4 ms·

You see the benefits of regulation but not the costs. Eg, in a weestern country, most restaurants are hygienic with properly maintained premises - which seems g

by IsaacL 9y ago

You see the benefits of regulation but not the costs. Eg, in a weestern country, most restaurants are hygienic with properly maintained premises - which seems great. Until you compare to Asian countries where you can visit nice restaurants if you're so inclined, but you also have abundant choice of street food and little diners, which aren't super clean but are cheap and tasty. This also changes the economy - it doesn't take hundreds of thousands of dollars to open a restaurant and obtain the proper licensing, which means that new locations can spring up for cheap. Which means there's an extra source of jobs for people at the bottom of the economy, and so on. Multiply that by every regulated industry and you start to see the real downsides to gov't control of private enterprise. This has been abundantly studied, contrary to your post. As well as ample evidence, there's also the fundamental principle - govt is not a productive enterprise and so nothing it does can help businesses produce things of value. All it can (and should) do is define laws to protect everyone - this covers things like fraud, but not decreeing what products can and cannot be sold.

JohnJamesRambo 9y ago
So eating establishments without proper food inspection and food safety laws is the new internet you desire? Brilliant. I'm sure all that money the Telcos save will go right back into the consumer's pocket and into increasing connection speeds too...
jancsika 9y ago
> This has been abundantly studied, contrary to your post. Are you saying the economic downsides to regulation have been studied? Or are you saying there is abundant scholarly research that shows the costs of government regulation of private enterprise clearly outweigh the benefits? Edit: typo
hackuser 9y ago
> You see the benefits of regulation but not the costs In my defense, I plainly asked about the outcomes and the costs. My point is that we need serious information, not more speculation. The parent comment omits the costs of a lack of regulation, such as sickness for diners, spread of disease, injury for workers, etc. But the question is not can we speculatively come up with costs and benefits, but how much do these things actually cost and benefit us? > This has been abundantly studied, contrary to your post I didn't say that. I said there is no well-known information. Could you point to some? > govt is not a productive enterprise and so nothing it does can help businesses produce things of value I don't agree at all. In fact, government performs much that helps business produce value. Look at the benefits from NASA, medical research, scientific research (Albert Einstein wasn't a private entrepreneur) ... fracking, IIRC, is the product of government research, as is much of the energy industry ... the entire foundation of the Internet and web is mostly from government institutions (ARPA, CERN, U of Illinois, and many more). And for much of the period of the West's greatest growth, the 1950s and 1960s, government ran businesses, and regulated and taxed at rates that seem astronomical today. Government also provides (produces) systems of laws, regulations, roads, security, education, health, and other things that are absolutely necessary for and greatly enhance business. Without education and health, who would be working for the businesses and buying their goods? Without roads, how would they ship? Without law and regulation, who would feel safe buying from them and how would disputes be resolved? Without the military, how would international shipping lanes supply all those goods?
Frondo 9y ago
Oh man. I lived in a developing nation for a while. A couple of times, I had a week-long bout of food poisoning from "cheap and tasty" unregulated food. It's a nice idea, loosing regulations because the market will decide, but after a couple days on the toilet, shitting your guts out because regulations hinder innovation or whatever, you know what I'd say? Fuck an unregulated marketplace. I will happily suffer the innovation-suffocating burdens of regulation if it means not having to endure that shit (literally) again.
- IsaacL 9y ago
  So did I. The point of my comment was that you can avoid street food and eat at classier restaurants (or fast food outlets, or whatever) if you're so inclined. Me and a friend avoided street food during a month of travelling in India, and never had any stomach problems. (Your gut fauna also adapts over time, which is why the locals don't get sick so often). > because regulations hinder innovation or whatever How did you get this from my comment? I said that in the case of food, regulations remove cheap options, and remove job opportunities. To make it concrete: consider a low-income Western neighbourhood. Joe is a young single guy in his 20s working a low-wage job. He's tired after work and doesn't like to cook, but can't afford to eat out. Sally is a grandmother, in her late 50s, and needs a source of income that isn't too demanding. In an Asian country the Sallies could set up fried rice or noodle stalls selling cheap meals to the Joes, for the equivalent of a dollar or two. They've set up a mutual trade for mutual advantage, and they're both better off. In a Western country Joe and Sally are banned from making this trade, ostensibly to protect Joe's interests. If Joe wants cheap food, his only option is to go to McDonald's, where they've made everything hyper-efficient and standardised to provide cheap food, while meeting minimum wage laws, hygiene regulations, and so on. (Sometimes Westerners do make this trade. On my UK university campus, some local Indian stay-at-home mothers would cook up extra food and deliver meals to students for £2 ($3) a pop. They were breaking a ton of laws, of course).
  - Frondo 9y ago
    "(Your gut fauna also adapts over time, which is why the locals don't get sick so often)." Heh, this isn't actually true, or not meaningfully so. Where I lived, it was recognized that getting sick regularly was a fact of life. The place I lived had almost no tourism, so people getting sick were, in fact, just getting sick from an essentially unregulated food market. But hey, freeeeee market, right?
sqeaky 9y ago
You speak in broad generalizations that miss many points and make many faulty assumptions. One example: > govt is not a productive enterprise and so nothing it does can help businesses produce things of value Governments can offer loans for small business, or work with banks to provide security to banks so that banks can issues loans to small business even though this might not be as lucrative as only focusing on large business. Governments provide grants for research or results for research directly. Nasa has ton of stuff than just be used directly. There are also programs were an inventor can get money to do research and invent things. There are also government grants for research institutions that do research. > but you also have abundant choice of street food Without those government inspectors good luck knowing if that vendor that showed up yesterday is actually serving chicken and not something that tastes like chicken. Also good luck having that meal without a side of cholera. Being healthy enough to work is might not be a government service, but a good government certainly encourages it.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  > You speak in broad generalizations that miss many points and make many faulty assumptions. Absolutely. Let's be specific. > Without those government inspectors good luck knowing if that vendor that showed up yesterday is actually serving chicken and not something that tastes like chicken. That assumes everyone cares if the cheap tasty food is actually chicken. It also has the assumption that without the government, there would be a dangerous outbreak of cholera. With regulation, we need to talk about specific instances, and what the positive and negative effects of that instance are.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    > assumes everyone cares if the cheap tasty food is actually chicken Doesn't need to be everyone who cares Just someone with an allergy or a moral preference to not eat dog. > without the government, there would be a dangerous outbreak of cholera All but the least effective governments have demonstrated an ability to stop cholera. Places with grossly ineffective government and poor education has shown a propensity to have cholera, look at Haiti. I think these are both good. But if we want another example. There was a Chinese restaurant in Council Bluffs Iowa, a suburb of Omaha Nebraska (The city I am in now) that was serving stray cats. The owner thought it was a cheap alternative to chicken. The FDA shut them down, because stray cats don't get investigated for parasites, disease or poison. In general it never gets this far because the FDA sets an absolute bottom line and most food businesses strive to be better than as can easy be seen with the whole organic and free range trend recently. But there will always be those trying to drive costs down at the expense of quality and safety. EDIT - I just realized I skipped examples of value governments can add to business. How about seat belt fabric. Memory Foam, Rocket engine designs and satelite imagining for maps. That is just NASA. NOAA does a huge amount for mariners of all stripes. The SBA gives out loans. There are so many examples.

by IsaacL 9y ago

JohnJamesRambo 9y ago

So eating establishments without proper food inspection and food safety laws is the new internet you desire? Brilliant. I'm sure all that money the Telcos save will go right back into the consumer's pocket and into increasing connection speeds too...

jancsika 9y ago

> This has been abundantly studied, contrary to your post. Are you saying the economic downsides to regulation have been studied? Or are you saying there is abundant scholarly research that shows the costs of government regulation of private enterprise clearly outweigh the benefits? Edit: typo

hackuser 9y ago

> You see the benefits of regulation but not the costs In my defense, I plainly asked about the outcomes and the costs. My point is that we need serious information, not more speculation. The parent comment omits the costs of a lack of regulation, such as sickness for diners, spread of disease, injury for workers, etc. But the question is not can we speculatively come up with costs and benefits, but how much do these things actually cost and benefit us? > This has been abundantly studied, contrary to your post I didn't say that. I said there is no well-known information. Could you point to some? > govt is not a productive enterprise and so nothing it does can help businesses produce things of value I don't agree at all. In fact, government performs much that helps business produce value. Look at the benefits from NASA, medical research, scientific research (Albert Einstein wasn't a private entrepreneur) ... fracking, IIRC, is the product of government research, as is much of the energy industry ... the entire foundation of the Internet and web is mostly from government institutions (ARPA, CERN, U of Illinois, and many more). And for much of the period of the West's greatest growth, the 1950s and 1960s, government ran businesses, and regulated and taxed at rates that seem astronomical today. Government also provides (produces) systems of laws, regulations, roads, security, education, health, and other things that are absolutely necessary for and greatly enhance business. Without education and health, who would be working for the businesses and buying their goods? Without roads, how would they ship? Without law and regulation, who would feel safe buying from them and how would disputes be resolved? Without the military, how would international shipping lanes supply all those goods?

