• The Economist: Over-regulated America, The home of laissez-faire is being suffocated by excessive an
    47 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34750220]I was just pointing out that the big corporations don't seem to want laissez faire, contrary to popular belief on FP. This is because the regulations often favor big business and don't allow the smaller companies to compete[/QUOTE] Forming trusts and monopoly under laissez faire economics is more favorable for the big businesses to stifle the smaller companies. What regulations are you referring to that don't favor small businesses?
Did any of you talking about simpler rules actually read the article and what it says about it honestly it says right there in the second to last paragraph
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;34749706]What theory would that be Pepin[/QUOTE] There is a lot to it but I'll try to outline some basic ideas. Unintended consequences: Though a regulation might sound like a good idea, in practice it may have results that were unintended and unwanted. The simple reason for this is that laws change behavior, people do not act the same under completely different circumstances. A good example of this is a law capping the interest rate on credit cards. This was intended to help out lower class people. The intention is good, but the unintended consequence was that credit companies stopped lending to lower class people all together. This prevented people who needed money from getting it. [url]http://wichitaliberty.org/regulation/unintended-consequences-of-credit-card-regulation/[/url] Regulation hurts smaller firms: A lot of regulation requires quite of capital to comply with. Because of this, small firms that don't have a lot of capital are on a very uneven playing field when pitted against large firms that have the capital to put towards compliance. This is quite clear in the medical industry where it is very difficult to start up new practices. It's a huge barrier to entry and make it difficult for smaller firms to become successful. [url]http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/compburd.htm[/url] Regulation is often exploited by competitors: This one is pretty obvious. Businesses often lobby for regulation that will affect their competitors in a negative way. I can provide sources if needed, but I'm pretty sure you agree with this already. Regulation often hurts the consumer: This is because a lot of regulation tends to have concentrated benefits with diffused costs. For example, imagine if everyone was forced to pay me 1 penny. The cost to everyone would be small, and they wouldn't have much incentive to fight this, but the benefit to me would be massive. A good example of this is rent control. The case to make for this is a bit more difficult to explain, but I suggest checking out the below article and some other sources. [url]http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html[/url] Another good thing to realize is that a lot of regulation doesn't actually improve anything. That's a pretty broad statement, but it could certainly be said that some regulation benefits nobody. A good example of this is that diary producers had to treat spilled milk as an oil spill. This is obviously a dumb regulation that shouldn't have existed, and it hurt the consumer and the dairy industry. This is because compliance like taxes are paid part by the consumer and part by the business. How much each party pays depends on the demand curve. An item like Altoids is likely to have the business paying most of the cost, with the consumer paying very little. An item like tobacco will have its cost almost all paid by the consumer. Taxing tobacco companies is really just taxing consumers. Another matter to consider, which is a bit empirical, is the net benefit to consumer. If you think of it in terms of money, how much is compliance costing the consumer, and is the cost worth it? I hope that's enough. There is a lot more I could say, but some basic ideas.
[QUOTE=rinoaff33;34750279]Forming trusts and monopoly under laissez faire economics is more favorable for the big businesses to stifle the smaller companies. What regulations are you referring to that don't favor small businesses?[/QUOTE] A lot of the regulations place large financial burdens on industries, which large corporations are more prepared to pay for than small start-ups. Think about it, a lot of the regulation currently in place was lobbied for by large corporations, not because it benefits the people, but because it benefits them.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34750220]I was just pointing out that the big corporations don't seem to want laissez faire, contrary to popular belief on FP. This is because the regulations often favor big business and don't allow the smaller companies to compete[/QUOTE] They want corporatism, that's the best that can happen. But deregulation in a corporatism world isn't going to help, re-regulation might.
[QUOTE=Pepin;34750350]There is a lot to it but I'll try to outline some basic ideas. Unintended consequences: Though a regulation might sound like a good idea, in practice it may have results that were unintended and unwanted. The simple reason for this is that laws change behavior, people do not act the same under completely different circumstances. A good example of this is a law capping the interest rate on credit cards. This was intended to help out lower class people. The intention is good, but the unintended consequence was that credit companies stopped lending to lower class people all together. This prevented people who needed money from getting it. [url]http://wichitaliberty.org/regulation/unintended-consequences-of-credit-card-regulation/[/url] Regulation hurts smaller firms: A lot of regulation requires quite of capital to comply with. Because of this, small firms that don't have a lot of capital are on a very uneven playing field when pitted against large firms that have the capital to put towards compliance. This is quite clear in the medical industry where it is very difficult to start up new practices. It's a huge barrier to entry and make it difficult for smaller firms to become successful. [url]http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/compburd.htm[/url] Regulation is often exploited by competitors: This one is pretty obvious. Businesses often lobby for regulation that will affect their competitors in a negative way. I can provide sources if needed, but I'm pretty sure you agree with this already. Regulation often hurts the consumer: This is because a lot of regulation tends to have concentrated benefits with diffused costs. For example, imagine if everyone was forced to pay me 1 penny. The cost to everyone would be small, and they wouldn't have much incentive to fight this, but the benefit to me would be massive. A good example of this is rent control. The case to make for this is a bit more difficult to explain, but I suggest checking out the below article and some other sources. [url]http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html[/url] Another good thing to realize is that a lot of regulation doesn't actually improve anything. That's a pretty broad statement, but it could certainly be said that some regulation benefits nobody. A good example of this is that diary producers had to treat spilled milk as an oil spill. This is obviously a dumb regulation that shouldn't have existed, and it hurt the consumer and the dairy industry. This is because compliance like taxes are paid part by the consumer and part by the business. How much each party pays depends on the demand curve. An item like Altoids is likely to have the business paying most of the cost, with the consumer paying very little. An item like tobacco will have its cost almost all paid by the consumer. Taxing tobacco companies is really just taxing consumers. Another matter to consider, which is a bit empirical, is the net benefit to consumer. If you think of it in terms of money, how much is compliance costing the consumer, and is the cost worth it? I hope that's enough. There is a lot more I could say, but some basic ideas.[/QUOTE] So there is only a binary choice between choking businesses through regulation or giving great freedom to them at the expense of removing centralised quality control?
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;34751131]So there is only a binary choice between choking businesses through regulation or giving great freedom to them at the expense of removing centralised quality control?[/QUOTE] No, that wasn't the argument. Trying to sell you on a completely free market wouldn't make much sense, I'm more selling the idea to think critically about regulation and its unintended effects. It is important to go beyond thinking about regulation and its intent and to think and realize its actual result. It is also important to focus on what is not seen as opposed to what is. I think you can guess my stance is towards a completely free market, but realize that this does not mean that I am claiming nothing good can come out of regulation. For example, some safety regulation has produced good overall results. A good example of this is the regulation requiring cars to have seat belts. Now I'd of course be against the seat belt regulation as it requires the initiation of force. That may seem a bit weird, but it's like how I can admit that eating healthy will provide positive results, but forcing people to eat healthy with a gun is immoral. You may not agree with this, but it is at least good to understand how a libertarian thinks.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34745019]Great logic Economist, instead of reforming necessary rules, just do away with them! What is with this desire to go back to laissez-faire capitalism? I'm sorry, was the industrial revolution not evidence enough that MAYBE it's not that good of an idea.[/QUOTE] I blame the fact that the Gilded Age isn't talked about enough in U.S. History. Now that was a golden era of Libertarian-esque capitalism(a.k.a. the U.S. was a complete crapsack shithole to live in and only got better after the U.S. Government started to actually regulate shit; as in, [I]not [/I]be a libertarian shithole). Really, I'd like to see Ron Paul tied to a chair with his eyelids forced open and forced to watch a few hours of The History Channel specials on the subject, see if going back to that 19th century "ideal" is such a good idea to him.
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;34751660]I blame the fact that the Gilded Age isn't talked about enough in U.S. History. Now that was a golden era of Libertarian-esque capitalism(a.k.a. the U.S. was a complete crapsack shithole to live in and only got better after the U.S. Government started to actually regulate shit; as in, [I]not [/I]be a libertarian shithole). Really, I'd like to see Ron Paul tied to a chair with his eyelids forced open and forced to watch a few hours of The History Channel specials on the subject, see if going back to that 19th century "ideal" is such a good idea to him.[/QUOTE] I think Ron Paul might say something to the effect of "Why is Hitler flying a UFO over ancient Egypt?"
[QUOTE=Pepin;34749590]I really dislike how people don't take any time to think about these arguments. I can understand being for regulation, but the mentality a lot of people have here is just irrational and uneducated. Many of the arguments here lack intellect. I'm going to blame it on the fact that most people are ignorant of economics and will not trust economic reasoning and evidence. There is certainly reason to be skeptical of a lot of economic ideas, but people seem to reject the most basic and well rationalized economic theory.[/QUOTE] Oh hey look, it's the guy who thinks lowing minimum wage will help the economy and will make workers happy. Lets all laugh at him telling us who doesn't know about economics. [editline]18th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=rinoaff33;34749689]Please be more specific and don't give a pretentious non-answer. Stop using so many weasel words. [/QUOTE] pepin posted in a thread where someone implied negativity about capitalism, this is like asking water not to be damp. [editline]18th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Pepin;34750350]There is a lot to it but I'll try to outline some basic ideas. Unintended consequences: Though a regulation might sound like a good idea, in practice it may have results that were unintended and unwanted. The simple reason for this is that laws change behavior, people do not act the same under completely different circumstances. A good example of this is a law capping the interest rate on credit cards. This was intended to help out lower class people. The intention is good, but the unintended consequence was that credit companies stopped lending to lower class people all together. This prevented people who needed money from getting it. [url]http://wichitaliberty.org/regulation/unintended-consequences-of-credit-card-regulation/[/url] Regulation hurts smaller firms: A lot of regulation requires quite of capital to comply with. Because of this, small firms that don't have a lot of capital are on a very uneven playing field when pitted against large firms that have the capital to put towards compliance. This is quite clear in the medical industry where it is very difficult to start up new practices. It's a huge barrier to entry and make it difficult for smaller firms to become successful. [url]http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/compburd.htm[/url] Regulation is often exploited by competitors: This one is pretty obvious. Businesses often lobby for regulation that will affect their competitors in a negative way. I can provide sources if needed, but I'm pretty sure you agree with this already. Regulation often hurts the consumer: This is because a lot of regulation tends to have concentrated benefits with diffused costs. For example, imagine if everyone was forced to pay me 1 penny. The cost to everyone would be small, and they wouldn't have much incentive to fight this, but the benefit to me would be massive. A good example of this is rent control. The case to make for this is a bit more difficult to explain, but I suggest checking out the below article and some other sources. [url]http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html[/url] Another good thing to realize is that a lot of regulation doesn't actually improve anything. That's a pretty broad statement, but it could certainly be said that some regulation benefits nobody. A good example of this is that diary producers had to treat spilled milk as an oil spill. This is obviously a dumb regulation that shouldn't have existed, and it hurt the consumer and the dairy industry. This is because compliance like taxes are paid part by the consumer and part by the business. How much each party pays depends on the demand curve. An item like Altoids is likely to have the business paying most of the cost, with the consumer paying very little. An item like tobacco will have its cost almost all paid by the consumer. Taxing tobacco companies is really just taxing consumers. Another matter to consider, which is a bit empirical, is the net benefit to consumer. If you think of it in terms of money, how much is compliance costing the consumer, and is the cost worth it? I hope that's enough. There is a lot more I could say, but some basic ideas.[/QUOTE] Thanks a fuck load for those exceptionally bias sources.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34753059]Oh hey look, it's the guy who thinks lowing minimum wage will help the economy and will make workers happy. Lets all laugh at him telling us who doesn't know about economics. [editline]18th February 2012[/editline] pepin posted in a thread where someone implied negativity about capitalism, this is like asking water not to be damp. [editline]18th February 2012[/editline] Thanks a fuck load for those exceptionally bias sources.[/QUOTE] This post sounds fairly pretentious considering that it fails to refute anything Pepin said
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34753121]This post sounds fairly pretentious considering that it fails to refute anything Pepin said[/QUOTE] Seeing as the first few posts fail to elaborate on whatever it is he's talking about, then builds his argument off two right-wing sources that tell us why corporations are innocent and regulation is harmful.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34753134]Seeing as the first few posts fail to elaborate on whatever it is he's talking about, then builds his argument off two right-wing sources that tell us why corporations are innocent and regulation is harmful.[/QUOTE] Yea, why think about stuff when you can just be stupid, right? High five bro.
The current regulations are bad. We need fewer, clearer, better and stricter regulations. More oversight with less regulations.
The best way to end corporatism is laissez-faire.
People these days need to understand that you can't just regulate away your problems. If only it were that simple.
[QUOTE=LF9000;34757040]People these days need to understand that you can't just regulate away your problems. If only it were that simple.[/QUOTE] Removing regulations altogether won't solve the problems either. You need to balance it and constantly modernize it according to how the market currently operates. Instead of just slapping on more rules and exceptions.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34753134]Seeing as the first few posts fail to elaborate on whatever it is he's talking about, then builds his argument off two right-wing sources that tell us why corporations are innocent and regulation is harmful.[/QUOTE] The sources I used don't even matter because the argument was based on reason and basic logic. The idea of unintended consequences, concentrated benefits and diffuse costs, and costs being paid by the consumer aren't at all new or controversial ideas, and they are completely rational. It might make sense if you were to argue that these effects aren't as prevalent as I am making them out to be, but arguing that these concepts don't exist doesn't make any sense. I'm not really sure if you even read my argument because I made the opposite case about corporations. That they exploit the political system to gain an advantage, and that they tend to benefit for regulation. What this would imply is that corporations would not be so large and powerful in absence of anti-competitive regulation. Also, [url=http://www.sparknotes.com/economics/micro/labormarkets/labordemand/section1.html]the economics behind the minimum wage[/url] has been quite clear for a the longest time, it is not only backed up by reason, but also by [url=http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm]evidence[/url]. There is some evidence to claim that small increases may not have an effect, but there is not much reason and evidence to claim there are no negative effects on low income people.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.