Answer To Economic Frets Is: More Government?

[Aloysius]

yeah... let's just let the government run the economy through an elitist unaccountable central system... that theory hasn't been tested and proven faulty yet, has it? what? the USSR you say? oh yeah... carp, we're in for some trouble

it feels like for the past 15 or so years, we've been convinced that we won the cold war by economic superiority... perhaps we were mistaken. the first person to go down in a fight is not always the loser, especially if the other one is just about to go down whilst the first one is picking himself up. I mean, this drastic increase to the Fed's powers smacks of outright communist central planning of the economy... and the democrats (who very likely will have the white house next year) are proposing even more power than the republicans are proposing here. Pray to Fulton Sheen perhaps, because I feel like communism is coming back with a second wind under the guise of saving capitalism.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, in response to al,,,, it may be true that we're going too far into socialism, but i don't think the initial post was healthy either, acting as if it's an either or situation.

also, many people say the SUnion fell cause we simply out spent them with war expenses, and they put all their money into keeping up, and eventually crumbled because of it. don't know the in's and out's of that but. the point is that the governemnt intervention is what did it, not so much our capitalistic system.
if that's true, that is.

plus, even republicans are okay with military intervention, so this isn't saying much as per the initial point about gov intervention in economics, but.

gov intervention shouldn't be disregarded without analysis of the situation, not as an inflexible rule ruled out.

[Aloysius]

old school republicans are against military intervention, interventionism has always been an idea of the democrats; the neo-cons have simply adopted it and taken it to its furthest extreme in the wake of 9/11

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1488666' date='Mar 30 2008, 08:34 AM']yeah... let's just let the government run the economy through an elitist unaccountable central system... that theory hasn't been tested and proven faulty yet, has it? what? the USSR you say? oh yeah... carp, we're in for some trouble [/quote]
Right. And the Plutocracy that ran the US at the beginning of the 20th century in the US was such a rip-roaring success.

Look, because I'm advocating *some* government regulation doesn't mean that I'm calling for a centrally-planned economy and authoritarian form of government. But laissez-faire capitalism is nothing more than a fancy name for the Law of the Jungle.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1487377' date='Mar 28 2008, 10:46 PM']And I like that companies, on one hand, profit by selling meat; while on the other hand, they wish to maintain a satisfied customer base. Therefore these companies do their best to sell clean and delicious meat.

Government regulation wasn't, and isn't needed. The market demands accountability. [u]The Jungle[/u] was a part of the customer demand for accountability to the customer, rather than a demand for the government to step in.[/quote]
With respect, your view is not borne out in reality. The recent episodes with harmful chemicals in toys manufactured in China is a case in point. How any Catholic can on the one hand believe in concupiscence, and yet on the other hand believe that "the market" will naturally cure all ills is beyond me. What history shows is that what people [i]can[/i] get away with, they will (or will try to). That is why multi-national corporations are off-shoring their operations to countries where there are relaxed labor and environmental standards vis-a-vis the US.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4555815&page=1"]http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4555815&page=1[/url]

new gov regs proposed

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1489451' date='Mar 31 2008, 08:24 AM']With respect, your view is not borne out in reality. The recent episodes with harmful chemicals in toys manufactured in China is a case in point. How any Catholic can on the one hand believe in concupiscence, and yet on the other hand believe that "the market" will naturally cure all ills is beyond me. What history shows is that what people [i]can[/i] get away with, they will (or will try to). That is why multi-national corporations are off-shoring their operations to countries where there are relaxed labor and environmental standards vis-a-vis the US.[/quote]

It [i]is[/i] the lack of regulation that led to the poisoned dog food and the lead-ridden toys. The only way an unregulated marketplace would not leave the consumer at risk is if the purveyors of products followed a moral code. Unfortunately, there is no way to ensure that without regulation.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i have a friend.... i don't think he really knows what he's saying, but living in theory world detached from actuality.
he says, people will stop buying the stuff like those bad china toys, after they realize that they are bad for you etc etc, and so gov like FDA not needed.
i'm not sure if he realized that oten that means ppl will have to die first, or get really sick etc, for that theory to work, but.
i doubt most conservatives are that extreme here.
i doubt my friend is either, but is just living in fantasy land without really thinking critically.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1489407' date='Mar 31 2008, 08:26 AM']Right. And the Plutocracy that ran the US at the beginning of the 20th century in the US was such a rip-roaring success.

Look, because I'm advocating *some* government regulation doesn't mean that I'm calling for a centrally-planned economy and authoritarian form of government. But laissez-faire capitalism is nothing more than a fancy name for the Law of the Jungle.[/quote]
I didn't say you were, I said that the Republicans and Democrats in congress were. My comment was a response to the news links about the Federal Reserve being given more power.

