Obama and Co. have lost the trust of the American people.
There's a truism in politics that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Like so many hackneyed phrases, it's both intuitively obvious, and easily dismissed. Obvious, in that it ranks right up there with "don't run with scissors," and easily dismissed in that it's hardly at the forefront of your mind as you go about your daily life.
How many times have we all done something incredibly stupid without giving its consequences the proper thought? Text or answer email while driving, climb a ladder without someone supporting it, answer your spouse truthfully when they ask "do I need to lose weight?" — we've all done these or similar things at one time or another. The fact that every text-while-driving and unsupported-ladder-climb doesn't automatically result in grievous personal injury doesn't mitigate the seriousness or innate stupidity of the action. Being lucky is not the same thing as being smart, because when dealing with stupidity, the odds are always stacked against you.
It's human nature to take shortcuts, act without always fully thinking an issue through, and substitute wishes and hope for reason and objective analysis. This accounts for most of the stupid decisions we make in our personal lives, and some of the ones we make collectively with our fellow citizens. I'm speaking of course now about electing a part-time United States Senator with virtually no previous political or real-world experience (academics doesn't count) to become the President of the United States, and along with that give him a filibuster-proof Democrat Congress to implement his programs.
As has become the trend in recent years, elections today are as much about what you don't want to have happen as it is about what you want to see accomplished. I doubt seriously that the legions of John Kerry supporters in 2004 really wanted him above all others to occupy the White House, just as those of us who voted for McCain in 2008 were hardly confirmed McCainiacs enamored by his talents and abilities. Rather, it's just as likely (perhaps moreso) that a majority of Kerry voters hated Bush in 2004, thus driving their decision much the same way that I and others feared Obama's stewardship of the nation more than we embraced McCain's political philosophy.
Add to the mix in 2008 the guilt-and-Camelot factors, and you have the makings of a perfect political storm. Guilt, in that in the minds of some voting for Obama atoned for the sins of our past; and Camelot, in that wouldn't it be really cool to have a modern-day version of JFK replace the old, tired, out-of-step policies of the past? This is why "Hope and Change" needed no actual real-world definition. The emotions themselves were sufficient to drive many voters, who simply filled in the missing details with their own personal policy preferences.
Since "change" was one of the dominant themes in Obama's campaign, and technically anything different than what we have at present is "change," the thinking was, we might as well throw in a filibuster-proof Democrat control of Congress to help Obama out. I mean, after all, what's a few more Senators and Congressmen among friends? We're all pulling in the same direction — the direction of "change" — and you can't have change without changing things around.
Which brings us to today. Barack Obama has been in office about seven months now along with his Democrat pals, and they've been busy implementing their change. The problem is, "their" change isn't necessarily the voters' change, many of whom bought into the transparent, post-racial, bi-partisan imagery of the Obama campaign.
The only thing transparent about the Obama Administration's transparency is that it isn't. Lobbyists continue to dominate the halls of power, 1,000-page bills are speed-read when Republicans object to passing them without adequate review, the need to act "immediately" (i.e. in hours and days) to forestall economic collapse translates into trillions of dollars in new debt for programs that won't begin to come on line until the months before the 2010 mid-term election.
Post-racial politics have gone out the window with repeated charges from the Left — none of which have been condemned by the Obama administration — that "Tea Baggers" are racist rednecks, and those objecting to Congress' health care program (Obama doesn't actually have a program, just rhetoric about a program) oppose this because they hate the black guy. And now, they apparently hate God too, since opposing the Democrats' version of health care "reform" means opposing all health care reform, and Jesus sides with Obama on this one. It's okay though. Appeals to God are perfectly fine when a Democrat is in office, but not a Republican. The difference is, Republican presidents actually incorporate their faith into their personal lives, while Democrat presidents use it to avoid impeachment, get their street-cred to run for elective office, and when the chips are down, use it to condemn their opponents as immoral. In other words, Republicans are dangerous because they might actually act on their religious beliefs, while no one really expects a Democrat to do anything other than give lip service to religion to promote their secular agenda.
Finally, the myth of bipartisanship has been put to rest under the Pelosi-Reed-Obama Administration. It's not because Republicans have refused almost unanimously to sign on to the patently political and economically irrational policies of the last few months. Pelosi has locked the Republicans out of the negotiating process in the House, and the Senate is hardly any better. Though a few Republican noses have been allowed inside the tent, it's only for show. When Republicans object to language in the Health Reform bill that could allow for government-subsidized abortions, Democrats maintain it's not part of the bill. Republicans then offer an amendment to the bill that will state this clearly, and Democrats object. "So I axe you," as Vinny Gambini is fond of saying, why not allow the amendment and incorporate that specific language — unless it really is there, just like the Republicans maintained.
This is why Obama is failing. There were enough idealistic independents and hopeful voters of both parties who wanted an historic, post-racial, bipartisan figure to assume office to elect Obama. But rather than lead this way, Obama has either not led at all (allowing Congress to do whatever it wants in a business-as-usual mentality), or when he has tried to demonstrate leadership, it's not at all what the hopie-feelie public thought they were getting.
Second, he and his fellow Dems have managed to piss off an extraordinarily important element of the Democrat party coalition. Pitching health care "reform" which is designed to cut costs and increase coverage in a "revenue neutral" manner (except for the "rich millionaires" who will presumably be taxed into oblivion) is only possible if health care is rationed. And since most of the costs of the present health care system are designed to keep grandma and grandpa alive, that's where the cuts will be made. After all, there are only so many unnecessary amputations and greed-driven tonsillectomies that Obama can kybosh; the rest of the savings has to come from the "pain meds" Obama himself proposed as an alternative to that expensive, life-sustaining surgery.
Finally, add to this mix the final thought that although we all make dumb decisions from time to time, people as a rule aren't stupid. They understand that the stimulus package wasn't a stimulus package as originally represented, but something very different. And very expensive. Add health care to this mix, and even the most apolitical housewife (aka "race-hating terrorist" as described by the media) gets a little concerned. Diminish or dismiss these people's concerns through the kind of Royal Indignation many members of Congress have displayed — from charges that these citizens like to wear swastikas, shoot black people (especially black presidents), or by simply taking a phone call while some cancer survivor is trying to ask a question at a town hall meeting — and you get the kind of vocal backlash we see today.
If John McCain, an old white guy, proposed the same exact policies that Barack Obama has, and acted in the same way President Obama has in selling those policies to Congress and the public, there would be an identical backlash to what we see today. If a filibuster-proof Republican Congress passed a multi-trillion dollar "stimulus" package that did little more than reward their political friends and grease the public trough for the 2010 mid-term elections, there would be an identical backlash to what we see today.
It isn't Obama's race that is causing him problems. It isn't the fact that Republicans don't like Democrats in power that is causing Congress its problems. Obama, Pelosi, Reed and the other True Believers have pissed off too many people who were prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt when they assumed power in January 2009.
The simple fact is, the American public knows it has been lied to by Obama and his party, and they no longer trust him. Therefore, they are no longer willing to fall lock-step behind any programs they offer, because they no longer believe what is being said about the purpose, cost, or possibility of success for those programs.
Obama and Co. have lost the trust of the voters who put them in office. This trust cannot easily be recovered. It must be earned anew. However, it takes time, and actual honesty, to reverse the course — two things which the Democrats today have in short supply.
Mountain Man – Oy.
Private businesses have the right to decide how to operate their businesses.
Okay, I’ll assume you’re following Dr. Jackson’s maxim, requiring debaters “to honestly lay out [their] fundamental preconceptions and assumptions in a clear, forthright manner.”
I’m asking for clarification about an apparent implication of that principle. A private hospital – an example of a “business”, no? – would, following this principle, “have the right to decide” to allow a patient to die if the patient could not pay for treatment. Correct? Or is there some additional principle that would prevent a private, for-profit hospital from exercising this right?
Now, as you note, “Public hospitals and hospitals taking large amounts of public money (government-controlled health care) are already turning people away, so the problem is not the free market, it is government.”
I don’t think anyone’s happy about that situation. What’s the root cause, and can it be fixed?
I’d contend that the problem is insufficient resources (supply) to meet demand. One potential strategy is to attempt to limit the demand by diverting some of the “large amounts of public money” to preventive medicine. Another strategy – not mutually exclusive – is divert public money to a risk equalization fund. This might act to more efficiently distribute resources, increasing supply to hopefully get closer to demand.
