I've worked in the oil field for 35 years. Too many times, regulations have been written that define how we should perform our tasks rather than define the goal that is to be achieved, and let innovation determine the best way to meet the goal. Safety is a huge one. I've put many hours into "paper pushing" to meet audits, where my time could be much better served implementing applications that would prevent accidents. Another point - I've never seen a lobbyist for a small business.
The solution to end cronyism is the same as it is for removing money from politics. To remove money from politics or end cronyism you have to get rid of what attracts money to politics. Which is the Tax Code and excessive regulation.
Limiting campaign donations to a few hundred dollars per individual would be a good start, but it doesn't address the more destructive lobby side of it.
Some required transparency, and for Congress members & other lawmakers a Helluva Lot more accountability to their constituents. as it stands right now, they can just Commit huge scandalous crimes and stand in front of microphones and just boldface lie like we're all children. Its infuriating. But just try to get the justice department to do anything about it and you'd be more likely to end up in jail yourself.
I think it is against the human nature.People are selfish and greedy in their essence that is why i dont see it happening.Where there is money there also is corruption.
The problem is that corporations aren't following the rules and regulation and the solution is to get rid of the rules and regulations? It’s brilliant, why didn’t I think of that?
Good point. The more regukations you have, the more cronyism and lobbyists corporations will need. Small businesses can't afford a compliance department staffed with with lawyers and accountants to figure out all the new regulations.
This video is right on. Business is accountable to its customers and we vote everyday with our purchases and lift some and put down others. This is the nature of a free economy. Government on the other hand grows and grows and becomes less accountable to its constituency. In fact they begin to believe that we work for them instead of the other way round. After all, they do have the guns.
Fewer regulations mean that the invisible hand of supply and demand as defined by Adam Smith could work to its fullest potential. The thing about a free market is that people determine the success of a business. I agree there should be some regulation, but not the over regulation that we experience today. Having rules reduce chaos, but having too much rules reduces freedom also.
Oh great idea, let's reduce government power. How come i didn't think about it !? You literally cannot, every major political parties seek to increase government power.
I think to some extent, we need regulation (for instance, antitrust law, anti-child-labor laws, etc.). But what this amounts to is HONEST regulation, whose intentions are solely to benefit the consumers & workers. What we seem to get, instead, is government picking winners & losers in the economy, and instead of regulating to promote the wellbeing of the consumers & workers, it regulates to benefit those corporate leaders who have connections in government.
Political candidates need to learn from these videos. The messages are short, clear, and they actually address the serious questions of voters. Just imagine seeing three minute campaign ads like this one in November, rather than the mind-numbing thirty second spots we get now.
Helping. In the 1950's researcher/scientists were attempting to show the public that cigarettes cause cancer, but because of the addiction, many people were blinded. Today, finally, we have dropped the rate pretty well due to complex battles of politics, where clever people wanting to help surprisingly came out on top. (E.g. the Surgeon General at the time). Small businesses, though, can be less regulated at points, to make the cost less for them, but without compromising safety. (cont.)
It would depend on what those regulations actually are, how they are written. They could be written to exclude businesses with under 50 employees or so. We obviously need some regulations. Rules need to be in place to protect people or it's all for nothing anyway.
I thought you would appreciate marx's term. ;) I would suggest looking at videos on Sowell, Friedman, Rothbard etc. The injustices almost always occur in fettered markets - ones in which government has a lot of power. Your skepticism in human nature is a good sign and one shared by free market economists like the ones mentioned above. Be skeptical of political altruism,we are all greedy by nature. If you pay attention, freer markets are ones that yield greater results for all.
I see your point. But implicit in there somewhere is the idea that the people at the top will naturally do what's good for everyone because they're nice people who want to make the system work, when in reality they are driven by greed. Fewer regulations will give them the opportunity to do things like monopolize, which is great for them, bad for us.
An interesting video and while I agree with the analysis, I can't help thinking that the idea of an unregulated market is some what utopian. One of the defining themes of contemporary capitalism is as you point out is, a reliance on the state to keep the economic environment favourable for business interests. This is all done to a fan fare of free marketism to which big business in all but retrorocket has dispensed with because a purely unregulated market has its own inherent problems too.
"No, because there are very specific regulations. They can't just pick and choose." They sure can! Check out what I wrote earlier today about the ACA. Small businesses can't afford to hire lobbyists. When they get big enough to attract attention, they hire lobbyists to pulls strings for them in DC. I used to work for a small company related to healthcare that grew quickly and hired a lobbyist to do just that.
As long as the government is involved in businesses to the extent that they are, there are incentives for those companies to try and influence government. This is straight up in the video.
Yeah, and anyone can call out someone who's falsely advertising too. Why do people only think of unbridled greed with free markets? Free markets operate with both fear and greed at work at the same time. Unbridled greed only exist when governments step in and try to eliminate fear from the market, at which point it stops being a free market. Then when problems occur, the free market gets blamed.
I do, I just don't think you need a law requiring it. If there is a demand for it is in the company's self interest to provide it. For example, remember when Netflix tried to raise rates for subscriptions? The outcry from its members was so great that it decided against it. Same with this, there have been many companies who want to provide more info than the government requires and the FDA won't let them.
