4 ms·

> It is, however, bad that the government interferes. I wrote something much longer, but to distill it down, the government didn't interfere. They did the very

• hellojesus 5y ago
  The government absolutely did interfere. The government told businesses they can't operate; that is interference. Not only did they do that, but they also became arbiters of which businesses were "essential", part of the wealth transfer problem you mentioned. Couple that with ppp loans being processed by requested size because the government attached size percentages to the payouts realized by banks. Government paying people not to work was interference, along with everything else. I believe that people are owed just compensation for it too! But that would look a lot different than extended unemployment benefits - people would be receiving their full salary. All of this is interference and bad and not supportive of free markets. Rather, the government should have done the necessary thing and forced people to evaluate their own risk. Nobody wants to visit your store anymore? You go out of business, and the gov isn't on the hook. That would be free markets.
  • dvdhnt 5y ago
    While your points are well articulated, I think our perspectives are irreconcilable. Based on your arguments, health inspections, environmental impact reports, and laws against child labor would not exist. If the government did not intervene, we would still have slave markets in this country because, as these last few years have shown, many people still see others as nothing more than stock. Adam Smith emphasized the limiting of government intervention, not the complete removal of it. He also believed the government to be responsible for the education and defense of a country. While we can argue over what sectors are in fact 'essential', and about the government's execution, but it is reasonable to assume that preventing physical harm and death during the pandemic is a valid function of a country's government, according to the father of modern economics. Going further, he argued in favor of 'institutions that promote free and fair competition'. So, I would contend that payments to prevent citizens from starving, and from subjugating themselves to the enrichment of others for scraps while in fear of bodily harm, are not only in line with Smith's ideals, but those payments create fairer competition. If anything hurts the average business, it is entrenched conglomerates and chains, especially those with huge cash piles, that can easily raise wages to meet labor's demands. And that situation exists specifically because of a lack of government action to discourage the hoarding of capital.
    • hellojesus 5y ago
      On specific points, our views are likely irreconcilable. However, I would agree with a fair amount of your points. I only contest that there are responsibilities should the government wish to intervene. I believe the government has a duty to implement regulation when there is harm caused to a third, non voluntary party in a transaction. > Based on your arguments, health inspections, environmental impact reports, and laws against child labor would not exist. I agree about not having health inspections. This should be left to third party businesses which offer accreditation. Businesses can opt in/out, and consumers can determine their risk tolerance. After all, a company that poisons someone is liable. Companies likely would be incented to seek out a third party accreditation or face higher insurance premiums. Result is nearly identical while the mechanism is the market and not regulation. I think the Wagner Act, which is what forbade child labor, is terrible legislation. While it is preferable for children to not work, we have studies which show that child labor is mainly derived from poverty. Few parents would choose to work their children as opposed to educating them. The Wagner Act also forced unions upon businesses which I think is a tragedy. Businesses voluntarily transact. If they want to negotiate work conditions through a single point of contact, such as a union, they should be allowed to do so and only negotiate with a union. If they want to only negotiate with individuals, that is again their prerogative. A hybrid approach is fine too. The Wagner Act led to terrible band-aids like right to work which just make negotiation standards even worse. The same Wagner Act implemented a federal minimum wage which is in direct contradiction to free markets and equally as garbage as the aforementioned effects. > If the government did not intervene, we would still have slave markets in this country because, as these last few years have shown, many people still see others as nothing more than stock. Slaves are third parties subject to involuntary negative consequence so the government is perfectly fine to implement regulation here. > While we can argue over what sectors are in fact 'essential', and about the government's execution, but it is reasonable to assume that preventing physical harm and death during the pandemic is a valid function of a country's government, according to the father of modern economics. While it is true that I think the government should not have intervened by shutting any business down, I did concede they could make such a decision in the pursuit of public health. However, if they are to take this route, the government must provide just compensation. This is in direct accordance with the 5th Ammendment: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The government effectively commandeered private property (businesses, rental properties, etc.) for public use (barriers against disease transmission). $300 extra in federal unemployment is not just compensation. Neither are PPP loans which were corruptly or incompetently administered. My point is that the government neither left it to the free market nor fulfilled the requirements of the law. > If anything hurts the average business, it is entrenched conglomerates and chains, especially those with huge cash piles, that can easily raise wages to meet labor's demands. I believe the violation of the law, whether having significant or marginal impact upon the victim, is a violation, and I therefore do not differentiate as to whether something was fine just because a victim is better capitalized. A very similar argument was just attempted on a constitution-violating "wealth tax", stating it only impacted billionaires so it's just fine. Thankfully it was pulled because it was ridiculous and illegal. So I think we're mostly the same in opinion! I just am unflexible with violation based on emotional fairness; rather I default to a strict adherence of the law and/or belief that it should default to the market wherever possible.