• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
RLS0812

Detroit - We Don't Want Your Business

19 posts in this topic

A couple months ago I had a great idea for a business in Detroit - a specialized reclamation company that would provide a low cost method for cleaning up run down buildings.

3085_1packard_4__detroit_2012_6134255.jp



 With a rough draft of business plan in hand, I started researching all the licensing and ordinances I would need to comply with in the Detroit area.
 Almost instantly I ran into a brick wall. From what I was reading on the Detroit Licensing Site, it's almost imposable to get a new business license.
 Confused and a bit aggravated, I made several phone calls to city hall, asking many questions. After a few hours of run around, I gave up, not getting any answers from them.
 From there, I called up a few Detroit business groups with questions, and I fond the answers I was looking for.
 Detroit construction and manufacturing licensing / ordinance laws are written specifically to protect existing businesses from new competition !
 I couldn't believe it! I drew up another business plan, this time for something in the auto industry category - a press metal shop - and started doing my researcher again on what was required.
 Again I hit a brick wall of bureaucratic "red tape".
I still didn't quite believe how anti "new" industrial the Detroit laws were, so I tried one more time, this time as company that manufactures tricycles.

tricycle.jpg

 This time when I did my legal researcher, I took my time, and made sure I fully understood everything involved.
Wouldn't you know it, yet another wall.


 If Detroit wants to stop being the cesspit of the Untied States, with stupidly high unemployment, stupidly high crime, and a major financial problem, them need to drop ALL of their protectionist laws, and make the city once again friendly for new manufacturing and construction business.

 

 

 Note: This article was reposted from my blog.

Edited by Shippou
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Detroit construction and manufacturing licensing / ordinance laws are written specifically to protect existing businesses from new competition !

 

That's how most licensing laws work for commercial ventures. It's ridiculous. There are some narrow areas where there's a benefit to licensing restrictions, but they are badly outnumbered by cases where they do nothing but protect incumbents. Construction and manufacturing are both particularly bad in this area. I had a look at the site you linked to, and getting a business license in general doesn't seem so difficult, though I doubt it's as easy as they make it sound. What sorts of walls were you hitting?

 

All that said, Detroit's cesspit status has vastly more factors behind it than restrictive licensing for new construction manufacturing businesses.

Edited by Khaiy
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of "regulation" is done to protect existing industries, that's not just limited to Detroit. Uber is fighting this battle in various cities. They just recently received a cease and desist from the city of Los Angeles despite the fact that they provide a far superior service than taxis.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 What sorts of walls were you hitting?
 

 

Construction, for example, you and the management you hire to do the jobs have to submit a complete 5 year work history - if any work you have performed with in the last 5 years is not directly related to the type of construction license your applying for, your ineligible. You also have to explain "employment holes", provide complete references for each "job".

 If your already  in business for yourself, you have to provide contact information for ALL of your clients for the past 5 years, provide all of your business receipts, AND provide complete histories / references for all of your management.

 If "holes" between projects are too long, your ineligible. If "holes" in your management staff are too long, your ineligible.

 

 On top of that, Detroit requires you take a specific college course ( $18,000 ) as part of the licensing process for construction ( has nothing to do with building codes ) .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 What sorts of walls were you hitting?
 

 

Construction, for example, you and the management you hire to do the jobs have to submit a complete 5 year work history - if any work you have performed with in the last 5 years is not directly related to the type of construction license your applying for, your ineligible. You also have to explain "employment holes", provide complete references for each "job".

 If your already  in business for yourself, you have to provide contact information for ALL of your clients for the past 5 years, provide all of your business receipts, AND provide complete histories / references for all of your management.

 If "holes" between projects are too long, your ineligible. If "holes" in your management staff are too long, your ineligible.

 

 On top of that, Detroit requires you take a specific college course ( $18,000 ) as part of the licensing process for construction ( has nothing to do with building codes ) .

 

that doesn't sound like protecting other businesses, it more sounds like ensuring that the people doing the job are qualified to do so.

 

my dad is a self-employed plumber in upstate new york.  he has been for the past 30 years, and before that for ~3-5 years he worked in supply houses for construction companys.  he does not work within city limits(not new york city) because he doesn't want to take the course to get a license.  however, to even apply for that license, you have to have at least 10 years worth of working experiance doing the job.  this is done by working under other contractors for those years, and getting references from them.  this is not because the people in charge want to protect existing businesses, it's because they don't want people that have no idea what they are doing creating unlivable conditions.  Things have to be done by the codes the city/state/government creates, which means years of experience dealing with those codes, by working under people who have years of experience doing what it is you want to do.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that you have to work under someone for 10 years to learn building codes is ridiculous. That is clearly in place to protect established contractors as it would drastically reduce competition. This should be evident by your dad's reluctance to do work inside the city despite the fact that he should be more than capable of the same work the licensed contractors are able to do. I'm not saying they shouldn't require licenses, I'm saying the requirements shouldn't be so onerous as to drastically reduce competition. Heavy regulation actually support monopolies who can afford to jump through all the hoops. They essentially are paying a tax to reduce competition.

Edited by tstrimple
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading over it, and I fail to see the problem.

 

You are talking about skilled trades like construction (or deconstruction), machinists, and industrial manufacturing.

 

Generally the businesses involving the traditional skilled trades require that individuals have experience.  This is a good thing.

 

 

 

Usually with small businesses you will see things like "We have 30 years of industry experience", meaning the five people who founded it may have 14 years, 7 years, 4 years, 3 years, and 6 months experience, respectively.

 

Those key people, the ones with 14 years experience and 7 years experience, are critical to the success or failure of the business.  Those are the ones who really know how to do the job. They have the experience to keep things safe.  They have the experience to know when things are not quite right, to know what kind of things need to change, and the ability to supervise projects and train the new guys.

 

In order to get a professional license in those skilled trades you need experience. It is a good thing.  Once you are experienced and individually licensed you can start out on your own venture, but until you get the license you are not considered skilled enough to manage and run the projects on your own.

 

 

Most of the businesses ideas mentioned require not just professional licensing, but also bonding.  That requires further evidence that you can do the job safely without jeopardizing the public.

 

It is not that they don't want your business.  It is that they want skilled tradespeople to do the job, or at least to supervise the work, for everyone's safety.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that you have to work under someone for 10 years to learn building codes is ridiculous. That is clearly in place to protect established contractors as it would drastically reduce competition. This should be evident by your dad's reluctance to do work inside the city despite the fact that he should be more than capable of the same work the licensed contractors are able to do. I'm not saying they shouldn't require licenses, I'm saying the requirements shouldn't be so onerous as to drastically reduce competition. Heavy regulation actually support monopolies who can afford to jump through all the hoops. They essentially are paying a tax to reduce competition.

first of all, it's not just about building codes, it's also about instincts in what works, what won't, little nuances, etc.  stuff that you gain through years of experience.  the reason my father doesn't want to take the course, is because their are yearly fee's associated with the license, and he gets plenty of work in the rural area's/town's(note that he mainly does new construction, not cleaning out pipes and stuff), that it's not really a problem for him to bother getting the appropriate licenses.  I do agree that 10 years of experience is a bit high, and i'm sure if you knew the inspectors that give out the licenses the requirements could potentially be lowered.  but none the less, It doesn't mean that anyone that realistically want's to get into the industry can't.  it just means that you need to be very serious about doing it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see both sides. You don't want poor quality and cheap services/products mucking up the market. On the other hand, Detroit is only digging their grave deeper by having set up so much shit to wade through to start out on something that could potentially employ people and make use of the land covered by empty crackhouses.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my area, you go in and take a 300 question test for a plumbing level 1 test. You can than go back in and take a much harder plumbing level 2 test.

 

 If you pass the level 1 test, your allowed to work plumbing under some one who is a level 2. If you pass level 2 ( and have an OSHA certification ) you can run work, and open your own  plumbing business.

