What do you think of this argument?

[zadrock]

I'm having difficulty convincing my liberal friends of the benefits of free markets. They think that a free market would result in greedy corporations taking advantage of the general public. Then they point to the antitrust legislation that marked the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th as necessary to break up monopolies and protect consumers and workers.

So I've begun reading some books that challenge that particular view of that era - Antitrust and Monopoly by Domenick Armentano (on Dr. Paul's "reading list") and The Triumph of Conservatism by Gabriel Kolko. They both argue that large corporations demanded federal regulation because competition was killing their businesses. In other words, the regulations did put a cost on the large companies, but put an even greater cost on small companies, and actually forced them out of business.

I've tried making this argument, but I'm not getting anywhere, mainly because they don't want to bother to check the facts. They seem to think the authors have an agenda. Yeah, to report the truth...

So here's my new simplified strategy: the assumption is that regulation is good for "the general public" and bad for corporations. Removal of regulations would be harmful to the public and beneficial for corporations. It is well known that Dr. Paul advocates no regulation by the federal government.

That being the case, why is it that no corporation donated money to him?

It's true - check the FEC website. As of his last filing, he had over $34 million in donations, $18,201 of which came from committees and PACs. (Damn, that's a lot of individual contributions.) Anyway, if you check which PACs donated, none of them are corporations. (It's things like "Georgians for Liberty")

So this means that the one man who would bring about complete removal of government regulation got ZERO support from corporations. How could this be? Did they just not believe he could win? Well, Tancredo got some PAC money. So did Brownback. Even Thompson got a donation from DirecTV. (No, not that Thompson, I'm talking about Tommy.)

You can take this argument one step further by pointing out how the major news media companies covered him. I think that a pro-big business candidate would have gotten more favorable treatment, don't you?

I think this argument should at least make people think a little bit before criticizing Paul's anti-regulation position. Any thoughts?

Z

 

[akforme]

Tell them that the current "de-regulation" as they call it that's taking place is kinda like the patriot act, the exact oppisite of what it really is. It's de-regulation for the fatcats who paid off the politicians but not the little guy. When they did it to radio the de-regulated how many companies you could own, that allows monopolies. De-reg. is why we have 5 oil companies not 500.


Also it's very easy to corrupt the FEC, or SEC, but it's hard to corrupt peoples freedom to choose. Kinda like our gov. it's easy to corrupt one big government, but hard to corrupt 50 little governements. If governemt was honet, and the media did there jobs I'd probably be a liberal, but that's not the case, human nature will not allow that because power is too strong of a force.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

Corporations do not believe in free markets. They believe in profits.

Therefore:

1. Corporations SEEK government regulation/intervention whenever it benefits them.
2. Corporations donate to likely winners, to buy access for #1.

#2 could explain Paul's lack of corporate donors. Candidates get a flood of donations AFTER a primary victory. Corporate donations are somewhat like a futures market.

#1 means that "liberals" who hate corporations should love free markets.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2008/02/economics-experts-endorse-ron-paul.html

 

[acptulsa]

Looking particularly at the railroads, yes they wanted regulation. They would build unprofitable lines to towns where one road was barely justified just to retaliate against another road that had built to one of "their" towns and would rape towns where they had a monopoly and operate at a complete loss on competitive routes because they couldn't behave in a gentlemanly manner for some reason. At one point shortly after the Santa Fe broke the Southern Pacific's monopoly on Southern California the rate to Los Angeles dropped to one measly dollar--and almost overnight the sleepy village of Los Angeles turned into a metropolis. It was goofy.

Looking particularly at the auto industry, consider the engineering required to design a car that meets the pollution, safety and other miscellaneous federal mandates now required. An established overseas automaker has a far, far greater chance of being able to invade our market than an American has of starting a company and selling at home.

The problem in taking this tack is that most people don't have the knowledge of history that makes it work. If you can come up with certain easily verified examples, that might make the difference. Be prepared for crap like "oh, who cares about the railroads these days?" or "well who can startup a car company these days?" though...

