Regulations vs free market

Hm?

By regulations I mean not the lack of any rules but all kinds of levers for price control by the government (subsidies, duties, tariffs, VAT, licences, permits, etc., etc).
How much market involvement of the government would you tolerate?

Canell said:

Hm?

By regulations I mean not the lack of any rules but all kinds of levers for price control by the government (subsidies, duties, tariffs, VAT, licences, permits, etc., etc).
How much market involvement of the government would you tolerate?

Click to expand...

Those are taxes.

A regulation is an unfunded mandate.

Matt Foley said:

Those are taxes.

A regulation is an unfunded mandate.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but they are regulations of the market. That's what I meant.

How are these terms defined in an objective sense?

Canell said:

Hm?

By regulations I mean not the lack of any rules but all kinds of levers for price control by the government (subsidies, duties, tariffs, VAT, licences, permits, etc., etc).
How much market involvement of the government would you tolerate?

Click to expand...

A "free market" is actually an oxymoron. If there were absoulutely no regulations by the government then the big buisnesses would make them up. Most of the time to the detriment of smaller buisnesses. For example a big buisness that has stores across the country could easily take a hit in Hicksville by undercutting a competitors price who only has only the one store in Hicksville. Also big buisnesses don't care about the environment. They only care about their profit margin. They also don't care about society in general. They will do what ever it takes to squeeze the last penny from people.

For these reasons and more government regulation is a must. The question though is just how much regulation should the government be allowed to do? Too much and it is no longer a good market and buisnesses will either die or move out. Too little and big businesses start doing whatever they can to increase profit margin to the detriment of the society.

Beyond what I stated here...I have no idea just what the right amount of regulation we should have. It is almost impossible (if not completely impossible) to determine what exactly is good enough, too little, or too much for the simple fact that the market is way too fluid to gauge any of it properly. Some regulation might be just right, others too much and should be repealed, still others are too little and more should be added. Others that are just plain out dated and should be gotten rid of. Then there are those that are so complicated that not even a lawyer can tell you everything in it. And then the opposite of that would be those regulations that are too simple that loopholes abound.

Free Market, like a Free State, requires a small and proper amount of government regulation.

Canell said:

Hm?

By regulations I mean not the lack of any rules but all kinds of levers for price control by the government (subsidies, duties, tariffs, VAT, licences, permits, etc., etc).
How much market involvement of the government would you tolerate?

Click to expand...

I do not think anyone is for a totally unrestricted free market.The only purpose of a business is for the people who run it to make a profit. This means that they will try to cut corners wherever possible and companies in the past have proven that they can not be trusted. I support tariffs, licenses/permits to run businesses, laws banning monopolies, certain environmental regulations and minimum wage.I also support restrictions on companies that manufacture stuff for our military.

Heck after this bail out nonsense with the too big to fail lie that many of these socialists were trying to push and the threat of another great depression then we should also restrict how big a company can get.This is so that when the company goes under it doesn't take a significant portion of the country with it. No company should receive government IE tax payer aid period.

Man has caused these rules and regulations.
IGNORANCE
As to price controls ......
GREED
As long as man insists on charging a gold piece for that peon in the desert, dieing of thirst....then here too we must have controls.

jamesrage said:

I do not think anyone is for a totally unrestricted free market.The only purpose of a business is for the people who run it to make a profit. This means that they will try to cut corners wherever possible and companies in the past have proven that they can not be trusted. I support tariffs, licenses/permits to run businesses, laws banning monopolies, certain environmental regulations and minimum wage.I also support restrictions on companies that manufacture stuff for our military.

Heck after this bail out nonsense with the too big to fail lie that many of these socialists were trying to push and the threat of another great depression then we should also restrict how big a company can get.This is so that when the company goes under it doesn't take a significant portion of the country with it. No company should receive government IE tax payer aid period.

Click to expand...

We agree, yey you are a "conservative" and I am a "liberal"....
We also agree on "these companies too big to fail"...They must be pruned, like any wild plant.

Canell said:

Hm?

By regulations I mean not the lack of any rules but all kinds of levers for price control by the government (subsidies, duties, tariffs, VAT, licences, permits, etc., etc).
How much market involvement of the government would you tolerate?

Click to expand...

Some of those you listed are actually market-based incentives intended to correct a market failure. A preferable alternative to outright laws, yes?

There have to be some regulations, there just have to be. A wholly free market would run rampant and corrupt. There have to be limitations that cannot be crossed, if for no other reason than to keep corporations from violating the law and the rights of the citizens. So long as those are maintained, then relative freedom is a good thing. Absolute freedom is not.

Since you clarified the rules vs the regulation...im for very mild regulations but I am for strong rules to protect workers.

megaprogman said:

How are these terms defined in an objective sense?

Click to expand...

I don't really know. I just used common sense.

jamesrage said:

I do not think anyone is for a totally unrestricted free market.

Click to expand...

Of course. There are some basic principles like "mind other people". Apart from that, I don't see why a company would not import, lets say steel, from abroad at lower price and has to be burdened with duties. I see that as government regulating the supposedly "free market".

RadicalModerate said:

Some of those you listed are actually market-based incentives intended to correct a market failure.

Click to expand...

Like what?

I want enough regulations that corporations can't abuse the system. I agree that too many regulations is a bad thing, but I'm not sure where the line should be drawn. I do agree that companies should not be allowed to grow so large that if they went under they'd seriously impact the entire US economy.

free market has it own regulations.

Canell said:

I don't really know. I just used common sense.



Of course. There are some basic principles like "mind other people". Apart from that, I don't see why a company would not import, lets say steel, from abroad at lower price and has to be burdened with duties. I see that as government regulating the supposedly "free market".



Like what?

Click to expand...

Licenses and permits. Selling licenses to polluters is a more effective way of curbing emissions than one single law limiting all emissions to a low level.

RadicalModerate said:

Licenses and permits. Selling licenses to polluters is a more effective way of curbing emissions than one single law limiting all emissions to a low level.

Click to expand...

OK, I'll buy that. Air pollution (and any pollution in that sense) affects other people, so it has a cost. You can't put a smokestack, burn coal and get rich on the expense of other people's health. But otherwise I don't like the government involved in price control.

Canell said:

OK, I'll buy that. Air pollution (and any pollution in that sense) affects other people, so it has a cost. You can't put a smokestack, burn coal and get rich on the expense of other people's health. But otherwise I don't like the government involved in price control.

Click to expand...

Not even to keep the cost of food down? Without all the rules governing food in this country, most of it would cost a lot more. Farm subsidies are primarily aimed at keeping food prices down. Low food costs means everyone eats better, is healthier, and a lot fewer people starve. Especially children. Policies to affect the price of food keep a lot of kids from starving.

Most of these polls are way too broad.

Paschendale said:

Not even to keep the cost of food down? Without all the rules governing food in this country, most of it would cost a lot more. Farm subsidies are primarily aimed at keeping food prices down. Low food costs means everyone eats better, is healthier, and a lot fewer people starve. Especially children. Policies to affect the price of food keep a lot of kids from starving.

Click to expand...

Technological and genetic innovations shift the supply curve of food staples to the right, lowering the price. Farm subsidies do very little to get food into the hands of the hungry, it's mostly a political ploy and a way to keep grain exports high.

Paschendale said:

Not even to keep the cost of food down? Without all the rules governing food in this country, most of it would cost a lot more. Farm subsidies are primarily aimed at keeping food prices down.

Click to expand...

Yeah and then the government taxes these same people in order to subsidise their food. What's the point of that turnover?

Canell said:

Yeah and then the government taxes these same people in order to subsidise their food. What's the point of that turnover?

Click to expand...

It's not the same group of people. The group that can't afford food don't pay taxes - except FICA.

MoSurveyor said:

It's not the same group of people. The group that can't afford food don't pay taxes - except FICA.

Click to expand...

What does it mean "can't afford" anyway? They can't afford because they agree to a low wage. If the basic necessities of life (food, electricity, etc) are more expensive and not subsidised, those people just won't work for nothing and will demand more money, thus raising the standard in their occupation. If the employer can't afford that, let him sweep the floor and wash the dishes.
Btw, that food is subsidised from the employer's money. If the government doesn't tax him to pay subsidies to the cleaner, may be he can give those money directly to him. Lower taxes - more money - higher wages. Why should the government be involved at all (I'm not even mentioning the administrative cost to process those taxes and subsidies)?

Canell said:

What does it mean "can't afford" anyway? They can't afford because they agree to a low wage. If the basic necessities of life (food, electricity, etc) are more expensive and not subsidised, those people just won't work for nothing and will demand more money, thus raising the standard in their occupation. If the employer can't afford that, let him sweep the floor and wash the dishes.

Click to expand...

LOL! That's not the realty in America - especially at this time with an 8% unemployment rate. But even in what American businesses like to call a "normal" economic climate, with unemployment at ~5.5%, you take the job at the wage offered or they'll find someone else who will. The only time workers stand a chance "negotiating" (unless it's a union) is when unemployment falls below ~5% or so.

Canell said:

Btw, that food is subsidised from the employer's money. If the government doesn't tax him to pay subsidies to the cleaner, may be he can give those money directly to him. Lower taxes - more money - higher wages. Why should the government be involved at all (I'm not even mentioning the administrative cost to process those taxes and subsidies)?

Click to expand...

Labor follows the same rule as any other commodity, supply and demand. 50M unskilled jobs with 55M unskilled workers means they'll be paid minimum wage except for unique local conditions.

MoSurveyor said:

Labor follows the same rule as any other commodity, supply and demand. 50M unskilled jobs with 55M unskilled workers means they'll be paid minimum wage...

Click to expand...

That's my point - the minimum wage will rise. First because none will be willing to work for a loaf of bread, we are not in the 19c. Secondly because employers will have more money (if the government lowers taxes if they don't give subsidies) to give as wages. Finally, there could be minimal wage set by the government (although I'm not a big proponent of that) to guarantee people won't turn into slaves to greedy employers.