In the interest of ‘laying out fundamental preconceptions and assumptions’, I’d say that capitalism is great for efficiently allocating resources, of course. But full-on laissez-faire capitalism has other problems. See, e.g. the safety of products made in China. Or, in the past, Sinclair’s “The Jungle”. (Thankfully, Sinclair’s socialist agenda went unfulfilled, but the conditions he exposed pointed out an actual need.)
To paraphrase Einstein, I’d say that capitalism should have as little regulation as feasible – but no less. When health care is concerned, I think zero regulation is too little. Totally socialized medicine is too much. Where the sweet spot lies is open to debate – but I think we can all agree we’re not at that point right now.
Mr. Ingles,
You write, “A private hospital…would, following this principle, ‘have the right to decide’ to allow a patient to die if the patient could not pay for treatment.”
It’s real clear, I think. Private businesses have the right to decide how to operate their businesses. You seem to think that a third party should be able to decisions and set operating practices of a legally-operating enterprise. On what basis? Its social obligations, perhaps? That is a marxist perspective.
I acknowledge that private businesses DO have social obligations, but it is the business that decides if, how, and when to meet those obligations. The social component and implications thereof are relevant only to the degree that the potential clients of the business allow those practices to impact their buying decision. If a private business loses clients due to its practices, the business might then choose to change its practices.
“…full-on laissez-faire capitalism has other problems. See, e.g. the safety of products made in China.” We have not had full-on laissez-faire capitalism for decades. Those who criticize captitalism apparently do not realize that we have a watered-down version of capitalism at best, or blended socialism/fascism at worst.
It’s really odd that you would cite China as an example of the weakness of capitalism, given that they are a communist nation. Surely you can do better than that.
Mountain Man – For a guy who likes to accuse me of dancing, you put out a lot of words when just one – “yes” – would do. You apparently do feel that “legally-operating enterprise[s]“ like hospitals “should be able to [decide]“ to let patients die if they can’t pay for care. That’s all I was asking.
I agree that “[w]e have not had full-on laissez-faire capitalism for decades”, but I have a hard time finding fault with product safety laws in principle. As I said before, “capitalism should have as little regulation as feasible – but no less”.
As to China – I’d argue that its current policies are a lot closer to fascist than communist at this point. And the companies using Chinese suppliers – with obviously insufficient regard for their safety – aren’t run from China.
Mr. Ingles,
How ironic that your post #103 takes over 300 words to re-ask the same question yet again (as well as to bring up a tangent), yet you find fault with the size of my answer.
I initially stated a principle, and you persist with a weird sort of case-by-case nitpicking scenario, asking different forms of the same hypothetical. I concluded that you simply didn’t understand that a private business decides for itself how it will operate, and that government-run/government funded enterprises still do the very thing you are so morally outraged over.
So it is clear that you still don’t understand. So I will state again: Private businesses have the right to decide how to operate their businesses. Again: Private businesses have the right to decide how to operate their businesses.
“…let patients die…” is laden with value judgments and implicit disapproval unwarranted by the narrative. If I owned a towing business, you would say with a superior sneer, “You would let a customer sit on the side of the road if he couldn’t pay?” The answer is YES. I have no obligation to run my business the way you think I should. Butt out.
There is no business reason that anyone should be legally compelled to render services against their will. Third parties like government have no authority to intervene in the activities of a legally operating private business. Period. No what-ifs, no how-abouts.
*Sigh* Time to re-cap. Capitalism has problems. For example, China’s products have problems. Ergo, the problems in China are because of capitalism. Therefore, we need more government intervention in capitalism. That was the connection you made. Backtrack if you like, but don’t blame me for your inability to construct a cogent argument.
“…but I have a hard time finding fault with product safety laws…” “…the companies using Chinese suppliers – with obviously insufficient regard for their safety – aren’t run from China.” Well, howdy. Companies operating in the US subject to product safety laws, and yet there are still unsafe products? Well, I guess we need more government, obviously.
I repeat for you once again: “…the problem is not the free market, it is government.”
This, again, is why honest debate is impossible with Raymond.
Not only does he wait 5 days to respond to sneak in the last word (hoping no one will notice other than those who eventually go back and struggle through 100+ contributions to read these comments), he deliberately frames a dishonest question.
There are more than two options here. The third option is, send them to a public hospital for treatment if they show up at a private hospital.
If a starving person shows up at a restaurant and requires food, should the restaurant be required to feed them or let them die? Or, is the better option to call social services, or direct them to the nearest Salvation Army soup kitchen?
If a person is bleeding profusely and about to die, no decent, private hospital will refuse immediate treatment, just as no decent human being would truly turn away a starving person about to die (vs. a “hungry” human being). But, having stopped the bleeding and/or given a free sandwich to stave off impending death, it should not be the responsibility of the private hospital to continue treating the patient, nor the responsibility of the restaurant to continue feeding the individual. We have public entities set up for these emergencies, paid for by our tax dollars.
It’s not a crime in this country to refuse to be a good Samaritan (except for a few local laws in certain areas), so some individual restaurants might turn a blind eye to a about-to-die starving person. But in a moral country (as we are), most people seeing someone truly in need would call the appropriate authorities if they didn’t want to share their private resources. Hospitals are different. They are presently required by law to treat everyone, whether public or private. The issue on the table, though, is whether private hospitals should be required to continue this practice (which involves more than stopping death; once admitted as a patient, they must continue treatment even when death is no longer imminent).
And sure, there are ways to make the public institutions more efficient and more responsive, and serious people can disagree legitimately about which solutions are best. But only an unserious person would frame a dishonest question and pretend that answering it reveals anything of true substance about the issue. [“You apparently do feel that "legally-operating enterprise[s]” like hospitals “should be able to [decide]” to let patients die if they can’t pay for care. That’s all I was asking.”]
This reasoning is sophomoric, and truly embarrassing, not to mention dishonest.
MM: I was writing my response while you posted yours.
I’d like to say that great minds think alike, but it doesn’t take a “great mind” to see through Raymond’s banal silliness and point out the obvious flaws in his basic assumptions. It’s just so transparent.
Another basic assumption in operation here is that people, left to their own private choices, will not do the “correct” thing, so we need government to tell us what we have to do. That is moral. That will sove the problem. That will fix what is wrong with society and the clueless sheep that make up its citizenry.
Completely vapid.
What I find surprising is that Mountain Man doesn’t seem to actually want to say that private hospitals should be allowed to withhold services – up to and including allowing a patient to die – if they decide the patient can’t pay. Certainly not in those words, even though they follow very clearly from the principle he’s putting forth. It just seems uncharacteristically squeamish.
We haven’t even discussed whether that’s an undesirable disadvantage of an overall good policy, or anything like that. The closest we’ve gotten is Dr. Jackson’s discourse on how it’s technically true based on this principle that private hospitals could let patients die, but they hardly ever would.
To address one “issue on the table”, I wouldn’t argue that private hospitals should be required to keep treating a patient they’ve stabilized. I’d even go further – as noted, there’s no “duty to rescue” in American law, and that strikes me as overall the best way to handle things, despite the occasional horrors that can result.
But Mountain Man acknowledges that there are government-funded hospitals, too. Dr. Jackson appear to even approve of – at least in principle and to some extent – “public entities set up for these emergencies, paid for by our tax dollars.”
Let’s assume that we remove the requirement for private hospitals to treat patients who can’t prove their ability to pay. (If you’re beaten unconscious and your wallet’s stolen along with your insurance card, you may have a longer ambulance ride to a public hospital, but them’s the breaks.) Now, about those public hospitals, “paid for [at least partially] by our tax dollars”?
As I said before, “I’d contend that the problem is insufficient resources (supply) to meet demand. One potential strategy is to attempt to limit the demand by diverting some of the “large amounts of public money” to preventive medicine. Another strategy – not mutually exclusive – is divert public money to a risk equalization fund. This might act to more efficiently distribute resources, increasing supply to hopefully get closer to demand.”
Mr. Ingles,
There is no requirement for me to respond in exactly the words you think I should use. I have made a plain statement several times. I have no desire to continue responding to your parsing. It is quite simple, take it or leave it.
“We haven’t even discussed whether that’s an undesirable disadvantage of an overall good policy, or anything like that.”
Unfortunately, like much of your evasion and quibbling about details, this is simply another diversion. And untrue to boot. From my post #104: “I acknowledge that private businesses DO have social obligations, but it is the business that decides if, how, and when to meet those obligations. The social component and implications thereof are relevant only to the degree that the potential clients of the business allow those practices to impact their buying decision. If a private business loses clients due to its practices, the business might then choose to change its practices.” This is a statement that applies policy. A private business’s policy. Note that government coercion is absent.
