Quote:Original post by mattnewport
Quote:Original post by LessBread
It seems that way because you look at deregulation as the opposite or the inverse of regulation, but that isn't necessarily the case. What I proposed was a question.
Are you resorting to Zen Koans now? If you are proposing new definitions for deregulation and regulation then spit them out rather than dodging the question.
My remark only seems like a koan because you've decontextualized it. I don't think regulations can be measured in the ordinary sense of measurement. I don't see what units they would be measured in. If you measured them as costs, using currency units, that still wouldn't resolve the problem because in some cases the benefits can't be measured in the same terms or in any terms. How would you measure the rules of a game? Do you assign a base value to each rule and then adjust the value of each rule according to the importance that rule has for the game?
Quote:Original post by mattnewport
I've already proposed several possible measures of regulation, not particularly brilliant ones but at least something that might be amenable to objective measurement. I've also offered to get specific by discussing particular reforms and saying whether I think they would count as deregulation. If we can't even agree on what we mean by regulation and deregulation then there's really not much point discussing their relative merits.
I'm using the word regulation in it's ordinary sense. I think the word deregulation is more troubling in that it's not necessarily the negation of regulation, as the word implies, but the alteration of regulations. As I see it, deregulation changes regulations, it does not eliminate them entirely. It replaces one set of regulations with another. These changes generally serve to benefit a special interest which is why I'm skeptical of calls for deregulation.
Quote:Original post by mattnewport
Quote:They have a legitimate interest in reducing harm to those harmed, including those not seeking assistance.
They have no business judging that someone is being harmed if the 'victim' is not seeking assistance. There are many religious people in the world who would consider that I am being harmed (by condemning my soul to eternal damnation) by not following their beliefs. That gives them absolutely no right to intervene in my life without my consent. The same is true of those who see 'harm' in other people's use of drugs or alcohol, sexual proclivities, participation in dangerous sports or any other activity that doesn't meet some busybody's approval.
I agree with you regarding matters of conscience, but matters of behavior tend to have secondary effects. Sex can result in unwanted children. That is society's business. Sex can result in the transmission of disease. That is society's business. Prostitution can result in the abuse and exploitation of women. That is society's business. The case with alcohol and drugs is similar. If an individual is able to indulge and keep their life together, fine, but a lot of people indulge until their life explodes and society is forced to pick up the pieces. You might say that no, society isn't obliged, and in an absolute sense that's probably true, but in a real sense, allowing large numbers of people to fail degrades society, reducing it to a rank state of barbarity.
Quote:Original post by mattnewport
Quote:It appears that you support legalization coupled with a you're on your own response to the consequences. I support legalization with a realization that the potential social damage that might follow will need amelioration.
I have no problem with voluntary assistance provided to those who seek help due to problems relating to drug use. There are many commendable charities doing such work today. I absolutely reject anyone being forced to provide assistance to anyone else against their will.
I've never heard of anyone being forced to help others. Aren't you really rejecting the use of tax money for social services? If voluntary assistance was sufficient, if charity was sufficient, society wouldn't have any problems related to drug use. At any rate, I'm talking about regulating drugs, bringing the black market into the open, removing the stigma and helping people in need of help. The alternative so far has been prison, which I think has been a losing proposition for society.
Quote:Original post by mattnewport
Quote:
If people died in the riot or were trampled in the theater would there be grounds for a criminal case? I think so. I think people should be held to account for what they say in public.
No, I don't think there would be grounds for a criminal case. There may well be grounds for several civil suits. People can be held responsible for the consequences of their actions without needing to make everything into a case for the criminal courts.
Civil suits are insufficient for cases where people died as a result. Take note that holding people to account for what they say in public does not necessarily mean putting them on trial. I don't want to put people on trial for being assholes.
Quote:Original post by mattnewport
Quote:
That link doesn't support your claim. Mitchell is addressing standard of living, not regulation.
I was referencing the first paragraph of the link: "Nations such as Denmark and Sweden have much to admire, particularly their open markets, low levels of regulation, sound money, and honest governments. Indeed, if fiscal policy is removed from the equation, both Denmark and Sweden are more laissez-faire than the United States according to Economic Freedom of the World".
If that's the case, shouldn't you have linked to the "Economic Freedom of the World" (whatever that is) and made the claim about Denmark and Sweden yourself?
Quote:Original post by mattnewport
Quote:As I wrote above, I think the "Index of Freedom" is nothing more than a propaganda tool used by corporate special interests in their effort to shape regulations to their liking. It's bogus from the outset.
So you fear the dark dystopian corporate future where the United States becomes a little more like Australia or Ireland?
