I do think that 'just do capitalism' is as naive as 'just do socialism'.
The Netherlands and the EU seem to have a better track record in corruption. Tbh though, i think i should look through some positions in the EU to see if there are conflicts of interest in there, or such.
About 'good intentions' it seems weird to me to assume to imply that they're always meddlesome. If something is meddlesome you say that, rather then saying 'ahh people with good intentions', which allows you deniability of whether you are actually criticizing it for being meddlesome. This potentially makes it a tool PR and manipulation of the media.(Remembering that not everyone has the skills to recognize that they have absorbed meaning the the saying 'good intentions' means this.)
Trying to change something for the better when those things only affect other people is a bad idea, at least when those people don't get a say in it. Usually when they are actually well-thought out, they also affect the person in question.
Further, people with good intentions have actually changed the world for the better, and frankly the people sifting the realistic from the unrealistic/meddling, determines the performance of government.
I agree that sometimes, regulation does need help from people in industries themselves. That -for-instance- an ex-VP of Monsanto can become advisor for the FDA, with the stock going up a bunch, without a peep from the media, is telling, like the people in the US don't care. However, does the regulation need someone so high up, as it should usually focus on something technical.
The market has shown that the price it puts on pollution is practically zero, any guess by regulators is better then zero. I don't really know about the special interests thing.duncan wrote:here's the thing- using a regulatory mechanism doesn't help with that- you still don't know how they should be priced.
How do regulators get payed more or less either way? Are you presuming a corrupt system and starting from there? Lawyers are payed to get cases ruled in the benefit for their employers. They.will.constantly.push.and.pull.at.logic,.rethoric.laws,and.truth. And the caliber of the opposing lawyers are not always the same. Regulators are payed for regulating, applying the rules. The latter has the potential to prevent the first, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. If something should be regulated depends what that thing is and how effective government is.duncan wrote:As opposed to regulators who are- well I'm inclined to mock you here, but instead I'll just ask- what makes you think that regulators are made out of sterner stuff than lawyers? At least lawyers make money either way. Regulators only get paid if the decisions go the way of the people they are trying to regulate. And at least lawyers operate in an adversarial environment- regulators rarely hear anything they don't want to, unless their subordinates are making too much noise kissing their asses.
@tayssir that "command economy" links is nice. Some of those mechanisms also work on government, like peer pressure, removing/reforming agencies. Imo that those things work indicates to me that government planned activities can work to a larger extent then some people think. Probably more nice links here, but a lot to read.
Note that this doesn't imply that we should banish all large companies. Not like that is the only solution, as it might just imply that the workers may want more influence over the organization they work in. It doesn't need imply that it should be enforced either; if the workers have such bargaining power, they can demand it.Jasper wrote:Note the tone though, "individuals expressing themselves by freely trading" vs most of reality; people working for corporations they have no control and possibly no bargaining power over,mostly following it's orders.
Already engineered, and working in many countries. The ones that engineer it and make a horrible mess of it are the ones you hear of. Edit: alright, maybe engineered isn't the right word, as it does require public discussion and such. (And 'engineered' implies that a few people decide it all.)findinglisp wrote:I believe that society does quite well on its own without people trying to engineer it.
Naturalistic fallacy.findinglisp wrote:The fact that capitalism springs up, quite on its own, thank you very much
Is this statement absolute? That would imply that you think pollution, fishing restrictions, safety can all be resolved within a completely nonrestricting framework? And do you choose your own destiny if your neighbour, spewed a couple of tonnes of radioactive waste in the air? (Sure, you can sue him after.)findinglisp wrote:Just let it work and allow people the free will and liberty to choose their own destinies.
I think i have already answered it, this is a connected but largely perpendicular issue of governance, and democracy seems to be the answer. Also, again, you are thinking me as more to the left then i am.findinglisp wrote:Ah, yes, the authority. Therein lies the rub. Who has the perfect wisdom to run the world "correctly?" And "correct" according to whom?
I was wrong about the phone charges in the EU being regulation, it is an agreement with most of the big companies to use USB.
Goes right against reality. Most people simply do not read every entire contract. Hell, even smart people will have trouble reading legalistic parts of the contract.(Especially if the company makes sure they don't) I guess they could have someone read it for them, more work for lawyers again.findinglisp wrote:Don't sign contracts that you don't read.
But if some government intervention can be kept sane and can do it quicker, that might be better. Edit: thisfindinglisp wrote:It's certainly not a failure of capitalism that supply and demand take some time to reconverge.
If there is too much labor, there is poverty in pure capitalism, unless there are enough charitable persons.(Which likely there won't be) Period. Very cute poor people can start companies, but guess what they will earn with the enterprises they can start: Only slightly more then they would under an employer, because they'd be competing with other poor people. And taking free time can mean not sending the kinds to school, losing the home, starvation.
Upside though, if they can make the products the rich get rich off, they can compete with the rich, until those prices go down. That way, everyone effectively becomes richer. However, this does not come nearly soon enough in many cases. Frankly, cases where the poor could not break their poverty is the very origin of socialistic thought.
If there is too much labor in (partial)socialism, one can just let everyone work less, and send the goods round. And it can work, if it is mixed with capitalism. Unfortunately, in the Netherlands, at least, it is usually talked in terms of work, rather then in terms of the amount produced and the amount needed. There is no real social framework, and a bunch of problems for talking about it in terms of amount produced, though. For instance some professions are more needed then others. And maybe we do need a lot of work with competition from the East and lots of older people, though.
Meh i just found it...findinglisp wrote:I'm sorry, so what was the point of saying that Einstein wrote an article about socialism, if not to imply that because Einstein wrote it he must be right?
McDonalds going up 30% in months scale? You really think, that realistically anything that serious is happening in the fast food business all the time? It's the difference between an earthquake and calm. And what is wrong with me not being specific? I just don't know what it is.findinglisp wrote:Then I suggest that you don't actually UNDERSTAND capitalism and free trade.
BTW, just FTR, Tragedy of the commons says more then just the 'people with cattle and the field' thing, but we've headed into the capitalism vs the rest discussion, so i guess that is what keeps coming up.