|
|
 Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
Name one,
The way I put it is probably a crummy way, but ones that monopolize easily or have deep socioeconomic roles. I would say that gambling is an industry that is incredibly competitive and thrives on close to zero rules. This is because regularly cheating the consumers almost never works, and it's very easy for the consumers to change providers, and thus competition must always be at peak. Contrast this to telecommunications, where changing providers is much more difficult, and a handful of companies can basically own everything and thus do whatever they can get away with.
I think its the other way around. Regulated health care has increased health care costs in many ways. By restricting the amount of people who can practice medicine, by forcing people to buy health insurance that has protections completely unnecessary for their lives, etc.
But you can't say that because it's not true for all other modern countries with drastically reduced costs to the US and have achieved that through regulation. You could say that US healthcare is stupidly regulated, I wouldn't disagree with that, but you can't say regulation sucks for healthcare since the best real-world examples are that it doesn't
Banks, same thing. How many people here would love to be able to use own and use a currency other than the US dollar. You can't, because government regulations make it unprofitable. Banks currently have to work under regulations that cost enormous amounts of money, which means they cant give consumers as good of deals
I think it's more complicated than that. It's not like without government, the banks would just give up and no longer do what they could to impose the Federal Reserve on the populace. I've noticed that libertarians like to claim that corporations only get their way because they buy the established government. But what would happen without the government to buy? Would not the same wealthiest of entities then become the government? The answer is they would, as we've seen throughout all history. Wealth has always been the government of peoples. Until the US Constitution, however, but court rulings claiming money to be speech have put that in the shitter.
Regulation of food and drugs hurts the poor. People who want information about the food they are consuming can pay for that information. Forcing poor people to pay for that information is unfair. Deregulation would cause food and drug providers to pay for the information about the safety of their products, or else no one would buy them.
That's simply not true. People buy snake oil all the time, and that's the same kind of principle. We also buy cheap tasty food because its cheap and tasty, not because we fully understand what it's doing to us; same principle. That facts are that before the FDA was around, a lot more people got sick or died from food than today. Deregulation in this industry can cause a ton of havoc just by exploiting natural human behavior. On the flip side, similar things can cause a lot of havoc by catering to emotions too much and making beneficial products illegal. It goes both ways. Smart regulation is what we need, not no regulation
I'm not against regulation I'm just against government regulation, because they consistently don't act in our best interest. CME, a futures exchange, regulates consumer behavior who participate. I'm not against that.
Government generally doesn't act in our best interests because corporations are awash with cash and are allowed to bribe with it. And what happens when they bribe the CME? We already see unregulated aspects of industry awash with shilling. What happens when there is no government and the wealthiest among us need to bribe nobody, and just pay their own police/military force to do their bidding. We'd be trading the Senate for the Lannisters (if you don't watch GoT, Lannisters are fictional characters, but representative of the reality that he who has the gold, buys the armies, and makes the rules)
Banks regulate themselves. They will not make bad loans because bad loans means they will lose money. The only way this lead to a good outcome for banks was because the government bailed them out and the banks knew they were going to do so.
This is an extremely good point, but I also think it goes deeper and misses the forest for the trees, as it confuses our iteration of corruption with corruption itself.
Government here is only the middle man. The banks lobbied hard to make it legal for them to cheat, and if there was nobody for them to lobby, it would be because they were the ones on top and thus the ones making up the rules, and we'd have gotten cheated anyways
|
Reply With Quote
