4 ms·

> Another case of the government intervention in the free market hurting the consumers Your statement is worded as if this is the expected outcome whenever the

by ta434 11y ago

> Another case of the government intervention in the free market hurting the consumers Your statement is worded as if this is the expected outcome whenever there is government intervention in to a market. I'm not sure if I perhaps misinterpreted that, because your conclusion suggests further regulation. Regulation (from government intervention) doesn't ruin a market - bad regulation does. Just like all private companies are not like Enron - some governments have regulated the telecom market to increase competition. It's easy to critique the failings of regulation because there are so many examples. Good regulation in my limited observations is very difficult. In my experience, the best regulations are from independent groups such as IEEE. IEC-60079 (Explosive Atmospheres) for example is a great set of rules and regulations from my perspective. As a manufacturer it would likely increase costs, and pure market thinks may suggest that the safest/cheapest manufacturer would win. However that simply doesn't happen in the real world as there are many more variables that our simple models account for. I'm afraid I'm not sure what Georgian rent over space means, so I can't comment there. However I believe you have effectively suggested more regulation - rather than encouraging further free market, which I would agree with. Any time there is a monopoly (poles in the ground), it must be controlled with appropriate regulation to ensure the system isn't abused. I lean towards government owned and privately operated/maintained in these scenarios - however that too has it own set of dangers.

diskcat 11y ago
> because your conclusion suggests further regulation. no it suggests fewer regulations > Regulation (from government intervention) doesn't ruin a market - bad regulation does. This is the same argument as communism has never been tried argument and that Mao, Stalin et al were doing 'bad communism'. >some governments have regulated the telecom market to increase competition. Regulation increases barrier to entry and therefore can not possibly increase competition. Almost all monopolies are the result of government intervention in the market. >the best regulations are from independent groups such as IEEE. IEC-60079 Im not sure if this regulation is mandated i.e. it is enforced or not, but if it isn't then it's not really comparable to regulation from the government. > Good regulation in my limited observations is very difficult. Not surprising. >However I believe you have effectively suggested more regulation It's not. It is simply asking the holder of space to pay its rent value. >Any time there is a monopoly (poles in the ground), it must be controlled with appropriate regulation to ensure the system isn't abused. The only reason poles in the ground is a monopoly is because there are regulations that stop people from putting more poles in the ground. Do you suggest that the solution to regulations is more regulations?
- zardeh 11y ago
  >This is the same argument as communism has never been tried argument and that Mao, Stalin et al were doing 'bad communism'. No, sure some regulation is bad, but a lot of regulation is very good. For example, a lack of food safety standards led to terrible things for consumers in the early 20th century. The problem with the whole idea of government regulation being always bad is that that's only the case if consumers have perfect information, are able and willing to choose any provider, and there aren't economies of scale.
  - diskcat 11y ago
    >a lack of food safety standards led to terrible things for consumers in the early 20th century. and now we have a situation where a little girl gets raided for selling lemonade without a license. Transfat has been banned in europe but in many other countries, manufacturers are responding to consumer demand by removing transfat from their products without needing to be coerced by the government. It is not necessary for the government to intervene. Consumers can take care of themselves. >The problem with the whole idea of government regulation being always bad is that that's only the case if consumers have perfect information, And how does the government know more than the consumers? Are they privy to secret information? >are able and willing to choose any provider, which they are in a free market >and there aren't economies of scale. you need to clarify this.
    - techsupporter 11y ago
      > we have a situation where a little girl gets raided for selling lemonade without a license. So one bad law invalidates government? > Consumers can take care of themselves. [...] how does the government know more than the consumers? Are they privy to secret information? They can, but this goes to the "perfect information" theory that you blithely dismissed. How does the government know more? Two possibilities: 1) As a unit, it doesn't, but actual people running the government have seen negative consequences and, acting as our representatives, regulated against them, or 2) The government employs people whose job it is to assess risks and plan accordingly. What do you know about mudslide prevention or sewage treatment, for instance? > [regarding choice of vendors:] which they are in a free market How so? A completely free market requires a willing buyer and a willing seller operating on the same set of information and meeting on a level platform. Much like the "uniform law of frictionless," this can never happen in real life. I am always at a negotiating disadvantage with a large service provider or even with someone who is an expert in his field and I not. > [regarding economies of scale:] you need to clarify this. It is not efficient, for example, to have multiple power lines serving a single structure. Nor water, nor roads, nor sewer, and, increasingly, nor Internet access wires. The regulation of such utility structure prevents pictures such as this: https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/hphmtnyak5ggjyeunnix.jpg https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/hphmtnyak5... Economy of scale, in many instances, means that only a monopoly is profitable but having two competitors would not be so. Garbage pickup, for instance. Or firefighting. I believe that's what OP was getting at: some things government does well--or at least contracts for a monopoly--on our behalf. Other things, like telecommunications regulation, are unduly influenced by actors with more information and completely different incentives than their alleged customers.

