From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:02:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

O.K. one last reply to Jason W. Solinsky.  Then maybe I shall retire
from this subject b/c I really should concentrate on other studious
things but this is scuch a lovely want to procrastinate.

First, if you have a cartel or a monopoly you can not buy your goods
elsewhere so you have no choice.  It is Hobson's choice.  That is
lack of free choice.

Why do you thank anti-trust laws came into effect?  B/c of those very
problems.

Second, I nearly fainted from the blanket statement of get rid of
bankruptcy laws.  Perhaps simplify them but it is analogous to your
line of thinking which goes,  get rid of all regulations without a
consideration of their purpose and reasons and the consequences.

If we had no bankruptcy codes, there would be no orderly way to
distribute money amony the creditors.  Obviuosly, if the company
is bankrupt they do not have enough money to pay off their creditors.

If creditors cant have some guarntee that they will get money if they
lend money to a compnay and it goes bankrupt then they might not
risk lending that much money -- thus not greasint the wheels of
commerce.

Of course, in this credit boom safer lending practices are desired but
an elimination of lending is not.  If a company has no rules to rely
on in the dividing up of debt then they can not plan for the future.

If they lend money to company X and get a secured interest in it but company
X goes bankrupt w/o bankrptcy rules that say secured interest go
before unsecured interest and the first perfected secured interest
goes before other perfected interest than the company has no set rule
to base their actions on.  SO if it is too risky to determine, there will
be no lending.  No lending, no business, no cartels at elast but no
industry, no jobs, in short anarchy.  (An extreme statement just about
bankruptcy -- it really reflects what would happen in a totally
free society where anyone could do what they wanted, so rich
exploit poor, no one has rights b/c we have abolished them, so we now
have total freedom -- HAHAHA, dont think so, excuse my digression.)

Next (and final point), little certifying industries certifying restaurants
and cars and other goods are a waste of time, effort, and money. We
would have even more regulation -- instead of one regulatory body there
were be all these competing ones (kind of like boxing) that no one
would know where reliable, could be susceptible to bribes, could
be financed by the industries themselves, and probably wouldnt
waste theri time with smaller goods that dont have as much
profit margin but could still be dangerous.

And who is more free running around comparing all the different little industrie
that are suposedly telling me if my restaurant is safe before I go eat there?
or buy my car?  All the little industries would probably get together
and form unsafe monopolies of certifying things and they would set 
the standards, and as private industries they probably would set them
rather low and no one would know b/c consumers dont have
the technological know how to know what is the right standards for
food, cars etc.

Suddenly people would be eating loads of dangeround food, crashing their
cars at high rates and the citizens would say hey, we are being
exploieted and this in not right and guess what?  The govt would
probably step in and try to make the neutral safety regulations.

I know JWS is fond of implied warrants.  Well, the implied warrant
habitability (applied to new houses sold by the builders) was 
applied by courts b/c in this day and age it was decided it was
unreasonable for the buyer to be able to discover all the
hidden defects and impossible to b/c of the more complex
nature of building than back in Jeffersonian times.

And, why should every potential buyer have to spend lots and lots of
money dtermining the safety of a house when it it much more
economical for the builder to just guarntee it?  No buyer has
the money and time to investigate all the little things that could
be wrong with a house.  Obviuosly, buyers usually do large
inspections right before actually buying the house but it is
silly to make buyers have to do  all inpsections for all potentila
goods.  A waste of time and money and an impingement on my freedom
to choose.  If I spend all my money investigating I might not be
able to afford to buy what ever good I am trying to.

One last point, Jason's argument seems premised on the fact that
gov't have evil intentions and that in a free competitive market
(the model of which does not exist) no problems of cartels and lack
of information etc. will happen.  IF govet is evil why is big
business so trustworthy?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections