ocregister.com— The rules are well-intended. They're meant to make sure the public is safe. But rule-makers tend to forget that their rules have unintended consequences.
Jan 17, 2007View in Crawl 4
"if you've ever studied how markets work, it's easy to conceive of a monopoly that temporarily changes its business practices to annihilate a competitor before it can reach the black and then just returns to whatever behavior it desires."Funny mythology."maybe you're saying that there might be a monopoly that's so bad that firms would enter the industry and endure losses of profit just to provide goods to the people out of sheer benevolence."Why would they do that? If they'd suffer losses by being in that industry, it's obvious that the current member(s) of that industry are not charging this mythical (in the absence of government) "monopoly price" to begin with - so what's the problem?It probably won't do much good, but you could stand to learn some basic economics (the real thing, not the nonsense taught in most schools): <a class="user" href="http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp">http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp</a>
from the first comment, what I can't understand is why can't people understand the ideals of Adam Smith? Even in our economy today, NO ONE ORGANIZATION RUNS IT! No one person decides what is produced...or what is sold. Our government does NOT run this country. Not even bush runs this country. There is no oversight of what people produce. It's still not even close. To even say that we are a socialist country is an insult tor people who lived in soviet russia(who had everyone employed and had free health care).To point to monopolies, monopolies in the free market are neither good nor evil. If a company manages to gain 100% of the market share through voluntary means(meaning, they didn't COERCE anyone in buying their products), then people have decided that no other company can compete with what they have. But monopolies can't sustain themselves for long in a free market without government(unless, you are a f**kin genius of business.) Without government, you can't stop competition from coming about. If your company is making HUGE profits, more companies will go there and produce that same product. That is the function of profits. They guide production.
Stossel is like any other right wing propagandist who tells half truths to tell their side of a story without all the facts, you should listen to a better, more balanced source like NPR.
"Some of them take their jobs just a little too seriously," said James. "They got nothing better to do than sit around and write legislation." -That just about sums it up.Dugg because Stossel threw in a Henry Hazlitt reference.
"This is not an ad hominem attack"Saying that your ad hominem attack isn't such an attack is not a magic logical-fallacy-exception button you can press at your leisure. All it means is that you either A) are a liar or B) don't truly grasp what the meaning of "Ad Hominem" is.
I listen to NPR and it has never struck me to have any sort of bias. The problem is that Conservatives think that any facts that contradict their views on life is part of a grand liberal conspiracy to turn the world to socialism/communism. Good thing my tin-foil hat protects me from Michael Moore and Al Franken's mind-control powers.Btw, Stossel is a libertarian.
@ appetite,"Markets fail. That's the nature of the beast. When the market fails, people starve."Ah! That's it! That is the core of Appetite's statism, he _fears_ failure. Since government programs don't fail no matter how destructive they may be, but inefficient companies fail no matter how beneficial Appetite thinks their product is.But let's look at his argument at face value: When markets fail, people starve.When and where have people starved in large numbers, say over the entire 20th century?China, under Mao. Soviet Georgia under Stalin. Somalia under their various revolutionary warlords. Zimbabwe, right now, with their dictator throwing farmers off their land.What does every large-scale death in the last hundred years have in common? The deaths were perpetrated by the lawful government of that country.Every one. Go get a copy of the Jan 2006 National Geographic. Their web site _does_not_have_ one of the graphics that was in the magazine, because it makes the death toll so clear, and because it was simple it was unable to avoid the fact that each of the genocides was perpetrated by governments against their own populations.(except for the single case of the Japanese invasion of East and South East Asia, which ranked about as strongly as Pol Pot killing his own people in Cambodia during the 1970s)But Appetite mentioned "starve" specifically, so he must mean that he wants farms and food distribution to be government run. But, history and facts belie that statement.Every country that has tried to nationalize food production has had starvation as a result. Yet the countries that consistently export food? Food production is a matter of private decision on private land. The Soviet Union, after a few decades of starvation, allowed their farmers to have small plots of their own to work in addition to their communal duties. They were allowed to sell that food for their own gain. That small percentage of the land overnight became the largest segment of the food supply. And that was not because official "communal" product decreased, it didn't.It was simply demonstrated that if you want something produced in such quantities that anyone can get it, just leave it up to profit-seeking owners of private property.Selling 500 refrigerators at $1M each won't make anyone a real fortune. Selling 500 million refrigerators for $500 each makes lots of people fortunes, and at the same time makes the lives of hundreds of millions of people better.I can get strawberries in the grocery store right now. This was a luxury that even the wealthy couldn't afford to get often in January, yet here they are in the corner grocery store. Why? Because private property and entrepreneurship have become popular in places like Chile, which can supply off-season crops to the northern hemisphere.Food is a _terrible_ example to use to try to assert how government control is better than a free market.But there was another element of his objection: Failure.Private efforts that do not work out do, indeed, fail. Their resources, be it land for farming, equipment, trained staff, administrators, whatever, are then sold off to people who can use them more efficiently to provide the services that people want.Above, Appetite mentions roads. Roads are an easy one, because their take-over by government has created an environment where no one remembers a time when roads were _not_ operated by government. But they have not always been the perview of government (thus the American Constitution's mention of "post roads" only), and yet roads, canals, railroads, bridges, and even dams (the Boulder cement company had their dam expropriated by government and renamed the Hoover dam) have all been provided by private individuals working together to solve problems.
"yet roads, canals, railroads, bridges, and even dams (the Boulder cement company had their dam expropriated by government and renamed the Hoover dam) have all been provided by private individuals working together to solve problems."In a system where everything is commodified? So let me get your logic:People have collaborated without governments in the past + No one has starved in a purely market-oriented society in the past 100 years = Government shouldn't exist.Wow. Talk about a couple giant leaps of faith.No one has starved in a libertarian utopia in the last 100 years because there hasn't been a libertarian utopia in the last 100 years. There was, however, a Great Depression in the US that resulted from MARKET FAILURE that was remedied by massive government investment in social structure.I don't fear market failure for myself, I fear market failure for poor people. I like a society where my hard work can also ensure a minimal quality of life for the less fortunate which could possibly include myself if I am ever down on my luck. For myself, I fear market leaders. I like the fact that there is an institution that is partially controlled by me that has the authority to oversee other people in my society. No, I don't want every single powerful organization in my society controlled by wealthy self-interested, utility-maximizing capitalists. No, I don't want air to turn into a commodity. Thank you.
miseseanJan 19, 2007
"if you've ever studied how markets work, it's easy to conceive of a monopoly that temporarily changes its business practices to annihilate a competitor before it can reach the black and then just returns to whatever behavior it desires."Funny mythology."maybe you're saying that there might be a monopoly that's so bad that firms would enter the industry and endure losses of profit just to provide goods to the people out of sheer benevolence."Why would they do that? If they'd suffer losses by being in that industry, it's obvious that the current member(s) of that industry are not charging this mythical (in the absence of government) "monopoly price" to begin with - so what's the problem?It probably won't do much good, but you could stand to learn some basic economics (the real thing, not the nonsense taught in most schools): <a class="user" href="http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp">http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp</a>
xevecJan 20, 2007
from the first comment, what I can't understand is why can't people understand the ideals of Adam Smith? Even in our economy today, NO ONE ORGANIZATION RUNS IT! No one person decides what is produced...or what is sold. Our government does NOT run this country. Not even bush runs this country. There is no oversight of what people produce. It's still not even close. To even say that we are a socialist country is an insult tor people who lived in soviet russia(who had everyone employed and had free health care).To point to monopolies, monopolies in the free market are neither good nor evil. If a company manages to gain 100% of the market share through voluntary means(meaning, they didn't COERCE anyone in buying their products), then people have decided that no other company can compete with what they have. But monopolies can't sustain themselves for long in a free market without government(unless, you are a f**kin genius of business.) Without government, you can't stop competition from coming about. If your company is making HUGE profits, more companies will go there and produce that same product. That is the function of profits. They guide production.
macliberalJan 21, 2007
Stossel is like any other right wing propagandist who tells half truths to tell their side of a story without all the facts, you should listen to a better, more balanced source like NPR.
sweetmercuryJan 22, 2007
"Some of them take their jobs just a little too seriously," said James. "They got nothing better to do than sit around and write legislation." -That just about sums it up.Dugg because Stossel threw in a Henry Hazlitt reference.
brstilsonJan 23, 2007
"This is not an ad hominem attack"Saying that your ad hominem attack isn't such an attack is not a magic logical-fallacy-exception button you can press at your leisure. All it means is that you either A) are a liar or B) don't truly grasp what the meaning of "Ad Hominem" is.