If you're looking for corporate distopia, check out the second Robocop movie. I'm not talking about Australia or Ireland. I'm saying that the "Index of Freedom" is a propaganda tool.
Quote:Original post by mattnewport
Quote:Meanwhile, you're sidestepping my challenge to your claim that high regulation correlates with high corruption.
Easy enough to test with Excel, seems a pretty robust correlation:
img src="http://www.mattnewport.com/pics/IndexOfEconomicFreedomVsCorruptionPerceptions.JPG"/
That doesn't tell me anything, especially given that I don't find the "Index of Freedom" valid. You might as well be comparing moon pies and unicorn tails.
Quote:Original post by mattnewport
Quote:How do mega-corporations with revenues comparable to the GDP of nations manage to avoid top down regulation internally?
Using as many different approaches as there are corporations. I suggest reading some management books or case studies of a few successful large corporations to get a feel for how they organize themselves without excessive top down regulation. Generally the more profitable corporations do not organize themselves like governments.
I wasn't asking about all corporations. I was asking about corporations so large they are comparable to nation-states. Corporations don't grow that large unless they are profitable. For example, Wal-Mart. How does Wal-Mart do it? From what I understand, Wal-Mart is very top down when it comes to internal regulations. Here's a bit of news on that from last week:
Wal-Mart price pressure hurts China workers: report.
Quote:Original post by mattnewport
Quote:It's right there in the definition you cited. A system can be called economically efficient if: (Economic efficiency). The government isn't the economic system. You're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
So how would you like to define efficiency for governments then? If you want to argue with my definitions then how about proposing an alternative? It seems to me that any measure of efficiency for governments would have to bear more than a passing resemblance to the definition I gave.
You just said that corporations do not organize themselves like governments, now you're saying that governments should be rated as if they were corporations. Those statements are contradictory. Government isn't business and shouldn't be treated as if it was. Now there are parts of government that provide services but even with those parts efficiency isn't necessarily the proper measure because their purposes aren't the same as they would be with a business. The "customers" of government are not just taxpayers but every citizen. That changes the dynamic considerably. The issue becomes effectiveness, not efficiency. Setting aside the issue of government provided services, if you reduce government down to the legislative process alone, how exactly would you define efficiency? By the number of bills passed? or by the number of bills not passed? It seems to me that an advocate of small government would not want the legislature to pass very many bills. That is, they would not want an efficient legislature at all. They would want to make the legislative process very inefficient, so that it would take a long time to pass a bill and every interest group with a stake in the bill would have their chance to weigh in on it. My understanding is that the framers of the Constitution designed it with that purpose in mind and that's one reason why it's so easy for the US Senate to delay the progress of legislation.
Quote:Original post by mattnewport
Quote:
Most is not equal to all. People can think their taxes are too high and still willingly pay them.
You were the one that brought 'most' into it. I don't think taxes would be legitimate even if an absolute majority approved of them. As it happens I suspect that 'most' people would not pay taxes at anything like the current level if they didn't have to but I don't think it really matters what percentage would choose to pay. If you believe that most people willingly pay their taxes why not make them voluntary? I have absolutely no problem with voluntary taxes that anyone who wants to can pay. What I object to is forcing people who don't want to pay them to pay.
I used the word most from the outset. You asked why taxes were compulsory. Most people willingly pay them but not everyone. Hence, most is not equal to all. It's not in your ideology to find any taxes legitimate, so there's no surprise that you don't find them legitimate. I think people would be much happier paying taxes if their taxes came back to them in the form of improved services, rather than being spent on foreign military misadventures and the like. Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. If a person doesn't like the benefits they get from living in civilization, they're welcome to try to make it on their own in the back woods. Otherwise, they're just wannabe free-loaders and you're making excuses for them.
Quote:Original post by mattnewport
Quote:That you can't see the logical connection attests to another of your ideological blind spots. Considering that in 1861 half the country expressed it's patriotism by rebelling, your question is moot.
You seem to be confusing patriotism with nationalism and with blind devotion to the current government. Did you agree that people who opposed the Iraq war were unpatriotic for not supporting their government?
I'm not confusing either "ism" or with blind devotion. I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of your question as it was posed vis-a-vis 1861. Opposition to the invasion of Iraq is not comparable with open rebellion in support of the institution of slavery.
Quote:Original post by mattnewport
Quote:There's nothing confusing about saying greed isn't rational. Rational people don't lose control of their appetites. If it's not clear to you that corporate greed suffers from pursuing narrow goals that act against their broader interest, then you must be impervious to the facts of what happened on Wall Street last year.
It's far from clear to me that Wall Street acted against it's own broader interests. The Goldman Sachs employees earning an average of $700,000 this year from a $16.7 billion compensation pool probably feel that they have more or less met their goals.
So you think that the employees of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers operated in the broader interests of their employers in the years immediately preceding the demise of those companies? How exactly does wrecking a company serve it's interests? What about AIG? and going back a few years, what about Enron? World-Com? etc., etc.
Quote:Original post by mattnewport
Quote:When you call the police you are calling the government. When you call the fire department you are calling the government. When you call the DMV or the courts and so on, you are calling the government. There is no mystery to that - unless of course you don't want people to make the connection between your extreme views regarding government and how it would impact them directly. It sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to condemn the government as a mugger, but you want the government to provide you with service when you are mugged. Among other things, that betrays an attitude of privilege and even contempt.
If I contact a government agency to provide a service it is because the government has a monopoly on that service and I have no other realistic option to obtain it. In many cases it is a service that I don't even want but that I am required to obtain because of other government regulations. What I want is to be able to obtain those services that I actually require privately in a competitive market place with no government involvement. Your argument is completely incoherent.
It seems to me that if you truly believed the government was a mugger, then when you were really mugged, you would contract out with a crime syndicate (or some such) to obtain justice. Why wait for the government to stand down when there's a private competitive market out there waiting to take your money? If that market is only black because of the government, and you don't believe in government, then you ought to act on your belief. There's nothing incoherent in this argument. It boils down to calling you out for talking the talk but not walking the walk.
Quote:Original post by mattnewport
Quote:If there was plenty of counter evidence, it would be easy for you to point to some of it, but instead of that you merely bluster.
Any evidence I've linked to in this thread you've summarily dismissed as nothing but corporate funded lies without even bothering to address. It seems to me you are not interested in considering any evidence that doesn't fit with your world view. It seems to me that there are rapidly diminishing returns to continuing to engage in dialogue with you.
Iirc, I only dismissed the "Index of Freedom". I argued down Thomas Sowell, the guy from CATO and the Professor from Michigan. If these are the only sources of information you have that's too bad. I'm not interested in rubber stamping the evidence you present. I've considered what you've presented and found it wanting.
Quote:Original post by mattnewport
Quote:Crack houses would be left to the local government to deal with, just like porn shops, gun shops and pot dispensaries. It would be a zoning issue.
I'd prefer it were left to private ownership but devolving power to the most local level of government is certainly a better situation than what we have now.
Maybe. Sometimes local government is more oppressive than state or federal government. You can look back at Jim Crow laws for example. If you don't want to go back that far, you can see that operating with medical marijuana dispensaries in California right now. Here in Fresno, the local government is passing local laws attempting to circumvent state law using federal law.
New Consensus Sees Stimulus Package as Worthy Step (November 20, 2009)
Quote:
...
The legislation, a variety of economists say, is helping an economy in free fall a year ago to grow again and shed fewer jobs than it otherwise would. Mr. Obama’s promise to “save or create” about 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 is roughly on track, though far more jobs are being saved than created, especially among states and cities using their money to avoid cutting teachers, police officers and other workers.
...
While some conservatives remain as skeptical as ever that big increases in government spending give the economy a jolt that is worth the cost, Martin Feldstein, a conservative Harvard economist who served in the Reagan administration, said the problem with the package was that some of its tax cuts and spending programs were of a variety that did little to spur the economy.
“There should have been more direct federal spending that would have added to aggregate demand,” he said. “Temporary tax cuts and one-time transfers to seniors were largely saved and didn’t stimulate spending.”
...
Among Democrats in the White House and Congress, “there was a considerable amount of hand-wringing that it was too small, and I sympathized with that argument,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com and an occasional adviser to lawmakers. [LB Note: Zandi is a moderate Republican, not a Democrat. He worked for the McCain campaign last year.]
Even so, “the stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do — it is contributing to ending the recession,” he added, citing the economy’s third-quarter expansion by a 3.5 percent seasonally adjusted annual rate. “In my view, without the stimulus, G.D.P. would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent. And there are a little over 1.1 million more jobs out there as of October than would have been out there without the stimulus.”
...
CBO report: Stimulus package saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs (12/01/09)
Quote:
The stimulus bill enacted this year has resulted in as many as 1.6 million jobs saved or created this fall, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said Monday evening.
The nonpartisan CBO said in a legally mandated report that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) had resulted in between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs for the U.S. economy that wouldn't have existed in the absence of the stimulus.
Additionally, the CBO said, gross domestic product (GDP) was as much as 3.2 percent higher than it would have been in the absence of the stimulus.
...
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man