 

[WRellim]

I think it is an EXCELLENT point.

Regulation and "licensing" have always been about LIMITING competition and creating what are in effect monopolies for certain subgroups, and then using the public's resources to enforce that monopoly.

The "protect the public" is simply a red-herring argument akin to the Simpson's "Somebody think of the children." bromide.

 

[scooter]

I don't really see regulation as being against free markets. In my opinion, the free markets are without borders. Dealing with regulations within various nations is just part of the task. In fact, regulation is part of the free markets. Each nation is free to set their own standards and the markets determine which ones it likes and which ones it doesn't like. For example, Sarbanes-Oxley has hurt a lot of public institutions in the United States, so a lot of IPO's went to Britain.

I think there is a natural balance between markets and regulations.

Don't get me wrong, most regulation is bad and a good portion of it was created out of some agenda, whether to harm competition or whatever. But to say no regulation is the best way a free market should operate is overlooking the issue completely.

Surely no one believes that a harmless law requiring public companies to accurately report their balance sheets is harmful to the markets? There are many examples such as this.

 

[ARealConservative]

I'm having difficulty convincing my liberal friends of the benefits of free markets. They think that a free market would result in greedy corporations taking advantage of the general public. Then they point to the antitrust legislation that marked the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th as necessary to break up monopolies and protect consumers and workers.

So I've begun reading some books that challenge that particular view of that era - Antitrust and Monopoly by Domenick Armentano (on Dr. Paul's "reading list") and The Triumph of Conservatism by Gabriel Kolko. They both argue that large corporations demanded federal regulation because competition was killing their businesses. In other words, the regulations did put a cost on the large companies, but put an even greater cost on small companies, and actually forced them out of business.

I've tried making this argument, but I'm not getting anywhere, mainly because they don't want to bother to check the facts. They seem to think the authors have an agenda. Yeah, to report the truth...

So here's my new simplified strategy: the assumption is that regulation is good for "the general public" and bad for corporations. Removal of regulations would be harmful to the public and beneficial for corporations. It is well known that Dr. Paul advocates no regulation by the federal government.

That being the case, why is it that no corporation donated money to him?

It's true - check the FEC website. As of his last filing, he had over $34 million in donations, $18,201 of which came from committees and PACs. (Damn, that's a lot of individual contributions.) Anyway, if you check which PACs donated, none of them are corporations. (It's things like "Georgians for Liberty")

So this means that the one man who would bring about complete removal of government regulation got ZERO support from corporations. How could this be? Did they just not believe he could win? Well, Tancredo got some PAC money. So did Brownback. Even Thompson got a donation from DirecTV. (No, not that Thompson, I'm talking about Tommy.)

You can take this argument one step further by pointing out how the major news media companies covered him. I think that a pro-big business candidate would have gotten more favorable treatment, don't you?

I think this argument should at least make people think a little bit before criticizing Paul's anti-regulation position. Any thoughts?

Z

The argument about monopolies and anti trust legislation is so annoying.

At it's core you have to paint business men as horrible people and government workers as the hero that comes and saves us. It's hard to even keep a straight face dealing with this mindset.

Your new approach sounds promising, I'll try to remember to give it a try.

 

[efiniti]

Haha, your friends probably think that Standard Oil was another evil monopoly. That's funny when you consider that they were so efficient they were able to price their petroleum below market competitors enough to make them obsolete. Oh so evil.

That's the problem I have with people against Wal-Mart. You can hate shopping with them for a lot of reasons, but you shouldn't forcefully punish them for being successful and having low prices.

Just tell your friends to look up petroleum prices from Standard Oil from the late 1860's to the end of the 19th century. The numbers speak for themselves.

 

[Paulitician]

That being the case, why is it that no corporation donated money to him?

That's what I always wondered. I'd sometimes hear people say "Ron Paul would be a dream for corporations, bankers etc." yet, unlike all other candidates, an overwhelming percent of his contributions came from individuals (more than 90%).

