Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

Good regulation does not stem from the government, it stems from market corrections that the government won't allow to happen.

Provably FALSE. There was no market correction to deal with blue milk. Or borax laced rotten meat sausages. The only thing that ended the intentional poisoning of people for profit was the establishment of the FDA, and as a result of that the cases of food born illness and poisoning have dropped from a universal occurrence to one rare enough to be news worthy in the US.

The free market is an idealized model that can not exist in reality because it assumes that there is absolute information transparency and responsibility on the part of all actors and that all costs are paid.

If a producer is allowed to misrepresent what his product is, he gains an economic advantage that breaks the theoretical underpinnings of the free market. If the buyer does not know what he is buying, he can not make an informed choice on the market.

If a producer is allowed to avoid paying some of the production costs, he gains an economic advantage that breaks the theoretical underpinnings of the free market. For instance by dumping waste in an unsafe manner, to be paid for by the cost in public health or harm to other industries. Or by simply choosing to not not honor a contract with a supplier.

Regulation prevents, reduces and mitigates these factors, and makes the market MORE free by reducing the influence of bad actors.

[RedKing]

Good regulation does not stem from the government, it stems from market corrections that the government won't allow to happen.

Provably FALSE. There was no market correction to deal with blue milk. Or borax laced rotten meat sausages. The only thing that ended the intentional poisoning of people for profit was the establishment of the FDA, and as a result of that the cases of food born illness and poisoning have dropped from a universal occurrence to one rare enough to be news worthy in the US.

The free market is an idealized model that can not exist in reality because it assumes that there is absolute information transparency and responsibility on the part of all actors and that all costs are paid.

If a producer is allowed to misrepresent what his product is, he gains an economic advantage that breaks the theoretical underpinnings of the free market. If the buyer does not know what he is buying, he can not make an informed choice on the market.

If a producer is allowed to avoid paying some of the production costs, he gains an economic advantage that breaks the theoretical underpinnings of the free market. For instance by dumping waste in an unsafe manner, to be paid for by the cost in public health or harm to other industries. Or by simply choosing to not not honor a contract with a supplier.

Regulation prevents, reduces and mitigates these factors, and makes the market MORE free by reducing the influence of bad actors.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS.

if you want to see what unregulated laissez-faire capitalism looks like, go visit China. Yes, they're a Communist country (in name). And in large swaths of the countryside, it's still a command economy. But along the coasts in the ever-growing SEZs (Special Economic Zones) it's the Wild East. You can pretty much expect anyone and everyone to try and cheat you, every single product you buy is caveat emptor and regulation is a joke.

The one big difference is that, being a non-democratic system means that when somebody fucks up bad enough to embarrass the whole country and damage their credibility (like the melamine-tainted milk scandal), shit gets done and heads roll (or wind up filled with lead). If this was China, guys like Bernie Madoff would have gotten a one-day kangaroo trial, then taken out back and unceremoniously shot in the head. Along with the governnment officials at the SEC that weren't doing their jobs. And the hedge fund managers at Magnetar. And the execs at Countrywide. And the top staff at Lehman Brothers.

And honestly....I think a LOT of people would have applauded a draconian response like that. Because we're so used to seeing guilty rich people get off with barely a slap on the wrist.

That said, China is increasingly suffering the same "revolving door" problem that the U.S. has. Banking minister becomes head of a major bank, head of another major bank becomes the new banking minister. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If you want to see what unregulated laissez-faire capitalism looks like, go visit China. Yes, they're a Communist country (in name). And in large swaths of the countryside, it's still a command economy. But along the coasts in the ever-growing SEZs (Special Economic Zones) it's the Wild East. You can pretty much expect anyone and everyone to try and cheat you, every single product you buy is caveat emptor and regulation is a joke.

Pros: You can buy anything.

Cons: You can buy anything.

[RedKing]

If you want to see what unregulated laissez-faire capitalism looks like, go visit China. Yes, they're a Communist country (in name). And in large swaths of the countryside, it's still a command economy. But along the coasts in the ever-growing SEZs (Special Economic Zones) it's the Wild East. You can pretty much expect anyone and everyone to try and cheat you, every single product you buy is caveat emptor and regulation is a joke.

