Legitamate Market Force?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: big_lefty 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!

So leave the opinion pieces aside, and attemp to refute the real world example given in this link...
CARPE DIEM: If Sweden Left The EU and Joined the US, It Would Be the Poorest U.S. State, Below Even Mississippi

Here is the source for this information...

Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University in Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. Since 1997, Professor Perry has been a member of the Board of Scholars for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a nonpartisan research and public policy institute in Michigan.

[lsbskins1]

Some of your links do not work, but from what I can see, Sweden is doing just fine. Good, sustainable growth and nobody complaining too much. My favorite thing...the opinion pieces complaining that people aren't willing to just work three jobs in order to live when it really isn't necessary. Unless, of course, you have to support and maintain the wasteful lifestyle of someone else. But even the claims of Sweden's lack of economic performance are telling. They talk about productivity relative to the US economy and US workers. Know how US productivity is increased these days? Greater numbers working without benefit of insurance, greater workload and loss of other benefits. We are more productive not because we are more efficient, but because we are being squeezed more and more. So, I still think my model is better and nothing you have shown me has changed my mind.

[BobbyO]

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.

It doesn't change anything. At this point you are placing yourself in a situation of telling other people what they should-and should not-want.

[BobbyO]

You've yet to explain what you mean by "distortion of the market",

What I mean is that it places additional costs upon the producer, which is of course placed then upon the community.

and what's this about what the community can "afford"?

It means that the costs are insignificant and can be borne by the community. It also means the costs are worth it to the consumer.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Milton Bradley So leave the opinion pieces aside, and attemp to refute the real world example given in this link... CARPE DIEM: If Sweden Left The EU and Joined the US, It Would Be the Poorest U.S. State, Below Even Mississippi Here is the source for this information...

What exactly am I supposed to be refuting? That Sweden had high unemployment between 95 and 98? I don't dispute that. What conclusion are you trying to draw from that? The US has also had periods of high unemployment, no?

The other statistical claims are sourced to another opinion piece by another blogger, and they are out of date.

Sweden's current economic indicators;

GDP (purchasing power parity):
$333.1 billion (2007 est.)
GDP (official exchange rate):
$431.6 billion (2007 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
3.4% (2007 est.)
GDP - per capita (PPP):
$36,900 (2007 est.)
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 1.4%
industry: 29.2%
services: 69.4% (2007 est.)
Labor force:
4.66 million (2007 est.)
Labor force - by occupation:
agriculture: 2%
industry: 24%
services: 74% (2000 est.)
Unemployment rate:
4.5% (2007 est.)
Population below poverty line:
NA%
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 3.6%
highest 10%: 22.2% (2000)
Distribution of family income - Gini index:
23 (2005)
Inflation rate (consumer prices):
2% (2007 est.)
Investment (gross fixed):
19.6% of GDP (2007 est.)
Budget:
revenues: $241.2 billion
expenditures: $229.1 billion (2007 est.)"

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/sw.html

US indicators;

GDP (purchasing power parity):
$13.86 trillion (2007 est.)
GDP (official exchange rate):
$13.79 trillion (2007 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
2.2% (2007 est.)
GDP - per capita (PPP):
$46,000 (2007 est.)
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 0.9%
industry: 20.6%
services: 78.5% (2007 est.)
Labor force:
153.1 million (includes unemployed) (2007 est.)
Labor force - by occupation:
farming, forestry, and fishing 0.6%, manufacturing, extraction, transportation, and crafts 22.6%, managerial, professional, and technical 35.5%, sales and office 24.8%, other services 16.5%
note: figures exclude the unemployed (2007)
Unemployment rate:
4.6% (2007 est.)
Population below poverty line:
12% (2004 est.)
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 2%
highest 10%: 30% (2007 est.)
Distribution of family income - Gini index:
45 (2007)
Inflation rate (consumer prices):
2.7% (2007 est.)
Investment (gross fixed):
15.6% of GDP (2007 est.)
Budget:
revenues: $2.568 trillion
expenditures: $2.731 trillion (2007 est.)
Public debt:
36.8% of GDP (2007 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/us.html

From your source;

"After more than 30 years of high taxation and an expanding welfare state, Sweden is not the 4th richest OECD-country any longer, but the 15th. This hurts the least well off most. Between 1980 and 1999, the gross income of Sweden's poorest households increased by just over 6% while the poorest in the U.S. enjoyed a three time larger increase."

That data is from the late 90s, when Sweden fell to 18th place. It had a recession. The US has had recessions and will continue to have them.
So what is your point?

The most recent placing;

"Sweden has moved up to a ninth place tie with Denmark in the 2007 prosperity rankings by the Organization for Economic Growth and Development (OECD)."

The Local - Sweden rises in OECD ranking

You're using out of date and your source is a blogger. 'Nuff said.

[Milton Bradley]

The fact is, Sweden gave up it's individual liberties for government intervention, and it did not improve their standard of living. In fact, they appear to have it worse now, plus they gave up the right to choose. It's a double negative.


Compared to Mississippi, which, even with our government driving our currency into the ground, have managed to provide a better standard of living, and more liberties to it;s constituents.

[big_lefty]

]What I mean is that it places additional costs upon the producer, which is of course placed then upon the community.

Ah, I see. Yes, that is true. But so are the medical costs placed on the community when people become harmed by unsafe products.

It means that the costs are insignificant and can be borne by the community. It also means the costs are worth it to the consumer.

So why are the costs of mandating safe handling of meat any less significant than the cost of other regulations?
As for being worth it to the consumer, how do you think we determine that? We determine it by electing officials to decide what is in our interest as consumers.
That's exactly what the original poster was saying- that such regulations are democratic.
So you do realize you've as much as admitted that regulation of production is sometimes needed, is sometimes justifiable for health and safety reasons, and that it is democratic to impose such regulations, right? So why are you even arguing? Apparently, you agree with the premise in the original post. The poster was asking people to justify a position of opposing regulation on principle, which would mean all regulation must adhere to the principle, not just the regulation you don't personally approve of. When you make such exceptions, the principle falls.

Bottom line- nobody has been able to refute the original poster's argument.

[big_lefty]

[quote=Milton Bradley;490547]

The fact is, Sweden gave up it's individual liberties for government intervention, and it did not improve their standard of living. In fact, they appear to have it worse now, plus they gave up the right to choose. It's a double negative.

Three problems here;

1) Not accurate. The Swedes have, in some ways, more individual liberty than Americans.Your perception of life in Sweden is, apparently, highly unrealistic. You seem to see it as a Marxist totalitarian state.

2) This isn't about government intervention improving the SOL. The subject of this thread is government intervention in production to protect health and safety. You're supposed to explain why that is anti-democratic and unconstitutional. Saying it doesn't improve the SOL does not answer that question.

3) You haven't even established that the SOL did not improve, anyway.
Your data was from a time of recession in Sweden.

Compared to Mississippi, which, even with our government driving our currency into the ground, have managed to provide a better standard of living, and more liberties to it;s constituents.

Again, you rely on outdated data from when Sweden was in a recession.
The blogger used late 90s data for that very reason-to cook the results in favor of his argument. Highly dishonest.
Without complete, up-to-date data, the claim fails.

The vague reference to "more liberties" doesn't mean anything, either. What liberties are you claiming Sweden lacks as compared to Mississippi?

[BobbyO]

As for being worth it to the consumer, how do you think we determine that? We determine it by electing officials to decide what is in our interest as consumers. That's exactly what the original poster was saying- that such regulations are democratic. So you do realize you've as much as admitted that regulation of production is sometimes needed, is sometimes justifiable for health and safety reasons, and that it is democratic to impose such regulations, right? So why are you even arguing? Apparently, you agree with the premise in the original post. The poster was asking people to justify a position of opposing regulation on principle, which would mean all regulation must adhere to the principle, not just the regulation you don't personally approve of. When you make such exceptions, the principle falls. Bottom line- nobody has been able to refute the original poster's argument.

[/quote]

The original poster's argument was that state can, and ought to regulate, because it is exercisng its democratic pregotives. It assumed that such regulation is beneficial and just, because the people have so decided on that course of action.

It hasn't been refuted because nobody makes that argument. The original post was pulling things out of thin air. Hence, my bafflement as to what she, or he, was going on and on about.

One can however, refute the assumption of the original post that regulation is the white horse and industry (corporations, business, capitalism, whatever) is the villain.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: big_lefty Ah, I see. Yes, that is true. But so are the medical costs placed on the community when people become harmed by unsafe products.

OK, so you can recognize cold hard truths when presented in black, and white. It's good to know I'm not wasting my time, as with the circular logic of so many posters here.

Quote by: big_lefty So why are the costs of mandating safe handling of meat any less significant than the cost of other regulations?

I'm lost with this line of questioning. I never claimed as much.

Quote by: big_lefty As for being worth it to the consumer, how do you think we determine that? We determine it by electing officials to decide what is in our interest as consumers.

Perhaps in your country, that's how it is done. That is not how my government is supposed to operate.


The government regulates beef because one of our Presidents overstepped constitutional bounds, and declared that beef was to be inspected in an Executive Order.

Quote by: big_lefty That's exactly what the original poster was saying- that such regulations are democratic.

Often, the regulations in this country are not arrived at by popular consensus of the constituents, but by popular concensus of corporate lobbyists, which, as I explained before, is not the proper function of American governmnet.

Quote by: big_lefty So you do realize you've as much as admitted that regulation of production is sometimes needed, is sometimes justifiable for health and safety reasons, and that it is democratic to impose such regulations, right? So why are you even arguing? Apparently, you agree with the premise in the original post. The poster was asking people to justify a position of opposing regulation on principle, which would mean all regulation must adhere to the principle, not just the regulation you don't personally approve of. When you make such exceptions, the principle falls.

Where have I conceded that point?

Quote by: big_lefty Bottom line- nobody has been able to refute the original poster's argument.

To a Big Ole Lefty, who operates on the premise that it is the governments duty to protect individuals from their own stupidity.


However, you hinted around what the framers of the Constitution already knew, that once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual from his own foolishness, no serious objections can be raised against further encroachments.


That's why the preamble of the Constitution states that they sought to protect life, liberty, and prosperty for their progeny.


Compromising those ideals now would be an admission that the experiment failed, but the admission would fall under false pretenses, because the government is not operating within it's Constitutional limitations, rendering the admission mute.

[big_lefty]

OK, so you can recognize cold hard truths when presented in black, and white. It's good to know I'm not wasting my time, as with the circular logic of so many posters here.

I have no problem with cold hard truths. ;-) I'm a pragmatist and a realist first and foremost. I don't have much use for impractical idealism, such as the principle of the sanctity of individual liberty above all else.

I'm lost with this line of questioning. I never claimed as much.

Then I'm at a loss to understand what it is you were saying. Perhaps you could explain your comment about significance.

Perhaps in your country, that's how it is done. That is not how my government is supposed to operate.

Your country is not a representative republic? That's what I described.

The government regulates beef because one of our Presidents overstepped constitutional bounds, and declared that beef was to be inspected in an Executive Order.

This isn't about regulating beef itself. It's about regulation for health and safety in principle. Surely you'd agree that Americans elect representatives who do, in some cases, decide which health and safety concerns merit intervention via regulation?
That's wholly democratic, is it not?

Often, the regulations in this country are not arrived at by popular consensus of the constituents, but by popular concensus of corporate lobbyists, which, as I explained before, is not the proper function of American governmnet.

You may well have a point there, but it's not relevant to the original question of whether or not the principle of government regulating production on behalf of public interest is democratic.
Indeed, the power of lobbyists is too great, and changes need to be made.
But that is not a reason to oppose regulation on principle.

Where have I conceded that point?

I've explained it twice. If you concede that in the case of meat processing, regulation is needed, you admit the principle of opposing regulation falls.
If you're holding onto a principle that government intervention in private enterprise is inherently undemocratic and unconstitutional, there should be no exceptions.

To a Big Ole Lefty, who operates on the premise that it is the governments duty to protect individuals from their own stupidity.

Accusation substituted for argument. You lose a point.

I operate on no such premise and did not indicate that I do.

However, you hinted around what the framers of the Constitution already knew, that once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual from his own foolishness, no serious objections can be raised against further encroachments.

Huh? We aren't talking about people being foolish and the need to protect them, and I made no such hint about that. We are talking about companies being irresponsible. Is it foolish to buy products, trusting that they will not harm us?

I note your use of a slippery slope argument. Of course unreasonable encroachments can be objected to.

That's why the preamble of the Constitution states that they sought to protect life, liberty, and prosperty for their progeny.

Cue the Star Spangled Banner.

I'm glad to hear that you know what was in the minds of the Framers when they wrote the preamble. Scholars have been bickering about it ever since it was written, when all they had to do was ask you. If I'm understanding your implication, it was written to preserve the right of private enterprise to operate in any way they choose, no matter what harm they cause.
Of course!

I'm being sarcastic not to be a jerk, but because I abhor arguments that hinge on personal, subjective interpretations of the Constitution. They're similar to arguments based on interpretations of the Bible. We can go round an round with your interpretation and mine, and get nowhere. I get impatient with that sort of thing.

Compromising those ideals now would be an admission that the experiment failed, but the admission would fall under false pretenses, because the government is not operating within it's Constitutional limitations, rendering the admission mute

Are you going to try to tell me health and safety regulations violate life, liberty, and the POH? Surely not, and if not, what is your point?

[big_lefty]

The original poster's argument was that state can, and ought to regulate, because it is exercisng its democratic pregotives. It assumed that such regulation is beneficial and just, because the people have so decided on that course of action.

In a nutshell. Good summary.

It hasn't been refuted because nobody makes that argument. The original post was pulling things out of thin air. Hence, my bafflement as to what she, or he, was going on and on about.

Huh? You just said, in the last paragraph, that the poster made that argument. Now you say nobody made it?

One can however, refute the assumption of the original post that regulation is the white horse and industry (corporations, business, capitalism, whatever) is the villain.

That would be a classic strawman argument, though. So why bother?

[lsbskins1]

The original poster's argument was that state can, and ought to regulate, because it is exercisng its democratic pregotives. It assumed that such regulation is beneficial and just, because the people have so decided on that course of action.

It hasn't been refuted because nobody makes that argument. The original post was pulling things out of thin air. Hence, my bafflement as to what she, or he, was going on and on about.

One can however, refute the assumption of the original post that regulation is the white horse and industry (corporations, business, capitalism, whatever) is the villain.[/quote]

She - thank you very much, was saying exactly what she (I) said. I said that many people make the argument that government has no rightful place in regulating business because it is unwarrented interference in the market. I pulled nothing out of thin air. If you do not hold to that logic, then I am not talking to you. If you do, I am. Are you claiming that nobody says that government regulation (as in OSHA standards or EPA pollution regulations) is unwarrented and leads to "unintended", ie, bad consequences? Did I really pull that out of thin air? If I did, there are literally thousands of sites you can hit with a Google search that have suddenly replicated my imaginings and are back dated by those people who work for Big Brother to make it look like someone else said it before I posted. And I must be Big Brother, because it tends to support my "fantasy".

But, really, my point is not that regulation is beneficial and just BECAUSE the people have asked for it. My point is that regulation is beneficial and just AND does not mean power is taken away from "the invisible hand", because it is really the same hand. That means the hand is legitimate, not that it is incapable of harm itself.

And let me make this quite plain as well. Nothing that opperates as an institution is above corruption. So, I do not view regulatory agencies as the good guys and corporations as the bad guys. They both have the capacity for harm and they both have the capacity for beneficence. I do not seek to elevate one over the other, but to recognize that they are both necessary, serve an equally important purpose and both need to be in a relative power ballance. Just another example of effective checking of power in my book.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO It doesn't change anything. At this point you are placing yourself in a situation of telling other people what they should-and should not-want.

