3 ms·

Market failure calls for regulation. There is a way to prevent such behavior from being acceptable or lawful.

by fucking_tragedy 11y ago

BillyParadise 11y ago
A guy I used to work with classified these as "white man problems". IE, we have the luxury of choice.
- fucking_tragedy 11y ago
  Our choices have consistently led an industry to skirt labor and human rights so we can have cheap toys.
vmateixeira 11y ago
It's not market regulation's fault. It's the people.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Market is people. More than that - market is what happens when you let people do whatever. Regulating the market is literally trying to adjust for people's systemic failures.
  - vmateixeira 11y ago
    Adjusting according to the needs of? And why does that needs to happen?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      To the needs of people. As determined by the government (which, in democracies, is supposed to follow the will of people). Determining and acting on the will of people is sort of the only job of the government. Why does that needs to happen? Because otherwise you get Congo. Europe used to be like that, and our forefathers fought their way out of it with their own blood. Ask yourself - why is it that you buy food and beverages in your local supermarket or restaurant, and you're not worrying it will poison you? Why is that you can safely buy an electrical appliance and connect it to your wall socket without burning the house down? It's not because free market. It's because those segments of the market have been heavily regulated, and those regulations came to counter various shenanigans companies were pulling off. Markets do not start regulated, they get regulated - and they get regulated because they're too good at their only job - optimizing for profitability. Regulation is there to stop otherwise profitable abuses from happening.
      - vmateixeira 11y ago
        I can see your point and to be honest I kind of agree with you. In unpolluted democracies that's how it should happen. I don't want to sound too negative but, unfortunately, as governments are funded by big corporations, this is what happens nowadays: http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/17/news/economy/oxfam-wealth http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/17/news/economy/oxfam-wealth and even with regulations in place. Companies want to grow more and more every year, even despite sometimes the market being saturated. How it that only possible? Cutting costs - Congo is what makes this possible. Congo and our will for buying such products. My point is that only people can change this, by not buying. If we don't buy, only then companies will change - You need to talk their language - You need to get to their pocket - money. With this I don't mean that the market doesn't need regulations, pretty much the opposite. I'm just saying that most of the times regulation only is not enough.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I agree with you. And you're totally right about how governments are really being on payroll. "Not buying" isn't a bad solution per se - it would work perfectly well if we could coordinate enough people to change their shopping habits. But it's close to impossible, both because coordination is a Hard Problem, and because the market doesn't offer alternatives. People would have to reduce their quality of life, and it's not something humans generally do out of ideological reasons. There's only so much things one person can care about strongly, and those things seem to be somewhat randomly distributed, ensuring you can't get enough people to strongly care about the same thing. Regulatory bodies, like markets, follows incentives - those incentives may be different, but the mechanism is the same. One of them is the funding from big corporations you mentioned. Another one, in democracies, is popularity. I think it's easier to convince (almost) everyone to care about some issue enough to change their voting patterns than it is to make them stop buying stuff. Therefore, the regulatory change may be easier to achieve than "vote with your wallet" market change. That still requires a lot of coordinating effort though.
        vmateixeira 11y ago
        Yes, you're right, it's almost impossible to get enough people to support a certain movement. My concern with "regulation voting" is that regulations may win elections even though they may have few holes (sometimes on purpose). But that's actually the best we can get. Thanks for your comment.
yomism 11y ago
Watch what you say about regulating... if you look closely we are in a community that values unleashed capitalism (that is, money) above almost anything. That anything being our image as good people.
- fucking_tragedy 11y ago
  The reality is that we regulate all industries and trade practices. The market has called for cheap electronics for decades at the price of human rights. What good person holds an economic principle or their wallet above a child's right to have a childhood, education, their health, lives and to not be unrepresented, exploited, abused or underpaid for their labor?
  - yomism 11y ago
    Well, you and me for starters. And then add almost all of the people that have enough money in their pockets and are not slaved/working 3 different jobs to put food on their table. We, everyone of us reading this, know the reality, if not just look around and see that lady cleaning floors or that guy in the fast food joint working their asses off for a menial pay. You could say they are a step above slavery, but hey, no problem, you and me have good jobs and money enough so we can buy anything we want to eat and a shiny gadgets every year. Ignoring this reality about slaves in those countries and almost slaves in our land is easy, but don't forget that this is a conscious decision.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Ignoring is the default. Noticing is a conscious choice, but a one that will make people stare at you strangely. You're right about first-world slavery though. It's a disaster.
  - bigbugbag 11y ago
    I think that it is not the market but the erosion of purchasing power that push further the need for lower and lower prices. But if you look at the electronic device we're talking about here, namely iphones, it is an overpriced piece of hardware used as a display of social status which is unrelated to a market call for cheap electronics. Apple has more than enough margin and power to be able to secure conflict-free minerals for their devices and lead by example, but they don't because there's no regulations asking for it and they'd rather get a tad more profits for a bunch of shareholders instead of caring for other humans (who happen to be in distant countries and black or brown or yellow and poor). The more unrest there is in those mineral rich countries, the cheaper the minerals will be and the juicier the profit for shareholders.

