bpwallace49 Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 I'm about as capitalist as they come, and I'm not for a completely free market. I believe some regulation is necessary. On the other hand some accidents are the fault of the injured workers own carelessness, and yet they still end up in court suing the corporations hoping for a fat settlement. There needs to be balance. We don't need monopolies, and we do need basic safety guidelines, however we do not need the overly obtrusive government that we now have. We don't need people thinking the government is can or should solve all of OUR problems. Perch . . that is where this breaks from reality into rhetoric. The overly obtrusive gubmnet? Really? None of us on our little bitch-fest here at the huddle have any idea what the right balance is . . . but that is why it is a constantly moving target. We will never reach a perfect equilibrium, cause there will always be an exception that sways one way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 OK, I just found my favorite part of this paper: I like this one that perfectly captures the circle-jerking in the Dem and repub caucases right now . . The often benign influence of politics is subject to an important caveat. Politicsis fundamentally a negotiation between different interests. The success of political negotiation relies crucially on the civic capital in the society, the capacity of its members to cooperate. Countries with higher civic capital, and thus more attractive IPFs, are more likely to have successful political negotiations and to choose an efficient point on the IPF. In this important way, the location of the IPF and the political choice of a point on it are not independent. Even so, it would be incorrect to blame all poor institutional outcomes on politics because the failures of political negotiation are rooted in many of the same factors that undermine institutional opportunities in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 an interesting article on the subject (that I have posted numerous times before and that no one ever seems to read): http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/s...ompecon_JCE.pdf I think their basic framework is pretty useful: These questions reflect a common tradeoff. On the one hand, there is the objective ofcontrolling disorder, which pushes toward greater dictatorship. On the other hand, there is the goal of controlling the abuses of state intervention, which pushes against dictatorship. In this paper, we present a framework describing the tradeoff between dictatorship and disorder, and apply it to the problem of the social control of business. We argue that the four common strategies of such control, namely private orderings, private litigation, regulation, and state ownership, can be viewed as points on the institutional possibility frontier, ranked in terms of increasing state powers. These strategies are associated with progressively diminishing social costs of disorder and progressively rising social costs of dictatorship. well-meaning folks can argue all day long about where the sweet spot of efficiency (assuming such a thing even exists) lies on this spectrum, but ultimately we're arguing about what we fear more, disorder or dictatorship? this is as good an articulation as any as to what separates economic liberals (in the classic, laissez-faire sense) from economic progressives. "disorder" is scary in in a brute, hobbesian sense, but I'm of the belief that within a legal framework that respects and protects property rights, respects and protecs individual legal rights, and a common-law system governing contracts, torts and such, as well as a criminal code that protects against fraud and theft, "disorder" just isn't very scary any more. you don't need to sacrifice much more to the "dictator" beyond all that, and the kinds of hayekian orders that essentially arise spontaneously within that framework are almost always more efficient anyway, because they involve people with THEIR OWN skin in the game coming up with the best ways of doing things. this was essentially the economic vision of the founders of this nation. and since we're talking about comparative economics, I would argue that the historical evidence in favor of the efficiency gains from this hypothesis are pretty overwhelming. but again, I do think it comes back to what you value and what you are afraid of -- do you favor "liberty" at the potential expense of "disorder", or do you favor "progress" at the potential expense of "dictatorship"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 (edited) Perch . . that is where this breaks from reality into rhetoric. The overly obtrusive gubmnet? Really? None of us on our little bitch-fest here at the huddle have any idea what the right balance is . . . but that is why it is a constantly moving target. We will never reach a perfect equilibrium, cause there will always be an exception that sways one way or the other. Why does the government need to know when I purchase a firearm? Why does the government need to know how much money I make? Why does the government need to dictate how much insurance coverage I should have? Why does the government need to tell me if I have X number of employees I can do this, but if I have Y number of employees I must do that? Why do I have to hire an attorney write out a will? Why do I have to hire an accountant to figure out how much money the government is gong to coerce from me this year? Why do I need to be a member of a trade organization to keep abreast of ever changing regulation? Why is the OSHA code thicker than my Bible and twice as hard to understand? Why can I marry one woman divorce her and marry another but can't be married to the both at the same time? (Not that I'd want to, one is more than enough) Why do I now have to report to the government every ounce of gold I purchase? Why does the government need to know if I transfer $10,000 from one account to another? Why does the government care if I happen to like a SUV that has more power than I need that gets 10 mpg, if I'm paying for the gas? Why does the government tell me I can't build a hospital with a patient room over looking a cemetery? Why does the government care if I want to shoot the deer that are eating my peas in the middle of the summer? Why can you go to war at 18 but you aren't responsible enough to drink until your 21? Etc, etc, etc... Edited September 30, 2010 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 The big difference, is with the insurance companies you have some choice in the matter. If you don't like what your insurance company requires of you, then you can go out and find another carrier. Additionally most insurance companies unlike the government take past performance into account. So with the insurance companies you at least have some choice in the matter, and a way you yourself can improve your situation. With the government you are just stuck with as you say it, "stupid". I can see where you're coming from with this and more importantly with the fact that they have their capital at risk (which, of course, could be used as an argument for why they might be inclined to be more hyper restrictive). But, more and more, the choice you speak of when it comes to insurance is not really all you're cracking it up to be. Yes, there still remain a few who seem more flexible and understand specific industries better than others and, are thus less likely to go boiler plate. However, that seems to becoming less and less and it seems only logical. As insurance becomes a basic requirement to do pretty much anything, there becomes less and less incentive for them to differentiate themselves because we're all a bunch of fish in a barrel. So what's in it for them to not tilt the scales their way? The good guy bar just gets lower and lower and it's only natural. So, if it is insurance who drives us to independent agency approved building materials (and thus dictate how things must be built), who tells insurance what they can and can't do? Certainly not us. See above. They have us by the balls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Why does the government need to know when I purchase a firearm? Why does the government need to know how much money I make? Why does the government need to dictate how much insurance coverage I should have? Why does the government need to tell me if I have X number of employees I can do this, but if I have Y number of employees I must do that? Why do I have to hire an attorney write out a will? Why do I have to hire an accountant to figure out how much money the government is gong to coerce from me this year? Why do I need to be a member of a trade organization to keep abreast of ever changing regulation? Why is the OSHA code thicker than my Bible and twice as hard to understand? Why can I marry one woman divorce her and marry another but can't be married to the both at the same time? (Not that I'd want to, one is more than enough) Why do I know have to report to the government every ounce of gold I purchase? Why does the government need to know if I transfer $10,000 from one account to another? Why does the government care if I happen to like a SUV that has more power than I need that gets 10 mpg, if I'm paying for the gas? Why does the government tell me I can't build a hospital with a patient room over looking a cemetery? Why does the government care if I want to shoot the deer that are eating my peas in the middle of the summer? Why can you go to war at 18 but you aren't responsible enough to drink until your 21? Etc, etc, etc... Because you are a swarthy revolutionary racist terrorist that the gubment needs to keep track of before to start an armed revolution of unemployed hospital construction workers. Isnt it obvious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 I can see where you're coming from with this and more importantly with the fact that they have their capital at risk (which, of course, could be used as an argument for why they might be inclined to be more hyper restrictive). But, more and more, the choice you speak of when it comes to insurance is not really all you're cracking it up to be. Yes, there still remain a few who seem more flexible and understand specific industries better than others and, are thus less likely to go boiler plate. However, that seems to becoming less and less and it seems only logical. As insurance becomes a basic requirement to do pretty much anything, there becomes less and less incentive for them to differentiate themselves because we're all a bunch of fish in a barrel. So what's in it for them to not tilt the scales their way? The good guy bar just gets lower and lower and it's only natural. So, if it is insurance who drives us to independent agency approved building materials (and thus dictate how things must be built), who tells insurance what they can and can't do? Certainly not us. See above. They have us by the balls. I guess it really just depends on who you want to have you by the balls. Do you want the government and the insurance companies to have you by the balls, or do you just want the insurance companies to have you by the balls and still have a little bit of choice as to whether your insurance company is a blond or brunette? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Why does the government need to know when I purchase a firearm? Why does the government need to know how much money I make? Why does the government need to dictate how much insurance coverage I should have? Why does the government need to tell me if I have X number of employees I can do this, but if I have Y number of employees I must do that? Why do I have to hire an attorney write out a will? Why do I have to hire an accountant to figure out how much money the government is gong to coerce from me this year? Why do I need to be a member of a trade organization to keep abreast of ever changing regulation? Why is the OSHA code thicker than my Bible and twice as hard to understand? Why can I marry one woman divorce her and marry another but can't be married to the both at the same time? (Not that I'd want to, one is more than enough) Why do I now have to report to the government every ounce of gold I purchase? Why does the government need to know if I transfer $10,000 from one account to another? Why does the government care if I happen to like a SUV that has more power than I need that gets 10 mpg, if I'm paying for the gas? Why does the government tell me I can't build a hospital with a patient room over looking a cemetery? Why does the government care if I want to shoot the deer that are eating my peas in the middle of the summer? Why can you go to war at 18 but you aren't responsible enough to drink until your 21? Etc, etc, etc... The answer to many of them is "because of lawyers" Here's one answer to the gas question. Sure, it's your money and you can spend as much of it on gas as you want. But it doesn't end there. Besides driving the price of gas up for everyone (which may or may not concern you depending on where you