From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:54:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Apr12.173557.12803@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.110928.10986@husc3.harvard.edu>, koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>
>|> [stuff on credit bureaus]
>
>Let me try to put my position on credit bureas as simply as possible. The credit
>bureau which supplies the most accurate information, in the form the companies
>can process and use most efficiently, will make the most money. IF AND ONLY IF
>reporting dirt on individuals will increase the reliability of information, will
>bureaus find it profitable to do so. If the information is irrelevant, then that
>will slow down the company and make alternative credit bureaus look more

I am replying to JWS reply to me both above.

My point about credit bureaus was that your main concern about gov't
was that regulations interfered with our freedom so you were concerned
with making us have more freedom.  My point is that the threat fto
our freedom isnt always necessarily from the gov't and can be from
big companies like credit buraus unwarranted interference into
people's privacy.

Even if it was economic efficient and it probably isnt why should that
make it o.k. if it lessens our freedom which I thikn it does.  It creates
a private big brother.

However, there are only three big credit bureaus in the US (Equefax,
TRW & another one). Thyey have all the files and all the customers.
THere is no incentive for them to change.  THere is no competition
to them and the businesses buy their information.  THe only time
people find out about them is if they are rejected for credit and
then due to gov't regulation have to be told what credit bureau
was used to check them out.  And then if they use theri
rights under the regulation can find out what info there is and if they
sue can find out the source.

Processing extra unsubstaniated rumors into a computer file probably
is not so expensive and since no one really finds out what is
said about them I am sure it doesnt cost very mcuh.

I dont think dirt quotas get more accurate information and even if
it does give incentive to lie and make up dirt on people; thereby
infringing on their freedom to get credit.

Just b/c something is cheaper doesnt make it the best way to achieve
desired results or guarantee our freeodm for that matter.



> 
>|> The point, that I said about unsafe cars is this. In a totally unregulated
>|> car market car manufacturers would not have that much incentive to
>|> make safer cars.  They could get together and decide not to offer certain
>|> safety features b/c it was cheaper not to.  This would mean no one could
>|> choose a safer car if it was not offered.
>
>And my point is this, even with the small number of car manufacturers that exist
>today, this is not in the economic interests of the company. The only time
>regulation effects the safety of cars, is when the buyers are not willing to pay
>the cost of the safety features when they buy the car. In other circumstances,
>companies can make a mint by overcharging for the saftey device. Airbags would be
>a great example of this.


I didnt quite follow this argument.  I think safety regulations help
us to be free to choose cars knowing they meet a mininum  safety st'd and
we dont have to run around testing them all or trusting the salesman;
if it is not economically viable does not necessarily give us freedom
that you were concerned about.  Freedom can be reduced to economics.>




>|> Also, if there are no safety regulations in place then no one will know
>|> what cars are safe or not.  I know that earlier JSW suggested private
>|> little companies to run around testing cars.  INefficient econmics.
>|> And there is the fear of car companies setting up such "independent"
>|> companies to certify a car as safe.
>
>Certainly. But you don't have to listen to them. The most inportant asset of any
>certification company is the confidence of consumers in its certification. Any
>such company owned to a significant extent by an auto manufacturer would lose
>that. A crude example would be colleges. The consumers in the labor market are
>looking for people who supply labor (college students). I am investing a huge
>amount of time and money in getting a certification from the world's best EECS
>program. Employers have a great deal of confidence in the meaning of this
>certification. If tomorrow it were revealed that MIT were graduating a lot of
>dolts, the value of my certification would decrease significantly, an other
>people seeking similar certification would go elsewhere first. Something like
>this has happened to Stanford over the past two years. A sudden loss in the
>credibility of their certification, has caused two consecutive classes to turn
>them down in unusually high numbers, thus further decreasing the value of their
>degree.

With all the juge multinationals who knows who owns what companies and
without any regulations for small private certification companies to
says who owns them no one would know; and it would be easy for them to
hide it.

Also as I said it is economicalyy inefficient and a waste of time
(impinging on our freedom) to have to find out which ones we can trust or
not of the private certification companies.



>
>|> [stuff about Pinto]
>
>What you say here is correct. My point is that is people cared about the safety
>of the Pinto, they would have made it economical for the company to make the car
>safer. There are many situations where this happened. It did not happen with the
>Pinto because consumers didn't care.
>

Again, people who bought the car did  not know it was unsafe, did not
know that Ford had been fighting regulations to make it safer for
years. Thus, they did not have a choice; they were not told you can buy
this unsafe car or this safer car. Instead, Ford passed off to lots of
unsuspecting consumers unsafe cars.  The result lost of life for alot
of drivers that could have been resulted.

I put in the Pinto example b/c they blind adherence to free market
forces some how giving us more freedom doesnt jive if the compnaies
can and do stuff like this (even with  some regulations) whats to
happen with unbridled compannies.

>|> THere is no such thing as perfect information in a perfect market.
>
>Once again, the price of freedom (or is it liberty?) is eternal vigilance. We
>have had so much regulation for so long, that people are not willing to pay the
>price. That's fine with me, but don't expect me to give up my freedom because
>others can't handle theirs. (Yes, as everbody has been pointing out, I know it's
>a steep price)
> 
ALot of regulatory information is whree you would get information
to enusre your freedom (if you hadnt died on unhealthy food) and
with no regulations and no neutral stnadrds you owuld not information
to have access to be vigilant about.  Catch phrases do not prove a point.


>|> Consumers would not necessarily know what they are being sold.
>|> 
>|> And, allowing companies to sell anything wiht no safery regulations makes
>|> the poor sectors of society locked into buying bad, unsafe products.
>
>But this doesn't happen. When a company is forced to comply with a regulation, it
>always raises the cost of the product. This means that while without regulation,
>people would have the choice of saving money, or being safer, with regulation
>they are automatically safer, and must choose between spending more money than
>they can afford or not buying a car.
>

As I said in other postings not all regulatinos achieve their purpose --
some are watered down by the industries they are supposed to be protecting us
from.  BUt the answer is not the simple but irresponisble to abolish them
all.  






>|> JSW feels that the govt keeps people in Harlem by feeding them
>
>Look at areas dominated by people on welfare as a dessert, where individuals are
>unable to support themselves. Years ago it used to be a lush green land, but it
>slowly dried up. Under ordinary circumstances people would slowly move away, but
>in this case, food was dumped there. Today it is a dessert where there is
>only enough to feed a (relatively) small fraction of the populace. The situation
>there is completely unnatural. It couldn't have happened without welfare because
>the people would have shrivled up and died. Welfare creates an artificial
>minimum that you can't go below. In real life, as long as you're alive you can
>still go down. It is this downwards gradient which has caused people to slide
>away from areas above a certain population density for most of human history.
>Welfare creates a floor, and eliminates the sliding effect.
>

THis seems to me to saying dont have welfare b/c with it people survive
who should have died.  I refer to your quote above as saying without
welfare the desert would have shriveled up and died.  The people on 
welfare can not afford food etc. so in this day and age how can
they afford to move?  They can get in a covered wagon.

The avergage person on welfare are single mothers with children who stay
on welfare for an everage of 18 months.

I think if we had some type of day care system that would help them to
get work.


>Jason W. Solinsky
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections