5 ms·

This is in logical structure very similar to the argument which anti-drug people use to justify further crack-downs. They say 'the punishments are still not sev

This is in logical structure very similar to the argument which anti-drug people use to justify further crack-downs. They say 'the punishments are still not severe enough, we must make them stricter, to provide a real disincentive'. There is no end to that argument, they can carry on invoking it until people are being given life sentences for trivial drugs offenses (and beyond). You are also making the mistake of framing all of these issues as part of a grand 'government vs. market' battle. There is no reason why a government cannot provide good public services from a reasonable tax rate, and also avoid corporatism and regulatory capture. In fact, I would say there's almost no connection between the former and latter. The US has a far more pro-market attitude than most of the rest of the Western world, but also has stronger links between private contractors (particularly military contractors) and government than would be acceptable in most of those other countries, and certainly its fair share of regulatory capture, particularly at local and state levels. Within Europe, there are low-tax economies, and there are high-tax economies, and no apparent connection between levels of taxation on the one hand, and on the other hand, economic success, levels of corruption, or poor regulation. These issues are actually a lot more granular, and a lot more complicated, than can be captured by the hope for the righteous and complete victory of one ideological force against another.

pdonis 13y ago
There is no reason why a government cannot provide good public services from a reasonable tax rate, and also avoid corporatism and regulatory capture. Yes, there is: governments are run by people, subject to the same incentives as people in any other part of society, including the perverse and misaligned incentives that cause "market failures" in other parts of society. The US has a far more pro-market attitude than most of the rest of the Western world Attitude is not the same as reality. If the US really were more pro-market, instead of just talking like it, we would not have given a massive bailout to the same investment banks that tanked the economy in 2008. (Nor would we have allowed the various regulatory schemes that enabled the crash to happen in the first place.)
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  >Yes, there is: governments are run by people, subject to the same incentives as people in any other part of society, including the perverse and misaligned incentives that cause "market failures" in other parts of society. Then explain the proven successes of state regulatory mechanisms. And no, that doesn't allow explaining them away by trying to pretend they've never happened.
  - baddox 13y ago
    > Then explain the proven successes of state regulatory mechanisms. Easy: they are simply less efficient than market solutions to the same problems.
    - tankenmate 13y ago
      proof please...
  - pdonis 13y ago
    Then explain the proven successes of state regulatory mechanisms. Examples, please?
    - clavalle 13y ago
      I don't have to worry about my next door neighbor starting a pig farm. I rode an elevator today without worrying about falling to my death. No one is spraying dioxin as a sealant on the streets in my area because it was the cheap option. There are, quite literally, a million examples like this that may be hard to think of because, when regulation works, you don't have to think about it.
      - pdonis 13y ago
        You're assuming that government regulation solves all these problems better than a free market system would. Let's see: I don't have to worry about my next door neighbor starting a pig farm. Do you live in a covenant community? I do, which means it isn't government regulations that are stopping my next door neighbor from starting a pig farm, but the voluntarily adopted by-laws of the community, funded by the dues paid by homeowners. Do you have any evidence that homeowners in such communities pay more for the same benefits, on average, than homeowners in towns and cities where the local government's zoning laws are the applicable regulations? I rode an elevator today without worrying about falling to my death. How much did you pay in taxes for that assurance? How much would you have paid in a free market where private insurance companies enforced safety regulations--i.e., the inspection certificate inside the elevator was issued by an inspector hired by the insurance company that had liability for any injuries caused by a defect in the elevator, rather than an inspector hired by the government? Do you have any evidence that the latter cost would be higher than the former for the same benefit? No one is spraying dioxin as a sealant on the streets in my area because it was the cheap option. I didn't know dioxin was even an option for street sealing, but let's assume you meant "some harmful substance". Once again, you're paying taxes for this benefit; do you have any evidence that you're getting the benefit more cheaply than you would in a free market system where roads were privately owned, and the owners were liable for damages to neighboring property owners, just as I would be liable if I dumped toxic waste on your lawn? when regulation works, you don't have to think about it. Yep, right up until it stops working catastrophically. Ask the residents of Gulf coast communities how well government regulation prevented them from suffering serious damage as a result of the Deepwater Horizon spill. In a free market, BP could not have just gone and started drilling with a nudge-nudge wink-wink from Federal regulators who had no real stake in the outcome and who made no serious effort to sanity check what they were doing; they would have had to convince the Gulf residents themselves, directly, that the risks of drilling were worth the benefits.

