27 ms·

a free market system is more efficient at producing the results that people actually care about (quality, safety, affordability, etc) You have no evidence to s

a free market system is more efficient at producing the results that people actually care about (quality, safety, affordability, etc) You have no evidence to support that view; where are the free markets full of safe, high-quality, low-cost medicines? Nowhere. Markets are brilliant, but they are not flawless. All of our experience suggests that they need robust, independent regulation to avoid negative outcomes. There is plenty of scope for talking about how time-to-market for drugs can be improved, or other steps that can be taken to reduce regulatory burden where it's causing problems. But this whole 'let the free market sort it out' is the worst kind of high-school libertarianism.

curiousgeorgio 9y ago
We haven't had free markets for a very, very long time. Consequently, your claim of free markets unavoidably producing negative outcomes lacks evidence. I didn't say we don't need any regulation, but I will say that government-imposed regulation isn't needed. A truly free market can and will fill that same need in ways that are much more efficient than any government could hope to do through force.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  We haven't had free markets for a very, very long time. Consequently, your claim of free markets unavoidably producing negative outcomes lacks evidence. This is basically a "no true Scotsman" argument. What is a "free market"? I didn't say we don't need any regulation, but I will say that government-imposed regulation isn't needed. Non-authority-imposed regulation isn't 'regulation' in any real sense. A truly free market can and will fill that same need in ways that are much more efficient than any government could hope to do through force.* All evidence we have seen suggests that an absence of government regulation leads to collusion, anticompetitive practices, races-to-the-bottom, and consumer rights violations. On the other hand, removing regulation can allow more innovative approaches to the market. Point is – it's a case of fine-tuning the balance to make sure that participants in a market have equal power. "Throw is all away and start again" is a seductive and ultimately silly argument.
  - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
    >Non-authority-imposed regulation isn't 'regulation' in any real sense. How exactly isn't it "real"? Even in the absence of a truly free market, plenty of industries have developed their own self-regulated quality standards. Have you ever checked reviews about something before purchasing? Did a government mandate those reviews to be written? > an absence of government regulation leads to collusion, anticompetitive practices, races-to-the-bottom, and consumer rights violations Isn't it odd that we see more of those problems in industries with the most regulation? In a free market, collusion is ineffective, since any newcomer can undercut prices, forcing the colluding market players to compete. The same could be said for any other unethical or harmful practices; if consumers care enough about a problem, they'll vote with their dollars for better alternatives.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  "We haven't had free markets for a very, very long time. Consequently, your claim of free markets unavoidably producing negative outcomes lacks evidence." You could easily replace "free markets" with "communism" and make the same statement.

curiousgeorgio 9y ago

We haven't had free markets for a very, very long time. Consequently, your claim of free markets unavoidably producing negative outcomes lacks evidence. I didn't say we don't need any regulation, but I will say that government-imposed regulation isn't needed. A truly free market can and will fill that same need in ways that are much more efficient than any government could hope to do through force.

matthewmacleod 9y ago
We haven't had free markets for a very, very long time. Consequently, your claim of free markets unavoidably producing negative outcomes lacks evidence. This is basically a "no true Scotsman" argument. What is a "free market"? I didn't say we don't need any regulation, but I will say that government-imposed regulation isn't needed. Non-authority-imposed regulation isn't 'regulation' in any real sense. A truly free market can and will fill that same need in ways that are much more efficient than any government could hope to do through force.* All evidence we have seen suggests that an absence of government regulation leads to collusion, anticompetitive practices, races-to-the-bottom, and consumer rights violations. On the other hand, removing regulation can allow more innovative approaches to the market. Point is – it's a case of fine-tuning the balance to make sure that participants in a market have equal power. "Throw is all away and start again" is a seductive and ultimately silly argument.
- curiousgeorgio 9y ago
  >Non-authority-imposed regulation isn't 'regulation' in any real sense. How exactly isn't it "real"? Even in the absence of a truly free market, plenty of industries have developed their own self-regulated quality standards. Have you ever checked reviews about something before purchasing? Did a government mandate those reviews to be written? > an absence of government regulation leads to collusion, anticompetitive practices, races-to-the-bottom, and consumer rights violations Isn't it odd that we see more of those problems in industries with the most regulation? In a free market, collusion is ineffective, since any newcomer can undercut prices, forcing the colluding market players to compete. The same could be said for any other unethical or harmful practices; if consumers care enough about a problem, they'll vote with their dollars for better alternatives.
maxxxxx 9y ago
"We haven't had free markets for a very, very long time. Consequently, your claim of free markets unavoidably producing negative outcomes lacks evidence." You could easily replace "free markets" with "communism" and make the same statement.