Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

Such as?

By competing against them. The more avenues people are allowed to freely compete, the greater variety and ultimately greater the solution will be. Against tobacco marketing specifically, all sorts of entities from wealthy individuals/groups or non-profit organizations functioning on smaller donations from like-minded folk can conduct research and campaigns against tobacco. Isn't this what happened to Dr. Oz?

On the business side, when people are free to create whatever products and services for whatever cost they can muster, we find that alternative and superior products and services develop. Maybe vaping is an example, but really you can even go so far as to say that wheat grass juice and the neo-hippie businesses are examples. I'm not well-versed on tobacco specifically, but I suspect if we were to delve into the regulations governments impose (most or all of which are well-meaning), we would find ample reason to believe that competition against Big Tobacco is stymied. An example I understand better is ISPs, which I've posted on several times here already. The short is that Comcast and Time Warner have such high market share with worse service than might be desired because of government policies. Examples are zoning and unions.

[CoccoBill]

By competing against them. The more avenues people are allowed to freely compete, the greater variety and ultimately greater the solution will be. Against tobacco marketing specifically, all sorts of entities from wealthy individuals/groups or non-profit organizations functioning on smaller donations from like-minded folk can conduct research and campaigns against tobacco. Isn't this what happened to Dr. Oz?

On the business side, when people are free to create whatever products and services for whatever cost they can muster, we find that alternative and superior products and services develop. Maybe vaping is an example, but really you can even go so far as to say that wheat grass juice and the neo-hippie businesses are examples. I'm not well-versed on tobacco specifically, but I suspect if we were to delve into the regulations governments impose (most or all of which are well-meaning), we would find ample reason to believe that competition against Big Tobacco is stymied. An example I understand better is ISPs, which I've posted on several times here already. The short is that Comcast and Time Warner have such high market share with worse service than might be desired because of government policies. Examples are zoning and unions.

So now we have competing tobacco companies sharing the profits, with even more assets to enforce our market presence. We might as well start price-fixing to ensure continuing profits, and pretty soon we can afford our own army. Your move?

The study on Dr Oz's claims was conducted by U of Alberta (a public uni) and it resulted in a senate hearing and FTC complaints. I wouldn't chalk that up as a win for free enterprise. In fact, I would argue that Oz more presents a clear case for regulation and oversight.

Vaping, I think, is a great example for what you're saying about healthier products brought about by competition (and yes, the tobacco/pharma lobbies and government regulations are doing their darnest to kill it). My argument is that it took 60 years, and I see no reason to believe it would have taken less in a regulation-free environment, I would argue it would take longer, perhaps indefinitely. How many people died unnecessarily within that time, as opposed to efficient regulation from day 1? And no, I don't know what that efficient regulation would be, but I'm not a policy nor a subject matter expert, I'd leave it to those. I also can see regulation being able to push innovation. If there's a clear market for a product but it doesn't pass health regulations, one obvious alternative is to develop a healthier product.

[wufwugy]

So now we have competing tobacco companies sharing the profits, with even more assets to enforce our market presence. We might as well start price-fixing to ensure continuing profits, and pretty soon we can afford our own army. Your move?

Bankruptcy came years before this.

The study on Dr Oz's claims was conducted by U of Alberta (a public uni) and it resulted in a senate hearing and FTC complaints. I wouldn't chalk that up as a win for free enterprise. In fact, I would argue that Oz more presents a clear case for regulation and oversight.

One small aspect of something that was touched by government. We have so much government these days that you can't walk into a room without government crouching in the crannies. Just be sure to not look at that one tree and call it the forest. The campaign against Oz was vastly private. If government had been a significant enough party on this, all other parties would have either been supported or prohibited by mandates. We would have seen no change and no progress.

Vaping, I think, is a great example for what you're saying about healthier products brought about by competition (and yes, the tobacco/pharma lobbies and government regulations are doing their darnest to kill it).

The only possible way they could is government backing.

My argument is that it took 60 years, and I see no reason to believe it would have taken less in a regulation-free environment, I would argue it would take longer, perhaps indefinitely.

So we have the ultra heavily regulated environment tobacco has operated in, and you say less regulation would make it worse?

How many people died unnecessarily within that time, as opposed to efficient regulation from day 1?

We don't have anywhere close to an idea of what efficient regulation is from day 1. The drug war is an amazing example for what happens when we believe we have "efficient regulation from day 1".

And no, I don't know what that efficient regulation would be, but I'm not a policy nor a subject matter expert, I'd leave it to those.

The vast majority of these subject matter experts oppose government intervention into these sorts of things. The government typically doesn't hire experts to regulate for this reason. Voters love regulation. Experts are in the minority, denouncing them.

I also can see regulation being able to push innovation. If there's a clear market for a product but it doesn't pass health regulations, one obvious alternative is to develop a healthier product.

The effect is the opposite because innovation is marginal. These sorts of regulations have been integral in reducing market activity. The regulators are trying to do "the right thing" by regulating for better things, but they're not engaging in economically sound methods to get those better things. Which is why regulations to improve systems by reducing choice always make them worse.