In the short term, yes. In the long term, no. Since regulations wouldn't impede other businesses to compete with the corporations for lower prices and better services, the corporations would either have to provide better services, or eventually go out of business.
It's not paradoxical that the power to give out favors is the root of the problem of economic favors being granted. The reason that we have the problem is that most people - business people, politicians, and ordinary citizens - don't want to give up the power to pick winners and losers. They're not upset at the idea that government has such a power, they just don't like the winners that get chosen.
The problem goes both ways... power from corporations towards the federal gov't, and power from the federal gov't towards corporations. Breeding ground for corruption, abuse, waste, and politicized actions that the American people and the taxpayer must endure.
You need to add "by shareholders." Shareholders, Consumers, Labor are not identical groups of people. Each group receives a benefit that they are solely interested in. So to bring it to basics for you: Shareholder = max revenue, min cost Consumer = cheapest price, highest quality/quantity Labor = max pay, min effort All of these things conflict. The shareholder will not always have the consumer or labor interests at heart. The entity gives consumers a desired goods and labor needed capital.
This has to be the best video posted yet. Too many people misinterpret libertarianism as supporting huge monopolies. They couldn't be further from the truth.
I agree that education is necessary to make a vote that's "worth something", though I would say it *is* possible to educate oneself to understand policies well enough that one's vote is at least meaningful insofar as it's well-informed. However, as you said, people don't really vote for policies as much as they do for politicians (whom they think might) give them the policies the desire. The illusion of "democracy" is fairly well shattered when one realizes these things.
Address the problem directly. Why do people initiate force? I believe it starts in the family dynamic and how children are raised by their parents. Do parents use force? I think society is a macrocosm of the family unit.
How about the option to force our senators to make it illegal with a felony to lobby or pay with money or any other bribe any politician and get rid of all laws that would restrict individual or corporations to operate autonomously in the US . Is that not a solution?
1. Not totally irrational, but not directly motivated by logic: e.g. impulse buys, buying solely based on price/packaging disregarding all other factors. Your question 2 & 3 are confusing 2. In an enlightened society, people account for the externality. 3. In an enlightened society, people are paid the value of the labor which accounts for cost to live and future planning. An enlightened society is the only way to a free market. Government intervenes because the society is not enlightened.
How about forbidding corporations from lobbying or donating to political campaigns without first requiring them to have their shareholders vote to approve this way of spending their money?
the problem people have missed is that the power for the economic sector is now greater or at a bare minimum equal to that of government and they are not held democratically accountable. Equal representation in the economic sector for everyone, and public financing of all elections both corporate and federal is the only thing going to get us out of this mess.
@Tamlinearthly No one denies that there are business abuses in a free market system but there are natural checks and balances (consumer activism, worker turnover etc). In cronyism, the responsibility of the firm is divorced from the needs of the consumers, workers and broader public.
Deregulation would never help some sectors, like communications. There are a limited amount of airwaves to license and a limited amount of places to wire. This means startups have no chance of success and companies can charge their customers higher fees due to lack of competition. Bell and Rogers in Canada buy airwaves to NOT use.
+leerman22 While this isn't 100% directly related to the point you're making, its close enough that I think it might give you a new perspective on things The Myth of the Natural Monopoly mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
The problem is that the rules and regulations are so complex that no one can effectively follow them and maintain a healthy business, and the solution is to add more government intervention and more complicated rules with more paperwork and more arbitrary compliance fees? It’s brilliant, why didn't I think of that?
Private businesses have their own regulations regarding safety. The last thing a private business wants is a lawsuit so it's in their best interest to make sure their workers are in a safe work environment.
You are pointing to the broken version and saying that the idea is wrong. I agree, government in both the US and the UK has massively overreached its mandates, and they forget that they are supposed to be acting for the good of the people, not the preservation of their own power, but again, it's not the concept that's flawed; it's the implementation. In the US, special interest groups, business and lobbyists have been able to exert disproportionate influence so govt is no longer democratic
This video is overly simplistic and strawmanning regulations. Regulations is not for the companies, it's for stuff like making dangerous chemicals illegal or making sure people can survive on a salary. Sure, it will hurt SOME small companies, especially those who use bad chemicals or underpay their employees, but regulation CAN also be used to regulate larger companies harder. It's naive to believe a free market will solve anything. The problem is, when the market IS free, we have NO saying.
You are stating the correct STRATEGY, but not the GOALS behind it. The correct strategy is, indeed, to give in to the demand of the consumer. The problem is that this assumes that the consumers demands are realistic, and the cooporation cannot lie.
There's another facet to this "regulation" equation. Regulations also lowers quality and hurts consumers because once a market regulation is enacted, consumers stop paying attention to quality because the regulation creates a "false standard" after which, there is little incentive for competitors to go above and beyond market regulation. Once you see that "USDA" stamped beef, most people don't care.
Furthermore, you are arguing against ABUSE of power and rules, not power per se. In every post, you have talked about what happens when things go wrong. So surely, as we are speaking hypothetically, then we should be creating a system that has security and extreme penalties to prevent abuses, rather than throwing the system in the trash in fear that it might be abused?
