4 ms·

Capitalism's always been the least broken system. Over time, we've added laws to make it even less broken. Anti-trust, for example, relatively uncontroversial

by jbooth 16y ago

Capitalism's always been the least broken system. Over time, we've added laws to make it even less broken. Anti-trust, for example, relatively uncontroversial. As is the FCC's role in regulating frequency allocation, I think pretty much everyone agrees that a pure-free-market free-for-all with "biggest transmitter wins" wouldn't make a lot of sense. Right now, IMO at least, the issue is that every time we have a recession, it takes longer and longer for "average folks" to be able to get work again. Last time, it wasn't until right before the bottom fell out again. This time, the jobs might never come back. What do those people do now? That's what needs fixing in the current version of capitalism, IMO.

protomyth 16y ago
In a lot of ways, the "fixing" is the problem. Capitalism relies on a consistent set of rules. All the messing around means that businesses will not take risks. Check the history on 1929 and now. There are some serious parallels from recovery to hiring based on actions taken by government.
- blueben 16y ago
  Inadvertently, you are correct. Capitalism thrives on a consistent set of rules, which can then be analyzed and legally subverted for greater profit.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - protomyth 16y ago
    You know, a huge percentage of the business owners follow the rules. They probably would follow more if the rules didn't require an expert (account or lawyer) to get right. Capitalism isn't Wall Street, it is the entire system. Look up your history and see that "Inadvertently" never enters into it.
- jbooth 16y ago
  So, you think we should disband the FCC and let "biggest transmitter wins" be the law of the land on the airwaves? Or is that ridiculously and obviously stupid? Maybe it turns out that in order to do things right, you have to get into the weeds on an issue by issue basis and not rely on one size fits all approaches. Hands off economics are exactly the right thing to do most of the time, except when they aren't. Also, 1929 in terms of government policy was totally different from now.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    How did you turn what I said into "disband the FCC"? Government needs a consistent set of rules, the FCC is part of our current rule apparatus. The key part of my statement was "consistent". Unclear direction creates uncertainty. The health care and tax legislation have created massive uncertainty. This is not good for recovery. This "lets take a new direction" approach played out in 1929 just as it is playing out today. In 1929 and forward there were many new approaches and many attempts at a "solution". All of these caused problems by changing the rules. Now, we will have more uncertainty because a new party controls the House. I don't see the rules stabilizing again for a while.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      You were arguing from an absolute, government should stay out, free markets. If disbanding the FCC is silly, then the absolute doesn't hold. That means we should evaluate on a case by case basis -- free markets are of course a good default position to deviate from depending on the exception, of course. 1929-1932 was most noteworthy for Hoover not trying a whole lot of new approaches. Then this FDR guy started, his whole thing was called "New Deal".
      - protomyth 16y ago
        "You were arguing from an absolute, government should stay out, free markets." What?!? Where the heck does the "consistent set of rules" come from other than government? I have no real clue where your response comes from. As to you second 'point', look at the government changes and how long it took for business to recover.
kiba 16y ago
Anti-trust, for example, relatively uncontroversial. I get giddy thinking about being persecuted for predatory pricing, gouging, and colluding. Never mind those anitrust people often persecute smaller companies for bigger win, ignoring the big guys. Oh yeah, let ignore copyright and patent laws, which creates monopolies. It's for the "benefit of the public". You want to fix capitalism? How about restoring the rule of law? Nobody get special privileges. Not the writers, the inventors, the big corporations, or small corporations.
- mbyrne 16y ago
  Since no one is excluded from creating a copyright or patent, I don't think it is accurate to call it a "special privilege..." Having intellectual property rights and how they are enforced (or not) are two different things, and the fact that there are IP rights is the only thing that stops large companies from stripping away the value created by individuals at will, reducing us all to share croppers at best. I think of all the song royalties that were ripped off from the originators of the Blues and the only saving grace was when the copyright laws were enforced to enable them to get some money to survive in old age...
  - kiba 16y ago
    If you were ever familiar with the history of IP, then of course you would know that it is a special privilege. You have James Watt extending his patent 20 years longer, delaying the industrial revolution quite bit. Then you have American writers fighting for copyright recognition of British author just so they stop British competition. The manipulation and abuse of law not only took place in modern time but throughout the existence of IP history. Not only that, you have scant evidence to prove that IP are beneficial.
ams6110 16y ago
I think there are a number of viewpoints that would not endorse your statement that "anti-trust is relatively uncontroversial" Anti-trust regulations are unnecessary in a free economy, as inefficient monopolies by definition are vulnerable to competition, and efficient monopolies are already meeting their supply/demand ratio optimally.
- bcheung 16y ago
  I like how Rand said it: Under the Antitrust laws, a man becomes a criminal from the moment he goes into business, no matter what he does. For instance, if he charges prices which some bureaucrats judge as too high, he can be prosecuted for monopoly or for a successful “intent to monopolize”; if he charges prices lower than those of his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “unfair competition” or “restraint of trade”; and if he charges the same prices as his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “collusion” or “conspiracy.”
- mbyrne 16y ago
  I thought antitrust regulation was aimed at preventing collusion and price fixing by trusts of companies. Do you see that as different from a single company with a monopoly? You say that antitrust regulations are not necessary in a free economy, do you think we have a free economy now? (I am asking, not arguing)

by jbooth 16y ago

protomyth 16y ago

In a lot of ways, the "fixing" is the problem. Capitalism relies on a consistent set of rules. All the messing around means that businesses will not take risks. Check the history on 1929 and now. There are some serious parallels from recovery to hiring based on actions taken by government.

