Is Friedman Right?

[IchabodPlain]

This seems to be a logical disconnect of libertarians.

Nobody has the time and resources to research every purchase they make.

Consumer advocacy groups can be fronts for paid advertising, industry shills, or motivated by a political agenda.

The truth is some degree of government oversight is necessary.

I also agree with this sentiment. False advertising and things of the like are issues of fraud, which are the government's business. Consumer advocacy groups can be very useful, but unfortunately, are often nothing more than a bunch of muckrakers.

 

[Sefarst]

Sefarst,

You're full of crap.

Cute. I'm glad we got that out of the way. Now onto your inane post...

I do not know of any modern administration that has not increased regulation in some sectors of the economy while deregulating. For the Bush regime look at housing, mining, energy, "healthy forests," "clear skies."

I don't believe I argued that Bush hadn't deregulated anything. If you would recall:

What you are describing as bad monopolies have all been worsened by our current government's policy of deregulating everything and letting market forces act. The outcome has been poor.

Deregulating everything? Where are you living? We have seen more and more regulation in the last few decades, most recently Bush proposed broad new sweeping powers for the Federal Reserve to regulate the money supply.

But it is regulation. If you want to characterize the Bush administration as a hardcore deregulator, you would be almost completely wrong. Just the opposite has occurred during his administration.

I'll save you the trouble and say that I accept your apology now. Please direct all further criticisms to Skeptigirl.

There was actually a pretty good article in a recent issue of (I want to say) New York Times Magazine discussing Lewis Powell's infamous "memo" in the early 70s. Obviously you cannot just look at this President, or even the executive branch.

Here's a good and more recent article from The New York Times in 2003 about Bush's new regulations. Skeptigirl, you should pay attention too, it refutes what you earlier said about deregulating everything.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...932A05751C1A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

The article explains very simply what you just said, Cain, and what I assume you thought I was unaware of.

I'm sure we could find someone from Public Citizen (or the Heritage Foundation) all too willing to cite what Bush has done (or has not done).

I'm sure we could. We can also find plenty of fiscal conservatives and businesspeople who are outraged by all of the new regulations he has introduced.

Thanks Cain, I am a bit tired and I hate leaving those distorted views of the facts unanswered. It's not like all the conversation in political discussions right now isn't about how lack of regulation led to our current economic troubles in the financial markets. Again it boggles the mind how anyone can view that as the fault of too much regulation or the government acting too much as opposed to not enough.

And what you obviously failed to realize (probably in the relief you felt in thinking that Cain was taking some heat off of you) is that his criticisms actually apply to YOU and not to me.

Thus, I still await any backup you want to give to defend your statements.

 

[Sefarst]

This seems to be a logical disconnect of libertarians.

Nobody has the time and resources to research every purchase they make.

Consumer advocacy groups can be fronts for paid advertising, industry shills, or motivated by a political agenda.

The truth is some degree of government oversight is necessary.

But the Libertarian argument is that there all ready is a check for people that have been defrauded and that is the lawsuit. Naturally, the criticism against this is that lawsuits are difficult and take a long time, which is true, but so is government regulation. We know it works, as it did largely in the case of big tobacco, but, indeed, it's slow.

The question becomes whether or not there is a net gain in letting the government handle it or in letting offended parties file suits?

 

[IchabodPlain]

The question becomes whether or not there is a net gain in letting the government handle it or in letting offended parties file suits?

That sounds like a false dilemma. Why could it not be both?

 

[Sefarst]

That sounds like a false dilemma. Why could it not be both?

I guess you could argue there should be both, however it sounds like punishing a company twice for one offense. If we assume lawsuits can get the job done alone or the government can get the job done alone, why would we need both?

Of course, you could be arguing that the most gain is only achieved when BOTH engage in punishment, but that seems like a different and morer complicated argument.

 

[Cain]

I love it when these lightweights come on postin' up a storm like they own the joint.

Cute. I'm glad we got that out of the way. Now onto your inane post...
I don't believe I argued that Bush hadn't deregulated anything. If you would recall:

I specifically took issue with your claim, "We have seen more and more regulation in the last few decades," which is just plain wrong, and you fail to defend. So as you see, you may have to wait on that apology.

