ClearWest Posted March 23, 2007 Report Posted March 23, 2007 John Stossel gives a speech at the Fraser Institute: http://www.rightlinx.com/?p=693 I wanted to raise this issue again, and I hope you're all up to discussing it. Let me know what you agree with and what you disagree with. This is still an enormous issue all over the world - we keep adding more regulations! This is the wrong way to go. I think we need to do something about this and reverse the process! I want to hear your thoughts - especially if you disagree with me. (Check out the video if you have the time, it would be a preferable prerequisite to replying). Quote A system that robs Peter to pay Paul will always have Paul's support.
Canadian Blue Posted March 23, 2007 Report Posted March 23, 2007 We are adding more regulation's, when did we start doing that. I don't really mind regulation, because it mean's that corporation's can't screw us over as much. In the end I'd rather have the elected representatives bring in regulation, than putting all of our trust into an entity which is only designed to bring more profits for their shareholders. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
Figleaf Posted March 24, 2007 Report Posted March 24, 2007 screw us REPORTED Oh, this bodes well. Meanwhile, to comment without yet having seen the video, but nevertheless being informed on the general subject, I would point out that economics, particularly theory of the economics of information has built quite a large body of literature analyzing this issue. Basically, it is fairly well settled that free markets are extremely efficient at allocating resources, but that 1. they are not perfectly self correcting and are subject to 'market failures', and 2. they can't be relied on to address social/justice issues. Resort to regulation is typically justified on one or the other of these grounds. The inevitable question is whether the regulation matches to problem correctly, without making more problems itself. Quote
August1991 Posted March 24, 2007 Report Posted March 24, 2007 This is still an enormous issue all over the world - we keep adding more regulations! This is the wrong way to go. I think we need to do something about this and reverse the process!And people now want the Canadian federal government to regulate pet food. Quote
geoffrey Posted March 24, 2007 Report Posted March 24, 2007 And people now want the Canadian federal government to regulate pet food. All because the government regulation of human food has never ever allowed anyone to get ill from eatting it? In fact, I'm going to say the unregulated pet food industry has a better track record than the heavily regulated human food industry. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
ClearWest Posted March 24, 2007 Author Report Posted March 24, 2007 We are adding more regulation's, when did we start doing that. I don't really mind regulation, because it mean's that corporation's can't screw us over as much. In the end I'd rather have the elected representatives bring in regulation, than putting all of our trust into an entity which is only designed to bring more profits for their shareholders. In order to bring more profits to its shareholders, the corporation has to please the consumer and make sure they are happy with the service they are getting. Their job isn't to screw you over, it's to profit from trading with you for goods and services. The dishonest ones don't last long in the free market because word spreads and they go out of business. (See the video - they spend some time on this subject) I'm not sure if I can put any trust into an entity which is designed to keep powerful people in office who have the ability to take your stuff - rather than a corporation which can only offer to trade you for your stuff. There are millions of private businesses - however, only a handful of governmental parties, only 3 or 4 of which have any influence. Which offers the best choice/freedom for the individual? Our democratic system as it stands offers very little power or choice to the individual. Whereas in the free market, each individual is boss. Quote A system that robs Peter to pay Paul will always have Paul's support.
Canadian Blue Posted March 24, 2007 Report Posted March 24, 2007 In order to bring more profits to its shareholders, the corporation has to please the consumer and make sure they are happy with the service they are getting. Their job isn't to screw you over, it's to profit from trading with you for goods and services. The dishonest ones don't last long in the free market because word spreads and they go out of business. (See the video - they spend some time on this subject) That must explain why Wal Mart, McDonalds, and Tobacco, are all still very profitable. The corporation can take advantage of the ignorance of the consumer towards its products as well. I'm not sure if I can put any trust into an entity which is designed to keep powerful people in office who have the ability to take your stuff - rather than a corporation which can only offer to trade you for your stuff. I'd much rather trust an entity that is elected by all the people in society. I don't really have much trust, or faith in a corporatist state. There are millions of private businesses - however, only a handful of governmental parties, only 3 or 4 of which have any influence. Which offers the best choice/freedom for the individual? Our democratic system as it stands offers very little power or choice to the individual. Whereas in the free market, each individual is boss. The democratic system is there for all the people, the free market system is dog eat dog. The free market has done nothing for social justice, or anything for the cause of personal rights. If the goal is to make money, then that can mean funding Nazi's, or whoever can deliver larger profit margians. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
August1991 Posted March 24, 2007 Report Posted March 24, 2007 That must explain why Wal Mart, McDonalds, and Tobacco, are all still very profitable. The corporation can take advantage of the ignorance of the consumer towards its products as well.Nobody forces anyone to shop at Wal-Mart or eat at McDonald's. For that matter, nobody forces anyone to smoke cigarettes, and certainly not a particular brand of cigarette. I'd much rather trust an entity that is elected by all the people in society. I don't really have much trust, or faith in a corporatist state.That's a strange way to place your trust. You trust an entity chosen by a vote held every few years and for which your individual vote will make absolutely no difference in the final outcome. Compare that with your purchases from "corporations". You buy from them every day and your purchases have a small but measureable impact on what the corporations. What government would be willing to face an election ballot every day as corporations must do? The problem is not that corporations are too powerful; the problem is that they don't provide many of the services that we would like to have. The democratic system is there for all the people, the free market system is dog eat dog. The free market has done nothing for social justice, or anything for the cause of personal rights. If the goal is to make money, then that can mean funding Nazi's, or whoever can deliver larger profit margians.Markets are just a mechanism to help people co-operate and a profit is just a way to determine whether the co-operation was truly beneficial.I would argue that co-operation through free markets has done more to alleviate poverty and extend individual freedom than any other single discovery in human history. Poverty is the lack of choice; when a person has a choice, that person is richer. Free markets provide people with alternatives. Quote
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.