Capitalist regulation vesus government regulation

[Brutus]

Capitalist regulation means that most commerce is regulated through the necessity of two parties engaging in a voluntary transaction that renders both better off.

Government regulation means that commerce is regulated en masse with violence that renders at least one party the victim of a crime and, potentially, all of society subject to the error of one mistaken regulation or philosophy. A good example of the this is the Great Depression or the current great recession.

 

[FiscalSanity]

Brutus,

I can't agree with you. Capitalist regulation in and of itself can't exist without some form of government to enforce it, which by definition means that capitalist regulation IS government regulation. In fact any form of regulation that enjoys any sort of legal protection is government regulation. I also have to disagree with your definition of what capitalist regulation means, given that it amounts to nothing more then someones word or handshake, which is a system thats easily abused. We've had unregulated capitalism in a lot of industries throughout this countries history, and virtually every time the government had to step in and create regulations to keep all the scam artists and snake oil salesman from killing people with their products.

 

[Brutus]

Brutus,

I can't agree with you. Capitalist regulation in and of itself can't exist without some form of government to enforce it, which by definition means that capitalist regulation IS government regulation.

yes but capitalist regulation is 100% about enforcing peaceful voluntary transaction on participants

In fact any form of regulation that enjoys any sort of legal protection is government regulation. I also have to disagree with your definition of what capitalist regulation means, given that it amounts to nothing more then someones word or handshake, which is a system thats easily abused.

actually far more than a handshake, often a reputation developed over 100 years which is almost impossible to abuse

We've had unregulated capitalism in a lot of industries throughout this countries history, and virtually every time the government had to step in and create regulations to keep all the scam artists and snake oil salesman from killing people with their products.

You blindly assume the government is not the snake oil salesman when it has caused all the evil in human history. MOst recently the Great Depression and now the great recession. Jefferson gave us freedom and liberty from government exactly for that reason. He understood without seeing the 20 Century. You have seen it and still don't understand. Welcome to your first lesson in American History

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Jefferson gave us freedom and liberty from government exactly for that reason.

Jefferson gave you freedom and liberty from government by... taking a huge role in the shaping and establishment of a government?

 

[FiscalSanity]

You actually made me chuckle there. Im' quite well versed in American history, so that comment made me smile.

Anyway, I'm not getting your whole distinction between capitalist regulation and government regulation. I need some specific examples of what you mean by capitalist regulation, preferably one that doesn't require government regulation to enforce. I can think of a number of capitalist practices that existed before the government took ove regulating them, but the goverrnment ended up regulating those practices (or at least adopting them into law) to prevent people from abusing them. Think about a simple contract-without the force of the law behind it it's only as good as the word of the people who signed it.

 

[boedicca]

Brutus,

I can't agree with you. Capitalist regulation in and of itself can't exist without some form of government to enforce it, which by definition means that capitalist regulation IS government regulation. In fact any form of regulation that enjoys any sort of legal protection is government regulation. I also have to disagree with your definition of what capitalist regulation means, given that it amounts to nothing more then someones word or handshake, which is a system thats easily abused. We've had unregulated capitalism in a lot of industries throughout this countries history, and virtually every time the government had to step in and create regulations to keep all the scam artists and snake oil salesman from killing people with their products.

You are confusing The Rule of Law with regulation, bub.

 

[FiscalSanity]

Um, yeah. Law's and regulations are effectively the same thing, even if they are created differently. We can argue the semantics all we want, but in effect a regulation is treated just like a law in practice. You either comply with the regulation or you pay the consequences, just like with a law. I just don't see much distinction there.

 

[Brutus]

Um, yeah. Law's and regulations are effectively the same thing, even if they are created differently. We can argue the semantics all we want, but in effect a regulation is treated just like a law in practice. You either comply with the regulation or you pay the consequences, just like with a law. I just don't see much distinction there.

the issue is whether the laws and regulations are designed to promote freedom and liberty from government(Republican) or the oppposite( Democratic).

 

[boedicca]

Um, yeah. Law's and regulations are effectively the same thing, even if they are created differently. We can argue the semantics all we want, but in effect a regulation is treated just like a law in practice. You either comply with the regulation or you pay the consequences, just like with a law. I just don't see much distinction there.

No They Are Not.

The details of most regulations are written by Unelected Bureaucrats who are Not Answerable to the Public.

This is one reason why most regulatory bodies are actually captive regulators run for the benefit of the largest organizations they are supposed to be regulating.

 

[Brutus]

Jefferson gave us freedom and liberty from government exactly for that reason.

Jefferson gave you freedom and liberty from government by... taking a huge role in the shaping and establishment of a government?

Yes he formed the Republican Party in 1792 and took over the government with it in 1800. He established a goverment that was very very limited, unlike his liberal oponents who wanted the exact opposite.

Jefferson established a government and so did Hitler, but this does not mean they were similar. Got it now?

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Some of the posts showcase the problem of the "free" markets and "limited" government crowd.

In reality, there isn't any such thing as "free" market. Every market is to some extent or another regulated. The fact that there's such a thing as child labor laws, for example, is huge infringement on the "free" market, yet very few people have anything against it. Laws against hiring "illegal" immigrants are also a huge government-imposed infringement on market "freedom." That cars must have seatbelts and meet certain safety standards before they can go on the road is a government-imposed market restriction, as is any other standard on food or water quality. Children being unable to buy liquor or cigarettes at any age, or the prohibition on other drugs would be another example.

Markets are pesky things, you see. They don't exist in a vacuum, like some economists like to think. They are heavily regulated, overtly or covertly, by the institutions that surround them, the legal system, the government, even religion and custom play a role. If one realizes this, it's clear that conservatives and liberals don't usually disagree in principle at all. They only disagree on specifics. To some people, Democrats may seem like limited government free market people, to others the Republicans may seem like big-government types.

That's why this type of broad ideological debate ("capitalist regulation vs government regulation") is a little useless. You should focus your energies on criticizing specific regulations you disagree with, because whether you realize or not, you probably implicitly accept "government regulation" of certain things, and are therefore not really against "government regulations," but against specific ones you find inappropriate.

 

[FiscalSanity]

Well put Epsilon.

Boedicca,

I recognize that laws and regulations are created from and by different sources, but when it comes to breaking either one the end result is the same. That is why I feel the terms are the same for the purposes of this kind of discussion. Whether it's a law made by the politicians or a regulation created by beuraucrats that the politicians dumped the responsibility on doesn't really matter.

 

[Truthmatters]

I think someone never read the history of the industrial revolution

 

[expat_panama]

...this type of broad ideological debate ("capitalist regulation vs government regulation") is a little useless. You should focus your energies on criticizing specific regulations you disagree with...

--or even better, forget what we don't want and say what we want. Governments and markets can't exist without each other because markets support the governments that maintain an environment where markets exist. It's life and life is good.

What happens is that the world changes and that means the way governments and markets interact has to change. Saying the economy is in crisis is saying it's in an opportunity --that's good too. Bottom line is doom'n'gloom is for morons.

.

 

[pinqy]

the necessity of two parties engaging in a voluntary transaction that renders both better off.

Is not regulation. At best we could consider that self-regulation, but that has its limits in a free-market economy when the business has no costs with an externality. Self-regulation in voluntarily bearing the costs of an externality would only occur if the business gains revenue. A not-perfect example would be the whole "green" market where a subset of the industry can benefit from voluntarily restricting itself to gain a certain set of consumers.

Personally, I think taxation is a better method of regulation than legal regulation. Don't limit pollution through laws; tax it so that there is some benefit from the dead weight loss.

 

[Brutus]

the necessity of two parties engaging in a voluntary transaction that renders both better off.

