Video: Why monopolies are bad, and why school choice makes sense
posted at 1:36 pm on February 9, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
The Center for Freedom and Prosperity released another of its Econ 101 video series today, this time with Isabel Santa of Cato discussing the problems of monopolies — especially in regard to school choice. The government-imposed school monopoly squelches innovation and provides an inefficient model for education, Santo argues, much as monopolies in other areas make inefficient use of capital. The problem is that government only reluctantly allows private enterprise to compete with its near-total lock on compulsory primary education by forcing people who opt out to pay into both systems. That creates a situation where only the wealthy and powerful have the option to choose how their children will be educated — although far more of the people who protect the government monopoly choose to opt out of it than the general population:
One can make the same argument about health care, or more closely, the student-loan market, although the latter exists mainly in response to government intervention in the first place. Some services require a government monopoly, such as the military or the use of force in law enforcement. Almost all other issues are better left to the private sector, where competition forces innovation and efficiency — and creates positive employment through voluntary associations, rather than bureaucracies funded through tax receipts.
Besides, any government monopoly that 44% of the Senate and 36% of the House avoid is one that should be either ended or forced to compete on a more even basis with private-sector suppliers.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
If the private company agrees to accept vouchers, they should agree to accept any limitations to their operations which come with the vouchers.
Those would include, undoubtedly, provisions to not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, or national origin.
And, I suspect, those would also include provisions requiring certification of correct operations (or, as GWB would put it, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND).
Here in LA we have a charter school run by La Raza which has 1.6% white enrollment and which consistently places at the bottom of the barrel in student testing. I think such a school shouldn’t be funded for a variety of reasons, but the two mentioned include discrimination and failure to educate.
unclesmrgol on February 10, 2010 at 12:10 PM
Ah yes, the beauty of declaring one’s own personal definition of words. That way you can always be right. Even when you aren’t.
Nor have you demonstrated that any company ever successfully shut down innovation in it’s competitors.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 12:12 PM
This of course is where your intellectual enterprise fails.
It doesn’t matter if a big business is filled with bad people, because if I don’t like what a business is doing, I am free to patronize another business. The only time I can’t is when govt prevents other businesses from existing.
Even then, there always alternate products that I can switch to.
The fact that you trust govt, which has the power to kill those who don’t go along, over businesses who’s only power comes from making better products, says a lot about you and what you value.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 12:15 PM
I like charter schools given our present school education funding parameters. In a 100% voucher system, I call it scholarships, this school would not directly receive funds from the state. Funds would only be received if parents choose this school. As long as the performance of the students on standardized exams are presented to the public, it really is up to the parents to the make a decision to send their kids to this school. I would not be against all voucher receiving schools to be forced to present a report card on its performance to all parents that are considering the school.
WashJeff on February 10, 2010 at 12:18 PM
Which is why govt shouldn’t be involved in the schooling of children. Whenever govt money is involved, govt control is close behind. Once you get govt control, then you have all the problems that plague govt schools all over again.
As I stated earlier, if govt weren’t sucking up so much of the GDP, people would have a lot more money to spend on their children, and they would have a lot more money to donate to the charities of their choice. Including educational charities.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Side note: Without the govt control, education would be a lot cheaper as well.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Actually, your argument has merit, but it’s also disingenuous. Public school districts originally started as private affairs, with parents banding together and agreeing to tax themselves for the purpose of educating their children. It has grown from a private nonprofit institution into a governmental one, with all of the problems that entails. Now schools have the right of eminent domain, the right to a monopoly in their attendance area, the right to tax all property owners in said attendance area…
With all that power and money, it is hard to find a private company which could compete to build a school and attract the populace, when said populace is already paying a fee to the public school system, and attendance at the private school means paying yet again…
Hence private schools tend to exist to serve the rich, who can afford the double school tax associated with having their kids attend a non-public school. That, of necessity, limits their size to a small fraction of the educable population.
Given that the public schools are not generally doing a good job (no monopoly ever does as good a job as a company in competition), the obvious solution is to force them to do a good job by introducing competititon. Let them keep their plant and unions, but let the students take the property taxes allocated to them and put that money into the school of their choice. This will indeed force the public schools into competition, and make them leaner, meaner, and better. There’s a reason private schools are better than public ones, and little of it has to do with money, and quite a bit with a no nonsense educational environment.
