Is Government Regulation/Intervention Good or Bad?

[badnarik]

regulations are politically popular because the unintended victims are not as obvious to joe public as the beneficiaries. government should keep it's hands out of almost every situation.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by badnarik

regulations are politically popular because the unintended victims are not as obvious to joe public as the beneficiaries. government should keep it's hands out of almost every situation.

What about the above-mentioned education and health care? Judicial and legal system? Auto, playground, and workplace safety? Preventing monopolization of vital industry and resources? Should all these be de-regulated, or have existing regulation stripped away?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by White Doors

In Alberta, yes. The transport mechanisms are owned By Shaw and Telus.
Shaw doesn't have any phone switches so they in turn lease that part of it out to another telephone company as well. Vonage should have to pay for "Quality of Service" what is wrogn with askign for that? Vonage is asking their carrier to prioritize their data, they should have to pay a premium in my opinion.

There are a number of issues:

• Shaw has the ability to discriminate based on traffic. Are they doing that? Is there anything to stop them from doing that? (Shaw sued for refusing to carry rival's TV ad)
• Is Shaw charging their own customers the fee?
• Does Shaw charge other carriers who use part of Shaw's network to pass VOIP traffic?
• Does Shaw pay other providers when their traffic passes to Bell, or Rogers, or Sasktel....
• What is the true cost to supply QoS? If Shaw is covering additional casts, or are they profiting from the measure?
• How much does the extra charge increase the quality?
• If Shaw starts charging more to use competitors services, what if Shaw starts up a Flames board - the precedent will have been sent to charge us more to visit CalPuck.

The "free market" works well in a competitive situation but, in areas of monopoly or oligopoly, markets head toward different solutions, and sometimes those solutions that are optimal for the firm are not optimal for the public.

All internet traffic should be treated equally. Just say no to multi-tiered internet.

[Flame Of Liberty]

I am against all kinds of gov regulation and intervention (surprise surprise).

Education is a no-brainer IMO, I don’t see why private schools (all levels) need regulations. The less impact the state has on young, easily influenced kids has, the better.

I don’t know what a natural monopoly is, the only monopoly I know is government backed monopoly when the government prohibits other party to enter the market. If you define markets narrowly enough (lets say geographically: one street with one bakery), you can have one seller, but never a monopoly. Simply because anyone is free to set up a bakery shop there.

It is the same thing with power transmission. The fact that the government regulates this industry (sets up industry barriers) makes it easier for the company to cement itself as one seller on the market.

[Clarkey]

One company can provide power transmission better than 10 competing firms. Imagine the amount of wires all over the place if you had more than one company trying to provide power transmission. This is why this is a case where it is better to preserve the natural monopoly but make sure it's regulated.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I don’t know what a natural monopoly is....

Extremely high fixed costs which prevent other competitors from entering the industry. I.E. Telecom, Electric. Essentially creating a monopoly because no one has the ability to put up a 2nd set of lines or lay down wire to spread across the province.

You really should learn about them, because the concept singlehandedly puts to bed your model of Anarcho-Capitalism.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

workplace safety?

Seems clear cut to me. If you think your workplace is not safe, then why dont you...hmm...I dont know...quit? I dont see why this should be regulated at all.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Extremely high fixed costs which prevent other competitors from entering the industry. I.E. Telecom, Electric. Essentially creating a monopoly because no one has the ability to put up a 2nd set of lines or lay down wire to spread across the province.

You really should learn about them, because the concept singlehandedly puts to bed your model of Anarcho-Capitalism.

I dont know what extremely high cost mean either. Extremely high for who? You? In todays globalized economy its pretty easy to accumulate enough capital to set up business in any kind of industry.

As we speak, Telefonica is setting up their brand new cell phone business (ie. it is not a takeover) in Slovakia, while you have a strong competition there (T-Mobile and Orange) in a highly penetrated (90 per cent of people have a cell phone), relatively small market (5.5M people).

Seems like high fixed cost didnt stop Telefonica to enter the industry. Wonder why?

So yeah, my "model" was singlehandedly put to bed...

PS As for electric, if cable TV companies can lay down wires, so can electric companies...

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Seems clear cut to me. If you think your workplace is not safe, then why dont you...hmm...I dont know...quit? I dont see why this should be regulated at all.

So, providing a safe working environment is not a responsibility companies should carry? They should all be left to do their own environmental regulation? Daycares should have no regulation, and if they beat your kid, just take the kid to a different daycare? Isn't that barbaric? What about insider trading and stock value manipulation? What about regulations that protect investors from corporate fraud? If you're a victim of fraud... just suck it up and move on? Wouldn't that cause a massive crisis of confidence in investment? Or does investment not exist in the Anarcho-Capitalist world? No guarentees of any kind on your investment would severely reduce the amount of working capital available to precious corporations, putting a huge dent in their ability to construct capital-intensive projects.

This is pretty much why your ideals are 'philosophy' as opposed to a 'political and economic system'. It defies current reality.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I dont know what extremely high cost mean either.

Of course you don't.

I forgot I was dealing with someone who likes to live in fairytale land, where Unicorns frolic around the forest, and companies invest in extremely large amounts of money for infrastructure to get in to comparitively 'small' markets.

Because you know, companies would be lining up to lay down competing lines for cable in Alberta if those pesky 'regulations' were off or if we decided to deal with reality for a minute, there would be one cable provider and very limited access if any to the market. You pay what the company wants you to.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

What about the above-mentioned education and health care? Judicial and legal system? Auto, playground, and workplace safety? Preventing monopolization of vital industry and resources? Should all these be de-regulated, or have existing regulation stripped away?

i'm speaking from a u.s perspective, and i would say yes to all; although i'm not sure about exactly what regulations we're talking about in the judicial and legal system.

definitely yes to education and health care and the others you mention. i guess its just my opinion that people know what's better for them than the government.

i wouldn't let my kid on a playground that had monkey bars made out of razor blades even if the playground wasn't regulated by the government.

as for monopolies, from what i understand the only real monopolies are coercive monopolies where corporations use the government to restrict competition.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by badnarik

i'm speaking from a u.s perspective, and i would say yes to all; although i'm not sure about exactly what regulations we're talking about in the judicial and legal system.

Well... the judicial and legal systems are government regulations to protect individuals from economic/social/physical transgressions by other people. If we remove all government regulations, naturally that would include the heavily regulated legal system... no? Make no mistake, the legal/judicial system is one big government regulation, it is not some sort of naturally forming occurance.

i wouldn't let my kid on a playground that had monkey bars made out of razor blades even if the playground wasn't regulated by the government.

Right... except that government regulations prohibit that. What if the kid is playing outside by themselves and doesn't know any better, and cuts themselves to shreds on these bars? Live and learn? Wouldn't it make more sense to just ban (which would be regulating) using razor blade monkey bars than to trust each person to not use them??

[Agamemnon]

How do we protect the environment without regulation? Trust corporations and individuals to 'do the right thing'? Sounds like a recipe for environmental disaster to me.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Of course you don't.

I forgot I was dealing with someone who likes to live in fairytale land, where Unicorns frolic around the forest, and companies invest in extremely large amounts of money for infrastructure to get in to comparitively 'small' markets.

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Because you know, companies would be lining up to lay down competing lines for cable in Alberta if those pesky 'regulations' were off or if we decided to deal with reality for a minute, there would be one cable provider and very limited access if any to the market. You pay what the company wants you to.

They would be, if they saw profits to be made by laying down cables. They wouldnt be, if they deemed it unprofitable. Whats so hard to grasp there?

So what if there would be only one provider on the market? If you dont like what the company is offering - you dont have to buy anything from them. Think electricity is too expensive? You can set up a generator next to your house. If you dont have one, that means the company (no matter that it is the sole service provider) is offering you the best option out there. No?

If the "monopolistic" company offers poor and expensive service, guess what that means? It opens the window for its competitors to enter the market! Also, ever heard of price elasticity?

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

So, providing a safe working environment is not a responsibility companies should carry? They should all be left to do their own environmental regulation? Daycares should have no regulation, and if they beat your kid, just take the kid to a different daycare? Isn't that barbaric? What about insider trading and stock value manipulation? What about regulations that protect investors from corporate fraud? If you're a victim of fraud... just suck it up and move on? Wouldn't that cause a massive crisis of confidence in investment? Or does investment not exist in the Anarcho-Capitalist world? No guarentees of any kind on your investment would severely reduce the amount of working capital available to precious corporations, putting a huge dent in their ability to construct capital-intensive projects.

This is pretty much why your ideals are 'philosophy' as opposed to a 'political and economic system'. It defies current reality.

one problem with regulations is that a lot of the regulations are created by government pressure from people in the industry involved in order to get rid of competition. honest people looking to start a mom and pop business can't due to regulations imposed by the government in everything from hairdressing to taxicabs, and probably daycare.

if your kid gets a beating at daycare, the person will go to jail whether or not the industry is regulated.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

They would be, if they saw profits to be made by laying down cables. They wouldnt be, if they deemed it unprofitable. Whats so hard to grasp there?

So what if there would be only one provider on the market? If you dont like what the company is offering - you dont have to buy anything from them. Think electricity is too expensive? You can set up a generator next to your house. If you dont have one, that means the company (no matter that it is the sole service provider) is offering you the best option out there. No?

If the "monopolistic" company offers poor and expensive service, guess what that means? It opens the window for its competitors to enter the market! Also, ever heard of price elasticity?

Oh, so the natural monopoly on Telecommunications caused by AT&T/AGT/Telus in the mid-90s in Alberta was just an illusion?

So it would have been cool for that giant to raise it's prices and without the advent of Mobile Phone technology it would have been all fine and dandy for people wanting to use a telephone?

Because even if someone wanted to invest in the infrastructure of Alberta Telecommunications, it would have taken what? 5, 10 years to have a reliable alternative barring any setbacks?

So consumers would have been all fine and dandy with that then, sounds wonderful. How about if instead of competing they decided to form a Cartel to keep prices high? Hmmm... Wouldn't that be something. With no government regulation stopping them, both companies could insure profitablity for years to come.

Wow, what a great house of cards you live in.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

So, providing a safe working environment is not a responsibility companies should carry? They should all be left to do their own environmental regulation? Daycares should have no regulation, and if they beat your kid, just take the kid to a different daycare? Isn't that barbaric? What about insider trading and stock value manipulation? What about regulations that protect investors from corporate fraud? If you're a victim of fraud... just suck it up and move on? Wouldn't that cause a massive crisis of confidence in investment? Or does investment not exist in the Anarcho-Capitalist world? No guarentees of any kind on your investment would severely reduce the amount of working capital available to precious corporations, putting a huge dent in their ability to construct capital-intensive projects.

This is pretty much why your ideals are 'philosophy' as opposed to a 'political and economic system'. It defies current reality.

Oh my god there is so much wrong with this post and with the way you "understand things" I dont know where to start.

1. Companies should aim to create safe working environment - thats a moral stance I can agree with. However, I dont see how can anyone tell me how can I run my business. The workers themselves can decide if they find my factory too dangerous to work in. What if they want to work there and bureaucrat Ag says "no they cant because its too dangerous!" ? Sorry, but its up to 2 parties engaged in business to decide if they find their agreement fair or not.

2. If someone beat your kids, they agressed against them. Unwarranted agression is not legitimate, you dont need any regulations for that, unless you equate "regulations" and "law" which is clearly wrong.

3. Insider trading, I dont have enough time to elaborate, but I think its laughable that insider trading is considered a crime.

4. Fraud is act of agression, see point 2.

5. Sure investment "existis" in AnCap world. What "guarantees" you have in mind? If someone breaches contract, again thats a form of agression. You are again confusing "law" that stems from the objective nature of the world with "regulations" which are mere opinions of policymakers how should other people run their businesses.

6. Sorry, but your last sentence is just your uninformed opinion.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... the judicial and legal systems are government regulations to protect individuals from economic/social/physical transgressions by other people. If we remove all government regulations, naturally that would include the heavily regulated legal system... no? Make no mistake, the legal/judicial system is one big government regulation, it is not some sort of naturally forming occurance.


Right... except that government regulations prohibit that. What if the kid is playing outside by themselves and doesn't know any better, and cuts themselves to shreds on these bars? Live and learn? Wouldn't it make more sense to just ban (which would be regulating) using razor blade monkey bars than to trust each person to not use them??

i'm not trying to get rid of the legal system although it could surely be trimmed of things like drug laws.

and kids do live and learn. i stopped licking frozen metal poles after the first time my tongue stuck to one. a playground with razor monkey bars wouldn't exist because the people, without government intervention, wouldn't allow it to be in their neighborhood.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

unless you equate "regulations" and "law" which is clearly wrong.

Why is that clearly wrong? Why wouldn't you equate those things?
Regulations are backed by laws; laws are a form of regulation.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Oh, so the natural monopoly on Telecommunications caused by AT&T/AGT/Telus in the mid-90s in Alberta was just an illusion?

So it would have been cool for that giant to raise it's prices and without the advent of Mobile Phone technology it would have been all fine and dandy for people wanting to use a telephone?

Because even if someone wanted to invest in the infrastructure of Alberta Telecommunications, it would have taken what? 5, 10 years to have a reliable alternative barring any setbacks?

So consumers would have been all fine and dandy with that then, sounds wonderful. How about if instead of competing they decided to form a Cartel to keep prices high? Hmmm... Wouldn't that be something. With no government regulation stopping them, both companies could insure profitablity for years to come.

Wow, what a great house of cards you live in.

So everytime consumers dont like market offering, the gov should step in and regulate left and right? Thats great, I think Porsche and Ferrari are screwing us over, the gov should step in a regulate prices of luxury sport cars?

Who is living where?

BTW love that way of thinking - profitability seen as evil....