by ta434 11y ago

diskcat 11y ago

> because your conclusion suggests further regulation. no it suggests fewer regulations > Regulation (from government intervention) doesn't ruin a market - bad regulation does. This is the same argument as communism has never been tried argument and that Mao, Stalin et al were doing 'bad communism'. >some governments have regulated the telecom market to increase competition. Regulation increases barrier to entry and therefore can not possibly increase competition. Almost all monopolies are the result of government intervention in the market. >the best regulations are from independent groups such as IEEE. IEC-60079 Im not sure if this regulation is mandated i.e. it is enforced or not, but if it isn't then it's not really comparable to regulation from the government. > Good regulation in my limited observations is very difficult. Not surprising. >However I believe you have effectively suggested more regulation It's not. It is simply asking the holder of space to pay its rent value. >Any time there is a monopoly (poles in the ground), it must be controlled with appropriate regulation to ensure the system isn't abused. The only reason poles in the ground is a monopoly is because there are regulations that stop people from putting more poles in the ground. Do you suggest that the solution to regulations is more regulations?

zardeh 11y ago
>This is the same argument as communism has never been tried argument and that Mao, Stalin et al were doing 'bad communism'. No, sure some regulation is bad, but a lot of regulation is very good. For example, a lack of food safety standards led to terrible things for consumers in the early 20th century. The problem with the whole idea of government regulation being always bad is that that's only the case if consumers have perfect information, are able and willing to choose any provider, and there aren't economies of scale.
- diskcat 11y ago
  >a lack of food safety standards led to terrible things for consumers in the early 20th century. and now we have a situation where a little girl gets raided for selling lemonade without a license. Transfat has been banned in europe but in many other countries, manufacturers are responding to consumer demand by removing transfat from their products without needing to be coerced by the government. It is not necessary for the government to intervene. Consumers can take care of themselves. >The problem with the whole idea of government regulation being always bad is that that's only the case if consumers have perfect information, And how does the government know more than the consumers? Are they privy to secret information? >are able and willing to choose any provider, which they are in a free market >and there aren't economies of scale. you need to clarify this.
  - techsupporter 11y ago
    > we have a situation where a little girl gets raided for selling lemonade without a license. So one bad law invalidates government? > Consumers can take care of themselves. [...] how does the government know more than the consumers? Are they privy to secret information? They can, but this goes to the "perfect information" theory that you blithely dismissed. How does the government know more? Two possibilities: 1) As a unit, it doesn't, but actual people running the government have seen negative consequences and, acting as our representatives, regulated against them, or 2) The government employs people whose job it is to assess risks and plan accordingly. What do you know about mudslide prevention or sewage treatment, for instance? > [regarding choice of vendors:] which they are in a free market How so? A completely free market requires a willing buyer and a willing seller operating on the same set of information and meeting on a level platform. Much like the "uniform law of frictionless," this can never happen in real life. I am always at a negotiating disadvantage with a large service provider or even with someone who is an expert in his field and I not. > [regarding economies of scale:] you need to clarify this. It is not efficient, for example, to have multiple power lines serving a single structure. Nor water, nor roads, nor sewer, and, increasingly, nor Internet access wires. The regulation of such utility structure prevents pictures such as this: https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/hphmtnyak5ggjyeunnix.jpg https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/hphmtnyak5... Economy of scale, in many instances, means that only a monopoly is profitable but having two competitors would not be so. Garbage pickup, for instance. Or firefighting. I believe that's what OP was getting at: some things government does well--or at least contracts for a monopoly--on our behalf. Other things, like telecommunications regulation, are unduly influenced by actors with more information and completely different incentives than their alleged customers.