Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fair enough, I don't think two wrongs make a right though.
Ahh, but strictly from an economic standpoint, they do. Compensation and pricing are all relative. If I am being regulated to make less money, and businesses are being regulated to charge less money, its a wash. Now, if I am being regulated to make less money and businesses are not regulated to charge less money (or services in this case) then either my quality of life declines or my savings decline.
Again, I'm not going to address all areas of disagreement, but this one stood out. The widget CEO's actions have an effect on third parties too. Who decides which actions are important enough to warrant regulation?
When you have neighborhood effects, you inevitably need some sort of "group decision" mechanism. So one way or another, the voters ultimately have to decide.
As you argued (and I might add, I agree with you), it is less of an imposition if the regulation is handled at state level, because people can vote with their feet. While some might debate whether the "vote with the feet" method is effective, count me in the camp that says that it works pretty well.
Because there are different preferences about how to handle neighborhood effects, there is a case to be made for different communities handling them in whatever way they see fit.
As a general principal, the larger the scope of the effect, the broader the regulatory umbrella required to handle it. Things like maintaining ones property, etc are good candidates for local ordinances, whereas carbon emissions are a good candidate for international agreements.
That's a straw man, and it simply isn't true. I've provided a number of examples where there are policy consequences of departure from free market efficiency prerequisites, that business and hard-code "free market" people would not be in favor of.
Ok, I couldn't resist.
...But many mainstream economists ARE in favor of the policies.
And you ended that sentence with a preposition. LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by elflord1973
This isn't specific enough to tell what you're getting at here. If you're referring to health care, then there is generally more government involvement, because you have several departures from free market assumptions. For example, many, perhaps most transactions are not bilaterally informed.
Another reason is that it's the nature of government to overreach. Once they get involved, there is no stopping them.
Ahh, but strictly from an economic standpoint, they do. Compensation and pricing are all relative. If I am being regulated to make less money, and businesses are being regulated to charge less money, its a wash. Now, if I am being regulated to make less money and businesses are not regulated to charge less money (or services in this case) then either my quality of life declines or my savings decline.
If we're all being over-regulated and therefore, make less money, we're all worse off, not the same. Sorry, let me re-phrase that, at least the government is better off.
...But many mainstream economists ARE in favor of the policies.
Yes, and many are also for cap-and-trade, health insurance mandates, and against special subsidies for the auto industry. "Mainstream economists" are not only for "free market" when it advances the interests of big business.
Ahh, but strictly from an economic standpoint, they do. Compensation and pricing are all relative. If I am being regulated to make less money, and businesses are being regulated to charge less money, its a wash. Now, if I am being regulated to make less money and businesses are not regulated to charge less money (or services in this case) then either my quality of life declines or my savings decline.
I don't think a profession can be "regulated to make less money" without serious long term consequences. The inevitable result of this would be a labor shortage, and a corresponding decline in quality or availability of services.
It can be "regulated", and that might be a good thing, but "regulated" specifically "to make less money" seems like a selectively punitive model, and is probably unconstitutional in the USA.
I don't think a profession can be "regulated to make less money" without serious long term consequences. The inevitable result of this would be a labor shortage, and a corresponding decline in quality or availability of services.
It can be "regulated", and that might be a good thing, but "regulated" specifically "to make less money" seems like a selectively punitive model, and is probably unconstitutional in the USA.
And what does the constitution have to do with anything? This is the US government we are talking about. Why else do you think they regulate it or socialize it. If urban cops got paid what they are worth in a capitalist free market, there would be a lot less money for other things. Especially when you add to that the firemen, doctors, and even teachers. Imagine if the school system was privatized. I dont believe for a second that the government is not trying to control salaries here.
But it is what it is. When it results in labor shortages, they deal with it in 2 ways. They just bring in more foreign workers who will work for less money AND allow lesser qualified workers to do more of the jobs that the more qualified workers do. Decline in quality? Yes, this leads to decline in quality. As I said, it is what it is.
And what does the constitution have to do with anything? This is the US government we are talking about. Why else do you think they regulate it or socialize it. If urban cops got paid what they are worth in a capitalist free market, there would be a lot less money for other things. Especially when you add to that the firemen, doctors, and even teachers. Imagine if the school system was privatized. I dont believe for a second that the government is not trying to control salaries here.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, and neither are you, so I won't digress further.
On what basis do you conclude that these positions would be worth more in a capitalist free market ? Are the unions not also trying to control not only salaries, but also, benefits and retirement packages ?
I think in a free market, the compensation structure would be very different. It's not easy to say whether it would be more or less in aggregate. There would be more incentives for performance, there would not be overtime systems that are easy to game by design, there would be no tenure. Retirement packages would be scaled down -- governments tend to like to hand out cushy retirement packages, because they can pass a package that makes the unions happy, and leave the consequences to another administration. It would be easier to fire poor performers, and easier to pay outstanding performers more.
I don't believe that urban cops are underpaid. Some teachers are underpaid, some are overpaid.
Perhaps you could educate me regarding the medical profession -- how is it that the government controls doctors salaries ? If you want to open a private practice and operate on a fee-for-service model, what is stopping you ?
Last edited by elflord1973; 07-01-2009 at 07:05 AM..
Perhaps you could educate me regarding the medical profession -- how is it that the government controls doctors salaries ? If you want to open a private practice and operate on a fee-for-service model, what is stopping you ?
I'm on my way out, so I'll get back to you later on most of this, but you can only get away with it in certain branches of medicine. Why? Because hospitals are forced to take medicare if they want to be accredited by JCAHO, and they need to be accredited by JCAHO to stay open. Even surgery centers have a minimum number of medicare cases they must do per quarter. It is also increasingly more difficult to NOT take medicaid. They pay the hospital based on how many medicaid patients they take. If you only take the emergencies as required by law, you are getting paid like 5% of the medicare fee, so you are operating at a big loss. So the government implements a competitor and then forces enough people to accept whatever fee the government wants to pay that it creates a huge downward shift in compensation.
Also, I am not permitted to charge whatever I want. There are laws preventing me from saying "Well Mr. Gates, the OR is being prepped for your emergency open heart surgery. My fee for putting you to sleep will be 1 Million dollars. You have every right to look for a cheaper Anesthesiologist to come in. It has to be someone with privileges at tis hospital though, and since I am the one on call, you will have to pay them enough to make it worth coming in on a non-call day. Of course, we will be wasting valuable time. I hope your heart doesn't give out before then."
Yes, New Jersey is as horrible as you've heard, speaking as someone who lives there. Moved there from PA, and unlike those who have never left NJ their whole lives, I can see the differences and how much worse it is.
For one thing, you lose a shocking amount of money in taxes and much higher insurance rates just compared to PA. Then there's the complete lack of natural beauty (in south NJ). Just flat, swampy land with busy roads clogged with cars and endless strip malls. And NJ beaches, which you're forced to pay a fee to go on, are not all that great.
Then there are the asinine laws making it illegal for you to fill your own gas tank, forcing you to wait for some guy to slouch over and do it, and then wait again for him to come back when it's full. There are many more reasons I hate NJ, but that's probably enough to give you an idea. And for those NJ lifers whose witty reply to me is "why don't you get out then?" I say "I'd LOVE to, and can't wait to do so and let you have your cesspool of a state all to yourself." Have a nice day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why else do you think they regulate it or socialize it. If urban cops got paid what they are worth in a capitalist free market, there would be a lot less money for other things. Especially when you add to that the firemen, doctors, and even teachers. Imagine if the school system was privatized. I dont believe for a second that the government is not trying to control salaries here.