pdonis 13y ago

There is no reason why a government cannot provide good public services from a reasonable tax rate, and also avoid corporatism and regulatory capture. Yes, there is: governments are run by people, subject to the same incentives as people in any other part of society, including the perverse and misaligned incentives that cause "market failures" in other parts of society. The US has a far more pro-market attitude than most of the rest of the Western world Attitude is not the same as reality. If the US really were more pro-market, instead of just talking like it, we would not have given a massive bailout to the same investment banks that tanked the economy in 2008. (Nor would we have allowed the various regulatory schemes that enabled the crash to happen in the first place.)

eli_gottlieb 13y ago
>Yes, there is: governments are run by people, subject to the same incentives as people in any other part of society, including the perverse and misaligned incentives that cause "market failures" in other parts of society. Then explain the proven successes of state regulatory mechanisms. And no, that doesn't allow explaining them away by trying to pretend they've never happened.
- baddox 13y ago
  > Then explain the proven successes of state regulatory mechanisms. Easy: they are simply less efficient than market solutions to the same problems.
  - tankenmate 13y ago
    proof please...
- pdonis 13y ago
  Then explain the proven successes of state regulatory mechanisms. Examples, please?
  - clavalle 13y ago
    I don't have to worry about my next door neighbor starting a pig farm. I rode an elevator today without worrying about falling to my death. No one is spraying dioxin as a sealant on the streets in my area because it was the cheap option. There are, quite literally, a million examples like this that may be hard to think of because, when regulation works, you don't have to think about it.
    - pdonis 13y ago
      You're assuming that government regulation solves all these problems better than a free market system would. Let's see: I don't have to worry about my next door neighbor starting a pig farm. Do you live in a covenant community? I do, which means it isn't government regulations that are stopping my next door neighbor from starting a pig farm, but the voluntarily adopted by-laws of the community, funded by the dues paid by homeowners. Do you have any evidence that homeowners in such communities pay more for the same benefits, on average, than homeowners in towns and cities where the local government's zoning laws are the applicable regulations? I rode an elevator today without worrying about falling to my death. How much did you pay in taxes for that assurance? How much would you have paid in a free market where private insurance companies enforced safety regulations--i.e., the inspection certificate inside the elevator was issued by an inspector hired by the insurance company that had liability for any injuries caused by a defect in the elevator, rather than an inspector hired by the government? Do you have any evidence that the latter cost would be higher than the former for the same benefit? No one is spraying dioxin as a sealant on the streets in my area because it was the cheap option. I didn't know dioxin was even an option for street sealing, but let's assume you meant "some harmful substance". Once again, you're paying taxes for this benefit; do you have any evidence that you're getting the benefit more cheaply than you would in a free market system where roads were privately owned, and the owners were liable for damages to neighboring property owners, just as I would be liable if I dumped toxic waste on your lawn? when regulation works, you don't have to think about it. Yep, right up until it stops working catastrophically. Ask the residents of Gulf coast communities how well government regulation prevented them from suffering serious damage as a result of the Deepwater Horizon spill. In a free market, BP could not have just gone and started drilling with a nudge-nudge wink-wink from Federal regulators who had no real stake in the outcome and who made no serious effort to sanity check what they were doing; they would have had to convince the Gulf residents themselves, directly, that the risks of drilling were worth the benefits.