How would "holding Mr. Whiner responsible" be done without regulations and enforcement? And wouldn't doing so require eliminating the protections that people running corporations have today?
Are you saying that in a truly free market, people would not build factories on rivers and send their polutants downstream? Nor pump toxins into the air?
By the way, your critique of my use of the word "vital" in that sentence was on the mark. Point taken.
Yes this is an old but very very common debate:
How do we stop capitalists from killing the rest of us.
Or as greedy/selfish capitalist put it
1) option one...some die bbut many more saved
2) many die and then many many more die......
------------
option three
central govt steps in and solves all the problems and no one dies.
It's difficult to come up with a correct economic theory if you start from an axiom which is demonstrably untrue.
Certainly there are areas where government is more wasteful or less efficient than private industry. But there are also areas where the opposite is true. The situations where government is most necessary typically suffer from "tragedy of the commons" game theoretic situations, or involve massive economies of scale, or involve situations where morality conflicts with free market principles.
Food safety is a good example. No one really wants to eat contaminated food and get sick. Thus virtually everyone (aside from perhaps a few farmers who grow all their own food) benefits from having food inspectors and standards. There are significant advantages to having a small number of experts do this rather than everyone trying to inspect the entire production process of everything they eat. Can this be handled well by private enterprise? Certainly we could imagine a privately-run organization which inspects food, then makes the results of such inspections available for a subscription fee (say). However, it will be difficult for such a firm to make money. If most other people subscribe to such a service, I can then rely on the market to drive those restaurants or markets which sell unsafe food out of business. Thus there is little reason for me to pay for my own subscription. Even if only a few people have an actual subscription to the service, I can simply rely on word-of-mouth (or a friend's subscription) rather than getting my own. Even though I really don't want to eat contaminated food, as long as the inspection company is in business I can probably manage this without giving the inspectors any money. Of course, this leads to a problem and the inspection service might now go out of business. Perhaps more likely, they will start taking payoffs from the food producers to "look the other way" when they notice shoddy health practices. The net effect is that food safety inspections just don't work as a private enterprise. Nonetheless, we are (almost) all better off to have these inspections and most of us would be willing to pay a few dollars every year to make sure that reliable inspections occur (although obviously if these inspections would occur anyway without my contribution, I might rather keep my money). This is the sort of area where a government-based approach works wonderfully and creates efficiency.
Joel Salatin of polyface farms has some very interesting points to make about this.
Quite aside from the slaughter house issues:
The inspectors are never able to keep up in the first place; every city has places that have had multiple warnings about violations. Food safety courses abound in photos of the most incredible kind..people storing meat on the floor under dripping pipes, thawed fish sitting on counters so long that it is actually at room temperature; fans that haven't been cleaned in so long that they are dripping rancid grease into the food..mice droppings just separated out of the food which is then prepared and served...the list goes on and on and many of the offending places get warnings time after time but nothing is actually done. I forget which city it was in the States where someone used to keep track of the violations written up by the food inspectors but it was quite interesting in a gruesome sort of way how many businesses got cited again and again and again, apparently simply proceeding with business as usual after each visit. Happens everywhere according to people who should know.
People are so far removed in North America at least from having any understanding of where their food comes from or how it gets to them that it's really easy to raise spectres where none exist. Joel also makes the point that the public is told it's fine to consume cocoa puffs and sodapop but not ok to buy a jar of pickles or a loaf of bread made in a home kitchen. Gotta have that fridge that's not allowed to hold that lemon pie or veggie dip unless it's destined for the farmer's market. Gotta have that separate sink dedicated only for people to wash their hands in. No matter that there's no record of any problems with food sold through farmer's markets. No matter that most people who are enthusiastic about cooking or baking often have kitchens as clean or cleaner than most restaurants.In most of the States and Canada, the days of someone making a few extra dollars by baking brownies or banana bread and taking them to a farmer's market on Saturday are done, unless the baker has access to a commercial kitchen.
We have had inspectors come to camp and care less if the freezer kept things frozen properly or if someone was sneezing into the food, or if the food handlers appeared to have washed their hands in the last week; they wanted to sneak around and find out if anyone was smoking in their room. Not that they had any reason to think anyone was, but what a coup if they could nab someone! Or another who threw out a whole day's baking because the cook had balanced one of the baking pans on an empty clean egg tray to raise it from the counter to cool faster. The baking was sitting on silicon paper in the pan and the pan was about three times as big as the egg tray it was sitting on so there wasn't any way the egg tray could come near the food. The inspector apparently carried the trays out to the garbage and dumped them herself, assuming that the other baking had been handled the same way.
OTOH not so long ago I bought a package of duly inspected meat from a large grocery stop and when I opened the package I was greeted by a very live worm easing its way out of the meat. Pasteurizing milk was undertaken not because it made the milk better, but because then they could take milk which was possibly not quite what it should be and make it safe. Properly handled raw milk from healthy cows is not only safe but better for you if you are going to drink milk. Improperly handled milk..the cow wasn't cleaned before the milking machine was put on or she isn't healthy might be another story. So pasteurize everything and then you don't have to worry about it, instead of making sure that things are right to start out with. Now lots of people apparently think that raw milk is some sort of poison magically transformed into something healthy through pasteurization, instead of a process where it's possible to lower your standards of production and count on technology to make up for it.
These are the sorts of thing you think benefits everyone except some few farmers who grow their own food?
I agree with the bulk of what Adam has to say, but I'd like to offer a minor correction: The expression "Tragedy of the Commons" doesn't cover the example that Adam provides.
Public economics spends lots of time dealing with market imperfections (examples where a free market won't yield an efficient outcome)
There are many such examples, most of which fall into a small number of buckets
1. Natural monopoly
2. Public goods
3. Overexploitation of a common resource
The example that Adam provided falls into the "public good" category.
Formally, the expression "Tragedy of the Commons" refers to overexploitation of a shared resource
(1) not so long ago I bought a package of duly inspected meat from a large grocery stop and when I opened the package I was greeted by a very live worm easing its way out of the meat.
(2) Pasteurizing milk was undertaken not because it made the milk better, but because then they could take milk which was possibly not quite what it should be and make it safe. Properly handled raw milk from healthy cows is not only safe but better for you if you are going to drink milk. Improperly handled milk..the cow wasn't cleaned before the milking machine was put on or she isn't healthy might be another story. So pasteurize everything and then you don't have to worry about it, instead of making sure that things are right to start out with. Now lots of people apparently think that raw milk is some sort of poison magically transformed into something healthy through pasteurization, instead of a process where it's possible to lower your standards of production and count on technology to make up for it.
These are the sorts of thing you think benefits everyone except some few farmers who grow their own food?
(1) These things happen, I am confident that if we asked everyone on the forum whether event X had ever happened to them or their friends (one handshake) you could find an example of most ten sigma events.
(2) This isn't even nearly true. Pasteurization was invented with the express intentions of making milk last longer before it spoiled, and of killing disease causing microbes in milk. Louis Pastuer was not completely sure what disease could be got from milk, but it was known at that time that TB was a disease found in cattle aswell as humans. In practice TB is a normal infection in cattle similar to the common cold in severity, but some strains are extremely virulent in un vaccinated humans. Pasteurization massively reduced the incidence of TB, and scarlet fever in children, and almost entirely eliminated puerperal fever, all child-killers at that time. Raw milk can also carry, e.coli, salmonella, and diphtheria.
Pasteurization is one of the few preventative medicine techniques whose benefits are huge. Its up there with vaccination. A lot of its benefit is the fact that most diseases you can get from milk are a-symptomatic in cattle, so you would have to test literally every single cow in order to make milk "safe" without pasteurization, and you would have to do so every week or so, and even then a cow could get sick between tests. While this is "possible" it is certainly vastly more expensive.
The physics is theoretical, but the fun is real. - Sheldon Cooper
you could find an example of most ten sigma events.
Ok this isnt true, the number i had in my head for a ten sigma event was one in 400,000,000. Which, for a daily event, only requires one to assemble roughly a million man-years of life between a group. For a group with average afre of 50, that would be about 20,000 people. Apparently the average number of people that one is on speaking terms with is about 300, so that would need only 700 forum members. However, one in 400,000,000 is only a six sigma event. Ten sigma is one in 10^23 roughly. That would require about 10^19 people with average age 50. Therefore, there is only a one in ten to the ten chance that an person currently living would have seen a specific ten sigma event.
The physics is theoretical, but the fun is real. - Sheldon Cooper
I'm not saying people would never do it, but people do stuff like that either because they're clueless, or because they think they can get away with it. I suspect that in a truly free market society there would be less of both.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
One of the problems with debates on economics and government is that we have experiences of some things, and no experiences of others. No one alive today has seen a true free market, for example. And some of the backward looks into history claim that "see, this was a free market, and it didn't work," when in fact what they're looking at wasn't a free market at all.
In my experience, advocates of utopian philosophies always make this argument to brush aside historical examples. My most vivid memories of this come from long-ago arguments with young communists, who invariably emphasized that "true communism" had never been tried: true communism, they insisted, would not exhibit whatever historical problem I'd brought up.
What's wrong with solving big problems incrementally by adopting changes that have worked well in smaller arenas?
blackshoe, on 2011-September-13, 07:52, said:
1. Civil suit(s). 2. Probably.
I'm not saying people would never do it, but people do stuff like that either because they're clueless, or because they think they can get away with it. I suspect that in a truly free market society there would be less of both.
The idea of using civil suits to punish grocers who've sold spoiled or poisoned food strikes me as impractical. The process is cumbersome and the evidence is gone.
And why would a truly free market society produce better people? Reminds me of the glowing descriptions I used to hear about the new "socialist man."
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
I suspect that in a truly free market society there would be less of both.
It is one of my favorite thought experiments, that if every individual was perfectly just/moral/generous, there would be absolutely no need for government. The corollary being that all systems of government are equivalent if every individual can be relied on to act in the best interests of the country.
It is the fallacy of Utopian thinking from Thomas More through to marx, to assume that one can somehow create that condition. Your argument amounts to saying that if you dismantled the federal government, people would behave better than they do now. More thought heavy punishment could create that, marx thought good education could. I think Government exists precisely because humans are crooked beings, who often do bad things for next to no reason. Government exists precisely to deal with these problems.
There are many things that one can do to reduce the tendency of people to behave badly, but nothing will ever eliminate it entirely. Thus the need for a government.
The physics is theoretical, but the fun is real. - Sheldon Cooper
Ok this isnt true, the number i had in my head for a ten sigma event was one in 400,000,000. Which, for a daily event, only requires one to assemble roughly a million man-years of life between a group. For a group with average afre of 50, that would be about 20,000 people. Apparently the average number of people that one is on speaking terms with is about 300, so that would need only 700 forum members. However, one in 400,000,000 is only a six sigma event. Ten sigma is one in 10^23 roughly. That would require about 10^19 people with average age 50. Therefore, there is only a one in ten to the ten chance that an person currently living would have seen a specific ten sigma event.
The idea of using civil suits to punish grocers who've sold spoiled or poisoned food strikes me as impractical. The process is cumbersome and the evidence is gone.
And why would a truly free market society produce better people? Reminds me of the glowing descriptions I used to hear about the new "socialist man."
The process as it exists now is cumbersome. And the evidence is not necessarily "gone".
I'm still trying to come to grips with all this "free market economics" stuff (I had one course in Economics in college, 40+ years ago, and none of it made sense to me - and that was "main stream" stuff). So I can't argue very well the points I'm trying to make. I guess that means you win. If I must, I'll fall back on these words: "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." The rest of you can do what you like.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
I'll fall back on these words: "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." The rest of you can do what you like.
To me, the fact that folks who long ago lived in truly free market economies rejected them is significant in itself. But there are always options: Living Free: Libertarian Utopias
Quote
Libertarians always have a special place in their heart for getting away from it all and doing your own thing. There have been numerous attempts at starting libertarian countries, cities, communities, and other ways to live free.
PayPal founder Peter Thiel has put $1.25 million toward building floating, autonomous countries at sea.
In my opinion, this is the way to go about it. If any of these utopias becomes successful for a few years, practical folks will take a look at it.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." The rest of you can do what you like.
Sounds like a good way to get in trouble with the cops.
