3 ms·

> because your conclusion suggests further regulation. no it suggests fewer regulations > Regulation (from government intervention) doesn't ruin a market - ba

• 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.
      • diskcat 11y ago
        >So one bad law invalidates government? Bad laws prove that government intervention is bad and we ought to limit its power. >They can, but this goes to the "perfect information" theory that you blithely dismissed. I already addressed this issue. What is so special about the government that allows it to have more information than consumers? Nothing. Any information government can obtain for consumers can be obtained by consumers themselves. >but actual people running the government have seen negative consequences and, acting as our representatives, regulated against them, Actual consumers running their lives have seen negative consequences and, acting out of their own interest, decided against them. No need for a government middle man >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? Consumers can also employ people whose job it is to assess risks and plan accordingly. I don't know about mudslide? I buy a booklet from a risk assessment/engineering consultant/geological consulting firm and they tell me what I need to know. Again, no need for government middleman. > 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. This is not true at all. A free market does not require people operating on the same set of information. It just needs lack of intervention. I can buy an apple for $2 from a seller I don't need to know how much he bought it from, from whom, when etc. There is no requirement for a symmetry of information. > 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. As said, a free market does not require sellers and buyers to have information parity. A seller who believes he is at a disadvantage can simply 1) choose to not enter any deal 2) obtain more information. He decides what choice is appropriate. Sellers have every incentive to educate buyers and be honest, as doing so would make it more likely that they will get a mutually beneficial deal. >It is not efficient, for example, to have multiple power lines serving a single structure. Humans are not hive-minded engineers. The point of a free market is not to maximise efficiency in provision of all services, although it does a pretty good job anyway, but to provide maximum choice and lower price for consumers. Even if there can efficiently be only one power line in town, the fact that there are multiple providers would increase the negotiating power of the consumers. > Garbage pickup, for instance. Or firefighting. A market might not be big enough for 2 players, but that doesn't mean that the government should mandate who the sole provider should be.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• jon-wood 11y ago
  >>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 In the UK regulation was introduced stating that the monopoly phone company had to lease access to customer phone lines to other companies on the same terms as themselves. Since then we've gone from a monopoly DSL provider to having a choice between twenty or thirty providers almost everywhere. I'd call that a regulation which has increased competition.