Alt-right vs. Tea Party

[Deleted member 429137]

So first, you're highlighting the inferiority of the government (through democratic rule fyi) to properly allocate services. It's just another example of how government can't properly provide for services that are in demand.

Secondly, you need to observe the incentive structure you create with that kind of system. You're pushing them to fail in their oversight if their excuse for a lack of funding is always admitted as the reason for failure. They have little reason to actually succeed!

What do you consider a corporate subsidy? If its the food stamps then let's eliminate the food stamps. Is the next argument going to be one of conflating government hand outs with any and all eleemosynary activity?

In any event, though you didn't answer my question. Why is paying someone according to the value of the service you gain from their employment exploitation? It reads like you're OK with only one side of the transaction having the freedom of association.

Also, you ignored this:

Has this ever happened in the history of business? Not a sarcastic question.

 

[Greoric]

They have a reason to succeed: because they're trying to help people and they're necessary. There are other motives beside profit motives. Someone trying to help people usually doesn't damage or rob nearly as many people as someone trying to make a profit.

Why would food stamps be considered a corporate subsidy? When corporations, especially profitable ones, receive money from the government.

If you're withholding payment from someone in violation of laws set to protect citizens, which every first world nation has passed because 5000 years of business have proved they're necessary, then you're exploiting them.

Ok so why wouldn't people be able to have that motivation "to help people" alongside the profit motive? You're writing as if they're mutually exclusive. Yet only the profit motive necessarily makes for an efficient operation, where the other does not.

Let's unpack what you mean by corporate subsidy though. Do you mean a tax cut or do mean actually giving an LLC/ INC money?

And you've still ignored my question. Why should someone be obligated to pay more than the value of a service they're receiving? Do you extend that obligation to yourself?

 

[Greoric]

Also, you ignored this:

Well I'm not an economic historian, but sure. Is it evidence if not? Because government decided to monopolize the regulatory industry and crowd out private competition is that an argument of its potential existence outside of government?

 

[Greoric]

You mean the regulatory firm that was probably defunded by previous administrations so that the banking industry would have less oversight? This is basically an example of corporate interests writing the law at the expense of consumers' interests. Yes, give them more money. Then give them more power to weed out wrongdoing and prosecute the shit out of violators.

And here you're misunderstanding the problem you're creating. If they fail in their job, why are you willing to reward that failure? Shouldn't you be wanting to defer your payment to another management team that has the potential if not the track record to do better? Isn't that the better option than just giving the same failed organization more money?

Aren't you just giving them more money to fail again in an expectation that they can receive more money from their failure in the future?

Edit: Perhaps the best part of this disagreement is that you don't realize more invasive regulatory law is big businesses' best friend.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Ok so why wouldn't people be able to have that motivation "to help people" alongside the profit motive? You're writing as if they're mutually exclusive. Yet only the profit motive necessarily makes for an efficient operation, where the other does not.

What is efficiency worth? Is it worth the consequences that seem inseparable and inevitable from the profit motive?

Let's unpack what you mean by corporate subsidy though. Do you mean a tax cut or do mean actually giving an LLC/ INC money?

Bailouts, incentives. "corporate welfare"

And you've still ignored my question. Why should someone be obligated to pay more than the value of a service they're receiving? Do you extend that obligation to yourself?

I did answer it: because all of human history has shown that the people who make that valuation, unchecked, will make valuations that do significant damage to people and the society they live in.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Well I'm not an economic historian, but sure. Is it evidence if not? Because government decided to monopolize the regulatory industry and crowd out private competition is that an argument of its potential existence outside of government?

No, do you have examples? Because if they exist I'm sure they're few and far between. Almost academic or theoretical.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

And here you're misunderstanding the problem you're creating. If they fail in their job, why are you willing to reward that failure?

How are they being rewarded if their agency is given more funding to investigate and more power to prosecute? It's not like the people who work their are seeing massive raises, then going home and buying yachts.

Shouldn't you be wanting to defer your payment to another management team that has the potential if not the track record to do better? Isn't that the better option than just giving the same failed organization more money?

Do you have an example that isn't what I think is probably the reality of what you're talking about (organization defunded in accordance with corporate interests)? Do you have an example of a regulatory commission that has a track record of nothing but failure and is not a defunded version of its greatest successes?

Aren't you just giving them more money to fail again in an expectation that they can receive more money from their failure in the future?

