isadore;1192082 wrote:gosh a ruddies all those industries that could sell unsafe products to the citizens. all those industries that could use their workers 12-14 hours a day with no overtime and fire them when they were injured.

So government regulations that immunize those industries from prosecution is the solution to unsafe products?

And do you know why workers worked 12 hour days? It was either that or work 16 hour days on your farm. 12 hour work days in a factory were like a treat to those people. Then as technology allowed people could produce the same amount in shorter work days. That is how progress is made. Not by having the government protect people from a 12 hour work day by sending them back to the farm to work for 16 hours.

Cleveland Buck;1192081 wrote:You don't check reviews of restaurants you go to? You don't research medications you are prescribed before you take them? And you do realize that you may still today take an unsafe drug, right? Millions of people die from prescription drugs in this country each year. Or get sick eating at a restaurant? So why is the government putting some companies out of business in favor of other ones if they don't solve the problem anyway?

A) I like trying new restaurants. Many reviews are garbage, anyway. Typically only people with complaints bother, and they usually have a bone to pick for whatever reason.

B) Effectiveness does not necessarily imply 100% efficiency. That people still die from prescription drugs does not mean the FDA is ineffective. Not to mention, eliminate expensive and time consuming clinical trials and your chances in that "lottery" take a disadvantaged turn.

I don't know why this is even a debate with you. There's no economist out there that believes in the level of information efficiency you pretend exists.

Con_Alma;1192088 wrote:You can't force a person to work at all ..not even 12-14 hours per day.

And especially not when Uncle Sam is quick to whip out the govt tit like the cheap whore she is.

gut;1192106 wrote:And especially not when Uncle Sam is quick to whip out the govt tit like the cheap whore she is.

Lol. There's no reason to work in that scenario...one we are experiencing all too much right now.

gut;1192105 wrote:A) I like trying new restaurants. Many reviews are garbage, anyway. Typically only people with complaints bother, and they usually have a bone to pick for whatever reason.

B) Effectiveness does not necessarily imply 100% efficiency. That people still die from prescription drugs does not mean the FDA is ineffective. Not to mention, eliminate expensive and time consuming clinical trials and your chances in that "lottery" take a disadvantaged turn.

I don't know why this is even a debate with you. There's no economist out there that believes in the level of information efficiency you pretend exists.

I know there are economists that understand that level of information could exist better than it does today when released from domain of the violent government monopoly. I don't know why that matters though. Who cares what economists believe? Most economists believed Alan Greenspan was a maestro by flooding the market with easy money to "soften the landing" of the recession in 2000. We see how smart they were.

The quality of reviews in today's world has no bearing on what their quality would be in a free market where the demand for good information would skyrocket compared to today. That's like saying private unemployment insurance is not feasible because it wouldn't work like government unemployment insurance works today.

Cleveland Buck;1192120 wrote: The quality of reviews in today's world has no bearing on what their quality would be in a free market where the demand for good information would skyrocket compared to today. That's like saying private unemployment insurance is not feasible because it wouldn't work like government unemployment insurance works today.

This is simply naive at best and bordering on completely ignorant. Even if we accept the logical fallacy that perfect information is attainable, it's neither efficient nor optimal for the consumer to do that with respect to all their purchases. There are also "free rider" concerns, whereby people in CA are happy to purchase cheaper goods from a factory polluting in OH.

You view regulation as intrusion and overstepping from the govt. I view it as practical and a value-added service demanded by the consumer. I don't need to check the kitchen or restaurant reviews because the govt is already doing that for me. It's a service that has real value to my tax dollars.

gut;1192132 wrote:This is simply naive at best and bordering on completely ignorant. Even if we accept the logical fallacy that perfect information is attainable, it's neither efficient nor optimal for the consumer to do that with respect to all their purchases. There are also "free rider" concerns, whereby people in CA are happy to purchase cheaper goods from a factory polluting in OH.

It's naive because you say it is? Where did I claim perfect information is available? All I said was that a free market in information would be much more efficient than the government monopoly on information, which is true as is always the case when it comes to monopolies. That you don't agree with that doesn't make it a fallacy.

gut;1192132 wrote:You view regulation as intrusion and overstepping from the govt. I view it as practical and a value-added service demanded by the consumer. I don't need to check the kitchen or restaurant reviews because the govt is already doing that for me. It's a service that has real value to my tax dollars.

If that service has value to you then you should be welcome to pay someone to perform that service. I don't understand why you need to force me at gunpoint to pay for the service that you value.

Cleveland Buck;1192142 wrote: If that service has value to you then you should be welcome to pay someone to perform that service. I don't understand why you need to force me at gunpoint to pay for the service that you value.

No, it's naive because it's naive. You're coming across as someone who read a book on free markets with little to no understanding of the differences between the real world and assumptions the models are based on. Economies of scale is one reason it makes sense. I don't know what I don't know, for another, meaning for many purchases I wouldn't even know what all information I need or where to get it.

And you've completely ignored the free rider issue I brought up. Who is going to go into that local factory to penalize them for pollution? The customers don't care, they're in another state or country. So the burden is going to fall on the taxpayers and local govt, one way or the other. It makes sense, since we are dealing with interstate commerce now, for the feds to handle much of this. Economies of scale.

I have not seen a single economist advocate regulation or self-regulation turned over to the markets. The SEC is a good example - investors demand this, in addition to exchange requirements.

Cleveland Buck;1192094 wrote:So government regulations that immunize those industries from prosecution is the solution to unsafe products?

And do you know why workers worked 12 hour days? It was either that or work 16 hour days on your farm. 12 hour work days in a factory were like a treat to those people. Then as technology allowed people could produce the same amount in shorter work days. That is how progress is made. Not by having the government protect people from a 12 hour work day by sending them back to the farm to work for 16 hours.

no immunization from the government but fines and imprisonment. Gosh a ruddies if you live on a farm you don't work 16 hours a day every day, it doesnt work that way. They did not cut the work days because of rising technology, they were forced to the unions and the government.

isadore;1191918 wrote:Since peope have the right to petition the government for redress of grievance, lobbying will exist at all levels of government.

I agree.

isadore;1191918 wrote:It has though become completely corrupted, a situation that calls for increased regulation.

Here is the problem. Lobbyists have found that they can have a major effect on all levels of governance through one single source on all 300+ million of us. The federal government has amassed so much power it makes the lobbyists influence peddling much more efficient. They centralize their lobbying efforts along with centralized political power. The corrupt gravitate around it and within it. Increased regulation at the federal level at this point only plays into their hand. The regulator is no less susceptible to corruption and influence peddling than the regulated. The closer the regulator is to the people the better the regulation will be for the people.

Our founders through the constitution laid out a system of government that would make these vices more difficult to get a grip on our bodies of government. Governmental power was to be divided and pitted against itself. The central power was to be divided by three equal branches pitted against themselves. That power against the several states that formed the union. The constitution laid out which governmental authorities held sovereign power to govern and regulate and under which specific circumstances. Some where given to the central government others restricted of the states. Powers not enumerated were left with the states and the people (local government). We have detoured from the route the founders laid out for us. We are now lost in the forest and the wolves are circling.


[LEFT]





[/LEFT]

Cleveland Buck;1192142 wrote:It's naive because you say it is? Where did I claim perfect information is available? All I said was that a free market in information would be much more efficient than the government monopoly on information, which is true as is always the case when it comes to monopolies. That you don't agree with that doesn't make it a fallacy.



If that service has value to you then you should be welcome to pay someone to perform that service. I don't understand why you need to force me at gunpoint to pay for the service that you value.

So are you cool with privately operated prisons and such, especially when they're publicly traded companies knowing full well that the only thing they are designed for is shareholder return? There are some things that simply aren't suited to be turned into a battleground for money (not that this battle is always a negative thing because for most applications it results in wonderful benefits) one of which I firmly believe to be the prison system.

Privately owned prisons and the companies that own them have a vested interest in increasing their profit through either increasing the price of their product (bad for us) or by increasing the use of their service (bad for us as well) and because of our current governmental set up they can essentially bribe the people in power to make policies that assist their goals.

Why is it that lobbying of the current nature (bribery) is seemingly loved by people like you and isadore? It makes everything worse for most people.

We have a right to redress grievance and petition the government but I see no reason why needs to mean the current definition of "petition the government" which means "give money to politicians". Nor do I see why Citizens United was a good idea at all. That needs to be undone.