Becky and I were chatting about such things. I was saying that I can't really think of many things that I have wanted to do that the government prevents me from doing. Becky pointed out that I drive over the speed limit, and that's true. But I do it on roads that the government has built. Maybe I could claim entrapment.
I think that there are some serious practical arguments for the government not overdoing the protection bit, one of them being that it can dull the very useful instinct to watch out for ourselves. Still, I like to shop for groceries without having a lawyer on speed dial.
In my opinion, this is the way to go about it. If any of these utopias becomes successful for a few years, practical folks will take a look at it.
I think that the whole "sea steading" concept is completely nuts.
I'm not saying that folks shouldn't try it; however, I think that they're going to run into some significant problems. In all seriousness, I think that pirates are going to be a major concern - especially given the libertarian prediliction for gold coins.
I'd also like to point out that there is a reason that super tankers and cargo ships aren't armed.
(It's called insurance companies)
Yes, that approach can end with you in jail. If you don't want to go to jail, don't defy The Man. The point is, it's a personal choice. Make your choice, knowing and accepting the possible consequences.
None of this has much to do with whether, or how, the current US government can get us out of the hole they've dug for us (while we stood by and watched, I grant you). As to that, all I know is that I'm pretty sure that nothing they're doing right now is going to work.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
I share your pessimism, albeit on somewhat different grounds. I comment on two often cited reasons for the slow recovery:
1. The housing collapse. At it's root, this was caused by purchasing houses and lending money on houses in amounts that far exceeded any rational assessment of the worth of the houses. If someone pays too much for something, there really is no way to make it worth what was paid.
2. Consumers are not spending like they used to do. This is said to be because they are scared. An alternative explanation is that it is because they have come to their senses. No doubt there is some spending that would come from putting more money in their hands but perhaps people are deciding that they would like to pay down debt or save a little. I gather that the people who track such things are seeing considerable evidence that this is happening.
Everything is more complicated than what I say or what anyone says, but to the extent that the housing collapse was caused by paying too much for too little and the decreased spending is rational behavior, it could be tough to do much about it. Even among those who are most critical of Obama, mostly they do not claim that they know how to cure this quickly.
But Michelle will bring gas prices down to $2.00 a gallon. I really don't know why Obama didn't think of that.
But Michelle will bring gas prices down to $2.00 a gallon. I really don't know why Obama didn't think of that.
She will also stop childhood vaccines that cause mental retardation. So with her as president, future generations will be much smarter and will easily be able to solve the economical problems.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
She will also stop childhood vaccines that cause mental retardation. So with her as president, future generations will be much smarter and will easily be able to solve the economical problems.
I am not sure if this was intended as a joke? But I did think it was pretty funny.
The physics is theoretical, but the fun is real. - Sheldon Cooper
But Michelle will bring gas prices down to $2.00 a gallon. I really don't know why Obama didn't think of that.
probably cuz he's too busy trying to get the economy out of the crapper, you know, given the unemployment and unprecedented numbers of people below the poverty level... either that or trying to figure out how to stop losing house seats
Quote
“It was all Obama — not even a thought of anything else,” Turner consultant Steve Goldberg said.
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
probably cuz he's too busy trying to get the economy out of the crapper, you know, given the unemployment and unprecedented numbers of people below the poverty level... either that or trying to figure out how to stop losing house seats
I agree that the economy had some impact on the results, however, I doubt that it was decisive. This district in New York is dominated by religious Jews and the recent gay marriage decision in New York had a MAJOR impact on voting
Quote
In the run up to the election, a group of Orthodox rabbis, most from Brooklyn, but including others, notably Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky and Rabbi Simcha Bunim Cohen, two nationally prominent Orthodox Jewish authorities, published a letter stating that "it is forbidden to fund, support, or vote for David Weprin." The reason? As a member of the New York state legislature, Weprin, despite his Orthodox Jewish beliefs, voted to redefine marriage to include same-sex partnerships. This, the rabbonim declared, was chillul Hashem---a desecration, or bringing of shame, on God's name. The rabbis went on to say that "Weprin's claim that he is Orthodox makes the chillul Hashem even greater."
Help