“Now, about those public hospitals, ‘paid for [at least partially] by our tax dollars’?” Why is it that I have to continually remind you of what you said? YOU supplied links that precipitated my observation that publicly-funded hospitals toss people out on the street as well. Government funding does not eliminate the issue that so offends your morality.
That is the context for the discussion of publicly funded hospitals. Any requirements that the government places on them is of no concern to me. We are talking about private businesses choosing for themselves how they will run their businesses. They should be able to make their private, legal business decisions unmolested by government.
Can that be any clearer? Is that definitive? Is there any what-ifs that can be squeezed out of this basic principle?
As to “wait[ing] 5 days to respond to sneak in the last word”… y’all didn’t seem to have any trouble finding my response, nor did I expect you to have any trouble.
Let’s take a look at Mountain Man’s characterization of my point about Chinese products and their safety. As he put it, “Companies operating in the US subject to product safety laws, and yet there are still unsafe products? Well, I guess we need more government, obviously.” In China, it’s certainly not a case of too little government, it’s a case of far too much in some areas and not nearly enough in others. There’s a very ‘wild west’ atmosphere to Chinese industry and corner-cutting is common, often regardless of safety. (And not just in things like food or paint – look up the “capacitor plague” sometime.) That’s a symptom of full laissez-faire capitalism, which does exist in certain areas of Chinese industry. Rampant corruption doesn’t help… but corruption usually acts to bypass rules and regulation, and results in “laissez-faire” for those who pay for it.
On the other hand, quite a few U.S. companies have been rather too trusting of their suppliers. They’ve seen a good deal and jumped in without questioning if it was too good to be true. Safety testing is an expense, not a profit center, and there’s a very human tendency to cut corners on expenses.
Fortunately, when things go bad such as with the epidemic of problems with Chinese products, the profit motive acts to force companies to institute better practices, shift suppliers or impose more stringent requirements on suppliers, and so forth.
But safety regulation can help provide a buffer, a minimum safety zone to keep problems from getting too bad or too widespread too fast, and prevent recurrence of problems identified in the past. It doesn’t have to be “more government” – there is a definite point of diminishing, even negative returns. But I have no problem arguing that “too little government” is possible, too.
“…corner-cutting is common, often regardless of safety…That’s a symptom of full laissez-faire capitalism…” No it’s not. Selling dangerous products has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism is the willing exchange of goods or services between parties. If the goods are dangerous, there is no willing exchange.
“…Safety testing is an expense, not a profit center…” Also not true. A real capitalist will by highly motivated to sell a safe product, because real capitalism depends on him being able to continue to sell his products. Safe, effective, well-designed products sell, while inferior, faulty products do not. Safety testing is a necessary component of profit.
“Fortunately, when things go bad such as with the epidemic of problems with Chinese products, the profit motive acts to force companies to institute better practices, shift suppliers or impose more stringent requirements on suppliers, and so forth.” Exactly! This marks the first time I have ever agreed with you on anything.
But then you take it all back with your next statement: “But safety regulation can help provide a buffer, a minimum safety zone…” Not true. It isn’t about safety, it’s about control. Safety regulations have fallen short of keeping consumers safe, and have generally driven up the cost of goods.
Government is the problem, not the solution.
I’m automatically notified by IC whenever anyone responds to an article I write.
MM: As, I long pointed out about responding to the ‘substance’ of Raymond’s observations, “It’s impossible to have an honest debate with a dishonest partner”.
Phil,
You are correct. However, many people have errant ideas about what capitalism is and how it functions. Frequently it is phrased something like, “I believe in capitalism, but…” and then name some supposed excess of capitalism.
I am writing about these misconceptions chiefly for others who might be more open-minded and honest, and are willing to consider the claims of real capitalism.
It’s one area that I really want to focus on to try to correct the foolishness of lefists.
Mountain Man – You state that “Selling dangerous products has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism is the willing exchange of goods or services between parties.”
That smacks of ‘no true Scotsman’, but it’s a fact that markets can be subverted by cheating, and one of the necessary functions of governments is to prevent that. That will, of necessity, impose some burdens on businesses (if nothing else, keeping adequate records), and of course there’s a lot of room for arguing about costs versus benefits. But if we’re talking about the real world, capitalism, like any other human endeavor, will occur with some amount of cheating and fraud.