 

 It doesn't require 10 years experience - it requires an extensive knowledge of OSHA safety regulations, and plumbing codes.

 

For the hay of it, I looked up construction and demolition companies in the Detroit area. Relatively few exist, and all of them I phoned charge  over 6 times the amount of money to build a 1,000sf house, as it does in my area.

 Most Detroit buildings are left to fall down, due to the huge amount of cost to rip them down. I was quoted $95,000 - $350,000 to get rid of a 1,000sf house, which cost $4,000 - $10,000 here .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Detroit went from being a world leader in innovation before WW2 to being the center of a metropolis with the most manufacturing output in the world during and after the war.  When foreign automobile manufacturers began making substantial gains in market share during the 1970s, then Detroit, The Big Three car makers (and AMC, too), and the unions went protectionist. Though the auto makers have returned to innovation, Detroit has not.  

 

With the corruption of several city administrations since the early 1970s and more recently with criminal charges filed against mayors and officials, Detroit has been mismanaged for decades. Part of the corruption is proven bribes from company people to city government officials, convicted in the courts.  The corruption succeeded in placing protectionist laws and ordinances on the books.

 

In my opinion, the city charter of Detroit should be completely eliminated and a new one formed by public input and debate along with help from outside business and education high achievers. A totally new form of city government should be created.  This is the only way for Detroit to have permanent prosperity, in my opinion.

 

 

Clinton

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sucks, albeit if you want to have the latest and greatest in burocratic idiocy you really want to try something there.

I was thinking however, you appear to have a rather strange hobby, business plans to test idiotic rules... or perhaps that's a spin off from your actual work?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading over it, and I fail to see the problem.

 

You are talking about skilled trades like construction (or deconstruction), machinists, and industrial manufacturing.

 

Generally the businesses involving the traditional skilled trades require that individuals have experience.  This is a good thing.

 

 

 

Usually with small businesses you will see things like "We have 30 years of industry experience", meaning the five people who founded it may have 14 years, 7 years, 4 years, 3 years, and 6 months experience, respectively.

 

Those key people, the ones with 14 years experience and 7 years experience, are critical to the success or failure of the business.  Those are the ones who really know how to do the job. They have the experience to keep things safe.  They have the experience to know when things are not quite right, to know what kind of things need to change, and the ability to supervise projects and train the new guys.

 

In order to get a professional license in those skilled trades you need experience. It is a good thing.  Once you are experienced and individually licensed you can start out on your own venture, but until you get the license you are not considered skilled enough to manage and run the projects on your own.

 

 

Most of the businesses ideas mentioned require not just professional licensing, but also bonding.  That requires further evidence that you can do the job safely without jeopardizing the public.

 

It is not that they don't want your business.  It is that they want skilled tradespeople to do the job, or at least to supervise the work, for everyone's safety.

 

 

This is a common them in government, trying to save the citizens/subjects from their own stupidity for their own good. However, regulations are always a bad idea. Free market consumer interaction will always be more efficient and lead to more wealth because it allows greed, the motivation of just about everything great in this world, to do its thing. What do you think would happen if all the regulations were abolished tomorrow. Would we have an epidemic of poorly run and dangerous businesses a few years from now? Of course not, because consumers don't run charities. They want the best value for their money, always. Usually they will want people with experience and a good reputation because their is a smaller risk involved. They also might want to go for the cheapest guy despite him not having a track record (risky). Regardless, they should be able to choose. Government regulations aren't necessary to pick and choose suitable businesses and unsuitable businesses. The consumers can do it much better and without paying paper pushing bureaucrats. Crappy businesses fail and good businesses prosper. 

 

 

 

    The sad thing is that "protecting the people" isn't even the whole story as people have said above. Reducing competition is a huge factor not only in Detroit but also on a nationwide scale as anyone familiar with the dealings of large corporations and the government will tell you. Disgusting if you ask me

Edited by mikeishere
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm reading over it, and I fail to see the problem.

 

You are talking about skilled trades like construction (or deconstruction), machinists, and industrial manufacturing.

 

Generally the businesses involving the traditional skilled trades require that individuals have experience.  This is a good thing.

 

 

 

Usually with small businesses you will see things like "We have 30 years of industry experience", meaning the five people who founded it may have 14 years, 7 years, 4 years, 3 years, and 6 months experience, respectively.

 

Those key people, the ones with 14 years experience and 7 years experience, are critical to the success or failure of the business.  Those are the ones who really know how to do the job. They have the experience to keep things safe.  They have the experience to know when things are not quite right, to know what kind of things need to change, and the ability to supervise projects and train the new guys.

 

In order to get a professional license in those skilled trades you need experience. It is a good thing.  Once you are experienced and individually licensed you can start out on your own venture, but until you get the license you are not considered skilled enough to manage and run the projects on your own.

 

 

Most of the businesses ideas mentioned require not just professional licensing, but also bonding.  That requires further evidence that you can do the job safely without jeopardizing the public.

 

It is not that they don't want your business.  It is that they want skilled tradespeople to do the job, or at least to supervise the work, for everyone's safety.

 

 

This is a common them in government, trying to save the citizens/subjects from their own stupidity for their own good. However, regulations are always a bad idea. 

 

Even when they succeed in saving the citizens from their own stupidity?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm reading over it, and I fail to see the problem.

 

You are talking about skilled trades like construction (or deconstruction), machinists, and industrial manufacturing.

 

Generally the businesses involving the traditional skilled trades require that individuals have experience.  This is a good thing.

 

 

 

Usually with small businesses you will see things like "We have 30 years of industry experience", meaning the five people who founded it may have 14 years, 7 years, 4 years, 3 years, and 6 months experience, respectively.

 

Those key people, the ones with 14 years experience and 7 years experience, are critical to the success or failure of the business.  Those are the ones who really know how to do the job. They have the experience to keep things safe.  They have the experience to know when things are not quite right, to know what kind of things need to change, and the ability to supervise projects and train the new guys.

 

In order to get a professional license in those skilled trades you need experience. It is a good thing.  Once you are experienced and individually licensed you can start out on your own venture, but until you get the license you are not considered skilled enough to manage and run the projects on your own.

 

 

Most of the businesses ideas mentioned require not just professional licensing, but also bonding.  That requires further evidence that you can do the job safely without jeopardizing the public.

 

It is not that they don't want your business.  It is that they want skilled tradespeople to do the job, or at least to supervise the work, for everyone's safety.

 

 

This is a common them in government, trying to save the citizens/subjects from their own stupidity for their own good. However, regulations are always a bad idea. Free market consumer interaction will always be more efficient and lead to more wealth because it allows greed, the motivation of just about everything great in this world, to do its thing. What do you think would happen if all the regulations were abolished tomorrow. Would we have an epidemic of poorly run and dangerous businesses a few years from now? Of course not, because consumers don't run charities. They want the best value for their money, always. Usually they will want people with experience and a good reputation because their is a smaller risk involved. They also might want to go for the cheapest guy despite him not having a track record (risky). Regardless, they should be able to choose. Government regulations aren't necessary to pick and choose suitable businesses and unsuitable businesses. The consumers can do it much better and without paying paper pushing bureaucrats. Crappy businesses fail and good businesses prosper. 

 

 

 

    The sad thing is that "protecting the people" isn't even the whole story as people have said above. Reducing competition is a huge factor not only in Detroit but also on a nationwide scale as anyone familiar with the dealings of large corporations and the government will tell you. Disgusting if you ask me

 

 

You seem to have a very tenuous grasp on how both government regulations and laissez-faire capitalism actually work. "Would we have an epidemic of poorly run and dangerous businesses a few years from now?" Yes, and I will give you a few reasons why.

 

Imagine that you are someone who controls some scarce, vital resource, like food. Say you run some big agricultural business. You are (according to your own premises) motivated by greed, without any sense of charity. You could try to make your food safer, cheaper, better, etc. in an effort to out-compete other businesses that also produce food. Or you could collude with the (finite number of) other businesses who produce this resource in order to drive the price up, making even more money for you.

 

Since food production relies on scarce resources, and because people need food to survive, you will always take the latter choice: any time you (or anyone else) feel that you could make more money by offering food at a lower price, the other companies offer a deal whereby the cost of food is increased enough to make you even more money.

Now there's an unregulated monopoly on food (and all other scarce, necessary resources, including fuel, water, etc.). Said monopoly has no incentive, ever, to lower the price of these goods. They have no incentive to make these goods "better," or even particularly safe: as long as it's better to have the monopoly's food than no food at all, the monopoly will be able to increase prices arbitrarily high.

 

Since this is a completely unregulated society, the people who start out with the most control of these scarce resources are the ones with most of the wealth. Wealth disparity increases to an extreme: at this point, the food-monopoly realizes that it's actually in its interest to increase the price of food so much that most of the world's population cannot eat enough to live, because the richest <50% have most of the wealth which means it's actually more profitable to increase the price of food to a level where those people are paying a large enough share that the majority just dies of starvation.

Maybe this example seems too extreme for you; maybe when you said "regulations are always a bad idea," you didn't really mean always, just sometimes. In that case, here's a slightly more down-to-earth example:

 

Imagine, again, that you are a producer of food. You could increase your profits if you could make your food cheaper to produce. You discover that by using extremely dangerous pesticides or other chemicals, you get to sell a higher percentage of your crop than your competitors. Your food might be less safe, but you don't know this for sure, and the pesticides might be damaging the water supply, but this does not bother you: government inspectors never come to examine your means of production, and you simply do not reveal what you're doing. In fact, you can just lie, and say that you're not using chemicals at all.

 

Your competitors could hope that people somehow catch onto what you're doing, but they don't, at least not quickly enough. Your competitors realize that, by the time any detrimental health effects of your food become public knowledge, they will no longer be in business, since your prices are so much lower. To save their business, your competitors realize that they have to start using chemicals, too. Eventually, citizens might discover that the chemicals in their food has devastating long-term effects, but by this time you have made enough money that you have left the food-production business altogether. You live in your mansion while everyone who eats the food you sold them dies of cancer.

The simple fact is that, even the most hardcore, free-market theorists know that regulations are necessary; no one who studies the economy disputes this. There's disagreement as to how much or which regulation is necessary, but any attempt to model an economy that has scarce resources and actors motivated by greed reveals that a completely unregulated market is bad for almost everyone.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm reading over it, and I fail to see the problem.

 

You are talking about skilled trades like construction (or deconstruction), machinists, and industrial manufacturing.

 

Generally the businesses involving the traditional skilled trades require that individuals have experience.  This is a good thing.

 

 

 

Usually with small businesses you will see things like "We have 30 years of industry experience", meaning the five people who founded it may have 14 years, 7 years, 4 years, 3 years, and 6 months experience, respectively.

 

Those key people, the ones with 14 years experience and 7 years experience, are critical to the success or failure of the business.  Those are the ones who really know how to do the job. They have the experience to keep things safe.  They have the experience to know when things are not quite right, to know what kind of things need to change, and the ability to supervise projects and train the new guys.

 

In order to get a professional license in those skilled trades you need experience. It is a good thing.  Once you are experienced and individually licensed you can start out on your own venture, but until you get the license you are not considered skilled enough to manage and run the projects on your own.

 

 

Most of the businesses ideas mentioned require not just professional licensing, but also bonding.  That requires further evidence that you can do the job safely without jeopardizing the public.

 

It is not that they don't want your business.  It is that they want skilled tradespeople to do the job, or at least to supervise the work, for everyone's safety.

