From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 05:47:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.040027.30891@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr8.063113.27772@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:

|> People have been concentrating in cities since the Industrial Revolution
|> began, the days of laissez-faire.  Government intervention has in fact
|> caused people to move out of cities (the Highway Act allowed suburbs
|> to be possible.  I suppose tax breaks for mortgages, etc., though I'm
|> not as clear on the dates for this)  Arguably, technology will allow
|> us to become even more dispersed, with faxes, modems, etc.

Just look at the fraction of all people living in urban areas. It's climed
tremendously. As is illustrated below, we are distributed horribly. Regulation
allows people to move together. Without it they can't get too close, but
regulation costs money. Just look at NYC. It isn't even close to being able to
support itself. If you look at the net flow of funds, its the worlds biggest
sinkhole.
 
|> I'd like to see documentation about your claims for Texas.  I'll admit
|> that you can stuff that many people there (you can probably do it in
|> a much smaller region, say Long Island), but can you grow the food?

As I remember things, it came to 1400 square feet per person. This is more than
enought to support a single person. However I may not remember correctly. Taht
comes to a total land area of 251000 square miles, or a square 500 miles on each
side. That sounds just about right for Texas. Does anybody have theexact figures
so I can check myself?

|> I suppose you can move to better economic climes.  Folks from Mexico
|> do it all the time, after all.  However, what kind of jobs do they
|> work at?  Are they safe, rewarding jobs?  Would you do it?

Here we have a choice. Society can pay welfare, medicaid, ect. to people, or they
can work at jobs which aren't the most comfortable. If you were asked to give
nearly 25% of your income to things like welfare, medicaid, foodstamps and the
sort when those people could work to support themselves elsewhere would you do
it? Well breaking down the money my parents pay to NYS and the USA, that's where
their taxes go. More than 50% of federal taxes and an even higher fraction of the
NYS taxes. It is too much to ask that 25 cents out of ever dollar you EARN go to
people who do nothing.
 
|> Worse and worse.  I know that the original argument was with libel.
|> Let's expand it a little.  Say, with the big tobacco companies and

The tobacco companies never did anything wrong. They supplied Americans with
things they wanted, just like toy manufacturers.
 
|> the law suits they've successfully fought off.  They have the money
|> to throw a blizzard of facts at you.  Do you stand a chance?  Do you
|> have the money to do all the fact finding yourself?  Go further.  Take
|> a civil suit involving pillars of the community.  Who would the jury
|> tend to believe, even with witnesses.  The Little Guy doesn't have a prayer.
|> The average citizen isn't trained to take apart testimony and look for 
|> contradictions in it.

What I suggested, was that the judge be given the facts plaintiffs, and witnesses
and asked to decide. In this case, both sides would suppeona a doctor, both would
supply ample medical reports, both would submit a statement (one of complaints,
one of defense), all the cigarette advertisements for the past twenty years would
be suppeonaed (sp?) and the judge would review them all. After examining all of
the evidence, he could request more evidence or render a vertict. Quick and easy.
A month of preperation by one person for each side, a week of the judge's time,
and a verdict. Most importantly, the lawyers weren't able to smear the evidence
in their favor, and the vast procedural waste was avoided.

|> 
|> >
|> >|> 4) "If an oligopoly is charging a lot for junk, someone will enter the market"
|> >|> 
|> >|> Depends on the product.  I doubt Jason is capable of starting his own car
|> >|> company, for instance.  When the startup costs are in the billions, or the
|> >|> few conspire to prevent entry, how can it be done?
|> >
|> >For a well-managed start-up to produce a single line of cars, entry costs can be
|> >as low as $100-200 million.
|> 
|> You got this in pocket, eh?  Anti-trust is kinda important.  Look

It is small enough to allow new people to get in. We have a VERY large
number of people in this country with $100-million. It's not just 10 or 20
anymore.

|> at how the Rail Barrons crushed opposition.

The Rail Barrons are the VERY BEST EXAMPLE of a government created oligopoly.
They are proof the government should not regulate things

|> 
|> >|> Local phone companies regulated in exchange for a captive market.  Near 
|> >|> monopolies should be treated the same.
|> >
|> >Local phone companies are a government made monopoly.
|> 
|> Originally because it had to be.  It cost too much back then to invest
|> in the infrastructure (phone lines, etc.) for a single company to

Then it wasn't time to develope that infrastructure yet.

|> afford.  I'm not sure about the case now.  With all the infrastructure
|> put in by cable companies, and cellular phones, it's different today.
|> Competition is always good.  Look at the US phone system after
|> the breakup of AT&T, and compare it with any country's.

It's still government regulated.

|> This goes back to how effectively you can sue the company.
|> If they can summon lots of legal firepower, or simply bury you
|> under a blizzard of facts and speculation (as in your lawyer-less
|> model), can the Little Guy win?

See my earlier statements. Note that for this case, all the judge needs if 4-5
design and mechanical engineers, and all of the specs for the car and stats on
accidents. These are available today. You're looking at a three day case.

|> >Jason W. Solinsky