4 ms·

Not sure why you were down voted on that. You're correct in my view that laissez faire economics doesn't promote monopolies. There are other reasons laissez fai

Not sure why you were down voted on that. You're correct in my view that laissez faire economics doesn't promote monopolies. There are other reasons laissez faire economics is a poor economic model, such as safety.

m_myers 16y ago
I would argue that safety regulations are not at odds with the laissez-faire model. Laissez-faire is not the same as anarchy; injuring another person -- including through faulty products or workplace hazards -- should still be punishable.
- fexl 16y ago
  Also, on the subject of safety in the free market, think Underwriters Laboratory and Consumer Reports. People don't want coffee makers that burst into flames or cars that roll over.
  - krakensden 16y ago
    Underwriters Laboratory and Consumer Reports seem like special cases. Don't most private quality control organizations go the way of Yelp, the BBB, the BSA, etc- questionable ratings and bad economic incentives?
    - fexl 16y ago
      I'll go ahead and add Standard and Poor's, Moody's, the SEC, and the FDA to your list of bad examples, since poor quality and bad incentives can arise with either voluntary or coerced funding. But at least with voluntary funding you can take your business elsewhere, or even compete.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  Punishable by what? The slow dissemination of information resulting in markets driving down the viability of a company that produced a faulty product? How many injuries are necessary before that information hits a critical mass? Let's take one specific example, though the principle can be applied to most industries: child car seats. Presently, govt regulations require very specific quality and manufacturing standards and thorough testing before a child safety seat can be sold on the market. Without those regulations in place, how man children need to die before third party organizations can disseminate product failure information wide enough that the responsible company suffers the consequences?

m_myers 16y ago

I would argue that safety regulations are not at odds with the laissez-faire model. Laissez-faire is not the same as anarchy; injuring another person -- including through faulty products or workplace hazards -- should still be punishable.

fexl 16y ago
Also, on the subject of safety in the free market, think Underwriters Laboratory and Consumer Reports. People don't want coffee makers that burst into flames or cars that roll over.
- krakensden 16y ago
  Underwriters Laboratory and Consumer Reports seem like special cases. Don't most private quality control organizations go the way of Yelp, the BBB, the BSA, etc- questionable ratings and bad economic incentives?
  - fexl 16y ago
    I'll go ahead and add Standard and Poor's, Moody's, the SEC, and the FDA to your list of bad examples, since poor quality and bad incentives can arise with either voluntary or coerced funding. But at least with voluntary funding you can take your business elsewhere, or even compete.
OpieCunningham 16y ago
Punishable by what? The slow dissemination of information resulting in markets driving down the viability of a company that produced a faulty product? How many injuries are necessary before that information hits a critical mass? Let's take one specific example, though the principle can be applied to most industries: child car seats. Presently, govt regulations require very specific quality and manufacturing standards and thorough testing before a child safety seat can be sold on the market. Without those regulations in place, how man children need to die before third party organizations can disseminate product failure information wide enough that the responsible company suffers the consequences?