As for education as a right — I say the person who claimed it to be a privilege is absolutely correct. Just as the state builds and maintains roads upon which we are privileged to drive, it should build schools which we are privileged to attend.
unclesmrgol on February 10, 2010 at 12:35 PM
I disagree. The reason schools are funded by a property tax as opposed to a per student tax is because there are plenty of people who would otherwise lack the means to send their children to school. Lacking the means to send them, they just wouldn’t send them, and we would shortly have a class of kids who, because of the economic conditions of their parents, lack the education necessary to succeed in our society. To prevent that, and the resultant social evils thereof, we distribute the cost over as much of society as we can.
The reason the public school system is in such disarray is that it has had no competition for too long — it has grown fat and inefficient due to lack of exercise. I and most others consider the public interest to be to provide a freely available quality education to all the children in our area, regardless of means. How we do that is the argument people of my ilk are having — not whether we do that. The whether was answered more than a century ago, and as to the how — we should examine first principles — or, rather, first principals.
unclesmrgol on February 10, 2010 at 12:47 PM
And this is, where I feel, we do not agree (again ignoring the personal attack). From a consumer’s perspective, it is only *theoretically* possible that you can always go to another business for getting what you want.
I will give you an example : there have been numerous emails which were made public as a part of anti-trust investigations against Intel, where Intel specifically paid the OEM’s money to not use AMD chips on their PC’s. So, while the end user could theoretically request AMD chips and build his/her own PC, most folks would rely on Dell / HP / Acer to do that, and would therefore miss out on AMD’s innovative chips.
peter_griffin on February 10, 2010 at 12:52 PM
Don’t you like the fact that when you buy candy at the local store, you don’t have to worry about its lead content? At the end of the 19th century, you would have, except that government got involved and quashed the practice. Nowadays, you have to again, because a lot of candy comes from China, with all of the quality problems that entails and from which our own Government must again protect us.
Ditto for education. The government must set the standards that schools should meet to stay in business, and must act to protect us from individuals who would take advantage of us. Letting the market choose gives us that school I mentioned earlier — run by La Raza — which turns out kids unfit for function within our society. Knowing how the Aztecs did math does not prepare one for a college statistics course so much as for further angry La Raza activism. The government needs to assure that every child is afforded a quality education.
unclesmrgol on February 10, 2010 at 12:53 PM
It’s always possible. It’s not just theoretical.
Despite this allegedly pro-monopolistic behavior. Nobody had any trouble buying AMD based computers, if they wanted them.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 1:13 PM
I agree, there are certain standards which businesses and schools need to adhere to, which should be monitored by the government. This is where we differ with Mark : Mark’s point is that, all organizations, when left to themselves, will do the right thing for its consumers, else they will die out and yield to competition. In a very large number of practical cases, consumers do *not* have that privilege.
Mark : are you also against laws to prevent price fixing in an industry? How would you respond to the recent rulings against the LCD industry that they fixed prices for the HDTV displays? How could the consumer have, even remotely, had a recourse in such a situation (in a completely free capitalistic scenario)? Or do you not care about the rights of a consumer at all?
peter_griffin on February 10, 2010 at 1:13 PM
Not this bullshiite again.
Please tell me.
What part of the govt does UL fall under?
What part of govt enforces ASCII standards.
Private organizations create and enforce standards all of the time. And do a better job of it than govt ever could, for a very good reason. If a private company allows those it is inspecting to produce defective products, the consumers lose confidence in the company, and they go out of business.
When a govt regulator screws up, they get rewarded with a bigger budget and more employees.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 1:17 PM
The correct answer is that just because uses a flawed law and declares that price fixing occurred, is not evidence that price fixing occurred.
Most of the time price fixing is little more than charging a price I don’t want to pay. It is a political decision, it is not an economic one.
