In the “REAL WORLD” today we have 93 million American not working, Cities and states bankrupt and children starving all over the world.
No matter how you try to cast it, the past 114 years do not prove that regulation was a bad thing. If anything, they prove (or suggest) it was a good thing, since prosperity improved at the same time regulation increased. Your speculation that life would have improved faster without regulation is just that.
Red herring.
Irrelevant.
There is a big difference between a limitation that is inherent in task at hand (like a midget wanting to be an NBA star) and a limitation that is imposed by regulations. The limitation that requires an airline pilot pass a medical exam every six months and spend a certain number of hours in simulator training every year is not the former kind. It is the later. it is really and truly a government regulation. And you like it - come on, admit it.
Straw man.
Definitions are important. Otherwise some young people visiting this forum may get the impression that you think regulations are tomatoes.
Pollution is a legitimate government interest because one party is affecting the rights of another.
That is just silly! Everyone knows that regulations are really kumquats.
The way I see it, and the way any logical thinking person would understand…the economy grew in spite of government controls. PROVING the strength of a Free Market.
No way…the truth!
Again…the truth
Actually I don’t
Not really luck swings both ways…think about it.
Not entirely true!
It only proves that if you first assume that government controls were a-priori a detriment to the economy. As I recall, that is what you were trying to prove. You can’t assume something you are trying to prove in order to prove it. Yes, the economy grew, and yes there were more governmental controls added as time went by. Now I wasn’t going to make the observation that perhaps these two things were related by cause and effect until you made the claim that they were obviously in opposition to each other.
Let me remind you what a red herring is. It is something that may be the truth, but it still distracts from the main point. So while I may agree with you that there has never been a government regulation that increased production, I do not agree that such a “truth” has any bearing on the virtue of government regulations, whose purpose is quite different from increasing production. There are many “goods” in this world besides increasing production.
It may be the truth, but you have yet to demonstrate the relevance of that truth, which is why I said “irrelevant”.
You are not addressing the regulations I cited - that airline pilots are required to pass a medical exam every 6 months, and that they are required to take recurrent training. The fact that these regulations vary around the world does not disprove the value of our regulations. All you can do is cite other regulations that are not so valuable, and may even be detrimental. It does not matter how many nonsense regulations you can name. The fact remains that the ones I cited are good and valuable. If left entirely to market forces, these practices would be vastly reduced to offer lower prices to customers. If you think that all customers will stay away from airlines unless they have the best medical evaluation program for their pilots, you are very naive. There will always be people who are willing to take a little extra risk in order to save a few bucks. Only a governmental enforced regulation can achieve the kind of safety record that is enjoyed by the US air carriers.
Let me remind you what a straw man is. It is an argument based on an exaggeration of the other point of view, so as to make it easier to refute that point of view. In this case, I said that luck played a substantial role in economic success. You exaggerated it to say that luck is the exclusive cause of economic success or failure…think about it.
Well TA-Dah!
But we are talking economics, Free Markets, Capitalism and such…are we not?
It is very relevant…
This was a bad tangent. I should not have let this go this far. My fault.
You brought up “luck” and I didn’t cry straw man. Nor did I exaggerate. If luck is the “substantial role in economic success” then, logically it must be the substantial role in economic failure. If not, please elaborate.
Those were not the two things whose opposition was in question. The two things were governmental controls and the economy. You pulled the old switcheroo by substituting “Free Market” for economy.
I’ll grant you that very poor governmental regulations can harm production. But good ones don’t.
Still irrelevant. It is not government’s role to create an economy. However it is government’s role to regulate the economy, for the common good. If you want to attack that statement, don’t try to use the fact that government didn’t create the economy, because that in itself does not disqualify the government from having a role in regulating it.
The tangent was when you universally condemned regulations for any purpose whatsoever. That is what opened the door to considering other values for regulations besides their effect on strict measures of the economy.
The role of “luck” was raised in response to the general idea that the Free Market provides all that is necessary for success. I claim that even in an ideal Free Market, luck is needed for success, and it can be responsible for failure. That doesn’t mean that any specific failure is attributed only to bad luck.
Pollution is a negative extrarnality. It is a market failure. Are you saying that in a “true” Capitalistic society there would be no negative extrarnalities or market failures? Pollution effects third parties who have not voluntarily agreed to enter in the transaction. The question is, how do we best resolve this? If the market is incapable of correcting the extranality or if it is inefficient to do so then of course a case can be made for government intervention.
So demand doesn’t change in this society? Skills don’t become obsolete? New technologies don’t replace existing technology?
What do you mean by “objective” law? What would be the consequences of breaking this law? How would it be enforce? Would it be a tax? A fine? Jail time?
What makes you think JPII’s statement was temporary? Did he say…try it again sometime"?Time changes people and society. What worked in the past in no way assures that it will succeed in the future. When then Pope John Paul II condemned socialism, it was a history specific statement, valid for just a short span of time. With LOVE will come a new economic system based on cooperation and a genuine concern for the welfare of others. Capitalism, I believe, has seen better days.
LOVE!
I would like to add that back in the 1950’s, it was possible for the rich to be in a 90% income tax bracket in the USA. That was back when most women stayed home and blue-collar men could earn enough to make their house payments and support their families.
How does the rich being taxed at 90% have anything to do with the wages people were paid, the price level of goods, or companies giving generous retirement packages to their employees?
I am sorry if you understood it that way. I did not make myself clear. My fault.
That could be true if a “good” regulation increased production, lowered costs and improved profit.
A government’s role is to function as it was established by the individuals who needed a government. A government that is not empowered to regulate the economy has no business in business. A government that is authorized to regulate an economy (Socialism, Communism etc) has the major role in controlling that economy.
Again, if I condemned ALL regulations, that was not my intent. Sorry about the confusion.
I am OK with that. Luck can play a part of success as well as failure.
Objective law applies to ALL equally.
Because we do not have a true pure Free Market.
Let’s take depressions and recessions as market failures.
Well, so many people on these forums seem to think that keeping taxes low for the rich will somehow make the economy better. The situation in the 1950’s shows that if you tax the rich, the economy won’t necessarily collapse. It was better than ever back then!
If you think that is going to happen strictly by the forces inherent in the Free Market, you are engaging in a fantasy. How are the downstream people going to go upstream and close down the factory? By force of arms? If so, you have just crossed into anarchy. Or is it by force of a government? If so, you have just sanctioned regulations.