On Trusting Free Market to Regulate Government

That's not the point I was making (0.00 / 0)

I was referring to the private sector's ability to perform certain functions of government more efficiently than the government itself.  Your previous post appeared to infer the opposite.

I was not, however, suggesting private business should serve as a "check" on the government.  Where did you get that idea?

I do believe that what makes this country great is its people, and when left alone, free from government interference, everyone has the opportunity to succeed.  The words "business" and "profit" and "rich" are not derogatory terms!  On the contrary, capitalism is the reason we are the leading force for good in the world.

---

by: txag007 @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 00:36:07 AM CDT

But I think it is the point you must defend (4.00 / 3)

Thanks again for your thoughtful responses.

I believe in a fair market, one where everyone has a fair chance to compete on a level playing field. Click some of the links in my original posting and then tell yourself, if you can, that is the case in Texas for the vast majority of public school students, of the children of the poor. Fix that unfairness and then lets talk about the dangers of "big government".

But let's look at your points. I will start by quoting you and attaching numbers to them:

1. There is an advantage to turning some of the functions of government over to the private sector:  the incentive to be efficient.  In the words of Ronald Reagan, "The first rule of the bureaucracy is to protect the bureaucracy."

2. It is only natural that government grow, and as such, there is no incentive to reduce costs.  Budgets don't reduce themselves, and someone in charge of a particular agency or department can hardly be expected not to make sure his or her budget is used by the end of the fiscal year, regardless of how your tax dollars end up being spent.

Thus, the profit margin you were so quick to criticize ends up being far less in the long run than the bloatedness that often is our government.  

1. Which functions? How do you decide, unless you have a way of comparing the private bureaucracy you hire (yes it will be a bureaucracy, just one we has even less accountability to the American people) with the efficiency of the public bureaucracy? This bites into my point #1.

2. How is this NOT calling for checking government by means of external bureaucracies?  If you use the private sector to hold down cost, by competition with it ( see #1 again) or by simply outsourcing or threatening to outsource (as Bush did, see the original posting), how are not "checking" government?

As for your faith in the unfettered individual, see my third point. Unrig the game, unrig the markets and then talk to me about equal opportunity. If you can't unrig it, then you need government to do its job - regulate the market, and that brings us back to nasty old politics.

---

by: lightseeker @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:21:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Name one time. (4.00 / 2)

Give us an example of when private business "free from government interference" has succeeded, and define what you mean by success.

So far, your argument is nothing but empty platitudes.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:12:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why would business free from government interference (4.00 / 2)

ever do the right thing in regards to preventing pollution or protecting the public? It's not in business' best interest to spend capital on clean-up or installing costly measures to prevent pollution. Business only has a responsibility to their stockholders so, without government intervention, they have no motivation to be responsible.

I remember when I was a student at TCU I wrote an essay using some of the same empty arguments you use. Man! The real world has opened my eyes.  

If you need any examples of business that needs to an intervention, look here.

Your handle indicates that you might be an Aggie.  

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:23:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not saying that government isn't needed. (0.00 / 0)

But it's role should be limited to the responsibilities defined in the Constitution.  The Interstate Commerce Clause is being abused far beyond its intent, and we are in much greater danger of harm that comes through over-regulation than the threat that results from Big Brother's failure to protect us.

The idea that without government regulation, a business has no motive to be responsible is flawed.  Our legal system, specifically tort law, already provides the means by which the public and/or employees are protected.

Take for example OSHA.  Due to improvements in technology, work related deaths were already on the decline before the agency's creation in 1970, and there is no indication that OSHA is responsible for further reducing these numbers.  

The taxpayers' costs, however, for OSHA's well-intentioned attempt to help is very clear.  A 1990s study put the annual cost to business of complying with OSHA standards at $11 billion.  An estimate of the safety benefits were found to be between zero and $3.6 billion.  The agency creates almost three times as much costs as it generates in benefits, and this has a direct impact on our economy.

What you are correct about, though, is that I am an Aggie.  Class of 2001.