I must point out that price fixing is another of those strategies that people who love govt like to complain about, but in reality, never works. There’s too much incentive for those involved in the scheme to cheat. “Price fixing” schemes always fail.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 1:20 PM
To which I can only say, you are not aware of the facts. Here is just one of the myriad articles written on NY’s anti-trust investigations against Intel (wrt Dell), where Intel took extraordinary (and, quite possibly, illegal) steps to ensure no one buying Dell laptops had recourse to AMD chips: http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2009/11/a-close-look-at-the-new-antitrust-allegations-against-intel.ars
Dell finally agreed to use AMD chips in 2005, as AMD readied its anti-trust litigation against Intel. Ask any industry insider, and he/she will tell you how the OEM’s used to avoid AMD like the plague – inspite of its innovations – just so that they could stay on the good side of Intel.
And – if you think such allegations only occur in the microprocessor industry – think again …
peter_griffin on February 10, 2010 at 1:20 PM
What do you disagree with? That the raising of animals large-scale (en masse) is or isn’t a problem?
Tyson foods, JBS, etc. all buy their animals mostly from gigantic producers, from feed lots of yearlings, to huge poultry houses for eggs & meat.
The animal is not treated as well, therefore it is not as happy, ergo it does not produce as much product as do ‘happier’ animals.
It is true that in many cases the amount of product made reduced is not much when considering the whole, but your quality is down.
I know bcs I raise animals for both feed lots & to eat directly.
But huge facilities has an overall avg increase in product.
This is being done with sunflowers-they now plant them closer together, resulting in small more anemic-looking plants with smaller seeds, but the seeds produced is actually more bcs of the increased #s.
Eating a tiny sunflower seed is worse than eating a bigger one-& so quality of the overall US crop can go down unless you are purposely planting for larger flowers for a confectionary product-then you want big seeds.
So if you want cheap meat, you’re going to get it from processors who feed, & sometimes raise these animals in ‘unhappy’ conditions.
You admit that govt is not capable of acting as our referee, but you want to give it more rules to ignore?
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 8:49 AM
Translation. You see people doing stuff you don’t like. You aren’t able to convince enough people that the stuff going on is wrong.
So your solution is to have govt pass a law outlawing the behaviors that you don’t like.
I don’t see how you get off calling yourself a conservative.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 8:48 AM
Badger40 on February 10, 2010 at 1:21 PM
I totally agree with your sentiment. The nits are how to do it without having the Government mandate the teaching that, for example, the equality of homosexual relations to heterosexual ones is a right enshrined in our Constitution…
unclesmrgol on February 10, 2010 at 1:27 PM
And yet *all* cell phone carriers have been charging consumers hundreds of times the cost for sending text messages, ever since text messages were first conceived – how can that be?
Here is a realistic scenario where price fixing can propagate : an innovation (usually in the technological arena) is put forward ==> all new technologies charge a premium for customers ==> with time the technology is supposed to get cheaper ==> a battle of “who bats first” goes on where the companies try to see who reduces prices first and also if the consumers are becoming aware of such a problem ==> if consumer agencies remain relatively oblivious to the problem, the rip-off continues.
Companies will only jump ship from a price fixing structure when they feel they can attract significantly *higher* customers to offset the significantly *lower* gross margins, and that is usually non-trivial for a startup.
peter_griffin on February 10, 2010 at 1:27 PM
And only one more thing on consolidation of resources & companies:
You all need to realize that if there is some kind of disaster, whatever it is-earthquake, snow-storms, hurricanes etc. that communities, big cities, states do not have a supply of the things they need in order to LIVE like they used to.
Instead of months supply of necessities, there are DAYS supply.
Any disaster lasting long enough will cause energy & food & product shortages.
So America needs to take a hard look at what the consolidation of products & services does for us.
It limits our ability to take care of ourselves.
Grain elevators, for instance, are closing down all over the place, making it increasingly difficult for farmers to get their product shipped, costing more $$.
What if the trains are shut down due to some event?
What if the highways are?
How do you think all those products are going to get to your local store when the delay lasts longer than a week?
A couple of weeks?
A month?
A year?
Think it won’t happen?
This is why our local economies are so important.
Going globally has taken the $$ out of our local communities.
It’s making a few rich by reducing the # of people who have a share.
There is a price to be paid for consolidation.
We are paying it now.
Badger40 on February 10, 2010 at 1:29 PM
Let me answer one question with another.
What private company enforces the National Building Code?
Now, to answer both of your questions, the following governmental bodies do: city governments, state governments, and the Federal Government, including most prominently the Department of Defense.
By “fall under” I assume you mean the governmental bodies involved in the the funding, creation, promulgation, and enforcement of standards created by said standards organizations.
unclesmrgol on February 10, 2010 at 1:35 PM
Peter-don’t you know that business does not do that?
They always offer the best service at the lowest prices they can.
Larger companies do not get together & agree with each other to ‘fix’ a price for anything.
Only as companies merge & get larger will they get more efficient, & therefore give the hallowed consumer what they want at the lowest price.
After all, when you are the only game in town, you would neverwant to offend your customer by producing an inferior product or by charging them more than you should.
Badger40 on February 10, 2010 at 1:40 PM
Are you actually trying to claim that Dell is the only company in the US that makes computers? If so, how does this counter my point that peope who wanted non Intel computers could get them?
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 1:49 PM
What you haven’t done is demonstrate that this happens. Ever.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 1:51 PM
Don’t look now, but the price for texting is falling, and rapidly. And it had nothing to do with any action of govt.
Do companies charge what the consumer is willing to pay?
Yes.
Is this evidence that govt needs to step in and set the price?
No.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 1:53 PM
So you are claiming that only the govt could create and enforce the national building code?
On what grounds? I’ve already demonstrated that when the govt doesn’t coopt the standards, the private sector is more than capable of setting and enforcing standards.
70 years ago, would you would have argued that only the govt was capable of delivering mail and packages, based on the fact that only the govt did.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 1:55 PM
BTW, your claim was that only govt can be trusted to set and enforce standards.
By showing a few of the numerous examples of private sector agencies setting and enforcing standards. I showed that your claim was false.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 1:56 PM
When your thesis is based and a flawed premise, your conclusion isn’t worth the electrons it was stored on.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 1:57 PM
Re Texting:
I might also point out that luxury goods are usually sold at way above cost.
This isn’t evidence of anything nefarious, just that companies will always charge based on what their customers are willing to pay. Just because it’s more than you want to pay doesn’t make it evil. Nor does it justify setting govt on those companies to force them to live up to your standards.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 2:22 PM
Mark : Dell was only an example (selected because it is one of the largest OEM’s for PC’s and is a very trusted brand with customers, and because Intel’s unacceptable behavior is so well documented with it). It is a fact that, till early years of 2000, the *only* way AMD could get their chips out was through channels : which means that no brands (HP / Dell / Acer) were willing to carry their chips – even though they agreed to use the *very same* chips once the anti-trust issues raised their heads.
Now, say you are a consumer who wants to buy a laptop for cheap which meets certain criteria – what are the chances that you would go to the length of assembling your own? If no brand carries AMD, what are the chances you will land up with an AMD based PC?
peter_griffin on February 10, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Mark : I mentioned that scenario in the mini flowchart in my 1:27PM comment. “What a consumer is willing to pay” is a willfully ignorant statement : most consumers did not know they were getting ripped for their LCD screens when they were buying their HDTV’s : even since the price fixing was ruled upon by the courts, these prices have come down significantly.
Just because I want to buy something that is expensive, does *not* mean my willingness to surrender to being fleeced by the company selling me the good : it only means I am willing to pay a reasonable premium for getting a new technology or a new product. I think we can all agree on that.
Also, since when did “texting” become a “luxury product” ? I doubt how much support you will find with a statement like that :)
peter_griffin on February 10, 2010 at 2:32 PM
Of course you are the one most qualified to judge me since you can decide that I am wrong & that is that.
Bcs you have never opened your eyes.
What I told you about the packers directly influencing who the govt monitors for contamination in the meat packing business is one glaring example that they collude to put smaller retailers out of business while removing responsiblity from themselves. I know this bcs I know the butchers that have been affected in this area.
The big packer IS the only game in town. They are not allowed to have a captive supply of cattle (which allows them to drive down the price paid to feeders)-& yet they accomplish it by forward contracting.
And the govt will not investigate fully bcs they get lots of $$ in campaign donations for various politicians who then make sure no one goes after them for their practices.