Here's a good and more recent article from The New York Times in 2003 about Bush's new regulations. Skeptigirl, you should pay attention too, it refutes what you earlier said about deregulating everything.

Interesting. I reference an article that came out in the last two weeks, and you reach back 4+ years into the archives to find something "more recent." Um, you need to try to understand what others are saying before launching into a counter-argument. This is just passing advice to save you further embarrassment. You're welcome.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...932A05751C1A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

The article explains very simply what you just said, Cain, and what I assume you thought I was unaware of.

Not really. I do not think you had a clue what I said. Also, the way the Sanger article characterizes the Bush administration is at odds with the general thrust of your postings. He's forced reluctantly forced into regulation because he faces election, political accountability. Do you recall what Bush did after winning the 2004 election? He got to the podium and gave a whole spiel about how he has "political capital" and intends to spend it. Spend it on what, you ask? Why, "reforming" Social Security of course!

I'm sure we could. We can also find plenty of fiscal conservatives and businesspeople who are outraged by all of the new regulations he has introduced.

Sure, but he was their guy in 2000 and 2004. They still voted for him, many enthusiastically because they know Mr. MBA from Harvard/Kennyboy is pro-business. Doctrinaire libertarians, market fundamentalists, are a different beast entirely. But you knew that already -- sort of, anyway.

 

[Arkayik]

It seems to me that Friedman said in the video (paraphrased) a free economy policed by a strong judiciary...

Beyond that, I think economists are not much better than weather forecasters. They are really only good as historians for rummaging through the entrails of the past. Given that, they are the worst type of historians, because they try to fancy it all up with impressive numbers...

It seems to me Economists are used in much the same way as religions, to justify otherwise unpalatable state behaviour...

 

[IchabodPlain]

I guess you could argue there should be both, however it sounds like punishing a company twice for one offense. If we assume lawsuits can get the job done alone or the government can get the job done alone, why would we need both?

Of course, you could be arguing that the most gain is only achieved when BOTH engage in punishment, but that seems like a different and morer complicated argument.

No, no, I am talking about an either/or situation, not punishing a company twice. I think this is necessary because you cannot simply entrust government or private citizenry to enforce something that can be so prevalent and pervasive such as faulty claims and/or products.

A regulatory agency can suffer from the same problems of cronyism and corruption, just like any advocacy group. Having both parties engaged in the testing, screening, and/or marketing ensures that maximum number of products are safe and verifiable.

Do you believe that false advertising and/or unsafe/faulty products are fraud? If so, do you believe then that it is an issue dealing with the rule of law?

 

[Sefarst]

I specifically took issue with your claim, "We have seen more and more regulation in the last few decades," which is just plain wrong, and you fail to defend. So as you see, you may have to wait on that apology.

Ah, I meant to say "years," hence why I only mentioned Bush rather than other presidents. I don't disagree that deregulation gained popularity in the 70's. My apologies.

Interesting. I reference an article that came out in the last two weeks, and you reach back 4+ years into the archives to find something "more recent." Um, you need to try to understand what others are saying before launching into a counter-argument. This is just passing advice to save you further embarrassment. You're welcome.

You didn't say it came out in the last two weeks and in the same breath you mention the memo from the 70's. So don't worry, I'm not the least bit embarassed, though its interesting that you'd rather nitpick over "recent."

Also, the way the Sanger article characterizes the Bush administration is at odds with the general thrust of your postings. He's forced reluctantly forced into regulation because he faces election, political accountability. Do you recall what Bush did after winning the 2004 election? He got to the podium and gave a whole spiel about how he has "political capital" and intends to spend it. Spend it on what, you ask? Why, "reforming" Social Security of course!

I all ready agreed that administrations do a little of both, regulating and deregulating. The article suspects political motivations (it's the New York Times) and it could largely be right as most of the decisions politicians make have political motivations. That doesn't change the results that his term has led to more regulation in several areas.

 

[Sefarst]

No, no, I am talking about an either/or situation, not punishing a company twice. I think this is necessary because you cannot simply entrust government or private citizenry to enforce something that can be so prevalent and pervasive such as faulty claims and/or products.

A regulatory agency can suffer from the same problems of cronyism and corruption, just like any advocacy group. Having both parties engaged in the testing, screening, and/or marketing ensures that maximum number of products are safe and verifiable.

Do you believe that false advertising and/or unsafe/faulty products are fraud? If so, do you believe then that it is an issue dealing with the rule of law?

I do believe it is an issue of fraud, however the legal issue is less clear to me. If a deliberate lie results in personal harm to a party, I support that person having grounds for a lawsuit. I support it in the civil sense, but not necessarily in the criminal sense.

 

[Mycroft]

But the Libertarian argument is that there all ready is a check for people that have been defrauded and that is the lawsuit. Naturally, the criticism against this is that lawsuits are difficult and take a long time, which is true, but so is government regulation. We know it works, as it did largely in the case of big tobacco, but, indeed, it's slow.

The question becomes whether or not there is a net gain in letting the government handle it or in letting offended parties file suits?

The problem with discussing ideologies is that people tend to end up talking extremes, such as in the videos that started this thread where the young student uses extreme examples to "disprove" Friedman, and Friedman counters by citing extreme examples in the opposite direction. In the real world policy makers can find a middle ground between letting die for lack of electricity and making the payment of utilities voluntary, etc.

Saying "there already is a check" is a weak argument if it can be demonstrated that a problem exists. Some problems may require more than one check.

In general I tend to have sympathy with libertarian ideas, but relying solely on the courts to address problems is just absurd. I don't want to go into litigation to protect basic rights and I don't want to see society paralyzed by excessive litigation. It just makes more sense to create regulations to head off the bulk of the problems and to reserve litigation for the most egregious abuses.

 

[IchabodPlain]

I do believe it is an issue of fraud, however the legal issue is less clear to me. If a deliberate lie results in personal harm to a party, I support that person having grounds for a lawsuit. I support it in the civil sense, but not necessarily in the criminal sense.

Why wouldn't you support the deliberate forwarding of false statements in the criminal sense?

 

[IchabodPlain]

The problem with discussing ideologies is that people tend to end up talking extremes, such as in the videos that started this thread where the young student uses extreme examples to "disprove" Friedman, and Friedman counters by citing extreme examples in the opposite direction. In the real world policy makers can find a middle ground between letting die for lack of electricity and making the payment of utilities voluntary, etc.

Saying "there already is a check" is a weak argument if it can be demonstrated that a problem exists. Some problems may require more than one check.

In general I tend to have sympathy with libertarian ideas, but relying solely on the courts to address problems is just absurd. I don't want to go into litigation to protect basic rights and I don't want to see society paralyzed by excessive litigation. It just makes more sense to create regulations to head off the bulk of the problems and to reserve litigation for the most egregious abuses.

Little off topic, but do you think someone can die from lack of electricity? Maybe he needed to be connected to an iron lung or dialysis machine?

 

[Sefarst]

The problem with discussing ideologies is that people tend to end up talking extremes, such as in the videos that started this thread where the young student uses extreme examples to "disprove" Friedman, and Friedman counters by citing extreme examples in the opposite direction. In the real world policy makers can find a middle ground between letting die for lack of electricity and making the payment of utilities voluntary, etc.

When discussing matters of principal, as Friedman was, I can understand the need to talk in extremes. The actual practical matter of the law though can be a different story. The libertarians have yet to have any real power in government and thus have yet to have to compromise on any issues.

Saying "there already is a check" is a weak argument if it can be demonstrated that a problem exists. Some problems may require more than one check.

That sounds more like a conflict of goals. Is the goal to have no companies and individuals making false statements or is the goal just to have a legal recourse for damaged parties? To the Libertarian, if you have been geuinely defrauded and harmed, sue. I think they see no reason to engage the government in the matter with public money.

In general I tend to have sympathy with libertarian ideas, but relying solely on the courts to address problems is just absurd. I don't want to go into litigation to protect basic rights and I don't want to see society paralyzed by excessive litigation.

I think you would get challenged on the idea that you have a basic right to not be lied to. And very often when the government goes after a company for false advertising, the matter ends up in court in anyway.