…real capitalism depends on him being able to continue to sell his products. Safe, effective, well-designed products sell, while inferior, faulty products do not.
Only when there’s sufficient information available for consumers to determine which products are safe and which are faulty. One anonymous quote I saw that I found insightful went: “Capitalism works primarily because most of the ways that a company can be scum end up being extremely bad for business when there’s working competition.” But working competition requires relatively long time horizons not always popular today.
[Safety regulation] isn’t about safety, it’s about control. Safety regulations have fallen short of keeping consumers safe…
If you’re asking for perfection, you aren’t going to find it in this world. The actual question is what kinds and what level of regulation is optimal. I actually agree that there’s too much in some areas today, though it seems pretty clear that zero’s too little.
“No true Scotsman” is not relevant. Fraud, cheating, and selling inferior products are not features of capitalism. They are violations of capitalism.
Mountain Man – “Fraud, cheating, and selling inferior products are not features of capitalism. They are violations of capitalism.”
…which are inevitable without the rule of law. Capitalism is a bit like a hothouse flower, it can’t exist without specific conditions which are the result of human effort. It’s not a question of whether ‘government meddling’ is inimical to capitalism; capitalism can’t exist without it. The question is how much of what kind of ‘government involvement’ is optimal.
Have I argued against the rule of law?
I quote myself: “It’s real clear, I think. Private businesses have the right to decide how to operate their businesses. You seem to think that a third party should be able to decisions and set operating practices of a legally-operating enterprise. On what basis? Its social obligations, perhaps? That is a marxist perspective.”
Capitalism is the natural state of Man as he conducts his life in interaction with others. It is not fragile, it does not need to be nurtured. Capitalism happens with or without the “blessing” of government.
Where government is hostile to capitalism (i.e., the Soviet Union), capitalism thrives as a black market. The disciplines required to engage in capitalism were enforced by the participants. Cheaters and liars were dealt with, albeit harshly on occasion.
Where governmment is friendly to capitalism, capitalism thrives in the absence of heavy-handed central planners. Minimal government is required.
The only difference between the two scenarios is who enforces the natural rules of capitalism.
Mountain Man – Of course “Private businesses have the right to decide how to operate their businesses,” but those rights end when they harm others. Negligence applies to businesses as well as citizens, hence safety regulation.
And I can’t agree that “Capitalism is the natural state of Man.” As a simple example, it requires innovations like money – ‘barter’ isn’t the same thing as ‘capitalism’. Money doesn’t have to be state-created, but the historical counterexamples tend to be limited in scope, and relatively brief.
“Negligence applies to businesses as well as citizens, hence safety regulation.” No, hence LAWS. It is illegal to steal, commit fraud, or harm someone. A business breaks the law, it is prosecuted. If it is sued and found legally liable, it suffers the consequences. Simple. Anything beyond that is outside government’s authority.
Capitalism is the willing exchange of goods or services between parties. No currency is required. Any time a legal exchange of something valuable occurs, capitalism has happened.
This exchange has happened ever since one man has had
interrelationships with another. Capitalism is the natural state of man. It is not a system, it has its own natural rules, and always results in the satisfaction of all parties.
Mountain Man:
What is your opinion of the law in my state that says that any appliance carries an “implied warranty?” It means, basically, for example, if I sell you a toaster, and it stops working day after tomorrow, I have to give you your money back. I don’t have the right to argue, “what do you mean it’s not a valid toaster? What did you have for breakfast?”
You seem to say that the free exercise of capitalism, and a government that prohibits fraud, may coexist, and are your preference. But this law is designed to prevent fraud. And it restricts capitalism. It is coercive, is it not?
At the same time, if the natural laws of capitalism are relied on to “penalize” sellers of inferiors merchandise, then you, the first purchaser of my new line of toasters, have had your rights violated, with no remedy, without the law. Correct?
Thank you.
I think I see what you’re saying, ruminator.
The law ought to address activity associated with capitalism that is not capitalism, specifically, activities that ultimately violate personal property rights. We have laws against theft, fraud, and injuring others. All of these are property rights violations. We also have laws regarding legal liability. These are are perfectly acceptable ways to facilitate capitalism, they create the framework for willing, private exchanges to occur.
If a toaster fails soon after purchase, “willing exchange” has been violated. No one would willingly purchase a flawed product. Although as you say a law has been passed regarding this, it wasn’t the law that provided a remedy.