People commonly forget the fact that our govt was contracted by the states to promote, preserve, and protect the union. In those three words how can someone feasible discern that the govt aught to tell you that you need healthcar,e and also a particular type of healthcare.
That is true, but not what many call the free market, we're talking ultra-free (as opposed to now: pretty goddamn free). In the proper ultra-free market there will be flaws that this video entirely ignores in order to make the whole concept more attractive.
Such an argument assumes a ban on debt as well. For as long as people and governments are allowed to borrow money now and pay it back in the future, then there will be more "money" floating around than actual currency in circulation. Also, how we measure money has NO influence on the activities of corporations. I don't know how you think changing paper for gold is going to change how a government/business operates. It just limits the total maximum.
Well, when cronyism allows corporations to become more powerful than the government (which is pretty much the case today), how would you take away these monopolies when you simply take away government?
This argument assumes that corporations have a say in the regulations over them, which defeats the purpose. I agree with 2natw. Loopholes need to be closed and there needs to be a limit on campain contributions.
A corporate CEO claiming to be in support of free(d) markets would be like a politician claiming to support individual sovereignty. A free(d) market means no entry barriers, no subsidies, no bailouts, no intellectual monopoly etc. Ofc, there currently exists a myth that Big Business "hates" regulation. Not only do they frequently write the rules, they support regulation even when they don't. This is because that even "good" regulations affect existing companies less than potential competitors.
Actually - its almost the exact opposite. What truly protects employees, government regulation - or competition from employers? If you can be hired by another employer that offers a better work environment, wouldn't you take that job. Government regulations keep other employers out of the market - and other employers are the only true form of protection that an employee has from his or her own boss. Look up Milton Friedman.
Yeah... Well, ever stop to think that the reason why Newton is famous is because he received recognition for being the cusp of a dramatic development in physics and his peers recognized that and lauded his name. Then he says, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." I don't think you are able to separate what you perceive from reality. Please look up those words along with the words subjective and objective and ask yourself which two belong together.
All he said was that we need less regulation, less government power over the economy. He never said we need to eliminate regulations. The only problem with so called "good regulations" they are like a benevolent dictatorship, it's only good until someone runs away with the power. Which will inevitably happen because people WILL try to vote themselves more money and/or power.
Of course I have a heart. I can help out the poor more than government can because government has to steal from people to help. On the other hand , I as an individual am ready to donate(assuming my money hasn't been stolen by government yet) or help in the most efficient way possible through any good private charity.
So in turn, that would make certain things like public workers and the military a real priority for the government, because that would be the only things that it would have the money to fund. But w/e it is, we have GOT to put an end to any type of collusion that government has with business, its getting extremely frustrating to see it over and over and over.
This video is addressing the symptoms on the larger issue: allowing money to be used as speech. If we take the lobbying and bribes out of the law writing process, the focus would be on quantifiable facts and accountability. Also, there needs to be a level of separation between the lead politicians who are in control of these regulating bodies and the corporate elite. Often a lead officer in a corporation will leave the private sector only to enter the political body that regulated them.
If a power company could theoretically charge as much as they want, boosting profits, as a monopoly, then those high profits would attract competitors into that sector like flies to honey. As competition builds, that drives prices and profits down to an equilibrium where it becomes saturated. Just two years ago there was just one self-serve yogurt place in my area. It was busy all the time. Now they're everywhere. Competition prevents greed.
Honest question: if regulations are indeed reduced to make a more level playing field in the economy, wouldn't monopolies just pop up again and ruin the economy for everyone? It seems like the super big businesses would just have the same amount of power with less competition.
+jason boyles But that doesn't mean there could be one. Just because we haven't seen it happen in our history it doesn't mean it can't happen.. Can you provide a better argument because I'm kinda on the fence. As of right now, I think 100% Capitalism with 0 regulation is dangerous.
+LelLaden It's a hell of a lot safer than a government that has the threat of a military to back down dissatisfied consumers. Bell Telephones monopoly was encouraged by the government when it was just starting out, it was only after competitors were able to buy influence with their Reps in the House that it was finally declared EVIL and need to be broken up.
+Thomas Lowe There still needs to be some regulation however.. We can't just allow companies to run rampant letting them fuck over anyone they want.. I mean just look at the working conditions companies allowed during the industrial revolution like allowing child labor and working people to the bone. With a high risk of danger on the job.. I feel like you guys are coming at it from a more anarcho-capatalist perspective and if so I'm done talking. I thought I was speaking to conservatives/libertarians. Not agenda sociopaths. Employers will always find ways to fuck over their workers. Especially with a 0 regulation state.
LelLaden Guilds were able to screw over employees because the Crown allowed it to occur. Today Corporations are allowed to screw over employees because the Government chokes out all capital and limits choices for people to make money and raise families. Both need to be obliterated.