^^^

At least a private sector entity has a shareholder to answer to, we have one major political party that is in bed with public unions - there is zero, I mean zero accountability other than each November when us citizens vote. That's why public sector comp and benefits are so far out of whack vis a vis the private sector. It is back and forth backscratching.

Manhattan Buckeye;1192848 wrote:^^^

At least a private sector entity has a shareholder to answer to, we have one major political party that is in bed with public unions - there is zero, I mean zero accountability other than each November when us citizens vote. That's why public sector comp and benefits are so far out of whack vis a vis the private sector. It is back and forth backscratching.

Yeah like executive pay increasing exponentially over average pay for the past 30 years or so...wait.

Look, I think most unions are pretty shitty today as well to be clear. Groups like UAW, Teamsters, etc are not helping workers. But that doesn't mean the answer is whatever corporations want which is what the other political party in our government subscribes to.

Both of them suck an incredible amount.

I Wear Pants;1192847 wrote: We have a right to redress grievance and petition the government but I see no reason why needs to mean the current definition of "petition the government" which means "give money to politicians". Nor do I see why Citizens United was a good idea at all. That needs to be undone.

I'm not sure it being "out in the open" isn't preferable to the alternative. Also, in my cynical view, there's a certain balance between giving money to a politician to campaign on issues, as opposed to have them buy votes by confiscating your profits to give away.

The far bigger issue is earmarks. And while they may be picking winners and losers based on campaign donations, eliminating that isn't going to change the reality of win-win to favor a business and the jobs and wages it pays of their local constituents. A lot of lobbying is dealing with regulations, trade and taxes - something where the incentives and benefits are generally aligned with the workers. Earmarks, however, are all about using federal money to pander to the local constituents.

I see problems but I don't see any easy solutions. If you want to eliminate Super PAC's and lobbying, then what incentive will politicians have to work to create a favorable business environment? You know, see no evil, hear no evil. You NEED input from businesses to keep this country on track. The challenge is balancing competing interests.

We need to work with businesses to maximize economic growth. Then you take 18% and figure out how to pay the bills.

gut;1192850 wrote:I'm not sure it being "out in the open" isn't preferable to the alternative. Also, in my cynical view, there's a certain balance between giving money to a politician to campaign on issues, as opposed to have them buy votes by confiscating your profits to give away.

The far bigger issue is earmarks. And while they may be picking winners and losers based on campaign donations, eliminating that isn't going to change the reality of win-win to favor a business and the jobs and wages it pays of their local constituents. A lot of lobbying is dealing with regulations, trade and taxes - something where the incentives and benefits are generally aligned with the workers. Earmarks, however, are all about using federal money to pander to the local constituents.

I see problems but I don't see any easy solutions. If you want to eliminate Super PAC's and lobbying, then what incentive will politicians have to work to create a favorable business environment? You know, see no evil, hear no evil. You NEED input from businesses to keep this country on track. The challenge is balancing competing interests.

We need to work with businesses to maximize economic growth. Then you take 18% and figure out how to pay the bills.

How have Super PACs and lobbying been working out for you?

Not very well I assume.

Earmarks are often because of lobbying whether by corporations or politicians either trying to "buy" local votes or being convinced to by local lobbying groups.

And Super PACs get rid of your "out in the open" scenario.

"Yeah like executive pay increasing exponentially over average pay for the past 30 years or so...wait. "

Wait, your point is what? I can vote out the board or sell my stock. I can't just not pay taxes. Complete non-sequitur. I think a lot of execs are overpaid (including superdouche Zuckerberg - if I could have shorted that stock I'd be a millionaire now), but I'm not forced to pay them. I am forced to pay the salaries and benefits of people that don't bargain at an arms-length transaction when they contract with representatives that they pay to put in office.

Manhattan Buckeye;1192852 wrote:"Yeah like executive pay increasing exponentially over average pay for the past 30 years or so...wait. "

Wait, your point is what? I can vote out the board or sell my stock. I can't just not pay taxes. Complete non-sequitur. I think a lot of execs are overpaid (including superdouche Zuckerberg - if I could have shorted that stock I'd be a millionaire now), but I'm not forced to pay them. I am forced to pay the salaries and benefits of people that don't bargain at an arms-length transaction when they contract with representatives that they pay to put in office.

