Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
That's a nice string of words. Did you intend to back them up, or are you speaking ex-cathedra?
|
Apply commonsense.
Regulations hinder flexibility. Well, that's pretty damn true. If a regulation has forced me to provide certain safety measures for my workers when an alternative could have been used just as effectively, flexibility has been hindered. And it doesn't take a genius to find an example.
Lowering and raising incentives are what regulations are created for. My incentive to run a company within X industry if Y regulation makes it more expensive to do so. In a free market, the incentive purely corresponds to the information I have gathered on the aggragate demand.
Quote:
I refer you again to the fact that the rule of law is all that prevents me from harvesting your orgns and selling them.
|
Point being what? Privatized defense firms could protect me within anarcho-capitalism. I just accept that police are one of those oddities that operate more efficiently as a monopoly.
Quote:
I think he said 'stop rewarding for laying off'. What are you, binary?
|
And how do we reward them, exactly? With a higher profit margin because the worker was unnecessary? This is similar to technological progress: I'd rather more efficient methods of doing tasks were created than perpetuate 100% employment (sorry if that comes off a little Schumpeterian).
Quote:
It certainly has provided more and more efficient ways to launder money.
|
Not really. Money dumped into banks in foreign nations still gets taxed by that country, and, if I recall, we tax it too (or is that only corporate profits?). In any case, you have a very simplistic view of the issue. The benefits outweigh the drawbacks.