The companies that don't have it genetically modified have it labelled. Why? Because as the person you replied to said, "Labeling foods is a way food companies compete against each other."
would likely reduce their own profit potential. We saw it already with the recent bailouts and the global recession: incredibly wealthy businesses and, in the latter case, banking institutions as well, making incredibly risky and stupid financial decisions in the hopes of getting quick, easy profit. Even the wealthiest of the wealthy don't fit the "rational decision maker" assumption that capitalists love to rely on: wealthy and poor alike will often make poor, irrational, and stupid decisions.
I'm skeptical of your claim "one of the smallest lower class" [sic]. Deriving the GINI coefficient from a Lorenz curve for economic equity shows that on this metric the U.S. is more similar to China than any Western European nation. It also shows that the U.S. has a less equitable distribution of wealth than India.
Is the inefficacy of the government an intrinsic property of government itself? Or is it merely evidence of our failure to MAKE our government more effective? If the system doesn't work then you fix it, not abandon it.
11 років тому+2
1/2: That's just deregulation propaganda from the right. In my experience the US is less regulated than many parts of the world but they don't face the same problems because they haven't allowed lobbyist and corporations to donate (legal bribery) endless amounts of money to their politicians and parties. Where I come from we don’t face these problems because we don’t consider corporations people my friend and we don’t allow donations of millions or billions of dollars.
That is a trick question. There is no example of a purely free-market SYSTEM, but from what I was taught the robber barons were, indeed, an excellent example of one. Alternatively, look at medieval-1800's Italy and the merchant princes of venice Milan genoa ancona pisa etc. They were basically free market capitalists who took the next obvious step-seizing government power from their republic once they had sufficient wealth through monopolizing trade routes.
We are both for individuality. I am for conscious capitalism which enables the free markets you want. To do that you need some to identify externalities and account for them. That's what's missing in right-side libertarianism. Another flaw: conflicts in recognizing individuality, your policy results in washing away that individuality. There is a reason why we have certain regulations and institutions, because of history. Could we reduce some regs? Sure and we may need to add/adapt others.
You don't need government regulating dangerous chemicals or workers salaries. Companies who make dangerous products face lawsuits and loss of revenue and so it is in their best interest to ensure their product is safe. A workers wage is Dependant on the worker. If that worker is truly underpaid, a competitive company will higher that worker at a higher salary
Let me educate you on how government regulates. A regulation is not, "Neither individuals nor corporation may discard radioactive materials into the surrounding environment." A regulation today is instead harassing a company if they heard somewhere that a company might be violating a rule concerning number of sinks. Dumping radioactive waste is already against Constitutional property rights, so a regulation on it isn't really needed. But then, I take it you're not really familiar with US law.
In a free market, insurance companies pay for damages. Private dispute resolution agencies would compete for settlements. Reckless driving and speeding do not hurt anyone. It increases risk but how is that any different that someone who neglects their car brakes? There's no law for inspecting and replacing your brakes. You assume that the FDIC has been around since the dawn of man. Bank runs is what keeps banks in check. Both fear and greed exist when there's no regulation, not just greed
I edited a bit. You're still just throwing out ad hominems rather than addressing the issues: How will the common people protect themselves from abuses by the most powerful and reclusive business entities without the tools of government? Why are you more interested in name-calling than discussing the issues? Get back on topic, it's a topic that warrants it.
See, it SEEMS like more government power means more power for big business to dominate markets, but I think in reality it's that corporate leaders infiltrate government; it is the CORPORATE INFLUENCE on government that allows for this to happen. Of course if there were less government power, there would be less power for the corporations to influence, but the influence would still exist (to whatever extent possible). But ultimately it is corporate power (or both) which is/are the problem.
...With that said, the 'free-market' can and does do many good things, and with the few exceptions of antitrust law & labor laws (which exist for good reasons), if the government would stay out of the way of the market, there would be more prosperity for everyone.
Well, that's the position of the video. I just know that small businesses often get away with things just because they're small enough to fly under the radar; I don't know if it's actually worse than large businesses or not. The problem is how to test my hypothesis. I suspect that a lot of small businesses don't even know that they're breaking the law (I know that sometimes they don't even care).
I've worked in the oil field for 35 years. Too many times, regulations have been written that define how we should perform our tasks rather than define the goal that is to be achieved, and let innovation determine the best way to meet the goal. Safety is a huge one. I've put many hours into "paper pushing" to meet audits, where my time could be much better served implementing applications that would prevent accidents.
Another point - I've never seen a lobbyist for a small business.
The solution to end cronyism is the same as it is for removing money from politics.
To remove money from politics or end cronyism you have to get rid of what attracts money to politics.
Which is the Tax Code and excessive regulation.
Limiting campaign donations to a few hundred dollars per individual would be a good start, but it doesn't address the more destructive lobby side of it.
Some required transparency, and for Congress members & other lawmakers a Helluva Lot more accountability to their constituents. as it stands right now, they can just Commit huge scandalous crimes and stand in front of microphones and just boldface lie like we're all children. Its infuriating. But just try to get the justice department to do anything about it and you'd be more likely to end up in jail yourself.
I think it is against the human nature.People are selfish and greedy in their essence that is why i dont see it happening.Where there is money there also is corruption.
Easier said than done
The problem is that corporations aren't following the rules and regulation and the solution is to get rid of the rules and regulations? It’s brilliant, why didn’t I think of that?
