From: robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Reply-To: robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP (Robert Reed)
Organization: Home Animation Ltd.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 03:13:52 GMT

In article <KVC=yK=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|In article <1992Nov12.082806.15389@RedBrick.COM>, jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
||> In article <1992Nov11.201147.12975@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik) writes:
||>
||>     1) You would not want to bail out any S&Ls (I might even agree
||>        with you on this one).  Let ALL of the people who were suckered
||>        or slickered by the curse of S&L deregulation go broke, right?
|
|The Federal government guaranteed accounts up to $100,000.  This was
|stupid, but a promise is a promise.  The government should pay depositors
|according to its agreement.  Of course, after payoff, the insurance
|system should be scrapped for some form of private insurance, or at
|least public insurance with premiums based on risk.

You may think it was stupid, but it was viewed at the time as a necessary
measure (along with bank regulation) to raise people's trust of the banking
system following the great depression.  If there was any stupidity to be passed
around, it should be hung on the congress and administration that deregulated
the thrifts without correspondingly shifting the burden of insurance to them.
In this case, I think we can all agree that the stupidity was nonpartisan.

|Corporate taxes should be abolished, therefore tax breaks would be pointless.

So that we can all incorporate as individuals and thus avoid paying any taxes?
Dream on!

|Companies that provide a safer work environment will be able to 
|attract more workers than those who don't, assuming workers value
|safety.

That assumes that there are competitive businesses within a particular job
market that would choose to differentiate themselves to draw a work force from
the local job pool.  Though it is possible to imagine such a mechanism where
highly skilled labor is involved, low skilled (aka poor) workers (e.g., chicken
processors) would doubtfully find such a choice, especially when establishing
such higher standards would put a company into a competitive disadvantage
when trying to market their products.  Government regulations serve to balance
the power of the purse by mandating minimum standards, affecting all businesses
uniformly.  Where this breaks down, of course, is when you factor in foreign
trade.  Then, treaties or import restrictions are required to level the safety
field.  But safety is only one of the cost factors that must be considered when
balancing the international competition equation.

|The biggest problem with government regulations is that it [sic] often imposes
|large costs for little incremental gain.  The increased costs simply cost
|jobs.  Ask an unemployed worker if he would accept a decrease in safety for
|employment.

There are regulations and there are regulations.  Some provide great gains to
worker health (like requiring respirators in paint shops, or ear protectors
while working next to hammer mills) and there are undoubtedly excessive
regulations.  But the resolution here should be another form of
competitiveness--in the realm of ideas--between safety advocates and industry
lobbies when the regulations are drafted.

|'Society' is not a single entity.

I think you mean it's not a homogenous entity.

|It is composed of individuals who have vastly different opinions about what
|is right and what isn't.  It is not the place of government to impose the will
|of a majority on minority groups.

We still live in a country of majority rule, a fact which is a direct
contradiction to your statement.  Surely you don't think Bush supporters don't
feel imposed upon by the election of Clinton?  The majority set standards of
behavior that are imposed upon the minority in many ways.  Break the law and
you might go to jail.  The Right to Life movement certainly feels imposed upon
by the majority who believe in a woman's right to choose.

|People have always been free to band together to help other people out.
|Charities existed *before* government got involved.  The choices are not
|government charity or no charity, the choices are government charity or
|private charities.

The problem with this simplistic view is that there is no free market for
charity.  The incentive to give is only remotely related to the need, and the
altruists are left to foot a disproportionate amount of a bill which serves the
common good.  Either that or other incentives are found, such as proselytizing
indigenous peoples like is happening now in the Amazon.

|We have been spoonfed the notion that government can solve all problems, even
|though the evidence is to the contrary.

There is evidence that government can't solve ALL of our problems, but it
certainly has solved more problems than the alternative.
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Reed			Home Animation Ltd.		503-656-8414
robert@slipknot.rain.com	5686 First Court, West Linn, OR 97068

You can't have everything.  Where would you put it?
--Steve Wright
________________________________________________________________________________
Xref: sparky or.politics:611 alt.rush-limbaugh:9589