I certainly wont deny that there are instances where corporations are abusing gov't power, however, it seems that people here assume that no regulations are better than some. I don't favor the idea of letting corporations roam rampant without any checks or balances. I understand that you would contend the free market would do so however this hasn't proven true at every turn and thus led to the involvement of governments.
You cannot regulate something you don't understand and since politicians don't understand the economic problems besetting the US, the chances that they'll come up with the "right regulations" are slim, but that's certainly not going to stop them from trying to
All this says is that money needs to be taken out of politics in the corrupt American system. This makes absolutely no argument against actual regulation.
@Notsorandomnumbers You're attacking the symptoms and not the cause. Lobbying is a *result* of government having the power to regulate industry in the first place. And what's your solution? "My regulations would do it better?" How would your regulations not pave the way to government control and lobbying? By their very nature, regulations open the door to industries serving lobbyists rather than customers.
@Notsorandomnumbers As long as government has extraordinary power- to tax, regulate, subsidize, and otherwise control the economy- it WILL be corrupted. No amount of campaign finance reform, rules against revolving doors, etc can stop the abuse of this power by special interests.
@dubified89 There is sense in it. I'm saying that Currently bad people will continue to make bad choices as they have already proven. The answer isn't more regulations or less regulations it's the right regulations.
I know this is a libertarian promotional but these companies are still abusing the systems they are given. So the idea here is to get rid of regulations so the companies that are crooked currently have no quick acting system to reign them in. This isn't a damned if you do damned if you don't it's about virtues. Bad people are still being bad and good people are not stepping up to call them out on it. It will be a balance of regulation and freedom that will yield quality prosperity.
@alphaprime66 What you said just made no sense. This video illustrates that companies routinely invite government regulations in order to benefit themselves and screw over competitors and consumers.
The dishwasher example might not be the best choice because statists might actually think that it's a good thing that consumers were forced to buy the more energy-efficient models. What do you think is the best way to respond to someone who would argue this way?
@strabes88 Good point. If you were able to graph "progress" in terms of energy efficient over the past 50 years with washing machines, you would find them to be much more energy efficient--so without government intervention and purely by market forces circumstances have improved. Secondly, if you want to justify government intervention within a two party contract, it must be proven that a third party is harmed i.e. prove tragedy of the commons within regards to water waste.
@strabes88 Continued... The best way to use government intervention within the terms of third party harm is by a subsidy or a tax for companies and or consumer to incentivize them to produce/buy more sufficient washing machines.
@tuvyag I generally agree, but I don't think a third party is harmed by "too much water use." The Tragedy of the Commons can only occur when the government (or no one) owns a resource, and can easily be avoided by simply selling the land (and all included property rights) to private owners, who can make use of it as they see fit.
@tuvyag Did you watch the video? The government energy efficiency certification was actually a scam concocted by washing machine manufacturers in order to force people to buy expensive washing machines that they didn't want to buy voluntarily.
Progressives will likely not be influenced by the later portions of this video concerning washing machine efficiency standards bcs they themselves want more efficient durable goods and don't really care if they cost more because they can just tax high earners and transfer those funds to low earners so tehy can afford the more expensive eco complaint model. Considering all the examples to chose of rent seeking i think the author of this video chose one that leftists might approve of.
We've known this since the very first regulatory agency, the ICC. George Stigler, along with Milton Friedman pointed this out in the 70s, which led to the deregulation of many industries. But the unions didn't like it.
I certainly wont deny that there are instances where corporations are abusing gov't power, however, it seems that people here assume that no regulations are better than some. I don't favor the idea of letting corporations roam rampant without any checks or balances. I understand that you would contend the free market would do so however this hasn't proven true at every turn and thus led to the involvement of governments.
alphaprime66 2 weeks ago
You cannot regulate something you don't understand and since politicians don't understand the economic problems besetting the US, the chances that they'll come up with the "right regulations" are slim, but that's certainly not going to stop them from trying to
elnik32 1 month ago
That's why it's just an old theory. In practice, without some regulation consumer price point will have us buying melamine toast.
Buntzums 1 month ago
All this says is that money needs to be taken out of politics in the corrupt American system. This makes absolutely no argument against actual regulation.
Notsorandomnumbers 1 month ago
@Notsorandomnumbers You're attacking the symptoms and not the cause. Lobbying is a *result* of government having the power to regulate industry in the first place. And what's your solution? "My regulations would do it better?" How would your regulations not pave the way to government control and lobbying? By their very nature, regulations open the door to industries serving lobbyists rather than customers.
jonathanaconway 1 month ago 2
@Notsorandomnumbers As long as government has extraordinary power- to tax, regulate, subsidize, and otherwise control the economy- it WILL be corrupted. No amount of campaign finance reform, rules against revolving doors, etc can stop the abuse of this power by special interests.
vakeraj 1 month ago 2
@dubified89 There is sense in it. I'm saying that Currently bad people will continue to make bad choices as they have already proven. The answer isn't more regulations or less regulations it's the right regulations.
alphaprime66 1 month ago
This is perfect! Now I can just show this next time I've got a socialist or a Keynesian telling me we need more regulations.
apell711 1 month ago 5
Ahh, liberals calling for more government regulation, unaware of the harm it has effected to small businesses.
Such useful idiots they are to the corporations that they oh-so despise! :)
macrokernel 1 month ago 12
@macrokernel It's really not that funny
dubified89 1 month ago
@macrokernel Or you know, you could just regulate large corporations
TakeshiAndTheKid 1 month ago
I know this is a libertarian promotional but these companies are still abusing the systems they are given. So the idea here is to get rid of regulations so the companies that are crooked currently have no quick acting system to reign them in. This isn't a damned if you do damned if you don't it's about virtues. Bad people are still being bad and good people are not stepping up to call them out on it. It will be a balance of regulation and freedom that will yield quality prosperity.
alphaprime66 1 month ago
@alphaprime66 What you said just made no sense. This video illustrates that companies routinely invite government regulations in order to benefit themselves and screw over competitors and consumers.
dubified89 1 month ago
The dishwasher example might not be the best choice because statists might actually think that it's a good thing that consumers were forced to buy the more energy-efficient models. What do you think is the best way to respond to someone who would argue this way?
strabes88 1 month ago
Comment removed
jdfogg13 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@strabes88 Response: So, you want only the rich to own dishwashers?!?!
jdfogg13 1 month ago
@jdfogg13 Simple but effective, I like it. The worst thing ever for a statist is for a rich person to be able to have something a poor person can't.
strabes88 1 month ago
@strabes88 Good point. If you were able to graph "progress" in terms of energy efficient over the past 50 years with washing machines, you would find them to be much more energy efficient--so without government intervention and purely by market forces circumstances have improved. Secondly, if you want to justify government intervention within a two party contract, it must be proven that a third party is harmed i.e. prove tragedy of the commons within regards to water waste.
tuvyag 1 month ago
@strabes88 Continued... The best way to use government intervention within the terms of third party harm is by a subsidy or a tax for companies and or consumer to incentivize them to produce/buy more sufficient washing machines.
tuvyag 1 month ago
@tuvyag I generally agree, but I don't think a third party is harmed by "too much water use." The Tragedy of the Commons can only occur when the government (or no one) owns a resource, and can easily be avoided by simply selling the land (and all included property rights) to private owners, who can make use of it as they see fit.
strabes88 1 month ago
@tuvyag Did you watch the video? The government energy efficiency certification was actually a scam concocted by washing machine manufacturers in order to force people to buy expensive washing machines that they didn't want to buy voluntarily.
dubified89 1 month ago
You know, I cannot help but notice that government licensing seems to always follow this same pattern...
StateExempt 1 month ago
Progressives will likely not be influenced by the later portions of this video concerning washing machine efficiency standards bcs they themselves want more efficient durable goods and don't really care if they cost more because they can just tax high earners and transfer those funds to low earners so tehy can afford the more expensive eco complaint model. Considering all the examples to chose of rent seeking i think the author of this video chose one that leftists might approve of.
rayyf69 2 months ago
We've known this since the very first regulatory agency, the ICC. George Stigler, along with Milton Friedman pointed this out in the 70s, which led to the deregulation of many industries. But the unions didn't like it.
mikemat3307 2 months ago