Are there any genuine justifications for market regulations?

Are there any genuine justifications for market regulations?

Isn't the freer the market, the better?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU
mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly-0
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

SNAKE?

But muh roads

Yes. Regulations are needed to stop cheating, fraud, and defective products.

The laws are there to prevent theft, OP.

That's governments job, to set the rules for what we can and can't do and adjudicate the conflicting rights under those rules.

Civics 101 Op... Don't they teach that in Canada?

>Selling toxins as food
>Selling exploding microwaves
>Selling dying/diseased pets
>Selling baby food with no nutritional value
>Selling fish too high in mercury
>Selling toys painted with lead paint.
Of course there are needs for regulations

>Being retarded enough to buy any of that garbage when there are alternatives for sale that work because the firms have a vested interest in staying operational and meeting consumer demand

They have a vested interest because regulations would put them out of business retard, without regulations nothing would prevent them from staying operational even if a percentage of their products were faulty or defective.
Are you actually arguing for zero regulations ? Do you think a business man gives a fuck if a start up fails as long as he turns a profit on the products he does sell ?

In the ideal world, no. The problem is that in the real world there are a few problems that limit the market, namely, asymmetry of information. Someone who sells a product knows more than the buyer so a fair market price can't be reached. Thats basically what the cuck in this post was pointing out.

The government should be there to guide the market and get it as close as possible to the free market you talk about in Econ class, but the government should not get involved in economic value decisions.

Their reward is directly contingent on people's willingness to buy their product. With no barriers to entry, anyone selling snakes oil will be weeded out by competent businessmen.

fucking mexicans always crossing borders.

for

You mean like weeded out after they kill people or turn people into flipper babies like when thalidomide hit the market ?

If you have a problem with people committing murder, then you would certainly take issue with government as they are the worst perpetrator of that in history. As for drugs and substances, the government certainly enables these disasters by giving protectionism to pharmaceutical firms and prohibiting any serious competition. The current opiate crisis in the US can be linked to big pharma lobbying the state and pushing their products onto doctors who must follow new protocol by law.

Simply get rid of the centralized power to coerce people, that's all. It's okay, buddy :^)

natural monopolies

So why not create a market place for efficient, competitive, private regulatory bodies? Just saying, they would do a better job.

You didn't address the actual issue. Should anyone, government, big company, small company competitive or not be able to release an unregulated drug on the market ?

Only 2 answers there bud.

Monopolies do not occur naturally, they require regulation to stay afloat: too many competitors regulated out of business by lobbyist bullshit. Which means that government regulation is ultimately circumvented anyway...

Laws do not prevent crime.

Looks like this little boarder hoppers habits die hard.

Bump

>unregulated
No, simply handled the same way alcohol and tobacco are handled now.

'Unregulated' by whom? An un-elected council that arbitrarily is allowed to pass judgment on what's allowed and not allowed on the market, by threat of violence? This is precisely what allows dangerous drugs to remain in the market as competition with them is cut off; as mentioned, any power vested in the government will be subverted by the very firms they're supposed to 'control' in order to protect themselves.

A free, unfettered market is always optimal. The 'unregulated' drugs are regulated through competition and people's voluntary capacity to purchase said drugs - without them being forced onto you through (((((free)))))) healthcare or stagnant state-protected monopolies.

There are economic problems that cannot be fixed by a free market such as
The free rider problem or pollution

Privately regulated products, unregulated currency....

Ay yes goyim, monopolies are no proble, allow people to corner the market, allow price gouging of employees.


good goy

You simply keep ignoring the fact that there needs to be laws to prevent Joe the failed chemist from whipping up a batch of deadly ecstasy/heroin/rat poison in his basement and killing 30 people the day he opens the product up to the "free market".
Why don't you just admit it is impossible to sell products without regulations without killing people in the process ?
You don't actually believe in that meme flag you hide under do you ?

>Are there any genuine justifications for market regulations?
Sometimes, when markets fail due to information asymmetry, adverse selection, and other defects inherent in certain markets or certain circumstances.

>Isn't the freer the market, the better?
Yes, generally.

>free market = monopolies
That's not how it works.

Free market leads to monopolies goy

I believe in the free market, but there are areas where a completely free market would be inappropriate. For instance, imagine you had terminal cancer, but there was a magic pill that could completely cure your cancer. What would that pill cost? How could the market price such a thing? Wouldn’t demand be infinite? Meaning you would give everything you had in order to live.

Other areas: environment. In a truly open and unrestricted market there would be no environmental regulations. And companies would only do what made them money. This would ultimately lead to the destruction of our environment and lower life expectancy for humans.

A free market is an outlaw market.
But yes.. You are entirely correct.
The freer the better.

No, government enables monopolies.

> company produces product that kills customers

See Chinese poisoning of baby formula.

Did you even read why said laws only aid in keeping those drugs in place? Fentanyl is an illegal substance and yet it has killed plenty of people, so even your precious regulations and laws don't do the job they're supposed to. Should we make murder illegal as well?

>buys chinky dink food when alternatives are available, when you can also make it yourself
>the freedom of market choice is the problem

In most schools of economic thought, there are very justifiable reasons for market regulation, and most have to do with the concept of externalities. The classic example is pollution.

This is one of the few jobs government should have. When costs are imposed on others without them being compensated or willingly accepting that exchange, a punishment must be laid upon the one causing harm.

t. minarchist

The reason for having a free market is for the benefit of the general populace. At times a free market may act against the benefit or to the detriment of that general populace. For example, a drug manufacturer may produce contaminated drugs. People will die from these drugs. Under a free market people will die until people stop buying that drug. In a system with restraints we can regulate the contamination through inspection and quality control so people wont die.

Is the economic detriment of having required inspectors out weighted by the benefit of people not dying from that drug so it creates a net benefit to society?

wtf is going on in video

So you argument is, people break laws, therefor eliminate laws ?
It's just completely ridiculous tbqh.
Drugs require years of testing on thousands of subjects with controls before anyone can determine whether they are truly safe, especially in the long term.
If a drug shows no symptoms in the short term and millions of people use it for 10 years before discovering it causes cancer, what fucking good does the free market do for the users ?
>Well no one will buy that product and the company will go out of business.
C'mon user that is psychotic and you know it.

So then you aren't advocating for a free market, you are arguing for a complete monopolistic control by corporations.
If no product can enter the market because buying a new product is too risky and safer alternatives are available, then no company will ever be able to start up. So much for your free market.

The problem with your argument is that you provide no better alternative. When the free market doesn't know it causes cancer, what makes you think the government will be enlightened? In fact, government regulation goes two ways:

If you are in charge of approving or banning drugs, you are in a very difficult position. The banning of a drug is always the easy way out for you, not approved, no harm done, right? Wrong. These drugs can also be potentially curative for many people and have potential uses in medicine that could save thousands of lives. But if you make such a mistake, no one will berate you. The people who would, are dead and probably never heard of the drug because you didn't allow it to the market.

On the other hand, if you allow the drug, and it kills just a few people (directly or later found out, indirectly), your name will be plastered over every newspaper as the evil man who is responsible for causing a lot of deaths.

So what do you think a government regulator will do? Of course, he will be banning a disproportionate amount of drugs compared to what he allows. He will only make exception for the drugs that no one is unsure about.

Do you see the problem? Just because it's the government doing regulation, doesn't mean they have the magic knowledge or system to prevent people from harm. This alternative is a very bad one.

No, the point is that if laws fail to do their intended job then layering on more laws is not a solution. To use government failure as evidence for more government is another feedback mechanism by which government never ceases growing until it collapses entirely. As for the drugs, imagine the millions if not billions of dollars that you as a producer must invest in order to create that drug. Why would you set it up specifically for failure? The firm has more interest than anyone else for the drug to succeed in order to see a return on their product. If it is found that this drug is harmful, it will flop and the company will face bankruptcy. The people in charge of the firm may even be charged for criminal negligence, fraud and damages for the drug's consequences. Calling my position psychotic isn't an argument either.

The market is able to sort that out, regulations aren't necessarily needed.

Deflecting

a tard with no boundaries or sense of decorum/personal space

free market has nothing to do with freedom
free in this sense means letting go of sanity due to extreme unnatural destructive competitiveness of cancerously growing monetary market devouring machine today

Nice way to test the knowledge of Randos, Mr. Brennan.
I thought you retired??!??

What gives?

Will you be at the Harvest Dinner this year??

>On the other hand, if you allow the drug, and it kills just a few people (directly or later found out, indirectly), your name will be plastered over every newspaper as the evil man who is responsible for causing a lot of deaths.
Haha, now I'm the evil rich man who made millions selling a faulty drug. And ?>The people in charge of the firm may even be charged for criminal negligence, fraud and damages for the drug's consequences.
If there were no regulations, what rules would they be breaking exactly ? I though you were arguing in favour of an unregulated market.
Negligence can only occur if the party in question neglected to follow the rules.
You do know what a regulation is right ?

