How much regulation

[RandFan]

The problem with "letting the free market decide" is that individuals (or organized groups of individuals) seeking to benefit their own interests will, in the absence of artificial constraints, almost inevitably act against the interests of society as a whole, and that it makes rational sense for them to do this even though they ultimately suffer the consequences right along with everyone else. It's called "the tragedy of the commons".

^^^^ Agreed.

 

[seayakin]

I still don't get what you're after. Egg handling regulations only apply to those who handle eggs, and they're in place because there is a national interest in protecting consumers from spoiled eggs (and also therefore protecting the egg marketers from market/price fluctuations due to fears of spoiled eggs).

Is there a kind of regulation that exists that you think ought not?

I get the sense (but could be wrong) that you're trying to argue against specific regulations (where reasonable minds can disagree on the relative value of the cost vs. benefits wrt the national interest at stake), but you're trying to phrase it as a general political philosophy--about what general type of regulation is acceptable.

I'm sorry I'm not trying to argue against regulations. Maybe we can look at it differently. The Federal Government (to remove any state issues) influences the market by:

• regulating the market
• providing subsidies represented as grants that go directly to the business or support an infrastructure for the business
• laws to protect physical and intellectual property
• provide tax breaks
• create tariffs and import regulations

Should the government, use any of these methods to favor certain business to try promote specific industries?

It is my impression, the government has largely used subsidies, tax breaks and tariffs to protect industries from competition but not regulations. I'm suggesting that the government should not engage in protecting specific industries but should engage in enforcing physical and intellectual property rights, consumer safety, worker safety, and environmental protection (among other things).

If I understand you correctly, you favor a government that protects and/or favors certain industries to provide stable markets for certain things such as food.

 

[seayakin]

Ag subsidies are a case in point.

Farmers don't farm in order to provide our nation with a stable food supply. They do it to earn a profit. If the free market alone is making the decisions, and the decison happens to be that some farmers can't even make enough to meet their expenses, then packing it in and heading off to find other work may not merely be the rational course of action for them; it may be the only choice. If the free market then decides that some time is required to allow this fairly inflicted economic wound to heal, and that that means allowing what was once a productive farm to sit idle as an entry in the ledgers of some bank, then that's how it's going to be, and if the remaining farmers can't pull up the slack, then the nation's food supply can go jump off a bridge. Government ag subsidies came into being because it was noticed that that very thing did indeed happen rather often, and that it was not only the farmers who suffered, but everyone else as well.

Without a doubt, that system has been subject to much abuse over the years, and it's tempting to look for a simple solution like just doing away with subsidies, but the problem with simple, heavy-handed solutions to complex problems is that they usually don't work very well.

Ok, I understand what you are saying and if I understand Joe the Juggler correctly, that is what he is arguing also. You point makes sense and I can withdraw my suggestion that we can even use my more simplistic approach to government regulation which ultimately means we have to look at each regulation/subsidy/program on its own merits as others have suggested.

 

[Beerina]

Even if every single regulation had the Blessing of Jesus on it as a Good Thing, they could still put sufficient drag on the economy to make things worse off in the long haul, by slowing progress.


I'd rather have polluted land with technology 30 years ahead of where it is today, for example.

 

[Dymanic]

Even if every single regulation had the Blessing of Jesus on it as a Good Thing, they could still put sufficient drag on the economy to make things worse off in the long haul, by slowing progress.

Assuming, of course, that "progress" has the Blessing of Jesus on it as a Good Thing.

By the way, can you define that? Do such things as fuel-efficient engines and smokestack scrubbers count as "progress"?

 

[RandFan]

Even if every single regulation had the Blessing of Jesus on it as a Good Thing, they could still put sufficient drag on the economy to make things worse off in the long haul, by slowing progress.

I'd rather have polluted land with technology 30 years ahead of where it is today, for example.

Assuming for a moment that you have something serious of note in spite of the Jesus reference, isn't this begging the question?

 

[DavidJames]

Even if every single regulation had the Blessing of Jesus on it as a Good Thing, they could still put sufficient drag on the economy to make things worse off in the long haul, by slowing progress.

The irony here is your lack of critical thinking, favoring instead the faith and dogma of "free enterprise" is the very essence of the religion you mock.

I'd rather have polluted land with technology 30 years ahead of where it is today, for example.

Yup, especially if the polluted land is in your back yard and is the source of your water supply.

 

[keale]

Yup, especially if the polluted land is in your back yard and is the source of your water supply.

MMmmmmm heavy metals R Yummy especially with a little pesticide.