From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: ne.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:45:17 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <KVC=yK=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)  
writes:
> Corporate taxes should be abolished, therefore tax breaks would be
> pointless.  At the same time, subsidies should also be abolished.
> Farmers who wish to protect themselves agains 'misfortune' can buy
> insurance.  Those who can't cut it as a business shouldn't be  
farming
> as a business.
> 

First of all, is it really a good idea for us (the country,
the consumers) for a lot of small farms to go down the tubes and
be replaced by big farms?

Folks who make lots of statements about the what's and why's of
farm subsidies really should find out the real why behind them.
Most farm subsidies are monies paid so that farmers will not grow
to their full capacity.  If they did (and this was the reason for
a number of farms collapsing in the 1920s), there is an oversupply
of some types of food. While this is a short term gain for the
consumer, it is a long term loss, as some farmers go out of 
business because they can't make enough money to pay their
expenses.  Farm subsidies, when applied properly (and sometimes
they aren't) are there to provide long-term stability in 
food production, a stability we all gain from long term.

> |>     4) How about safety legislation?  Should companies be  
permitted
> |>        to just forget safety (since it clearly impinges on  
profits)
> |>        just to make a bigger buck, and let the workers be  
damned?
> |>        Back to the sweatshops of the 1890s, huh?  
> |> 
> 
> Health and safety legislation generally followed improvements made
> by companies (see Hayek, et. al. in "Capitalism and Historians" and
> T.S Ashton's "The Industrial Revolution" for more info).  Safety
> is obviously a concern to employees, although safety can be  
overdone.
> Companies that provide a safer work environment will be able to 
> attract more workers than those who don't, assuming workers value
> safety.

You really should go and read up on the history of labor before
safety regulations, minimum wage laws, and so forth were
implemented. Workers usually had little choice but to work
under whatever condidtions the company dictated.  Many of us
in high-tech fields, for example, tend to feel that, if we
don't like our current company, we can always find a job elsewhere.
This, however, is NOT true for folks in many blue collar, labor
positions.  A steel worker couldn't just decide to quite and
go find another job: not if he wanted his family to be able to
eat.

  The biggest problem with government regulations is that
> it often imposes large costs for little incremental gain.  The
> increased costs simply cost jobs.  

It depends upon the regulation. No doubt this is sometimes true
(and I've also seen cases where it is true).  But the solution is
not to throw out all government regulation and set the clock back
100 years.  The solution instead is to examine the regulatory
process, and get rid of those regulations that are counterproductive.


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: ne.politics