I often find myself wondering why people believe that government intervention is the answer or better, why does the government believe it can solve problems better than society? What makes the government believe it can solve not only individual's problems but society's issues in general? In a capitalist, free market society when a problem arises, this is where entrepreneurship plays a significant role in growing economy.
Progress does not come about with additional government regulations or barriers that prevent others from entering the market. Progress comes from individuals identifying a problem then finding a solution to that problem; entrepreneurs will develop a business around this idea allowing the free market to decide its success. Government involvement has never solved nor provided anything a free society could accomplish on its own.
In times of despair after a tragic event is when most government policies or regulations garner the most attention, but the majority of our over-regulated society goes unnoticed. Recently a man in California was arrested and imprisoned for four months. Afterwards, he was ordered to pay $100,000 in fines and had his business completely destroyed by the government.
What was his crime? Running a members only club in which they could purchase farm fresh eggs, organic vegetables and raw milk. It is that last staple that lead this business owner to being a convicted criminal. Why is the government regulating the sales of raw milk? In former communist nations this notion would be consider absurd. Yet, in a free America the government believes it is acting in the best interest of the public.
Government fears nothing more than a well educated and armed nation. A citizen base that can rise against the government. A population ready to fight for their freedom. Although, reaching this point will take time as the majority of people rely on the government in one form or another. Social welfare is a tool that must be taken away as creates submissiveness; people must learn to survive without government aid.
National parks often ban visitors from feeding animals under the presumption that they will not learn to fed themselves. Clearly, the government understands this concept, which is why they continue to fund these programs. They do not exist on the the basis of moral or ethical obligation but because it creates an obedient society willing to accept the government as the truth being it is the hand that feeds their mouth.
In the end, the government is in the business of creating problems then selling solutions to society, allowing them acquire votes for election or reelection. Overall, the government serves no purpose; if we were to abolish every agency, society would become more free in which a greater number of people prosper.
However, our greatness enemy is the one most find to be the basis of our nation, democracy. Democracy allows those individuals who intrude on our very freedom to exist. In an anarchist society government would not exist, the free market would regulate all economic activity, which would lead to an overall more stable, peaceful society.
In a Utopian society we would be free to make every choice, though today's politicians have created regulations and policies in which you must live your life by. Designing a society around the social welfare structure, Americans throughout all sectors believe they are not fully responsible for their actions.
If a mistake is made, blame can be put elsewhere, that punishment should be given out to the masses; particularly businesses. With stricter regulations being seen throughout our economy to include finance, do you believe this is a move in the right direction?
i'm so sick of you wackjobs spewing this garbage all over the internet
This.
First you say that the government is an insidious, tyrannical organization trying to slowly assert its will over the country. This is simply not true. The government is a collection of thousands of single-serving citizens just like you. Some come and go, some stay for a career. Everyone is just working for a paycheck and a pension. There is no secretive group, fearful of armed citizens, with long-term goals of taking over the country.
Actually, since a government's performance is measured by how the country performs in their stewardship, it's in the government's long-term interest to ensure citizens are well-educated.
Second, everyone knows the free market is more efficient than a government in allocating resources. No one will debate that. However capitalists love to forget how cold-hearted this efficiency is. Welfare is a program born from the progressive philosophy that a rich, modern country has the moral obligation to provide a safety net for the citizens that are not knowledgeable, young, or healthy enough to be of use in this ruthlessly efficient free market. As one other poster said, without welfare, what do you expect those on the left side of the intelligence bell curve to do? This isn't a rhetorical question.
So now of course you say, "Oh I don't mean the disabled and the retired, I'm talking about the welfare queens".
Did you know that welfare investigators only find fraud in 2%-3% of cases?
If you're so concerned about the welfare fraud, why don't you people attack one of the real causes: inadequate educational funding in poorer neighborhoods.
What do you propose we do with the left side of the intelligence bell curve?
I despise welfare, not because people shouldn't be dependent on the government, but because they are gaining through simply not working at all, and most likely smoking weed at home doing nothing at all, on the government's dime. The dime which was mine, or yours, or another hard worker's money. I'm all for the free market, but I disagree with your other points.
I'm also not against the 2nd amendment, but I do not feel safe with the widespread use of guns. I recognize that those who are crazy and go on this violent killing sprees (mostly) are not licensed, but something needs to be done to limit the availability of guns and ammunition. Yes, you could argue that people who wanted to kill without guns could use a knife or other weapon instead, but a knife simply can't kill as many people in the same amount of time as an AR-14.
"Government fears nothing more than a well educated and armed nation. A citizen base that can rise against the government. A population ready to fight for their freedom."
I don't know if you remember this or not, but the same people who are citizens of our country are also those running the country. This is really the weakest argument that people against gun control have. And yet also, the argument of people for gun control that more license regulation = less gun violence is pretty weak as well.
Are you serious about anarchy? While I am a conservative, I'm all for smaller government, but in some cases, regulation is needed, and a society without a government would not prosper well on a scale of a country.
You talk about the "government" as if it is one entity with a single mind, and its only purpose is to fuck its subjects over.
I've been writing a paper on F.A. Hayek and the answer is YES!
"If we were to abolish every agency, society would become more free in which a greater number of people prosper."
Take away the government, you take away the FDA, SEC, and the (literally) hundreds of other agencies that make the United States a livable, viable place to do business and participate in consumer activities.
Who the fuck wants to do hours/days of research every time they walk into Walgreens to make sure the cough medicine they're about to buy has been thoroughly tested and is safe for human consumption? I'm glad the FDA does my homework for me. Pfizer wouldn't blink in the wake of 10 people having heart attacks, so long as it's bottles were being bought off the shelves.
Even with SEC oversight, retail investors and hopeful retirees have lost millions (billions) to ponzi schemes and the fraudulent actions of the few who realize there is a massive case of information asymmetry in the financial markets. The playing field isn't even, but without the SEC, what do you think would happen to trading volume? I, for one, wouldn't have $.01 in the markets. Your entire premise rests on the notion that humans and institutions are inherently good and magnanimous. If you really think there aren't people out there who'd happily take you and your ramily's retirement funds for their own use, I'd like to come visit the enormous rock you've been living under.
Are these agencies perfect? No, absolutely not. I personally find the majority of the EPA's work to be a complete crock. I work in derivatives, so believe me, I realize the inefficiency and misplaced appropriation of things like Dodd Frank and the Volcker Rule. I do not want more financial regulation, but absolving every governmental agency because of that is both dramatic and unfeasable. But, maybe when you or one of your dipshit anarchist friends gets mad cow disease from a piece of meat you picked up at Safeway, you won't feel so "educated." Dismount your steed, you imperious crybaby.
If this type of information/service was truly valued by people, what would prevent a private enterprise from doing the same work as the FDA and SEC? This already exists in other industries...see: UL, Angies List, Moody’s, ratemyprofessor, etc
Perhaps if you lived elsewhere besides the United States you would understand that the way Safeway packages meat is a breading ground for disease. Where I am currently living (southern Turkey), I have seen lamb slaughtered next to a restaurant, cleaned, dressed, cut up, cooked and served. Also, when I go to purchase meat, I go to a local store with zero oversight. Meat is cut directly from the leg of lamb and wrapped in paper. So maybe before you decide to open you "educated" mouth you should learn how things are done elsewhere.
I think people in the financial sector, especially those who cover and look into companies, should be most aware of how important it is for government agencies to exist for some level of regulation. Lots of companies are mismanaged, unreliable, and prone to making serious mistakes. We wouldn't want our food, pharmaceutical, transportation industries to be lax on the quality and safety of their products, do we? Even the financial sector itself is aware of the dangers of a lack of regulation, not because people are untrustworthy, but that rational individuals could make decisions that end up in an irrational collective outcome. Most of the bankers and structured products guys whose work was a major factor to the 2007/8 collapse were not bad people, but there was simply a systemic problem that no one could easily see from their individual viewpoint. The government is there to provide the bird eye's view.
This screed is so wrong-headed, I hardly know where to begin. But focusing only of markets alone, there are, and always will be, enormous market failures that everyone has a major stake in repairing. Many people have brought up information asymmetries. Everyone is better off when the government works to ensure product safety. Without organizations devoted to protecting society, like the FDA, consumers would be at the mercy of corporations, and would also buy fewer products as the amount of research necessary to ensure safety would be deeply onerous, and this would honest and dishonest companies alike.
In addition, there are externalities. People love to complain about the EPA's interference, and maybe they have a point in some cases. But the EPA was created by Nixon(!) because there genuinely was obscene quantities of pollution in the air and water, and without the government's intervention, there was no way to stop companies from paying for the full social cost of their polluting activities. The EPA helped clean things up and I for one am glad. More generally, whenever property rights become difficult to define, there's a role for the government to play.
I could go on and on, but it's not worth it. No minds are changed in these discussions.
The FDA is a revolving door for pharma execs. As an entrepreneur who has dealt with them first-hand, I find the notion that they exist to protect consumers from corporations quite laughable. Why does it have to be a GOVERNMENT agency that is in charge of product safety? Even if we decided that a government agency was best, we could surely do better than the FDA.
Could you imagine if we had a government agency rating financial securities? Why haven't S&P, Moody's, Fitch, etc. been nationalized? What about equity research done by banks? Should that be run by the government too? I mean, people could lose their life savings here so it's not like it's not important, and these companies serve to address information asymmetries. Why can't private companies provide the same services that the FDA provides? At the very least then you'd see some free market competition that would make it harder for pharma to get by with some of their more shady practices.
And don't say, "well these research/drug approval companies would have pharma co.'s as their customers so they'd still be in their back pockets". You ever give any thought to having the health insurance companies be the payers for this research? If anyone has a vested interest in insuring that drug treatments are safe and effective, it's the health insurance companies.