I may often be clothed in libertarian laissez faire clothes, but I'm actually very much a distributivist.... I don't want big government regulation on a continuous basis, but I do want the government to enforce justice in specific instances and engage in policies which aid the distribution of wealth not as a continuous system of taxations and regulations but as single actions of justice in specific cases.

sometimes abuse happens in families, ought the government to be regulating families? no, it ought to be policing against abuses. I think there is a very clear distinction between regulation and policing and I come down on the side that says the government ought to police, not regulate.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1489451' date='Mar 31 2008, 10:24 AM']With respect, your view is not borne out in reality. The recent episodes with harmful chemicals in toys manufactured in China is a case in point. How any Catholic can on the one hand believe in concupiscence, and yet on the other hand believe that "the market" will naturally cure all ills is beyond me. What history shows is that what people [i]can[/i] get away with, they will (or will try to). That is why multi-national corporations are off-shoring their operations to countries where there are relaxed labor and environmental standards vis-a-vis the US.[/quote]
Hey Kenrockthefirst. China is a newly (and rapidly) emerging economy. The US economy went through similar things when we were growing. I wouldn't give my kids the same toys that my parents or grand parents grew up with. Jagged metal edges, lead paint, and the baby coasters with wheels that will send children coasting right down a flight of stairs.

For example, if the government today were to stop regulating industry do you really think that companies would really start painting all their toys with lead paint? Of course not--if they did stores wouldn't carry any of their product. For another example, if the government stopped regulating industry today, families wouldn't start sending their children to work in factories. People living in wealthier, established economies do not have entire families in the work place because it's unnecessary. These are examples of benefits of growing economies, not of the benefits a government regulation.

While nothing is perfect because humanity is not perfect, I do believe that a free market cures ills more efficiently than the government; and I also believe that governments handicap economies rather than help. That's why the parts of the world with greater freedom have stronger economies and less poverty. Thus we should be demanding greater freedom, but we are getting less and less.

And tell me what you mean by "How any Catholic can on the one hand believe in concupiscence, and yet on the other hand believe that "the market" will naturally cure all ills is beyond me."

[Aloysius]

Lounge Daddy's post illustrates perfectly for me what the difference is between regulating and policing. It could have been a once and for all job to get rid of x, y, and z problems that various industries were perpetuating by punishing them and making it illegal to do that type of stuff, and then be done with it. and, in fact, all of these things have been thoroughly taken care of by the enforcement of justice (which did not require continuous regulatory beaurocracies). The lasting bodies that come out of such things, such as the FDA, are the things which damage the economy and hinder freedom to a large extent, because when given the power to regulate they obviously abuse it to the point where we are not even allowed to make up our own minds on various things like supplemental or alternative medications et cetera.

there's nothing wrong with policing against companies sending out bad products; you don't have to create beaurocratic red tape regulation to prevent it any more than you need to have constant supervision over every individual to prevent them from murdering someone. keep the consequences strict and severe if a company ever puts out a harmful product, and the company will regulate itself the same way the average person holds back the urge to steal because they fear the police.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1489577' date='Mar 31 2008, 12:11 PM']Hey Kenrockthefirst. China is a newly (and rapidly) emerging economy. The US economy went through similar things when we were growing. I wouldn't give my kids the same toys that my parents or grand parents grew up with. Jagged metal edges, lead paint, and the baby coasters with wheels that will send children coasting right down a flight of stairs.[/quote]
But we "know better" nowadays. Should we simply discount our hard won experience because China is an "emerging economy?" Indeed, that speaks to exactly what I mean. We should require the same standards for Chinese-manufactured products - or for products manufactured in China for US multi-nationals - that we require for products manufactured in the US.

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1489577' date='Mar 31 2008, 12:11 PM']For example, if the government today were to stop regulating industry do you really think that companies would really start painting all their toys with lead paint? Of course not--if they did stores wouldn't carry any of their product. For another example, if the government stopped regulating industry today, families wouldn't start sending their children to work in factories. People living in wealthier, established economies do not have entire families in the work place because it's unnecessary. These are examples of benefits of growing economies, not of the benefits a government regulation.[/quote]
Yes I do, because history demonstrates that companies put all kinds of harmful things in their products, cut corners, etc., until they are forced to stop by government regulation. Coke or Pepsi, anyone?

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1489577' date='Mar 31 2008, 12:11 PM']While nothing is perfect because humanity is not perfect, I do believe that a free market cures ills more efficiently than the government; and I also believe that governments handicap economies rather than help. That's why the parts of the world with greater freedom have stronger economies and less poverty. Thus we should be demanding greater freedom, but we are getting less and less.

