Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by bordsilver, May 6, 2014.
And the regulated market is.................???????
A product of faith?
Real life it is called, you read something in a book and seem to take it as the gospel truth without actually thinking about consequences of actions or people who don't follow the "rules" that are in your book.
Luckily people like you have very little say in how things are run
Yeah, its the people that lie, cheat and steal their way into positions of power that have a say in how things are run.
Talk about not living in reality...
Lol and I thought I was fairly Libertarian in my politics, but I sound like Karl Marx next to you lot
do the guys arguing against any government regulations for businesses and markets consider themselves minarchists or anarchists?
what are your thoughts on my original point that in a minarchist government with police and courts, poisoning someone would still get you locked up.
In an anachist society a private DRO rent-a-cop would Michael Brown you.
what difference is there from that and a business dumping lead paint in the water supply
in short shouldnt the same limitations on an individuals actions be the same for businesses and markets?
The things you are raising are a separate issue to what I am talking about. As I defined at the start, "free market regulation means to not allow coercive restrictions on people's peaceful activities that do not interfere with the rights of others". Your examples are the realm of criminal conduct - ie where people's activities infringe on the rights of others. In a minarchy, the government can still have a geographic monopoly on being the ultimate arbitrator of disputes and a monopoly on Law while still having free market regulation. Indeed, the role of government in a minarchist society is to protect individuals from violence, fraud or theft and that's about it. It doesn't have the right to regulate otherwise peaceful activities such as stipulating the quantity of food a potato farmer can grow without being fined.
Whether or not peaceful, well-functioning societies need an organisation (ie government) to have a geographic monopoly on Law and ultimate dispute arbitration is a completely separate topic (as is the issue of "national" defence) which is what separates minarchy from nonarchy/voluntarism.
Businesses in Sydney already use threats to force desperate people to work illegal hours, sometimes for less than 50% of the award wage. I imagine things would get far worse without even token regulatory restrictions.
That's nothing. At times I work 36 hour days at zero rates without any threat of violence. (The issues with owning your own business where your income depends solely on the customer being satisfied.) [The difference of course is that unlike some other professions doing so does not create a physical safety hazard to the worker - ie me - or to others.]
More seriously, you are now into the realm of effective enforcement of laws against extortion or encouragement of safe work procedures. This is one of the legitimate reasons for unions. Separately however, as I posted in the medical care before the state thread, there would be a natural role for the worker's health insurers to take over such roles from government and their inspectors and recommend their own safe working practices/regulations (as happened in the past). The primary difference is that there would be greater competition with the money being paid directly by those who benefit.
John mentions Eat With, a restaurant in your own home. My wife tells me such for profit gatherings were common amongst workers in the industry in the past, but it was word-of-mouth and you generally knew the others or knew of them. There are two members in Australia, one in Manly NSW and one in Richmond Vic. I'm not sure how they circumvent liquor laws if they serve alcohol as part of their meal, there doesn't appear to be any Contact to ask questions.
Joined EatWith and sent them this email:
Any legal eagles here with an opinion?
As John Stossel says, it's unlikely the regulators are even aware of the existence of EatWith, so it'll probably be some time before any direction from them is given to the company or the hosts.
The Livingstone Shire Council has rejected a development application for a new shopping complex opposite an existing one. Council in their wisdom believe that the proposal would adversely impact other businesses.
The Cedar Park shopping centre would be directly across the road from the development proposal. All I'll say is that you'd only buy from the Cedar Park supermarket as a last resort ($$$$$$$$), so the consumer misses out because Council is protecting established businesses.
- Explores the assumption that without governments, TV's would blow up and we'd have rat poison in our food, yet there are many industries that experience improvements in quality or increasing consumer satisfaction occurs without any government regulation.
- Individual consumers have preferences about where they want to be on the "spectrum of product characteristics" whether it is a price point, a design feature, a safety feature, longevity, intended usage etc etc. Product regulation restricts choice.
- The FDA and the barriers to entry it creates in delaying consumer access to new beneficial drugs in the name of safety testing. The regulatory process drives up costs and favours incumbents at the expense of new market entrants.
- The interest of profit provides the incentive to supply a safe product.
- The introduction of safety regulations can shift the risk to another situation ie may result in consumers being exposed to other unsafe practices, it may also lead to the belief that regulated substances are dangerous which can deter use.
- alternatives to product regulation: private certification, user reviews, reputation
- the free market is not infallible, there is no Nirvana, only the capacity to better meet consumer need.
I'm an Acorn user so I'd thought I'd share this letter from George Lucas, the Managing Director of Acorns Australia (and possibly the father of Darth Vader), check out the second screen shot in particular:
The local IGA is classified as a small supermarket, it apparently has restrictions placed upon it as to how many employees are on a given shift at any time. I'm told they have a limit of 20, regardless of how busy it becomes.
Follow up to Acorns, received an email today, highlights the fact that legislated regulation may not be able to keep pace with the changes in technology/needs of consumers in a modern market place. In other words, it's outdated:
Edit to add: I'd hazard a guess that there are some members on this forum who weren't even a twinkle in their father's eyes in the early 80's.
Interesting website. The authors challenge anyone to identify, using experimental evidence, conditions under which their Iron Law of Regulation does not hold. In other words, to show that a regulation increases general welfare.
Studies proposed as providing evidence must:
- Use laboratory, field, natural, or quasi-experiments to compare effects of alternative policies, which includes doing nothing
- Describe the conditions to which the findings apply
- Develop an experiment to test existing or new regulations.
Separate names with a comma.