Frondo 9y ago

Oh man. I lived in a developing nation for a while. A couple of times, I had a week-long bout of food poisoning from "cheap and tasty" unregulated food. It's a nice idea, loosing regulations because the market will decide, but after a couple days on the toilet, shitting your guts out because regulations hinder innovation or whatever, you know what I'd say? Fuck an unregulated marketplace. I will happily suffer the innovation-suffocating burdens of regulation if it means not having to endure that shit (literally) again.

IsaacL 9y ago
So did I. The point of my comment was that you can avoid street food and eat at classier restaurants (or fast food outlets, or whatever) if you're so inclined. Me and a friend avoided street food during a month of travelling in India, and never had any stomach problems. (Your gut fauna also adapts over time, which is why the locals don't get sick so often). > because regulations hinder innovation or whatever How did you get this from my comment? I said that in the case of food, regulations remove cheap options, and remove job opportunities. To make it concrete: consider a low-income Western neighbourhood. Joe is a young single guy in his 20s working a low-wage job. He's tired after work and doesn't like to cook, but can't afford to eat out. Sally is a grandmother, in her late 50s, and needs a source of income that isn't too demanding. In an Asian country the Sallies could set up fried rice or noodle stalls selling cheap meals to the Joes, for the equivalent of a dollar or two. They've set up a mutual trade for mutual advantage, and they're both better off. In a Western country Joe and Sally are banned from making this trade, ostensibly to protect Joe's interests. If Joe wants cheap food, his only option is to go to McDonald's, where they've made everything hyper-efficient and standardised to provide cheap food, while meeting minimum wage laws, hygiene regulations, and so on. (Sometimes Westerners do make this trade. On my UK university campus, some local Indian stay-at-home mothers would cook up extra food and deliver meals to students for £2 ($3) a pop. They were breaking a ton of laws, of course).
- Frondo 9y ago
  "(Your gut fauna also adapts over time, which is why the locals don't get sick so often)." Heh, this isn't actually true, or not meaningfully so. Where I lived, it was recognized that getting sick regularly was a fact of life. The place I lived had almost no tourism, so people getting sick were, in fact, just getting sick from an essentially unregulated food market. But hey, freeeeee market, right?

sqeaky 9y ago

You speak in broad generalizations that miss many points and make many faulty assumptions. One example: > govt is not a productive enterprise and so nothing it does can help businesses produce things of value Governments can offer loans for small business, or work with banks to provide security to banks so that banks can issues loans to small business even though this might not be as lucrative as only focusing on large business. Governments provide grants for research or results for research directly. Nasa has ton of stuff than just be used directly. There are also programs were an inventor can get money to do research and invent things. There are also government grants for research institutions that do research. > but you also have abundant choice of street food Without those government inspectors good luck knowing if that vendor that showed up yesterday is actually serving chicken and not something that tastes like chicken. Also good luck having that meal without a side of cholera. Being healthy enough to work is might not be a government service, but a good government certainly encourages it.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
> You speak in broad generalizations that miss many points and make many faulty assumptions. Absolutely. Let's be specific. > Without those government inspectors good luck knowing if that vendor that showed up yesterday is actually serving chicken and not something that tastes like chicken. That assumes everyone cares if the cheap tasty food is actually chicken. It also has the assumption that without the government, there would be a dangerous outbreak of cholera. With regulation, we need to talk about specific instances, and what the positive and negative effects of that instance are.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  > assumes everyone cares if the cheap tasty food is actually chicken Doesn't need to be everyone who cares Just someone with an allergy or a moral preference to not eat dog. > without the government, there would be a dangerous outbreak of cholera All but the least effective governments have demonstrated an ability to stop cholera. Places with grossly ineffective government and poor education has shown a propensity to have cholera, look at Haiti. I think these are both good. But if we want another example. There was a Chinese restaurant in Council Bluffs Iowa, a suburb of Omaha Nebraska (The city I am in now) that was serving stray cats. The owner thought it was a cheap alternative to chicken. The FDA shut them down, because stray cats don't get investigated for parasites, disease or poison. In general it never gets this far because the FDA sets an absolute bottom line and most food businesses strive to be better than as can easy be seen with the whole organic and free range trend recently. But there will always be those trying to drive costs down at the expense of quality and safety. EDIT - I just realized I skipped examples of value governments can add to business. How about seat belt fabric. Memory Foam, Rocket engine designs and satelite imagining for maps. That is just NASA. NOAA does a huge amount for mariners of all stripes. The SBA gives out loans. There are so many examples.