From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Against Government Regulations
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Co., New York, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:06:10 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.  

I know it takes time to switch jobs but given enough time and incentives,
I think ANYONE can switch jobs. It becomes up to the individual to
balance an unsafe work environment with whats involved in switching jobs.
Again - up to the individual. And if no one works at an unsafe place,
either it will become safer or go out of business.

>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.

Attorneys will often take case on a contingency basis, i.e. a percentage
basis - particularly I think if the case is a good one. 
And if it isn't a good case, is there a problem in the first place?

>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.  

Agree with this - I think they should fire some senior GM execs, not
just demote them.

>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?

Buy less often, buy cheaper versions of the product, complain to the
manufacturer, etc. All this will tend to put pressure on the manufacturer,
although competition would be better.
>
>Should we allow admitted death mobiles (pintos) 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? 

There is a phrase known as Caveat Emptor - Buyer beware. One reason we
have a free press is that they tend to publicize these problems. But,
since consumer is the one spending his/her money, I would think that
the consumer will carefully and thoughtfully spend his/her money.
And you don't need to be in college to be aware, just follow the printed
press and other media.
 
>And should someone have to buy a tin can because he can afford nothing 
>better? 
Yep - how does that differ from should someone have to buy a mobile home 
because they can't afford a bigger/better home?  And who decides for them
if the consumer won't or can't? 

>It isn't always an expensive task to make something safe.
True indeed.

>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?
People were perhaps either foolish or ignorant or just hopeful if they 
used those products.

>The government does have a duty to protect those who can't do it themself.
  
Why? And who will then decide who gets protection? And why them? And for
how much money? And protection from what or whom?

Governments have tried to 'protect' people from too much rent in our cities,
by imposing rent control. But what happens is that landlords can no longer
make a reasonable rate of return since the 'rent control' takes away the
profit incentive. Then, builders lose interest in building new places to live
since 'rent control' will hurt their profits.
Net- go to our cities and see what 'rent control' has done. Look at all
the ghettos, the slums. I know wealthier people who stayed in 'rent
control' places and told me 'rent control' saved them so much money that
it paid for the children's education.

Governments have tried to 'protect' people from becoming poor by offering
welfare. Net, people lose interest in bettering themselves - after all,
why bother if they get the money for doing nothing.
Net- 1 person in 8 in NYC is on welfare and we have generations of welfare
families. And our cities are as dirty as ever.

Governments in NJ have tried to 'protect' NJ residents from auto insurance
companies. Net- Allstate is abandoning all business in NJ - can't make
a profit. Net- NJ residents pay the HIGHEST premiums in the Nation.

Governments offer unemployment to 'protect' people when they lose their
job. Net- I know people who have turned down jobs because they made almost
as much staying home and collecting unemployment pay. They eventually
took jobs but waited until unemployment was about to run out.

I could go on and on....

Sorry- That government is best which governs least.

Sorry - I favor an informed consumer making informed decisions over 
the government doing it for them.

>jason o'rourke
>
>PS: I can never let those Carter remarks slide.  I ask you to note that
>Reagan got a lot of his success by spending a hell of a lot of money, and
>that having Iran and Iraq overproducing oil for their war during his 
>terms certainly helped.  Also, in the first 4 years, he accomplished 
>NOTHING economically; rather the nation worsened and then by '84 was
>back to where he started.  

Inflation and interest rates were very high during the Carter years.
Remember the WIN buttons back then? Whip Inflation Now. And the Recession 
and stagflation were well in the Carter years. Remember Carter telling
us of the 'national malaise' we all suffered? People were sick of
those years which is why Reagan won with one of the largest landslides
in history in 1980. The recession already underway bottomed out in the 
summer of 1982 and we then enjoyed the longest peacetime prosperity
in history. Inflation came back under control, the stock market rallied
and business expanded - in NJ, 5000 new companies were created every
year during the mid-to-late 1980s.

I was working back during the Carter years and the #1 concern of ordinary 
Americans at the time was the economy. Reagan made his mistakes but the 
economy expanded rather well, starting in the summer of 1982. 

Our nation was actually in danger during the Carter years from Soviet 
aggression, i.e. the invasion of Afghanistan, our hostages in Iran, etc - 
but people forget and its too bad they do.

Again - I prefer the Reagan years over the Carter years.

Joe
joec@morgan.com
Usual disclaimers.