5 ms·

To the extent that stability of certain kinds of businesses is essential to the stability of our society, it's actually a very good thing that governments are s

by kyllo 13y ago

To the extent that stability of certain kinds of businesses is essential to the stability of our society, it's actually a very good thing that governments are somewhat conservative about protecting the establishment. If a certain kind of business is essential to the stability of our society then it should not be a business, it should be part of the government. "Essential" is a pretty strong word. A business should never be too big to fail. Free market competition should ensure that existing businesses will be quickly replaced by competitors if there is sufficient demand for their product or service. we have bigger problems, not the least of which is the question of why those big, successful companies get so much influence over the laws in the first place These are not even different problems, they are one and the same. The big, successful companies get so much influence over the laws because their friends in government shield them from competition, allowing them to grow into monopolies that are wealthy and powerful enough to exert influence over the laws. This is done through industry regulations passed under the pretense of protecting consumers from the dangers of untrusted companies offering products of unknown quality, a concern that you expressed above. But when you look at who is actually lobbying for the tighter regulations and licensing requirements, it's always the established businesses looking to raise the barrier to new market entrants. That's their ulterior motive.

judk 13y ago
Food is essential to survival, but we don't rely on the government to provide it.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  Whatever is essential needs to be reliable. Granted, there are several ways to do it, of which state monopoly is only one, and I reckon, often not the best: centrally planned economy works rather poorly, as demonstrated by the Soviet Union. But you do need to ensure the reliability of your chosen mechanism. You can't just unleash the market on it, and hope for a good result. Unconstrained capitalism doesn't last, as demonstrated by its numerous crises, most notably in 1929. Most of the time, the government will just heavily manipulate the market into doing what it wants to do. American farms are heavily subsided, for instance. Doesn't work too poorly, and lasts quite long. Even if you strongly believe in free market and cut-throat competition, you need to ensure the market stays free somehow. You don't want any challenger to actually win.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Security_Commodity_Reserve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Security_Commodity_Reserve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy The restrictions at issue are protectionism run amok, but you do nobody any favors by making easily-debunked non-arguments.
  - makomk 13y ago
    Even with agricultural subsidies, the food is still grown and supplied by businesses and not the government. Kyllo was arguing that any businesses which are so essential as to justify the government intervening - as it does with agricultural subsidies - should be part of the government and not private businesses at all.
    - kyllo 13y ago
      Yes, either they should be part of the government, or they should have to actually compete on the free market without government protection. I detest monopolies that are propped up and protected by government subsidies and regulations. The people who run such businesses are enriching themselves through rent-seeking behavior at the public's expense, and then taking bailouts when they can't make a profit, all under false pretenses like "stability," quality control, and regulatory compliance, which are really just protectionism. They enjoy this privilege because they have well-placed friends in the government, thanks to lobbying and campaign contributions. It is a form of corruption. If a business is too big or too essential to fail, it should be a function of the government, so that there is public oversight/accountability and no rent-seeking at consumers' expense. Otherwise, it needs to be allowed to fail and be replaced by competitors, if it is not financially viable. If such a business is allowed to fail and is not replaced by a competitor, it was probably not that "essential" after all.

by kyllo 13y ago

judk 13y ago

Food is essential to survival, but we don't rely on the government to provide it.

loup-vaillant 13y ago
Whatever is essential needs to be reliable. Granted, there are several ways to do it, of which state monopoly is only one, and I reckon, often not the best: centrally planned economy works rather poorly, as demonstrated by the Soviet Union. But you do need to ensure the reliability of your chosen mechanism. You can't just unleash the market on it, and hope for a good result. Unconstrained capitalism doesn't last, as demonstrated by its numerous crises, most notably in 1929. Most of the time, the government will just heavily manipulate the market into doing what it wants to do. American farms are heavily subsided, for instance. Doesn't work too poorly, and lasts quite long. Even if you strongly believe in free market and cut-throat competition, you need to ensure the market stays free somehow. You don't want any challenger to actually win.
nknighthb 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Security_Commodity_Reserve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Security_Commodity_Reserve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy The restrictions at issue are protectionism run amok, but you do nobody any favors by making easily-debunked non-arguments.
- makomk 13y ago
  Even with agricultural subsidies, the food is still grown and supplied by businesses and not the government. Kyllo was arguing that any businesses which are so essential as to justify the government intervening - as it does with agricultural subsidies - should be part of the government and not private businesses at all.
  - kyllo 13y ago
    Yes, either they should be part of the government, or they should have to actually compete on the free market without government protection. I detest monopolies that are propped up and protected by government subsidies and regulations. The people who run such businesses are enriching themselves through rent-seeking behavior at the public's expense, and then taking bailouts when they can't make a profit, all under false pretenses like "stability," quality control, and regulatory compliance, which are really just protectionism. They enjoy this privilege because they have well-placed friends in the government, thanks to lobbying and campaign contributions. It is a form of corruption. If a business is too big or too essential to fail, it should be a function of the government, so that there is public oversight/accountability and no rent-seeking at consumers' expense. Otherwise, it needs to be allowed to fail and be replaced by competitors, if it is not financially viable. If such a business is allowed to fail and is not replaced by a competitor, it was probably not that "essential" after all.