western ones. Sweden, Norway, Denmark and other nations which followed the welfare model were even better off than both the pure socialist economies and the more capitalist ones both during the 1930's, 1970's, 1980, 1990 and we're holding up quite well now to.

[Tharkon Fargor]

Also, even your conclusion is false. The capitalists need not use force against the poor. Lets get deep into marxist theory here: The capitalists already own the working class, they make the contracts that we must follow at our workplace, living the life they desire from us for 8-9 hours a day , 5-6 days a week. When this ends they give us the pay they deem that we deserve while they keep the absolute majority of our work, we use this pay to buy a brainwashing in terms of TV and news propaganda and commercials upon which we also buy the useless items the propaganda tells us to buy and food so that we may produce for the capitalists and a bed to sleep on so that we may sustain a high work efficiency in the factory for the capitalist.

The capitalist has already our freedoms, he decides the extent of our property and he decides our rights (healthcare benifits, security on the workplace etc). He has nothing ellse to take from us and we have everything to take from him.

[Silverhandorder]

I am going to let some one else argue you, you are not arguing the OP.

[Tharkon Fargor]

Read the next post ;)

[Shaehl]

I'm not biting the propaganda, sorry. But no, that is socialism. Everything ellse is *not* socialism. The USSR and China never collapsed. Fact remains that outside funded protests and propaganda drove the overthrowement of the governments while in Russia even that didn't work so a military coup was performed against the ELECTED communist party which had retained the majority of seats in the last election.

The whole world could have been said "collapsed" during the 1990, before that communist countries had alot fewer "collapses" compared to the many economic crisis of the western ones. Sweden, Norway, Denmark and other nations which followed the welfare model were even better off than both the pure socialist economies and the more capitalist ones both during the 1930's, 1970's, 1980, 1990 and we're holding up quite well now to.

Ok, sure, China and Russia may not have technically collapsed, but it doesn't mean their systems were any good. Not unless you count the oppression, internment, starvation and murder of tens of millions in Russia's case, and almost 100m in China's.

[Lorth]

If i wanted to control a country, I would trick the lower levels into thinking I was helping them, all the while I was just allocating powers to me and my bureaucracy

[ThirdEye]

I am saying something like that. I think that all systems are corruptible. However a system that has regulation and wealth redistribution is much harder to change or fight then a transparent system where everything is simplified.

I believe that inequality is in both systems. However the system where regulation is allowed is much harder to maintain uncorrupted.

And those who are above and who set those regulations are not corruptible?

In fact, systems with high regulation are easier to corrupt than those with lower to no regulation. Someone has to be the one setting the regulations and enforcing them. Then there is always someone who wants to get an easy squeeze through those regulations. The person in charge will always be exposed to those who have resources and are willing to pay for favors.

Same goes for wealth distribution. Who distributes the wealth? The authority, who are in fact human beings with personal agenda.

-edit-

Fuck, I thought you were speaking for regulation. Damn booze, anyways, point stands.

[Arkh]

Wealth redistribution helps only one kind of people : politics who live like leeches.
When you increase taxes for rich people, as they're the ones who can pass it to others : what they pay, they get by increasing they prices.

[Tharkon Fargor]

And those who are above and who set those regulations are not corruptible?

In fact, systems with high regulation are easier to corrupt than those with lower to no regulation. Someone has to be the one setting the regulations and enforcing them. Then there is always someone who wants to get an easy squeeze through those regulations. The person in charge will always be exposed to those who have resources and are willing to pay for favors.

Same goes for wealth distribution. Who distributes the wealth? The authority, who are in fact human beings with personal agenda.

-edit-

Fuck, I thought you were speaking for regulation. Damn booze, anyways, point stands.

What fucking ignorance.
First one must define corruption. It is obviously easier to form cartels or disable the free market through aggressive take overs and future private monopolies in systems with no regulations than those with regulations. I mean how fucking retarded do you have to be to not understand that?

If you have some political barrier for cartels and monopolies to form then these crops will at least have to bribe someone or something to get their will through. Otherwise its wide open to corrupt the market and engage in price dumping/increase at will.

[Silverhandorder]

What fucking ignorance.
First one must define corruption. It is obviously easier to form cartels or disable the free market through aggressive take overs and future private monopolies in systems with no regulations than those with regulations. I mean how fucking retarded do you have to be to not understand that?

If you have some political barrier for cartels and monopolies to form then these crops will at least have to bribe someone or something to get their will through. Otherwise its wide open to corrupt the market and engage in price dumping/increase at will.

First there is no such a thing as free market in the system you advocate. Second you have little understanding of how things work. It not all doom and gloom and every company is out there to get you. Lastly you missed the whole pont of his post, it is easier to corrupt the market by buying out th regulators.

[ThirdEye]

What fucking ignorance.
First one must define corruption. It is obviously easier to form cartels or disable the free market through aggressive take overs and future private monopolies in systems with no regulations than those with regulations. I mean how fucking retarded do you have to be to not understand that?

If you have some political barrier for cartels and monopolies to form then these crops will at least have to bribe someone or something to get their will through. Otherwise its wide open to corrupt the market and engage in price dumping/increase at will.

Huh? How in the hell the basic concept of business and profit = corruption? So if a business decides to expend it means it's corrupted? Does that mean more jobs, more money and more opportunities for the skilled workers means corruption?

It seems as you fail at understanding the meaning of corruption. Business, even monopolies =/ corruption. Corruption occurs when someone in a position of power does favors for someone else by bypassing the regulations. The only way to do that is to actually have regulations to break. If you regulate something, you restrict access to it to everyone who does not qualify. Since we have yet to develop intelligent machines and I have yet to see an extraterrestrial official, those who are the regulators are human beings, with human nature and human greed. In such position, people of a less moral nature will take advantage of their position and give out favors for a price. It's the same concept as communism.

Lastly, you mentioned that lack of regulation leads to corrupt market and price manipulation. So someone who has a level of power over the market does not have a power to do the same, manipulate the market, possibly for personal benefit?

[Traep]

Again how is it any different in System A? They own you but they also own the guns.

System A gives people two ways to push and pull power around while System B gives them one. You're making this big assumption that if regulations exist then they'll be controlled by the very industries that are being regulated. Prove to me that this is unavoidable and maybe I'll buy your point but from where I'm sitting it looks like a mix of market factors and government regulation give people the greatest chance of making sure they don't get screwed.

[rockyraccoon]

i finally figured it out. the secret to forumfall demographics is discovered. approximately 30% of people on it are smart, 30% are trolls, 30% are just plain stupid while 10% are brannoc alts.

[Silverhandorder]

System A gives people two ways to push and pull power around while System B gives them one. You're making this big assumption that if regulations exist then they'll be controlled by the very industries that are being regulated. Prove to me that this is unavoidable and maybe I'll buy your point but from where I'm sitting it looks like a mix of market factors and government regulation give people the greatest chance of making sure they don't get screwed.

I dont have the data for that but I would like to ask you for proof that contradicts what I said.

I'll give you one example that convinces me to this conclusion. Look at the financial mess right now. How many people were even remotely intrested in preserving the integrity of our financial system? Not many. Most wanted loans for their houses. While right under our noses bankers were scheaming. What push or pull do you have as a citizen? There was an outcry and they still rammed the stupid bail out through. My point is you want as least amount of power in gov't as you can possibly have. Most likely it would be easier for a corporation to organize and buy out/control the regulatory bodies then for 100 million Americans.

[Montenegro]

System A gives people two ways to push and pull power around while System B gives them one. You're making this big assumption that if regulations exist then they'll be controlled by the very industries that are being regulated. Prove to me that this is unavoidable and maybe I'll buy your point but from where I'm sitting it looks like a mix of market factors and government regulation give people the greatest chance of making sure they don't get screwed.


Regulations may no be entirely controlled by the industries they regulate, but they are heavely influenced by industry lobbies. As an example, I give you Citigroup. I'll try to find relevant links a little later, but I first learned about this in my old finance class a year ago. Basically, the US gov regulates just how big a bank can get, to deter monopolistic practices, and to keep a lid on TBTF (too big to fail - where the gov basically HAS to step in and bail out a firm to keep the economy from tanking). Citigroup merged with another large bank, putting it over the maximum market share it was allowed - then basically paid for the law to get changed to a higher market-share cap.

It did something illegal, then greased the right palms and got the regulations changed to make it's action legal retroactively.

[Ezion]

i finally figured it out. the secret to forumfall demographics is discovered. approximately 30% of people on it are smart, 30% are trolls, 30% are just plain stupid while 10% are brannoc alts.

You overestimated the smart people and underestimated the stupid people and trolls, which overlap with the exception of about 5%.

Also, everyone is Brannoc's alt. Except you.

[Septus]

Perhaps but you can only say that when you reduced my entire argument to one sentence. How about adressing the fact that one system makes it easier for you to see when gov't is corrupt and also eliminates the tools the gov't needs to bring on the worser abuse.

Zero regulation? As in no laws? Are you high?

[Silverhandorder]

Zero regulation? As in no laws? Are you high?

No laws should be there. I just think al we need is what is already povided for in the constitution.

[Septus]

No laws should be there. I just think al we need is what is already povided for in the constitution.

lol, that's absurd. There are so many different products and services with so many unique environments that the constitution wouldn't cover shit.

[ThirdEye]

No laws should be there. I just think al we need is what is already povided for in the constitution.

I would have to disagree. Even with my Libertarian leaning beliefs, I still believe that there has to be at least basic regulations in the market. We aren't in 1776, shit has changed a bit and world markets don't operate the same.

[Silverhandorder]

lol, that's absurd. There are so many different products and services with so many unique environments that the constitution wouldn't cover shit.

Thats where I can't agree with you, if a company lies they get sued and fined. There is no grey area here.

There are plenty of watch dog groups one can follow. Practicing sound common sense is also needed. Don't buy products you don't know. You don't need government taking responcibility for you.

I would have to disagree. Even with my Libertarian leaning beliefs, I still believe that there has to be at least basic regulations in the market. We aren't in 1776, shit has changed a bit and world markets don't operate the same.

I am advertising w/e works. Obviously making huge regulatory bodies does not improve our situation.

A lot of people hate China for its lax regulation. I love that, so their milk has shit in it. I would not get caught buy products I do not trust.

[Ezion]

I would have to disagree. Even with my Libertarian leaning beliefs, I still believe that there has to be at least basic regulations in the market. We aren't in 1776, shit has changed a bit and world markets don't operate the same.

Yeah, I'm about on level with ThirdEye. I lean towards the Libertarian side, but a little regulation is definitely necessary. There's a balance to be found in everything.

[ThirdEye]

Thats where I can't agree with you, if a company lies they get sued and fined. There is no grey area here.

There are plenty of watch dog groups one can follow. Practicing sound common sense is also needed. Don't buy products you don't know. You don't need government taking responcibility for you.



I am advertising w/e works. Obviously making huge regulatory bodies does not improve our situation.

A lot of people hate China for its lax regulation. I love that, so their milk has shit in it. I would not get caught buy products I do not trust.

What if the company's share holders are the exact people who would be prosecuting it for breaking laws? Plus, in order for a company to break law, there has to be a regulating law to be broken in the first place. There is a difference between basic and minimal customer protecting laws and hard regulation.

Also, how do you know a product? By testing it, right? Then let's take China as an example. If you have a child, and that child needs milk. Unless someone has inspected that milk, how will you know it's good? Will you give it to your child to "test" it? Or would you prefer to have a reliable body to inspect it?

The China example, is that really regulation? No, it's a basic food inspection. We live in the 21st century, and not in the colonial times when you had what you grew on your farm or plantation. Sure, in such case, there was no point for even basic regulations since most of your food and belongings were made by you. I doubt you have a farm and grow your own food and herd animals. I'll make a safe assumption that your source of food is some sort of a market or a grocery store. Would you want to buy tainted milk or bad meat? Do you like parasites in your intestines? Or do you prefer to see your child die due to tainted milk?

[Silverhandorder]

I agree with you. I just think private sector can fill in the job better then FDA.

What I would like is a transition where FDA is competing with private ndstry as it does now. Just reduce it's power to interfere.

Yes basic things should be done if no one steps in to fill the niche.

[palo god]

I’m going to agree with silver, the only thing government regulation does is screw over the competition in our country. The government cant even make sure that our dog food is safe why would you trust them for everything ells? We do need basic regulation but it shouldn’t be up to the government, it should be up to private organizations to check up on the companies and make sure that their not putting lead in their products and not doing other illegal activities to make a profit.

[ThirdEye]

I’m going to agree with silver, the only thing government regulation does is screw over the competition in our country, the government cant even make sure that our dog food is safe why would you trust them for everything ells? We do need basic regulation but it shouldn’t be up to the government it should be up to private organizations to check up on the companies and make sure that their not putting lead in their products and not doing other illegal activities to make a profit.

I see your point but why would I trust an independent organization, which has no one to answer to, over a federal organization? Personally, I trust neither, but in this particular case, I'd probably have a slightly more trust in the government than in someone private with their private pockets which can pocket private corporate money with much less risk than government. When dealing with stuff that I and my family consumes, whether it's food or medicine, I want to be sure that it's all safe. In that case, I see government body more accountable than a private body. If the government fucks this up by allowing people to get sick or die because of tainted food, they have to answer to the people, at least they should. If a private organization fucks up, who do they answer to? Do you punish the company making the food or the organization inspecting it?

[Silverhandorder]

Well ideally there will be several of those organizations which compete against each other. It is extremely bad business sense to screw over your customer. So they have insensitive to resist taking bribes. Take a bribe and get some money in the short run but loose all your customers.

Keep the FDA around if these organizations dont take over. From my experience they do better job then FDA now,finding things before the FDA. So I expect them having an easy time filling in the vacum.

[palo god]

I see your point but why would I trust an independent organization, which has no one to answer to, over a federal organization? Personally, I trust neither, but in this particular case, I'd probably have a slightly more trust in the government than in someone private with their private pockets which can pocket private corporate money with much less risk than government. When dealing with stuff that I and my family consumes, whether it's food or medicine, I want to be sure that it's all safe. In that case, I see government body more accountable than a private body. If the government fucks this up by allowing people to get sick or die because of tainted food, they have to answer to the people, at least they should. If a private organization fucks up, who do they answer to? Do you punish the company making the food or the organization inspecting it?

Almost everything the government handles is run horribly and turns to putty. The thing with private organizations is that their are more then one, and I doubt that the company will be in all of their pockets because there are a ton of them and more can just pop up if need be since anyone can start one. The thing with government is theirs only one and if they’re in the companies pockets that’s it, game over they can do what they please.

And to answer your question, you punish the company and you release records showing the organization's names that let it happen so the public will know not to trust those specific organizations, and the beauty of the private sector is that more then one organization can check up on the same company.

[Septus]

I agree with you. I just think private sector can fill in the job better then FDA.

What I would like is a transition where FDA is competing with private ndstry as it does now. Just reduce it's power to interfere.

Yes basic things should be done if no one steps in to fill the niche.

Yeah because the private sector so can't be corrupted or bought off. That's just the government :rolleyes:

Does Moody's ring a fucking bell? And who gives a shit if some other independent watchdog group can do it better if they have zero power to enforce anything?

Plus I'm not even talking about FDA type shit like "is this safe for you." I'm talking about actual laws that need to be enforced like accounting, worker safety, pollution, financial markets/trading, etc.

You need to make laws that say "hey, you can't buy securities on pure credit" or "you have to publish your company's #'s by these standards" (standards being the most important part. There's a billion different ways you could keep track of your books otherwise - and companies still manipulate the books legally at times to cover up a bad quarter).

How about laws on immigration? Or patents and intellectual property? Are all innovations equally defensible under patents? There's a war being waged on whether software should be.

I could go for years, seriously. I can't believe you think things are so fucking simple.

[Sunam]

Almost everything the government handles is run horribly and turns to putty. The thing with private organizations is that their are more then one, and I doubt that the company will be in all of their pockets because there are a ton of them and more can just pop up if need be since anyone can start one. The thing with government is theirs only one and if they’re in the companies pockets that’s it, game over they can do what they please.

And to answer your question, you punish the company and you release records showing the organization's names that let it happen so the public will know not to trust those specific organizations, and the beauty of the private sector is that more then one organization can check up on the same company.

What's there to stop private firms forming a cartel?
What if companies control the flow of information regarding their product?

While what you are saying sounds good and it would be preferable to any form of government intervention. I do not see it being possible. The same human desire for power is within the private sector as it is in the public sector. The best we can do is acknowledge that and have the necessary tools to prevent abuse of power.

Your last paragraph is assuming that the information will get out, there will be no court cases for defamation and a long drawn out process where no one knows what to believe. We can see that now with global warming and the tobacco industry regarding the health effects.

I can understand why you are against government and big government in particular, but why not massive corporations as well? They are just as likely to abuse their power and re-engineer society for their own benefit.

[cosimo84]

wealth redistribution is done by taking money from people who have it and giving it to people who don't.

we're all familiar with robin hood right? case closed. wealth redistributed. yes we can.

[palo god]

What's there to stop private firms forming a cartel?

Because with the private sector new organizations can be formed by whoever and whenever and more then one organization will be able to check up on the same company, to be able to pull a monopoly on it will be impossible since new organizations will constantly be formed.

What if companies control the flow of information regarding their product?

All you need is random inspections and that eliminates that problem.

Your last paragraph is assuming that the information will get out, there will be no court cases for defamation and a long drawn out process where no one knows what to believe. We can see that now with global warming and the tobacco industry regarding the health effects.

If there are random inspections the information will get out, you forget that the tobacco industry got away with the claim that cigarettes were healthy for you at one point under the government not the private sector.

I can understand why you are against government and big government in particular, but why not massive corporations as well?

You’re mixing up private organizations with the corporations that they would inspect.

They are just as likely to abuse their power and re-engineer society for their own benefit.

Again under the private sector there would be tons of new organizations emerging all the time, and they can all inspect the same company because there is more then one, compared to the government that only has two arms so to speak, and like I said the company couldn’t buy them all out it would be impossible.

[Tharkon Fargor]

First there is no such a thing as free market in the system you advocate. Second you have little understanding of how things work. It not all doom and gloom and every company is out there to get you. Lastly you missed the whole pont of his post, it is easier to corrupt the market by buying out th regulators.

How the fuck....
Listen, if we assume the goal is a free market in where the production and demand sets the price then any form of cartel is the biggest threat against this system and any regulation even attempting to stop it would help.

I mean do you people lack complete fucking common sense? Have you even read the Wealth Of Nations, I haven't I've read exerts of it as nobody has the time to read the full ideological ground of every opposing system. But the exerts that I have read suggest that this would have been one of the goals of the minimalist state. And even if it wasn't common sense should tell you that it is.

[Arkh]

wealth redistribution is done by taking money from people who have it and giving it to people who don't.

we're all familiar with robin hood right? case closed. wealth redistributed. yes we can.
If you remember, the people Robin Hood steal from are lords : the government. Not the shop owners.

[Arkh]

How the fuck....
Listen, if we assume the goal is a free market in where the production and demand sets the price then any form of cartel is the biggest threat against this system and any regulation even attempting to stop it would help.

I mean do you people lack complete fucking common sense? Have you even read the Wealth Of Nations, I haven't I've read exerts of it as nobody has the time to read the full ideological ground of every opposing system. But the exerts that I have read suggest that this would have been one of the goals of the minimalist state. And even if it wasn't common sense should tell you that it is.
Ahoy ! A guy who read excerpts of book. What an intellectual we have here. Read the books or don't bother to quote or reference them.
You forget one thing : if a cartel forms in a free market and it start creating bad products eveyone if free to start new corporations and produce better goods for less.
The only thing regulations help to do is forming cartels. Just see how telco companies form heavy cartels because, thanks to telco regulations, it's near impossible to form a new viable company if you don't have the money needed to corrupt politicians.

[Ludo]

Capitalism only serves the lobbyists and those who can pay for representatives in the government.

[Silverhandorder]

How the fuck....
Listen, if we assume the goal is a free market in where the production and demand sets the price then any form of cartel is the biggest threat against this system and any regulation even attempting to stop it would help.

I mean do you people lack complete fucking common sense? Have you even read the Wealth Of Nations, I haven't I've read exerts of it as nobody has the time to read the full ideological ground of every opposing system. But the exerts that I have read suggest that this would have been one of the goals of the minimalist state. And even if it wasn't common sense should tell you that it is.

You did not advertise minimalist state. You advertised fucking near communism.

