|
AnarXian (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Unfortunately, in the real world, telling the truth to nefarious folks can put a knife in your back.
Waxing Gibberish (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I like the guy and tend to agree with him a lot BUT he says here that he doesn't want to be the guy who tries to convince you you're wrong... hang on he has a show called Bullshit where he tells you flat out YOU'RE WRONG lol.
istraight1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"Besides, a company that kills its employees cannot stay in business very long." Why? "The environment does not have rights, cannot sue. On the other hand, if the government respects property rights, and your air or your water has been damaged by a firm, it is entirely within your right to take legal action against them." This statement is called corporate/fascist propaganda as corporations know well that it takes a lot of money to sue a corporation & you may even die from the externalities.
istraight1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"Crony capitalism requires that the government be able to dispense favors. A government with no involvement in economics (beyond a judicial system) has no power to dispense favor." No it does not as crony happen without the state regulation. Capitalism naturally crony. "The moment they raise prices to a level beyond what consumers believe is appropriate, they open themselves to competition." Why would competition arise?
EvrybdyluvsJosh (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
If you knew that YouTube's employees were being killed by their computers, would you patronize YouTube? Moreover, do you think YouTube would be able to rely upon a wide selection of potential employees who would be willing to take on the risk of dying on the job? Of course not. We already have laws against murder. If someone dies as a result of your negligence, you can be sued. Regulation is the presumption that people will die, and therefore you are preemptively bade to comply.
EvrybdyluvsJosh (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Darling, business was totally regulated in the Soviet Union, and workers were sucked into machinery, people worked for comparatively low wages, shortages were abundant, famine occurred. What do you think a mixed economy will do differently? Regulation is not what stops people from dying on the job: conscious and smart decisions do. Moreover, you're speaking of some kind Dickensian fantasy where people regularly die at the hands of machinery. That is and was a rare exception.
EvrybdyluvsJosh (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"What happens if one business owns all the water utilities? Think about what they could start charging for the water."---now this is an impossible fantasy. Water, at least in this country, is an incredibly abundant resource. Streams run through people's property, there is rain, etc. Of course, one business often does own water utilities, but these are always *government monopolies*, given legal charter to do so. Does your opinion of monopolies change once bureaucrats are running them?
EvrybdyluvsJosh (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
protecting the environment? The environment does not have rights, cannot sue. On the other hand, if the government respects property rights, and your air or your water has been damaged by a firm, it is entirely within your right to take legal action against them. As for worker safety---obviously one does not need regulation to be able to sue a company that has neglected their safety. That is why we have courts. Besides, a company that kills its employees cannot stay in business very long.
EvrybdyluvsJosh (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
On top of which, if they become a monopoly and achieve a huge market share, there is a strong chance they will be subject to diseconomies of scale, meaning inefficiency as a result of their size. This too will open them up to competition, to smaller firms who can be more cost effective. But the real point is, if they've earned their place as monopoly, then more power to them. The customer benefits by having the cheapest and best quality product available, all the same.
EvrybdyluvsJosh (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
But suppose a monopoly does come about without relying on government protectionism; a true monopoly, if you will. Then the question is: so what? If a firm is able to beat all of its competition on price and quality, it deserves its corner on the market. 'But what if they start raising prices or reducing quality?' you may ask. The moment they raise prices to a level beyond what consumers believe is appropriate, they open themselves to competition. When quality slacks, they are vulnerable. |
