Dat inequality

[CoccoBill]

Government imposed safety regulations are unlikely to solve any problems since they don't reflect an ever-changing environment.

Why is that, what is stopping them from changing? Your argument is more against bad/rigid governance and policies than governance and policies themselves. Personally I'm not for bad governance or shitty regulations, only for the ones that are necessary, actionable, fair and efficient. Obviously achieving those isn't trivial, but I'm not convinced it's impossible.

Answer this question: why do food/car companies recall faulty products: to appease the government or save their own bacon with consumers?

Both. A faulty/dangerous product gets recalled fast after the fault is discovered by the public, before that there is zero incentive to do that. There are numerous examples where companies deny any faults in their products when their existence is painfully obvious to everyone else. Answer this question: Why would a company's executive recall a product with a major flaw, causing major financial losses and damage to the company's public image, when the flaw would without rigorous testing only manifest itself after several years if at all, after the executive has already left the company?

Even if we believe that markets don't solve safety problems perfectly (a reasonable belief), does that necessarily mean that government does any better? I think the answer is an emphatic no. Look at it this way: which organization's accountants perform better cost-benefit analyses: a company selling product in the industry or a government bureaucracy that oversees only what it legislatively is required to?

Those are people working both for the public and private sectors, there's nothing inherently different in their analytic capabilities. Their incentives and goals, however, differ. The accountant at the private company is (perhaps directly) incentivised to maximize their company's profits, say by finding/creating loopholes in their own policies, whereas the goal for the public sector accountant (albeit indirectly through their motivation to adhere to their instructions) is to ensure product safety, ethical practices, legality etc. I don't doubt that the markets will adjust, in time. I just wonder how long people will have to breath leaded air and eat leaded toys waiting for that to happen.

[wufwugy]

Why is that, what is stopping them from changing?

Incumbency in voter, business, and bureaucratic interests that have high incentive to perpetuate their niche in the law, and the inherent nature of law/legislation being enormously complex

Governments do change, just at a snail's pace. Refer to the drug analogy. It's solid. The US (and Europe) are not living with drug laws that reflect the society today, but the society that existed decades ago. If the slate was cleaned today and all drug laws had to be passed all over again tomorrow, we'd find they look much, much different than the ones on the books. Markets begin reacting to new information almost instantly. Shifts in company and consumer practices can take place overnight or within weeks. Yet, notice how the US government has been "debating" immigration reform for, um, a decade now, and with no change whatsoever.

Your argument is more against bad/rigid governance and policies than governance and policies themselves. Personally I'm not for bad governance or shitty regulations, only for the ones that are necessary, actionable, fair and efficient. Obviously achieving those isn't trivial, but I'm not convinced it's impossible.

My argument is fundamentally against government, not just bad government. But it is also against bad government when compared to good government. I think I addressed this in an earlier post. Basically, if we were to do something like compare healthcare systems in US and EU, the difference in their function wouldn't be about amount of government, but competency of government. A large presidential federation of dynamic cultures just doesn't govern as well as small unitary parliaments. But even then, be sure that my argument here is fundamentally anti-government. Government brings with it inherent corruption and distortions like regulatory capture, moral hazards, and rent seeking that are incredible problems (so huge they're sometimes existential problems) that markets do not.

Both. A faulty/dangerous product gets recalled fast after the fault is discovered by the public, before that there is zero incentive to do that. There are numerous examples where companies deny any faults in their products when their existence is painfully obvious to everyone else. Answer this question: Why would a company's executive recall a product with a major flaw, causing major financial losses and damage to the company's public image, when the flaw would without rigorous testing only manifest itself after several years if at all, after the executive has already left the company?

This view of snake oil salesmen running off with the cash as his company dies is mostly a myth. It's not that people wouldn't try it, but that responsibilities and incentives don't align with the idea that one man can or would do this (to the degree that it's a systemic risk). Nobody at Google could do this. Nobody at Amazon, nobody at Goldman, nobody at GE. The responsibilities are way too dispersed. There are shareholders.

But let's say there's just one owner, like Gabe Newell of Valve. He has autonomy over every aspect of his multi-billion dollar company (IIRC). If he wanted to do this, he could, right? No, he couldn't. Well, he *could*, but it would be incredibly stupid, he would be met by mounting reasons why not to at every turn, and even in a system without government, he would probably end up destitute, punished, and ostracized anyways. Why wouldn't he do this? Because selling his assets nets him more money (and prestige) than ripping himself off and running into the night. If he did the latter, the market would respond terribly to him and it would be so bad that he would likely be unable to even keep his money/assets in any safe bank/insurance systems. He would have screwed over a lot of people, and every relatively free market we know of already has designed ways to punish those who behave like this. It's like how if I get caught bouncing checks in one bank, I go into an inter-banking system and can't get any new checking accounts.

Markets hate fraud. Way more than governments do.

Even if you scenario was true, how do you suppose regulators could regulate against it? This is more of the "perfect being the enemy of the good" thing. It's an assumption that if capitalism is flawed, government can necessarily fill the gap. That isn't true and every bit of evidence we have is that government is inherently terrible at filling these gaps. This should be an open and shut concept given the fact that there are millions of felons for smoking weed. Renton once told me that he thinks people are bred to believe in the state, so it becomes like blasphemy to suggest otherwise, and we so easily ignore colossal examples of how government destroys lives to far, far, far, far greater degrees than private enterprise ever has

Those are people working both for the public and private sectors, there's nothing inherently different in their analytic capabilities. Their incentives and goals, however, differ. The accountant at the private company is (perhaps directly) incentivised to maximize their company's profits, say by finding/creating loopholes in their own policies, whereas the goal for the public sector accountant (albeit indirectly through their motivation to adhere to their instructions) is to ensure product safety, ethical practices, legality etc. I don't doubt that the markets will adjust, in time. I just wonder how long people will have to breath leaded air and eat leaded toys waiting for that to happen.

These are the assumptions, but not how it falls down. Companies "finding loopholes in their policies" is a capability given to them by government, so it's not market concern. That aside, companies trying to create more wealth is good, pretty much regardless how it's done. The reason is because there are other companies doing the same thing and consumers are choosing the winners. The last thing companies can get away with is screwing customers. Just look at how in the US (where the capitalist ideal is most held), "the customer is always right" is a thing. Restaurants exist in one of the freest markets around, and every single one of them bends over backwards to please the customer, even when the customer is wrong, because the customer really isn't "wrong" because the easiest thing in the world would be for him to go next door and help the competition

As for what you said about government incentives being about public safety and stuff, that's true to a small percentage, but because there is little accountability, it becomes a burden for bureaucracies. How many videos of cops beating or killing innocent civilians in the US have you watched? How many times have you seen these cops punished? Just like with companies, in bureaucracies, the incentive is self-perpetuation. But unlike in companies, in bureaucracies, there is little accountability for results since their revenue streams are not based on results. If McDonalds was acting like the LAPD, it would be bankrupted within a month. If people try to stop the LAPD when they're hurting somebody, they get put through extensive legal trouble and usually into prison.

The word "corruption" probably wouldn't exist except for government. Since government has little accountability, its incentives align more with fraud and coercion than with results.

I think a lot of people from the relatively small areas where government doesn't suck nearly as much (like Scandinavia) are wrong if they are to call government a driver of the good in their societies. Those regions are healthy and unified because the populace is healthy and unified, and government was not the creator of that.

[CoccoBill]

This view of snake oil salesmen running off with the cash as his company dies is mostly a myth. It's not that people wouldn't try it, but that responsibilities and incentives don't align with the idea that one man can or would do this (to the degree that it's a systemic risk). Nobody at Google could do this. Nobody at Amazon, nobody at Goldman, nobody at GE. The responsibilities are way too dispersed. There are shareholders.

I didn't mean embezzlement but hiding facts from the customers. Every company is run by people, which most of the time have their own best interests first. If they're left with a choice of admitting a fault with something in their personal field of responsibilities, or hiding it and getting away with it until they've left the company, I'm pretty sure many would be tempted. Everybody at Google, Amazon and Goldman could do this, and many have. My point was, in answer to your question, that companies are run by people, and most of them couldn't care less about what their clients think when their personal ass is on the line.

Even if you scenario was true, how do you suppose regulators could regulate against it? This is more of the "perfect being the enemy of the good" thing. It's an assumption that if capitalism is flawed, government can necessarily fill the gap. That isn't true and every bit of evidence we have is that government is inherently terrible at filling these gaps. This should be an open and shut concept given the fact that there are millions of felons for smoking weed. Renton once told me that he thinks people are bred to believe in the state, so it becomes like blasphemy to suggest otherwise, and we so easily ignore colossal examples of how government destroys lives to far, far, far, far greater degrees than private enterprise ever has

What about drug laws in Colorado, the Netherlands or Portugal? I would argue that those are government regulations in place that demonstrably work well. Of course it's hard to say what would happen if all drugs were completely unregulated, maybe that could be the optimal solution. But I also don't think an issue like this can be proven one way or the other with just a single or even several case examples.

These are the assumptions, but not how it falls down. Companies "finding loopholes in their policies" is a capability given to them by government, so it's not market concern.

I meant internal company policies, such as insurance policies. We'll always have regulations, whether mandated by public or private actors. Again, the public sector policies at least in theory have the citizen's best interests in mind, the private sector aims solely for ROI.

That aside, companies trying to create more wealth is good, pretty much regardless how it's done. The reason is because there are other companies doing the same thing and consumers are choosing the winners.

Unless when the competition isn't fair, because of for example false advertizing (which again, may correct itself over time, but not as soon as it can), unethical business practices, etc. And I know, some of these may be created by government regulation, which is a case against bad regulations and lobbied governments, not against all regulations and governments. While it's easy and tempting to demonize governments, it's important to remember that at least for you in the US, your frame of reference is an overbloated lobbied caricature of one, not the "hey, I just wanna farm and get drunk, let's vote in a bunch of smart people to take care of this administrative shit for us" it was meant to be.

The last thing companies can get away with is screwing customers. Just look at how in the US (where the capitalist ideal is most held), "the customer is always right" is a thing. Restaurants exist in one of the freest markets around, and every single one of them bends over backwards to please the customer, even when the customer is wrong, because the customer really isn't "wrong" because the easiest thing in the world would be for him to go next door and help the competition

Yup, that's true. But why is that health inspections regularly find stuff like rat and poo in pizzas when the market was supposed to make them all clean? How is the market stopping someone from serving you terd pizzas for a few months, then opening with a new name in another part of town and continue doing the same after someone finding out? I would argue the cleanliness of the kitchens, effective cold storage chains and molecular consistencies of their dinners are more often revealed by official health inspections than avid customers.

As for what you said about government incentives being about public safety and stuff, that's true to a small percentage, but because there is little accountability, it becomes a burden for bureaucracies. How many videos of cops beating or killing innocent civilians in the US have you watched? How many times have you seen these cops punished? Just like with companies, in bureaucracies, the incentive is self-perpetuation. But unlike in companies, in bureaucracies, there is little accountability for results since their revenue streams are not based on results. If McDonalds was acting like the LAPD, it would be bankrupted within a month. If people try to stop the LAPD when they're hurting somebody, they get put through extensive legal trouble and usually into prison.

I feel those are more examples that are largely US specific, I think in most countries cops beating up and killing innocents is not a big issue. So again, an argument against one specific implementation of governance, not an argument against governance. And more to the point, I meant the "theoretical" incentive of a government is the citizens best interest, while for a company that is shareholder value.

The word "corruption" probably wouldn't exist except for government. Since government has little accountability, its incentives align more with fraud and coercion than with results.

You're probably right. Doesn't mean that people become corrupt when working for the government or stop being such when working for a company, just that different words are used, or at least different legal terms.

I think a lot of people from the relatively small areas where government doesn't suck nearly as much (like Scandinavia) are wrong if they are to call government a driver of the good in their societies. Those regions are healthy and unified because the populace is healthy and unified, and government was not the creator of that.

The governments are, or at least should be reflections of their populace, nothing more nothing less. If they're not, the wrong people got voted in. I'd suggest basic IQ, history and psychological testing in order to be allowed to vote.

Sorry about monsterpost.

[wufwugy]

I didn't mean embezzlement but hiding facts from the customers. Every company is run by people, which most of the time have their own best interests first. If they're left with a choice of admitting a fault with something in their personal field of responsibilities, or hiding it and getting away with it until they've left the company, I'm pretty sure many would be tempted. Everybody at Google, Amazon and Goldman could do this, and many have. My point was, in answer to your question, that companies are run by people, and most of them couldn't care less about what their clients think when their personal ass is on the line.

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.

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

What about drug laws in Colorado, the Netherlands or Portugal? I would argue that those are government regulations in place that demonstrably work well. Of course it's hard to say what would happen if all drugs were completely unregulated, maybe that could be the optimal solution. But I also don't think an issue like this can be proven one way or the other with just a single or even several case examples.

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

I meant internal company policies, such as insurance policies. We'll always have regulations, whether mandated by public or private actors. Again, the public sector policies at least in theory have the citizen's best interests in mind, the private sector aims solely for ROI.

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

Unless when the competition isn't fair, because of for example false advertizing (which again, may correct itself over time, but not as soon as it can), unethical business practices, etc. And I know, some of these may be created by government regulation, which is a case against bad regulations and lobbied governments, not against all regulations and governments. While it's easy and tempting to demonize governments, it's important to remember that at least for you in the US, your frame of reference is an overbloated lobbied caricature of one, not the "hey, I just wanna farm and get drunk, let's vote in a bunch of smart people to take care of this administrative shit for us" it was meant to be.

Well, I wouldn't say that's how the US was meant to be. It was originally set up to have an incredibly weak government, but over time, power consolidated for a handful of reasons (usually related to security). But that's a different topic

Regardless, you're going the "unless competition isn't fair" route. What mechanisms make competition less fair and what mechanisms make them more fair? I think if you flesh that out you'll find that government intervention does the former and lack of government intervention does the latter.

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. 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"

Yup, that's true. But why is that health inspections regularly find stuff like rat and poo in pizzas when the market was supposed to make them all clean? How is the market stopping someone from serving you terd pizzas for a few months, then opening with a new name in another part of town and continue doing the same after someone finding out? I would argue the cleanliness of the kitchens, effective cold storage chains and molecular consistencies of their dinners are more often revealed by official health inspections than avid customers.

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. 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

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 feel those are more examples that are largely US specific, I think in most countries cops beating up and killing innocents is not a big issue. So again, an argument against one specific implementation of governance, not an argument against governance. And more to the point, I meant the "theoretical" incentive of a government is the citizens best interest, while for a company that is shareholder value.

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

The governments are, or at least should be reflections of their populace, nothing more nothing less. If they're not, the wrong people got voted in. I'd suggest basic IQ, history and psychological testing in order to be allowed to vote.

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

Sorry about monsterpost.

It's the name of the game, yo

[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.

[wufwugy]

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.

I was referring to it being a systemic risk. A lot of people can do things like this, but they can't cause that big of problems by doing them. The corporate structure that has grown out of our market system demonstrates that the fail-safes are pretty great. Except, however, when incentives are created by and salvation is provided by government (like with the housing crisis)

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.

I understand the sentiment. I use to feel the same way. Moral hazard and unintended consequences are what changed my mind. "Regulatory restrictions on damage" is how we can explain why marijuana is illegal and millions of lives ruined. What I see is far greater damage than if the regulations didn't exist in the first place.

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.

The factors that parts of Europe have that make it better than the US are capitalist policies. Denmark and Sweden are two of the most business-friendly countries on the planet, and Germany turned from the sick man of Europe to a decade later being the strongest of the bunch through a handful of capitalist reforms (like in the labor market)

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.

How is it not "any government" when the job of government is to design laws for its constituents? The faults I lay on the hands of government are not about them being bad, but about how their innate structure and purpose is to create legislation that invariable causes more problems than it fixes. Renton is correct in that the smartest people on the planet could all be dropped in Congress and the place would still be a disaster. In many ways, a dictatorship would work better here, but it's "the law" and "a centralized body whose purpose is to devise laws" that's the problem. The reason this is the problem is because there is little accountability and little competition for reform. Capitalism is basically a system of de facto laws existing based on choices made by its participants.

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.

What has the government done to stop internet crime? Virtually nothing. The market is working. The internet is one of the best social experiments we'll ever have. It's a hyper-free market and what it has been doing for humans is incredible. The only systemic problems with it seem to be coming from government intervention. Poker is a great example of that

Also I do not think the "short term profit" idea is a systemic risk in enterprise. It's a popular notion because people misunderstand what went on in Wall Street and think that all corporations care about is the short term. I don't think that's true and I think self-perpetuation is at the core of corporate operations. The evidence bears this out. There are millions examples of companies striving for self-perpetuation, and virtually zero of the opposite. Even the snake-oil salesmen (like fake-nutrition gurus) still don't operate on the "dine and dash" philosophy. Most examples that look like private foul-play are layered in government incentives, so we can't call it that.

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.

If something is bad, it has bad consequences. When the consequences happen, the curtains are pulled back. Regulators aren't providing any value to this system. In fact, they sometimes stop innovation in this system by setting legal allowances on levels of "the bad".

Take delivery services for example. The government doesn't regulate them that much, but when people get broken deliveries, problems are on the cusp for the company because of how word gets out, especially today with so many cameras. Customers do not like this and start going for the competition, which is a huge crisis for the company and they have to start fixing it by finding the culprits. They can't sweep it under the rug because that wouldn't change the effects

It's like evolution. Fix it or die. This isn't just an example of why regulation typically doesn't help anything, but how it creates another less-often addressed problem in its monopoly power. It's good that we can change delivery services if we find a reason to, but we can't change governments. The former is a healthy and innovating market, the latter is a monopoly that gets away with anything and everything.

Is this a relevant question: Why does government get to murder millions of people and suffer very little consequences, while if Amazon and Google did that, they'd be destroyed in two days?

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.

Sure it's not inherent to the theory, but the practice is. How many businesses have gone bankrupt due to being out-competed by other businesses? Millions. How many government bureaucracies have gone bankrupt for just about any reasons? Zero