From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re:  Regulations and politicians
Organization: none needed
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:40:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.211627.10781@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:

Note: I made some attempts to shorten Anthony's comments so as not to
      send a huge reply out - Anthony's comments were long and I replied
      to most of them -  I made every attempt to keep the theme of his 
      comments intact in my editing.

>I am so sick and tired of reading and listening to all this rot about how
>less regulation by the government will make us more free.  It is time to wake
>If you die from unsafe work conditions b/c there were no
>"oppressive regulations" you sure aint more free. you are dead. :-(

True....but why work there? I have left employers I was disatisfied with...

>How about all those car manufacturers now saying how safe they are b/c they
>have airbags???? 

I switched who I bought cars from because of reliability problems with
earlier cars. If everyone did that, the manufacturer of unreliable cars
would either have to fix his product or would go out of business.
Regulations not needed if we have informed consumers. After all
consumer spending is 2/3 of our economy. And if consumers choose not to
be informed, so be it.

>Perhaps if car manufacturers didnt waste so much  money on efforts like that
>and paying their executives too much money, they owuldnt have to blame the
>Japanese for their problems, fire American workers (instread of 
>the excecutives) and send jobs to low wage countries.

The car manufacturers got what they deserved - I would have also fired
some senior management at those car companies.

>Suppose you havent paid your bills and some debt collector comes after you.
I get what I deserve. After all, I have an obligation to pay my bills.

>Well there is gov't regulation to stop them from calling you up 10, 20 times 
>a day, at all hours of the day, or from calling you r relatives or your boss.
>So there is a reguation freeing your from unwanted interference.
Well- I shouldn't have gotten myself in that position in the first place.
And if I did, I wouldn't mind being harrassed at home if I owed a debt.
But, if they called my relatives or work, I would be inclined to sue them.

>It isnt cthe gov't that necessarily poses the most threat to our freedom.  Do
>you know that credit bureaus have reams and reams of info on most people and 
>give it to potential employers and landlords. They can pass on 
>unsubstantiated rumours about you and you probably wont find out.  There is 
>some regulation on the matter but it doesnt have that much bite to it.
Again, if someone spreads unsubstantiated rumors, I would sue them.

>LIbertarians are saying they are for freedom so no more regulation.  Do
>you really think unbridled economic competition is going to get us
>more freedom and better choices.  NO WAY, the companies will get together
>and form monopolies and give you bad products at high prices.
I support the concept of a lean government. Read on....

>And look where deregulation got us with the airline industry.  Less
>companies b/c they all merged or went bankrupt.
But prices are not much higher, after inflation. And service, I think,
is about the same.
data point: I flew from NY to Orlando in 1973 and paid $99 one way
            Today, that same flight is about $124.
            That is an average annual increase of 1.2% per year, while
             inflation is around 3-5% per year.
            Deregulation has CLEARLY helped this consumer.

>Less regulation=more freedom is a big fallacy propagated by those companies
>who control and contribute to the GOP as well as the Dems but more likely
>the GOP.  THey dont want to be regulated b/c they want to produce goods
>cheaply (pay low wages, no safety standards) and badly (if we all produce
>equally bad products it doesnt matter) that we will have to buy (since they
>are all for protectionism and "America first") and they can make big
>profits.
I disagree. And lets not blast profits, thats what drives the economy
in many ways. This country seems to resent profits and that is dead wrong.
Ask GM if they wish to produce cars badly - Hopefully, they have learned
the lesson - its just too bad foreign competition had to teach them.

>People must look carefully at what the regulation is andnot just condemn
>them outright.
I agree and I would hope we keep the least amount of regulation we possibly
can - especially over politicians who spend our money friviously.
I am not opposed to *some* regulation. The only regulation I think I want
is that which fosters open competition in the market place by informed
consumers. Again - look at airlines. Look at calculators. Look at the
price of pens - all these are consumer goods and I think unfettered
by government regulation and the respective prices are way below
inflation and also good products to boot.

>Simple solutions got us into this mess of an econmoy to begin with.  THINK
>OF REAGAN - he thought it was in all in black & white. We are reaping what 
>Reagan and Bush helped sow.
I had no big problem with Reagan - If he ran today, I would likely vote for
him again. I happen to think he was one of your better Presidents.
Nobody is perfect and certainly Reagan made mistakes. But would we rather
be back under Carter - funny how people forgot those days! The liberal
press almost never talks about how this country was under Carter but
I certainly remember - Give me Reagan over Carter any day!

>If you really think that Corporations have us at heart when they talk of less
>regulation to make them more competitive. THink of Pinto. 
>Ford fought for years against the standard that would have made them 
>increase the impact withstanding of the PInto's rear fender.  They did this 
>because they didint want to spend the extra about five dollars per pinto to 
>fix the problem. They decided the cost of paying off victims of rear-end 
>collision accidents of Pintos was cheaper than spending a few bucks to make 
>the Pinto safer.
I had a choice of buying the pinto back in 1973 - I bypassed it for
a variety of reasons, including what I perceived as safety problems.
I bought a Torino instead and it saved my life in a head-on collision,
i.e. it was solidly built car and the solid frame saved my life.
It had other flaws and that plus lack of dealer support made me
switch to another manufacturer next time. I have also owned a
small Datsun 210 which I got rid of after a few years - didn't feel it was
safe enough (i.e. size).

>So, think carefully at all the implications of what those LIberatarians and
>Quayle people say.  We do not live in Jeffersonian times. 
I absolutely support the concept of 'That Government is best which
governs least' - I am involved in local politics and see clearly what
they have done to people in my town, in HIGH taxes and erratic
services. Then, by extension, look at many other politicians, especially
Congress - is that our model? 

Why has Congress exempted itself from these (and many other) laws, when 
ordinary citizens are not (Wall Street Journal 10/91):

-Social Security Act of 1933              -National Labor Relations Act of 1935
-Minimum Wage Act of 1938                 -Equal Pay Act of 1963
-Civil Rights Act of 1964                 -Freedom of Information Act of 1966
-Age Discrimination Act of 1967           -OSHA Act of 1970
-Title 9 of Higher Education Act of 1972  -Equal Employment Act of 1967
-Rehabiliation Act of 1973                -Privacy Act of 1974
-Age Discrimination Act (amended) of 1975 -Ethics in Government Act of 1978
                       -Civil Rights Act of 1988

[Information from Business week 4/13/92, pg 28-29]:
They also enjoy the 'check-kiting' privilege, free presciption drugs,
cut rate gymnasium fees, low cost gift shops, free chauffeur-driven cars,
free fresh cut flowers, free closeup airport parking.

At the same time, we had drug dealing and embesslement at the HOUSE
post office and unpaid bills in the HOUSE restaurant.

[some of the above has recently been changed, but not much]

Is that our model? Again, loudly:
  THAT GOVERNMENT IS BEST WHICH GOVERNS LEAST (Thomas Jefferson)

---------

Nothing personal and the usual disclaimers apply, including these are
my opinions and I don't speak for anyone else.

Regards,

Joe
joec@morgan.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections