From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 06:31:13 GMT

In article <ru1q2INNhs7@agate.berkeley.edu>, jorourke@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) writes:
|> Much has been said against regulation.  So I give reasons that it is needed.
|> 
|> 1) "If it is unsafe, work for someone else."
|> 
|> Fine, if you can.  Just remember that in recessions people tend to be
|> out of work, and certainly can't afford to just leave any job.  Since 
|> The Jungle has been mentioned, just remember what conditions were like.
|> Was there other work for Jurgis? 

If you can't find any work, then move. Regulation has caused people to
concentrate into things called cities, while the government pays people NOT to
use land in many parts of the country. Have the government stop paying people not
to grow stuff and use that money to resettle people from the cities that
regulation made in the first place. Did you know that in Texas, there is enough
room for all 5 Billion people in this world to live, in a healthy manner raising
enough food to support themselves? Throughout most of human history, people have
tried to spread themselves out. It is only since all this regulation was
introduced that people moved into the cities. If people can't find work in a
given place, that's economics telling them that they should move elsewhere.
  
|> 2) "Sue if someone slanders you."
|> 
|> Again, only works if you can REALLY afford to.  A cicil suit takes time,
|> attorney costs that aren't often returnable.  Plus, it is very hard to prove
|> any kind of malice in these slander suits.  As for credit reports, you often
|> do not know something is amiss until you are denied credit.  My mother was 
|> unable to be on the deed for the house because she was declared in default 
|> of her student loan (never mind that she was still in school).  If the 
|> gov't doesn't force it, very often these first two quotes are only valid
|> for the upper middle class and above.

Without all the legislation this would never be the case. A plaintiff and
defendant could show up for the court with all of the pertinant documents and
witnesses (no attorneys). A judge or panel of judges could read each person's
claims of what happened, and then get verification from the other people and
their witnesses and documents. The whole thing for most civil casses would take
far less than a day, and not more than a couple fo weeks for the most impossibly
complicated ones. The loser could pay costs which would be far less than they are
today. Most of the costs of the legal system involve formalities and paperwork.
Most of the rest involve paying lawyers.

|> 3) GM laying off workers, still paying high salaries to execs.  I think it
|> is more than fair to criticize this when you consider we had to save 
|> Crystler only a decade ago.  And if they want trade protection that costs
|> the consumer, they should shape up a bit.

Who says we need trade protection? Who says that we need to bail out companies?
 
|> 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.

|> 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.
 
|> 5) "Everyone should know the pinto is a death trap.  If they are so ignorant,
|> or so cheap, tough."
|> 
|> Should we allow admitted death mobiles on the road?  Just because those of 
|> us who are smart enough and/or well enough off to be in college, or a 
|> company with net access, doesn't mean that all of the country should be
|> so well informed.  Should a recent immigrant lose his life because he
|> didn't read Consumer Reports?

Do not forget that the companies are liable for violating the implied warranty
that the car will transport people from one place to another using roads without
endangering the lives of its occupants or thos of other cars. This liability
would force car makers to shape up, or go broke, which without the protection of
corporations would mean that they lose EVERYTHING. (note that in a trully free
economy, bankruptcy insurance would probabally become a common item, with people
inssuring themselves against a loss by their company.)

|> And should someone have to buy a tin can because he can afford nothing 
|> better?  It isn't always an expensive task to make something safe.
|> In the 19th century, many people went around selling magic elixers that 
|> would cure all diseases.  Was that a good thing, because OBVIOUSLY ALL
|> OF US know that it is just alcohol and favors?

Agencies would develope that would certify the effectiveness of products. If
people don't want to buy products that have gone through the trouble of being
certified, let the buyer be ware.

Jason W. Solinsky