[Traep]

Because with the private sector new organizations can be formed by whoever and whenever and more then one organization will be able to check up on the same company, to be able to pull a monopoly on it will be impossible since new organizations will constantly be formed.

Go open a new department store next to Walmart and tell me how that works out.

[Traep]

If there are random inspections the information will get out, you forget that the tobacco industry got away with the claim that cigarettes were healthy for you at one point under the government not the private sector.

Do you think that cigarettes would have had warning labels on them right from the start if the government wasn't in the way or something? And who would perform these random inspections when there's no money in it? And how would they do anything about bad products, make a web site? What about those who don't have the internet, fuck them? Make a commercial for them? Who's going to pay for that?

I admit that some industries can regulate themselves but it's kinda naive to think that this can work in all cases.

[palo god]

Go open a new department store next to Walmart and tell me how that works out.

That's a stupid comparison, It would be more like hiring a ton of competing jail guards trying to get a higher position instead of keeping one corrupted jail guard that takes bribes from the prisoners.

[palo god]

Do you think that cigarettes would have had warning labels on them right from the start if the government wasn't in the way or something? And who would perform these random inspections when there's no money in it? And how would they do anything about bad products, make a web site? What about those who don't have the internet, fuck them? Make a commercial for them? Who's going to pay for that?

I admit that some industries can regulate themselves but it's kinda naive to think that this can work in all cases.

Ever heard of nonprofit organizations that run on donations?

[Traep]

That's a stupid comparison, It would be more like hiring a ton of competing jail guards trying to get a higher position instead of keeping one corrupted jail guard that takes bribes from the prisoners.

Because the people running Walmart are going to let some goody-two shoes move into a position where they can any of the screwed up things that Walmart wants to do?

[palo god]

Because the people running Walmart are going to let some goody-two shoes move into a position where they can any of the screwed up things that Walmart wants to do?

You keep asking stupid questions, of course they don't want someone constantly expecting them.

[Traep]

Ever heard of nonprofit organizations that run on donations?

Well we would need a crap load of those and, even with the large amount of people who give to charity in this country, we would probably need a hell of a lot more giving a lot more money. OR, we could do the same thing with a system that doesn't have to worry about shutting down because no one wanted to donate to a non-profit that they didn't understand they needed.

[palo god]

Well we would need a crap load of those and, even with the large amount of people who give to charity in this country, we would probably need a hell of a lot more giving a lot more money. OR, we could do the same thing with a system that doesn't have to worry about shutting down because no one wanted to donate to a non-profit that they didn't understand they needed.

We already have a "crap load" of those, and it doesn't cost that much money to send an inspector to a plant or factory to do an inspection.

[Traep]

Regulations may no be entirely controlled by the industries they regulate, but they are heavely influenced by industry lobbies. As an example, I give you Citigroup. I'll try to find relevant links a little later, but I first learned about this in my old finance class a year ago. Basically, the US gov regulates just how big a bank can get, to deter monopolistic practices, and to keep a lid on TBTF (too big to fail - where the gov basically HAS to step in and bail out a firm to keep the economy from tanking). Citigroup merged with another large bank, putting it over the maximum market share it was allowed - then basically paid for the law to get changed to a higher market-share cap.

It did something illegal, then greased the right palms and got the regulations changed to make it's action legal retroactively.

This is a bad example. The way this played out is Citigroup had to pay off the government to get what they wanted. If we got rid of regulations the only thing that would have changed is they could have done what they wanted without having to pay someone off.

[Traep]

We already have a "crap load" of those, and it doesn't cost that much money to send an inspector to a plant or factory to do an inspection.

Also, the original argument here was that the government gets paid off and corrupted by the people they're supposed to regulate. Why would non-profits be any less susceptible to this?

EDIT: I may have to give you the cost thing though considering these two sources:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aacost-benefit.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/12/AR2005061201231.html

[Arkh]

Because non profit wouldn't be unique and have to compete. Contrary to monopolistic government.

[palo god]

Also, the original argument here was that the government gets paid off and corrupted by the people they're supposed to regulate. Why would non-profits be any less susceptible to this?

EDIT: I may have to give you the cost thing though considering these two sources:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aacost-benefit.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/12/AR2005061201231.html

Because you add the element of competition, its not that hard to understand.

[palo god]

Because non profit wouldn't be unique and have to compete. Contrary to monopolistic government.

Beat me to it.

[Traep]

Because you add the element of competition, its not that hard to understand.

Assuming that there is no competition now and also assuming that monopolies won't form without any regulations. Neither of these things have anything to do with my question either. What would stop a corporation from paying off non-profit regulators just like they would with government regulators?

[Traep]

Because non profit wouldn't be unique and have to compete. Contrary to monopolistic government.

If you're saying the regulators would have to compete with other regulators then what would stop corporations from paying off whichever regulator comes to them? If the regulator can't be paid off then they can kill them off with propaganda and by supporting the honest regulator's competitors. I still don't see anything that would make private regulators inherently less susceptible to corruption. Even if they would be just as good at regulating as the government, it still wouldn't be worth switching to that system because it would cost money and resources for an effective wash.

[Arkh]

Not less. But not more.
And having multiple points to corrupt instead of only one make it harder to achieve it.

[Traep]

Not less. But not more.
And having multiple points to corrupt instead of only one make it harder to achieve it.

Possibly. It might cost less to pay off a non-profit group than a government body. It might be pretty easy to smear the name of an honest group too.

It sounds like we're at least all in agreement that having absolutely no regulations as the OP seemed to promote wouldn't be a very good idea.

[alfaroverall]

And before we get someone spewing garbage like, "Well, socialism might be bad, but capitalism is DEFINITELY bad! Just look at America!"

America does NOT currently have free markets, nor has it had them for almost a century. In fact, even before then we weren't completely capitalist. The Federal Reserve is the ultimate force in government regulation and interference with the economy.

Add to that the incessant stream of federal bullshit legislation (NAFTA, CDA [bill Clinton's wonderful idea to force banks to give out subprime loans...], WTO, etc., and you have a system that resembles capitalism in propaganda only.
Don't forget the CRA from the 1960s. "lol civil rights, black people are poor, gief them loans they can't pay or we'll kill you kthxbai" is the tl;dr version of that entire bill.

[Septus]

We already have a "crap load" of those, and it doesn't cost that much money to send an inspector to a plant or factory to do an inspection.

Why would a private business allow these inspections? Oh yeah, government regulation.

I'm going to post my post again, because it has examples which contradict all the bullshit you guys are spewing. We have private "watchdog groups" that rate securities. Guess what? They were bought off you silly fucktards.

We had functioning regulatory agencies until Bush appointed a complete laissez-faire administration. You people are fucking retarded.

Free markets mean you let PRICING happen through competition. Not that government has no role.

Yeah because the private sector so can't be corrupted or bought off. That's just the government :rolleyes:

Does Moody's ring a fucking bell? And who gives a shit if some other independent watchdog group can do it better if they have zero power to enforce anything?

Plus I'm not even talking about FDA type shit like "is this safe for you." I'm talking about actual laws that need to be enforced like accounting, worker safety, pollution, financial markets/trading, etc.

You need to make laws that say "hey, you can't buy securities on pure credit" or "you have to publish your company's #'s by these standards" (standards being the most important part. There's a billion different ways you could keep track of your books otherwise - and companies still manipulate the books legally at times to cover up a bad quarter).

How about laws on immigration? Or patents and intellectual property? Are all innovations equally defensible under patents? There's a war being waged on whether software should be.

I could go for years, seriously. I can't believe you think things are so fucking simple.

[Septus]

Don't forget the CRA from the 1960s. "lol civil rights, black people are poor, gief them loans they can't pay or we'll kill you kthxbai" is the tl;dr version of that entire bill.

Shaehl meant CRA, he just typo'ed CDA instead. It was amended in the Clinton era.

Please, look at the # of defaults on CRA loans. You people are retarded.

[Traep]

Why would a private business allow these inspections? Oh yeah, government regulation.

I'm going to post my post again, because it has examples which contradict all the bullshit you guys are spewing. We have private "watchdog groups" that rate securities. Guess what? They were bought off you silly fucktards.

We had functioning regulatory agencies until Bush appointed a complete laissez-faire administration. You people are fucking retarded.

As far as allowing these inspections, they could do it because a tag of approval means consumers are more likely to buy it and whatnot. For instance, movie ratings aren't mandatory but hardly anyone forgoes getting rated because there are some benefits to doing it.

The rest of what you said I agree with completely though.

[Sunam]

Because with the private sector new organizations can be formed by whoever and whenever and more then one organization will be able to check up on the same company, to be able to pull a monopoly on it will be impossible since new organizations will constantly be formed.

This could be the case in a free market, but i remain skeptical. I would assume that in a free market situation, firms would be trying to improve their market share and stabilise the economy. Firms would merge or acquire other firms and consolidate their power. You could argue but competition would eliminate any firms from getting too powerful or Schumpeter's creative destruction would come into play but I tend to think that this would be limited.

Going on with my analogy, once a firm gets powerful enough they would begin undercutting the competition, raising the market entry point, effectively creating a barrier for smaller firms and creating a market structure where only larger firms could compete. In neo-classical economics, this market structure is known as an oligopoly. I don't see how the free market would correct this situation with out some sort of anti-trust laws.



All you need is random inspections and that eliminates that problem.


But why would any firm allow these inspections in the first place, especially if they could potentially jeopardise the reputation of the firm. Furthermore the random inspectors could easily be bought out as well.



If there are random inspections the information will get out, you forget that the tobacco industry got away with the claim that cigarettes were healthy for you at one point under the government not the private sector.


Lets use the example a product similar to cigarettes. If studies suggested that the product was harmful and consumers should not consumer it, the firm can either launch a law suit, and delay the court ruling, bring out their own studies suggesting the opposite. Either method works by creating confusion within the public, where no one knows what to believe. I realise this would happen regardless but i believe the rate of incidence would be a lot higher in a free market. Where the ability to spread misinformation is a lot more effective.



You’re mixing up private organizations with the corporations that they would inspect.

Again under the private sector there would be tons of new organizations emerging all the time, and they can all inspect the same company because there is more then one, compared to the government that only has two arms so to speak, and like I said the company couldn’t buy them all out it would be impossible.

Why would there be tons of new organisations emerging all the time. Who would be paying for these random inspections?

The only market structures in which there is a large degree of competitiveness are Perfect Competition and Monopolistic Competition. The former can be completely disregarded as the assumptions made for such a market structure forming make it completely irrelevant in the real world. That leaves us with Monopolistic Competition market structure and away from the many independent firms competiting amongst each other. What is there to stop this market structure becoming an oligopoly as firms aim to increase their market share through mergers and acquisitions? In a free market I can only see firms gaining more and more market power similar to what governments would do.

I'm a little rusty on Austrian theory of why such a situation wouldn't occur. That's why i only said schumpeter and creative destruction. But i'm sure there is more, if you could provide the links I will read them when I get the chance.

I am trying to remain as open minded on this topic as i can, as my knowledge is limited on it. That's why my 'gut feeling' is that a free market would do little to remove the organisations within society that try to gain power and manipulate society so they can hold onto this power. I am just as skeptical of the government as you are, but I go one further and am skeptical of a free market. Both sectors of society need to have their checks and balances to ensure that they both do not get too powerful.

To take it further, I am also skeptical of Austrian and Neo-classical assumptions on how the market functions as a system. Austrian's view the market as in a state of disequilibrium that is close to equilibrium whilst the neo-classical view is that the market tends towards equilibrium. I think that the market is in disequilibrium and will always move away from equilibrium, until there is a severe correction. In regards to the financial market I am drawn to Hyman Minsky's Financial Instability Hypothesis.

/end rant.

[Tsukae]

The answer to all our problems is Communism. Stateless free society where everyone works together towards the continued happy existence of humanity. :)

[Ozzy Wrong]

Rant
I find your opinion shallow and pedantic.
Was this worth the necro?
Edit: After reading your post, I actually agree with you (for the most part)...So never mind.

[Sunam]

Ever heard of nonprofit organizations that run on donations?

What happens to these nonprofit organisations during a down turn in the economy? Their ability to help the people in need would be severely diminished.

[Sunam]

I find your opinion shallow and pedantic.
Was this worth the necro?
Edit: After reading your post, I actually agree with you (for the most part)...So never mind.

I didnt realise a necro included replying to a post made on the same day. I live in a different time zone to Palo plus i worked all day and came home to study, this has been the first opportunity i've had to reply.

[Ozzy Wrong]

I didnt realise a necro included replying to a post made on the same day. I live in a different time zone to Palo plus i worked all day and came home to study, this has been the first opportunity i've had to reply.

You have my full and unwavering support, because Palo's a douchebag.

[palo god]

You have my full and unwavering support, because Palo's a douchebag.

I guess I've earned the hate of the liberals on this forum, I'm proud of that.

QQ some more.

Edit: just noticed you're a beta noob, that explains a lot.

[palo god]

What happens to these nonprofit organisations during a down turn in the economy? Their ability to help the people in need would be severely diminished.

No system is perfect, if the economy was so bad that people couldn't donate 5-10$ to an organization then they would shut down.

[Ozzy Wrong]

I guess I've earned the hate of the liberals on this forum, I'm proud of that.

QQ some more.

Who said I was a liberal?
I'm farther to the left than a fucking moderate.

[Ozzy Wrong]

No system is perfect, if the economy was so bad that people couldn't donate 5-10$ to an organization then they would shut down.
I think they question is more in a bad economic situation, will they?
And in what economic status are the people that care enought to do it?

[Sunam]

Who said I was a liberal?
I'm farther to the left than a fucking moderate.

Liberal has a different meaning depending on where you are in the world. He's using the american definition, of the word liberal, which roughly means social liberal (e.g. Australian Labor party). It's weird that you would only define this word as economic liberalism as the word is used in both contexts in Australia. Although understandable due to the Liberal Party (right of centre party).

No system is perfect, if the economy was so bad that people couldn't donate 5-10$ to an organization then they would shut down.

In such a situation what happens to the disadvantaged people that rely on nonprofit organistions? You could say that you have no obligation to help them which is valid (I disagree though) but you can't say that it is their own fault.

[Ozzy Wrong]

Liberal has a different meaning depending on where you are in the world. He's using the american definition, of the word liberal, which roughly means social liberal (e.g. Australian Labor party). It's weird that you would only define this word as economic liberalism as the word is used in both contexts in Australia. Although understandable due to the Liberal Party (right of centre party).
No, he's using the American Conservative definition, meaning that he's labeling moderate ideas as "Liberal" to block out the rest of the far left.
Looking at it from a purely economic and very basic standpoint:
Left=Socialism-----------Liberal=Regulated Capitalism---------Conservative=Free Market Capitalism.

[palo god]

I’m going to address the things that I haven’t addressed yet since you keep repeating questions and expecting different answers.


This could be the case in a free market, but i remain skeptical. I would assume that in a free market situation, firms would be trying to improve their market share and stabilise the economy. Firms would merge or acquire other firms and consolidate their power. You could argue but competition would eliminate any firms from getting too powerful or Schumpeter's creative destruction would come into play but I tend to think that this would be limited.

Going on with my analogy, once a firm gets powerful enough they would begin undercutting the competition, raising the market entry point, effectively creating a barrier for smaller firms and creating a market structure where only larger firms could compete. In neo-classical economics, this market structure is known as an oligopoly. I don't see how the free market would correct this situation with out some sort of anti-trust laws.

Government regulated markets do exactly what you’re afraid free markets might do, but the thing is free markets do the opposite, lets take weed for example it has no government regulations because its illegal in the states but the market for it is considered free without regulation, just take a look at the prices for it and you will notice they basically stay the same. I cant find you an example of this on a larger scale because there has never been a truly free market.

But why would any firm allow these inspections in the first place, especially if they could potentially jeopardise the reputation of the firm. Furthermore the random inspectors could easily be bought out as well.

Because if they didn’t allow the inspections the inspectors would tell the public through their organizations which companies refused them, causing their sales and reputation to go down the drain.


Lets use the example a product similar to cigarettes. If studies suggested that the product was harmful and consumers should not consumer it, the firm can either launch a law suit, and delay the court ruling, bring out their own studies suggesting the opposite. Either method works by creating confusion within the public, where no one knows what to believe. I realise this would happen regardless but i believe the rate of incidence would be a lot higher in a free market. Where the ability to spread misinformation is a lot more effective.

You don’t think the public would find it fishy that a company was sponsoring their own study saying their product wasn’t harmful? If anything that would destroy their reputation even more, just look at the cigarette companies they're a perfect example of this.

[Sunam]

I’m going to address the things that I haven’t addressed yet since you keep repeating questions and expecting different answers.

Government regulated markets do exactly what you’re afraid free markets might do, but the thing is they do the opposite, lets take weed for example it has no government regulations because its illegal in the states but the market for it is considered free without regulation, just take a look at the prices for it and you will notice they basically stay the same. I cant find you a example of this on a larger scale because there has never been a truly free market.

Choosing weed as an example of the free market working well is extremely weak. the market as a system is extremely complex and dynamic and made up many different interdependent markets.I realise there are no other examples, so can you please link me to the theories where free markets should behave as you suggest.

It seems as well you are assuming that the market tends towards equilibrium? would it be right to assume this?



Because if they didn’t allow the inspections the inspectors would tell the public through their organizations which companies refused them, causing their sales and reputation to go down the drain.

What if more than one firm in that particular market didn't allow inspections? Besides you're also assuming that some how this information is easily dispersed through out the market, so that everyone would know to boycott that company.


You don’t think the public would find it fishy that a company was sponsoring their own study saying their product wasn’t harmful? If anything that would destroy their reputation even more, just look at the cigarette companies their a perfect example of this.

of course not, they would set up a front group that would conduct the inspection.

[PirateGlen]

You don’t think the public would find it fishy that a company was sponsoring their own study saying their product wasn’t harmful? If anything that would destroy their reputation even more, just look at the cigarette companies their a perfect example of this.

Oil companies sponsor climate change "studies" and conservatives gobble it up like skittles.

There's alot of ways to sponsor your own "tests", "movements", etc. Some of them get caught as lies, sometimes too late, or never at all.

Just because the government is not involved does not make a market free. Businesses are in the business of making money, not providing a fair and free market.

[Ozzy Wrong]

Oil companies sponsor climate change "studies" and conservatives gobble it up like skittles.

There's alot of ways to sponsor your own "tests", "movements", etc. Some of them get caught as lies, sometimes too late, or never at all.

Just because the government is not involved does not make a market free. Businesses are in the business of making money, not providing a fair and free market.

I love that you're arguing with Palo, but let these two go at it.
It's my only entertainment for the night.

[palo god]

Oil companies sponsor climate change "studies" and conservatives gobble it up like skittles.

There's alot of ways to sponsor your own "tests", "movements", etc. Some of them get caught as lies, sometimes too late, or never at all.

Just because the government is not involved does not make a market free. Businesses are in the business of making money, not providing a fair and free market.

There is no hard evidence proving that global warming is man made also all the people saying that global warming is man made over blow global warming in general. They keep saying its going to kill us all with super hurricanes if we don't give all our monies to all gore to sav-ed us, what ever happened to global cooling btw? Honestly if you're going to use an example use a better one.

[palo god]

I love that you're arguing with Palo, but let these two go at it.
It's my only entertainment for the night.

I love how you slither around acting intelligent when I have never seen you in a debate on this forum, that in itself is entertainment its like watching a little kid play with a calculator.

[Ozzy Wrong]

I love how you slither around acting intelligent when I have never seen you in a debate on this forum.

Except I joined before you, so maybe that's why.

[Sunam]

There is no hard evidence proving that global warming is man made also all the people saying that global warming is man made over blow global warming in general. They keep saying its going to kill us all with super hurricanes if we don't give all our monies to all gore to sav-ed us, what ever happened to global cooling btw? Honestly if you're going to use an example use a better one.

I think it' a good example. Society at large doesn't know what is correct as there is so much misinformation regarding climate change. If a product exists where the theory behind its effects are extremely complex and hard to understand what chance is there of any one knowing what is right? Any firm could act in this manner to spread misinformation and create the same results.

[palo god]

Except I joined before you, so maybe that's why.

You joined a few months before me on your other account, also I haven't seen you in a debate on that account either, my other comment still stands.

[palo god]

I think it' a good example. Society at large doesn't know what is correct as there is so much misinformation regarding climate change. If a product exists where the theory behind its effects are extremely complex and hard to understand what chance is there of any one knowing what is right? Any firm could act in this manner to spread misinformation and create the same results.

How is it misinformation when man made global warming hasn't even been proven?

[Sunam]

How is it misinformation when man made global warming hasn't even been proven?

I didn't say whether it global warming is occurring or not. I am just using it as an example of how easy it is for misinformation to spread.

I am still curious as well to your views on the market. It appears as though you believe the market tends towards equilibrium. is this the case?

[palo god]

I didn't say whether it global warming is occurring or not. I am just using it as an example of how easy it is for misinformation to spread.

I am still curious as well to your views on the market. It appears as though you believe the market tends towards equilibrium. is this the case?

Again its not a good example(or even a decent example) because there is no misinformation to spread in that argument since man made global warming hasn't even been proven, and as to your question I believe that the market can make its own regulations without the government(for example they wont trade with companies that use child slave labor), the only thing the government needs to do is stay the hell out of the way.

[PirateGlen]

There is no hard evidence proving that global warming is man made also all the people saying that global warming is man made over blow global warming in general. They keep saying its going to kill us all with super hurricanes if we don't give all our monies to all gore to sav-ed us, what ever happened to global cooling btw? Honestly if you're going to use an example use a better one.

The truth or untruth of climate change is inconsequential for the purposes of the example. It shows that there is ambiguity on the subject generated from sources paid by the oil companies, regardless of the accuracy of such studies.

Since you asked: The scientific consensus of global cooling of the 1970's is a myth perpetuated by climate change skeptics.
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf

[palo god]

The truth or untruth of climate change is inconsequential for the purposes of the example. It shows that there is ambiguity on the subject generated from sources paid by the oil companies, regardless of the accuracy of such studies.

Since you asked: The scientific consensus of global cooling of the 1970's is a myth perpetuated by climate change skeptics.
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf

It was a rhetorical question, and it is important because its not a good example, I'm not going to repeat myself re-read my other posts as much times as you need before you understand.

[Ozzy Wrong]

Don't give me that alt account bull, beta noob.
Then why does the account linked in my sig have the exact same signature that I do? And a Join date that is before yours?
Just asking, it seems like a pretty heavy coincidence.

It was a rhetorical question, and it is important because its not a good example, I'm not going to repeat myself re-read my other posts as much times as you need before you understand.

But he'll be re-reading disproved arguments. The only reason you think they are repeating themselves is because you don't understand what they say.

[palo god]

Then why does the account linked in my sig have the exact same signature that I do? And a Join date that is before yours?
Just asking, it seems like a pretty heavy coincidence.



But he'll be re-reading disproved arguments. The only reason you think they are repeating themselves is because you don't understand what they say.

read my edit, as It was edited before your post.

also I understand exactly what they're saying, its just that they cant understand free market logic.

[PirateGlen]

It was a rhetorical question, and it is important because its not a good example, I'm not going to repeat myself re-read my other posts as much times as you need before you understand.

Yes, and the central point of this rhetorical question was to assert that this current climate change scare is comparable to the 1970's global cooling scare. It's a popular talking point for the uneducated.

As for rereading your post: I wont. I've read the posts and you're missing the point. You asserted that a company sponsoring studies would damage their reputation. I've shown you where this occurred and where no such damage was caused, by your own apparent belief in such studies.

If your only fallback when being shown to be incorrect is that I must read your posts untill I see you're correct then you're dumber than I'd thought.

[Ozzy Wrong]

read my edit, as It was edited before your post.

Back when I first joined I used to engage in most political debates, but I realized debating economics on here is a lost cause. Nobodies mind is going to be changed, it's worthless, and it was always me vs. 54642q643yrg34 libertarians, so they won by just posting so fast my replies would get lost.

Now I just sit back and watch the political threads, seeing people get all worked up and make assholes out of themselves, making the occasional remark that makes a certain poster look even more like an asshole...
It's a solid gig.

[Ozzy Wrong]

also I understand exactly what they're saying, its just that they cant understand free market logic.

It couldn't be that free market logic is flawed right?
I could say that that Ron Paul is a flying sausage, and when it is disproved just say that you don't understand flying sausage logic.

[palo god]

Yes, and the central point of this rhetorical question was to assert that this current climate change scare is comparable to the 1970's global cooling scare. It's a popular talking point for the uneducated.

As for rereading your post: I wont. I've read the posts and you're missing the point. You asserted that a company sponsoring studies would damage their reputation. I've shown you where this occurred and where no such damage was caused, by your own apparent belief in such studies.

If your only fallback when being shown to be incorrect is that I must read your posts untill I see you're correct then you're dumber than I'd thought.

You keep failing to understand that they didn't sponsor studies spreading disinformation since man made global warming hasn't even been proven in the first place, but I don't expect you to see your failed logic if you haven't figured it out this far in the thread.

[PirateGlen]

You joined a few months before me on your other account, also I haven't seen you in a debate on that account either, my other comment still stands.

As though join date matters when the topic is not Darkfall...

[palo god]

It couldn't be that free market logic is flawed right?
I could say that that Ron Paul is a flying sausage, and when it is disproved just say that you don't understand flying sausage logic.

How is it flawed? government regulation screws over the market just look at the financial mess the US is in right now, and that's not because of the free markets.

[palo god]

As though join date matters when the topic is not Darkfall...

He brought it up by telling me that he joined before me.

I guess you're another one of those idiots on this forum with zero reading comprehension.

well I'm done arguing with you guys, If you cant even read properly theirs no point in arguing with you.

[Ozzy Wrong]

Since when did this become about global warming?
And Palo, Evolution was once considered as crazy as Global Warming. Besides going by your logic -that you used at the beggining of the "war on terror"- we need to be prepared and fight problems at their core.
How much of a sacrafice is it to make to use less energy and reduce pollution? I mean is it really hurting you that much?

[Ozzy Wrong]

He brought it up by telling me that he joined before me.

I guess you're another one of those idiots on this forum with zero reading comprehension.

well I'm done arguing with you guys, If you cant even read properly theirs no point in arguing with you.The reason I brought up the join dates was because you called me out on never engaging in a debate, and I was proving that you wouldn't know that because I have been even when you weren't here.
Reading comprehension of your own writing ftw?

[Sunam]

Again its not a good example(or even a decent example) because there is no misinformation to spread in that argument since man made global warming hasn't even been proven, and as to your question I believe that the market can make its own regulations without the government(for example they wont trade with companies that use child slave labor), the only thing the government needs to do is stay the hell out of the way.

If there was no misinformation then why would there be so much debate regarding the subject? Obviously people have something to gain for climate change either be true or false in the public eye. Such a situation could also occur within the free market regarding a product when it's impacts on health are hard to define. It would be in the firms interest to spread the misinformation so that no conclusion can be made in the publics mind.

Well I fairly certain you would identify with the Austrian School, so we'll assume disequilibrium, that stays fairly close to equilibrium.

In your utopic view, how would private property and individual rights be protected? Is this the governments sole responsibility? Because now it's no longer a free market as the government has intervened.