Choose limited federal government. Stop making millionaires out of our politicians and lobbyists. Stop increasing the power of connected corporations.
Good point. The more regukations you have, the more cronyism and lobbyists corporations will need. Small businesses can't afford a compliance department staffed with with lawyers and accountants to figure out all the new regulations.
Absolutely. I think that as time has gone on, his points have been further validated.
I hope this channel never stops producing videos.
Beautifully put man. I wish someone said this to me when I was a liberal back in the day.
Great video. I have been having this conversation for years. Keep up the good work guys.
This video is right on. Business is accountable to its customers and we vote everyday with our purchases and lift some and put down others. This is the nature of a free economy. Government on the other hand grows and grows and becomes less accountable to its constituency. In fact they begin to believe that we work for them instead of the other way round. After all, they do have the guns.
Fewer regulations mean that the invisible hand of supply and demand as defined by Adam Smith could work to its fullest potential. The thing about a free market is that people determine the success of a business. I agree there should be some regulation, but not the over regulation that we experience today. Having rules reduce chaos, but having too much rules reduces freedom also.
Oh great idea, let's reduce government power.
How come i didn't think about it !?
You literally cannot, every major political parties seek to increase government power.
Excellent work! This is one of the best videos this series has produced yet.
This is an excellent sypnosis of the problem with crony corporatism. I came to the same conclusion while studying economics a year ago.
I think to some extent, we need regulation (for instance, antitrust law, anti-child-labor laws, etc.). But what this amounts to is HONEST regulation, whose intentions are solely to benefit the consumers & workers. What we seem to get, instead, is government picking winners & losers in the economy, and instead of regulating to promote the wellbeing of the consumers & workers, it regulates to benefit those corporate leaders who have connections in government.
Serious question here, what is stopping corporations and large businesses from becoming militant?
Political candidates need to learn from these videos. The messages are short, clear, and they actually address the serious questions of voters.
Just imagine seeing three minute campaign ads like this one in November, rather than the mind-numbing thirty second spots we get now.
Helping. In the 1950's researcher/scientists were attempting to show the public that cigarettes cause cancer, but because of the addiction, many people were blinded. Today, finally, we have dropped the rate pretty well due to complex battles of politics, where clever people wanting to help surprisingly came out on top. (E.g. the Surgeon General at the time). Small businesses, though, can be less regulated at points, to make the cost less for them, but without compromising safety. (cont.)
That's a very solid argument you have there. Can't imagine how one would counter it.
It would depend on what those regulations actually are, how they are written. They could be written to exclude businesses with under 50 employees or so. We obviously need some regulations. Rules need to be in place to protect people or it's all for nothing anyway.
LearnLiberty rocks my world. Keep preaching the truth ya'll.
Hong Kong in the 70s was a true free market. There were high wages and high standards of living.
I thought you would appreciate marx's term. ;) I would suggest looking at videos on Sowell, Friedman, Rothbard etc. The injustices almost always occur in fettered markets - ones in which government has a lot of power. Your skepticism in human nature is a good sign and one shared by free market economists like the ones mentioned above. Be skeptical of political altruism,we are all greedy by nature. If you pay attention, freer markets are ones that yield greater results for all.
I see your point. But implicit in there somewhere is the idea that the people at the top will naturally do what's good for everyone because they're nice people who want to make the system work, when in reality they are driven by greed. Fewer regulations will give them the opportunity to do things like monopolize, which is great for them, bad for us.
An interesting video and while I agree with the analysis, I can't help thinking that the idea of an unregulated market is some what utopian. One of the defining themes of contemporary capitalism is as you point out is, a reliance on the state to keep the economic environment favourable for business interests. This is all done to a fan fare of free marketism to which big business in all but retrorocket has dispensed with because a purely unregulated market has its own inherent problems too.
"No, because there are very specific regulations. They can't just pick and choose."
They sure can! Check out what I wrote earlier today about the ACA. Small businesses can't afford to hire lobbyists. When they get big enough to attract attention, they hire lobbyists to pulls strings for them in DC. I used to work for a small company related to healthcare that grew quickly and hired a lobbyist to do just that.
137 crony capitalists saw this video.
As long as the government is involved in businesses to the extent that they are, there are incentives for those companies to try and influence government. This is straight up in the video.
Yeah, and anyone can call out someone who's falsely advertising too. Why do people only think of unbridled greed with free markets? Free markets operate with both fear and greed at work at the same time. Unbridled greed only exist when governments step in and try to eliminate fear from the market, at which point it stops being a free market. Then when problems occur, the free market gets blamed.
I do, I just don't think you need a law requiring it. If there is a demand for it is in the company's self interest to provide it. For example, remember when Netflix tried to raise rates for subscriptions? The outcry from its members was so great that it decided against it. Same with this, there have been many companies who want to provide more info than the government requires and the FDA won't let them.
Would removing government regulation short-term enable already powerful corporations? What would their return to balance look like?
In the short term, yes. In the long term, no. Since regulations wouldn't impede other businesses to compete with the corporations for lower prices and better services, the corporations would either have to provide better services, or eventually go out of business.