 

 

This is a common them in government, trying to save the citizens/subjects from their own stupidity for their own good. However, regulations are always a bad idea. Free market consumer interaction will always be more efficient and lead to more wealth because it allows greed, the motivation of just about everything great in this world, to do its thing. What do you think would happen if all the regulations were abolished tomorrow. Would we have an epidemic of poorly run and dangerous businesses a few years from now? Of course not, because consumers don't run charities. They want the best value for their money, always. Usually they will want people with experience and a good reputation because their is a smaller risk involved. They also might want to go for the cheapest guy despite him not having a track record (risky). Regardless, they should be able to choose. Government regulations aren't necessary to pick and choose suitable businesses and unsuitable businesses. The consumers can do it much better and without paying paper pushing bureaucrats. Crappy businesses fail and good businesses prosper. 

 

 

 

    The sad thing is that "protecting the people" isn't even the whole story as people have said above. Reducing competition is a huge factor not only in Detroit but also on a nationwide scale as anyone familiar with the dealings of large corporations and the government will tell you. Disgusting if you ask me

 

 

 

Maybe this example seems too extreme for you; maybe when you said "regulations are always a bad idea," you didn't really mean always, just sometimes. In that case, here's a slightly more down-to-earth example:

 

Imagine, again, that you are a producer of food. You could increase your profits if you could make your food cheaper to produce. You discover that by using extremely dangerous pesticides or other chemicals, you get to sell a higher percentage of your crop than your competitors. Your food might be less safe, but you don't know this for sure, and the pesticides might be damaging the water supply, but this does not bother you: government inspectors never come to examine your means of production, and you simply do not reveal what you're doing. In fact, you can just lie, and say that you're not using chemicals at all.

 

Your competitors could hope that people somehow catch onto what you're doing, but they don't, at least not quickly enough. Your competitors realize that, by the time any detrimental health effects of your food become public knowledge, they will no longer be in business, since your prices are so much lower. To save their business, your competitors realize that they have to start using chemicals, too. Eventually, citizens might discover that the chemicals in their food has devastating long-term effects, but by this time you have made enough money that you have left the food-production business altogether. You live in your mansion while everyone who eats the food you sold them dies of cancer.

The simple fact is that, even the most hardcore, free-market theorists know that regulations are necessary; no one who studies the economy disputes this. There's disagreement as to how much or which regulation is necessary, but any attempt to model an economy that has scarce resources and actors motivated by greed reveals that a completely unregulated market is bad for almost everyone.

 

 

I should clarify. When I said "regulations are always a bad idea" I meant government mandated regulations are always a bad idea. As you can see I'm hinting at the fact that quality control is important for consumers, but there is no reason it needs to or should come from the government. Anything provided by the government can be done better by the private market. Food certification boards provided by the free market could impose certain regulations on food producers in order to put a little stamp on their product that consumers trust. Furthermore, because of competition between certification boards and food producers the quality and safety of food would surely increase. Don't you think YOU should be able to choose which products are suitable or not? Or are you the kind of person that believes in the infinite wisdom of elected saviors that will guide us to the promised land? There is nothing special about government apart from the fact that it cannot fail no matter the results it produces. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, on the free market, the incentive to provide quality control (and indeed competition in general) is simply not there when you allow for collusion. Food is a scarce resource: it's great to be able to choose which products are suitable, but this can only happen if consumers a) are informed about what choices they have and b) actually have choices. A monopoly on food has a market incentive not to provide either a) or b).

 

What's "special" about government is not that it's elected, per se, it's that it does not have a market incentive to allow monopolies on scarce, vital resources. The unregulated free market, alone, cannot provide this.

 

I already said all of this in my last post: if you want to start some kind of private certification board, that's great, but ultimately, you're better off (economically) just lying about what is being sold, and taking money from the big food monopoly. Again, collusion can always provide a better economic outcome than competition when we're talking about a vital and scarce resource like food, because the price can be increased arbitrarily high.

 

The only way to avoid this is to have the industry be regulated by someone who is not an active participant in the game. Government does not do this perfectly, but it does it better than no government at all. Again, there's reasonable debate about what the government should regulate and how it should do it, but whether government regulations are necessary at all is not really up for debate.