>now I'm the evil rich man who made millions selling a faulty drug. And ?

And your alternative is in no way better, I'd argue it's even worse because it reduces choice.

high startup costs
established companies can absorb losses to starve out fledgling competition

Regulation talks about interfering with people's natural right to voluntary exchange, not protecting people's capacity to defraud and cause damages. See: Tort law

You still have failed to produce any reason as to why a monopoly on the use of force, which sustains itself on the involuntary seizure of people's wealth, regardless of it's own performance's quality is somehow superior at creating rules by which society must live under.

I would argue your way reduces choice. with a set of standards, a company can introduce a product to the market as long as they meet the basic safety standards. Without regulations, it is as you say, no product could really be trusted except those which already control market share and so no competition will ever be able to be introduced allowing those whom control market share to charge whatever they want. An unregulated market would be the least "free market" you could ever develop.

Regulation is essential part of free market.
Without regulation, that disallow monopolies to exist, there would be no free market.

Market is solution for many economic problems, that should be wisely used by government and abandoned, if it does not benefit interests of the nation. Which is not the case for anything at least for the last century.

This

The only way to keep a monopoly afloat without government assistance is to operate at a loss, in which case the consumer wins regardless.
Example: Youtube
They have an effective monopoly in the market right now, and the only reason competition cannot scratch them is because they are operating at a loss. However, you see that the consumer is winning in this situation, right? We are getting a service for practically no cost at all because of it.
Now, there's been some discontentment going around because Youtube started censoring stuff. And guess what, as soon as they started doing so, competitors were showing up left and right and big Youtube channels were calling to abandon Youtube (however the problem is not big enough for the average user to really care yet).

A monopoly can't exist without regulation. Companies can never eliminate the threat of competition without lobbying the government to make barriers to entry. This is why all big businesses support leftist economic regulation.

>your way reduces choice
By definition, a free market has the most choice you can get.

>basic safety standards
Just another way of enabling monopolies. If these standards didn't exist, small startups could become real competition to the big businesses. It's like with the current war on drugs. We forbid cocaine; the price shoots up, the operational cost of doing this business get too high for startup sellers, and so the monopolist/mafia of that area has become a de facto monopoly. Everyone has to buy from him, cause there's no small dealer around to compete for customers. He can sell high, and now he has a vested interest in creating addicts - so he goes out and campaigns to net as many dependents as possible, creating his market that is not competed for.

>You still have failed to produce any reason as to why a monopoly on the use of force, which sustains itself on the involuntary seizure of people's wealth, regardless of it's own performance's quality is somehow superior at creating rules by which society must live under.
There is no monopoly. If you want to make the rules you can do so. Start a grassroots campaign, canvas, raise money and present your ideas. If a governments performance is subpar, it is up to the people to remedy that. I admit I may be missing the point you are trying to make, it is all so cryptic.

lmao

thank you for ignoring my post and giving me the standard prepared response with no proof of the assumptions on which it depends

>By definition, a free market has the most choice you can get.
Ok but by definition a free market doesn't mean an unregulated free market, if that was the case, then free markets have never existed in practice and so your theory is untested.

>get monopoly
> legally half ass your product
ancap fags will defend this

That omits the possibility of established business people creating successful startups. Not every startup is going in blind or without funding. In fact, any good business plan includes loss operation contingencies. Like restaurants for example

The businesses don't decide what you buy, you do because you are the one paying. If something is bad, don't buy it.

>mfw people don't do this today
>mfw people buy hyundais and fords

>If something is bad, don't buy it.
How can you know something is bad if no one ever buys it ? If no one ever buys it, how can any company ever start ? If no company can ever start, how can you have a free market ?

Specify what assumptions you're talking about.

As a minarchist I am in fact not arguing for a completely unregulated market; the only regulation I propose however, is to prevent individuals from coercing one another and/or imposing costs on a third party that was not part of the voluntary exchange.
Coercion does not however mean protecting people from their own stupidity. If someone wants to gamble, he should be able to do so. If someone wants to take part in a skydiving service, he should be able to do so, etc.

>product has a substitute
>oopsy dipsy no one buys your shit anymore

The same way it happens today?

>natural monopolies don't exist
>the "free market" will sort it out, but you're not allowed to sort it out by violence, or using the government to enact your will, because when we say "free market" we don't mean "undo our bullshit by whatever avenues you have available" but rather "sit down, shut up, and accept this dick in your ass".

Free market is a jewish meme that allows corporations reign to exploit society without getting punished for it.

But there is, and that is the monopoly government itself which holds onto the use of force. You cannot be against one type of monopoly whilst advocating for the existence of another. As for the starting a grassroots campaign and so on, that is fully within the realm of the free market via. voluntary association

The way it happens today is we have regulations and standards and so I can confidently buy a piece of shit blender and know I am not going to get electrocuted the first time I use it, in an unregulated market I would never have that assurance and would be limited to products from a handful of companies.

It's nice to see kids these days paying homage to classic games.

Have you ever watched a customer-review video of anything ever before buying it? There is a whole TV show about cars and their safety reviews where I live. People are more interested in staying alive than you give them credit for.

If someone gets electrocuted the company WILL hear about it. If they cannot resolvre the situation in a way that satisfies the customer, that customer WILL blast the company all over the internet and people will hear about it. I work with a small manufacturer now, you cannot sell bullshit products and stay afloat, damage control is too expensive. the internet makes it hard for companies to hide flaws

The biggest flourishings in human history have been under free trade on free markets, as far as I know. Would be delighted to learn otherwise, though.

>You cannot be against one type of monopoly whilst advocating for the existence of another
Says who ? I believe the military should have a monopoly on the international sale of nuclear components but don't believe that Walmart is the only one who should sell TV's. It's not a contradiction, you can simultaneously believe both things.

EPIC XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>t. unironically thinks the people who run businesses that provide you the things that you like are evil monopoly men, sitting on thrones made of human bones

Ok I am sure the electrocuted customer can leave a fairly scathing review online or pen a strongly worded letter directly to the CEO if he survives, For some people, that may not really feel like justice.

It's a contradiction to say monopolies forming in the market are some how bad whilst other monopolies, like the ones who seek to have the exclusive right to violence, are good. The a priori reasons do not match because you're essentially saying:

monopolies and not monopolies

A statement cannot be both true and false at the same time. That being said, Walmart will never have exclusive TV selling rights without it being violently enforces via. the same government you claim will regulate them to do otherwise

Well, maybe.

Lol, My point is that companies have QC for a reason. Its too expensive to not get a product right in the first place, A lot of effort and development cash goes into avoiding the exact scenario you described. Find a better example?

The only language companies understand is money. The only way to prevent them from taking an action is by making it unprofitable. Companies will definitely do whatever it takes to become as profitable as possible, so your job is to make sure the best ways to make money are good for society as a whole.

because that always works

>A statement cannot be both true and false at the same time
You are implying every statement is an absolute and this instance you are absolutely wrong.

>free market = monopolies
"That's not how it works."

That's literally one of the reasons regulations exist. Preventing Monopolies and trusts from exploiting consumers.

Just because this myth is a widely held belief, doesn't make it true. Monopolies cannot form without government assistance.

you don't argue well do you? Do people sometimes not understand your point? I bet it feels like you go around in circles with people a lot huh...

>Monopolies cannot form without government assistance

People keep saying this and it's simply not true. At most the US government has allowed monopolies to exist, it didn't help the companies that built them get to where they were.

Yes, look at the entire history of pretty much the entire world. Owners dick over low-level employees and consumers alike. On top of that they destroy the environment which is bad for everyone, even people that don't interact with the company at any level. You also get far more examples of markets falling out of equilibrium for varied reasons. People who say otherwise generally like to put others down for not understanding "basic economics" when they themselves have never taken a class past the 101 level, if at all.

youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU

>anyone selling snakes oil will be weeded out by competent businessmen.
No? The entire low-fat diet phase is a recent example that completely blows your theory out of the water. The companies that were using fat for flavor (which was healthier) were losing massive market share because the sugar industry paid to sugar-positive research to be published. So even with the better product, all it takes is one group to be better. Saying that a "better businessman" would put the snake oil salesman out of business is saying that the sos will automatically never be the better businessman, which historically, is almost never the case.

>Monopolies do not occur naturally
>Also I have literally never picked up an economic history book

>A free, unfettered market is always optimal.
If you took economics past an intermediate level you would understand that this statement is 100% false.

I would uppercut this fat midget if he did that

markets aren't perfect fag

von Mises has argued against this misconception for ages.

mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly-0

What the fuck are you even talking about? His entire argument it how people need regulators to stop companies from offering drugs that haven't been tested and could therefor be harmful and your retort is, "well this drug is illegal and people still take it and die," seriously?

>Shout out to /u/ in my I'd
Lesbian shit isnt my thing but I still salute you real ones