>Companies need to be regulated because they often operate
>without regard to human values. Governments, too, need to be regulated to
>ensure they don't operate without regard for the people they are meant to
>serve. These are simply feedback mechanisms.
Indeed, I entirely agree, companies do need to be regulated. But the do not
need to be regulated by the government. No free market economist will tell
you that a 'free for all' is what we are looking for. Unions and private
watch dog groups would be much more influential and usefull in a free market
environment. They have no place in our heavily regulated environment
because the government handles all the regulations, albiet in a expensive
and innefient manner. Unions can naturally form in free market
environments, poor working conditions existed in the early part of this
century because it was *illegal* for unions to form. By you implying the
free markets are *unregulated* it indicates that you have an incorrect
perception of free markets. Free market would have no *government*
regulation, but the industry would self regulate. Already companies rate
other products, like Consumer Reports, other companies like United
Labratoris test and rate products. Companies and services like this would
have much larger and powerfull roles.
>To remove feedback leads rapidly to things spiralling out of control, as we
have seen so many times
>in the past.
Which supports my suspicion that you mis-understand what exactly a free
market entails. It is not free reign for companies to do whatever they
want. They will be regulated by how much a consumer is willing to pay and
what that consumer wants in a product. These are the best forms of
feedback, instead of a government 'committee' trying to figure out what it
thinks the best thing for everyone else is, instead of letting the people
decide for themselves.
>>Your objections to free markets are more based on your philosophical
>>opposition to it the to factual objections.
>No. Mine are practical concerns. "
They appear to be based on misconceptions of free markets.
>>You often hear in the media and by
>>people on the street the phrase "The rich are getting rich and the poor
are
>>getting poorer" this is not the case. The Rich are getting richer, but
the
>>poor are as well. Just look at the poverty level in the US right now and
>>compare it with the poverty level in the 1950's, and then in the early
>>1900's, then to the poor farmers that made up 85% of the population in
1850.
>>Everyone lives longer healthier lives. The rich are getting richer, but
so
>>are the poor. Its just the rich may get richer faster, but the entire
>>global standard of living is increasing
>I agree almost completely... although next time I see a homeless kid, or a
>starving person (rare in Oz) I don't think I shall bother trying to
>convince him that he is better off than his ancestors. (I am not being
>sarcastic here -- I really do largely agree -- I am just cautioning that it
>doesn't apply across the board.)"
The poverty level in america has amenities that other countries would envy.
Many people on welfare have Heat, Running water, Hot water, a roof, basic
medical care, free from polio and measles, not to mention a car and
telephone and a couple of color TV's. A far cry from the rickety disease
ridden water logged grass huts with dirt floors from generations ago. Our
definition of poverty continues to change as well. In a few generations
(Thanks to capitalistic competition) todays lower middle class will be
considered to be poverty. But they will still have it far better off then
previous generations.
>> and this is directly because of
>>capitalistic competition.
>No. It is also due to people becoming smarter and well educated,
And how did people become smarter and more educated? Hmm, first of all the
printing press, where manufacturing of books entered the mass production
realm, literacy rates sky rocketed after this. The printing press spurred
capitalistic competition to provide people with information. Farther down
the road providing an education became a business, and business necessarily
had to continually get better and cheaper at doing it.
>more tolerant,
One of the primary reasons we are more tolerant today is directly because of
technology. Most intolerence is bred on a tribalisitic 'us vs them'
mentality, a mentality that is easy to perpetuate in a culturally closed
environment. The evil communists, the crusades, etc. All of these were
based on the perpetuators perception the the enemy was 'different'. When
the radio was mass produced and introduced into east and west germany, east
germany was no longer able to perpetuate the myth that the free west was
full of pain and suffering. More and more east germans learned what was
going on because of the free exchange of information, which ushered an era
of change, among other things, that led to the collapse of the iron curtain.
Today we can communicate instantly with anyone in the world. It would be
very difficult for someone to convince me that chinese are evil when I have
four friends that I talk to routinely in china. Soon we will have
telephones that can instantly translate anything we say to any language, and
with that one of the largest remaining inhibitors to cultural unification
will fall.
There are fewer and fewer cultures every generation, they are continually
getting usurped by other cultures usually for economic reasons. The ease of
this intergration comes directly from the technological innovations that
science and capitalism have wrought. Soon (~100 years) there will be a
unified global cultural where national boundaries are as transparent as
state boundaries are today in the US. All of this will happen because
people desire to provide, innovate, distribute, and service because of
capitalistic incentive.
> and healthier.
Um, inexpansive mass produced agriculture? Which came from capitalistic
innovation?
>Capitalism has a part to play in that change, but beware of overstating its
contribution.
Capitalism was the biggest part in all of these changes, parralleled only by
science. Without science and capitalism we would all be farmers working 16
to 18 hours a day making just enough food for ourselves, and thats it.
Think you would have access to books, heat, clothing, hot water, air
conditioning, medical care, enough food, etc. etc. etc. without science and
capitalism? Let alone the free time that is required to explore and develop
other intellectual persuits, like art, music, culture, etc. etc. Try doing
that if you work 18 hours a day in hard physical labor.
>>If there are people out there who want to be educated, there will be
>>companies out there willing to educate them, poor or not. And they could
do
>>it better, cheaper, and faster.
>If that was the case then that is what would happen. So why doesn't it?
Because school is offered for 'free' Give everyone back the seven to ten
thousand dollars that is spent on the average student in public school and
see how many of them still want to go to 'free' public school. Let alone
pay the 7 - 10 grand for it.
>I don't have anything against private schooling. I think it would be
>wonderful if it became as cheap and accessible as public schooling
>currently is.
That is exactly what we are saying would happen. It would not only be
cheaper and more accesible, but better.
>Capitalism works very well if you are rich. If you are not then you need
>other means. The biggest mistake rich classes make is in supposing that
>they don't benefit from the poor improving their lot.
Sounds like you have some more misconceptions about free marketers...
Capitalism doesnt just work very well if you are rich, it works very well
for everyone, poor and rich. It is the reason why the global economic
standards have risen and more and more people live longer and healthier
lives. Think of every convenience you have, AC, medicine, electricity, a
car, a house, etc. etc. etc. ALl of these were built through 'big business'
and rich people trying to make products cheaper, better, and more accessible
to everyone, including the poor. Those rich people are merely trying to get
richer, but they are doing so by providing you with something that you want,
and because there is more then one rich person doing it, they have to make
it as cheap as possible.
Michael D
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:13 MDT