Legitamate Market Force?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: BobbyO [ Because it distorts the market and interferes with allocation of resources. It doesn't change because the regulation was done so "democratically" as oposed to dictatorially.

This is not an answer, this is a dodge. How does inspecting meat for ecoli "distort" the market? Is it a distortion of good market practice to require good market practice? Is a market only free if it is free to harm people? And is requiring someone to allocate enough resources to ensure their product is free of harmful agents really "interfering"?

[lsbskins1]

Yes. The purpose of business is to provide its service to people who desire that service. And "profit" is the measurement by which it is determined whether that business is succeeding in doing so..[/quote]

Profit measures how much money the company makes. It does not measure quality of service nor does it measure the worth of the service. It is a picture that might not reflect to totality of the situation. Profit is not a bad word. I am a believer in the necessity of profit motive. What I am saying is that a business' ability to generate profit does not mean the business is not causing harm. Viewing level of profit as the only good and reasonable measure of positivity is a huge mistake. It is a simple answer that relieves people of burden of thinking.

Quote by: BobbyO As per the 50s: The economy was indeed more heavily regulated, in certain aspects anyhow, than today. And the United States endured three recessions.

Recessions, not depressions. More stability, as I said.

[BobbyO]

[

QUOTE=lsbskins1;490302] Quote by: BobbyO No. You need to follow the flow of the thread. I was responding to the assertion that no business would dare endanger it's existence by offering up a product that would lead to customers abandoning the business. They did, as you have said. And this goes to prove my point that laws absent enforcement and inspection mean nothing. The lead paint was illegal. It was not found because we did not effectively test or enforce. The law can not be clarvoiyant, but it can be effective at stopping future abuse. To do that, it must be enforced. To enforce, you have to provide a reasonable means of ensuring compliance. In many cases, that means inspection.

The flow of the thread makes no sense. What is it that you are complaining about?

[BobbyO]

Quote by: lsbskins1 This is not an answer, this is a dodge. How does inspecting meat for ecoli "distort" the market? Is it a distortion of good market practice to require good market practice? Is a market only free if it is free to harm people? And is requiring someone to allocate enough resources to ensure their product is free of harmful agents really "interfering"?

Certainly, its a good market practice. Selling meat in which people get sick off all the time results in people not buying the meat.

The issue becomes whether the community can afford the distortion in the market. And in the case of meat inspections, it most certainly can.

[BobbyO]

Profit measures how much money the company makes. It does not measure quality of service nor does it measure the worth of the service.

Certainly it measures the worth of the service. The company can only accrue a profit if somebody else views their product as having worth to themselves. Quality of service is an adjutant of that.

What I am saying is that a business' ability to generate profit does not mean the business is not causing harm.

And now you have gone off in different direction.

Viewing level of profit as the only good and reasonable measure of positivity is a huge mistake. It is a simple answer that relieves people of burden of thinking.

The problem here though is that "profit" is an objective measurement. Other measurements are generally not so. As such, it fosters instability as changes in government change the definitions and applications.

Recessions, not depressions. More stability, as I said.

[/quote]

Are three recessions in the course of eight years a sign of greater stablity than none in the course of eight? Or one in the course of 15years?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: BobbyO [ The flow of the thread makes no sense. What is it that you are complaining about?

Just go back and actually read. I'm not going to rehash everything with you.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: BobbyO Certainly, its a good market practice. Selling meat in which people get sick off all the time results in people not buying the meat. The issue becomes whether the community can afford the distortion in the market. And in the case of meat inspections, it most certainly can.

Then you are not against people regulating the market through legislation. And what is the difference between inspecting meat to ensure the public is protected and inspecting workplaces for OSHA standards. Both protect public health through legislation, regulation and enforcement. I can understand wanting to retain the ability to challenge the validity of individual regulations and requirements. The net gain of requiring every business to keep, say, anti-venom for Cobra bites on hand would be nonexistant. But saying that requiring an opperating underground minning opperation to have emergency breathing devices on hand is costly and useless is stupid. That is what we are talking about here, after-all. The right of the public to demand reasonable protections against what amounts to nothing more than greed.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: lsbskins1 That is what we are talking about here, after-all. The right of the public to demand reasonable protections against what amounts to nothing more than greed.

They have this right.


Those who wish to form a consumer alliance can do so. They can then ask the supermarket to allow them to inspect the meat in the supermarket or they will not buy meat there. Then they can pool their money together and hire a professional inspector.





Why is the government even in the equation?

[BobbyO]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Then you are not against people regulating the market through legislation. And what is the difference between inspecting meat to ensure the public is protected and inspecting workplaces for OSHA standards. Both protect public health through legislation, regulation and enforcement. I can understand wanting to retain the ability to challenge the validity of individual regulations and requirements. The net gain of requiring every business to keep, say, anti-venom for Cobra bites on hand would be nonexistant. But saying that requiring an opperating underground minning opperation to have emergency breathing devices on hand is costly and useless is stupid. That is what we are talking about here, after-all. The right of the public to demand reasonable protections against what amounts to nothing more than greed.

Yeah, I understand what you are talking about. I just don't what know you are talking about.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: BobbyO Certainly it measures the worth of the service. The company can only accrue a profit if somebody else views their product as having worth to themselves. Quality of service is an adjutant of that. And now you have gone off in different direction. The problem here though is that "profit" is an objective measurement. Other measurements are generally not so. As such, it fosters instability as changes in government change the definitions and applications.

Are three recessions in the course of eight years a sign of greater stablity than none in the course of eight? Or one in the course of 15years?[/quote]

Profit measures one thing and one thing only - how much money a company has made. Though I am not saying that the current approach to illegal drugs is a logical one, I would make this anaolgy: Just because I can make huge profits from the sale of heroin does not mean that I am providing a good and useful service to my customers. And just because people prove over and over again that they are willing to participate in Ponzi schemes does not mean that the initial "investors" profits are to be seen as positive proof that the system or "business" is good for the public. Other measures must be taken. The same logic applies when you are talking about otherwise legitamate businesses. One must calculate a wide varity of measures and profit generated is only one factor.

And this is not a "different direction". It is all the same direction.

And yes, three recessions in the course of eight years can be an indication of greater stability than none in 15 years. How, you ask? Because when the economy recovers without major damage in a few months and grows past the temporary problems that is much better than 15 years of "whoopidy doo" with a cost of 5 years of major disruption and virtual collapse. Would you rather have the flu 3 times in eight years or no health problems for 15 years with the assurance of a heart attack at the end of the time frame? Just asking?

[BobbyO]

Profit measures one thing and one thing only - how much money a company has made.

False. It measures how the business is being run. Whether it is providing a needed service in the best manner it can do so. That is what determines the profit.

Though I am not saying that the current approach to illegal drugs is a logical one, I would make this anaolgy: Just because I can make huge profits from the sale of heroin does not mean that I am providing a good and useful service to my customers.

Probably not. But if the approach is going to question whether people really want what they say they want... well then. You get the drift.

And yes, three recessions in the course of eight years can be an indication of greater stability than none in 15 years. How, you ask? Because when the economy recovers without major damage in a few months and grows past the temporary problems that is much better than 15 years of "whoopidy doo" with a cost of 5 years of major disruption and virtual collapse.

So from where is this concern originating? The USA has had two recessions since 1983- and neither lasted much more than a year.

Would you rather have the flu 3 times in eight years or no health problems for 15 years with the assurance of a heart attack at the end of the time frame? Just asking?

[/quote]

But who says the heart attack is guaranteed?

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO It measures how the business is being run.

This statement is false. A richer company isn't necessarily a "better" one at whatever it does. Profits and quality needn't always run in parallel, nor does every failed venture or idea deserve to fail because it didn't make money.

PLEASE don't tell me I have to explain this in further detail. The point is so obvious it barely even merits mentioning, let alone elaboration.

Grandpa h.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa This statement is false. A richer company isn't necessarily a "better" one at whatever it does. Profits and quality needn't always run in parallel, nor does every failed venture or idea deserve to fail because it didn't make money. PLEASE don't tell me I have to explain this in further detail. The point is so obvious it barely even merits mentioning, let alone elaboration. Grandpa h.

I never said a richer company was "better" at whatever it does. I said profit was a way of measuring how how well a company provides its product.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO I never said a richer company was "better" at whatever it does. I said profit was a way of measuring how how well a company provides its product.

It doesn't necessarily even indicate that. I might mean the buying public is just gullible, or that they're cheap. More broadly, profit is made because it's practically a legal requirement.

Grandpa h.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa It doesn't necessarily even indicate that. I might mean the buying public is just gullible, or that they're cheap. More broadly, profit is made because it's practically a legal requirement. Grandpa h.

yes. its providing people what they want, and an indication of how well it is being accomplished.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO its providing people what they want, and an indication of how well it is being accomplished.

Again, not necessarily. If people only have crap to buy, or can only afford crap -- well, that may be what they'll purchase. I have to laugh at your absolutist theory, though.

Grandpa h.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: BobbyO Certainly, its a good market practice. Selling meat in which people get sick off all the time results in people not buying the meat. The issue becomes whether the community can afford the distortion in the market. And in the case of meat inspections, it most certainly can.

You haven't thought this through on a practical level.
Without regulation, producers could simply ~all~ not bother o inspect meat, in which case consumers wouldn't have access to safe meat, meaning they would ~have~ to buy potentially tainted meat.
Choice would only exist if enough producers voluntarily inspected it and installed safe handling practices, even though it would cost them money. Do you really believe that would happen? All they would have to do would be to form and alliance with other producers in which all agreed not to undercut the others by producing a safer product, which is likely what they would do. Look at any country which has no such health regulations. China is a good example. The Chinese don't have choice because ~all~ the products are potentially unsafe.

Then there's the fact that consumers would not even know which meat was tainted and which was not, because the only way we find out for sure is through inspections, which would no longer happen without regulation.
There's no other way to prove which specific product made you sick. If you come down with e. coli, how do you know it was from the burger you ate, or the lettuce on it, or any number of other things you ate and drank?

You've yet to explain what you mean by "distortion of the market", and what's this about what the community can "afford"? Are you saying regulation should be allowed in this instance because of some vague references to what the community can afford?
If so, then you have to admit that the principle the other poster was arguing is sound, in which case, you have no argument left.
You can't say on the one hand that regulation is not needed and harms commerce, yet on the other say it's allowable in certain instances.
Either the principle stands, or it falls.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: grandpa Again, not necessarily. If people only have crap to buy, or can only afford crap -- well, that may be what they'll purchase. I have to laugh at your absolutist theory, though. Grandpa h.

Exactly!

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Some "regulation" serves the monied interests, it's true. I addressed that above. But not one "government out" talking head on the Conservative side of this issue hates that kind of regulation. And not one Libertarian who hates both types can explain to me how it is better for the buying and voting public to surrender the power they have to halt the abuses of unfettered capitol. It may make it easier for the few to enrich themselves, but it does not serve the public interest.

I'm just going to select this bit out to respond to now.


Osborn had actually just compiled this for another debate, and it offers mulitple links from both positions, and well as a glaring real world example ( as if they are not everywhere you look ) of socialized, regulated markets vs. freer markets. ( Because let's face it, there has never beee a truly free market. )


He uses Sweden as the example, because it is touted as one of the more successful models operating in Europe. So, enjoy...


The real world comparison is the last link which compares Sweden with Missippi.

-----------

A few facts on Sweden, the model you are touting....

Swedish information: (contrasting views)

2000 Key Swedish Economic Indicators:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/1633.pdf

Swedish economic policy:
A Swedish Economic Policy - The Theory, Application and Validity of the Rehn-Meidner Model

How does Swedish public health policy address determinants of health?
WHO | How does Swedish public health policy address determinants of health?

Government of Sweden offices:
The Government and its Offices


Mises on Sweden:
How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden - Per Bylund - Mises Institute
The Sweden Myth - Stefan Karlsson - Mises Institute

Comparison between Sweden and Missisippi, U.S. State.
CARPE DIEM: If Sweden Left The EU and Joined the US, It Would Be the Poorest U.S. State, Below Even Mississippi

Here is a short version explaining the internal contradictions of socialism. Sweden: Poorer Than You Think - William L. Anderson - Mises Institute "The research came from the Swedish Institute of Trade, which, according to Reuters, "compared official U.S. and Swedish statistics on household income as well as gross domestic product, private consumption and retail spending per capita between 1980 and 1999." The study used "fixed prices and purchasing power parity adjusted data," and found that "the median household income in Sweden at the end of the 1990s was the equivalent of $26,800, compared with a median of $39,400 for U.S. households." Furthermore, the study points out that Swedish productivity has fallen rapidly relative to per capital productivity in the USA." Socialism does not create wealth, only consumes it, therefore Eventually Socialism must consume its capital. With no capital there is no revenue. No revenue no welfare state. Also worth noting in the article is that the government is selling assets to private companies. The Government is not good at running business. British Airways was almost bankrupt, but Thatcher decided to sell anyway against unions wish. Today it is one of the more financial stable companies. To pour more money into a "leaking" company doesn't solve anything, the 1970's proved this beyond any doubt. You can chose not to believe the facts.... (quoted from another site) http://www.amazon.com/tag/politics/forum...1EGXTRAT5S

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I'm just going to select this bit out to respond to now. Osborn had actually just compiled this for another debate, and it offers mulitple links from both positions, and well as a glaring real world example ( as if they are not everywhere you look ) of socialized, regulated markets vs. freer markets. ( Because let's face it, there has never beee a truly free market. ) He uses Sweden as the example, because it is touted as one of the more successful models operating in Europe. So, enjoy... The real world comparison is the last link which compares Sweden with Missippi. ----------- A few facts on Sweden, the model you are touting.... Swedish information: (contrasting views) 2000 Key Swedish Economic Indicators: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/1633.pdf Swedish economic policy: A Swedish Economic Policy - The Theory, Application and Validity of the Rehn-Meidner Model How does Swedish public health policy address determinants of health? http://www.who.int/social_determinants/c...index.html Government of Sweden offices: The Government and its Offices Mises on Sweden: How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden - Per Bylund - Mises Institute The Sweden Myth - Stefan Karlsson - Mises Institute Comparison between Sweden and Missisippi, U.S. State. http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/11/swed...ed-us.html

Just in case you didn't know, the Mises Institute is a neoconfederate right-wing think tank whose stated mission is anti-government.
Mises fellows are known for extreme views, including pro-confederate and antisemitic positions.
So I take any opinion articles of any of their people as possibly being the ranting of lunatic, and reserve my judgement accordingly.

One infamous Mises essay blamed the American welfare state on votes for women, which it said resulted from lesbianism. Lol!