From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:23:21 GMT

I hadn't been going to post anymore replies to the net, but I'm now up to three
that seem to require a public response. I'll save the others for latter ...

In article <1992Apr14.194443.14491@dg-rtp.dg.com>, cole@farmhand.rtp.dg.com (Bill Cole) writes:
 
|> |> 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.
|> 
|> You're flailing here.  The plant in Hamlet was essentially unregulated -- they had no
|> business license and had not been inspected in the eleven years in which they were in
|> business.  The doors were closed and locked after many of the people had gone to work
|> in the company.

I didn't say anything about the plant. I was talking about the town and the
government initiated forces that cause them to stay there. See the other posts
and read mine more carefully before accusing me of flailing.
(For the person who accused me of flailing over the phone companies, I'm still
marking your post unread. Over the weekend I'll see what I can find in the
library)

|> |> 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.
|> 
|> What's the point? 

The point is that this is an example of how economic forces cause companies to
make better products.

|> |> |> |> 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.
|> 
|> Up until the 1930's caveat emptor was the rule throughout the land.  If I
|> bought rancid meat or a bottle of 98 aspirins (labeled to contain 100) or a
|> wagon that lost its wheels after I left the lot, it was my problem.  The
|> literature of the times are littered with examples.

The litterature of the times also shows that a lot of these "flim flam" men were
arrested nad prosecuted. The problem was that they were hard to catch, not that
the courts didn't support implied warranties.

|> In the meantime, the workers are not working, have lost their pensions
|> and may be homeless. It wasn't their fault.  The CEO jumps out with a
|> golden parachute and lands in another company to work his or her magic
|> there as well.  Boards may not like losing (or loosing either) money but
|> they find it convenient to find other scapegoats.

What is wrong with this? Do you think that we should guarantee all workers jobs?
Companies make misteaks and people lose jobs. There is nothing at all wrong with
this. If you want to be guaranteed a job, move to a communist country, or form a
Communist cooperative within our own.

|> |> |> 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.
|> 
|> There's no quality check, Jason.  How in the world do they know that?  If the
|> credit bureaus are accurate within statistical error for the 'big picture',
|> that's okay but it sure isn't if you're the one slandered.

There sure is. Companies know the fraction of credit they extend that is
defaulted on. Companies will choose the credit checking company whose reports
best allow them to predict the probability that somebody will default. As far as
slander goes, there is nothing wrong with reporting that "Mrs. Higgins down the
street said the he gets drunk on weekends". Its a fact, and one which companies
wouldn't pay much attention to if it didn't matter, and have a right to know
about if it does.
 
|> |> |> 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
|> 
|> I don't remember it, but I'll accept your word.  Let's see, all the
|> new steel companies, the new auto companies, the computer manufacturers,
|> the new semiconductor makers........

In the past year more than 100 new computer manufacturers have started
opperation. I personally know founders or co-founders of 10. While the D-RAM
entry costs are at $100 million and rising, most semiconductor manufacturing
companies can get started and a very small amount of capital AND DO. I know
personally founders or co-founders of two such companies in the past year, and I
suspect there are just as many new semiconductor manufacturing companies as there
are computer manufacturing companies (I am more likely to know the computer ones.
BTW, entry cost in computer manufacturing is only $10,000. There are enough
technology gaps, to allow enough profit from "almost by hand" assembly to push a
business into the next level and so on. As far as semiconductors as a whole are
concerned, anybody can generate a set of masks and send them out to a
manufacturer. If you're willing to pay for it, you can get processes no more than
six months behind current state of the art processes. Startup costs for this one
is $0. All you need is the education and skill to get somebody to buy you're
design. The reason why there are so many new companies in these areas is because
the pace of the technology causes quality products to become second rate very
quickly. In steel manufacturing there is no lack of quality. The products are
perfectly acceptable. In auto manufacturing there is more than enough competition
to make improvements. We've been through at least three examples of this.

|> That's a long way from 'completely' controlled.

Everything the airlines do is governed by hundreds of regulations. They can't
make any money without them.

|> |> |> |> 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.
|> 
|> To use libertarian phrases, people don't have to live here.  We can't
|> change governmental systems if we don't like what we've got.  Less
|> regulation may be more freedom in an ideal world, but we don't have that.
|> We have greed, lawyers, lust, lawyers, bureaucrats, lawyers, hate-mongers,
|> laywers and all manner of evil that men and women do.  Now, if we could get
|> rid of the lawyers and the pettifogging officials (elected and non-)..........

You'll notice from my other posts, that I am strongly in favor of deregulating
the legal process. Something that would instantly reduce the number of lawyers by
a couple of orders of magnitude.

Jason W. Solinsky
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections