In a way I agree with you, but FAA only did small part of certification, majority was done by Boeing itself. This was not the case in past. FAA regulation strong arm to weakened by lobbyist.
$15 an hour minimum wage killed Seatle’s job market
- Thread starter UsualName
- Start date
In a way I agree with you, but FAA only did small part of certification, majority was done by Boeing itself. This was not the case in past. FAA regulation strong arm to weakened by lobbyist.
2nd that
Love Canal, Three Mile Island, and the subprime mortgage disaster are all good examples of how an absence of sufficient regulations led to serious problems. Basically too many people thought a free market and reasonable management would be a control on corporate greed and lack of quality oversight but it wasn't.
Of course that which just put more people on welfare.We already pay billions in taxes for the healthcare,food,housing etc for Walmart,McDonald's etc workers
Yeah, why even have a justice system, right? That makes complete sense.
That is precisely what I was talking about when I wrote that the justice system must be improved so that the people responsible do not get away with it. In the example I gave from Brazil, one of the top Agency employees was bribed by the biggest Brazilian aviation company (TAM) in order to clear that track for landing. Guess what happened to the person who cleared the tracks for landing in the regulatory agency? What about the people who bribed that person? NOTHING. TAM is to this day one of the biggest aviation companies in the country and one of the few, also thanks to regulation and government meddling in the free enterprise system, which keeps competition out.
Or do you think that the only people seeking "short cuts" are the "bad private businessmen" and the public employees are a whole different species composed only by angels? In what world do you live in?
Regulation is the perfect example of what Milton Friedman called "Incentives for immoral behavior". I auote: "You know, in the 18th century Britain was regarded as a nation of smugglers, of law avoiders, of people who broke the law. In the 19th and early 20th century, Britain got the reputation of being the most law obeying country in the world, an incorruptible civil service. Everybody knew about the fact that you couldn't bribe a civil servant in Britain the way you could one in say... Italy or say... New York. How did that come about?.... Very simply: By the laissez-fare policy adapted in the 19th century, which eliminated laws to break. If you had complete free trade... There was no smuggling."
On the other hand, he always acknowledged that there was a role for government in the justice system, because people could try to act dishonestly and if they did so, they should be heavily punished.
What is the result of what you defend? This: the government trying to do almost everything it should not be doing through regulation, with extremely poor results and the very function that they should be perfecting is a total catastrophe, which is the slow, expensive and inefficient justice system. And this applies to any country, including Brazil and the USA. Because of all this, the very people that should be punished are able to do shit like this and keep their power, exactly like Boeing and TAM did.
A.K.A. Corruption.
Thank you for proving the point I made. There are no angels in this world and competition is the best way(given the fact that there is no perfect way) to avoid that. Because if you artificially put power in the hands of individuals, there is a strong incentive for the people who want to manipulate that power to bribe the individual. And that civil servant, pursuing his own self-interest like everybody on this Earth, will eventually give in.
Yeah, why even have a justice system, right? That makes complete sense.
That is precisely what I was talking about when I wrote that the justice system must be improved so that the people responsible do not get away with it. In the example I gave from Brazil, one of the top Agency employees was bribed by the biggest Brazilian aviation company (TAM) in order to clear that track for landing. Guess what happened to the person who cleared the tracks for landing in the regulatory agency? What about the people who bribed that person? NOTHING. TAM is to this day one of the biggest aviation companies in the country and one of the few, also thanks to regulation and government meddling in the free enterprise system, which keeps competition out.
Or do you think that the only people seeking "short cuts" are the "bad private businessmen" and the public employees are a whole different species composed only by angels? In what world do you live in?
Regulation is the perfect example of what Milton Friedman called "Incentives for immoral behavior". I auote: "You know, in the 18th century Britain was regarded as a nation of smugglers, of law avoiders, of people who broke the law. In the 19th and early 20th century, Britain got the reputation of being the most law obeying country in the world, an incorruptible civil service. Everybody knew about the fact that you couldn't bribe a civil servant in Britain the way you could one in say... Italy or say... New York. How did that come about?.... Very simply: By the laissez-fare policy adapted in the 19th century, which eliminated laws to break. If you had complete free trade... There was no smuggling."
On the other hand, he always acknowledged that there was a role for government in the justice system, because people could try to act dishonestly and if they did so, they should be heavily punished.
What is the result of what you defend? This: the government trying to do almost everything it should not be doing through regulation, with extremely poor results and the very function that they should be perfecting is a total catastrophe, which is the slow, expensive and inefficient justice system. And this applies to any country, including Brazil and the USA. Because of all this, the very people that should be punished are able to do shit like this and keep their power, exactly like Boeing and TAM did.
You making a mistake by thinking fear of punishment would deter people from doing bad things. One of the most effective things that does it is independent (yes I know nothing is truly independent) regulatory body, like FAA or EPA, if it is not weakened by lobbyists, aka deregulation.
Being is a perfect example, they knew design was flawed, and in the old days they would never do it or go back to drawing board, since independent FAA would never left it fly. But FAA was weakened through deregulation, and we all now know what toll this particular deregulation took.
Repealing Glass/Steagal act is another great example, that gave us housing crisis.
Why can’t we agree some regulations are good and some are bad.
This disaster with Boeing is a product of a deregulation agenda aka get the government out of the way. The same thing is happening in our meat industry. The industry is moving more to self regulation and it’s a bad thing.
I see you're just going to keep running in circles avoiding the points I made. Your examples are self defeating: If lobbying is able to curb regulation, that just proves the regulators can be bribed.
It all comes down to logic:
Everyone has only one thing in mind, which is to benefit oneself. In an actual free and competitive market, this has the effect that there is only one way someone can become rich or earn a living, which is to produce something others want to consume. If you don't do that or if you fuck up your product(like say, an aviation company who uses planes not fit for flying and kills people), competition will simply eat you alive. So, you have a very strong incentive to not let that happen, otherwise you'll go broke(people don't normally want to use planes from companies who have a history of crashes). Plus, you should have a justice system that effectively punishes those who do that on purpose, adding to that effect.
On the other hand, if you have a regulated market, the same people involved continue to have only one thing in mind, which is to benefit themselves. However, the incentives change completely: The regulator has power to decide who produces, who sells... That power makes them very interesting in the eyes of very rich and established businesses, who want to keep competition out and curb the regulations. The perfect stage for corruption is set.
The businessmen know that, so now they have a few other options to get rich and mantain that, namely: they can continue to produce and improve their product like in a free market(much harder, takes a lot of effort and constant improving), they can bribe/lobby the regulator to kill competition(regulatory capture) or they can bribe the regulator so that he gets special benefits and don't let the rules that should be applied to everyone be applied to him, which has the effect of lowering his costs(much easier, especially for big businesses). Plus, if something bad happens(like a tragedy in a plane crash), since he has killed the competition through regulation, people don't have many choices of other companies to resort to, so they have more leeway in fucking up, without actually having to be so scared of going broke because of competition.
This explains why so many companies that engage in monumental fuck ups (including Boeing, TAM, some banks and whatnot) continue to exist, despite their monumental errors.
So, you see, you live in a fantasy world where angels put in positions of power in the government will put their own interests aside for the good of others. I simply see the reality: there are no angels, but you can use the wish to benefit oneself to get the best possible results and you do that by letting people compete in a truly free market.
Last edited: