Legitamate Market Force?

[lsbskins1]

In another thread, I asserted my belief that government regulation of markets is a perfectly legitamate natural market force when that regulation is based on the majority will of the people, who are the consumers of all the products of a market. It is right and good to oppose top down regulation of markets when the government is not subject to the will of the people but it is not right and good to oppose regulation of markets when that regulation's actual source is the will of the consumer. So, if the majority of the consuming populace believes that a business should not be allowed to sell toys that are covered in lead paint, why must they wait for unnecessary damages to health and well being to know which toys not to buy, when they can pass a law and make the market respond ahead of the damage?

[lsbskins1]

Anyone?

[MplsBison]

I don't see why popular will would be inherently more just than the will of those in power.



For example, if the town's people got together and decided that they needed to take your house away in order to build a park, I wouldn't see that as more just than the government using eminent domain.

[Technosoul]

The worse case is the DMV and it's governmental control over what should be our right to drive a car. If we pass a driving test in highschool we sould be allowed to get in a car and drive around town. In most cases parents can determine if a kid is ready to drive the family car.

The Gov spends millions for the DMV and to issue people a plastic card. It is not needed. Plus, if you do not pay a ticket they can cancel your licince.

Ban the DMV and use that money for public and private schools to offer mandatory diving clases to kids at highschool levels.

[lsbskins1]

I do not seem to have been clear enough. I'm not asking for examples of how government is inefficient, or asking how "the people" might do an injustice. I'm asking about economic theory and why it is less legitimate, in some peoples minds, to force "ABC Corp" to not sell lead paint covered toys though the rule of law? If it is the will of the market that "ABC Corp" not endanger the health of the public, why must the market wait for the damage? Why is it not right and good that the people be free to exert their will on the market through legislation?

[MplsBison]

Isn't it easier for the people to just not buy stuff from ABC corp?

[lsbskins1]

No. Because ABC Corp is not going to create an add that says "Thomas The Tank Engine Lead Paint Covered Toys - available exclusively at Wal-Mart!". You have to wait for the damage to know NOT to buy from ABC Corp.

[MplsBison]

But laws don't get made until after the fact, either.


Unless you're proposing that we make a law banning the sale of anything that harms anyone in any way?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MplsBison But laws don't get made until after the fact, either. Unless you're proposing that we make a law banning the sale of anything that harms anyone in any way?

But, the law will stop future abuse. If ABC Corp faces no punishment, what stops them from "reorganizing", opening up shop as "Best Toys" and doing the same thing all over again. The law waits on one instance to stop and prevents future harm, while stopping purchases must respond to each and every instance and allows the practice to continue. Regulation is more efficent and protects the consumer better and is simply a faster way for the consumer to dictate market action, as it is his purpose and right to do.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: lsbskins1 So, if the majority of the consuming populace believes that a business should not be allowed to sell toys that are covered in lead paint, why must they wait for unnecessary damages to health and well being to know which toys not to buy, when they can pass a law and make the market respond ahead of the damage?

Because in American we have this held suspicion that if you give the government an inch they will take a mile. We also have this desire to oppose authority and common sense, we like to smoke even though we know its harmful, perhaps just because for some its all they can do to snub authority.

We know smoking causes health problems but people will argue so does everything else. It all boils down to people fight such government control because everyone seems to idealize with an anarchist society where you are free to choose for yourself. Yet at the same time we demand a functional legal, health, and police systems.

Ironic kind of. People demand government get the hell out off people's lives but then forget its the government that generates their power, water, and maintains society.

I feel like were in the Matrix. We hate the machines (government) but we need the machines (government) to survive and maintain our standard of living.

[grandpa]

Quote by: HelioPrime Because in American we have this held suspicion that if you give the government an inch they will take a mile.

Well, people have given them inches and they have taken miles. So it's not too strange.

Quote by: HelioPrime We also have this desire to oppose authority and common sense, we like to smoke even though we know its harmful, perhaps just because for some its all they can do to snub authority.

That's funny, because I thought opposing authority was generally the common sense approach to society.

And I'm not sure what to make of your smoking argument. I don't think smoking has much to do with "snubbing authority."

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: HelioPrime Because in American we have this held suspicion that if you give the government an inch they will take a mile. We also have this desire to oppose authority and common sense, we like to smoke even though we know its harmful, perhaps just because for some its all they can do to snub authority. We know smoking causes health problems but people will argue so does everything else. It all boils down to people fight such government control because everyone seems to idealize with an anarchist society where you are free to choose for yourself. Yet at the same time we demand a functional legal, health, and police systems. Ironic kind of. People demand government get the hell out off people's lives but then forget its the government that generates their power, water, and maintains society. I feel like were in the Matrix. We hate the machines (government) but we need the machines (government) to survive and maintain our standard of living.

I agree with the psychological aspect of your position. I know that that might very well be why Americans are resistant to Regulation and responsive to the 30 second sound-bite positions of the lazie-faire Capitolists out there, but I want a lazie-faire Capitolist to tell me why the people do not have the right to effect the market through legislation, why "not buying" is more efficent and better than "not allowing" when the source of the market force is the same, the will of the consumer.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: lsbskins1 But, the law will stop future abuse. If ABC Corp faces no punishment, what stops them from "reorganizing", opening up shop as "Best Toys" and doing the same thing all over again. The law waits on one instance to stop and prevents future harm, while stopping purchases must respond to each and every instance and allows the practice to continue. Regulation is more efficent and protects the consumer better and is simply a faster way for the consumer to dictate market action, as it is his purpose and right to do.

Regardless if it's legal to sale lead paint on toys, the consumers who buy those lead paint toys are going to sue the pants off of ABC when their kids get sick from them.


Lawsuit settlements or judgements coupled with massive consumer distrust of ABC = ABC rockets to bankruptcy.




Now, since ABC was a corporation, our corporate law allows the investors of ABC to walk away from ABC's demise.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MplsBison Regardless if it's legal to sale lead paint on toys, the consumers who buy those lead paint toys are going to sue the pants off of ABC when their kids get sick from them. Lawsuit settlements or judgements coupled with massive consumer distrust of ABC = ABC rockets to bankruptcy. Now, since ABC was a corporation, our corporate law allows the investors of ABC to walk away from ABC's demise.

But you are not addressing the core issue. Why not use the more efficent measure. I am not saying back end pressure will have no effect. I am saying why not use front end pressure, make the market react more quickly and allow for a safer consumer? Why not? And why not, specifically from an Economic Theory position.

[MplsBison]

Once it comes out in the news that ABC has sold millions of toys with lead paint on them and that thousands of kids are getting sick, it's over for ABC.


They will lose everything they have in court.




What is it, exactly, that you think making laws and regulations is going to do "faster"?

[lsbskins1]

You again, have not addressed the core issue. And it is "faster" in that rather than having to wait for ALL future harm to occur, it adresses the issue after the first instance and prevents ABC and any future new toy manufacturer from causing the harm all over again. If you would prefer, I could use " more efficent", but the idea is the same.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: grandpa That's funny, because I thought opposing authority was generally the common sense approach to society. And I'm not sure what to make of your smoking argument. I don't think smoking has much to do with "snubbing authority." Grandpa h.

How is opposing authority a common sense approach?

An authority body in a country isn't some existing monster, its a product created by the people themselves. Why would people create the position of authority if they are supposed to be opposed to it?

That position doesn't make any sense and it never has. Name one major civilization that didn't have authority figures or bodies that held power.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: lsbskins1 You again, have not addressed the core issue. And it is "faster" in that rather than having to wait for ALL future harm to occur, it adresses the issue after the first instance and prevents ABC and any future new toy manufacturer from causing the harm all over again. If you would prefer, I could use " more efficent", but the idea is the same.

To address your point we don't do the faster method because to take action requires evidence and proof of problems or defects.

Even if everyone "knows" there is lead in paint from a given factory we have to do the complicated process of study and view cases that arise from people getting sick.

If we restricted companies so much that we tested everything beforehand that would make more sense. But then people would cry foul about infringing on rights and privacy.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: lsbskins1 it adresses the issue after the first instance and prevents ABC and any future new toy manufacturer from causing the harm all over again.

Lawsuits come after the first instance too.


Why on earth would any toy company dare use lead paint after the demise of ABC?


None are that insane.



It's self regulating.

[lsbskins1]

Right, cause nobody knew about the dangers of lead paint before those actual lead paint toys hit the market. So by your logic, what DID happen, would never happen, cause you would have to be insane to put lead paint in a toy, when we have known for YEARS that lead paint is dangerous, especsially to young children. You would have to be insane to endanger your business that way. Unless, of course, you knew that all regulation was a sham and that you could spend a good few years making money and then all you had to do was just fold up this shop and either walk away or begin again a few years later.

It is not self regulating on any real level.

And, none of these Corp's have any problem with the Corporate "concept" of government regulation, as long as it is regulating the publics ability to hold individuals accountable for the actions they chose to make as members of the Corporation. Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to government bringing rationality to either side, but I am opposed to government busily protecting the power and priviledge of the corporations while at the same time refusing, "because markets are self regulating", to protect the interests of the public.