Government Intervention

[Norseman82]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1452490' date='Jan 29 2008, 01:04 PM']I'm going to ask you to name 3 products in our 200 year history that the government mandated the people use. I can't think of products the government requires people to sell (like the government would say if you're going to sell gas you have to sell biodesel also). If you can name 3 I might start to be convinced this is the government's role.[/quote]

Do the following count?

In major urban areas, from April to October, it is mandated that there are additives added to fuel to reduce pollutants. The two most popular additives, from what I've read, are ethanol and MTBEs.

OK, I'll add another one. Seatbelts in cars. Let's also not forget that some states mandate the use of special car seats for children under a certain age or height and you could be ticketed if your kid is not in one.

And what about catalytic converters?

What about outlawing leaded gasoline? You may not be aware of this, but there used to be such as thing as leaded gasoline, and it was more common than unleaded.

What about trigger locks on guns? Many local ordinances mandate those.

Smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors in homes? Many local ordinances mandate those.

Edited January 31, 2008 by Norseman82

[desertwoman]

How about Electric Cars. I never knew that Ford use to have an electric car division when the car was first made. People actually preferred the electric car cause it was quieter and quicker. He swished to gas when the price of fuel went down and made production cheaper.


Have you seen the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? It gives a run down on all the alternatives as well.

[Socrates]

There's a good article in the latest (February) issue of [i]Popular Mechanics[/i] on the problems with ethanol fuel, which uses a lot of land, and uses a lot of (other) energy resources (mostly fossil fuels) to both grow and harvest the corn, and convert it into fuel. The whole process is rather inefficient and wasteful, yet politicians have pushed ethanol fuel at taxpayer's expense. The reason it is popular with politicians is it brings lots of cash subsidies to politically-influencial agribusinesses who grow corn.

The author of the article (PM editor James B. Meigs) notes that "governments generally have a bad track record when it comes to picking technologies," noting the expensive "synfuel" fiasco of the Carter adminstration.

The problem is that the government often makes poor choices in deciding which alternative technologies to fund. Billions of dollars can be wasted supporting a technology which proves wasteful and impractical, while a better alternative may come from some area of research neglected by the government.

Finding the best alternative energy solutions will come from free market competition, not from government mandate and taxation.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1453088' date='Jan 30 2008, 08:04 PM']Do the following count?

In major urban areas, from April to October, it is mandated that there are additives added to fuel to reduce pollutants. The two most popular additives, from what I've read, are ethanol and MTBEs.

OK, I'll add another one. Seatbelts in cars. Let's also not forget that some states mandate the use of special car seats for children under a certain age or height and you could be ticketed if your kid is not in one.

And what about catalytic converters?

What about outlawing leaded gasoline? You may not be aware of this, but there used to be such as thing as leaded gasoline, and it was more common than unleaded.

What about trigger locks on guns? Many local ordinances mandate those.

Smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors in homes? Many local ordinances mandate those.[/quote]

Nope try again. None of those work.

Dairy's argument is solely based on the cost savings, its purely economical; it has nothing to do with pollution, foreign policy, or any other matter the government regulates in. All of your examples have to do with some a sort of public good. I asked dairy to point out 3 times the government has mandated something for purely economical reasons. The government does not do that and thats not its job.

Fuel additives to prevent polluting the air; protecting the environment, a public good.
Seatbelts = public safety
Catalytic converters= air again= public good
Same with leaded gasoline
Trigger locks = public safety
Smoke detectors = public safety

You can talk about the benefits of all these fuels, and costs, but look at Dairy's original argument. It says that while waiting for the free market to make the switch we're wasting millions of dollars. We could save millions if we switched now, as mandated by the government. Dairy wants to add to my list a category called 'public savings'.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1453197' date='Jan 30 2008, 10:51 PM']Nope try again. None of those work.

Dairy's argument is solely based on the cost savings, its purely economical; it has nothing to do with pollution, foreign policy, or any other matter the government regulates in. All of your examples have to do with some a sort of public good. I asked dairy to point out 3 times the government has mandated something for purely economical reasons. The government does not do that and thats not its job.

Fuel additives to prevent polluting the air; protecting the environment, a public good.
Seatbelts = public safety
Catalytic converters= air again= public good
Same with leaded gasoline
Trigger locks = public safety
Smoke detectors = public safety

You can talk about the benefits of all these fuels, and costs, but look at Dairy's original argument. It says that while waiting for the free market to make the switch we're wasting millions of dollars. We could save millions if we switched now, as mandated by the government. Dairy wants to add to my list a category called 'public savings'.[/quote]

Well, your original question did not specify that the government mandates were for cost savings, it just simply stated "government mandated the people use":

[quote name='rkwright' post='1452490' date='Jan 29 2008, 01:04 PM'][b]I can't think of a single consumer product that the government made the public use.[/b] Even when the government wants to discourage something, they don't mandate it. They may tax it, but they never take the power of choice away from the people.

I'm going to ask you to name 3 products in our 200 year history that the [b]government mandated the people use[/b]. I can't think of products the government requires people to sell (like the government would say if you're going to sell gas you have to sell biodesel also). If you can name 3 I might start to be convinced this is the government's role.[/quote]

So I will stand by what I said.

But you made a point regarding "public good", and many people think that an effort to switch away from an oil based energy system is also a public good, for environmental reasons (which you yourself said was a public good), as well as for not being dependent on foreign oil that some day will probably run out or be more difficult to get.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1453224' date='Jan 30 2008, 11:36 PM']Well, your original question did not specify that the government mandates were for cost savings, it just simply stated "government mandated the people use":
So I will stand by what I said.

But you made a point regarding "public good", and many people think that an effort to switch away from an oil based energy system is also a public good, for environmental reasons (which you yourself said was a public good), as well as for not being dependent on foreign oil that some day will probably run out or be more difficult to get.[/quote]

I think you need to read my posts a bit closer. In all of posts I've talked only about the economic reasons and have actually explicitly mentioned I'm excluding any public good issues.

I don't think its fair or accurate that you edited out the line right before the one you bolded which said
"The government's role is not to come in and create an infrastructure for a consumer (unless again its a public good, but we're avoiding that)."

I think Dairy's original post and following ones, and my responses, especially #10 make it quite clear that the things products you listed do not fit the question.

Edited January 31, 2008 by rkwright

[dairygirl4u2c]

just cause i think this phorum needs a healthy dose of reality from time to time...

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism[/url]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz[/url]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whither_Socialism%3F"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whither_Socialism%3F[/url]

[Mercy me]

I am not big on government getting involved in anything other than what the Constitution gives them authority to do. However, I see a national security issue with energy resources. If we can find an efficient form of energy that could be widely used then we could greatly reduce our dependancy on foreign oil. Maintaining the oil supply is essential right now as the world's market is dependent on oil. I could see tax credits and other incentives to help solve this problem.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1453233' date='Jan 31 2008, 12:02 AM']I think you need to read my posts a bit closer. In all of posts I've talked only about the economic reasons and have actually explicitly mentioned I'm excluding any public good issues.[/quote]

If you want economic reasons, the high price of oil is hurting us economically by increasing the costs of manufacturing and transporting goods. And it is spilling over into the price of food, since the increased use of ethanol is is creating a bigger demand for grain. So, switching over to more renewable sources of energy (like solar and wind) and manufacturing more plug-in cars, although presenting a more upfront cost, stands to give us a payback in the future.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Norseman82

[dairygirl4u2c]

i affirm what norse said, and add to that all my hypothetical scenarios and such.

i don't think i'm in favor of a grand scale intervention, even if we could afford it. i'd be more in favor of smaller scale, more planned intervention in major cities etc, but even still at limited stations.
i'm sure there's people who know the best alterantives to use.

this is because i want to ensure we protect the underdog. if there's an underdog out there that offers a better solution, with our small scale conversion, we won't have created jsut another system that can't be beaten. the gov can then help that underdog. plus, the people who bought the biodeisal or whatever, by the facts as i see them, would be helping themselves and the economy anyway in the mean time. perhaps itw on't be to the level that the hypothetical underdog who comes later in the game could get them, but it's still help.

i'm pretty sure there's bio systems in cars that run on most sources, whether it be algae oil, cellulostic fuel, sugar cane, etc. so it's prob not that big of a concern that we shoulnd't be intervening. ie if algae oil is the underdog only to come later, it's gonna run on the same systems that cellulostic fuel does. this is to my uderstanding.

i see non-intervention as purely an ideologue answer... no gov intervention, just because they don't like hte idea of government doing anything... not really an economic argument.
i admit i need more info, but i think i've provided the most realistic answer so far.

Edited February 3, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Catholic Teaching on Social Justice: a brief compendium

The imperative to pursue social justice is not an optional extra for Christians. For
Vincentians, calledto bear witness to the presence of Christ in the flesh of the
marginalised,it is at the core of who we are and what we do. Here follows a brief selection of Catholic teachings on social justice. These teachings form the basis not onlyof our work with Australia‘s poor; they also inform our advocacy on their behalf.


Old Testament
—Follow justice andjustice alone,so that you maylive andpossess the landof the
LORD your Godis givingyou.“ Deuteronomy16:20
Speakup for those who cannot speakfor themselves. Protect the rights of those who are
helpless. Speakout andpronounce a sentence of justice,defendthe cause of the wretched
andthe poor. Proverbs 31:8-9
—The righteous care about justice for the poor,but the wickedhave no such concern.“
Proverbs 29:7
Woe betide those who enact unjust laws anddraft oppressive legislation,deprivingthe
poor of justice,robbingthe weakest of mypeople of their rights,plunderingthe widow and
despoilingthe fatherless!
Isaiah 10:1-3
—Iwill search for the lost andbringbackthe strays. Iwill bindup the injuredand
strengthen the weak,but the sleekandthe strongIwill destroy. Iwill shepherdthe
flockwith justice.“ Ezekiel 34:16

New Testament
Matthew 12:20
Fathers of the Church
"You are not makinga gift of what is yours to the poor man,but you are givinghim back
what is his. You have been appropriatingthings that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone,not to the rich.“ St Ambrose

Frederic Ozanam
The question agitatingthe worldtodayis…a social question. Itis the struggle between
those who have nothingandthose who have too much,it is a clash between wealth and
poverty,which is shakingthe groundat our feet. 1836

Iask... that we shouldtake responsibilityfor the people who have too manyneeds andnot
enough rights… 1848

You must not be content with tidingthe poor over the povertycrisis. You must studythe
injustices which brought about such poverty,with the aim of a longterm improvement.
Itis time to seekthe abolition of poverty.
Justice demands a consecration of each one for the welfare of all andespeciallyfor the
protection of the weak.
Itis time to pleadthe cause of workers,to lift up the sufferingpoor andto pursue the
abolition of poverty.
Let us turn to democracy,to the mass of people to whom we are unknown andappeal to
them not bysermons,but bybenefits. Help them not with alms which humiliate,but by
creatingsocial conditions which will free them andlife them up out of their repressive
situations.
Itis time to demonstrate that the proletarian cause can be pleaded,the upliftingof the
sufferingpoor be engagedin,andthe abolition of pauperism pursued,without identifying
oneself with the wildappeals which provokedthe June upheaval,andwhich still cast a
gloom over the future.

Popes
Justice is the last moral refuge,the last sanctuaryof modern society.
Pius XI

Rerum Novarum assertedthe State‘s responsibilityto intervene in favour of the needy,
preventingthe bigfish from continuing to eat the little ones.
Vatican II

Godintendedthe earth andeverythingin it for the use of all human beings andpeoples.
Thus,under the leadership of justice andin the companyof charity,createdgoods should
flow fairlyto all. Gaudium et Spes,1965

Pope Paul VI
All other rights,whatever theymaybe,includingthe rights of propertyandfree trade,are
to be subordinatedto this principle…. Redirectingthese rights backto their original
purpose must be regardedas an important andurgent social duty.‘Populorum Progressio,
1967

**********Populorum Progressio fundamentallyrejected—material gain as the keymotive for economic progress,or competition as the supreme law of economics.“
Pope John Paul II