Is not regulation. At best we could consider that self-regulation, [/quote]

regulation can be seen as anything that regulates or controls. Capitalism is heavily regulated or controled to maintain its voluntary basis.

but that has its limits in a free-market economy when the business has no costs with an externality.

no idea what you mean given that all economists, even Milton Friedman, favor government regulation to take care of neighborhood effects or externalities. Even without them customers have the freedom not to buy from polluters and local towns have the freedom not to have their water polluted.

Self-regulation in voluntarily bearing the costs of an externality would only occur if the business gains revenue.

again no idea what you are talking about given that customers and local governments can cost companies revenue.

A not-perfect example would be the whole "green" market where a subset of the industry can benefit from voluntarily restricting itself to gain a certain set of consumers.

yes customers are free to pay the extra cost of green products without regulation

Personally, I think taxation is a better method of regulation than legal regulation. Don't limit pollution through laws; tax it so that there is some benefit from the dead weight loss.

but why not let the market regulate it. Why always rely on liberal violence?

 

[pinqy]

Yes, it's clear you don't understand what I'm saying. Go get a degree in Economics, then come back and discuss.

First, if someone is doing something voluntarily for their own benefit, they are not being regulated or controlled.

all economists, even Milton Friedman, favor government regulation to take care of neighborhood effects or externalities

David Friedman does not. But in any case, have you noticed the title of your own thread? "Capitalist regulation vesus [sic] government regulation." And your first posts were against government regulation in favor of your (still undefined) "capitalist regulation." So which is it? You've switched sides?

And I'm sorry "local towns have the freedom not to have their water polluted."???? You're claiming that all ill effects on populations have been voluntary because they could freely have not been polluted? How exactly does that work?

but why not let the market regulate it...?

And how does this fit with your earlier claim that government regulation is necessary?

I skipped all the Econ 101 stuff you didn't understand because you still wouldn't get the explanation.

 

[Flopper]

You actually made me chuckle there. Im' quite well versed in American history, so that comment made me smile.

Anyway, I'm not getting your whole distinction between capitalist regulation and government regulation. I need some specific examples of what you mean by capitalist regulation, preferably one that doesn't require government regulation to enforce. I can think of a number of capitalist practices that existed before the government took ove regulating them, but the goverrnment ended up regulating those practices (or at least adopting them into law) to prevent people from abusing them. Think about a simple contract-without the force of the law behind it it's only as good as the word of the people who signed it.

I agree that we need some specific examples of capitalist regulations. Are we talking about a gentlemen's agreement, trade association policies, company rules of conduct, or what.

 

[Brutus]

Anyway, I'm not getting your whole distinction between capitalist regulation and government regulation.

Simple! capitalism is largely self regulating such that buyers have an incentive to shop for the lowest price and highest quality while sellers have the incentive to produce the highest quality and lowest price. This is is why America has the highest stanndard of living in human history!

government regulation interferes with this process and cause recessions and depressions(by destroying the above incentives) depending on how much interference there is.

 

[Flopper]

Anyway, I'm not getting your whole distinction between capitalist regulation and government regulation.]

Simple! capitalism is largely self regulating such that buyers have an incentive to shop for the lowest price and highest quality while sellers have the incentive to produce the highest quality and lowest price. This is is why America has the highest stanndard of living in human history!

government regulation interferes with this process and cause recessions and depressions(by destroying the above incentives) depending on how much interference there is.

Only a fool would argue that government regulations are bad and businesses should be self regulated. A business regulates itself only to the extent needed to maximize profits. A profitable well established business with a large loyal customer base may be willing to take on the expense of delivering a safe high quality product in order to keep their customers happy. But what about the thousands of businesses that aren't doing so well? Without government regulations, they will cut whatever is needed to turn a profit and stay in business.

Many government regulations benefit businesses such as trademark, copyright, and patent protections, limits on liability, and antitrust regulations. Government regulations against insider trading and full disclosure requirements has been a huge benefit to the investment community.

The vast majority of government regulations are needed by the public as well as businesses.