rank driving in terms of luxury vs need) it also drives up the price of getting products from one place to another, which in turn drives up the price of said product and now, most certainly starts cutting into the affordability of very basic needs, like food. In other words, because you drive a F350 around town, you're making it harder for someone to put food on their table. So, as seen in that light, it might not just be some "save the polar bears" trip to require increased fuel efficiency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 The answer to many of them is "because of lawyers" Here's one answer to the gas question. Sure, it's your money and you can spend as much of it on gas as you want. But it doesn't end there. Besides driving the price of gas up for everyone (which may or may not concern you depending on where you rank driving in terms of luxury vs need) it also drives up the price of getting products from one place to another, which in turn drives up the price of said product and now, most certainly starts cutting into the affordability of very basic needs, like food. In other words, because you drive a F350 around town, you're making it harder for someone to put food on their table. So, as seen in that light, it might not just be some "save the polar bears" trip to require increased fuel efficiency. And the cigarettes the guy on welfare is smoking is raising the cost of each can of snuff I purchase. So? If we are going to start trying to regulate the way people spend money, we should start by regulating the money being spent by people receiving any form of federal assistance before we move on to anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 And the cigarettes the guy on welfare is smoking is raising the cost of each can of snuff I purchase. So? If we are going to start trying to regulate the way people spend money, we should start by regulating the money being spent by people receiving any form of federal assistance before we move on to anything else. I'm not saying that the gas thing should be priority #1. I'm just saying that it goes beyond what people often think of. Oh, and nice example. So I make a point of giving the fact that one could see driving as a luxury and, thus, specifically took it to the next level and illustrated the effects on something that is undoubtedly not. So what do you come back with? tobacco. Something that certainly nobody can live without. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 I'm not saying that the gas thing should be priority #1. I'm just saying that it goes beyond what people often think of. Oh, and nice example. So I make a point of giving the fact that one could see driving as a luxury and, thus, specifically took it to the next level and illustrated the effects on something that is undoubtedly not. So what do you come back with? tobacco. Something that certainly nobody can live without. But it takes a big truck to deliver all those cigarettes to all those minimarts, thus wasting just that much more gas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 The answer to many of them is "because of lawyers" winner winner chicken dinner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Why does the government need to know when I purchase a firearm? Why does the government need to know how much money I make? Why does the government need to dictate how much insurance coverage I should have? Why does the government need to tell me if I have X number of employees I can do this, but if I have Y number of employees I must do that? Why do I have to hire an attorney write out a will? Why do I have to hire an accountant to figure out how much money the government is gong to coerce from me this year? Why do I need to be a member of a trade organization to keep abreast of ever changing regulation? Why is the OSHA code thicker than my Bible and twice as hard to understand? Why can I marry one woman divorce her and marry another but can't be married to the both at the same time? (Not that I'd want to, one is more than enough) Why do I now have to report to the government every ounce of gold I purchase? Why does the government need to know if I transfer $10,000 from one account to another? Why does the government care if I happen to like a SUV that has more power than I need that gets 10 mpg, if I'm paying for the gas? Why does the government tell me I can't build a hospital with a patient room over looking a cemetery? Why does the government care if I want to shoot the deer that are eating my peas in the middle of the summer? Why can you go to war at 18 but you aren't responsible enough to drink until your 21? Etc, etc, etc... The constitution says so. For taxes. Because most people won't buy insurance and most people can't afford to cover the damage when an uninsured totals their car. Because you will pay everyone $20.00 an hour and be confused as to why they are on Medicare. You don't have to, you are too lazy to handle it yourself. You don't have to, you are too lazy to handle it yourself. You don't have to, you are too lazy to do it yourself. You aren't that smart. Ask God or Lartelle Sprewell. Even if you are rich, kids are expensive. Most people can't afford the kids they have with one woman. Money laundering. Money laundering. Oil comes from the enemy. Nothing entertaining about adiding the enemy. It's bad for my environment too. Last time I was admitted to the hospital, I had a birds eye view of a cemetery. You aren't donating enough to your local candidates. Think it through. Good question. As someone who joined the Navy when he was 17, I posit you aren't responsible enough at that age to do either. The premise of your post is that if everyone were as perfect as you we wouldn't need the governemnt. LAME. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 I think their basic framework is pretty useful: of course it is, that's why I keep posting the article ... I'm of the belief that within a legal framework that respects and protects property rights, respects and protecs individual legal rights, and a common-law system governing contracts, torts and such, as well as a criminal code that protects against fraud and theft, "disorder" just isn't very scary any more. true, and the authors of the paper would agree with this statement. However, the authors of the paper explain that in the real-world there are reasons why the legal framework can fail to be just and hence relying on a court system to prevent disorder might not work all of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.