Big Business & Big Government vs. the People

The poor are currently paying for regulatory compliance. It is built into the cost of things they buy. So they can obviously pay for regulatory compliance.

Unless they opt not to. But that’s their choice not yours.

 

and they will protect and enhance the environment if customers prefer that. Do you now see how freedom works? A liberal cant imagine a solution to any problem that is not based on govt violence and crippling citizens rights.

 

as a standard libcommie you make the assumption that violent govt regulation works even after 120 million slowly starved to death under soviet regulation. Now you see why our Founders gave us the gift of freedom, and why its worked out rather well. Notice that liberals operate in total ignorance and illiteracy and have no idea what the American arguments even are. Sad.

 

Do you really believe that giving the poor the "choice" to live in safe shelter and eat safe food is moral? What about the children of the people who make the choice not to pay extra to ensure their food is safe or the buildings they live in are safe? I mean, it's one thing if you can ensure that everyone has the means to make that choice, but we know that in the world as you see it, that will never be the case.

The reason the poor can afford regulatory compliance today is that everyone is forced to abide by it. It works like insurance. The fact that everyone has it makes it less expensive for everyone. In West Virginia, until fairly recently, you weren't forced to carry insurance. Making insurance there 3 times more expensive than Virginia. The market is forced to supply airbags in cars, that means a HUGE supply of airbags ensures that economies of scale will make airbags as inexpensive as possible.

In South America, they still build the original VW Beatle, an extremely unsafe car by any measure given today's technology. Now it's understandable in nations of South America where the nation as a whole lacks the means to ensure people are as safe as they can be given the very real constraints on society. But that's not the case here in the US. We have the means to ensure that people eat safe food and live in reasonably safe buildings.

 

The poor in America are already paying for regulatory compliance, so we know that they can pay for it.

 

Lol. The VW Beetle is a cool car.

Sorry it's not good enough for your highness. Damned if I am to be denied a perfectly good and affordable car because some stuck up bloke thinks it isn't good enough for him.
No thanks. I'll decide for myself what is good enough for me.

And if you choose to make me a criminal because of my poverty so what?

 

It's not that he simply looks down on the VW. He wants to use state violence to prevent you from being able to have one. That's the reprehensible thing.

Also, how is this judgement and violence classified as 'economics'. Sounds like bullying, to me.

 

Rich people are like that mate.

As you get more money in life, the standards you will accept rise with your pay.
After a while you become disconnected from the reality of being poor.

If indeed you ever knew in the first place.

You start to take things for granted. Human nature.

The smartest money I've ever seen, was Gyspie's in Romania.
The less you have the smarter you tend to be with it.


Lets cover his point on insurance making things cheaper for everyone.
It does not.

In aggregate it costs the same.
It costs some people more than they get back, and other people less than they get back.
It is not cheaper for everyone.

The cheapest way... is to self insure. Not to use insurance brokers at all.

 

So, before you agree to stop advocating the forcible expropriation of everyone, you want to be ensured that everyone would have the means to make "that choice"?

 

Yes, and they pay less and make more because it's mandatory.

 

It's ironic how many people benefit from the "forcible expropriation" then when they get older decide they no longer want to share....lol

 

They will pay even less when there is competition rather than a monopoly.

 

How does mandatory payment make it cheaper please?

 

Notice the lack of an answer in your response?

 

It was a very cryptic response, that's for sure. So cryptic so as to be meaningless.

 

Because more people buy. What he leaves out is the bureaucratic cost of using government to do something, which is no less than 100% of its cost otherwise, oh and, well. morality.

 

More people buy what?

If more people use regulation, more regulators are required.
It costs the same.

If I need 1 person to regulate 10 trades, then I'll need 10 people to regulate 100 trades.
The cost of regulation remains the same per capita.

Essentially we get back to value vs price.
While we may reasonably expect the price of a service to be the same for two individual people, the value of it to them won't be.

And this is the key problem with mandatory participation. One size does not fit all.

 

That's an additional 100%, in case anyone didn't already know that.

 

Bigger customer base tends to yield lower prices because it allows for larger economies of scale. I think he was talking more service buyers, not more regu/ [oh **** it, let him explain]

 

What monopoly?

 

No, no...

If airbags aren't required equipment in all cars, then the number of airbags created decreases unless you believe that people would all choose airbags in an unregulated market. If 30% of cars were sold without them because people decided to save the money, then 30% fewer airbags would be required. This decreases the advantages that come with economies of scale.

 

Cry me a river. You're ok with coercion as long as it's disguised as "choice". It's called economic coercion

 

Sure it is (a cool car), my family had two of them while I was growing up. Criminal? Why would you be a criminal if you bought one? I'm talking about new car standards, not making older cars illegal. I'm not suggesting that poor people not be allowed to buy older cars without airbags, just that making them mandatory in 1998, means that today the poor can buy inexpensive used cars today made after 1998 and enjoy the benefits of increased safety (without an increase in price). Ironically, I did a little research, a 1997 Chevy Malibu with and without an airbag is the same price (it was an option in 1997 which gave me the opportunity to price with and without an airbag). You might say that 1998 is really old and isn't indicative, so I looked at traction control, which became mandatory in 2012. I looked at a 2011 Malibu with and without traction control. You know how much adding traction control adds to the price of a 2011 Malibu? Nothing.

The point is, at some point in the near future there will hardly be any used cars left without airbags or traction control, ABS and other modern safety features. By making them mandatory in all new cars, cars in the near future will have that technology and after just a few years will have little if any effect on the price.

Back to the Beatle, the VW Beatle (which until a few years ago was still being produced new in Mexico) is an incredibly unsafe car. Have you seen crash tests between modern cars and older cars? Heck, a 1992 Volvo vs something about the size of a Ford Focus:



Oh and here is the Beatle:



Oh and here's a great reason for mandatory safety...1959 Bel Air vs 2009 Chevy Malibu

 

Hahahahaha, Hahahahahaha...deep breath...hahahhahahha....

 

I used the example of car insurance, but let's use medical insurance as we have a recent precedent.

The new tax bill will drop about 13 million people from insurance. Insurance providers respond by saying they will raise prices on everyone that still has insurance by 10%.

Also, the reality of auto insurance is contradicted by the example of what happened in West VA as they allowed insurance coverage there to be optional. I lived in both VA and West VA and Insurance rates are 3 times higher in West VA because there are still people driving without insurance.