---

by: txag007 @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 00:50:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two issues there (4.00 / 2)

You need some support for your assertion on OSHA.

Also, still waiting for an example of a private business that has succeeded "free from government interference".

And also, your assertion about businesses being responsible falls apart in the face of many recent examples-including but not limited to Enron, World Com, Halliburton and KBR don't even take responsibility for making sure their female employees are safe from rape by co workers.

Since corporations enjoy many of the protections that flesh and blood citizens do, it would be nice if they were held to account as responsible citizens by a conscience.  But as apologist for corporate excesses are quick to point out, a corporations responsibility is to create profit for its stakeholders.

Arguing that they also shouldn't be watched and regulated because they're just good citizens minding their own business is classically talking out of both sides of the mouth.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:07:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Those are nice thoughts...but (4.00 / 2)

But it's role should be limited to the responsibilities defined in the Constitution.  The Interstate Commerce Clause is being abused far beyond its intent, and we are in much greater danger of harm that comes through over-regulation than the threat that results from Big Brother's failure to protect us.

I would like to hear more about this great danger we are in from over regulation.  We have been deregulating for years now and I haven't really seen the great benefit coming from it.

The idea that without government regulation, a business has no motive to be responsible is flawed.

I would think your arms are getting a little tired beating up all of these strawmen.  Who said business has no motive to be responsible?  Who said that a business will act more responsibly than it needs to to achieve its goal, which is making money?  Regulation is based on reaction.

Our legal system, specifically tort law, already provides the means by which the public and/or employees are protected.

You mean the tort law that the Republicans have been trying to systematically destroy based on claims that it hurts business?  Aside from that, the problem with your argument is that you can only sue after you suffer damages.  Rather than let Dale Henry regulate the oil companies are you seriously saying that letting the oil companies poison my groundwater and give my family cancer that tort reform will protect me?  Seriously, is that your argument?

Take for example OSHA.  Due to improvements in technology, work related deaths were already on the decline before the agency's creation in 1970, and there is no indication that OSHA is responsible for further reducing these numbers.

It is hard to be effective when you are given limited power of enforcement.  Add to this how the Republicans have sought to diminish OSHA ever since its creation and you can see how an agency might struggle.  Which OSHA standards do you find the most onerous and problematic?

The taxpayers' costs, however, for OSHA's well-intentioned attempt to help is very clear.  A 1990s study put the annual cost to business of complying with OSHA standards at $11 billion.  An estimate of the safety benefits were found to be between zero and $3.6 billion.  The agency creates almost three times as much costs as it generates in benefits, and this has a direct impact on our economy.

We need a few citations here, but it's a little ironic given the cost of the war in Iraq, that OSHA would be a burning issue for you.  Many have tried to make OSHA more effective over the years and it is clear OSHA needs some more teeth to be effective.  Why do we treat the death of workers in a mining accident caused by negligence of a mine owner cause for a small fine but 8 people killed by a drunk driver as homicide?  The negligence is the same and you could argue that in the case of the mine owner actually worse.  

What you are correct about, though, is that I am an Aggie.  Class of 2001.

Knew this without being told.

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:19:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rhetoric (4.00 / 2)

without links to back up your claims is just rhetoric.

More and more people who once thought like you are being harmed and becoming people who think the government needs to protect people from business.

Here is a very fresh example:

Water Foul

An aquifer is at risk along with property values, livestock, and dreams after gas wells move in.

By PETER GORMAN photos by Jimmy Alford

Brian Beadle knew something was wrong when the registered Boer goats he raises on his small farm near Grandview began swelling up just after Christmas. But when three of his goats and two kids and a llama died within the next few days, the 44-year-old contractor knew he had a major problem on his hands.

He did. His well had just gone bad. Very bad: Its water proved to be loaded with sulfates and a naturally occurring hydrocarbon called toluene, a gasoline additive and solvent that is toxic for humans and animals, causing problems from nausea to deafness, blindness, and, at high enough dosages, death.

