Government Regulation and Free market

Oh michael moor and nader are morons.

The advancements strangled by government regulations are vast.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wT1NO2lXI.../i6VeKy4fOVA/s1600/Dymaxion+Car+comparado.png

look at this dymaxion car

the tek we would have now if government was constrained by getting rid of the interstate commerce cause and ending case law is liek jetsons stuff

the dymaxion car was in the what 30s?

we dont have anything to match it now

seated 11 with mnodel T engine and went 60mph

some crony crashed a car into it and the hysterical safety moron cronies screamed it wasnt SAFE? so they didnt produce more

export all democrats I say

 

How do you account for this power delegated in our federal Constitution?

 

That's the point! They won't do anything that would reduce demand, and so government intervention is needed to protect citizens.
"Eventually, people would demand better safety from car companies" Is not good enough!

 

I just want my light bulbs back. The fake substitutes are horrible.

 

Its the different sources of market failure that is the miff factor. We already know of the asymmetric information problem. However, economics (via the likes of Akerlof) has also applied cognitive dissonance to concerns over safety. Simply put, people don't like the idea of dying. To eliminate the disutility associated with that fear they convince themselves that its safer than it really is. End result? Safety equipment when it becomes available, even if was rational to purchase, wouldn't be demanded.

 

Why would any private sector be any worse off with a benevolent public sector that ensures the security and domestic tranquility of our free States and the Union?

 

That this simplistic talking point is ingrained in the minds of the unthinking majority is a testimony to the power of corporate media propaganda over the minds of humans.

Should corporate profit trump the environment and human rights? The obvious answer is no.

Regulations keep corporate power in check. Corporations are duty bound (to investors) to remove all obstacles (regulations) for profit maximization.

 

But when is regulation actually about corporate power? For example, suppose there is a health & safety restriction on foreign imports. That could be simple trade protectionism, with regulation used to hinder competition and maintain profit of domestic company

 

Glass-stegall

I did not say all regulations keep corporate power in check. Some regulations can be about simple trade protectionism used to hinder competition and maintain profit of domestic company.

 

It just seems an awkward stance: that regulations are used to keep corporate power in check, whilst also being a key means to enable corporate abuse. Its very difficult to derive an economic approach that enables that endogeneity whilst maintaining your core belief

 

Do you see how you created that straw man? The words in italics are yours but you ascribed them to me.

Your straw man is not my core belief.

 

I have created something much more. You've stated that regulations are required to keep corporate power in check. I've stated (and you've agreed) that regulations are used to enable corporate power. We therefore have a problem in your logic. You'd need some form of economic model that allows such endogeneity. Good luck with that!

 

For the second time, I did not say all regulations keep corporate power in check. Some regulations can be about simple trade protectionism used to hinder competition and maintain profit of domestic company.

Some regulations or laws like glass-stegall keep corporate power in check. Other regulations or laws can be about simple trade protectionism used to hinder competition and maintain profit of domestic company.

Please expound upon your perceived problem in my logic.

 

You telling me you cannot see the problem in your logic? You stated that regulations are required to control corporate power. However, we also know that regulations are used to further corporate power. When does 'control' become 'further'? Where the heck is your economic theory that determines the link between the two?

This is shallow to the extreme. Given regulation will often be used to further corporate power, what determines this control you've banged on about? You need to go for something very specific (e.g. crisis theory into pressure group organisation and how that can then counteract corporate profiteering), because at the moment you've got nothing but an apparently illogical conclusion; i.e. 'regulations, used to empower the corporation, are also used to counteract their power'

 

What part of "regulations keep corporate power in check" would you like to debate about?

Why do you continue to strawman me even after I've mentioned it previously?

 

I've already said. Your "regulations keep corporate power in check" is illogical as "regulations enable corporate power". I want you to shift away from shallow comment and provide an economic rationale that can explain why regulations, often used to protect corporate profit, suddenly become about limiting corporate profit.

I've made it clear why your original argument was bobbins. Being a good egg, I've provided you with a means to shift towards valid remark (which becomes a variation of the idea of competitive pressure groups and how that competition is generated). You've ignored that, continuing with vacuous effort

 

I'll go along with you for a while...

Since that phrase was originated by you in this thread, please expound on your idea so that I can understand your position.

 

How gracious! However, what I'd prefer is the following: actually construct an argument to understand how regulations, often used to enable corporate profiteering, suddenly become a means to defend the public from corporate greed? So far you've given zilch and just dodged!

 

I have no interest in constructing your argument.

What part of my assertion that "regulations keep corporate power in check" would you like to debate about?

Since that phrase was originated by you in this thread, please expound on your idea so that I can understand your position.

 

Crikey, your dodge is pathetic. I'm trying to get you to come out with an argument, rather than go for fluff. The fluff you provided was "regulations stop corporate abuse". That is fluff as we know regulations provide a crucial means to enable corporate profiteering. Can you provide an economic rationale that explains both phenomena?

I think I may have to give up on you, unless you suddenly buck your ideas up and present something credible.

 

The only thing you offered in opposition to my assertion that "regulations keep corporate power in check" is a straw man attack. Some debater you are... you can't even refute that simple statement.

I don't see anything credible coming from you.

Since that phrase was originated by you in this thread, please expound on your idea so that I can understand your position.

What part of my assertion that "regulations keep corporate power in check" would you like to debate about?

 

Again you dodge (badly). I've asked you to provide an economic understanding of how regulations, often used to enable corporate profits, can somehow become a defence from corporate abuse. Given you are incapable of doing that, I'll assume that fluff is all you can offer. Good day!

 

You don't seem to be capable of getting past the straw man you've constructed for me. I have no need to give "an economic understanding of how regulations, often used to enable corporate profits, can somehow become a defence from corporate abuse" because that's not my assertion.

This is my assertion: regulations keep corporate power in check. Do you have anything to say about that?

I did ask you about this three times (this is the fourth) and you dodged:

Since that phrase was originated by you in this thread, please expound on your idea so that I can understand your position.

 

Can anyone help this poor fellow? Can anyone defend the "regulations are required to stop corporate greed" comment when regulations are so important for maintaining corporate profit?

 

There's no need to defend a self-evident truth.

For the fifth time, please expound on your idea.