J
jvquarterbackCougarclaw
1. Liquidity does not come from financial instituitions or banks. It comes from investors with capital. The investment firms that were bailed out were only middle men. Their demise would have shifted capital away from their dangerous practices (which are still going on despite an regulation you may believe prevents it) into more fruitful areas.
2. I think the 1920s is a great case study but start in 1920 when a stock crash about 80% of the size of the 1929 crash took place. No subsequent regulation was put in place and the economy was doing very well 18 months later. Then the 1929 crash takes place (precipitated by the actions of the Federal Reserve more than anything else) and a whole slew of regulations get passed and you get 27 years of depression. I'll take the free market approach thank you very much.
3. OK the defense argument is a little facetious, but it was more a swipe at people who don't pay taxes than anything else. The road system is likely a waste of money but I guess we'll never know without a free market alternative. Where roads are private, as many are in the East, they they are much more efficiently run.
4. Patents (and copyrights) dampen innovation. Some people make a moral argument that the inventor should always retain their "intellectual property" and I thought you were making that argument (the fire analogy). I guess not. But patents hinder technology, they do not advance it, there is a lot of evidence for this.
5. I said the rate of decline of worker injuries decreased when OSHA began regulating workplaces. That means without the regulations the competition for workers in the free market competition for the best workers was a better check in favor of worker safety than any subsequent regulations. OSHA's own data supports this.
6. None of those firms were a monopoly. Prices dropped dramatically as each of them grew because there was enormous competition in their fields despite what the US justice dept would like you to believe. They were broken up because the sore losers got their friends in government to harm the winners.
7. Regulations are always captured by large firms to hinder innovation so they cannot create a level playing field. That was the point of Stigler's argument because they raise barriers to entry which favors the existing firms.
1. Liquidity does not come from financial instituitions or banks. It comes from investors with capital. The investment firms that were bailed out were only middle men. Their demise would have shifted capital away from their dangerous practices (which are still going on despite an regulation you may believe prevents it) into more fruitful areas.
2. I think the 1920s is a great case study but start in 1920 when a stock crash about 80% of the size of the 1929 crash took place. No subsequent regulation was put in place and the economy was doing very well 18 months later. Then the 1929 crash takes place (precipitated by the actions of the Federal Reserve more than anything else) and a whole slew of regulations get passed and you get 27 years of depression. I'll take the free market approach thank you very much.
3. OK the defense argument is a little facetious, but it was more a swipe at people who don't pay taxes than anything else. The road system is likely a waste of money but I guess we'll never know without a free market alternative. Where roads are private, as many are in the East, they they are much more efficiently run.
4. Patents (and copyrights) dampen innovation. Some people make a moral argument that the inventor should always retain their "intellectual property" and I thought you were making that argument (the fire analogy). I guess not. But patents hinder technology, they do not advance it, there is a lot of evidence for this.
5. I said the rate of decline of worker injuries decreased when OSHA began regulating workplaces. That means without the regulations the competition for workers in the free market competition for the best workers was a better check in favor of worker safety than any subsequent regulations. OSHA's own data supports this.
6. None of those firms were a monopoly. Prices dropped dramatically as each of them grew because there was enormous competition in their fields despite what the US justice dept would like you to believe. They were broken up because the sore losers got their friends in government to harm the winners.
7. Regulations are always captured by large firms to hinder innovation so they cannot create a level playing field. That was the point of Stigler's argument because they raise barriers to entry which favors the existing firms.