It's not paradoxical that the power to give out favors is the root of the problem of economic favors being granted. The reason that we have the problem is that most people - business people, politicians, and ordinary citizens - don't want to give up the power to pick winners and losers. They're not upset at the idea that government has such a power, they just don't like the winners that get chosen.
The problem goes both ways... power from corporations towards the federal gov't, and power from the federal gov't towards corporations. Breeding ground for corruption, abuse, waste, and politicized actions that the American people and the taxpayer must endure.
You need to add "by shareholders."
Shareholders, Consumers, Labor are not identical groups of people. Each group receives a benefit that they are solely interested in. So to bring it to basics for you:
Shareholder = max revenue, min cost
Consumer = cheapest price, highest quality/quantity
Labor = max pay, min effort
All of these things conflict.
The shareholder will not always have the consumer or labor interests at heart.
The entity gives consumers a desired goods and labor needed capital.
This has to be the best video posted yet. Too many people misinterpret libertarianism as supporting huge monopolies. They couldn't be further from the truth.
I agree that education is necessary to make a vote that's "worth something", though I would say it *is* possible to educate oneself to understand policies well enough that one's vote is at least meaningful insofar as it's well-informed. However, as you said, people don't really vote for policies as much as they do for politicians (whom they think might) give them the policies the desire. The illusion of "democracy" is fairly well shattered when one realizes these things.
Things like cooperatives can definitely be successful on a micro scale, but they depend on all members voluntarily joining and pulling their weight.
My only question when it comes to government regulation is what's to be done about the SEC? We can't let that go unregulated.
Address the problem directly. Why do people initiate force? I believe it starts in the family dynamic and how children are raised by their parents. Do parents use force? I think society is a macrocosm of the family unit.
How about the option to force our senators to make it illegal with a felony to lobby or pay with money or any other bribe any politician and get rid of all laws that would restrict individual or corporations to operate autonomously in the US . Is that not a solution?
What we should do, is at least try. Even if it seems hopeless. Buckling down and trying to spread good.
1. Not totally irrational, but not directly motivated by logic: e.g. impulse buys, buying solely based on price/packaging disregarding all other factors.
Your question 2 & 3 are confusing
2. In an enlightened society, people account for the externality.
3. In an enlightened society, people are paid the value of the labor which accounts for cost to live and future planning.
An enlightened society is the only way to a free market. Government intervenes because the society is not enlightened.
How about forbidding corporations from lobbying or donating to political campaigns without first requiring them to have their shareholders vote to approve this way of spending their money?
the problem people have missed is that the power for the economic sector is now greater or at a bare minimum equal to that of government and they are not held democratically accountable. Equal representation in the economic sector for everyone, and public financing of all elections both corporate and federal is the only thing going to get us out of this mess.
@Tamlinearthly No one denies that there are business abuses in a free market system but there are natural checks and balances (consumer activism, worker turnover etc). In cronyism, the responsibility of the firm is divorced from the needs of the consumers, workers and broader public.
Deregulation would never help some sectors, like communications. There are a limited amount of airwaves to license and a limited amount of places to wire. This means startups have no chance of success and companies can charge their customers higher fees due to lack of competition. Bell and Rogers in Canada buy airwaves to NOT use.
+leerman22 While this isn't 100% directly related to the point you're making, its close enough that I think it might give you a new perspective on things
The Myth of the Natural Monopoly
mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
+leerman22 Which is where innovation, creation, entrepreneurship come into play. Philo Farnsworth recognized this and built a tv. What have you done?
The problem is that the rules and regulations are so complex that no one can effectively follow them and maintain a healthy business, and the solution is to add more government intervention and more complicated rules with more paperwork and more arbitrary compliance fees? It’s brilliant, why didn't I think of that?
Private businesses have their own regulations regarding safety. The last thing a private business wants is a lawsuit so it's in their best interest to make sure their workers are in a safe work environment.
You are pointing to the broken version and saying that the idea is wrong. I agree, government in both the US and the UK has massively overreached its mandates, and they forget that they are supposed to be acting for the good of the people, not the preservation of their own power, but again, it's not the concept that's flawed; it's the implementation. In the US, special interest groups, business and lobbyists have been able to exert disproportionate influence so govt is no longer democratic
The thing is most companies don't start with the intent to rip people off, that's just the way things go because they want the make more profits.
It's not just that management has an incentive, they have a fiduciary duty to influence regulators.
excellent, very clear and insightful
Love some classic Learn Liberty!
This video is overly simplistic and strawmanning regulations. Regulations is not for the companies, it's for stuff like making dangerous chemicals illegal or making sure people can survive on a salary. Sure, it will hurt SOME small companies, especially those who use bad chemicals or underpay their employees, but regulation CAN also be used to regulate larger companies harder.
It's naive to believe a free market will solve anything. The problem is, when the market IS free, we have NO saying.
The US is the 10th most economically free country in the world. Not as free as one may think.
You are stating the correct STRATEGY, but not the GOALS behind it. The correct strategy is, indeed, to give in to the demand of the consumer. The problem is that this assumes that the consumers demands are realistic, and the cooporation cannot lie.
There's another facet to this "regulation" equation. Regulations also lowers quality and hurts consumers because once a market regulation is enacted, consumers stop paying attention to quality because the regulation creates a "false standard" after which, there is little incentive for competitors to go above and beyond market regulation. Once you see that "USDA" stamped beef, most people don't care.
Furthermore, you are arguing against ABUSE of power and rules, not power per se. In every post, you have talked about what happens when things go wrong. So surely, as we are speaking hypothetically, then we should be creating a system that has security and extreme penalties to prevent abuses, rather than throwing the system in the trash in fear that it might be abused?
People commonly forget the fact that our govt was contracted by the states to promote, preserve, and protect the union. In those three words how can someone feasible discern that the govt aught to tell you that you need healthcar,e and also a particular type of healthcare.
I said that government should make policies to assure a minimum food to everybody not that he has to run everything related to it , don't go too far.
That is true, but not what many call the free market, we're talking ultra-free (as opposed to now: pretty goddamn free). In the proper ultra-free market there will be flaws that this video entirely ignores in order to make the whole concept more attractive.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Such an argument assumes a ban on debt as well. For as long as people and governments are allowed to borrow money now and pay it back in the future, then there will be more "money" floating around than actual currency in circulation.
Also, how we measure money has NO influence on the activities of corporations. I don't know how you think changing paper for gold is going to change how a government/business operates. It just limits the total maximum.
I agree 95 % percent about what he is saying.
Well, when cronyism allows corporations to become more powerful than the government (which is pretty much the case today), how would you take away these monopolies when you simply take away government?
This argument assumes that corporations have a say in the regulations over them, which defeats the purpose. I agree with 2natw. Loopholes need to be closed and there needs to be a limit on campain contributions.
Such an enlightened level of discourse from our capitalist friends. Good show.
Doesn't less regulation also mean less worker safety and safety in general?
A corporate CEO claiming to be in support of free(d) markets would be like a politician claiming to support individual sovereignty. A free(d) market means no entry barriers, no subsidies, no bailouts, no intellectual monopoly etc.
Ofc, there currently exists a myth that Big Business "hates" regulation. Not only do they frequently write the rules, they support regulation even when they don't. This is because that even "good" regulations affect existing companies less than potential competitors.
Actually - its almost the exact opposite. What truly protects employees, government regulation - or competition from employers? If you can be hired by another employer that offers a better work environment, wouldn't you take that job. Government regulations keep other employers out of the market - and other employers are the only true form of protection that an employee has from his or her own boss. Look up Milton Friedman.
Yeah... Well, ever stop to think that the reason why Newton is famous is because he received recognition for being the cusp of a dramatic development in physics and his peers recognized that and lauded his name. Then he says, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." I don't think you are able to separate what you perceive from reality. Please look up those words along with the words subjective and objective and ask yourself which two belong together.
All he said was that we need less regulation, less government power over the economy. He never said we need to eliminate regulations. The only problem with so called "good regulations" they are like a benevolent dictatorship, it's only good until someone runs away with the power. Which will inevitably happen because people WILL try to vote themselves more money and/or power.
Of course I have a heart. I can help out the poor more than government can because government has to steal from people to help. On the other hand , I as an individual am ready to donate(assuming my money hasn't been stolen by government yet) or help in the most efficient way possible through any good private charity.
So in turn, that would make certain things like public workers and the military a real priority for the government, because that would be the only things that it would have the money to fund. But w/e it is, we have GOT to put an end to any type of collusion that government has with business, its getting extremely frustrating to see it over and over and over.
Pardon the misspellings, I am on my phone.
This video is addressing the symptoms on the larger issue: allowing money to be used as speech. If we take the lobbying and bribes out of the law writing process, the focus would be on quantifiable facts and accountability. Also, there needs to be a level of separation between the lead politicians who are in control of these regulating bodies and the corporate elite. Often a lead officer in a corporation will leave the private sector only to enter the political body that regulated them.
If a power company could theoretically charge as much as they want, boosting profits, as a monopoly, then those high profits would attract competitors into that sector like flies to honey. As competition builds, that drives prices and profits down to an equilibrium where it becomes saturated. Just two years ago there was just one self-serve yogurt place in my area. It was busy all the time. Now they're everywhere. Competition prevents greed.
Honest question: if regulations are indeed reduced to make a more level playing field in the economy, wouldn't monopolies just pop up again and ruin the economy for everyone? It seems like the super big businesses would just have the same amount of power with less competition.
there has never been a monopoly in the history of America that wasn't fueled at least partly by the government.
+jason boyles But that doesn't mean there could be one. Just because we haven't seen it happen in our history it doesn't mean it can't happen.. Can you provide a better argument because I'm kinda on the fence. As of right now, I think 100% Capitalism with 0 regulation is dangerous.
+LelLaden It's a hell of a lot safer than a government that has the threat of a military to back down dissatisfied consumers. Bell Telephones monopoly was encouraged by the government when it was just starting out, it was only after competitors were able to buy influence with their Reps in the House that it was finally declared EVIL and need to be broken up.