Who, in your mind, is getting this undeserved windfall if a regulatory agency receives better funding? Are there agency heads pulling in numbers like CEOs while continuallly shitting the bed in every single investigation they do?

Edit: Perhaps the best part of this disagreement is that you don't realize more invasive regulatory law is big businesses' best friend.

Yes, because if there's one thing Wall Street pushes for it's for invasive regulatory law. In fact can you point to any business, big or small, pushing congress to implement more invasive regulatory law, to investigate themselves, to their benefit?

 

[Greoric]

What is efficiency worth? Is it worth the consequences that seem inseparable and inevitable from the profit motive?

Bailouts, incentives. "corporate welfare"

I did answer it: because all of human history has shown that the people who make that valuation, unchecked, will make valuations that do significant damage to people and the society they live in.

Efficiency is worth everything if you're looking to maximize anything's distribution. That what we're after isn't it? To maximize the amount of people that get things for the lowest cost? That's commensurate with the profit motive. In fact, they're the same thing. Profit motive is the same as the efficiency motive. Profits are just revenues minus expenses. The margin between them is how efficiently something gets produced.

Back to the wage issue though, are you saying that the employers offering wages are all colluding with one another to offer them?

I'm actually really excited about this disagreement by the way. You're going to be able to have a wonderful epiphany.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Efficiency is worth everything if you're looking to maximize anything's distribution. That what we're after isn't it? To maximize the amount of people that get things for the lowest cost?

Is that why we're running a country?

That's commensurate with the profit motive. In fact, they're the same thing. Profit motive is the same as the efficiency motive. Profits are just revenues minus expenses. The margin between them is how efficiently something gets produced.

Back to the wage issue though, are you saying that the employers offering wages are all colluding with one another to offer them?

No.

I'm actually really excited about this disagreement by the way. You're going to be able to have a wonderful epiphany.

Do you have any examples of the many, many, many requests I've made for real life examples of what you're saying?

 

[Greoric]

No, do you have examples? Because if they exist I'm sure they're few and far between. Almost academic or theoretical.

Well the BBB is one.

But here's the best part. Even if they're few and far between that's proof that the government allocated regulation isn't as efficient as the private version. Why? Because despite the government's efforts to crowd out and corner the market to enforce regulation there are still firms that exist outside of that space like the BBB to regulate ethical business activity.

 

[Greoric]

Is that why we're running a country?

No.

Do you have any examples of the many, many, many requests I've made for real life examples of what you're saying?

Running the country? What are you talking about here? I asked if efficiency wasn't our goal. If its not what goal is it in opposition of?

And "No" what? You agree they are not colluding with one another? Then you also agree they're not the ones making a wage valuation then right?

Any given firm is in conflict with both potential employees as well as other firms to offer workers a wage in accordance with their marginal productivity, correct?

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Well the BBB is one.

But here's the best part. Even if they're few and far between that's proof that the government allocated regulation isn't as efficient as the private version. Why? Because despite the government's efforts to crowd out and corner the market to enforce regulation there are still firms that exist outside of that space like the BBB to regulate ethical business activity.

The BBB is a better free market check than any government agency could hope to be? They collect customer feedback, rate businesses and are less effective today than ever before?

 

[Greoric]

How are they being rewarded if their agency is given more funding to investigate and more power to prosecute? It's not like the people who work their are seeing massive raises, then going home and buying yachts.

Do you have an example that isn't what I think is probably the reality of what you're talking about (organization defunded in accordance with corporate interests)? Do you have an example of a regulatory commission that has a track record of nothing but failure and is not a defunded version of its greatest successes?

Who, in your mind, is getting this undeserved windfall if a regulatory agency receives better funding? Are there agency heads pulling in numbers like CEOs while continuallly shitting the bed in every single investigation they do?

Yes, because if there's one thing Wall Street pushes for it's for invasive regulatory law. In fact can you point to any business, big or small, pushing congress to implement more invasive regulatory law, to investigate themselves, to their benefit?

No I can't give an example of a regulatory commission that has nothing but a track record of failure. That's precisely the point. They can't fail, but as you noted to the extent they do fail in their operations they're just rewarded with more funding.

And yes big business loves regulation. In fact they lobby for it! There's nothing like raising the barriers to entry to keep start ups out of your industry.

 

[Greoric]

The BBB is a better free market check than any government agency could hope to be? They collect customer feedback, rate businesses and are less effective today than ever before?

What's the argument here? The fact that they even exist is a demonstration of government's inefficacy at regulating ethical business practice. It's an indication that despite government's efforts to exclude any private regulatory enforcement they're not sufficient.