Alexpasch is completely correct. How many products out there that aren't FDA approved that people use on a daily basis? The supplement industry is completely decided on through the free market without government oversight. It is based on people’s reviews, opinions and results. Bodybuilding.com does an amazing job of allowing people to do their own research to determine which products work best and purchase accordingly. Another large industry is the energy drink sector. Once again it is based on people using the products are spreading the information. Why is it so hard to believe that pharmaceuticals could not be run in the same manner? Would people have to do their own homework? Yes, people will actually become more informed are important manners. Lastly, the government does not oversee electronics, so people must conduct their own research prior to purchasing. People know vastly more about the television sitting in their house than the medicine they are putting into their bodies or the bank in which their life savings are sitting in.
Any economist will admit there are negative externalities, instances of asymmetric information, etc. And I think there is a role for government regulation.
However, the execution is flawed. Semi-unaccountable regulatory authorities with broad mandates are terrible policy. For instance, the people who choose to work for the EPA probably care a hell of a lot more about the environment than the people they serve, and probably want a lot more regulation. They need to be kept on a tight leash, or else you get things like the FDA trying to regulate caffeine and the CFPB regulating swipe fees.
As for welfare fraud: I have some experience. I grew up in a family that consistently abused government programs. And welfare fraud is quite frankly difficult. SSDI / SSI fraud, on the other hand, is not - you just doc shop for somebody who will diagnose you with a pain disorder. You might get prescription painkillers out of it too. If you create an entitlement, you're going to get abuse - it's unavoidable. But this actually one area where more regulation would be welcome. Put the fear of god into anyone committing fraud.
And I don't advocate this position, but I found a book that made a decent case for an anarcho-capitalistic society. It's worth reading just for some of the interesting ideas: http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
OPs questions and views are legitimate. No need to call him names.
I've hunted anything from pheasant to elk pretty regularly growing up, I know how the process works man. How does that warrant the abolishment of government and its agencies?
My analogy was intended to highlight the fact that the majority of said agencies are in place solely for the protection of the consumer/individual at large. I simply fail to grasp how things like the CDC and OSHA "manufacture problems," as they exist quite literally to save lives and promulgate immunization/disease information across the United States and world. The Consumer Product Safety Administration wants nothing more than for your kids to play with rubber duckies that won't give them lead poisoning. You seem to agree that these institutions are necessary, as you noted that packaging and processing plants are "breading [sic] grounds for diseases." So, clearly self-regulation isn't effective. I would imagine it's the FDA, OSHA, or some other branch of the Dept. of Labor that enforces sanitation and health requirements at such facilities.
On another note, I'd like to apologize, I really hope you don't get mad cow disease--I was studying for the CFA and hadn't eaten a snickers in a while so I really wasn't myself.
Aero: Because the financial industry, or any industry, wouldn't pay to regulate itself. A for-profit organization regulating the financial markets? Horrifying. Moody's and Ratemyprofessor have no regulatory power: they simply review things and express opinions.
I didn't truly think you wished mad cow disease upon me. However, I don't see how the government can provide better protection than the free market, i.e., consumer. Let us look at the sugar market. Right now sugar is unable to be sold for less than 22.9 cents per pound in the United States due government oversight. With corn subsidies being they way they are (I do not have an actual figure, my apologies) we are faced with corn syrup being used in the majority of our products. Instead of having a natural substance being used in our foods we have left having a chemical derivative of corn used in our foods. How is providing protection for the consumer?
Using the Safeway analogy again. Knowing that plastic wrap is breeding ground for disease, I the consumer decided to purchase all my meat from a local farm; when I lived in WA state. The also allowed me to visit the farm and witness how the cows were being raised. Was it more expensive? Yes, but the trade-off was cleaner, fresher cuts of meat than the supermarket. I am aware this is more drawn out process than most Americans are willing to commit to at this moment. But educating people on how free market principles is ultimately in their best interest is the best course of action in my opinion. Before we get on to the fact that people don't have time for this, let us take the average American and see how much time they waste in day between TV, Facebook, Twitter or non-productive activities which could be translated into being a more informed member of society.
I don't anyone will argue that tariffs and subsidies are generally bad policy, especially from a free market perspective. However, this isn't exactly the same as regulations that mandated by specific government agencies (e.g. FDA inspection / requirements).
Libero accusantium eos est eos. Aut similique occaecati voluptatibus sequi. Repellat cumque tenetur enim in error. Natus vitae nihil necessitatibus consequatur repellendus. Nihil voluptas eligendi iste cupiditate soluta sed in.
Accusamus et vero voluptatem qui sequi voluptatem. Facere perferendis animi distinctio hic. Cumque vitae deleniti et. Minus non sed et itaque laudantium placeat et sunt. Facilis reprehenderit ut aut ut similique.
Veritatis tenetur dolore reprehenderit qui ea. Quia qui optio praesentium ipsam similique. Et autem voluptas unde voluptate.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...