And tell me what you mean by "How any Catholic can on the one hand believe in concupiscence, and yet on the other hand believe that "the market" will naturally cure all ills is beyond me."[/quote]
Concupiscence, as I understand it, is the concept that we all tend toward sin because we are "broken" by The Fall. In this context, what I mean is that we will naturally tend to the "path of least resistance" rather than doing the "right thing" unless forced to do so.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1489580' date='Mar 31 2008, 12:18 PM']Lounge Daddy's post illustrates perfectly for me what the difference is between regulating and policing. It could have been a once and for all job to get rid of x, y, and z problems that various industries were perpetuating by punishing them and making it illegal to do that type of stuff, and then be done with it. and, in fact, all of these things have been thoroughly taken care of by the enforcement of justice (which did not require continuous regulatory beaurocracies). The lasting bodies that come out of such things, such as the FDA, are the things which damage the economy and hinder freedom to a large extent, because when given the power to regulate they obviously abuse it to the point where we are not even allowed to make up our own minds on various things like supplemental or alternative medications et cetera.

there's nothing wrong with policing against companies sending out bad products; you don't have to create beaurocratic red tape regulation to prevent it any more than you need to have constant supervision over every individual to prevent them from murdering someone. keep the consequences strict and severe if a company ever puts out a harmful product, and the company will regulate itself the same way the average person holds back the urge to steal because they fear the police.[/quote]
I work in the pharmaceutical industry, which is of course regulated by the FDA, so this is one area where I really know whereof I speak. And in this case, I'll speak one word: Vioxx. Despite safety studies which clearly indicated an increased risk of heart attack as a result of using Vioxx, Merck tried to "cook the books" by suppressing those results and marketed the drug anyway. This despite a modern regulatory framework. This isn't a theoretical civics or economics conversation we're having. People die as a result of bad drugs. As I stated in an earlier post, people will (try to) get away with whatever they can. Ideally, we'd all be faithful Catholics who try to live our lives in accordance with the Gospel. But the flip side of that is recognition that we all fall short, sometimes by weakness, oftentimes deliberately.

[dairygirl4u2c]

lounge daddy has an important point, that most of the ills of products would be cured because businesses don't want to sell bad stuff, and for the most part, the government isn't needed. but, i'm not sure anyone would disagree with this. the point is that for things where the businesses don't do as they ought, regulations are needed, even if it causes some inefficiencies.
if he's arguing that he doesn't want those inefficiences at all, then that's what he should have argued, but is not what he argued.
maybe he was just making the point, but when ken said "we need regs to prevent people from dying" it seems pretty clear that's what he meant by saying a good catholic can't endorse people dying as the means as an alternative to preventative regulations.

al's point is better, cause common law would cure many ills, like if you make bad paint products knowingly, you could probably sue that way. but, if there are no standards to hold them accountable to, it's hard to hold them liable for what they make, cause they might contend the standards they had were reasonable. regulations set the standard, there's no dispute.
al's point though is good, cause it narrows even further the efficacy of government regulations. but, if you're willing to allow those few times the standardless areas allow, then that's great, but you have to acknowledge the harms you're willing to allow in the name of no government. (if the argument is no government)

Edited March 31, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

the cook the books stuff isn't responding to al's point that government isn't needed... cause the if they cooked the books, you could sue them.
but, if ken's saying.... that the government could have stopped them from cooking hte books, then that's another story. i'm sure there's times when the governmetn does prevenative regulations and oversight to prevent harms from occurring in the first place.

but, i guess ultimately.... al's point is interesting, cause we don't provide oversight on things like people murdering others. i think that analogy doesn't work though, cause things like drugs you have no idea what you're getting into, and it's easier to prevent discrete things like how a drug is made than to police every person.

also, as for the standards argument i had... i guess you could argue that the jury will decide the standard, and if it wasn't so bad that a jury would find them culpable, maybe we don't need fixed rules anyway.
but, i doubt companies would like it having to guage what's acceptable from the dice roll of a jury verdict.

Edited March 31, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

so are you guys seriously advocating throwing out the FDA?
cause if you're not, then i'm not sure what you're point is.... cause i don't ken or me or anyone would disagree the government isn't effcient, and coudl be reduced in a lot of areas.
and if you are not arguing that throwing out of FDA and type things, then i'm not sure where this is headed or what the point is.

i mean, most people would not abuse the system and risk juries or send their kids to sweat shops, but, we can prevent the ones who do do bad things like that.

Edited March 31, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c