Free market regulation

One of the examples of the experimental standard that they expect is given by one of their own papers "Evidence on the Effects of Mandatory Disclaimers in Advertising, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31 (2012), 293-304".

It is an interesting read. They undertook experiments that were apparently used in a Florida court case. They that showed that including mandatory Disclaimers for implant surgery had the opposite effect to that intended (ie people were more likely to be confused by the disclaimers and more likely to choose less qualified dentists (for implants) compared to adverts that didn't have the disclaimers.
 
Green & Armstrong said:
Sellers
It is in sellers' economic interests to treat customers well and, especially, to avoid misleading them. They are motivated to tell consumers about the limitations of their products in order to develop good long-term relationships with them, and to avoid the costs of dealing with disgruntled customers and with lawsuits. Unsurprisingly, then, sellers have long used disclaimers in advertising. Research on advertisements that tell the bad along with the good has found that they are persuasive when the negative features are important to consumers (Armstrong 2010, pp. 124-126).

Sellers are motivated to provide warnings with products that may be dangerous in surprising ways or extents, for example with a clear liquid that is poisonous, but not with a knife. Warnings are usually helpful. In a meta-analysis involving 12 experiments and 3 quasi-experiments involving 79 comparisons, Cox et al. (1997) found the warnings yielded an average gain in compliance of 15.7% compared to having no warning. However, in one-third of the comparisons, the presence of a warning had no effect, or reduced safe behavior.

Sellers are also motivated to provide benefits to potential customers, and to tell them about those benefits, if they are free to do so. Consider the following examples:
- Breakfast cereal companies increased fiber content and introduced advertising of the benefits of fiber when restrictions on advertising health benefits were lifted. Consumers increased their consumption of high-fiber cereals (Ippolito and Mathios 1991).
- Women reduced their consumption of saturated fats within the fats and oils category by 24% in the five years after advertising restrictions were lifted in 1985, a substantially more rapid change than occurred during the preceding eight years (Ippolito and Mathios 1995).
- Cigarette companies reduced tar and nicotine levels after the Federal Trade Commission's prohibition of comparative health claims in cigarette advertisements was lifted (Craswell 1991).
- Prior to mandatory nutrition labeling, sellers were motivated to tell consumers about features of their products that were considered to have health advantages. When a new mandatory labeling regime that restricted claims that sellers could make was instituted, the share of healthier cooking oils sold decreased (Mathios 1998).

Buyers
People are accustomed to dealing with biased information in all areas of life, including when making decisions as consumers. When they are not expert in a product category, consumers tend to seek out independent information, use trusted suppliers, or buy well-known brands. If customers discover they have been misled after they have purchased a product, they are likely to avoid purchasing the product in the future, demand a refund, tell others not to buy it, post comments on the Internet, or sue.

Consumers are also aware from experience and from knowledge of human nature that government officials are fallible, sometimes biased, and sometimes duplicitous in the information they provide. In addition, people often attribute higher benefits to products they are told they cannot have. As a consequence, consumers may fail to respond to government-mandated messages in the ways that the regulators intend them to.
 
PROOF are an industry accreditation organisation promoting the commercial production of livestock in free-range open pastures. They have a strict code of ethics and guidelines that are intended to complement State and Territory legislation.

[imgz=http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/753_screen_shot_2017-01-14_at_12203_pm.png]
753_screen_shot_2017-01-14_at_12203_pm.png
[/imgz]

http://www.proof.net.au/

The following link is to suppliers that are licensed PROOF farmers for anyone interested in sourcing their food based upon ethical considerations: http://www.proof.net.au/Where-to-Buy-free-range
 
mmm....shiney! said:
PROOF are an industry accreditation organisation promoting the commercial production of livestock in free-range open pastures. They have a strict code of ethics and guidelines that are intended to complement State and Territory legislation.

:

http://www.proof.net.au/

The following link is to suppliers that are licensed PROOF farmers for anyone interested in sourcing their food based upon ethical considerations: http://www.proof.net.au/Where-to-Buy-free-range
From their website:

What Does Pastured Mean? 'All animals are born and raised outdoors with continuous and unconfined access to pasture throughout their life time. They are kept at a stocking intensity that will ensure forage is always available in a sustainably managed rotational grazing system.*'

I wonder if they think that humans should be pastured in the same way? :P
 
mmm....shiney! said:
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.

IGA/Foodland is governed by Metcash the same goes for the liquor chain store Cellarbrations.
http://www.metcash.com/
 
betterinvestmentthanshare said:
mmm....shiney! said:
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.

IGA/Foodland is governed by Metcash the same goes for the liquor chain store Cellarbrations.
http://www.metcash.com/

Are you saying that the restrictions are corporate policy?

From what i've read it appears that the restrictions are legislative.
 
753_screen_shot_2017-01-23_at_64340_am.png

ENDOGENOUS GROWTH THEORY AND THE MODEL

Endogenous growth theory builds on the idea that economic growth is primarily dependent on decisions made by actors in the economyfirms and individualsrather than on external factors.

Economic growth is dependent on investment. Economic growth in a particular industry is determined by investment in knowledge creation, such as research and development, and the way that such investment leads to innovation and increases in productivity. This means that regulatory interventions that affect investment choices have a greater effect on the economy than the simple sum of static costs associated with regulatory compliance.
Regulations have cumulative effects. A key insight of endogenous growth models in general is that the effect of government intervention on economic growth is not simply the sum of static costs associated with individual interventionsthere are dynamic implications. The accumulation of regulation over time leads to greater and greater distortion of investment choices. Moreover, the investment choices of previous years affect growth in future years because knowledge that is not created cannot be implemented next year and the years after to be more productive.

The study develops a multisector endogenous growth model that permits a counterfactual experiment: What would have happened if federal regulation had been "frozen" at the levels observed in 1980? The model accommodates industry-specific variation in how regulation affects investment and growth, while specifying the determinants and relationships needed to estimate the long-run cost of the regulation for the economy overall.

CONCLUSIONS

While static analysis of individual regulations sometimes predicts beneficial effects for society, policymakers should consider the results of this study not only when creating new regulations, but also when considering reform of the regulatory process itself. By altering investment decisions and disrupting the innovation that comes from investment in knowledge creation, regulations have a cumulative and detrimental effect on economic growthand, over time, have a real impact on American families and workers.

https://www.mercatus.org/publication/cumulative-cost-regulations
 
Trump is busy trying to reduce the regulatory burden that individuals and businesses suffer. Would be nice to see our pollies do the same.

Trump signs executive order to block new government regulations

President Donald Trump has signed a new executive order mandating that for each new government regulation being enacted, two need to be revoked.

The order is in line with the new president's plan to slash regulations by as much as 75 percent, as Trump believes the expanding body of government rules is stifling the US economy.

"We're cutting regulations massively for small business and for large business," Trump said, signing the document. "This will be the biggest such act that our country has ever seen."
https://www.rt.com/usa/375642-trump-executive-orders-regulation/
 
mmm....shiney! said:
Trump is busy trying to reduce the regulatory burden that individuals and businesses suffer. Would be nice to see our pollies do the same.

Trump signs executive order to block new government regulations

President Donald Trump has signed a new executive order mandating that for each new government regulation being enacted, two need to be revoked.

The order is in line with the new president's plan to slash regulations by as much as 75 percent, as Trump believes the expanding body of government rules is stifling the US economy.

"We're cutting regulations massively for small business and for large business," Trump said, signing the document. "This will be the biggest such act that our country has ever seen."
https://www.rt.com/usa/375642-trump-executive-orders-regulation/
yep he might not be liked but he has plenty of commonsense. This is what happens when a real businessman has the job.
He has a kiss mindset which is great in a lot of things , not so good in others
 
But doesn't government regulation and taxes build businesses and create prosperity? Surely we just need another 100,000 pages of new regulations, double all personal and company income taxes and increase GST to a sensible 40% and we'll have all of the free stuff we want and we'll all be happy as pigs in muck.
 
Attempts at raising the standards for poultry farming in Australia have hit a stumbling block, with 3 scientists stating their research has been quoted out of context and the RSPCA threatening to quit the whole standards accreditation scheme.

The integrity of the process for developing Australia's new poultry standards is in question, with scientists raising concerns about inaccuracies and the RSPCA threatening to quit in protest.

Three animal welfare scientists sent a scathing letter, seen by Fairfax Media, to the group writing the legal requirements for poultry welfare, saying their research had been distorted in supporting papers to appear in favour of conventional caged egg production.

The integrity of the process for developing Australia's new poultry standards is in question, with scientists raising concerns about inaccuracies and the RSPCA threatening to quit in protest.

Three animal welfare scientists sent a scathing letter, seen by Fairfax Media, to the group writing the legal requirements for poultry welfare, saying their research had been distorted in supporting papers to appear in favour of conventional caged egg production.

"The content is in general selective, and thus unbalanced, outdated on some points, and at times incorrectly referenced [and] this can mislead the debate," wrote Dr Jean-Loup Rault, Professor Tina Widowski and Professor Paul Hemsworth.

"Documents only include the sections and statements that outline the benefits of conventional cages, and omit sections that outline negative aspects ... and fail to acknowledge that there are, in fact, viable alternatives."

So the incorruptibility of the process for establishing new standards for poultry has been questioned? With the RSPCA et al claiming the draft standards put industry interests ahead of the welfare of poultry.

That's what happens with mandated legislative practices, they are a political solution to social and resource utilisation issues and as such, do not necessarily reflect the values of all stakeholders in the industry. As so often happens they end up favouring one group at the expense of others and are ineffective.

But even more damning and indicative of the failure of State mandated standards:

"Few consumers would be aware of the desperately over-crowded conditions chickens are raised in or the lameness, illness and premature deaths caused by their extreme growth rate," she continued.

"That there is nothing in these standards to address this animal welfare disaster is appalling."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/cons...of-process-is-questioned-20170213-gubgx0.html

In other words, even with legislation in place, consumers remain ignorant of the real standards, the reason they have been adopted and the limitations of these regulations. This is because that under mandated minimum standards there is little motive for producers to market their product and educate consumers in order to stand out from the flock - in other words, there's little money it for them. Everyone has to abide by a state enforced code so why bother advertising it? Furthermore consumer ignorance remains generally unchallenged as they don't know any better, and the only dissenting information they hear is from the RSPCA etc, which has its own motive, and providing consumers with cheap, quality eggs produced in a humane manner is not necessarily at the top of their agenda.

Contrast that with a voluntary accreditation and certification scheme where producers are incentivised to both market their product in order to establish themselves as distinct from any opposition, and more importantly, they also have to educate consumers in order to get their message across and in the process create consumer driven pressure to raise standards.
 
Market demand from consumers driving reform. There has been a massive a shift in the ethical choices of consumers and it's being reflected in management strategies being employed by many farmers, voluntarily.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACqOmD5Mhx4[/youtube]
 
In yet another blow in the face for supporters of the State and their mistaken belief in regulations, the new "Free-range egg" labeling laws are next to useless and set a new benchmark for mass poultry production, rather than reflect consumer sentiment.

So, after years of lobbying and consumer backlash, the term free range was still watered down to mean very, very little. Free Range is now simply a term that means cage free hens with the ability to access the outdoors but with no necessity to do so.

https://www.proof.net.au/Free-Range-Egg-Labelling
 
How Government Regulations Made Healthcare So Expensive

The U.S. “health care cost crisis” didn’t start until 1965. The government increased demand with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid while restricting the supply of doctors and hospitals. Health care prices responded at twice the rate of inflation (Figure 1). Now, the U.S. is repeating the same mistakes with the unveiling of Obamacare (a.k.a. “Medicare and Medicaid for the middle class”).

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman wrote that medical price inflation since 1965 has been caused by the rising demand for health-care coupled with restricted supply (Friedman 1992). Robert Alford explained the minority view: "The market reformers wish to preserve the control of the individual physician over his practice, over the hospital, and over his fees, and they simply wish to open up the medical schools in order to meet the demand for doctors, to give patients more choice among doctors, clinics, and hospitals, and to make that choice a real one by public subsidies for medical bills" (Alford 1975). The majority of policymakers support either monopolization (e.g. typically Republicans) or nationalization (e.g., typically Democrats).

snip

From 1965 to 1989, the number of hospital beds and occupied beds (per population) declined by 44 and 15 percent, respectively (Friedman 1992). Today, the U.S. and Canada have less than 25 doctors and 30 hospital beds (per 10,000 population), compared to over 35 and 50, respectively, in most countries in continental Western Europe. Mark Pearson, head of Division on Health Policy at The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), discussed possible reasons the U.S. spends more than two-and-a-half times per person more than most developed nations in the world, including relatively rich European countries: “The U.S. has fewer physicians and fewer physician consultations relative to its population. The U.S. also has fewer hospital beds for its population size and shorter average stays in hospital relative to other countries. Indeed, the lower numbers of physicians could help explain why they cost more; there is less competition for patients.” He adds that universities in other countries are still able to attract the best students to medicine (Kane 2012). SOLUTIONS The U.S. health-care market appears to behave according to laws of supply and demand (at least until the 1980s). Assuming government subsidy of the elderly and poor serves the public good, the cause of the “U.S. health care cost crisis” appears to be that government didn’t allow the supply of doctors and hospitals to respond to increased consumer demands.


Politicians from both major political parties created a self-fulfilling prophesy by assuming markets couldn’t work in health care. The obvious solution is to increase the supply of physicians and hospitals to meet demand. Unfortunately, if medical schools doubled their class sizes by next year, it could still take over 20 years to achieve the number of doctors relative to population found in continental Western Europe. Competition could be achieved quicker by relaxing the licensing requirements placed on para-medicals (e.g. nurses), and possibly also foreign educated doctors, to compete with U.S. physicians to the degree to which they are qualified. If Obamacare is still necessary, the additional demands created by subsidizing even more consumers will require even more supply. Regardless, all major health care policies implemented by the U.S. government after 1965 will likely need to be repealed and the “playing field” leveled so new entrants can compete against previously subsidized and now entrenched providers. Supply and demand graphs can illustrate the supply shift needed to balance the demand shift since 1965 (Figure 11). Once consumer demand for quality has been satisfied, the supply shift will result in more quantity of medical care supplied, greater access to medical care, lower prices, increased efficiency and real growth. By the definition of price-inelastic demand, total medical expenditures must decrease (e.g., from spending area I to II).

Republished on http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive with permission from the Mises Institute.
 
Determining value for money from mandated regulatory guidelines can be difficult to assess.

Compulsory CTP and national injury assistance scheme for accidents on the road add $350/year to the cost of car registration. This is nearly half of the total annual registration costs and are not subject to market choice, as such, there is no way for me to determine if I am getting any value for money. Especially as I already have trauma/life insurance cover.
 
Appetise had an IPO on the ASX during the week, it’s an online and mobile ordering system that connects restaurants with consumers.

Appetise brings value back to restaurants and consumers via its strategy of eliminating joining fees for restaurants, card fees for consumers, and charging a commission rate of up to 10% (as compared to up to 14% for the larger competitors) on orders placed through its platform. Appetise also offers a generous loyalty scheme for regular consumers, making it cheaper to order through Appetise than ordering directly from the restaurants. Further, Appetise enables consumers to make an educated choice by providing them with the ability to search restaurants by hygiene rating, something that its competitors are not offering consumers. All of these initiatives are designed to bring genuine choice and value back to restaurants and consumers and allow them to share more equally in the benefits of the online food ordering marketplace.
 
Uber attempts to garner government protection.

Uber Wants to Make It Illegal to Operate Your Own Self-Driving Car in Cities

Beleaguered ridesourcing giant Uber has been criticized for a wide variety of sins, both real and imagined. But their biggest sin yet may be what they apparently want to do to the public in the future: force everybody to use Uber’s service by outlawing private automobiles. (I warned this might happen back in 2014.)

Uber has signed onto a document called “Shared Mobility Principles for Sustainable Cities,” which was prepared by short-term car rental company ZipCar and a who’s who of left-wing green pressure groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, Smart Growth America’s Transportation for America advocacy project, and the World Resources Institute, to name a few.

https://cei.org/blog/uber-wants-make-it-illegal-operate-your-own-self-driving-car-cities
 
Free-market regulatory conditions make it possible for consumers to avail themselves of products they want, not what governments or corporations tell them they should/shouldn't have:

In his 1999 classic Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Lawrence Lessig argued that our world is regulated by four forces:

  1. Law: what's legal
  2. Markets: what's profitable
  3. Norms: what's morally acceptable
  4. Code: what's technologically possible
Under ideal conditions, companies that do bad things with technology are shamed and embarrassed by bad press (norms); they face lawsuits and regulatory action (law); they lose customers and their share-price dips (markets); and then toolsmiths make add-ons for their product that allow us all to use them safely, without giving up our personal information, or being locked into their software store, or having to get repairs or consumables from the manufacturer at any price (code).

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/yet-another-lesson-from-the-cambridge-analytica-fiasco
 
Back
Top