Anyway, in "Capitalism: An Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand, there's a good essay that debunks many misconceptions about the anti-trust laws of the 19th century. You should read it.

Also, even some leftists admit that regulation may sometimes be unfavorable because big business often lobby for regulations that will benefit them and obstruct competition (I believe Joe Stiglitz has a theory on it). To me generally, these arguments of regulation versus supposed "deregulation" are useless. There should be a strict separation of economy and state (but that's just my own heartless opinion).

 

[AceNZ]

I'm having difficulty convincing my liberal friends of the benefits of free markets. They think that a free market would result in greedy corporations taking advantage of the general public.

The free market would result in exactly the opposite. It is only the free market that prevents corporations from harming the public.

Then they point to the antitrust legislation that marked the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th as necessary to break up monopolies and protect consumers and workers.

The Sherman Antitrust Act is one of the most awful and destructive pieces of legislation ever created. It did not "protect consumers and workers" -- in fact, it harmed them terribly and irreparably.

So here's my new simplified strategy: the assumption is that regulation is good for "the general public" and bad for corporations. Removal of regulations would be harmful to the public and beneficial for corporations. It is well known that Dr. Paul advocates no regulation by the federal government.

That being the case, why is it that no corporation donated money to him?

Sorry, I don't find that argument convincing; I doubt your opponents will either.

As Paulitician mentioned, Ayn Rand has written some great stuff about antitrust. Highly recommended.

A few key points: the only kind of monopoly that damages the public is a "coercive" monopoly -- one that can force certain actions (such as prohibiting competition). The ONLY way that type of monopoly can exist is through government legislation, which in turn, is the exact opposite of a free market. A non-coercive monopoly is one that can keep its prices low through innovation and efficiency. That type of monopoly is incredibly helpful to the public -- and it is precisely those types of businesses that the antitrust laws were created to destroy. Companies and their executives were attacked not for their failures or for the damage they did, but for the successes and for the people they helped.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

The free market would result in exactly the opposite. It is only the free market that prevents corporations from harming the public.



The Sherman Antitrust Act is one of the most awful and destructive pieces of legislation ever created. It did not "protect consumers and workers" -- in fact, it harmed them terribly and irreparably.



Sorry, I don't find that argument convincing; I doubt your opponents will either.

As Paulitician mentioned, Ayn Rand has written some great stuff about antitrust. Highly recommended.

A few key points: the only kind of monopoly that damages the public is a "coercive" monopoly -- one that can force certain actions (such as prohibiting competition). The ONLY way that type of monopoly can exist is through government legislation, which in turn, is the exact opposite of a free market. A non-coercive monopoly is one that can keep its prices low through innovation and efficiency. That type of monopoly is incredibly helpful to the public -- and it is precisely those types of businesses that the antitrust laws were created to destroy. Companies and their executives were attacked not for their failures or for the damage they did, but for the successes and for the people they helped.

His "liberal" friends should hate all these harmful, coercive monopolies/oligopolies:

• US Post Office (monopoly on first-class mail)
• Property-tax-paid "public" school with truancy mandate
• State mandatory car insurance
• Social Security
• Hillary's health-care mandate

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

 

[Kade]

I'm having difficulty convincing my liberal friends of the benefits of free markets. They think that a free market would result in greedy corporations taking advantage of the general public. Then they point to the antitrust legislation that marked the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th as necessary to break up monopolies and protect consumers and workers.

So I've begun reading some books that challenge that particular view of that era - Antitrust and Monopoly by Domenick Armentano (on Dr. Paul's "reading list") and The Triumph of Conservatism by Gabriel Kolko. They both argue that large corporations demanded federal regulation because competition was killing their businesses. In other words, the regulations did put a cost on the large companies, but put an even greater cost on small companies, and actually forced them out of business.

I've tried making this argument, but I'm not getting anywhere, mainly because they don't want to bother to check the facts. They seem to think the authors have an agenda. Yeah, to report the truth...

