Tragic and devastating news: snip http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/g...in-seongnam-city/story-fnh81fz8-1227094382061 What will happen will be typical of how government regulation has been introduced over much of the past 2 centuries. The government will move to introduce tougher regulatory standards and then take credit for their introduction. What is obvious though is that it is only on the agenda due to a shift in the dominant paradigm. In other words, just like the abolition of of child labour in factories in England, or the introduction of health regulations in meat processing facilities in the US in the late 1800's, there is a growing movement in place in South Korea for greater emphasis on safety. snip snip The regulations are there but they are not enforced, because it's not a significant aspect of Sth Korean culture: snip http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/w...y-to-overlook-safety-in-south-korea.html?_r=0 Thankfully, the discussion about safety is taking place, and corporations and business organisations are taking action: http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Eco...anies-in-anguished-South-Korea-rethink-safety It won't be government regulation that saves South Koreans from themselves - it will be themselves.
Free market consumer protection: https://support.google.com/trustedstores/answer/1669761?p=program&rd=1
Simon Breheney from the Legal Rights Project at free-market think-tank the Institute of Public Affairs: They should have cast Jim Turley in the role of Wesley Mouch for "Atlas Shrugged" :lol: More here: http://www.news.com.au/finance/busi...-to-be-abolished/story-fnkgdftz-1227185925919
Sooo...two pages of posts and not one person defending free market regulation? No fun having a discussion where everyone agrees, so allow me to play devils advocate: Just as I cant poison someone's drink without the police arresting me, so too businesses can't polute the water supply, or dodgy builders use inferior materials, or create an unsafe working environment for an employee, without govt regulators stepping in. An unregulated free market doesn't account for criminals or short sighted profiteers. I've worked for enough for them to know if there weren't laws and police enforcing them (worksafe etc), working conditions for the average Australian would be terrible. Look at the average standard of living in free-market havens like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, vs more leftie pinko countries like Australia, Denmark and Canada.
The spud situation is stupid, and an example of reg fail. I'm 90% on board with free market econs, but the 10% of pricks with a profit above all ethics mindset make me wary of anything beyond minarchy.
If the market for everything was truly unregulated, maybe there would be an opportunity for a privately funded enforcement company with private military contractors to forcefully discourage certain business activities, e.g. if you dump asbestos outside a daycare centre for young kids (as happens in Sydney already) then you can expect your business to be terminated with extreme prejudice and maybe even end up with a pair of cement shoes, Mafia style.
Or a private defence force to repel the enforcers. Ultimately it may come down to who can make the most money to fund the most powerful private military. We can probably look to the black market for profitable ideas. For example, gangs who deal in drugs and weapons and who ruthlessly control their empires.
Exactly, you are on the money..... Two or more private military factions trying to gain control. How does that create stability? What happened in Somalia?
So you are willing to accept government regulation of markets in order to protect everyone from the "10% fail"? What proportion of government regulations fail? 10%? 14%? 33%? 89%? I know you can't answer that. Especially if the government has a monopoly because there is no benchmark. If governments worked then clearly we should be living in a bed of roses and there should not be any budget emergencies, aging population dilemnas, public health crises, crime sprees or any cause to be alert (remembering not to be alarmed :lol: ). The free market advocates acknowledge that under a free market the world would not be perfect, there would be profit, loss, success and mistakes on many sides. Individuals live and learn and are responsible for their own decisions. They have no one else to blame or look to except themselves, but if there was a case to mount they could address their concerns in a court. The pro-government regulators however deny that under a government regulated system anyone would lose. Clearly, the pro-government apologists are either disillusioned or scoundrels. Or liars. :/ I'm pegging it's the third one.
