*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

Oversight without regulation seems pointless. Can you clarify?
I mean, gov't oversight which isn't backed up by legal consequences isn't likely to change any business practices, IMO.

Maybe you mean this:
Oversight would amount to an agency (3rd party or otherwise) whose primary objective was communication between the producers and consumers, but the oversight agency has no regulatory authority, only the consumers do.

Is that it?

[BananaStand]

Oversight without regulation seems pointless. Can you clarify?
I mean, gov't oversight which isn't backed up by legal consequences isn't likely to change any business practices, IMO.

You're not wrong, but you're really splitting hairs. There are consequences. The word "regulation" isn't entirely irrelevant.

The distinction is mostly for Ong's benefit. He seems to be advocating for total government control of these enterprises and is describing that as "regulation"

[BananaStand]

Maybe you mean this:
Oversight would amount to an agency (3rd party or otherwise) whose primary objective was communication between the producers and consumers, but the oversight agency has no regulatory authority, only the consumers do.

Is that it?

No, it's more like the oversight acts as a replacement for market forces in situations where those market forces are absent.

[wufwugy]

No, it's more like the oversight acts as a replacement for market forces in situations where those market forces are absent.

This assumes market forces are absent in those situations.

[BananaStand]

This assumes market forces are absent in those situations.

they are absent. Using the same example of the electric company....there is no competition.

If you're gonna say that light bulbs are competing with candles, just GTFO. There's ONE electric company and it controls the only existing infrastructure to deliver electricity.

Without competition, and without a better way to get electricity, power is removed from the consumers and given to the electric company. Maybe they don't do anything with it. But maybe they do. Maybe they decide that people are gonna just buy the electricity no matter what, so why not charge double??

Competition is a market force that would prevent that. It's missing. So the government restores the balance of power through oversight/regulation.

[wufwugy]

they are absent. Using the same example of the electric company....there is no competition.

If you're gonna say that light bulbs are competing with candles, just GTFO. There's ONE electric company and it controls the only existing infrastructure to deliver electricity.

Without competition, and without a better way to get electricity, power is removed from the consumers and given to the electric company. Maybe they don't do anything with it. But maybe they do. Maybe they decide that people are gonna just buy the electricity no matter what, so why not charge double??

Competition is a market force that would prevent that. It's missing. So the government restores the balance of power through oversight/regulation.

The existence of a direct competitor is not a necessary condition for the market forces to be working. Indeed a market might function best with only one firm in it all the while market forces would be working.

Why doesn't the electric company just charge double? I answered this in two different ways on my post above yours and the one a couple days ago about roads and trains. There are a bunch of market forces in play if a monopoly doubles its price.

The typical effect of oversight by government is to reduce those market forces due to the unintended consequence of the oversight reducing profit expectations for potential entrants, increasing cost, and criminalizing innovation.

[BananaStand]

The existence of a direct competitor is not a necessary condition for the market forces to be working. Indeed a market might function best with only one firm in it all the while market forces would be working.

Why doesn't the electric company just charge double? I answered this in two different ways on my post above yours and the one a couple days ago about roads and trains. There are a bunch of market forces in play if a monopoly doubles its price.

The typical effect of oversight by government is to reduce those market forces due to the unintended consequence of the oversight reducing profit expectations for potential entrants, increasing cost, and criminalizing innovation.

We're gonna talk in circles here wuf, but I think it's time we just agree that there is such a thing as....I don't know what you wanna call it......pick a word.....Imperfections.....Conflicts.....Undesirab le effects.....in a completely free and unregulated market.

In a completely free, unregulated market maybe 5 other electric companies would pop up, and the cost of electricity might go down as a result. Sure...fine. But what else happens? Do consumers really want five sets of power lines running along their streets? or if we're talking about trains....how many more instances of tracks crossing roads would there be? What does that do to commuter traffic?

Maybe consumers have decided that having ONE set of infrastructure is most desirable, and worth some nominal extra cost.

[spoonitnow]

We're gonna talk in circles here wuf, but I think it's time we just agree that there is such a thing as....I don't know what you wanna call it......pick a word.....Imperfections.....Conflicts.....Undesirab le effects.....in a completely free and unregulated market.

In a completely free, unregulated market maybe 5 other electric companies would pop up, and the cost of electricity might go down as a result. Sure...fine. But what else happens? Do consumers really want five sets of power lines running along their streets? or if we're talking about trains....how many more instances of tracks crossing roads would there be? What does that do to commuter traffic?

Maybe consumers have decided that having ONE set of infrastructure is most desirable, and worth some nominal extra cost.

The bold is something the market can sort out on its own without regulations.

[wufwugy]

We're gonna talk in circles here wuf, but I think it's time we just agree that there is such a thing as....I don't know what you wanna call it......pick a word.....Imperfections.....Conflicts.....Undesirab le effects.....in a completely free and unregulated market.

There are undesirable results. If we're trying to figure out the best policy, we balance the results, desirable and undesirable, of each against the other. I would never claim a free market is perfect. It's not. But I do claim it's better than an unfree market.

In a completely free, unregulated market maybe 5 other electric companies would pop up, and the cost of electricity might go down as a result. Sure...fine. But what else happens? Do consumers really want five sets of power lines running along their streets? or if we're talking about trains....how many more instances of tracks crossing roads would there be? What does that do to commuter traffic?

Maybe consumers have decided that having ONE set of infrastructure is most desirable, and worth some nominal extra cost.

What Spoon said. Essentially these things are adjusted for in a free market. They are ALSO adjusted for in a regulated market, just less effectively.