Within the next two weeks, Beadle learned that at least two of the other small-acreage landowners near him, in Hill County just south of the Johnson County line, were having similar, extremely serious problems with their wells. All their wells, which had produced clean, healthy water for years, were drilled into the Trinity Woodbine aquifer, which underlies much of North Texas.

The neighbors shared another characteristic: All their properties were within a couple of hundred yards of two gas wells recently drilled by Williams Production-Gulf Coast Co. one producing, the other abandoned and plugged after a drill bit was lost during the fraccing process.

There's more to the story--lots more. These people's pursuit of happiness has been thwarted by a huge oil and gas company that refuses to be held responsible. We need government intervention!

The examples like these are growing every day and with them comes not only heartache but the education through personal experience that is needed to change minds.

The day that my son moved from College Station and quit Texas A&M is one of the happiest days in my memory.  

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:54:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The OSHA Study (0.00 / 0)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regul...

---

by: txag007 @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 21:28:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cato? (4.00 / 1)

That's your cite, huh.  Not a bit of bias there.

Still waiting on that example of a business succeeding "free from government interference".  

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 22:17:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This country was built on businesses succeeding free from government interference! (0.00 / 0)

You don't need an example of that.

And as for the Cato study, I will not apologize for the source.  If you have a problem with the content, let me know.  But to dismiss it simply because it's from Cato shows the greatest bias of all.

---

by: txag007 @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 23:53:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You can't cite an example (4.00 / 1)

to support your assertion, then don't blame me for pointing it out.  Sometimes, facts are inconvenient in their absence.

The libertarian con, a leading proponent of which is Cato, is that government is by definition evil and should be invoked as little as possible, while corporations are by definition good and should be interfered with (and taxed) as little as possible.

Humans organize both these entities for the purpose of sharing risks and  maximizing investments of money and effort. You chose to trust one and not the other as an article of blind faith.  That's your choice.

I prefer to put government in the hands of those who believe it should work for the common good of its citizens rather than its corporations.


Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:04:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually, you do... (4.00 / 2)

as it sounds like you are completely unaware and fail to acknowledge how government interference helps businesses succeed, often unfairly.  

As for the Cato 'study', like a lot of studies, it is meant to present a point of view by the careful selection facts.  This one fails to stand up to even modest scrutiny.  Like your writing, it dances around the subject matter like a fart on a hot griddle, and, upon close examination is really not much more than hot air.

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:13:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Recent bailouts of the mortgage companies (4.00 / 1)

comes readily to mind. Many of those companies are held by foreign corporations like the Saudis. So, taxpayers are bailing out foreign corporations. A little government regulation on the front end would have gone a long way in this case.

Fart on a hot griddle sounds like a Southpark episode.

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:07:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not only bailing out foreign investors... (4.00 / 2)

but also ignoring wholesale fraud and various other white collar crimes.  What libertarians constantly ignore is that while you can profit by playing fairly, there are even larger profits to make by cheating and be long gone before the chickens come home to roost.

For a great overview of the subprime meltdown I would heartily endorse taking a few minutes to walk through the google docs version of: Stick Figure Theater's, Subprime Primer.  

As for "fart on a hot griddle" it was something my grandmother used to say to me as in, "If you know what's good for you, you'll stop running around this kitchen like a fart on a hot griddle."

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:42:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Before you drink the Cato kool-aide on this issue (4.00 / 2)

You may want to check out this link:

NOT TOO COSTLY, AFTER ALL:

"This regulation will put us out of business."  "Our industry will not be able to compete."  
Statements like these from industry representatives are heard whenever federal agencies are considering environmental, occupational, auto safety, or other consumer protection regulations.  For years, opponents of protective regulations have argued that the benefits of regulation are far outweighed by the costs to regulated industries and to society as a whole.  Are they right?  
An examination of thirty years of federal regulatory activity demonstrates conclusively that predictions of devastating costs have been wrong.  When estimated costs at the front end are  compared to actual compliance costs, the  projections turn out to have been radically inflated.  Rarely, if ever, have actual compliance costs risen to the levels estimated by the regulating agency - and never to the levels estimated by private sector
industry.
Far from bringing economic doom and gloom, regulatory requirements to protect the environment, workers, and consumers have often led to innovation and increased
productivity. Regulation spawned many new businesses, especially companies providing hazard abatement and pollution control services.  In many cases, there is no conflict between economic competitiveness and regulation.  
So, why have estimates of the cost of a pending regulation consistently been higher than the actual costs turn out to be?  The question is not academic.  High projected compliance costs continue to cause agencies not to proceed with planned safety regulations, leaving the public unprotected.  Obviously, industries wishing to evade regulation have a vested interest in exaggerating the costs of pending safeguards, which they provide to federal
agencies and use in public relations campaigns.  Moreover, there are fundamental flaws built into the methodology and assumptions of government studies - associated with poor
data, overly conservative assumptions, and static analysis.  This study examines details of analytic methods and assumptions used in regulatory analysis over the past thirty years to uncover many of the flaws that have led to persistent overestimation of compliance costs.

And you may want to do some comparisons between the relative levels of fraud and waste. Against your alleged $11 billion dollars of OSHA costs, I see you and raise you $851 billion per year:

The challenge of hidden profits: reducing corporate bureaucracy and waste

Green and Berry document an enormous amount of waste, fraud and abuse in the corporate sector costing consumers an estimated $862 billion annually, a figure more than six times the size of the oft-cited Grace Commission estimate of government waste. They note that while government spending has undergone close scrutiny for waste, the much larger corporate sector has received scant attention. One analyst is cited estimating corporate waste commonly at 10 percent of a firm's costs and another estimates that waste may range as high as 30 or 40 percent in some firms.

---

by: lightseeker @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 00:16:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What sort of 'government interference' has held you back? (4.00 / 1)

I do believe that what makes this country great is its people, and when left alone, free from government interference, everyone has the opportunity to succeed.

That same government interference has helped the Halliburton's of the world succeed.

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 16:57:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two words (0.00 / 0)

Shock Doctrine

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:09:32 AM CDT

New Poll (2.50 / 2)

Inspired by this discussion.

If you choose "Other", please let us know some details.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:36:50 AM CDT

My other includes College (4.00 / 1)

I went to a Land Grant Institution.

A land-grant college or university is an institution that has been designated by its state legislature or Congress to receive the benefits of the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. The original mission of these institutions, as set forth in the first Morrill Act, was to teach agriculture, military tactics, and the mechanic arts as well as classical studies so that members of the working classes could obtain a liberal, practical education.

Over the years, land-grant status has implied several types of federal support. The first Morrill Act provided grants in the form of federal lands to each state for the establishment of a public institution to fulfill the act's provisions. At different times money was appropriated through legislation such as the second Morrill Act and the Bankhead-Jones Act, although the funding provisions of these acts are no longer in effect. Today, the Nelson Amendment to the Morrill Act provides a permanent annual appropriation of $50,000 per state and territory.

A key component of the land-grant system is the agricultural experiment station program created by the Hatch Act of 1887. The Hatch Act authorized direct payment of federal grant funds to each state to establish an agricultural experiment station in connection with the land-grant institution there. The amount of this appropriation varies from year to year and is determined for each state through a formula based on the number of small farmers there. A major portion of the federal funds must be matched by the state.

Texas A&M, FTR, is a Land Grant Institution.


Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:42:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

About reading labels to see what's in your food (0.00 / 0)

That's not working quite as well as it once did since the government decided that we're too dumb to understand the labels. =(

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:50:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Put those who don't believe in gov't (4.00 / 1)

in charge of gov't, and that's what you get.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 13:20:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Those who believe in using the government (0.00 / 0)

to further the profits of big business at the expense of the citizens who pay their salaries and health insurance. =(

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 13:57:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm curious, txag007 (4.00 / 1)

what exactly do you find so "unproductive" about my poll?

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 22:18:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I just found this and thought it would fit here nicely (4.00 / 1)

Thanks to MinutemanMedia.org
http://www.minutemanmedia.org/...

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 15:05:14 PM CDT