So I guess you can close your eyes to all this & call me a liar & simply state that you are proving I am wrong with your absolute statements of power.
So I claimed ONLY the GOVT can be trusted to set & enforce ALL standards on EVERYTHING?
I did not, but if you say it, then it must be true, hm?
The govt needs to enforce its limited responsibilities as written-no new laws or rules- & get rid of more onoerous laws & policy.
Industry should be encouraged to police themselves at some level, but individuals, along with non-govt advocacy groups, have the responsibility to change things when a company cannot police itself effectively.
You seem to have a really utopian view of a businesse’s ethics-like they can do no wrong & only the govt is at fault when something goes wrong.
The only time the govt is at fault is when it doesn’t take on its own responsibilities.
Companies that take advantage of the govt’s laxity are the other part of this problem.
I guess it’s ok to do these things as long as you can get away with it or find some obscure loop hole.
Price fixing & collusion DO happen in the corporate world.
Badger40 on February 10, 2010 at 2:37 PM
You did not mention anything about LCD prices – on which the courts did take action, and the prices fell significantly following such an action.
Also, on texting, we did have congressional hearings with the telecommunication companies regarding the rates they charge their consumers – what evidence do you have to support that these hearings had nothing to do with the price drops?
You seem to miss the fact the government is “us” : *we* elect our representatives. So, when, say, a price fixing commission holds a hearing, it means there is a spotlight on such a practice. Often that publicity is a good enough nudge for companies to reduce rates. In this case, all the government does is provide a structured forum for addressing such issues.
peter_griffin on February 10, 2010 at 2:39 PM
I am curious, are all the laws enacted to protect the environment so far products of the ‘industry’ or govt?
And are the ones enacted by the govt all bad?
And are the ones enacted by the industry all good?
There has never been any case where an industry wasn’t policing itself well enough & had to have the govt step in & make a few rules?
Badger40 on February 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM
In Mark’s world, there would have been no Glass-Steagall act – even after the near collapse of our economy in 2008. I am not saying that was the *only* factor of the collapse, but its presence would have definitely prevented such a “too-big-to-collapse” moral quagmire.
peter_griffin on February 10, 2010 at 2:50 PM
I would hope the government would refrain from curriculum regulations if ever a state tried a more free market educational system. If a school wants to teach kids about homosexual relations or other controversial items, as long as the school is up front with the parents as they are making their decision to send the kid the school…no biggee.
WashJeff on February 10, 2010 at 2:56 PM
In my world, the govt subsidies that created these big companies never would have happened. So it wouldn’t have mattered if the companies failed.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 3:29 PM
You mentioned Dell, because it was the only example you could come up with.
Your paranoia has convinced you that this problem must be endemic, after all, corporations, in your world, are an unalloyed evil, that only the beneficent govt can control.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 3:31 PM
Badger40 on February 10, 2010 at 2:37 PM
I’ve read every one of your posts. They consist of complaints that it’s hard to compete with big companies.
You complain that big companies do things that you disagree with.
Then you start whining that the govt must step in to force the world to live up to your standards.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 3:33 PM
What I have been trying to say all along in my own words, & it falls on deaf ears.
Govt as we the people are what keep companies honest when they can’t do it themselves, which DOES happeen as many of us know.
Badger40 on February 10, 2010 at 3:33 PM
It’s hard to compete with big companies that break or twist the rules to their own advantage that leaves them sitting pretty & the others at a competitive disadvantage.
I give up Mark-you think you are right & that I have nothing, I believe my concerns are warranted & that the govt as WE THE PEOPLE have a right to keep business honest when they won’t do it themselves.
Production is being driven overseas for everything & it is in part to some of theis manipulation.
But go ahead & be right.
Badger40 on February 10, 2010 at 3:35 PM
Laws, by definition, are the product of govt.
Pollution, by definition is an externality, so it is one of the areas where govt has a legitimate reason for stepping in. Nobody has a right to pollute your land without your permission. That’s not to say that the private sector couldn’t handle the issue of pollution better.
