Unintended Consequences

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

You aren't making any sense.

That is because you made no sense. Your argument was simply people are the problem. Who makes up government? People, of course. Just like people make up the market. So, saying people are the problem does not solve anything or make any sense.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

That is because you made no sense. Your argument was simply people are the problem. Who makes up government? People, of course. Just like people make up the market. So, saying people are the problem does not solve anything or make any sense.

I'm not trying to solve anything. I am trying to tell you why your system will never work in practice. What I say makes perfect sense.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Patents = "intellectual" as property

Slavery = humans as property

Just because you claim something should be a property right, does not really mean it should be.

If you really think there is such a thing as "intellectual" property rights, then you would have to agree that patents/copyrights should never expire.

So I should be able to come up with a new product idea, start building and selling it myself, and then have say Sony step in, copy my product, produce it for 1/10th the cost and put me out of business. What an excellent way to discourage innovation! None of your ideas belong to you, So don't have any, it's not worth it. Why would I ever try to start a new business if I knew anyone could just come and steal my idea and put me out of business?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

So I should be able to come up with a new product idea, start building and selling it myself, and then have say Sony step in, copy my product, produce it for 1/10th the cost and put me out of business. What an excellent way to discourage innovation! None of your ideas belong to you, So don't have any, it's not worth it. Why would I ever try to start a new business if I knew anyone could just come and steal my idea and put me out of business?

Wow, you have no idea how a patent works. It costs millions of dollars to enforce a patent. Only the big guys have the money to enforce a patent. So what really happens is that you as an "inventor" sell your ideas to big companies. This helps keep big companies big and reduces innovation in the marketplace since these big companies simply use the patents to keep others from producing a product, but do not necessarily produce it themselves.

This also shows your complete lack of understanding of human behavior or the market. The motivation for innovation is money. To stay competitive, a business has to be innovative. Otherwise someone else will figure it out (whatever it is that is better), and the business that did not figure it out will lose market share and have to play catch-up.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

When did I ever state a company would "do the right thing just for the sake of it being right"?

Companies do the "right thing", because if they do not, another company will, and then the company that did not do "the right thing" will go out of business or have to change its policy so that it is doing "the right thing".

There's a guy in prison in NH right now because he collected oil and brought it to his farm and dumped it. He made millions because he didn't pay the proper disposal fee...he just dumped it in a big hole in the ground. They caught him, he paid a fine, he's in jail for a while. Now everyone in NH has to pay an extra fee when buying oil to help pay for the cleanup.

You think that's going to happen LESS often in your FREE MARKET system? This guy did it for years before he was caught. In your FREE MARKET system he'd go out of business. Big fucking deal. IMO during the years he was doing it other FREE MARKET businesses would do the same thing to undercut his prices so we'd have even more pollution.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by 7960

There's a guy in prison in NH right now because he collected oil and brought it to his farm and dumped it. He made millions because he didn't pay the proper disposal fee...he just dumped it in a big hole in the ground. They caught him, he paid a fine, he's in jail for a while. Now everyone in NH has to pay an extra fee when buying oil to help pay for the cleanup.

You think that's going to happen LESS often in your FREE MARKET system? This guy did it for years before he was caught. In your FREE MARKET system he'd go out of business. Big fucking deal. IMO during the years he was doing it other FREE MARKET businesses would do the same thing to undercut his prices so we'd have even more pollution.

I don't get it?

Obviously this guy destroyed whatever value he had in his own property for a quick buck. How does that translate into other people doing the same thing with the same stupid long term outcome and the same risk of criminal prosecution?

There is plenty of room for rational science based environmental law. When your behavior effects the property and health of others that is clear. What I find offensive is the notion that everyone is out for quick profit no matter who they hurt in a free market. A bank robber does represent the many productive transactions that occur each and every day.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

There's a guy in prison in NH right now because he collected oil and brought it to his farm and dumped it. He made millions because he didn't pay the proper disposal fee...he just dumped it in a big hole in the ground. They caught him, he paid a fine, he's in jail for a while. Now everyone in NH has to pay an extra fee when buying oil to help pay for the cleanup.

You think that's going to happen LESS often in your FREE MARKET system? This guy did it for years before he was caught. In your FREE MARKET system he'd go out of business. Big fucking deal. IMO during the years he was doing it other FREE MARKET businesses would do the same thing to undercut his prices so we'd have even more pollution.

If you want to talk about pollution, pollution was falling at the same rate for years before the EPA came into existence as after it was created. So your ONE example is just that, ONE example.

Even if he was not prosecuted, what do you think would happen to his business once it became public knowledge what he was doing?

And the reason he probably was doing it in the first place is BECAUSE OF the regulations requiring him to pay a disposal fee.

Theory and evidence shows that the EPA and any other government regulations are not needed, do not work (it still happened as in your example, even though we have the EPA), and they just reduce competition which increases prices and reduces efficiency.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I'm not trying to solve anything. I am trying to tell you why your system will never work in practice. What I say makes perfect sense.

So politicians are not greedy? Not sure what world you live in, but in my world almost every politician takes special interest donations.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

If you want to talk about pollution, pollution was falling at the same rate for years before the EPA came into existence as after it was created. So your ONE example is just that, ONE example.

Even if he was not prosecuted, what do you think would happen to his business once it became public knowledge what he was doing?

They'd stop using him to dispose and he'd keep the millions he pocketed. Or they'd think "he's not polluting my land" and keep using him to dispose.

And the reason he probably was doing it in the first place is BECAUSE OF the regulations requiring him to pay a disposal fee.

No, it was to pocket the extra money.

Theory and evidence shows .......

Again with you saying shit but not backing it up.

You bore me.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

So politicians are not greedy? Not sure what world you live in, but in my world almost every politician takes special interest donations.

You admit politicians are not greedy but then do not assume corporations are as well? Without regulations rivers caught on fire because of pollution.

Images of Fires on the Cuyahoga River

But you think companies are going to do the right thing if we get rid of regulations about pollution?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

Again with you saying shit but not backing it up.

You bore me.

All you need to do is ask, and ye shall receive.

Free Markets and Externalities: The Symmetry of Unintended Effects | The Foundation for Economic Education: The Freeman, Ideas on Liberty

As an inherent element of technological development, firms have progressively discovered and employed more and more efficient sources of fuel and power generation in order to reduce costs under competitive market pressures. This caused pollution per unit of output generated to decline steadily long before the EPA and the 1970 Clean Air Act were created. Indeed, according to economist Paul MacAvoy, there is no evidence that those regulatory mechanisms improved on that record.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

You admit politicians are not greedy but then do not assume corporations are as well? Without regulations rivers caught on fire because of pollution.

Images of Fires on the Cuyahoga River

But you think companies are going to do the right thing if we get rid of regulations about pollution?

Please re-read my post. I did NOT admit politicians are not greedy.

As to your example:
The Cuyahoga Revisited | The Foundation for Economic Education: The Freeman, Ideas on Liberty

...The famous fire illustrates the unfortunate history of pollution control in the United States. Growing citizen concern about pollution was leading to voluntary cleanup, but the emerging common-law rule of strict liability was abandoned in favor of a political process that allowed continuing pollution of certain segments of the state’s waters...

The state authorized the pollution.

[Spideynw]

Here is more proof for you about regulations:
Let the Market Protect Consumer Safety | The Foundation for Economic Education: The Freeman, Ideas on Liberty

...The regulatory burden might not be as infuriating if consumer product safety had been vastly improved by CPSC actions. But the evidence suggests otherwise. In 1985 Viscusi reviewed general accident statistics and specific cases of commission regulation for The Journal of Law and Economics and found “no evidence of any significant beneficial impacts on product safety.” Home-accident rates, which have been falling steadily since at least the 1930s, were affected by changes in per-capita consumption and income, but not by changes in CPSC regulation...

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Please re-read my post. I did NOT admit politicians are not greedy.

As to your example:
The Cuyahoga Revisited | The Foundation for Economic Education: The Freeman, Ideas on Liberty


The state authorized the pollution.

What HE says,

Most important for our understanding of environmental problems, the fire came about because political control replaced the emerging common-law rule of strict liability. Had that doctrine been allowed to hold sway, there would probably not have been a fire in 1969.

That's absolutely stupid, because HE also said

The Cuyahoga, ... had caught fire at least two times before (in 1936 and 1952). The earlier fires burned much longer and caused much more damage.

He's saying that there was a fire because "political control replaced the emerging common-law rule" but he's ignoring that there were two other fires during the time he's saying there was common-law rule.

:fail:

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

What HE says,

Most important for our understanding of environmental problems, the fire came about because political control replaced the emerging common-law rule of strict liability. Had that doctrine been allowed to hold sway, there would probably not have been a fire in 1969.

That's absolutely stupid, because HE also said

The Cuyahoga, ... had caught fire at least two times before (in 1936 and 1952). The earlier fires burned much longer and caused much more damage.

He's saying that there was a fire because "political control replaced the emerging common-law rule" but he's ignoring that there were two other fires during the time he's saying there was common-law rule.

:fail:

Sorry, you fail. He addressed that issue. Not only was there the emerging common-law rule, but there was also an increase in wealth, neither of which did the people have as much of in the previous fires. Pollution reduction is an ongoing process. The government not only stopped the reduction in pollution, but actually encouraged the pollution!

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Sorry, you fail. He addressed that issue. Not only was there the emerging common-law rule, but there was also an increase in wealth, neither of which did the people have as much of in the previous fires. Pollution reduction is an ongoing process. The government not only stopped the reduction in pollution, but actually encouraged the pollution.

Sorry, you fail. You keep saying companies and people would do the right thing if there was no regulation but they continued to pollute the river/streams when clearly it was not in the public's best interest. Regulation shut down polluters and punished those who continued to pollute, and now the river's clean.

You're at the end and looking backwards and saying "they made those decisions to promote pollution!" That's like standing here now and saying the captain of the titanic turned north 2° when he was a mile out of port with the intention of hitting that iceberg hundreds of miles later.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

Sorry, you fail. You keep saying companies and people would do the right thing if there was no regulation but they continued to pollute the river/streams when clearly it was not in the public's best interest. Regulation shut down polluters and punished those who continued to pollute, and now the river's clean.

You're at the end and looking backwards and saying "they made those decisions to promote pollution!" That's like standing here now and saying the captain of the titanic turned north 2° when he was a mile out of port with the intention of hitting that iceberg hundreds of miles later.

Earth Day Group Think - Mises Institute

In fact, the destruction of private property rights and the metamorphosis of private property into common property has been a central reason why industrial pollution had reached nearly intolerable levels in some municipalities by 1970. For example, the famous 1969 fire in Cleveland, Ohio’s, Cuyahoga River would never had happened had the law recognized private property rights of waterways instead of having them declared "public" (read that, common) property.

Your example is flawed, given that it was the government that authorized the pollution in the first place.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Earth Day Group Think - Mises Institute


Your example is flawed, given that it was the government that authorized the pollution in the first place.

Two things:

1. You saying the govt "authorized" the pollution is bogus. The govt *regulated* it...big difference. Again, you're only seeing what you want to see.

2. "For example, the famous 1969 fire in Cleveland, Ohio’s, Cuyahoga River would never had happened had the law recognized private property rights of waterways" ......... then what about the 1936 and 1952 fires? Those were before the govt "declared 'public' (read that, common) property" so either they shouldn't have happened or private property rights has nothing to do with this argument.