• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which market regulations are beneficial/necessary?

Which regulations should be put in place


  • Total voters
    27

Dav

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
5,536
Reaction score
1,813
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Which regulations should be put in place, and why?

I do not see how any regulation ever helps the economy in any way, ever.

However, I do think that some regulation is necessary for moral reasons, if not economic ones. These include environmental regulations, product safety requirements, and labor condition requirements. I am unsure about copyright laws but I lean towards wanting to respect those as well.

If anyone can think of more regulations than I put on the poll please let me know.
 
Actually, heavy government intervention has always been a significant component in the capitalist economy, and will necessarily always remain so. For example, the major Western nations developed various industries through the utilization of protectionist state measures such as tariff impositions. This continues to be a necessary element of strategic trade policy today, as government protection of infant industries is necessary to ensure appropriate development.

There's also no need to refer to "moral reasons" when describing the potential benefits of heavy state regulation, as there are in fact extremely visible and substantial economic benefits provided by its utilization. Unemployment benefit, for instance, is typically referred to in terms of the morality of "giving people a leg up," but more importantly for economic purposes, it's able to ensure more extensive and thorough job search, which consequently provides for more appropriate skill set matches and thereby reduces underemployment, which is a form of static inefficiency. We thus have an example of a state welfare program contributing to tangible efficiency increases in the economy.

With that in mind, it's not surprising that countries that rely on heavy utilization of welfare state policies (such as the Scandinavian social democracies) are not only able to rival more economically rightist countries in the policy goals that they pursue, but also attain their own goals, such as reduced unemployment (and unemployment is of course also a form of static inefficiency). That aptly underscores the irony of referring to social democratic capitalism as "socialist" in nature when the policies it entails in fact strengthen efficiency in the capitalist economy, thereby strengthening capitalist economic structure as a whole.
 
All regulation is good, the government should completely control the economy


I disagree with this.Not all regulation is good.

Minimum wage

Good because it ensures that some employees are not to exploited. Without it I imagine people in this country besides illegals would be still making a dollar an hour or less.


Labor condition laws


A good thing. The fact we had to make laws to improve labor conditions only shows that such such a thing would have never happened without government intervention.


Product safety laws

A good thing.



Antitrust laws

A good thing

Copyright laws

A good thing,although I am not too sure about the full extent.



Environmental protection
A good thing,although this ony extends to dumping waste or releasing noxious or hazardous fumes into the air.

Tariffs and other import/export regulations

Its a good thing.Without it a lot of jobs will go over seas and a lot of companies here wouldn't be able to compete.


Incorporation restrictions
Not sure exactly what this means to have an opinion.
 
While I do not think that all regulations are good and wise, those listed, I feel are needed and serve a good purpose.
 
Voted for everything but the minimum wage. Copyright laws with some reservation-- commercial copyright violation should remain prohibited, but applying those laws to free copies and filesharing does more harm than good.
 
Copyright and import/export.

Copyrights, because infomation should never be free - knowledge is not worthless.

Import/export because strong borders, is a strong country.
 
Actually laws of the type being polled already exist, so what ask which should be put into place when they already are? Shouldn't the question ask which laws are Constitutional and effective?
 
Actually laws of the type being polled already exist, so what ask which should be put into place when they already are? Shouldn't the question ask which laws are Constitutional and effective?

Good point, I suppose I asked the wrong question. I should have asked which ones should stay.
 
Incidentally, I'd say that state regulatory structure is ultimately unnecessary because the state itself is ultimately unnecessary, but that strong regulatory structure is necessary in our presently existing economy. So while I'd advocate a minimal or nonexistent government role, that's not a feasible option as long as capitalism exists.
 
huh? polluting the water is okay?
 
All regulation is good, the government should completely control the economy


I disagree with this.Not all regulation is good.

Minimum wage

Good because it ensures that some employees are not to exploited. Without it I imagine people in this country besides illegals would be still making a dollar an hour or less.


Labor condition laws


A good thing. The fact we had to make laws to improve labor conditions only shows that such such a thing would have never happened without government intervention.


Product safety laws

A good thing.



Antitrust laws

A good thing

Copyright laws

A good thing,although I am not too sure about the full extent.



Environmental protection
A good thing,although this ony extends to dumping waste or releasing noxious or hazardous fumes into the air.

Tariffs and other import/export regulations

Its a good thing.Without it a lot of jobs will go over seas and a lot of companies here wouldn't be able to compete.


Incorporation restrictions
Not sure exactly what this means to have an opinion.

It does not happen very often, but I could not agree more with James, and that is a very nice summary.
 
No vote, as usual, I can detect a conservative/libertarian agenda a mile away.
But, "product safety laws" should be completely scuttled....This safety mania has become completely ridiculous.
 
While I believe that the government should protect the environment to reasonable degree, provide some unemployment insurance, and most importantly protect people against theft and fraud, the government's role in the economy should be kept to a minimum. Typically government tries to fix a problem, thinking that it's God, and it just makes things worse.
 
Tarrifs don't really help the economy, they just prop up certain industries when the resources could be more efficently used elsewhere in that country.
 
Tarrifs don't really help the economy, they just prop up certain industries when the resources could be more efficently used elsewhere in that country.

Actually, no, they prove critical in the appropriate development of infant industries, which maximizes dynamic comparative advantage.
 
I voted for labor conditions, product safety, antitrust, copyright, and environmental.

These are generally good regulations for society because they are directly beneficial for the people (with the exception of environmental regulations). These regulations keep the worker from being exploited, and protect from chaos. The environmental are indirectly good for the people. We need to protect the environment from destruction.

I withheld my vote for the minimum wage, because, I believe it is good only to an extent. An excessively high minimum wage (what we have here in MA compared to previous years/other parts of the country) can force an employer to hire less than they normally would. Don't get me wrong, minimum wage is beneficial to society to oversee that workers are not exploited for labor. I would not like to see minimum wage raise any more here is MA.

I also withheld my vote on tariffs import/export regulations, because I'm unsure of my opinion. On one hand, I believe free trade can be good for the economy. On the other hand, tariffs against certain countries are good political strategies for morality against a regime. I believe the trade blockade on Cuba should be lifted, but trade restrictions on North Korea should be held in place.

Sadly, I do not know what incorporation restrictions are.

The regulations listed are pretty general. There are plenty more...
Intervention regulation against failing markets (AKA government takeover), regulation on the prices of a commodity, regulation on gas guzzling vehicles, sin taxes, etc.
 
Actually, no, they prove critical in the appropriate development of infant industries, which maximizes dynamic comparative advantage.

Actually yes, why should we prop up industries that can't stand on their own? Thousands of new enterprises are driven out of business by their counterparts in the same nation. It also helps provoke retaliatory tarrifs. All companies start out by losing money. Proping up a business is only worthwile if it can par its customers back with lower prices later on, but if the business can recoup it's debt to the consumer, why can't it support itself?
 
Actually yes, why should we prop up industries that can't stand on their own? Thousands of new enterprises are driven out of business by their counterparts in the same nation. It also helps provoke retaliatory tarrifs. All companies start out by losing money. Proping up a business is only worthwile if it can par its customers back with lower prices later on, but if the business can recoup it's debt to the consumer, why can't it support itself?

Your basis is a utopian conception of market exchange where all market agents and competitors have the ability to rise and fall on their own merits (which is why you suggested that worker-owned enterprises should be able to gain a competitive edge if they're more efficient). Given the realities of market and wealth concentration, that's most certainly not the case.
 
Your basis is a utopian conception of market exchange where all market agents and competitors have the ability to rise and fall on their own merits (which is why you suggested that worker-owned enterprises should be able to gain a competitive edge if they're more efficient). Given the realities of market and wealth concentration, that's most certainly not the case.

I realize that the market doesn't work perfectly. Neither does the government. The government rarely concedes power once it's put in place. It usually creates more problems when it triesto solve something. Also, it's probably a matter of me not seeing your response, but why exactly wouldn't a worker owned factory succeed if it's so much more efficent?
 
I voted for everything except the minimum wage and tariffs / trade barriers. Most of the things listed are necessary, because they either protect the public (e.g. environmental laws, safety laws) or they prevent economic inefficiencies (e.g. copyright laws, antitrust laws). But the minimum wage and tariffs are just gratuitous meddling in the market, and the government should not be involved.

I wasn't really sure what you meant by "incorporation restrictions." Do you mean zoning restrictions, where you can't open a business in a residential area? If so, I support that.
 
I voted for everything except the minimum wage and tariffs / trade barriers. Most of the things listed are necessary, because they either protect the public (e.g. environmental laws, safety laws) or they prevent economic inefficiencies (e.g. copyright laws, antitrust laws). But the minimum wage and tariffs are just gratuitous meddling in the market, and the government should not be involved.

I wasn't really sure what you meant by "incorporation restrictions." Do you mean zoning restrictions, where you can't open a business in a residential area? If so, I support that.

Haha. You pretty much duplicated my post. Bravo!
 
I realize that the market doesn't work perfectly. Neither does the government. The government rarely concedes power once it's put in place. It usually creates more problems when it triesto solve something.

None of this rather abstract commentary changes or alters the fact that the government is an integral agent in the capitalist economy, for the reasons that I mentioned above.

Also, it's probably a matter of me not seeing your response, but why exactly wouldn't a worker owned factory succeed if it's so much more efficent?

Again, market concentration. The superior resources of established firms allow them to drive out smaller firms that are newer to the exchange market, even if they utilize their own meager resources more efficiently. The established firms will also engage in tactics such as underselling.
 
None of this rather abstract commentary changes or alters the fact that the government is an integral agent in the capitalist economy, for the reasons that I mentioned above.

Yes, and I never denied that. That doesn't mean that everything they touch turns to gold. What you said about the market is true, it's not perfect. Neither is government action. At least the free market offers one far more choices, choices are voluntary, and it's more flexible than the government.

Again, market concentration. The superior resources of established firms allow them to drive out smaller firms that are newer to the exchange market, even if they utilize their own meager resources more efficiently. The established firms will also engage in tactics such as underselling.

Yes, it's hard to get into the business of anything. It helps weed out the weaklings that can't use their resources as efficently as others. However, most businesses are small. They are at least as big a part of the economy as large firms

http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/healthcare/Small-Business-Healthcare-Fact-Sheet.pdf
 
Yes, it's hard to get into the business of anything. It helps weed out the weaklings that can't use their resources as efficently as others.

No, it doesn't. There's a sharp distinction between efficient resource allocation and mere greater access to more expansive resources that permits for any manner of allocation.

However, most businesses are small. They are at least as big a part of the economy as large firms

http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/healthcare/Small-Business-Healthcare-Fact-Sheet.pdf

I'm not merely referring to small businesses in general (and do you realize how many small businesses fail?); I'm specifically referring to the problems that will confront worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives in whatever sectors they emerge in, including negative externalities generated not only by local competitors but by capitalist economic structure in general.
 
I'm aware that many new enterprises fail. Start up costs are very high. I also pointed out how this helps weed out reletive weaklings. These are inevitable. Big government also creates a lot of problems for businesses.

I'm leaving now, I'll be back tommarow. Good evening
 
Back
Top Bottom