From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:37:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.190546.28004@dg-rtp.dg.com>, cole@farmhand.rtp.dg.com (Bill Cole) writes:

|> Take the fire in Hamlet, NC.  Nobody was
|> forced to work there.  But people did because it was the only job in town.  There
|> was no market pressure to change anything.  PEOPLE NEED JOBS.

The people saw how the building was laid out BEFORE taking the job. Besides, it
is unnatural for people to be forced to stay in a town where there is only one
method of subsistence and not be able to move. Chances are that regulations were
created to allow that sort of situation to develop. Laws which restrict
everybody's freedom, to allow them to crowd together more. Every town that I know
of has them.
 
|> |> 1) People don't buy cars that break down.
|> 
|> If you really believe this, you're too inexperienced to be out alone.  Jaguar made
|> atrocious cars for some years but people bought them and loved them (not enough
|> people, though).  All the American manufacturers made lousy cars for some time.
|> The Audi Fox was so bad you had to buy two (one for spare parts).

This decreases the value of those cars, and causes the manufacturers to go out of
business, of shape up. The figures on the breakdowns in the American automotive
industry over the last 10 years show that very vividly (I say them last night).
Today they are at the levels of the Japanese, but recently they were 2.5 TIMES
that of their Japaneese competitors. You'd better believe they got the message
from their cah flow and not from the government.
 
|> |> 2) It is part of the implied warranty when you buy a car that there are no
|> |> intrinsic design flaws that would cause cars to always break down.
|>
|> And for years manufacturers got away with building and selling flawed products because
|> the government and the courts didn't realize that there was any implied contract.

Show me evidence of this.
 
|> |> 3) The workers were fired because it was not economical to continue employing them
|> 
|> Okay, so finish the thought.  Why/How did the workers become uneconomical?  Was it
|> their fault or the fault of the management (who kept their jobs)?

The management. Apparently the CEO didn't earn his keep. I would expect that 5
years from now, all of the big three have different CEOs from this past year.
Boards don't like loosing money.
 
|> |> 4) If there were no business regulations, no money would have been spent on
|> |> pushing for and against legislation.
|> 
|> There would be no money spent to get rid of regulation; there would be lots of money
|> spent seeking regulation.

If no new legislation was made, people would give up trying to get it.
 
|> |> 5) The high salaries commanded by top executives are economically sound. A single
|> |> executive decision often alters the companies profits by more than the CEO gets
|> |> paid in an entire year. Given the relatively low costs (a couple of million is
|> |> nothing) versus the potential gain (Billions [at least in GM's case]) it is a
|> |> good decision for the board to make.
|> 
|> That's true enough.  But explain bonuses in years with massive losses.  Executive
|> compensation is not tied to performance or relative worth.  Nobody believes that
|> and you won't find enough people who would to overpopulate a phone booth.
 
The boards always react and the CEO usually feels it. Recent history has shown
that the turn around time is about 3 years.


|> Credit bureaus routinely take mis-information and pass
|> it along without attribution and without your knowledge.  Your neighbor can tell
|> them that you come home roaring drunk several nights a week and that gets put in
|> your credit history.  If it's not true, you have to prove it.

If the companies who recieve the information, are led to believe that it is
inaccurate, they will stop using that credit information company and use another.
With better information they will make more money.
 
|> If that were true, we'd all be better off.  The fact is that some industries can
|> produce shoddy products because the cost of entry is too high for the entrepreneur
|> to fill a niche.

That's something that has to be looked at on a case by case basis. I think we've
looked at quite a few already

|> |> despite "deregulation" is still completely controlled by the
|> |> government.
|> 
|> You're half right.  Please provide evidence of your argument.

There are thousands and thousands of laws governing the flight saftey, airport
operations, and even the buying of tickets (that last one of which is the worst
crime of all). I don't think there is any industry with more laws. Even ones
which are controlled by the government. We can't take a good look at airlines,
until they are operated independently of regulation.
 
|> |> Less regulation is BY DEFINITION MORE FREEDOM. The fact that people get killed by
|> |> freedom does not change this fundamental truth.
|> 
|> More twaddle.  Government regulation isn't the only regulation we deal with.  Our
|> employers regulate us, our schools, our spouses, our modes of transportation, our
|> locations.  In fact, we're as free as we choose to be.

That's right, but the government is deifferent in one key way WE CAN"T CHANGE
GOVERNMENTS IF WE DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY ARE DOING. We can't say, OK I'm fed up
with this government. It can take away the benefits of welfare, madicare, social
security, roads, ect. and I'll stop baying taxes. We don't have that option.

Jason W. Solinsky