+Thomas Lowe There still needs to be some regulation however.. We can't just allow companies to run rampant letting them fuck over anyone they want.. I mean just look at the working conditions companies allowed during the industrial revolution like allowing child labor and working people to the bone. With a high risk of danger on the job.. I feel like you guys are coming at it from a more anarcho-capatalist perspective and if so I'm done talking. I thought I was speaking to conservatives/libertarians. Not agenda sociopaths. Employers will always find ways to fuck over their workers. Especially with a 0 regulation state.
LelLaden Guilds were able to screw over employees because the Crown allowed it to occur. Today Corporations are allowed to screw over employees because the Government chokes out all capital and limits choices for people to make money and raise families. Both need to be obliterated.
Government is bad when it isn't working properly; markets are bad even when they are.
The companies that don't have it genetically modified have it labelled. Why? Because as the person you replied to said, "Labeling foods is a way food companies compete against each other."
would likely reduce their own profit potential. We saw it already with the recent bailouts and the global recession: incredibly wealthy businesses and, in the latter case, banking institutions as well, making incredibly risky and stupid financial decisions in the hopes of getting quick, easy profit. Even the wealthiest of the wealthy don't fit the "rational decision maker" assumption that capitalists love to rely on: wealthy and poor alike will often make poor, irrational, and stupid decisions.
I love this Channel, Too bad, though, should have at least close to a million views.
I'm skeptical of your claim "one of the smallest lower class" [sic].
Deriving the GINI coefficient from a Lorenz curve for economic equity shows that on this metric the U.S. is more similar to China than any Western European nation. It also shows that the U.S. has a less equitable distribution of wealth than India.
Is the inefficacy of the government an intrinsic property of government itself? Or is it merely evidence of our failure to MAKE our government more effective? If the system doesn't work then you fix it, not abandon it.
1/2: That's just deregulation propaganda from the right. In my experience the US is less regulated than many parts of the world but they don't face the same problems because they haven't allowed lobbyist and corporations to donate (legal bribery) endless amounts of money to their politicians and parties. Where I come from we don’t face these problems because we don’t consider corporations people my friend and we don’t allow donations of millions or billions of dollars.
That is a trick question. There is no example of a purely free-market SYSTEM, but from what I was taught the robber barons were, indeed, an excellent example of one.
Alternatively, look at medieval-1800's Italy and the merchant princes of venice Milan genoa ancona pisa etc.
They were basically free market capitalists who took the next obvious step-seizing government power from their republic once they had sufficient wealth through monopolizing trade routes.
When a market is free. Only the consumer will have a say.
Oh God! A well-thought explanation of legitimate free-market principles. Hide!
We are both for individuality. I am for conscious capitalism which enables the free markets you want. To do that you need some to identify externalities and account for them. That's what's missing in right-side libertarianism. Another flaw: conflicts in recognizing individuality, your policy results in washing away that individuality. There is a reason why we have certain regulations and institutions, because of history. Could we reduce some regs? Sure and we may need to add/adapt others.
Best channel on the net
You don't need government regulating dangerous chemicals or workers salaries. Companies who make dangerous products face lawsuits and loss of revenue and so it is in their best interest to ensure their product is safe. A workers wage is Dependant on the worker. If that worker is truly underpaid, a competitive company will higher that worker at a higher salary
Action Hank had the right idea about what to do about Bronys
Let me educate you on how government regulates. A regulation is not, "Neither individuals nor corporation may discard radioactive materials into the surrounding environment." A regulation today is instead harassing a company if they heard somewhere that a company might be violating a rule concerning number of sinks. Dumping radioactive waste is already against Constitutional property rights, so a regulation on it isn't really needed. But then, I take it you're not really familiar with US law.
Nicely done.
In a free market, insurance companies pay for damages. Private dispute resolution agencies would compete for settlements. Reckless driving and speeding do not hurt anyone. It increases risk but how is that any different that someone who neglects their car brakes? There's no law for inspecting and replacing your brakes. You assume that the FDIC has been around since the dawn of man. Bank runs is what keeps banks in check. Both fear and greed exist when there's no regulation, not just greed
I edited a bit. You're still just throwing out ad hominems rather than addressing the issues: How will the common people protect themselves from abuses by the most powerful and reclusive business entities without the tools of government? Why are you more interested in name-calling than discussing the issues? Get back on topic, it's a topic that warrants it.
See, it SEEMS like more government power means more power for big business to dominate markets, but I think in reality it's that corporate leaders infiltrate government; it is the CORPORATE INFLUENCE on government that allows for this to happen. Of course if there were less government power, there would be less power for the corporations to influence, but the influence would still exist (to whatever extent possible). But ultimately it is corporate power (or both) which is/are the problem.
...With that said, the 'free-market' can and does do many good things, and with the few exceptions of antitrust law & labor laws (which exist for good reasons), if the government would stay out of the way of the market, there would be more prosperity for everyone.
Perfectly stated in a nut shell.
Well, that's the position of the video. I just know that small businesses often get away with things just because they're small enough to fly under the radar; I don't know if it's actually worse than large businesses or not. The problem is how to test my hypothesis. I suspect that a lot of small businesses don't even know that they're breaking the law (I know that sometimes they don't even care).