blueben 16y ago
Inadvertently, you are correct. Capitalism thrives on a consistent set of rules, which can then be analyzed and legally subverted for greater profit.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- protomyth 16y ago
  You know, a huge percentage of the business owners follow the rules. They probably would follow more if the rules didn't require an expert (account or lawyer) to get right. Capitalism isn't Wall Street, it is the entire system. Look up your history and see that "Inadvertently" never enters into it.
jbooth 16y ago
So, you think we should disband the FCC and let "biggest transmitter wins" be the law of the land on the airwaves? Or is that ridiculously and obviously stupid? Maybe it turns out that in order to do things right, you have to get into the weeds on an issue by issue basis and not rely on one size fits all approaches. Hands off economics are exactly the right thing to do most of the time, except when they aren't. Also, 1929 in terms of government policy was totally different from now.
- protomyth 16y ago
  How did you turn what I said into "disband the FCC"? Government needs a consistent set of rules, the FCC is part of our current rule apparatus. The key part of my statement was "consistent". Unclear direction creates uncertainty. The health care and tax legislation have created massive uncertainty. This is not good for recovery. This "lets take a new direction" approach played out in 1929 just as it is playing out today. In 1929 and forward there were many new approaches and many attempts at a "solution". All of these caused problems by changing the rules. Now, we will have more uncertainty because a new party controls the House. I don't see the rules stabilizing again for a while.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    You were arguing from an absolute, government should stay out, free markets. If disbanding the FCC is silly, then the absolute doesn't hold. That means we should evaluate on a case by case basis -- free markets are of course a good default position to deviate from depending on the exception, of course. 1929-1932 was most noteworthy for Hoover not trying a whole lot of new approaches. Then this FDR guy started, his whole thing was called "New Deal".
    - protomyth 16y ago
      "You were arguing from an absolute, government should stay out, free markets." What?!? Where the heck does the "consistent set of rules" come from other than government? I have no real clue where your response comes from. As to you second 'point', look at the government changes and how long it took for business to recover.

kiba 16y ago

Anti-trust, for example, relatively uncontroversial. I get giddy thinking about being persecuted for predatory pricing, gouging, and colluding. Never mind those anitrust people often persecute smaller companies for bigger win, ignoring the big guys. Oh yeah, let ignore copyright and patent laws, which creates monopolies. It's for the "benefit of the public". You want to fix capitalism? How about restoring the rule of law? Nobody get special privileges. Not the writers, the inventors, the big corporations, or small corporations.

mbyrne 16y ago
Since no one is excluded from creating a copyright or patent, I don't think it is accurate to call it a "special privilege..." Having intellectual property rights and how they are enforced (or not) are two different things, and the fact that there are IP rights is the only thing that stops large companies from stripping away the value created by individuals at will, reducing us all to share croppers at best. I think of all the song royalties that were ripped off from the originators of the Blues and the only saving grace was when the copyright laws were enforced to enable them to get some money to survive in old age...
- kiba 16y ago
  If you were ever familiar with the history of IP, then of course you would know that it is a special privilege. You have James Watt extending his patent 20 years longer, delaying the industrial revolution quite bit. Then you have American writers fighting for copyright recognition of British author just so they stop British competition. The manipulation and abuse of law not only took place in modern time but throughout the existence of IP history. Not only that, you have scant evidence to prove that IP are beneficial.

ams6110 16y ago

I think there are a number of viewpoints that would not endorse your statement that "anti-trust is relatively uncontroversial" Anti-trust regulations are unnecessary in a free economy, as inefficient monopolies by definition are vulnerable to competition, and efficient monopolies are already meeting their supply/demand ratio optimally.

bcheung 16y ago
I like how Rand said it: Under the Antitrust laws, a man becomes a criminal from the moment he goes into business, no matter what he does. For instance, if he charges prices which some bureaucrats judge as too high, he can be prosecuted for monopoly or for a successful “intent to monopolize”; if he charges prices lower than those of his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “unfair competition” or “restraint of trade”; and if he charges the same prices as his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “collusion” or “conspiracy.”
mbyrne 16y ago
I thought antitrust regulation was aimed at preventing collusion and price fixing by trusts of companies. Do you see that as different from a single company with a monopoly? You say that antitrust regulations are not necessary in a free economy, do you think we have a free economy now? (I am asking, not arguing)