Market failure calls for regulation. There is a way to prevent such behavior from being acceptable or lawful.

BillyParadise 11y ago

A guy I used to work with classified these as "white man problems". IE, we have the luxury of choice.

fucking_tragedy 11y ago
Our choices have consistently led an industry to skirt labor and human rights so we can have cheap toys.

vmateixeira 11y ago

It's not market regulation's fault. It's the people.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Market is people. More than that - market is what happens when you let people do whatever. Regulating the market is literally trying to adjust for people's systemic failures.
- vmateixeira 11y ago
  Adjusting according to the needs of? And why does that needs to happen?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    To the needs of people. As determined by the government (which, in democracies, is supposed to follow the will of people). Determining and acting on the will of people is sort of the only job of the government. Why does that needs to happen? Because otherwise you get Congo. Europe used to be like that, and our forefathers fought their way out of it with their own blood. Ask yourself - why is it that you buy food and beverages in your local supermarket or restaurant, and you're not worrying it will poison you? Why is that you can safely buy an electrical appliance and connect it to your wall socket without burning the house down? It's not because free market. It's because those segments of the market have been heavily regulated, and those regulations came to counter various shenanigans companies were pulling off. Markets do not start regulated, they get regulated - and they get regulated because they're too good at their only job - optimizing for profitability. Regulation is there to stop otherwise profitable abuses from happening.
    - vmateixeira 11y ago
      I can see your point and to be honest I kind of agree with you. In unpolluted democracies that's how it should happen. I don't want to sound too negative but, unfortunately, as governments are funded by big corporations, this is what happens nowadays: http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/17/news/economy/oxfam-wealth http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/17/news/economy/oxfam-wealth and even with regulations in place. Companies want to grow more and more every year, even despite sometimes the market being saturated. How it that only possible? Cutting costs - Congo is what makes this possible. Congo and our will for buying such products. My point is that only people can change this, by not buying. If we don't buy, only then companies will change - You need to talk their language - You need to get to their pocket - money. With this I don't mean that the market doesn't need regulations, pretty much the opposite. I'm just saying that most of the times regulation only is not enough.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I agree with you. And you're totally right about how governments are really being on payroll. "Not buying" isn't a bad solution per se - it would work perfectly well if we could coordinate enough people to change their shopping habits. But it's close to impossible, both because coordination is a Hard Problem, and because the market doesn't offer alternatives. People would have to reduce their quality of life, and it's not something humans generally do out of ideological reasons. There's only so much things one person can care about strongly, and those things seem to be somewhat randomly distributed, ensuring you can't get enough people to strongly care about the same thing. Regulatory bodies, like markets, follows incentives - those incentives may be different, but the mechanism is the same. One of them is the funding from big corporations you mentioned. Another one, in democracies, is popularity. I think it's easier to convince (almost) everyone to care about some issue enough to change their voting patterns than it is to make them stop buying stuff. Therefore, the regulatory change may be easier to achieve than "vote with your wallet" market change. That still requires a lot of coordinating effort though.
        vmateixeira 11y ago
        Yes, you're right, it's almost impossible to get enough people to support a certain movement. My concern with "regulation voting" is that regulations may win elections even though they may have few holes (sometimes on purpose). But that's actually the best we can get. Thanks for your comment.

yomism 11y ago

Watch what you say about regulating... if you look closely we are in a community that values unleashed capitalism (that is, money) above almost anything. That anything being our image as good people.

fucking_tragedy 11y ago
The reality is that we regulate all industries and trade practices. The market has called for cheap electronics for decades at the price of human rights. What good person holds an economic principle or their wallet above a child's right to have a childhood, education, their health, lives and to not be unrepresented, exploited, abused or underpaid for their labor?
- yomism 11y ago
  Well, you and me for starters. And then add almost all of the people that have enough money in their pockets and are not slaved/working 3 different jobs to put food on their table. We, everyone of us reading this, know the reality, if not just look around and see that lady cleaning floors or that guy in the fast food joint working their asses off for a menial pay. You could say they are a step above slavery, but hey, no problem, you and me have good jobs and money enough so we can buy anything we want to eat and a shiny gadgets every year. Ignoring this reality about slaves in those countries and almost slaves in our land is easy, but don't forget that this is a conscious decision.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Ignoring is the default. Noticing is a conscious choice, but a one that will make people stare at you strangely. You're right about first-world slavery though. It's a disaster.
- bigbugbag 11y ago
  I think that it is not the market but the erosion of purchasing power that push further the need for lower and lower prices. But if you look at the electronic device we're talking about here, namely iphones, it is an overpriced piece of hardware used as a display of social status which is unrelated to a market call for cheap electronics. Apple has more than enough margin and power to be able to secure conflict-free minerals for their devices and lead by example, but they don't because there's no regulations asking for it and they'd rather get a tad more profits for a bunch of shareholders instead of caring for other humans (who happen to be in distant countries and black or brown or yellow and poor). The more unrest there is in those mineral rich countries, the cheaper the minerals will be and the juicier the profit for shareholders.