You see, capitalists have already addressed this via warranties. I think you would agree that participants would tend to gravitate to a product with a warranty, as compared to a similar product without a warranty, all other things being comparable. The warranty places that company at a competitive advantage, which is a capitalistic strategy.
Remember when Hyundai first came on the scene? They were not particularly good cars, but they were cheap. Really cheap. Hyundai figured that the only place they could compete was on price, and that attracted a significant number of consumers for which price was the defining purchase criteria.
As Hyundai gained market share, it began offering 10 year/100,000 mile warranties. No one else could touch it. And now, Hyundai offers some very highly rated vehicles. All the government needed to do was provide the legal framework for this capitalistic venture to succeed.
So, I am advocating that laws address violations of property rights (stealing, cheating, and selling inferior products all violate the property rights of consumers), while staying out of “controlling” the market. The market controls itself perfectly well without government meddling.
Yes and the Yugo car is gone, and probably ought to be. I agree with everything except unless you are saying that unconscientious or untalented merchants are driven out of business by competition or bad publicity. Not always. Used car dealers still tamper with odometers. All they have to do to stay in business is offer similar deals to what’s generally available.
So if it’s illegal for me to rob a a retail business, it should be illegal (not just risky business) for them to misrepresent.
ruminator,
Misrepresentation is currently an illegal practice, and it ought to be. It creates a false inducement to purchase, which violates the property rights of the consumer. So does rolling back an odometer. I am comfortable with laws that assure that thieves and crooks are prosecuted.
I have a theory on why shysters can continue to stay in business, aside from the fact the we are a gullible breed (which, by the way, no law can correct). My theory is this: Government creates the illusion of safety by its continual intrusion into the marketplace. It seems to be everywhere, but in actual fact, it can’t be.
This creates a sense of comfort in consumers unwarranted by the circumstances. So, consumers go merry about their business thinking that everything is tamper-proof, and they are easy targets for scams.
Here’s proof of my thesis. When was the last time you examined the balance sheet of a bank where you were considering making deposits? I’d wager you never have, because the government is guaranteeing your account, right? But when you invested in a mutual fund, did you read the prospectus? You probably did, because you entered the transaction eyes-wide-open. You knew there was potential risk, so you investigated.
That’s why I think unwarrented government intrusion is a bad thing.
Mountain Man – I’m still not convinced that safety regulation is unwarranted in all circumstances. Independent standard organizations can be quite effective at times (e.g. I prefer Kosher hot dogs, and meat packers are free to go for Kosher certification or not) but conflicts of interest do happen. See, e.g., the accounting firms that drastically overstate the solvency of their clients to drum up other financial business. (Arthur Andersen, for example.)
That leads to another thorny but related issue, monopoly law. I advanced before that “Capitalism works primarily because most of the ways that a company can be scum end up being extremely bad for business when there’s working competition.” I further advance that monopolies distort or eliminate working competition.
There are certainly things like “natural monopolies”; you can’t practically have more than one electric company, natural gas provider, etc. Internet service is another interesting case. It’s not practical to run multiple independent network cables to all homes. But this leads to disincentives to provide new services and so forth. (DSL has really suffered from this.)
Splitting ownership such that one company provides the infrastructure, while others provide the services and connectivity, leads to greater competition.
Mr. Ingles,
You write, “I’m still not convinced that safety regulation is unwarranted in all circumstances.” Whatever. You’re welcome to think whatever you want.
A monopoly violates “willing exchange.” But the only monopolies I’m aware of are the cases you cite; and also, the government itself operates as a monopoly.
Assuming there is a business monopoly somewhere, that business is nevertheless still subject to the power of the consumer to bring it to its knees. No matter how big, say, Microsoft gets, it still exists only to the extent that people are willing to buy its products.
Interesting article: http://www.pgpmediation.com/2009/07/10/the-long-life-of-an-implied-warranty/
This kind of interpretation of the law is, in my layman’s opinion, unfair to the merchant.
It’s true almost all products carry some written warranty but a warranty of very short duration may be construed as a lack of confidence in one’s product.
But an educated customer ought to be able to take note of that.
Educated consumers are getting rarer. I think consumer stupidity/laziness is the predominant reason for a lot of government interventions into the free market.
We are in sad shape if we have arrived at the point where we want the government to protect us from our own idiocy.