Dat inequality

[CoccoBill]

This all assumes monopoly power. In a market, it doesn't matter that much if some people try to screw over clients when their asses are on the line because the competitive dynamic allows for others who can do better to do better. Like with natural selection, consumer selection weeds out identified problems.

Not at all? Any mid-manager with any decision power (e.g. product/service/security manager) is able to do this. The damage is done and the person moved on to greener pastures before the info comes out and the market is able to adjust, this is my point. And of course this is also possible and does happen in government, and pretty much every position where humans exist. The point was that it does also happen in the private sector, where you suggested it can't happen because markets.

When comparing people in enterprise to people in government, it's all just about incentive structure. Every one of us acts in our own self-interest first and foremost. Capitalism is the mechanism that harnesses that fact and uses it to create a society that improves itself

I'm sure it improves certain aspects, safety and equality not being some of them. I'm unconvinced that those and some other qualities would be ensured by free markets alone, since free markets are run by people who are in large part selfish greedy idiots. I'd rather put restrictions on the damage those can do.

What in those regulations are beneficial? The benefit in those regions is in every way that regulations that deter freedom have been overturned. The benefit for Colorado hasn't been in its new regulations of marijuana, but in its deregulation of punishing people for marijuana

Those were just used as an example how policies can improve, using your example case.

One of the focal points of the Caplan lecture I previously posted is how even though public sector policies have best interests at heart, they result in overall negative things, yet even though the private sector is selfish, it results in the best interests. It's counter-intuitive, but it is true that the economic mechanism of progress is selfish actors competing with each other. Intentions are not key, incentives are key. Government intends to do well, but its incentives don't promote doing well and it ends up not doing well. Entrepreneurs do not intend to do well (unless you think being selfish is "doing well"), but their incentive is to create a product or service that people freely choose to accept, and this dynamic coupled with competition from other entrepreneurs doing the same thing results in societal benefit

I didn't watch that yet, I'll be sure to do so. My gut instinct however is, that it deals with the current situation (in the US), not postulating a theory of how these are the unavoidable outcomes in all cases.

The belief is that government intervention helps the little guy, but it does the opposite. The overwhelming majority of intervention favors the big, entrenched guy. Helping the little guy comes by keeping government out of the market.

Again, is this an observation of the effect of current US policies, or based on a theoretical analysis of all possible regulatory models? Let's make it clear at this point, that from what I know of US policies, some first hand, I'm sure a free market would be a much better option than what you have in place now. I just think models that beat them both can exist.

It is a big mistake to think that businesses have the sort of capital or prestige to crush the little guy in a free market. If the pharmaceutical companies attempted to do what they've done to beat back competition without the use of government, they'd all be bankrupt. "Big pharma" should be changed to "Big government backing favored pharmaceutical companies and screwing everybody else"

I don't think it takes much capital and prestige to put out false info about competitors or your own products, the less easy those are to fact check the better. They might get caught or they might not. Sometimes when they do get it's already too late. Also there are several psychological mechanisms affecting this, such as negativity bias, which makes it much more likely for people to remember any false claims put out (such as in elections smearing a candidate) than the later corrections or counterarguments. Your pharma observation is due to bad government, not *any government*, IMO.

You're vastly underestimating the logistics it takes to start and operate successful businesses. Only somebody who wants to lose nothing but assloads of money could sell turd pizzas for a few months then close up shop and do it again. You're also underestimating consumers. Who the hell wants to eat a turd pizza? This hypothetical entrepreneur isn't going to just be able to up and sell whatever he wants to anybody he wants. A third underestimate is how much "turd" there is in your food already, despite the best efforts of regulators and businesses (mass production and oral consumption is messy). A fourth overestimation is how government could do any better.

It doesn't take all that much to start up a pizza joint and this is actually a real life example, minus the turds. But you may be right in the sense, that these are mainly made possible due to gov incentives for small businesses. However, I'm sure someone can come up with a better example, where the profits from unethical business make it worthwhile to operate even short periods and start anew. Internet crime and spamming come to mind, but just because I can't think of any right now doesn't mean they don't exist. Anyway, by a turd pizza I meant cutting corners in the production to produce something that looks and tastes legit, but isn't up to the expected standards.

Here's what works better than government regulation of food safety: a popular journalist reports that McDonalds knew that rat poison was in its food, people have died, the majority of McDonalds' customers are now going to Burger King, McDonalds and all its stakeholders are now in the process of bankruptcy

How regularly do popular journalists visit every goddamn burger joint in the US? And I don't mean for a happy meal, but to inspect their kitchens, sanitation processes, cold chains, storage, food samples and other safety standards? I wouldn't want to rely solely on foodspotting reviews or some crap like that. I'm afraid not a large enough portion of the clientele is ready to dish out cash for independent 3rd party inspection services, they just want their 99c menu and prefer not to know what's in it.

The incentive for businesses to run a clean ship is much, much higher than the incentive for the regulators to make sure they're running a clean ship. If a business gets caught screwing its customers, it's doomed. If the government gets caught screwing anybody, it slaps itself on the wrist and takes more tax dollars. Start listing examples of big businesses that have gotten away with screwing people over, and you'll find that they've been bailed out by government.

I disagree on the incentives, for businesses it's to make everyone think they're running a clean ship, whether it actually is is inconsequential. I feel this is an important distinction. The penalties governments impose on their employees for screwing up are probably not inherent to the theory of public governance, and neither are government bailouts.

It's just one example. Europe has a whole bunch of other problems. Even then, an example of government acting bad in one place but not another doesn't mean the problem isn't inherent. Besides, Europe has been the biggest culprit of government fucking people in the entire world. Lest we forget wars are not waged by private enterprise. There are few better examples of the destruction wrought by government than the colonialism and war of European ones. Today, we live in a golden age like never before precisely because of capitalism

None of that means progress should end, and that better models should not be investigated. A governance model, whether based on freedom, public authorities, a hybrid of the two or something completely different is a complete utopia, but that shouldn't mean it should not be aimed at. My personal view is that a benevolent, informed dictatorship is probably the best solution, but even that has obvious drawbacks.

Herein lies a good example of the problem of regulation. Because I completely disagree with this policy preference, and maybe I'm right. Or maybe you're right. Or maybe somebody else is right. But how could we find out who is right if we create a perpetuating incumbency on the issue?

I think the best salve to the issue is still allowing every citizen to have one vote, but letting them sell their votes if they so please. At first it sounds like it would be a disaster. It sounds like the Kochs would just buy up enough votes to get politicians to overturn the constitution and turn the US into a Kochtatorship, but the logistics don't back that up. What the ability for voters to sell votes would do is vastly increase the amount that people with an agenda would have to pay to get their agenda enacted, and it would likewise increase the amount of wealth (and potential ability to fight against an agenda) of those who sell their votes

I'd love to see a game theory analysis of this.