 

In American history there have been all kinds of collusion, trusts, and monopolies that were bad for consumers; surely you're not arguing that they were caused by government regulations, so why did they exist in the first place? I claim the answer is that people acting in self-interest who have access to scarce and vital resources have a stronger incentive to collude than they do to self-regulate (in any sense that would benefit consumers), according to roughly every economic theory that doesn't make assumptions that are obviously incorrect.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Anything provided by the government can be done better by the private market

Hahaha!

 

 

No.

 

 

Quite everything that should be handled by non profit organisations turned private ends in a clusterfuck for people.

 

As seen in Germany, railway, electric, water, public transport.  People getting f*cked, double f*cked and triple f*cked.

 

Sorry for the harsh words.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the business doing things, you fight in court to make change, but with government you vote to make change.  In both cases, how you spend your money or boycott is most effective.  This is why we all need to be united in taking action against both business and government corruption.

 

The best case scenario would be for the organization performing the work or service to be owned by its workers, but instead corrupt politicians and CEOs reap the benefits at your expense even if their organization fails.  They probably will still get a bonus!

 

 

Clinton

Edited by 3Ddreamer
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite everything that should be handled by non profit organisations turned private ends in a clusterfuck for people.

 

As seen in Germany, railway, electric, water, public transport.  People getting f*cked, double f*cked and triple f*cked.

That's true, but only because there is no reason to do it any different due to the stupefied way the transitions are done.

 

Post and Bahn employees need not work efficiently and need not care about their jobs. Half of them are public officers anyway (this is the first thing to do differently!) and it's not legal to take this away from them. Public officers are paid above average, pay no social insurance, and work below average. Of course, since they cannot be fired, and unless they murder someone, they keep their public officer status for the remainder of their lives.

 

The other half also doesn't need to work efficiently because they know it's very unlikely to get fired, and then, there's still such a thing as Ver.di.. Also, the company will not go bankrupt, no matter how badly you perform, because it is only a privately owned company on paper. In reality, the government holds upwards of 60% of the shares, so they'll put whatever money is necessary into the company to keep it running.

 

They can ask every price too, of course, because they have a de-facto monopoly. And they have a huge advantage because the infrastructure they use was built from tax money (and the upkeep is subsidized). Same is true for Telekom.

 

And, this isn't getting better with the stupid post-Fukushima Green movement and the opportunistic government that we have presently (though this government isn't nearly as stupid as the Socialist one we had a few years ago). Now the government pays insane amounts to companies like RWE so they build offshore wind generators on the most remote end of the country where energy isn't needed (so they have to give it to Netherlands for free), and even more money so they build north-south lanes which RWE will make its customers pay for later.

Of course that's nothing compared to what Schröder did with Gazprom (or, on a different topic, what Merkel is accused of "having known" in the context of Snowden's "super-secret" espionage revelations is nothing compared to what Schröder actually did in 2001 and 2002).

 

So, you're really wondering that you're being fucked? Seriously?

 

But then what do you want to do? Things will not change due to lack of alternatives. You can elect another government this fall, but every single alternative will only make things a lot worse. Keeping the present one doesn't make them better of course (but at least not worse).

Or, you could go abroad, find a place where it's better? Good luck.

 

In France they're too busy pointing at Sarkozy for some alleged donation to his party of which nobody really knows whether it's true at all, so they forget what an awful double-zero the current president is. Plus, you now have gay marriage, but appealing young women in bikinis are "bad taste". What a letdown for a once-grande nation.

 

The rest of Europe (except where it's cold and rains all day) is more or less bankrupt, so not precisely where you'd want to move to either. USA are pretty much as Nazi as Germany was in 1939, except they use modern technology to hunt you down -- no thank you, not a place to move to or visit. South America... well, I don't like getting into the middle of a drug war. Africa? No thank you. So unless you make Down Under an option, what's left? Antarctica? Moon?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0