What is there to prevent firms consolidating power and controlling the market, they would effectively be regulating the market. I'd hate to use neo-classical theory but... the only market structure which wouldn't allow this would be perfect competition but the assumptions for this market structure to occur rule it out as ever being a real world market structure. Other market structures allow for firms to consolidate power and control the market.

If you're so against centalisation then I dont understand how you can be for a free market. The financial market can be just as centralised as the government. Here we have an institutions whose irrationality can spell disaster for the rest of the economy. What can be a better example of abuse of power than that? when the very lives of individuals in society can be destroyed due to the actions of individuals within the financial market.

[PirateGlen]

You keep failing to understand that they didn't sponsor studies spreading disinformation since man made global warming hasn't even been proven in the first place, but I don't expect you to see your failed logic if you haven't figured it out this far in the thread.

Your original point:

You don’t think the public would find it fishy that a company was sponsoring their own study saying their product wasn’t harmful? If anything that would destroy their reputation even more, just look at the cigarette companies they're a perfect example of this.

The point is that you stated that if a company sponsored their own studies it would ruin the reputation. The studies may be 100% accurate, that doesn't change the fact that they were produced by a biased source, and did not ruin their reputation as you asserted.

Here's a full report on exxonmobil's contributions to climate change studies.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

[PirateGlen]

He brought it up by telling me that he joined before me.


Are you so dumb that you can't remember the things you type?


I guess I've earned the hate of the liberals on this forum, I'm proud of that.

QQ some more.

Edit: just noticed you're a beta noob, that explains a lot.



I guess you're another one of those idiots on this forum with zero reading comprehension.

well I'm done arguing with you guys, If you cant even read properly theirs no point in arguing with you.

Ah... the universal fallback: "You guys are obviously too dumb. I'll be leaving with my tail tucked between my legs now."

I didn't think you'd employ it so soon, though.

edit: sorry for killing your entertainment, ozzy

[antihero-zero]

If your only fallback when being shown to be incorrect is that I must read your posts untill I see you're correct then you're dumber than I'd thought.

Uh, he is. Examine exhibit A (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=79729).

I don't expect you to read that whole thing, but it was a transparent spoon and he was the most upset by it.

[Dhig]

How is it flawed? government regulation screws over the market just look at the financial mess the US is in right now, and that's not because of the free markets.

How can it screw up things when corporations avoid taxes and give officers bigger and bigger bonuses.
That is not the governments fault.
I am not from US but this happens in Europe aswell.

Without more regulations they can just continue to "steal" the money away from the middle class and poor and profit themselves.

Everything except the monthly paycheck should be bonus. So tax everything and it will be ok. Would be nice that if someone who receives 200M have to pay 70M in taxes. That would reduce the bonus system because the corporation wont get any tax reducing by giving them.

[Ziegler]

wealth redistribution is just another word for serfdom. Which is why europe is so keen on it.

[Septus]

lol, I love it palo god. You just ignore the thread when I post, and then once it's buried, keep spewing you're retarded crap.

[Tharkon Fargor]

Ahoy ! A guy who read excerpts of book. What an intellectual we have here. Read the books or don't bother to quote or reference them.
You forget one thing : if a cartel forms in a free market and it start creating bad products eveyone if free to start new corporations and produce better goods for less.
The only thing regulations help to do is forming cartels. Just see how telco companies form heavy cartels because, thanks to telco regulations, it's near impossible to form a new viable company if you don't have the money needed to corrupt politicians.

It is not about bad products, it is about the fact that if there is a cartel then the prices are not set by the market but the cartel and obviously anyone ellse forming a company that does the same would find it profitable to join the cartel. Also in many cases there isn't a "better" product, take the oil industry for example. If the goal of bribing a statesman/politician is to corrupt the free market pricing then the same can be done even easier without the middleman you have to corrupt first.


I mean really, this is so godamn clear to me that I don't understand how anyone couldn't agree with me.

[Ozzy Wrong]

Uh oh, Tharkon's here! The left has called in reinforcements!

Gogo!

[Sunam]

Ahoy ! A guy who read excerpts of book. What an intellectual we have here. Read the books or don't bother to quote or reference them.
You forget one thing : if a cartel forms in a free market and it start creating bad products eveyone if free to start new corporations and produce better goods for less.
The only thing regulations help to do is forming cartels. Just see how telco companies form heavy cartels because, thanks to telco regulations, it's near impossible to form a new viable company if you don't have the money needed to corrupt politicians.

The odd thing with the wealth of nations is that from what I've read about it, it doesn't say what people think it says. It doesn't support the free market. Of course, I could be wrong, but from what i've read it suggests otherwise.

What is this self correcting mechanism in the free market and why are you so absolute that it will work in the real world? We've never had a free market and yet people on here swear by the self regulating process within the free market. It all seems too good, that this system can some how limit the ability for firms to become too powerful. The other issue is that the Austrian School says that with out government intervention and a gold backed currency the boom and bust cycles would be minimised. On oth these issues I remain skeptical.

In neo-classical economics, there are a number of market structures, the only structure in which firms are not price takers is in Perfect Competition. All other market structures, firms have the ability to influence price. The closet structure to perfect competition is Monopolistic Competition and even then there are slight barriers to entry and if a firm gets enough power, there is little stopping it merging and acquiring new firms and increasing its market power.


If a cartel formed in the free market, it is in their interest to maintain their market share and power. They will inflate the entry point in the market, by lowering the price and undercutting any new competition. effectively creating a market barrier. Not to mention the immense amount of resources that a cartel could pour into advertising their product, and ensuring that within the publics eye their product is best.

At the society level humans do not behave rationally, ignorance is common and they reflect herd like behaviour. All you need to do is ask the average person on the street about who they will vote for. I can guarantee that most of them will vote for one of the main parties, based on little to no information. This is also a flaw in any democratic system and it's also why I am fearful of government, just as I am with the free market, but I believe with the appropriate checks and balances, we can minimise the the ability of the powerful to gain control of society.

[Killuminati]

Uh oh, Tharkon's here! The left has called in reinforcements!

Gogo!

You just reminded me about my favorite comic strip...

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m4/littledaddylump/PBF019AD-Sgt_Grumbles.jpg

[Ozzy Wrong]

You just reminded me about my favorite comic strip...

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m4/littledaddylump/PBF019AD-Sgt_Grumbles.jpg

I don't get it, but glad I could help.
He's not there because he's eating honey?
This comic strip is just to deep and philosophical for me.

[Killuminati]

I don't get it, but glad I could help.
He's not there because he's eating honey?
This comic strip is just to deep and philosophical for me.

yah, you can't comprehend greatness.

[Ozzy Wrong]

yah, you can't comprehend greatness.

It still eludes me.
Enlighten me on the subtle meaning of Sgt. Grumbles!

[Killuminati]

You did understand it.

[Ozzy Wrong]

You did understand it.

Oh. So there's no metaphor, no underlying meaning that explains the purpose of life itself?