*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

Do you see how you have claimed that monopolies increase abuse in one dimension and also you claim they decrease abuse in another dimension?

I never said the mining company that was poisoning the groundwater had a monopoly...

Oh I see. I can clarify with this new information. It is through monopolistic components that the mining company would do that.

would you argue that there is some free market principle that encourages Mining Company X to pay a lot of money to run a clean operation?

Yes, over the relevant domains. There is nothing that can ensure a specific thing happens at a specific place/time/etc. (government can't change that). What we talk about with markets is how the system functions across all relevant domains. Resource distribution (economics) is a never-ending game with never-ending players and never-ending degrees of change between relevant variables. Across these dimensions, hypothetical companies are less likely to abuse than otherwise when choices are free.

[Poopadoop]

Yes, over the relevant domains. There is nothing that can ensure a specific thing happens at a specific place/time/etc. (government can't change that). What we talk about with markets is how the system functions across all relevant domains. Resource distribution (economics) is a never-ending game with never-ending players and never-ending degrees of change between relevant variables. Across these dimensions, hypothetical companies are less likely to abuse than otherwise when choices are free.

Sorry but this sounds like a lot of hand waving to me.

History shows that without regulation companies that extract natural resources like minerals, oil and gas, etc., disregard the well-being of citizens, and when they're done extracting their goodies, they just pack up and leave a toxic mess behind. There's no evidence that free market principles stop them from doing that. There IS evidence that if they face a bigly fine for destroying the environment, it becomes in their best interests to be clean.

So yes, the government can make companies behave responsibly towards citizens, through punishing companies for behaving like greedy dicks in ways the free market doesn't punish them.

Here's another example: In the UK housing market, estate agents (people who are hired to look after renting properties on the landlord's behalf) have been unregulated up to now. The consequences: Absurd fees being charged to both landlords and tenants - e.g., an 'admin' fee of several hundred dollars charged to a tenant just for the privelege of having them send you a standard letting agreement to sign, a 'referencing fee' that costs up to 4x what it costs to obtain a reference. Why doesn't the free market end this practice, through rewarding those estate agents who don't charge extortionate fees for doing next-to-nothing? Because THEY ALL FUCKING CHARGE THEM. Otherwise they'd have no reason to exist, and would be out of business.

Next spring, the gov't is introducing regulations that make charging fees to tenants by estate agents illegal. The business of renting housing has been around for decades and this is the only way these fees are being abolished; the free market is not keeping these leeches from running their scams and getting away with it.

I know the free market stuff makes sense in some cases, such as a car manufacturer knowingly putting in faulty airbags and brakes or whatever and then losing money in the long run because of it. But there are a LOT of situations where there simply isn't any natural free market check on dickish behavior on the part of a business.

[Poopadoop]

Soo.. when the guy hired to run the EPA basically takes the view 'we don't need this regulation shit, it's bad for business', that is definitely a bad thing. Because it means that companies will go back to being dicks and the common people (the ones Trump always claims to be championing) will suffer.

Sure, there may be some regulations that are outdated and/or unnecessary, but a lot of them are there for very good reasons. It's not like someone decided to create those regulations just for the hell of it - they were all created to address a specific problem. The reason Pruitt (and for that matter Trump) doesn't want them is because they are bad for HIM, not because they are bad for the country as a whole.

Which comes to the core issue with Trump: He only cares about Trump. Everything he does is done to benefit HIM, not you. He lowers taxes on the wealthiest people, hires people to make things easier for businesses to get away with bad behavior, and all the while there's people who cheer him because they like how he talks and makes fun of his opponents and promises the earth and moon.

He hasn't drained the swamp - he's filled it with people from Goldman Sachs. He hasn't built the wall and made Mexico pay - it's a moronic idea to begin with. He's been tough on immigrants to the point of institutionalized cruelty rivaling fascism. He's fighting a trade war with the entire world that no-one understands and seems to be for no other reason than to get him in the headlines. He's heaping praise on dictators like KJU and VP, and chastising democratically-elected ones like JT and AM. He's lazy, he doesn't work hard. I could go on but I can't even remember all the bad shit he's done or is doing. He's just a fucking train wreck of a president, sorry.

[wufwugy]

Sorry but this sounds like a lot of hand waving to me.

History shows that without regulation companies that extract natural resources like minerals, oil and gas, etc., disregard the well-being of citizens, and when they're done extracting their goodies, they just pack up and leave a toxic mess behind. There's no evidence that free market principles stop them from doing that. There IS evidence that if they face a bigly fine for destroying the environment, it becomes in their best interests to be clean.

So yes, the government can make companies behave responsibly towards citizens, through punishing companies for behaving like greedy dicks in ways the free market doesn't punish them.

Here's another example: In the UK housing market, estate agents (people who are hired to look after renting properties on the landlord's behalf) have been unregulated up to now. The consequences: Absurd fees being charged to both landlords and tenants - e.g., an 'admin' fee of several hundred dollars charged to a tenant just for the privelege of having them send you a standard letting agreement to sign, a 'referencing fee' that costs up to 4x what it costs to obtain a reference. Why doesn't the free market end this practice, through rewarding those estate agents who don't charge extortionate fees for doing next-to-nothing? Because THEY ALL FUCKING CHARGE THEM. Otherwise they'd have no reason to exist, and would be out of business.

Next spring, the gov't is introducing regulations that make charging fees to tenants by estate agents illegal. The business of renting housing has been around for decades and this is the only way these fees are being abolished; the free market is not keeping these leeches from running their scams and getting away with it.

I know the free market stuff makes sense in some cases, such as a car manufacturer knowingly putting in faulty airbags and brakes or whatever and then losing money in the long run because of it. But there are a LOT of situations where there simply isn't any natural free market check on dickish behavior on the part of a business.

We end up talking about two vastly different things. You're discussing things that happen in isolated circumstances and posit cherry picked ones as conclusive evidence. I'm discussing comprehensive economic theory about what happens across all relevant domains.