brstilsonJan 23, 2007
I listen to NPR and it has never struck me to have any sort of bias. The problem is that Conservatives think that any facts that contradict their views on life is part of a grand liberal conspiracy to turn the world to socialism/communism. Good thing my tin-foil hat protects me from Michael Moore and Al Franken's mind-control powers.Btw, Stossel is a libertarian.
curthowlandJan 23, 2007
@ appetite,"Markets fail. That's the nature of the beast. When the market fails, people starve."Ah! That's it! That is the core of Appetite's statism, he _fears_ failure. Since government programs don't fail no matter how destructive they may be, but inefficient companies fail no matter how beneficial Appetite thinks their product is.But let's look at his argument at face value: When markets fail, people starve.When and where have people starved in large numbers, say over the entire 20th century?China, under Mao. Soviet Georgia under Stalin. Somalia under their various revolutionary warlords. Zimbabwe, right now, with their dictator throwing farmers off their land.What does every large-scale death in the last hundred years have in common? The deaths were perpetrated by the lawful government of that country.Every one. Go get a copy of the Jan 2006 National Geographic. Their web site _does_not_have_ one of the graphics that was in the magazine, because it makes the death toll so clear, and because it was simple it was unable to avoid the fact that each of the genocides was perpetrated by governments against their own populations.(except for the single case of the Japanese invasion of East and South East Asia, which ranked about as strongly as Pol Pot killing his own people in Cambodia during the 1970s)But Appetite mentioned "starve" specifically, so he must mean that he wants farms and food distribution to be government run. But, history and facts belie that statement.Every country that has tried to nationalize food production has had starvation as a result. Yet the countries that consistently export food? Food production is a matter of private decision on private land. The Soviet Union, after a few decades of starvation, allowed their farmers to have small plots of their own to work in addition to their communal duties. They were allowed to sell that food for their own gain. That small percentage of the land overnight became the largest segment of the food supply. And that was not because official "communal" product decreased, it didn't.It was simply demonstrated that if you want something produced in such quantities that anyone can get it, just leave it up to profit-seeking owners of private property.Selling 500 refrigerators at $1M each won't make anyone a real fortune. Selling 500 million refrigerators for $500 each makes lots of people fortunes, and at the same time makes the lives of hundreds of millions of people better.I can get strawberries in the grocery store right now. This was a luxury that even the wealthy couldn't afford to get often in January, yet here they are in the corner grocery store. Why? Because private property and entrepreneurship have become popular in places like Chile, which can supply off-season crops to the northern hemisphere.Food is a _terrible_ example to use to try to assert how government control is better than a free market.But there was another element of his objection: Failure.Private efforts that do not work out do, indeed, fail. Their resources, be it land for farming, equipment, trained staff, administrators, whatever, are then sold off to people who can use them more efficiently to provide the services that people want.Above, Appetite mentions roads. Roads are an easy one, because their take-over by government has created an environment where no one remembers a time when roads were _not_ operated by government. But they have not always been the perview of government (thus the American Constitution's mention of "post roads" only), and yet roads, canals, railroads, bridges, and even dams (the Boulder cement company had their dam expropriated by government and renamed the Hoover dam) have all been provided by private individuals working together to solve problems.
appetiteJan 24, 2007
"yet roads, canals, railroads, bridges, and even dams (the Boulder cement company had their dam expropriated by government and renamed the Hoover dam) have all been provided by private individuals working together to solve problems."In a system where everything is commodified? So let me get your logic:People have collaborated without governments in the past + No one has starved in a purely market-oriented society in the past 100 years = Government shouldn't exist.Wow. Talk about a couple giant leaps of faith.No one has starved in a libertarian utopia in the last 100 years because there hasn't been a libertarian utopia in the last 100 years. There was, however, a Great Depression in the US that resulted from MARKET FAILURE that was remedied by massive government investment in social structure.I don't fear market failure for myself, I fear market failure for poor people. I like a society where my hard work can also ensure a minimal quality of life for the less fortunate which could possibly include myself if I am ever down on my luck. For myself, I fear market leaders. I like the fact that there is an institution that is partially controlled by me that has the authority to oversee other people in my society. No, I don't want every single powerful organization in my society controlled by wealthy self-interested, utility-maximizing capitalists. No, I don't want air to turn into a commodity. Thank you.