So why the fuck hasn't that worked?

Look, I get that more government isn't the answer but you guys seem to have the same magical Rand-ian spell cast over you as a lot of the GOP in thinking that people are not greedy and stupid bastards. We are.

I do not think that because we have made some awful mores via the government that therefore all moves we can make via the government are bad ones or that non government entities (private) will make necessarily better ones.

I really would just rather see less intricate government to be honest. When things need regulated/policies enacted I'd rather them be strong and concise rather than our current system wherein we get a billion regulations and bills which usually either don't actually do anything to stop the problems they're designed to or create/exacerbate the problems.

But you'll be hard pressed to convince me that things like prisons are a good idea to run on the basis of profit. Especially not when we're still uncivilized enough to have the death penalty.

I Wear Pants;1192853 wrote:But you'll be hard pressed to convince me that things like prisons are a good idea to run on the basis of profit. Especially not when we're still uncivilized enough to have the death penalty.

Why not? We're uncivilized enough to allow federally subsidized killing of innocent unborn babies for purposes of convenience. Seems a lot of doctors are making a profit off of that one.

majorspark;1192832 wrote:I agree.



Here is the problem. Lobbyists have found that they can have a major effect on all levels of governance through one single source on all 300+ million of us. The federal government has amassed so much power it makes the lobbyists influence peddling much more efficient. They centralize their lobbying efforts along with centralized political power. The corrupt gravitate around it and within it. Increased regulation at the federal level at this point only plays into their hand. The regulator is no less susceptible to corruption and influence peddling than the regulated. The closer the regulator is to the people the better the regulation will be for the people.

Our founders through the constitution laid out a system of government that would make these vices more difficult to get a grip on our bodies of government. Governmental power was to be divided and pitted against itself. The central power was to be divided by three equal branches pitted against themselves. That power against the several states that formed the union. The constitution laid out which governmental authorities held sovereign power to govern and regulate and under which specific circumstances. Some where given to the central government others restricted of the states. Powers not enumerated were left with the states and the people (local government). We have detoured from the route the founders laid out for us. We are now lost in the forest and the wolves are circling.


[LEFT]





[/LEFT]

You should not confuse the people and local government. The people have rights and sovereignty, but ultimately local governments have none, they are the creatures of the state government and can be overruled by them. State governments are notoriously corrupt state legislators as are governors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes
Illinois’s Governors most common fate is prison. Our own Governor Taft convicted for taking gifts from lobbyists. State governments,

believer;1192857 wrote:Why not? We're uncivilized enough to allow federally subsidized killing of innocent unborn babies for purposes of convenience. Seems a lot of doctors are making a profit off of that one.

I don't believe a zygote is a human and neither do a lot of people.

And if you're strongly anti-abortion and you don't like all the lazy free riders and such as conservatives tend to think of certain demographics then you should also be strongly for the use of contraceptives to prevent unwanted children and teen pregnancies who are more likely to end up as those free riders/welfare recipients that conservatives hate. Except most conservatives tend to be Christian and it turns out for some reason they don't like contraceptives either.

TL;DR: If you don't like abortions and aren't strongly supportive of contraceptives maybe you need to think about it.

I don't believe a zygote is a human and neither do a lot of people.

Especially not when we're still uncivilized enough to have the death penalty.

I don't believe the death penalty is uncivilized for heinous, premeditated crimes and neither do a lot of people.

HitsRus;1192973 wrote:I don't believe the death penalty is uncivilized for heinous, premeditated crimes and neither do a lot of people.

No, it's just a waste of money for no particular gain.

no recidivism among the recipients.

HitsRus;1192973 wrote:I don't believe the death penalty is uncivilized for heinous, premeditated crimes and neither do a lot of people.

queencitybuckeye;1192981 wrote:No, it's just a waste of money for no particular gain.

That you know, we get wrong sometimes and can't reverse.

There is no gain to it.

isadore;1193008 wrote:no recidivism among the recipients.

Such a small amount among those with a "true" life sentence as to be statistically zero, at a far lower cost to the taxpayer, although I know you're unconcerned about that part.