So here's my new simplified strategy: the assumption is that regulation is good for "the general public" and bad for corporations. Removal of regulations would be harmful to the public and beneficial for corporations. It is well known that Dr. Paul advocates no regulation by the federal government.

Have you actually considered facts yourself?

Your liberal friends haven't convinced you of much, which means they are probably more representative of the prevailing lay-thinking neo-liberalism.

Breaking up corporations is the corporations worst fear, not competition. By allowing complete access to an absolute free market, corporations can eventually merge with their competitors, or make price fixing a reality for best profit.

I want a much less regulated market, but I would like to see complete breaking of the big banking trusts, oil trusts, metals trust, and software trusts.

There are two forms of regulation, not one. One form promotes security and benefit to the larger and more profitable companies, the other breaks up agreements between large entities, and promotes market entry into previously inaccessible sectors.

Then there is no regulation at all. Theoretically speaking this looks good on paper, but in reality, it is a failure. In practice it fails. Budding thinkers freshly off their Atlas Shrugged of course will disagree, absolutely missing the point of individualism versus anarchy.

I expect those people (edit: from idiots) to chime in below:

 

[Kade]

His "liberal" friends should hate all these harmful, coercive monopolies/oligopolies:

• US Post Office (monopoly on first-class mail)
• Property-tax-paid "public" school with truancy mandate
• State mandatory car insurance
• Social Security
• Hillary's health-care mandate

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

I would like to take this time to point out that each of those serves a different purpose.

Post Office is not for profit. It is for the best and most efficient way to offer postal service. A market exists for profit that competes with the government.

The school system also does not serve a profit. It's main goal is to educate the masses.

Car Insurance is one of those that I think personally should be taken off mandates, but it is a state's right issue. The federal government does not force it.

Social Security is not an entitlement! Nor was it initially meant for profit...ironically, a profit system might have originally fixed it, but it is far too late.

Hillary's healthcare mandate is an issue. She is attempting to strip the market of the ability to fix itself in this regard. Some believe that healthcare is a natural right, deprived of the benefits of living in a high tech country, that our citizens should not be less well off than developing countries. I don't have a philosophical view of this. I do like Obama's plan which seeks to offer a non-profit solution, while maintaining the market as well. Why people complain I don't know... the market gets to compete, but it's competing with a plan that is bought in voluntarily and is not-for-profit. It's a more reasonable solution than doing nothing... seeing as the people are VOTING based on this issue. Common sense is not the rule of the day.

 

[Kraig]

Then there is no regulation at all. Theoretically speaking this looks good on paper, but in reality, it is a failure. In practice it fails. Budding thinkers freshly off their Atlas Shrugged of course will disagree, absolutely missing the point of individualism versus anarchy.

I expect those idiots to chime in below:

You know, for all the times you cry foul for being flamed, you certainly seem to be inviting it with this type of attitude. I was going to reply to you until I read the last of your post, it's not worth my time.

 

[Kade]

You know, for all the times you cry foul for being flamed, you certainly seem to be inviting it with this type of attitude. I was going to reply to you until I read the last of your post, it's not worth my time.

Anticipation. I'm getting flamed in another thread as I write... I don't cry foul, except when others cry foul for the same tactics they use. If they want to flame, fine with me, just be able to take it.

I have two central arguments that I maintain on here, and I defend them vehemently, that I'm often asked to rescind them and refuse is the gist of most people's beef. When I talk specifics, I'm flamed, when I flame in return, I get decent motivation.

It's the option of the originator. I expect that every response will be of contragracious style.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

I would like to take this time to point out that each of those serves a different purpose.

Post Office is not for profit. It is for the best and most efficient way to offer postal service. A market exists for profit that competes with the government.

The school system also does not serve a profit. It's main goal is to educate the masses.

Car Insurance is one of those that I think personally should be taken off mandates, but it is a state's right issue. The federal government does not force it.