You are aware that one of the reason’s companies polluted so much in the last century was because the govt eliminated riparian rights, in the name of efficiency. And at the behest of the big companies. In my world (as you so quaintly call it, govt would never have had the power to eliminate riparian rights.)
For the most part no.
For the most part, the rules govt did impose benefited the few powerful companies, at the expense of everyone else.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 3:36 PM
He’s not paranoid at all.
And sometimes companies ARE bad.
Badger40 on February 10, 2010 at 3:36 PM
So you are admitting that all that is needed is to spotlight the bad behavior. You don’t need govt to do that.
Ever hear of this invention, at one time they called it the press.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 3:37 PM
It’s paranoia to believe that certain companies are taking over the world.
It’s a long stretch from saying that since there are bad people, we need govt to control everything. (And of course you are assuming that bad people will never work for the govt.)
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 3:38 PM
As always, you complain that govt lets some companies get away with breaking the rules. What the heck did you expect would happen when you gave govt the power to select who wins and who loses.
You operate under the impression that if only we had enough laws, and if only the govt were run by uncorruptable people, that somehow the world could be perfected.
That’s why you give up. It has nothing to do with my obstinancy, but it has everything to do with your unwillingness to see the world as it really exists.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 3:40 PM
I never talked about your world-but it is clear you believe in naked capitalism, no restraints.
The govt is my only discourse, beside the press you tell me I can use when I am being taken advantage of illegally.
If I go to a company & complain they are bullying my business, they will shut me up or make it a case of he said/she said.
You have a way of viewing the world different than I do.
You are saying I am paranoid that big companies are taking over the world-I do not believe that, but I do believe they are conglomerating & as a result, are more powerful & exert more political influence.
When I vote in a govt official, I expect them to enforce & follow the rules set down-now you may say that is a fantasy I have bcs that may not be the reality, but that is the reason we have a republic, with the people ‘running’ the govt.
I am giving up on talking to YOU. I am not giving up on what I perceive to be what is going on in our country.
There will always be corruption, in govt & in business.
I understand that it is not perfect. And you are making it sound like a company is not going to subvert the law bcs the market works like a perfect machine almost & it doesn’t.
You are unwilling to see the world as it really exists bcs you keep telling me that industries will naturally poice themselves with no help or prodding from the govt & that the prodding must be done only by the people.
But the instrument of the people is the govt in some cases.
Many govt rules do benefit one type & not another-they are unnecessary.
The market & some business practices need to be transparent, & in some places they are not.
I do not operate under the impression we need more laws or rules.
I have nothing more to say.
I disagree with your view on businesses. My impression of you is no govt intervention; let the market go any direction; pure, unadultered capitalism.
My view is that such aggressive capitalism will ruin our ability to take care of ourselfs & erode our soverignty & some rules are OK.
You tell me my arguments have no merit & that I am paranoid & wrong.
I am disagreeing with you on some points.
See you on another thread.
Badger40 on February 10, 2010 at 4:47 PM
Peter- you’ve got some good ideas, IMHParanoidImpressionableandWrongOpinion! ;)
Badger40 on February 10, 2010 at 4:50 PM
No govt restraints is not the same as no restraints.
I never thought I would live to meet someone who calls him/herself a conservative, yet also believes that the only answer to any problem is more govt.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 5:01 PM
In whatever world you occupy, companies don’t care about bad publicity? In whatever world you occupy, it’s impossible for you to gain evidence to back up your claims? or is it just simpler to believe in a magical govt that will make everything right.
And you believe that the way to solve this problem is to give govt even more control over our lives. Despite the fact that you already acknowledge that previous attempts have failed. What was Einstein’s definition of insanity again?
You are right. This is a fantasy. Can you name a single politician who has done what he promised? Beyond that, it’s not the politicians that matter the most. It’s the beurocrats. And you don’t elect them and have no influence over them.
You believe that the people run the govt. Yet you spend all of your time complaining that the govt ignores the people. Fascinating example of mental dissonence.
You don’t listen very well, do you. I have said over and over again, that because I expect companies to do everything in their power to subvert the law and regulatory agencies. That is why I don’t want to give the govt the power to decide winners and losers, because I EXPECT big companies to take over such systems. Just as they have done since time immemorial. You are the one claiming that if only we had enough laws, that eventually this problem can be solved.
Why do you find it necessary to lie about what I have said. I have said over and over again that it is the prodding from individuals that is the only thing that ever works. As long as you don’t let govt protect the companies from such prodding. As you want to do.
Spoken like a true marxist.
And yet you continue to insist that the only solution to any problem is more laws.
Then refuse to patronize any company that fails to live up to your expectations. Convince others to join you. If you can’t find anyone willing to help, it’s probably evidence that most people don’t agree with you.
Then why are you always calling for more?
This is at least the fourth time you have said that.
And my impression of you is that you want govt to run everything.
Since that has always been the route to societal improvement, yes.
Despite many attempts to get you to actually give some examples to support this vague and meaningless statement, you still haven’t.
MarkTheGreat on February 10, 2010 at 5:12 PM
Again, personal insults are all you can provide, instead of logical rebuttals. I did not have to “find” this information, because I have worked in the semiconductor space for over 10 years. In case you are oblivious of the truth, go and ask any industry insider and they will be happy to corroborate the facts. Just because the facts don’t agree with your rainbow colored vision of the world, does not mean they are untrue.
You really do not believe the government is “WE THE PEOPLE”, do you? You go to great lengths to defend corporations (claiming facts which are sometimes trivial to refute, like price fixing), and yet you do not believe in our own constitution.
Also, you claim that the consumers of a company’s products can use the press to their advantage in lieu of congressional meetings. Again that is willful ignorance, because for that, 3 things need to happen:
(a) the press needs to be aware of all the innovations happening in an industry, which is not always a trivial task
(b) the press is itself an industry, and can therefore have its own interests that are conflicting – for example how many times have we seem anti – Time Warner articles on CNN?
(c) even when press uncovers the issues, it lacks any ability to enforce. Just bad publicity is somewhat easy (though web 2.0 is making it harder) for the companies to overcome by starting media campaigns of their own. Ever seen how Exxon responded to the oil spills in Alaska?
What you fail to understand is that : big government and huge multinational corporations are two sides of the *same* coin – if you can’t trust one, you really do not have any logical reason to trust the other.
peter_griffin on February 10, 2010 at 6:45 PM
I’m in the middle of building what I call the Taj Garage. The local city government has determined that all buildings over 500 square feet in size, residential or commercial, shall have a fire suppression system installed. I’m having to pay to have same installed. Said system is standard under the Uniform Fire Code. The organization making the Uniform Fire Code has no enforcement authority — but my city, which has adopted same, sure does. Construction was stopped on my garage for over three weeks because the contractor hadn’t read the annotations on the plans properly, so he had to hire a fire suppression contractor to put in the system, and had to upgrade the line and meter from the water main from 0.625″ to 1.25″ to handle the increased pressure needed to run the fire suppression system.
At no point did the National Fire Protection Association — the publishers of the Uniform Fire Code — show up at my doorstep to assure correct installation and functioning of my fire suppression system, but the city inspectors sure did…
Mark, you need to understand the difference between the creation of a standard and the enforcement of same. Enforcement only happens when the enforcer has the authority and power to enforce. The National Fire Protection Association has no right to tell me what I should do in building my garage, but the City of Culver City sure does!
Some private organization of private schools will not do diddly-squat for assuring high educational standards. Only an organization with executive enforcement powers can do so — and, for better or for worse, that’s the government.
unclesmrgol on February 10, 2010 at 11:30 PM
peter_griffin on February 10, 2010 at 6:45 PM
Translation: Intel gets the customers, we didn’t, therefore Intel cheated.
MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 7:45 AM
unclesmrgol on February 10, 2010 at 11:30 PM
You are making the same mistake as in my post office quip.
You are assuming that just because at present, the govt provides inspection services, that only the govt could provide inspection services.
In the current environment, why would anyone pay a private company to inspect a building, when the govt will only accept the report of a govt inspector?
Get the govt out of the way, and private inspectors will crop up.
Would you buy a building that hadn’t been inspected, by anyone?
UL enforces it’s standards without govt help.
ASCII enforces it’s standards without govt help.
MarkTheGreat on February 11, 2010 at 7:48 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4