Pros: You can buy anything.

Cons: You can buy anything.

I think I'd phrase it more as

Pro: You can buy anything.
Con: People can sell you anything.

If you can figure out a way to market lead paint chips as "Mighty Dragon Tears" and claim that it will give you sexual potency and make your children smarter....there's a market for that.

If you can douse rat meat in enough cumin and sell it as lamb chuan...there's a market for that. (I'm not saying I ate rat, I'm saying that the delicious 10-cent skewers of chuan that I purchased off a dude grilling them on a chunk of steel I-beam on the street corner at 3 in the morning probably didn't go through rigorous FDA inspection, y'know?)

If you can convince people to work for subsistence wages with virtually no safety gear at all (such as arc welding on the 80th story of a new skyscraper with no safety harness and no welding mask)...there is a SERIOUS market for that.


Shanghai is one of the most utterly Randian dystopias I can think of. Dudes in gleaming Maseratis and three-piece tailored Italian suits literally stepping over dudes who lost all their limbs and half their face due to industrial accidents. The juxtaposition of uberwealth and utter poverty is so stark and so omnipresent. It really makes me wish more evangelists of Capitalism would go visit and see what their "invisible hand" hath wrought.

[Zangi]

Such tours will of course be meticulously vetted and moderated...  Yes?

[GreatJustice]

(Note: I'm trying advanced new methods of linking quotes so as to avoid the whole "missing context" problem)

Good regulation does not stem from the government, it stems from market corrections that the government won't allow to happen.

Provably FALSE. There was no market correction to deal with blue milk. Or borax laced rotten meat sausages. The only thing that ended the intentional poisoning of people for profit was the establishment of the FDA, and as a result of that the cases of food born illness and poisoning have dropped from a universal occurrence to one rare enough to be news worthy in the US.

Oh dear. I'm already debating the Great Depression, regulation during the present recession, the merits of ending a bunch of agencies, and now you want me to point out the problems with the FDA?! Oh well, I guess I have to now.

So you think it was just the FDA that dropped food poisoning instances in the US? Not the invention and spread of modern refrigeration technology, not advances in antibiotics, just the FDA. Well, okay then.

Seeing as how you say "Provably FALSE" though, I'd like to see some actual evidence or sources here, rather than declarations that it is PROVEN.

The free market is an idealized model that can not exist in reality because it assumes that there is absolute information transparency and responsibility on the part of all actors and that all costs are paid.

Uh, no it doesn't. Uncertainty and a lack of information are inherently factored into the market. If there was no uncertainty, then there would be constant equilibrium in the market. On that note, the government has all the problems of the free market with the bonus of having no competition and being subject to no other controls except its own.

There are such things as fraud and so on, but those are crimes and rightfully so. Even in the perfect system there would be problems like that. It sounds like you're trying for a Nirvana Fallacy.

If a producer is allowed to misrepresent what his product is, he gains an economic advantage that breaks the theoretical underpinnings of the free market. If the buyer does not know what he is buying, he can not make an informed choice on the market.

Well, if he's lying outright, that's fraud. Enforcing fraud is no more regulation than enforcing laws against murder or other forms of coercion.

Besides that, you might notice that we have something called the internet these days. Companies that make even minor misrepresentations of their products are quickly called out, boycotted, embarrassed, etc even before or without government regulation. Misrepresentation isn't good business practice.

Even in the 19th century, companies that lied or produced shoddy products didn't do so well. You might notice that "Dr.Murphy's Miracle Elixir" was not dominating the market of medical products at any point.

If a producer is allowed to avoid paying some of the production costs, he gains an economic advantage that breaks the theoretical underpinnings of the free market. For instance by dumping waste in an unsafe manner, to be paid for by the cost in public health or harm to other industries. Or by simply choosing to not not honor a contract with a supplier.

Normally I would split this up, by the new quoting method takes an irritatingly long time so I'll do it in one go:

-Dumping waste in an unsafe manner constitutes property violation. Originally, companies that polluted the land of others (especially trains passing through farmland) were sued into becoming unviable economically. It was only when the government stepped in to set legal limits on pollution in the name of "progress" that such things became a major problem.

-Not honouring a contract with a supplier would, again, be known as "fraud". Even assuming there was no government, there WOULD be contract agencies that would cover such things. As is, enforcing laws against fraud is something that the government is actually supposed to do.

Now, onto the next,

if you want to see what unregulated laissez-faire capitalism looks like, go visit China. Yes, they're a Communist country (in name). And in large swaths of the countryside, it's still a command economy. But along the coasts in the ever-growing SEZs (Special Economic Zones) it's the Wild East. You can pretty much expect anyone and everyone to try and cheat you, every single product you buy is caveat emptor and regulation is a joke.

China? Where the government builds empty cities to boost its GDP and apparent growth? Where all property is "leased" from the government and can be revoked at any time? Where the entire financial system is run directly by the government? Where licensing and regulations are, in fact, prohibitively high for any non-Communist party members, and sufficiently large that the government can basically seize everything whenever it wants because you violated some insignificant regulation? The country ranked 125th in economic freedom? THAT China?

Ha ha ha ha!

Shanghai is one of the most utterly Randian dystopias I can think of. Dudes in gleaming Maseratis and three-piece tailored Italian suits literally stepping over dudes who lost all their limbs and half their face due to industrial accidents. The juxtaposition of uberwealth and utter poverty is so stark and so omnipresent. It really makes me wish more evangelists of Capitalism would go visit and see what their "invisible hand" hath wrought.

Again, China is a shining example of capitalism the same way Yeltsin's Russia was. But let me ask, do you think it was better under full Maoism in the 1970s? What do you think things were like then?

Well, there weren't three piece Italian suits, but there were comparatively wealthy Communist party members, technology was stuck in the 1940s, and everyone was starving. I'd say that for all of China's problems, they're better off now compared to previously.

[Duuvian]

But along the coasts in the ever-growing SEZs (Special Economic Zones) it's the Wild East.

My question to GreatJustice would be what he knows about the above quote. I haven't much knowledge about that admitably but I wasn't the one brushing it aside as nothing.

He is correct at least though by referencing the time that he did in that by restoring tradition regional marketplaces taken away in the Great Leap Forward the Chinese improved the rural peasant's quality of life in that millions were not starving so that the urban manufacturing centers could have low wages for cheap exports via food sold at under global prices. Though that was not necessarily the cause as it was the desired end instead of the means; the means which caused the trouble was forcing for example regions that aren't good for wheat harvesting to grow wheat because the Chinese leadership were afraid the Soviets or others would invade and split the country in two, and parts of the country would not be self sufficient as far as feeding themselves. Once that policy was remedied the country surpassed pre-Leap production rates for grain after a few years if I remember correctly. It also allowed areas that are better suited to grow say cooking oil crops to trade those for grain whereas those areas previously had been forced to grow grain which ironically caused starvation.

[Nadaka]

Refrigeration has existed for over 260 years. It literally predates the American Revolution. Its widespread adoption took place only after the safeguards and regulations that were imposed by the FDA (and its local and state predecessors). Antibiotics do not prevent food poisoning, rigorous adherence to safety and sanitary protocols does. Particularly when the poison was an intentional additive, as was the case of blue milk (milk watered down and treated with poison that was frequently sold to the urban poor in the 19th century) and borax laced rotten meat sausages that I previously mentioned. 

How can I prove it false? The simple fact that there exists regulation that does good proves that your statement is absolutely false and absurd.

Re: the nature of the free market. Uh. Yes it does. Go on, read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Read almost anything not pushed directly by manipulators like the heritage foundation.

You actually think for a moment that a barely survivingdead farmer or coal miner was able to file suit against a transnational corporation and actually win a redress of his grievances is the old days before consumer protection? History does not bear that out, at all.

[RedKing]

Such tours will of course be meticulously vetted and moderated...  Yes?

Nah, I was kinda thinking of blindfolding them and dumping them off on a side street near Tongren Lu (seedy bar / massage parlor section). Kudos to them if they emerge with most of their shit still intact.

if you want to see what unregulated laissez-faire capitalism looks like, go visit China. Yes, they're a Communist country (in name). And in large swaths of the countryside, it's still a command economy. But along the coasts in the ever-growing SEZs (Special Economic Zones) it's the Wild East. You can pretty much expect anyone and everyone to try and cheat you, every single product you buy is caveat emptor and regulation is a joke.

China? Where the government builds empty cities to boost its GDP and apparent growth? Where all property is "leased" from the government and can be revoked at any time? Where the entire financial system is run directly by the government? Where licensing and regulations are, in fact, prohibitively high for any non-Communist party members, and sufficiently large that the government can basically seize everything whenever it wants because you violated some insignificant regulation? The country ranked 125th in economic freedom? THAT China?

Ha ha ha ha!

Yes, THAT China, laughing boy.
Yes, licensing and regulations are a big snarl of red tape. Which is promptly sidestepped by using guanxi (system of favors and connections), or just flat-out ignored.
That dude selling the "lamb" skewers? I don't think he bothered with getting a vendor permit. Neither do any of the peddlers who come to the night markets and proffer every kind of ripoff and pirated merchandise you can dream of. The police don't bother them as long as they don't cause trouble. And if the police do come, they just scatter and set up shop a few blocks away.
At the micro level, China is one of the most unregulated, entrepeneurial societes on Earth. There's a common misunderstanding that says the Chinese can't understand capitalism because they had 50 years of Maoism. Which sort of ignores that the Chinese were practicing trade and commerce for about 3000 years prior to that. It's in their blood, in the culture. Haggling and trading (and trying to come out on top of any deal) are inherent in the society.

Note that I was talking about the SEZs. Free enterprise and private ownership (and even foreign investment, to a certain extent) is flourishing there. In some ways it's analogous to the US at the turn of the 20th century: booming urban centers in the Northeast and a few other places like Chicago and St. Louis and Milwaukee, and economically depressed agrarian land over much of the rest of the country. That drove an exodus of rural people to the cities in search of prosperity. China is seeing the same thing now.

Your Heritage ranking thing doesn't impress me. Mostly because Heritage Foundation has all the credibility of a rain-soaked copy of the Weekly World News (the guys who cover Batboy sightings and such). If you're going to invoke a right-wing thinktank, at least use the Cato Institute.

Shanghai is one of the most utterly Randian dystopias I can think of. Dudes in gleaming Maseratis and three-piece tailored Italian suits literally stepping over dudes who lost all their limbs and half their face due to industrial accidents. The juxtaposition of uberwealth and utter poverty is so stark and so omnipresent. It really makes me wish more evangelists of Capitalism would go visit and see what their "invisible hand" hath wrought.

Again, China is a shining example of capitalism the same way Yeltsin's Russia was. But let me ask, do you think it was better under full Maoism in the 1970s? What do you think things were like then?

Well, there weren't three piece Italian suits, but there were comparatively wealthy Communist party members, technology was stuck in the 1940s, and everyone was starving. I'd say that for all of China's problems, they're better off now compared to previously.

Way to light that straw man. I never said it was better under Mao. But the income disparity wasn't even in the same galaxy as what it is now. Hell, even US income disparity is paltry compared to modern China. If we're talking about "the 1%", China would be talking about "the 0.01%". On the whole, the reforms started by Deng Xiaoping and expanded by his successors have brought tremendous progress to China. But to view it as "a rising tide lifts all boats" type of phenomenon is to grossly misunderstand what has occurred in China in the last 33 years. The irony of a bigger disparity and a *more* plutocratic power structure than ours evolving in one of the last self-professed "Communist" countries is never lost on me. I almost wonder at times if they're just trying to get Mao's corpse to spin fast enough that they can use it as a power source.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Your Heritage ranking thing doesn't impress me. Mostly because Heritage Foundation has all the credibility of a rain-soaked copy of the Weekly World News (the guys who cover Batboy sightings and such). If you're going to invoke a right-wing thinktank, at least use the Cato Institute.

Not to mention, the Most Economically Free Place On Earth according to the Heritage Foundation themselves? Hong Kong, an autonomous zone of China.

Way to light that straw man. I never said it was better under Mao. But the income disparity wasn't even in the same galaxy as what it is now. Hell, even US income disparity is paltry compared to modern China. If we're talking about "the 1%", China would be talking about "the 0.01%".

China may well be the only place left on Earth where a peasant uprising is a legitimate threat. That is the level of income disparity we're talking about here.

I almost wonder at times if they're just trying to get Mao's corpse to spin fast enough that they can use it as a power source.

When China breaks free of autocracy and censorship, I think the first film they should produce is one of Mao's zombie rising from the grave and causing a global cataclysm in his insane, nothing-is-like-it-is-supposed-to-be rage. I'd watch it.

[GreatJustice]

Yes, licensing and regulations are a big snarl of red tape. Which is promptly sidestepped by using guanxi (system of favors and connections), or just flat-out ignored.

Which is the exact same situation in Russia. But you aren't claiming Russia is the Wild East. There are many, many places in which people can get past excessive regulations indirectly, but that doesn't make them examples of "Wild capitalism" anymore than, again, Yeltsin's Russia was (or pre-Yeltsin Russia, where there were plenty of thriving and largely ignored black markets).

At the micro level, China is one of the most unregulated, entrepeneurial societes on Earth. There's a common misunderstanding that says the Chinese can't understand capitalism because they had 50 years of Maoism. Which sort of ignores that the Chinese were practicing trade and commerce for about 3000 years prior to that. It's in their blood, in the culture. Haggling and trading (and trying to come out on top of any deal) are inherent in the society.

Now did I say that Chinese can't understand Capitalism? No, I didn't. I said that China, presently, isn't an example of Rand's ideas in action (who, by the way, is an entirely different animal from myself), isn't an example of unregulated capitalism, and doesn't exemplify the virtues of regulation through the market.

Note that I was talking about the SEZs. Free enterprise and private ownership (and even foreign investment, to a certain extent) is flourishing there. In some ways it's analogous to the US at the turn of the 20th century: booming urban centers in the Northeast and a few other places like Chicago and St. Louis and Milwaukee, and economically depressed agrarian land over much of the rest of the country. That drove an exodus of rural people to the cities in search of prosperity. China is seeing the same thing now.

Well yeah, pseudo-Capitalism works better than outright communism. Are you saying that free enterprise is improving China?

Your Heritage ranking thing doesn't impress me. Mostly because Heritage Foundation has all the credibility of a rain-soaked copy of the Weekly World News (the guys who cover Batboy sightings and such). If you're going to invoke a right-wing thinktank, at least use the Cato Institute.

They are pretty widely accepted for economic freedom ratings, but if you prefer,

Cato sez: China is92 out of 141
The Fraser Institute sez: China is 92nd (not sure out of how many, mind)

Google only shows those as the top three, and ALL of them put China pretty low in terms of economic freedom. Even Botswana is leaps and bounds past China!

Way to light that straw man. I never said it was better under Mao. But the income disparity wasn't even in the same galaxy as what it is now. Hell, even US income disparity is paltry compared to modern China. If we're talking about "the 1%", China would be talking about "the 0.01%". On the whole, the reforms started by Deng Xiaoping and expanded by his successors have brought tremendous progress to China. But to view it as "a rising tide lifts all boats" type of phenomenon is to grossly misunderstand what has occurred in China in the last 33 years. The irony of a bigger disparity and a *more* plutocratic power structure than ours evolving in one of the last self-professed "Communist" countries is never lost on me. I almost wonder at times if they're just trying to get Mao's corpse to spin fast enough that they can use it as a power source.

Income disparity, in of itself, is not a bad thing. Frankly, I'd rather be the poorest man in a country full of rich people if it meant I wasn't too bad off rather than be just as rich as everyone else and starving.

