Alt-right vs. Tea Party

[Greoric]

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

Yes, because the government excludes other activity. Make sense now?

 

[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.

 

[Greoric]

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.

OK so that's void for vagueness. Are you conflating that necessity with the necessity for government action? Do you think higher living standards were legislated into existence or did they arrive by way of greater productivity?

 

[Deleted member 429137]

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?

Are you saying regulatory agencies purposely fail at their jobs so they don't lose their jobs?

What are you defining the failure of a regulatory agency as?

and lol no I don't disagree that big businesses have an incentive to not be investigated and that, without a law telling them they can't, they will use every tool at their disposal to hinder their competition, including hijacking the legal process.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Yes, because the government excludes other activity. Make sense now?

Less sense than ever. I don't think you've said a single thing that exists in the real world.

 

[Greoric]

Are you saying regulatory agencies purposely fail at their jobs so they don't lose their jobs?

What are you defining the failure of a regulatory agency as?

and lol no I don't disagree that big businesses have an incentive to not be investigated and that, without a law telling them they can't, they will use every tool at their disposal to hinder their competition, including hijacking the legal process.

They don't have to purposefully fail. They just have to not be properly incentivized. What's the punishment for failing in their oversight? More room for promotion?

Ok great. So you agree that since businesses within an industry operate on different economies of scale its in the interest of a large corp to inflate costs (via regulatory burden) to shut out start ups?

 

[Greoric]

Less sense than ever. I don't think you've said a single thing that exists in the real world.

So then you completely refute the effect that crowding out has in a market? That's a pretty radical claim.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

OK so that's void for vagueness.

I'm not being vague. I am literally telling you why that is a better situation and why employers don't have the same freedom of association as their employees. (Note: I am not agreeing that they do not have the freedom of association of their employees because I don't know how you're defining that. I'm simply saying that, if that is the case, then this is why.)

As per this:

If so, why is that a better situation? Why don't employers have the same freedom of association as their employees?

Are you conflating that necessity with the necessity for government action? Do you think higher living standards were legislated into existence or did they arrive by way of greater productivity?

Living standards through history have elevated greatly because we have been able to innovate and distribute in better and better ways. If that is what you mean by greater productivity, then yes, I agree with you. However, living standards throughout decades have risen and fallen in accordance with the rights given the average citizen to protect and enhance their standards of living as compared to what is available at the time.

Meaning the best society we've seen so far has been proven to be one that is productive and prizes the well-being of its citizens.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

They don't have to purposefully fail. They just have to not be properly incentivized. What's the punishment for failing in their oversight? More room for promotion?

An administration that comes down on them when the people suffer. Unfortunately, this has been proven to be a far from perfect system. But it has been proven to have at least some success. And you cannot give me an example of a free market check that is better than this.

Ok great. So you agree that since businesses within an industry operate on different economies of scale its in the interest of a large corp to inflate costs (via regulatory burden) to shut out start ups?

Yes. That's why, since it is necessary for society to have a certain level of regulation, we must be vigilant that it is not abused to manifest a new detriment to society. Sneaky sneaky.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

So then you completely refute the effect that crowding out has in a market? That's a pretty radical claim.

Give me an example of this so I can see exactly what you're picturing.

 

[Greoric]

Living standards through history have elevated greatly because we have been able to innovate and distribute in better and better ways. If that is what you mean by greater productivity, then yes, I agree with you.

However, living standards throughout decades have risen and fallen in accordance with the rights given the average citizen to protect and enhance their standards of living as compared to what is available at the time.

Meaning the best society we've seen so far has been proven to be one that is productive and prizes the well-being of its citizens.

Great. So we agree living standards increase almost uniformly by way of the market. They have to. After all, if they didn't then that just presents a profit opportunity for another employer. And by consequence they do not increase by way of legislation.

What rights are you referring to? They have the freedom to associate along with the right to be free from fraudulent contracts. Should they have more? And how do you morally justify that to the expense of another's rights?

 

[Greoric]

Give me an example of this so I can see exactly what you're picturing.

Well shucks we don't need to define in terms of examples. Here's its definition!