Really? Where did I do that?

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 The original poster's argument was that state can, and ought to regulate, because it is exercisng its democratic pregotives. It assumed that such regulation is beneficial and just, because the people have so decided on that course of action.

Okay, but first you have to prove that state regulations embody "democratic prerogatives" -- which strikes me as a dubious assumption. It's like saying that, just because wages exist, they ought to exist and be regulated. To me, what you say lacks an understanding of conditionality. Your argument is simply locked into the status quo.

Yes, it can generally be said that regulations should exist under certain conditions for certain reasons, but it doesn't mean this need is absolute. For example, in a state-capitalist system we need wages and regulations, but in a different society people may be able to act for different reasons, under other circumstances.

Grandpa h.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: lsbskins1 The original poster's argument was that state can, and ought to regulate, because it is exercisng its democratic pregotives.

You went beyond just this. You tried to tie this to the natural or "free" market, which is simply not congruent.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: big_lefty Three problems here; 1) Not accurate. The Swedes have, in some ways, more individual liberty than Americans.Your perception of life in Sweden is, apparently, highly unrealistic. You seem to see it as a Marxist totalitarian state.

I was talking about the liberty of having the government make the decision for you, or not

Quote by: big_lefty 2) This isn't about government intervention improving the SOL.

Oh yes it is. That is the hing upon which all these discussions are based, peoples standard of living, particularly those at the bottom.


The Left contends that Nanny should take of all of us, all the time.

Quote by: big_lefty The subject of this thread is government intervention in production to protect health and safety. You're supposed to explain why that is anti-democratic and unconstitutional. Saying it doesn't improve the SOL does not answer that question.

The link you were responding to was about regulation, and you asked for an example of how regulation hurts, you got it, and it illustrates exactly what I claimed it would.

Quote by: big_lefty 3) You haven't even established that the SOL did not improve, anyway. Your data was from a time of recession in Sweden.

Well since our government is destrying our currency in an effort to cover up said recession with the Fed, and since we have a global economy, and were basically in the same recession, I'd say the comparison was very fair in regards to the topic it covers.

Quote by: big_lefty The vague reference to "more liberties" doesn't mean anything, either. What liberties are you claiming Sweden lacks as compared to Mississippi?

You know damn well that we were discussing regulation vs non-regulation.

[Milton Bradley]

OK Big Lefty, when you came into this thread, I percieved that were arguing that regulating beef eqated to protecting people from their own foolishness, and thus an argument for more regulations, and more bureaucracy.


Clearly that would be protecting people from unsafe business practices, which is in no way like protecting people from themselves.


So perhaps my criticisms were not entirely accurate to what you were contending.


Sorry if there has been a mix up, because going back to reread, I know I end up confused.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Milton Bradley OK Big Lefty, when you came into this thread, I percieved that were arguing that regulating beef eqated to protecting people from their own foolishness, and thus an argument for more regulations, and more bureaucracy. Clearly that would be protecting people from unsafe business practices, which is in no way like protecting people from themselves. So perhaps my criticisms were not entirely accurate to what you were contending. Sorry if there has been a mix up, because going back to reread, I know I end up confused.

Oh, no need to apologize. It's hard to keep track of threads containing so many points. I don't know anybody who doesn't get confused sometimes.
But thanks. :-)

For the record, I am against protecting people from their own stupidity in principle. There are some examples, such as seat belt laws, where I come down on that side, but only to protect the rest of us from the medical costs of the fools who neglect to protect themselves.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Some of your links do not work,...

I believe I have fixed them all now. It appears some of the addresses had been truncated on the cut, and paste.

Quote by: lsbskins1 but from what I can see, Sweden is doing just fine. Good, sustainable growth and nobody complaining too much. My favorite thing...the opinion pieces complaining that people aren't willing to just work three jobs in order to live when it really isn't necessary. Unless, of course, you have to support and maintain the wasteful lifestyle of someone else.

Well, isn't that exactly what you ask us to do with Universal Health Care?


Then, people who cannot afford to raise children get to divert their costs to others.

Quote by: lsbskins1