Refrigeration has existed for over 260 years. It literally predates the American Revolution. Its widespread adoption took place only after the safeguards and regulations that were imposed by the FDA (and its local and state predecessors). Antibiotics do not prevent food poisoning, rigorous adherence to safety and sanitary protocols does. Particularly when the poison was an intentional additive, as was the case of blue milk (milk watered down and treated with poison that was frequently sold to the urban poor in the 19th century) and borax laced rotten meat sausages that I previously mentioned. 

Refrigeration has existed for 260 years. It didn't start becoming PRACTICAL or used until the 1870s. Nanotechnology and genetic engineering have both existed for a while now, but they haven't actually been practical in any meaningful sense until very, very recently.

Second of all, you aren't providing sources or proof, which is what I requested on this issue. You talk of the horrible quality of food at the time, but I can just as easily talk about how the rich in Victorian England regularly ate poor people and spat out the bones. I'll get to that in the next bit.

How can I prove it false? The simple fact that there exists regulation that does good proves that your statement is absolutely false and absurd.

I'm not asking you to prove it false, that would be requesting you prove a negative and thus absurd.

I'm asking you to prove that food poisoning was widespread before the introduction of the FDA and that it dropped by a noticeable amount afterwards. That is not so absurd, as I am asking you to prove something which you should be able to prove with simple evidence. This discussion will go nowhere without that base to work from.

You actually think for a moment that a barely survivingdead farmer or coal miner was able to file suit against a transnational corporation and actually win a redress of his grievances is the old days before consumer protection? History does not bear that out, at all.

Uh, yeah actually, they were. That's part of why rail companies were so heavily subsidized by the government, and why the government assisted in seizing land on their behalf (especially in the South during the reconstruction). The concept of a "transnational corporation" didn't exist until quite late in the 19th century, at least not in the form they're found today.

Not to mention, the Most Economically Free Place On Earth according to the Heritage Foundation themselves? Hong Kong, an autonomous zone of China.

Hong Kong was owned and run by the British up until very recently. The governor there had an extremely laissez faire policy in not interfering with the local economy (unlike China, where such a policy is very tenuous and limited, and Britain where the government was beginning to grow under the Labour party) in almost all matters except land ownership. Funnily enough, the only major problem Hong Kong had (and still has) is its extortionate land prices, partly stemming from that being the one sector in which the government intervened.

To take Hong Kong and claim it to be the same as the rest of China is a huge misrepresentation.

China may well be the only place left on Earth where a peasant uprising is a legitimate threat. That is the level of income disparity we're talking about here.

There aren't any peasants living in Shanghai

Now might I suggest everyone go listen to some calming music before replying lest passions run too high

[kaijyuu]

Income disparity, in of itself, is not a bad thing.

I... I... what.



Side note: If I take something out of context, but the context happens to be a horrible false dichotomy or other logical fallacy, am I still doing something wrong? I'm improving their argument, which is usually the opposite of what happens taking things out of context.

[GreatJustice]

Income disparity, in of itself, is not a bad thing.

I... I... what.



Side note: If I take something out of context, but the context happens to be a horrible false dichotomy or other logical fallacy, am I still doing something wrong? I'm improving their argument, which is usually the opposite of what happens taking things out of context.

Well, if the poorest 50% of the country lives with 100,000 dollars per year and the richest 1% lives with 100,000,000,000 per year (yes I know it's excessive, bear with me), there is a massive income disparity.

Meanwhile, if the poorest 50% of the country lives with 1,000 dollars per year and the richest 1% live with 5,000 dollars per year, the income disparity is tiny.

Which country would you rather live in?

[Heron TSG]

The second. The smaller overall pool of money would cause massive deflation and prices would fall locally. (Assuming that's not in an existing preset currency.) Then you have 50% of people living on 1/5th of what the richest live on, not a bad deal. In the first one, you would have ridiculous hyperinflation (A la Zimbabwe a few years back or the papiermark, which had to be converted to reichsmark at 1,000,000,000,000:1 odds after the first world war.) and the bottom 50% would be absolutely screwed.

[USEC_OFFICER]

The second country since, unless I'm messing up my economic theory, the purchasing power of one dollar is more in the second country than the first. Something to do with the amount of currency floating around the economy, I think.

FAKEEDIT: Goddamn ninja.