4 ms·

This is not free market, but a captured regulated market. Companies bet that the government will cover over their mistakes. In an actual free market where the c

This is not free market, but a captured regulated market. Companies bet that the government will cover over their mistakes. In an actual free market where the company and the people making the decisions would be held accountable for the damages done to 3rd parties, this would not happen. The need to insure would motivate people to find cost effective ways to make it safe. Consequential failure is a big motivator. I work for a place that is regulated by the city and insurance. I find the city to be unhelpful, unresponsive, and largely useless in helping us. They just want the fees paid. The insurance companies, however, will send out inspectors that work with us to right anything that might be unsafe, explain their concerns, and generally are looking to have a good profitable relationship with us. There was one company that did not do good inspections. We stopped working with them and now work with a different company. I have no such option for working with the government as we are quite locally based. Also, the city owned sewage treatment facilities are major polluters. Government control often leads to pollution (see various authoritarian governments, our military, various municipalities,...) As for the sense of mutual obligation, it has withered, but my bet is that it is the theoretical outsourcing of it to government which has undermined it. Without that failing crutch, we would have to work together and look out for each other, bringing to the table immense social pressure for those outside social norms. That has its own downside, but it is much more flexible and resistant to corruption than the monopolistic government power structure. One danger is, of course, rich outsiders who can take over large tracts of land with money. But in our current system, they buy up politicians who use eminent domain to take the choice away from the owners and the people at large. In a private ownership system, they would have to convince everyone to sell which is way harder to do.

CodexArcana 4y ago
This is an incredibly utopian view of the free market that has never existed in any implementation of the laissez faire free market philosophy. Competition yields winners, and those winners buy out the losers, leading to monopolization and wealth consolidation. You've identified the problem, the railroads are a captured market, but it's because most regulatory bodies are operated by former agents of those industries or those taking large amounts of money from those industries. These industries DO get bailed out, because they have captured the regulatory mechanism. Their wealth consolidation allows them that power, especially in the post Citizens United world we live in. The things you view as failings of the government are corporate successes in the never ending squeeze of year after year growth. The power structures inside these corporations are squarely authoritarian in their design. You have no real agency within your workplace. The most freedom I've ever experienced in my work history has been working for government agencies, specifically public education, doing IT work. This idea that, in the absence of government intervention, we (citizens) would have the agency to do the right thing in these moments completely ignores the massive amount of leverage the corporation has over its workers. Since these corporations are top down, hierarchical, and authoritarian in their organization, the only will the workers have is that of those at the top. In this case, the executives and shareholders who historically have shown to not be interested in taking a loss for the sake of safety. You mention that, under the utopian vision of the free market, we would go to another vendor. So who would we decide to transport with? The rail systems are regionalized and to get from one part of the country to the other you have to make trilateral or quadrilateral deals with these companies. In other words you are forced to use all of them on some leg of the journey. This regionalization means that there is an oligopoly on the rail system. How are you going to create a "competing" rail system in any of these regions when these companies own all the rails?
- haberman 4y ago
  > In this case, the executives and shareholders who historically have shown to not be interested in taking a loss for the sake of safety. If an executive is making a choice between profit and safety, then the regulatory regime has failed. The only way capitalism can work is if risk and reward go together. If a company can profit from taking a risk, but does not suffer the true cost of a failure, then they will be incentivized to take irresponsible risks. The best example of this is 2008, where financiers gambled themselves into oblivion, but got bailed out when it went bad.
  - 8note 4y ago
    > The best example of this is 2008, where financiers gambled themselves into oblivion, but got bailed out when it went bad. This is an interesting example, but I think you need to go further in saying that the post 2008 financial system was even more irresponsible than it was before
  - cbHXBY1D 4y ago
    The maximum fine a rail company can face is $225k, even when loss of life occurs. Unfortunately, the regulatory regime you describe has been captured for roughly the past 80 years. The reality is that the legal system makes it so difficult and expensive for claimants to recoup the harms they suffer. Causality is hard to prove and the claimants are up against corporations which have teams of lawyers and a court system which has made tort cases have a high burden of proof. This can make it difficult for claimants to win, even if they have a strong case. Plus, tort law is a complex area of law, and it can be difficult for claimants to understand their rights and to navigate the legal system.
    - jostylr 4y ago
      It is even worse. It has been captured from for the past 120 years or so. The railroad companies tried to manage their own collusion, but repeatedly failed. So they helped farmers to get Congress to regulate the railroads with the ICC. Very shortly, the railroads had their people doing the regulation which very effectively managed the rates to eliminate discounts and other means of competition. With the end of such competition and stabilization provided by the government, it is easy for a big entity to take over and thrive. They even got it to take control of the trucking industry for decades, mandating such things as being able to only have the truck full in one direction. A government run legal system is just as ineffective as any of the other government run systems. The hope is nimble, private arbitration. Trust needs to be built up and reputations paid attention to.
timeon 4y ago
> In an actual free market where the company and the people making the decisions would be held accountable Same as in communism. So probably not.
roughly 4y ago
Something I've noticed over time about libertarian ideology is that it lacks a comprehensive theory of power - it asserts that governments have power, and that power is coercive, and coercion is wrong, but has a massive blind spot to the fact that Cigna also has power and uses that power to coerce, and would do so whether or not there was a government. It's shockingly utopian in that way.
- Bloating 4y ago
  Does Cigna have gun-welding police force?
  - roughly 4y ago
    It turns out there's different types of coercion that don't involve guns and yet still have the effect of forcing someone to act in ways they otherwise would prefer not to. This is what I'm talking about when I say the philosophy lacks a comprehensive theory of power.
    - jostylr 4y ago
      Most, if not all, of the coercion of a single company in this economy is coming from the government. For the trains, remember that there was going to be a worker's strike. If that was a real threat, the rail companies, left on their own, would probably have compromised. But they knew the government would stop it which is what the government did. They used the guns of government. Without that backing, the workers had power. As for Cigna, that is all balled up in the health system which is quite the mess in this country. Certainly, we have horrible private actors doing absurd things. But it is not because it is a free market. The health industry is heavily regulated and heavily funded by the government. I think 60% of health care is covered by the government funds. We have protectionist policies for drug companies. We have restrictive licensing on medical personnel whose main purpose is to restrict supply to keep competition down. There are even places where the addition of a single ambulance has to be approved by everyone else who owns ambulances in the area. I think it would be fantastic if people could get a couple of weeks training to go around and be little helpers for in home care of a low-level nature. Instead, it takes years of going through expensive coursework, usually of limited value, designed to keep the poor from helping one another. That is government imposing that, admittedly at the behest of the well-heeled. As for other kinds of power, there are all sorts of powers people have over each other. I act differently and constrained in various groups of people I am around. Larger or more meaningful groups have more power. But the main lever of power that I have is the ability to walk away. Consumers do not have go with that company. Workers do not have to work with that company. Investors do not need to invest in that company. But we do have to obey the laws and pay taxes to the government. The power of free association is very powerful.
gameman144 4y ago
> This is not free market, but a captured regulated market Agreed that market capture is a problem, but regulation is absolutely necessary for a free market to function well; these two things are not antonyms. Regulation is needed to set up the rules of the game: everyone conforms to these rules, and if anyone breaks the rules, here are the consequences. Above this, companies can and should determine their own higher standards (e.g. you looking for honest insurance inspectors). When something goes wrong, one of a few things is possible. Maybe the regulation was too lax, and risky even when followed. Maybe a company wasn't following the existing rules. Maybe the rules allow for small amounts of risk, and this is one of those accepted incidents. In this case, it seems clear that the impact was not small, and can't/shouldn't have been an acceptable outcome. As such, one of two things should happen: * Rules should change to mitigate the chances of other similar events. * The rules were sufficient but ignored, in which case some severe penalties need to be applied. You're right that government can't do everything perfectly, and private businesses are definitely the main drivers of a good free market. The government absolutely must provide clear rules to those businesses on what the society will accept, and severely punish non-compliance with those rules.
steve76 4y ago
[dead]

CodexArcana 4y ago

This is an incredibly utopian view of the free market that has never existed in any implementation of the laissez faire free market philosophy. Competition yields winners, and those winners buy out the losers, leading to monopolization and wealth consolidation. You've identified the problem, the railroads are a captured market, but it's because most regulatory bodies are operated by former agents of those industries or those taking large amounts of money from those industries. These industries DO get bailed out, because they have captured the regulatory mechanism. Their wealth consolidation allows them that power, especially in the post Citizens United world we live in. The things you view as failings of the government are corporate successes in the never ending squeeze of year after year growth. The power structures inside these corporations are squarely authoritarian in their design. You have no real agency within your workplace. The most freedom I've ever experienced in my work history has been working for government agencies, specifically public education, doing IT work. This idea that, in the absence of government intervention, we (citizens) would have the agency to do the right thing in these moments completely ignores the massive amount of leverage the corporation has over its workers. Since these corporations are top down, hierarchical, and authoritarian in their organization, the only will the workers have is that of those at the top. In this case, the executives and shareholders who historically have shown to not be interested in taking a loss for the sake of safety. You mention that, under the utopian vision of the free market, we would go to another vendor. So who would we decide to transport with? The rail systems are regionalized and to get from one part of the country to the other you have to make trilateral or quadrilateral deals with these companies. In other words you are forced to use all of them on some leg of the journey. This regionalization means that there is an oligopoly on the rail system. How are you going to create a "competing" rail system in any of these regions when these companies own all the rails?

haberman 4y ago
> In this case, the executives and shareholders who historically have shown to not be interested in taking a loss for the sake of safety. If an executive is making a choice between profit and safety, then the regulatory regime has failed. The only way capitalism can work is if risk and reward go together. If a company can profit from taking a risk, but does not suffer the true cost of a failure, then they will be incentivized to take irresponsible risks. The best example of this is 2008, where financiers gambled themselves into oblivion, but got bailed out when it went bad.
- 8note 4y ago
  > The best example of this is 2008, where financiers gambled themselves into oblivion, but got bailed out when it went bad. This is an interesting example, but I think you need to go further in saying that the post 2008 financial system was even more irresponsible than it was before
- cbHXBY1D 4y ago
  The maximum fine a rail company can face is $225k, even when loss of life occurs. Unfortunately, the regulatory regime you describe has been captured for roughly the past 80 years. The reality is that the legal system makes it so difficult and expensive for claimants to recoup the harms they suffer. Causality is hard to prove and the claimants are up against corporations which have teams of lawyers and a court system which has made tort cases have a high burden of proof. This can make it difficult for claimants to win, even if they have a strong case. Plus, tort law is a complex area of law, and it can be difficult for claimants to understand their rights and to navigate the legal system.
  - jostylr 4y ago
    It is even worse. It has been captured from for the past 120 years or so. The railroad companies tried to manage their own collusion, but repeatedly failed. So they helped farmers to get Congress to regulate the railroads with the ICC. Very shortly, the railroads had their people doing the regulation which very effectively managed the rates to eliminate discounts and other means of competition. With the end of such competition and stabilization provided by the government, it is easy for a big entity to take over and thrive. They even got it to take control of the trucking industry for decades, mandating such things as being able to only have the truck full in one direction. A government run legal system is just as ineffective as any of the other government run systems. The hope is nimble, private arbitration. Trust needs to be built up and reputations paid attention to.

timeon 4y ago

> In an actual free market where the company and the people making the decisions would be held accountable Same as in communism. So probably not.

roughly 4y ago

Something I've noticed over time about libertarian ideology is that it lacks a comprehensive theory of power - it asserts that governments have power, and that power is coercive, and coercion is wrong, but has a massive blind spot to the fact that Cigna also has power and uses that power to coerce, and would do so whether or not there was a government. It's shockingly utopian in that way.

Bloating 4y ago
Does Cigna have gun-welding police force?
- roughly 4y ago
  It turns out there's different types of coercion that don't involve guns and yet still have the effect of forcing someone to act in ways they otherwise would prefer not to. This is what I'm talking about when I say the philosophy lacks a comprehensive theory of power.
  - jostylr 4y ago
    Most, if not all, of the coercion of a single company in this economy is coming from the government. For the trains, remember that there was going to be a worker's strike. If that was a real threat, the rail companies, left on their own, would probably have compromised. But they knew the government would stop it which is what the government did. They used the guns of government. Without that backing, the workers had power. As for Cigna, that is all balled up in the health system which is quite the mess in this country. Certainly, we have horrible private actors doing absurd things. But it is not because it is a free market. The health industry is heavily regulated and heavily funded by the government. I think 60% of health care is covered by the government funds. We have protectionist policies for drug companies. We have restrictive licensing on medical personnel whose main purpose is to restrict supply to keep competition down. There are even places where the addition of a single ambulance has to be approved by everyone else who owns ambulances in the area. I think it would be fantastic if people could get a couple of weeks training to go around and be little helpers for in home care of a low-level nature. Instead, it takes years of going through expensive coursework, usually of limited value, designed to keep the poor from helping one another. That is government imposing that, admittedly at the behest of the well-heeled. As for other kinds of power, there are all sorts of powers people have over each other. I act differently and constrained in various groups of people I am around. Larger or more meaningful groups have more power. But the main lever of power that I have is the ability to walk away. Consumers do not have go with that company. Workers do not have to work with that company. Investors do not need to invest in that company. But we do have to obey the laws and pay taxes to the government. The power of free association is very powerful.

gameman144 4y ago

> This is not free market, but a captured regulated market Agreed that market capture is a problem, but regulation is absolutely necessary for a free market to function well; these two things are not antonyms. Regulation is needed to set up the rules of the game: everyone conforms to these rules, and if anyone breaks the rules, here are the consequences. Above this, companies can and should determine their own higher standards (e.g. you looking for honest insurance inspectors). When something goes wrong, one of a few things is possible. Maybe the regulation was too lax, and risky even when followed. Maybe a company wasn't following the existing rules. Maybe the rules allow for small amounts of risk, and this is one of those accepted incidents. In this case, it seems clear that the impact was not small, and can't/shouldn't have been an acceptable outcome. As such, one of two things should happen: * Rules should change to mitigate the chances of other similar events. * The rules were sufficient but ignored, in which case some severe penalties need to be applied. You're right that government can't do everything perfectly, and private businesses are definitely the main drivers of a good free market. The government absolutely must provide clear rules to those businesses on what the society will accept, and severely punish non-compliance with those rules.

steve76 4y ago

[dead]