Reads like you're willfully ignoring the effect the government can have by crowding out private activity by enforcing its own compulsory funded monopoly.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Running the country? What are you talking about here? I asked if efficiency wasn't our goal. If its not what goal is it in opposition of?

No you asked if maximizing profit was our goal. I'm assuming we're talking if a regulated or unregulated business sector is best for a country.

And "No" what? You agree they are not colluding with one another? Then you also agree they're not the ones making a wage valuation then right?

History seems to show that in any business venture, workers' lives are easily expendable and it's because we've all accepted the intrinsic value of human life that business ventures have had to abide by basic codes of conduct and pay that all workers deserve.

This is why I've given you examples of worker exploitation that happens throughout America and asked you to explain why you don't consider it exploitation. Is it because any and all treatment of an employee under a free market economy cannot be considered exploitation in your mind?

Any given firm is in conflict with both potential employees as well as other firms to offer workers a wage in accordance with their marginal productivity, correct?

Are they in conflict with their employees? In what sense? The worker wants a larger wage?

 

[Deleted member 429137]

No I can't give an example of a regulatory commission that has nothing but a track record of failure. That's precisely the point. They can't fail, but as you noted to the extent they do fail in their operations they're just rewarded with more funding.

You can measure any regulatory agency's success and failures by the number of violations they've uncovered, the number of prosecutions that have been brought to court, the impact on the industry, etc. Why don't you have examples of what you're alleging.

And yes big business loves regulation. In fact they lobby for it! There's nothing like raising the barriers to entry to keep start ups out of your industry.

So you don't have an example of a big business lobbying to have themselves investigated? only businesses trying to turn the letter of the law on somebody else?

 

[Greoric]

No you asked if maximizing profit was our goal. I'm assuming we're talking if a regulated or unregulated business sector is best for a country.

History seems to show that in any business venture, workers' lives are easily expendable and it's because we've all accepted the intrinsic value of human life that business ventures have had to abide by basic codes of conduct and pay that all workers deserve.

This is why I've given you examples of worker exploitation that happens throughout America and asked you to explain why you don't consider it exploitation. Is it because any and all treatment of an employee under a free market economy cannot be considered exploitation in your mind?

Are they in conflict with their employees? In what sense? The worker wants a larger wage?

What do you mean by regulated versus unregulated? Seems to be that you're conflating government with regulation and the free market with its absence.

Didn't we already cover the "wage exploitation" bit? Read like you ducked out of that as soon as I described how wages are set and asked whether you had the same obligation to pay people for the services you request.

Let's be direct about this. Should worker's be paid anything other than what their marginal productivity is to the employer? If so, why is that a better situation? Why don't employers have the same freedom of association as their employees?

 

[Deleted member 429137]

What's the argument here? The fact that they even exist is a demonstration of government's inefficacy at regulating ethical business practice. It's an indication that despite government's efforts to exclude any private regulatory enforcement they're not sufficient.

Reads like you're willfully ignoring the effect the government can have by crowding out private activity by enforcing its own compulsory funded monopoly.

You said the free market was a better check than any government agency could ever hope to be. When pressed for an example you eventually came up with the BBB

 

[Greoric]

You can measure any regulatory agency's success and failures by the number of violations they've uncovered, the number of prosecutions that have been brought to court, the impact on the industry, etc. Why don't you have examples of what you're alleging.

So you don't have an example of a big business lobbying to have themselves investigated? only businesses trying to turn the letter of the law on somebody else?

I need examples to show you that regulatory institutions get more funding or continue to exist in so far as businesses display fraudulent activity? That's actually up for dispute? The SEC went under with the housing crash? They actually went under as an organization in light of the Madoff scandal?

Big business has an incentive to lobby for more regulatory law not to be investigated by them. You disagree?

 

[Deleted member 429137]

What do you mean by regulated versus unregulated? Seems to be that you're conflating government with regulation and the free market with its absence.

Didn't we already cover the "wage exploitation" bit? Read like you ducked out of that as soon as I described how wages are set and asked whether you had the same obligation to pay people for the services you request.

Let's be direct about this. Should worker's be paid anything other than what their marginal productivity is to the employer? If so, why is that a better situation? Why don't employers have the same freedom of association as their employees?

I keep telling you that human civilization has proven that the average citizen must be protected from abuses in the workplace. This is such a recognized need that every first world country has these laws. It is a literal need of a healthy nation.