But with special attention,in a true "preferential option",she [the Church]turns to those
who are insituationsofgreaterweakness,andtherefo
e in greater need. "The poor",in
variedstates of affliction,are the oppressed,those on the margin of society,the elderly,the sick,the young,anyandall who are consideredandtreatedas "the least".Vitaconsecrate 1996

… the human inadequacies of capitalism andthe resultingdomination of things over
people are far from disappearing. In fact,for the poor,to the lackof material goods has
been addeda lackof knowledge andtrainingwhich prevents them from escapingtheir state
of humiliatingsubjection. Centesimusannus1991

… there are collective andqualitative needs which cannot be satisfiedbymarket
mechanisms. There are important human needs which escape its logic. There are goods
which bytheir verynature cannot andmust not be bought or sold. Centesimusannus1991

The needs of the poor take priorityover the desires of the rich,the rights of workers over the maximization of profits… Toronto 1984

…we must first of all recall a principle that has always been taught bythe Church:the
principleofthepriorityof labour over capital. This principle directly concerns the process
of production:in this process labour is always a primary efficient cause,while capital,the
whole collection of means of production,remains a mere instrumentor instrumental cause.

…it has always understoodthis right within the broader context of the right common to all
to use the goods of the whole of creation:the right to private property is subordinated to
the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone. Laborum excercens

property is acquired first of all through workin order that it may serve work. This concerns in a special way ownership of the means of production. Isolating these means as a separate propertyin order to set it up in the form of "capital"in opposition to "labour"-andeven to practise exploitation of labour-is contraryto the verynature of these means and their possession. They cannot be possessed against labour,they cannot even be possessed for possession's sake, because the only legitimate title to their possession- whether in the form of private ownerhip or in the form of public or collective ownership-is that they should serve labour,and thus, by serving labour,that they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order,namely,the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them. From this point of view,therefore,in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man,one cannot exclude the socialization,in suitable conditions,of certain means of production. Laborum excercens[/quote]

[rkwright]

What you guys are advocating is communism. The government telling the producer what to produce and the consumer what to make, purely for economical reasons.

Where are all those big name conservatives on this thread? I'm surprised socrates and winchester haven't called out against government intervention of this sort.

[rkwright]

dairy from your article on Joseph Stiglitz, I think this sums up the argument quiet nicely...
[quote]Stiglitz's main insight is generally correct -- that the state cannot be ruled out or that it should be ruled in --, but leaves open the grand constitutional questions: How will the coercive institutions of the state be constrained? What is the relation between the state and civil society? His book fails on these political aspects because it has not addressed the broader constitutional concerns that James McGill Buchanan Jr. [21] (1975) and other economists have raised."[/quote]

[Norseman82]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1455086' date='Feb 3 2008, 08:26 PM']What you guys are advocating is communism. The government telling the producer what to produce and the consumer what to make, purely for economical reasons.[/quote]

No, because per a previous post it has moved to a national security debate as well.

So, even though it may have started out as a economic reasons, it has moved to common good and national security issues as well.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if you're saying what we're advocating is communism, as a figure of speech, then sure.

if you're saying it's the definition of communism being enacted, then i disagree. as stiglitz puts it... "people's capitalism"... as i've always called it "subdued capitalism". now... usually i push for intervention for hte poor etc, which i see as justice and nothing to do with communism but doing the just thing... and this is indeed different. but, somethings... when they're too big for the private sector to do, and has a situation like the catch 22 here.. should have government get involved.

now... could a private group get together with other investors and do what the gov would do, in return for a profit? probably. it's be hard to convince and coalate that group. i suppose you might argue that if they don't do it, why should the gov? its a good question. i'd suppose that this is actually a good investment if a person could get the info and convince the people. very big task easier said than done, and very full of contingent economic theories. which is why it's best prob done by the gov, IMHO.

i note that quoted section you gave regarding stiglitz. I too like that criticism a lot. that book, and that criticism, show where study is needed. notice that criticism didn't say he was wrong for thinking the gov could get involved... just htat he didn't define how. that i agree is a funamdental question. it's always aout the right policy- not no policy always, just because just because.

Edited February 4, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c