Social Security is not an entitlement! Nor was it initially meant for profit...ironically, a profit system might have originally fixed it, but it is far too late.

Hillary's healthcare mandate is an issue. She is attempting to strip the market of the ability to fix itself in this regard. Some believe that healthcare is a natural right, deprived of the benefits of living in a high tech country, that our citizens should not be less well off than developing countries. I don't have a philosophical view of this. I do like Obama's plan which seeks to offer a non-profit solution, while maintaining the market as well. Why people complain I don't know... the market gets to compete, but it's competing with a plan that is bought in voluntarily and is not-for-profit. It's a more reasonable solution than doing nothing... seeing as the people are VOTING based on this issue. Common sense is not the rule of the day.

All monopolies serve a purpose to someone.

"Non-profits" profit special interests (textbook publishers, teachers' unions, educrat administrators' salaries, benefits, and pensions).

"Non-profits" can harm. Mao's Great Leap Forward was technically a "non-profit." It killed 30 million people.

The idea that "it's OK if the government does it" is one of the most damaging ideas in history.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2008/02/economics-experts-endorse-ron-paul.html

 

[acptulsa]

Dr. Paul doesn't get the big bucks from the corporations because he doesn't believe in corporate welfare, he doesn't believe in protecting them from lawsuits and he won't bail them out when they screw up. And boy, does this current nepotistic crop of CEOs love to screw up. Besides, corporations don't spend money unless they expect a return on investment. What ROI could they reasonably expect from trying to bribe Dr. No?

 

[Kade]

All monopolies serve a purpose to someone.

"Non-profits" profit special interests (textbook publishers, teachers' unions, educrat administrators' salaries, benefits, and pensions).

"Non-profits" can harm. Mao's Great Leap Forward was technically a "non-profit." It killed 30 million people.

The idea that "it's OK if the government does it" is one of the most damaging ideas in history.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2008/02/economics-experts-endorse-ron-paul.html

I agree. No idea should be considered perfect. We should promote more of the idea that we the people control the government, and thus, by extension, those government programs.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

Dr. Paul doesn't get the big bucks from the corporations because he doesn't believe in corporate welfare, he doesn't believe in protecting them from lawsuits and he won't bail them out when they screw up. And boy, does this current nepotistic crop of CEOs love to screw up. Besides, corporations don't spend money unless they expect a return on investment. What ROI could they reasonably expect from trying to bribe Dr. No?

Corporations would donate to RP if he looked likely to win. Companies trying to compete against insiders would benefit from the end of their rivals' privileges. The companies about to lose their corporate welfare would then fund ads attacking RP as being bought by corporations.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2008/02/economics-experts-endorse-ron-paul.html

 

[Kraig]

Anticipation. I'm getting flamed in another thread as I write... I don't cry foul, except when others cry foul for the same tactics they use. If they want to flame, fine with me, just be able to take it.

I have two central arguments that I maintain on here, and I defend them vehemently, that I'm often asked to rescind them and refuse is the gist of most people's beef. When I talk specifics, I'm flamed, when I flame in return, I get decent motivation.

It's the option of the originator. I expect that every response will be of contragracious style.

Whatever. When you post a vague opinion on economic regulation and call anyone who may disagree with you an idiot, I can hardly see how you can expect any from of rational discussion. I

I really just wanted to ask you to elaborate on your view of good regulation and bad regulation. I can certainly see how regulation is bad, according to our own history. I have also read Atlas Shrugged. I can possibly see how no regulation could be harmful, but I have a hard time buying that. It is difficult for me to imagine, I've grown up entirely in an economy that is very controlled, and I also don't know if I can find an example of a truly unrestricted economy in history. Have there been times in history where an entirely free market was tried and failed? I'm sure there have been, especially on smaller scales, but who/where/when exactly?

From a completely moral standpoint, how can you decide when it is right to break up a company? Especially if that company is also owned by an individual who did work to create what he has. Who decides when it is too big?