It just makes more sense to create regulations to head off the bulk of the problems and to reserve litigation for the most egregious abuses.

And that could be a valid argument, but, to me, I need to see just what difference would be. I spend a bit of time talking with Libertarians, sometimes arguing with them and other times agreeing with them. Normally, on technical issues like these, they tell me we still need some kind of cost-benefit analysis and I think that's what they would advocate here.

Why wouldn't you support the deliberate forwarding of false statements in the criminal sense?

For the same reason libel is considered a civil rather than a criminal offense. This isn't an opinion of mine that is set in stone, just my reaction to the idea. When evaluating false statements do we draw the line at material harm? I don't know.

 

[IchabodPlain]

For the same reason libel is considered a civil rather than a criminal offense. This isn't an opinion of mine that is set in stone, just my reaction to the idea. When evaluating false statements do we draw the line at material harm? I don't know.

This takes me back to my original question of is false advertising, which is defined as the deliberate forwarding of false statements of a product or service in advertising to gain a commercial advantage, fraud?

 

[Sefarst]

This takes me back to my original question of is false advertising, which is defined as the deliberate forwarding of false statements of a product or service in advertising to gain a commercial advantage, fraud?

Yes.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Yes.

I don't understand your position. If false advertising is fraud, do you not think defrauding someone should be a criminal offense?




Also, libel can be a criminal offense as well.

 

[Mycroft]

Little off topic, but do you think someone can die from lack of electricity? Maybe he needed to be connected to an iron lung or dialysis machine?

I'm sure he didn't die directly from lack of electricity, and I have no idea what news story was referenced in that 30 year old video, but it's easy to imagine any number of circumstances where someone who was sick and/or elderly could die from lack of heating, cooling, or power to live saving machinery.

Interestingly, decades later, we have laws making it illegal for power companies to shut off power during extreme weather or if there is life saving equipment in the home. Friedman made a valid point in saying that the failure that lead to the tragedy of the mans death was a failure of his friends and family who should have come to his aid and paid the electric bill so that he would live, but over time the lawmakers made rules that favored the point of view of the student.

I'm sure those laws were enacted from a sense of compassion, we want a safety net protecting the most vulnerable of us, but I think a strong argument can be made that Friedman is the one who really had the more compassionate answer. He placed the responsibility for that man on the people who should have loved him and cared for him, but the student (and ultimately society) placed responsibility for him on a faceless corporation.

I think Friedman's point of view is the more human.

 

[Mycroft]

That sounds more like a conflict of goals. Is the goal to have no companies and individuals making false statements or is the goal just to have a legal recourse for damaged parties? To the Libertarian, if you have been geuinely defrauded and harmed, sue. I think they see no reason to engage the government in the matter with public money.

I think you're making too much effort to phrase it in libertarian jargon. My goal is that the goods and services I buy are reasonably safe and reasonably close to what they are advertised to be. How that goal is accomplished I'm not too picky about. If I have a complaint, I'd rather my recourse be a regulatory agency which will act on my behalf with minimal effort on my part rather than needing to hire an attorney to pursue a civil suit.

I think one of the failings of libertarian thought is the idea that people will pursue legal redress. Most transactions are too small for the average person to bother.

I think you would get challenged on the idea that you have a basic right to not be lied to. And very often when the government goes after a company for false advertising, the matter ends up in court in anyway.

In this context I mean "rights" to mean whatever rights we choose to legally grant ourselves. I think it would get almost universal agreement that outright lying to sell products should be a no-no.

 

[Cain]

You didn't say it came out in the last two weeks and in the same breath you mention the memo from the 70's. So don't worry, I'm not the least bit embarassed, though its interesting that you'd rather nitpick over "recent."

I do not see how the following is impenetrable:
There was actually a pretty good article in a recent issue of (I want to say) New York Times Magazine discussing Lewis Powell's infamous "memo" in the early 70s.

I am willing to concede the limits of writing abilities, but that seems reasonably clear. As for "nitpicking," I cited specific examples, but focused more on the general shift toward deregulation in the last few decades. I mean, it's not even really arguable, which is why you didn't bother rebutting it in your response.