Restricting Trade

[BigRedBuster]

 

You can make wholesale changes in a system without getting rid of the system.

 

It is extremely difficult for people in poverty to file a law suit. And, even then, it can be years before anything is decided and paid out.

 

Then how do you change the system? What are the proposals? Just write better rules? I have to think that the original and current rule writers have the same good intentions we do, and if they don't, it's because they are part of a system that incentivizes bad rules/behavior on their part (often under the guise that they are doing good for society).

 

And it's extremely difficult for agencies to head off work place dangers, despite the billions that are poured into the effort. For example, the peak of asbestos was the late 70s (almost 10 years after OSHA was put in place), with OSHA playing catch up to what labor and plaintiffs law was already pushing for. Even today, asbestos isn't banned in the US, but is in the EU. It's an absolute mess to sort out what the rules should be, so we should really be focused on how to encourage good behavior and how to compensate those who are harmed.

 

I just think regulatory agencies are a very clumpsy tool for that task.

 

A better use of the money that would be saved in regulatory compliance and enforcement might be a general insurance fund for those who are injured on the job.

 

Change the incentives. I am not an expert on exactly how the entire system works so how can I put out an extensive idea of how to change it. However, if the system incentivizes the inspectors and the people who work in it wrong, then change the incentives.

 

You think regulatory agencies are a clumsy tool but yet then you suggest the court system is used. Ummm....I can't think of a more clumsy system.

[cm husker]

Actually, courts are a great system because they focus their efforts on accused wrong doers, not blanket rules that cripple small, but honest, competitors. And again, it's not just about the courts. It's also about personal responsibility and insurance. It's about economic freedom to take compensation in the form of increased wages or more time off or any other number of things rather than a "safe work environment that has all outlets covered."

 

Going back to asbestos, all the regulatory oversight in the world didn't avoid that mess, so it's playing out in courts ANYWAY. If we think both are bad/wasteful, then how about we eliminate at least one of them? I prefer to eliminate or drastically reduce the one that's prone to regulatory capture: i.e., the ability of established competitors to use legislation/regulations to erect barriers of entry to competition or drive up costs to consumers (i.e., gov. sponsored monopolies, which, incidentally, are the only ones that survive in nature).

 

We are seeing this exact phenomenon play out in the banking sector. Increased compliance and capital requirements, issues under the guise of protecting the economy, are actually creating bigger, more consolidated banking players and driving competitors out of the market.

 

What's truly baffling to me is that so many people recognize the problems, but think the cure is more of (with some adjustments) the same.

[knapplc]

Actually, courts are a great system because they focus their efforts on accused wrong doers, not blanket rules that cripple small, but honest, competitors. And again, it's not just about the courts. It's also about personal responsibility and insurance. It's about economic freedom to take compensation in the form of increased wages or more time off or any other number of things rather than a "safe work environment that has all outlets covered."

 

What's truly baffling to me is that so many people recognize the problems, but think the cure is more of (with some adjustments) the same.

Can you cite a society where the fixes you propose have worked? Unless I'm mistaken, there has never been a culture or society that successfully operated in this fashion.

[cm husker]

 

Actually, courts are a great system because they focus their efforts on accused wrong doers, not blanket rules that cripple small, but honest, competitors. And again, it's not just about the courts. It's also about personal responsibility and insurance. It's about economic freedom to take compensation in the form of increased wages or more time off or any other number of things rather than a "safe work environment that has all outlets covered."

 

What's truly baffling to me is that so many people recognize the problems, but think the cure is more of (with some adjustments) the same.

Can you cite a society where the fixes you propose have worked? Unless I'm mistaken, there has never been a culture or society that successfully operated in this fashion.

 

 

Well, I'd say that the U.S. functioned very well in terms of growth and improving quality of life prior to the 1950s, which is when regulatory agencies really started to take off. We've functioned well since, and I'm not saying the sky is falling, but I do think we've dampened our growth and really hurt competition. It's hard to say how well we'd be doing but for the two big drags on our economy: (1) regulatory and compliance inefficiencies, and (2) bloated military spending (including our misguided "war on drugs" and our restrictive immigration policies).

 

In terms of countries that have reduced regulatory oversight and relied on other systems to encourage responsible/safe behavior, Hong Kong has been fairly good. Singapore is often cited, too. And again, the US isn't awful, at least on a federal level.

 

But, if you look at just western civilization's progression, we've never really had a "free economy." Prior to the 19th century, most countries had controlled economies under feudal lords, which not dissimilar in terms of "top down" approach seen in socialist societies today, except today, ostensibly, the "lord" is the people.

 

It was in the 18th and 19th centuries that the mercantile class of people during that era who pushed for economic liberalization/freedom as they saw opportunities in free trade both domestically and internationally. We saw great global growth as a result. We also saw what was perceived as the "evils" of globalization and the "unfair" results of producers being allowed to keep their produce. So, by the end of the 19th century, we began to see growth in government intervention, which picked up steam through the middle of the 20th century.

 

Like so many well-intentioned government programs, it didn't take long for industry participants to figure out ways to tap into the programs and manipulate them for their own gains (they'd be crazy not to do this, and it's not illegal by any means). Of course the other side of this "scratch my back, scratch your back" arrangement is the ample amounts of corporate welfare that's transferred from the middle class to the wealthy.

 

Principally, regulatory capture and corporate favor giving through subsidies are two sides of the same problem.

 

And to me, the solution is to reduce the size of government, including by significantly paring back the power regulators have over corporate America.

 

But, I agree, it needs to be part of a holistic solution.

[BigRedBuster]

Look, extremely rarely does life work well when you go far in one way or the other.

You would agree that if we went all the way to the Socialist side, that would be bad in one hell of a lot of ways.

The same thing can be said about going 100% in the way of free markets and total capitalism. It's just bad. Simple as that.

 

Real life happens somewhere in the middle. Now, we can have debates about if certain issues have moved one way or the other too much. But, to just flat out say all governmental regulatory agencies are bad and we need to do away with all of them.....is just as naive as someone saying we need to go to a 100% socialistic system.

[cm husker]

We just fundamentally disagree about the "middle of the road" being the best path. That's exactly what got us a system that's run by an inherently corrupted legislature/government (not because they are bad people, by and large, but because it's nature to be influenced by sympathetic stories, donor dollars and a sense that "if we just set the machine right, we can engineer "the best" outcome." We all know in our bones that the system is inherently flawed. It's why something like 55% of Americans are voting for the worst populist candidates in recent memory and probably most of the other 45% want institutional changes.

 

Trying to make everyone happy by "compromising" usually just means special interests end up happy at the expense of middle and low income taxpayers (not just income, but also local and sales taxes).

 

I just want to note, though, that I'm not proposing laissez faire capitalism.

 

And "capitalism" is not synonymous with "free market economics."

 

I'm simply for open, unfettered markets, which by extension means we should have little regulatory restrictions on the competitors, and certainly no restrictions on our foreign trade partners.

 

The founding fathers saw the inherent problem with restricting trade, which is why arguably the single most important part of the Constitution is the Commerce Clause. I just propose that we create a similar provision in the global trade context.

 

Will there be American "losers" in a more competitive global economy? Yes, definitely, and it won't just be laborers; a lot of executives will need to tighten their belts and get right with competitive behavior. But there are losers in Nebraska when a farmer is allowed to source corn from Kansas. It doesn't mean we should shut off trade between the states.

 

And it's worth noting, once again, that there will also be a lot of winners, including millions of Americans who benefit from cheaper and higher quality goods and services.

 

And the true beauty of it is that as developing nations (and poor communities within the US) improve, we will reap huge rewards not just in having new customers for our more sophisticated goods and services, but also because more people will be in a position to find their potential.

 

How many Einsteins, Bill Gates, Buffetts, etc. are dying or being held back each day in impoverished communities? We could, within the next 50 to 100 years, unleash an enormous amount of global growth, productivity and innovation if we set up a system that allows people to fight their way out.

 

This isn't a pipe dream or fantasy. We've seen it happen in real life, most specifically in India where millions have been pulled out of abject poverty on a daily basis. Is it perfect there? ABSOLUTELY NOT. But it's much much better than it was under a socialist economic system or the cronyism of the Raj regime.

[BigRedBuster]

So....a mixture is bad? Hmmmmm.....

 

So we will now turn our streets, roads, highway system over to private companies to charge what ever toll they want to so you can drive to your house.

 

We can turn our education sustem over to private companies and they can charge for anyone attending. If you can't afford it, screw you.

 

State universities. Don't need them. Worthless pieces of crap anyway since they are owned and ran by the state.

 

Police force could be privately ran and someone who wants to make money can decide who gets arrested or fined.

 

Heck. Our entire military should be turned over to just be openly ran by the military industrial complex no need for the government to run the pentagon. That's expensive and the free market can go it better.

 

Oh.....national parks would be awesome to turn over. If Yellowstone goes bankrupt it could just be broken up and sold off by the bank.

[cm husker]

You're not really even trying to understand what I'm saying. And I'm not interested in trying to convince you why the system you envision is just the same thing as the status quo "but run by the "right" people who will make the "right" decisions."

 

I will say that at least 3 and really most of a 4th thing on your list should be privatized.

 

Then, we use our tax revenue to give every citizen tokens to use in each market. We would be much better off when private entities compete for those tolkens rather than sending them to government sponsored entities.

 

I wouldn't privatize the military, because I'll trade inefficiencies for more direct control over that apperatus. I would, however, drastically cut the size and spending.

[BigRedBuster]

Well, if you are totally against a mixture then every single one of those should be privatized.

 

Tokens? That's just socialism through a different route.

 

Really, you understand the need for a mixture, you just disagree on the ratio.

[cm husker]

Well, if you are totally against a mixture then every single one of those should be privatized.

 

Tokens? That's just socialism through a different route.

 

Really, you understand the need for a mixture, you just disagree on the ratio.

Do you know what the word socialism actually means?

 

Serious question. Because we need to make sure we're speaking the same language.

 

FYI, I don't think a "mixture" works well ever, but sometimes it's a necessary evil, like when we accept the inefficiencies of the government run military in order to keep our hand on that leash.

[teachercd]

This is always the classic argument that is used for knocking down the idea of change.

 

"You wan't change...oh okay...well this bad thing will happen and this bad thing will happen"

 

You want the Huskers to pass more...well, get ready for tons of picks in the windy weather of the Big Ten...it won't work...it just won't

[BigRedBuster]

 

Well, if you are totally against a mixture then every single one of those should be privatized.

 

Tokens? That's just socialism through a different route.

 

Really, you understand the need for a mixture, you just disagree on the ratio.

Do you know what the word socialism actually means?

 

Serious question. Because we need to make sure we're speaking the same language.

 

FYI, I don't think a "mixture" works well ever, but sometimes it's a necessary evil, like when we accept the inefficiencies of the government run military in order to keep our hand on that leash.

So, you accept that a mixture is needed in our society.

[cm husker]

 

 

Well, if you are totally against a mixture then every single one of those should be privatized.

 

Tokens? That's just socialism through a different route.

 

Really, you understand the need for a mixture, you just disagree on the ratio.

Do you know what the word socialism actually means?

 

Serious question. Because we need to make sure we're speaking the same language.

 

FYI, I don't think a "mixture" works well ever, but sometimes it's a necessary evil, like when we accept the inefficiencies of the government run military in order to keep our hand on that leash.

So, you accept that a mixture is needed in our society.

Back up a second. As I said, I'm not a lassez faire capitalist.

 

However, to the extent possible, we should allow markets to govern themselves based on information and mutual understanding, which, due to technology, is at an all time high.

 

I'm not for a "mix of socialist and capitalist principles." And I'm coming to a point where I think all government action is untrustworthy. Not because it's overtly nefarious but because a "balanced" system, which we have today, distorts behavior.

 

Within industries, there shouldn't be a "balance" because, as you've avoided addressing, "making better rules and decisions" is a great dream, but ultimately impossible. The special interests will always win.

 

I saw an interesting ven diagram. In one sphere was the OWS and Bernie supporters who hate "big corporate." On the other side, you have the tea partiers who claim to hate "big government." Meeting in the middle, both of these groups (and 90% of Americans) innately understand that government is inherently the tool of the rich.

 

The solution is to reduce the influence of government in market affairs. Everything should be pushing toward that goal. Is it possible to flip a switch overnight? No. Is every single facet of life able to operate without any government influence? Of course not. So in that sense, I accept a "mixed system."

 

But we should be rooting out that inherently corruptible influence wherever we can.

[cm husker]

P.s. Maintaining a military is not a form of socialism.

 

That's why I really wish you'd lay out what you mean when you use that term.

[BigRedBuster]

Socialism = Webster

 

 

Full Definition of socialism

1. 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2. 2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private propertyb : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3. 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

 

Every single one of my examples could be it's own industry. Yes, even the military. Therefore, that industry is owned by the state and therefore, it is a form of socialism. There are military contractors right now that provide security detail, intelligence analysis...etc. An ex Navy Seal could start a company and the government could hire them to do all special ops. All of the logistics could easily be done by the many trucking, shipping and air freight companies already in the world.

In fact, every single one of those items I listed have an example where it is and could be owned by private ownership. There are private schools, private roads, private colleges, private security forces, privately owned zoos and parks...etc.

But, a vast majority of the people in our society agree that they are best owned by the state to benefit everyone.

Now, you have stated that you agree that some of these should stay owned by the state. So, therefore, you agree that in reality, a mixture is good for our society.