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crowdingouteffect.asp

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Great. So we agree living standards increase almost uniformly by way of the market. They have to. After all, if they didn't then that jut presents a profit opportunity for another employer. And by consequence they do not increase by way of legislation.

I explained that DO increase via legislation in a way that impacts people just as greatly.

What rights are you referring to? They have the freedom to associate along with the right to be free from fraudulent contracts. Should they have more? And how do you morally justify that to the expense of another's rights?

The regulations placed on every business in the first world to ensure that workers can earn a standard of living that benefits the nation.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Well shucks we don't need to define in terms of examples. Here's its definition!

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crowdingouteffect.asp

I liked the video. Which of those four examples are we discussing when you say workers can't be exploited in a market economy?

 

[Greoric]

An administration that comes down on them when the people suffer. Unfortunately, this has been proven to be a far from perfect system. But it has been proven to have at least some success. And you cannot give me an example of a free market check that is better than this.

Yes. That's why, since it is necessary for society to have a certain level of regulation, we must be vigilant that it is not abused to manifest a new detriment to society. Sneaky sneaky.

Alright looks like we're approaching each other now. Love it.

Anything that's funded regardless of proper incentivization can have success. I agree, but that's not what we're after right? We're after the most successful ventures!

Additionally, I agree we need a certain amount of regulation. In fact, dare I say we need more?!? With that said, why does that vigilance and regulation have to be provided by way of a monopoly (read: government)?

 

[Greoric]

I liked the video. Which of those four examples are we discussing when you say workers can't be exploited in a market economy?

First of all, before we go down that road you need to define your term. What is exploitation? So far it reads like exploitation to you is commensurate with paying workers in accordance with their marginal productivity.

If so, then the market likes to exploit the fuck out of workers, and that's spectacular! That exploitation is the very best thing we can hope for in a society.

Outside of that ridiculous defintion for expoitation, there is no guarantee that people won't be exploited or conned into contracts. What we're after is the system that can best check that behavior. As it turns out, the best system to do that is the one that incentivizes those checks the most (Read: Not a compulsory funded monopoly).

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Alright looks like we're approaching each other now. Love it.

Me too. This may be my last post for tonight, but I have my fiingers crossed that when we resume we'll still be clicking.

Anything that's funded regardless of proper incentivization can have success. I agree, but that's not what we're after right? We're after the most successful ventures!

Are we? If we have to choose between rushing into a future of maximum innovation and consumer goods made available as soon as possible, but with standards of living for the people who got us there (as compared to the standards of living of leading world nations at the time), or getting into the future with slighly less productivity than in the first example, but the peoples leading up that future had very comfortable standards of living, I would choose the latter.

Additionally, I agree we need a certain amount of regulation. In fact, dare I say we need more?!? With that said, why does that vigilance and regulation have to be provided by way of a monopoly?

It's not a monopoly. A free market takes place within the confines of a nation of people, who look out for their best interests. A monopoly exists within a free market and so cannot be applied to the world external to a free market, the world that lets that free market exist and prosper. Which it is doing.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

First of all, before we go down that road you need to define your term. What is exploitation? So far it reads like exploitation to you is commensurate with paying workers in accordance with their marginal productivity.

If so, then the market likes to exploit the fuck out of workers, and that's spectacular! That exploitation is the very best thing we can hope for in a society.

No, no it is not. It might be the best way to bring the future to us, but it is not in the best interests of the people who live between now and then if they're going to be miserable and in pain. We can have a healthy nation and still get into the wonders of the future.

Outside of that ridiculous defintion for expoitation, there is no guarantee that people won't be exploited or conned into contracts.

Yes there is. It's called the rule of law that a business must exist in to be allowed access to a nation's consumers. There's a reason the leading nations of the world have struck a balance between free market and the protection of its citizens.

What we're after is the system that can best check that behavior. As it turns out, the best system to do that is the one that incentivizes those checks the most (Read: Not a compulsory funded monopoly).

History has shown us repeatedly that business will not voluntarily look after the well-being of the citizens.




I need to log off tonight, but I'm looking forward to continuing.