I'm not saying current level of gov regs are a better option. Just prefer something better than a war of private armies to resolve disputes. And how are concerns in court addressed in the absence of laws? The potato board uses regulations to act as a monopoly. I don't expect a free market to not allow similar monopolistic outcomes if violent solutions are an acceptable method of conducting business.
lol really?? So if cars "worked" there'd never be in breakdowns, flat tires, oil leaks? I guess cars don't work then. Nothing in the real world is perfect, that doesn't mean it doesn't work. The reality is government works because it's too big to fail
Why would there be a war of private armies? No one said there would be an absence of laws. No one ever suggested that violent solutions would be an acceptable method of conducting business. This view is based upon the assumption that humans are violent and that this violence is crawling under the surface of the skin of all people and it is only the threat of detention or some other form of legal action that prevents us from breaking out and killing every one we come into contact with. But you are suggesting governments work better than the alternative. And as far as your tongue-in-cheek comment about governments being too big to fail, I'll just point you in the direction of the failed communist states of Eastern Europe/Central Asia. To continue your analogy if I get a flat tyre or my car breaks down I repair or replace it. I then have confidence in the repaired or new item that it should offer me an improved set circumstances. The same does not happen with government. But keep the Devil's advocacy going.
Here I thought there may actually be some hard questions First, refer back to the opening post. Second, comparing the circumstances in a developing country to those in a developed country is incorrect in this case because of the large differences in human and physical capital. The regulations of relevance come with a cost that cannot be borne by the average poor person. Pretty much all activities come with some level of risk and only after capital accumulation and wealth growth can expensive regulations even be considered, so there are 'grades of safety' in the ways people do things. This is the reality. Most Bangladeshi's can't afford or are unwilling to pay (or effectively unable to due to other socio-political factors) the cost for reducing the risk of injury/fraud/contamination just as most garment factories can't afford to pay for air conditioning for their staff. We are similarly constrained, but thanks to prior success in accumulating productive physical and human capital our limits are in areas like not everyone being able to afford to drive Volvos. I say it is a nonsense to attempt to claim that our standard of living compared to places like Bangladesh is thanks to regulations rather than things like private ownership of capital, a strong rule of law with efficient contract enforcement and property right protection, freedom from corruption, relative freedom to trade, relative freedom from wealth destroying price controls, etc.
BTW free market regulation is a separate topic to the government being in charge of law and order or national defence. One can have both (but as Hawkeye has pointed out in the past, the monopolistic nature of the government right to make Law is at the root of why it is then lobbied and cajoled and inevitably abuses its privilege to make regulation and immoral laws such as banning potato farmers from growing too much food for people <the horror :O >).
Technically no government is too big to fail (take the Roman Empire for example). But the main interest of a government is in maintaining the existence of government no matter the cost.
People talk about the free market as if it is a living, breathing thing, the free market is a product of man's making. People manipulate markets, we hear about it all the time, the reason there is regulation is because of past experience of people and companies being A holes. The free market used to be you have 2 cows and a bull, you then get 2 calves. You then keep a calf and sell one for profit and you have 2 cows, a bull and a calf and you build your herd and make a profit to live off. In your "Free Market" you have 2 cow and a bull, you sell futures based on the fact that you will get 8 calves over 4 years so you sell those 8 calves now for a market price 10% above today's price because you and the buyer believes the price of beef will increase. You then use the cash from the sale of the 8 calves to invest in derivatives based on a 32% return due to the increase of oil which you expect over the next 2 years. You also sell the 2 cows and the bull now and recieve the cash but delivery of the animals in 2 years because you expect the money from the derivatives to be payed in 18 months and you can then use the profits from the derivatives to pay the penalties from not delivering the 8 calves which you have already sold. You need an extra $200,000.00 though to buy a piece of land in Chile in the new Libertarian paradise that they are starting so you get investors to invest $200,000.00 based on the return from the derivatives in the future. The fella in Chile you pay in Bitcoin and Gold bullion and he rips you off. And since there is no regulation and nothing is traceable he is home free. 6 months down the track you derivatives have died in the poo poo and you are going to loose the 2 cows and the bull. You are broke and the investors have lost their cash, and it is a mess. You are bankrupt but you only lost 2 cows and a bull, people have lost a huge amount of cash which you have borrowed so it is really not that big of a deal. However the people who invested everything they have or are acting for other investors have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The reply - take me to court lol. However taking the person to court archives nothing because there are no assets and no-one has any money left to take anyone to court. Oh but they should have done their due diligence............. That is impossible becasue people lie and make things so complicated you can not get to the bottom of how things are actually being done. The free market should actually be called the manipulated market.
