Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 This is simply rediculous. I am not arguing that there is no corruption on government. There is no more incentive to be inefficient in government than in industry. Enron is another good example of this. During the energy crisis they would shut down power plants for " repairs " and then order the plants to stay shut down long after the repairs were finished. This was hardly efficient but the lowered energy supply caused the prices to rise again making them lots of money. Inefficient, corrupt and private. And I would ask you to stop making insulting remarks about my knowledge. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me ignorant. And so far you haven't demonstrated any superior knowledge or experience. Irene At 08:15 AM 2/28/2005, you wrote: >Government has incentive to be inefficient at best and corrupt at >worst. Business has incentive to be efficient, competent and fair. Incentive = tendency = basic nature - which is dictated by fundamental setup, regarding how they get their money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 > -----Original Message----- > From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...] > > This is simply rediculous. I am not arguing that there is no > corruption on government. There is no more incentive to be > inefficient in government than in industry. When a business is inefficient, it may cease to exist. When a government agency is inefficient, it gets more funding. Government is generally inefficient for the simple reason that it cannot be allowed to fail, and thus does not face the powerful selective pressures that businesses face. > Enron is another > good example of this. During the energy crisis they would > shut down power plants for " repairs " and then order the > plants to stay shut down long after the repairs were > finished. This was hardly efficient but the lowered energy > supply caused the prices to rise again making them lots of > money. Inefficient, corrupt and private. Again, Enron is a good example of the kind of businesses that thrive in highly regulated environments like the energy market. Businesses are, on average, only as honest and efficient as the environments in which they operate. When the system can be gamed, selective pressures will ensure that those who are best at gaming the system rise to the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Enron's shenanegens started when the industry deregulated. Prior to deregulation they wouldn't have been allowed to shut down a plant without approval of the regulatory authority for this very reason. The regulators made sure that repairs were scheduled in such a way so that you wouldn't have severe shortages of power. During deregulation, this rule went away with the belief that power companies could better determine their own business. It was a disaster for consumers. Irene At 11:34 AM 2/28/2005, you wrote: >Again, Enron is a good example of the kind of businesses that thrive in >highly regulated environments like the energy market. Businesses are, on >average, only as honest and efficient as the environments in which they >operate. When the system can be gamed, selective pressures will ensure that >those who are best at gaming the system rise to the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 An inefficient business might fail or it might not. That depends entirely on the industry. If it is a niche industry, many times the costs of inefficiency are just passed to the consumer. In fact the profit motive which in one instance can be a motivator toward efficiency can also do the opposite in another. There are examples where the pressure to post quarterly profits trumped sound engineering at a cost to both the company and the consumer. These don't always cause the closing of the business. Bottom line is that the unregulated market does an excellent job in some industries and is terrible in others. I am not sure where you get the idea that government by it's nature is inefficient. It is simply not true. For one thing federal agencies have to answer to congress. There is an enormous amount of pressure to keep costs down and stay on schedule. The recent NASA budget cuts, and not so recent base closures are evidence of this pressure. The government also doesn't have the pressure of posting quarterly profits so they can take a longer view of things. This " government bad " " companies good " mantra is just not the case. Government and industry have different pressures The bottom line is that there are thousands of people who work for " government " and as far as talent and integrity they run the gamut. It is not a homogeneous group. But my observation is that you have the same gamut in industry. And I don't expect you to believe me, however the relationship between government and regulated industry very often works extremely well. Government's job is to look after the interests of the electorate and Industry's prime motive is " profit " . How well they work depends together in great measure on the individual agencies and industries as well as personalities involved. The relationships are sometime contentious but very often are ones of teamwork and synergy. Many companies welcome oversight because it levels the playing field. Others resent it because they can't get away with what they want. The government sometimes makes mistakes and so does industry. The government is not immune to corruption but neither is industry. It is not a perfect system by a long shot but as far as I am concerned that doing away with regulation is getting out of the frying pan and into the fire. And there are many things that can be done to improve the system. Anyway, I am done spouting off about this. This was cathartic but I don't think I will sway anyone's opinion. Irene At 11:34 AM 2/28/2005, you wrote: >When a business is inefficient, it may cease to exist. When a government >agency is inefficient, it gets more funding. Government is generally >inefficient for the simple reason that it cannot be allowed to fail, and >thus does not face the powerful selective pressures that businesses face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Mark- >I like that better than what I just wrote. I'd appreciate it if you backquote more selectively instead of regurgitating entire posts into your new messages. It's a convenience and a courtesy to other members, particularly those who prefer digest view. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 , To snip or not to snip; folks will bitch either way. Sorry, can't oblige; is an impossible request. Don't we already have enough contention to deal with anyway? -Mark _____ From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 7:09 PM Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... Mark- >I like that better than what I just wrote. I'd appreciate it if you backquote more selectively instead of regurgitating entire posts into your new messages. It's a convenience and a courtesy to other members, particularly those who prefer digest view. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Mark- >To snip or not to snip; folks will bitch either way. Sorry, can't >oblige; is an impossible request. Don't we already have enough >contention to deal with anyway? Are you kidding? It's a universal precept of netiquette that backquoting entire messages including headers and footers and irrelevant passages is rude. You can oblige, but you refuse to. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 _____ From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...] Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 3:56 PM Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... In a message dated 2/27/2005 3:22:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, colowe@... writes: Yes, those are so complicated details. But why would a government agency be any more competent at fairly sorting them out than a high-tech commercial entity? Multiple pollution tolerances could be better pre-determined by business. But the tolerances would not be used for criminal enforcement, they would be used as adjudication criteria in civil suits. _____ If you are arguing that a private legislative body would set standards over a public legislative body with compulsory membership, that's not really contradicting what I was arguing. If you are, however, arguing that any business can just draw up these guidelines, then the argument has major problems. A court can't hold the parties to the dispute accountable to some business's opinions unless both of those parties have contractually agreed to those guidelines. Chris ------------- No. No legislative body. A polluter would not have to have signed a contract in order to be liable for damages. I think some of your concerns might be addressed (or neutralized) here: http://www.la-articles.org.uk/FL-3-4-6.pdf Libertarian Pollution Control by Max T. O'Connor -Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 _____ From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...] Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 3:58 PM Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... In a message dated 2/27/2005 3:26:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, colowe@... writes: Who sets the predetermined amount of garbage allowable, if not a legislative body? Chris ---------------------- The high-tech company. Why/how do you think a legislative body would do the job better? _____ You mean a high-tech comapny that legislates rather than a legislative body? Isn't a high-tech company that legislates by definition a legislative body? Chris --------------- Would not be legislation; would be in the form of discovery to determine liability. Here's a quote from that article: " the task is not primarily one of computing the optimal solution to a well-defined 'problem', but rather one of discovering the 'problem' in the first place (and the possibility of making some improvement), then gathering and utilising the necessary information, and finally implementing an improved solution. " -Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Wanita, You blame business when government colludes with them? Your examples are ones of government influence: playing favorites and tilting the playing field. I agree that there should be no caps or screens on corporate liability but I don't blame business for asking for it; I blame gov for granting it. You explain very nicely that which governments are very good at: being paid off to grant favors and discriminate. The corrupting factor in your post is not business. -Mark _____ From: Wanita Sears [mailto:wanitawa@...] Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 4:42 PM Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... When legislators are compromised, having to be for corporate future campaign funding as much or more than with who their jobs are meant to be for or ex corporate individuals go to government you can get an Enron or this FDA,Vioxx return to market decision in the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/politics/25fda.html coincidentally days after tort reform was passed disallowing state attorney generals and state courts to file class actions. They now must be screened for frivolity by federal courts and federally appointed judges. With the only priority, profit margin now more protected against liability the cause of the decision, the harmful product, what was broke can be ignored. No science, no technical know how, no consumer, just business. Wanita > Government legislators might not have scientific or technical however they > are not single handedly writing policy. When technical policy has to be > written they hire experts in the field, from government agencies (FDA, EPA > etc) and private industry to do that. And although you are correct in > saying that government isn't the pinnacle of honesty and fairness, private > industry is certainly no better. > Irene > > > At 11:11 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote: >>Gov legislators are by no means >>the reference standard of scientific or technical ability, and >>certainly not the pinnacle of honesty and fairness. In other >>words, all would be better accomplished by private enterprise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Irene, Thank-you for expounding further on the corrupting influence of government on business. -Mark _____ From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...] Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 4:59 PM Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... You are absolutely correct, that is exactly how we got Enron. This is the major problem with our government today. The revolving door between top government jobs and industry. Interestingly enough if you are a low level government worker, as GS-whatever, it is illegal for you to take a job in an industry that you have had a hand in regulating for 5 years after you leave government. This doesn't seem to be true of high level government jobs. And that is a huge problem. And of course campaign contributions.... These can be fixed. I don't think there was always the revolving door. I am not sure about the history of that but I think the 5 year rule applied to all government employees at one time. Irene At 01:41 PM 2/27/2005, you wrote: >When legislators are compromised, having to be for corporate future campaign >funding as much or more than with who their jobs are meant to be for or ex >corporate individuals go to government you can get an Enron or this >FDA,Vioxx return to market decision in the NY Times >http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/politics/25fda.html >coincidentally days after tort reform was passed disallowing state attorney >generals and state courts to file class actions. They now must be screened >for frivolity by federal courts and federally appointed judges. With the >only priority, profit margin now more protected against liability the cause >of the decision, the harmful product, what was broke can be ignored. No >science, no technical know how, no consumer, just business. > >Wanita > > > Government legislators might not have scientific or technical however they > > are not single handedly writing policy. When technical policy has to be > > written they hire experts in the field, from government agencies (FDA, EPA > > etc) and private industry to do that. And although you are correct in > > saying that government isn't the pinnacle of honesty and fairness, private > > industry is certainly no better. > > Irene > > > > > > At 11:11 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote: > >>Gov legislators are by no means > >>the reference standard of scientific or technical ability, and > >>certainly not the pinnacle of honesty and fairness. In other > >>words, all would be better accomplished by private enterprise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 _____ From: Wanita Sears [mailto:wanitawa@...] Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 7:02 PM Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... * Now say the threshold of biological damage to a human is 10 > pollution-effect-units per capita, and each of the three industries emmit > 5 pollution-units > of their respective pollutants. Neither industries A or B are polluting > enough to cause biological harm. Yet the two together will result in > biological > harm. Is A responsible for B's activities? What if A's practice > pre-dated B? > Would A be innocent while B found guilty? Should B have considered A's > existing practice before it engaged in its harmless (by itself) activity? > If > industry C's pollutant in itself is biologically irrelevant, can it not > claim > complete denial of responsibility? Or is it responsible for the actions > of A > and B? > > Chris This reminds me of the air testing done to determine where and what was causing extreme levels of dioxins in Inuit mother's breast milk. Canada's technological machine, which was put into use after NAFTA went through determined the sources to be 4 U.S. factories and 2 Mexican iirc, but then is the responsibility each individual polluter's, all of them combined, some, the air course mixing and carrying them or where the Inuit are? Source being man made from likely some natural products and all else being natural, the common sense solution is to know and realize all possible results and/or be willing to be responsible if not, before making anything and making it public in the first place. Wanita --------------------- Wanita, Responsibility? Each individual's. Damage is damage, whether previously known or not. Enough victorious lawsuits and the word regarding allowable tolerances would get out quicker and better than any legislative edict. -Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Wanita, We all disapprove of said protection of certain businesses by government, right? Then let's remove the true villain: the " protector " . After all, big gov is a protection racket when it comes down to it. -Mark _____ From: Wanita Sears [mailto:wanitawa@...] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 9:03 AM Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... Mark, Where's the boundary line between where business is obtaining legislative interest protection and legislation is obtaining corporate and/or business interest enumeration? What about industry specific lobbyists and campaign contributions? Granted there are special interest group lobbies as well, working with less power and funds for the interests of specific groups of people or issues. Wanita > Irene, > > > > Business corruption is the exception. Government corruption is > the rule. If you trust government over business, you know little > about either. > > > > -Mark > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 See below: _____ From: implode7@... [mailto:implode7@...] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 11:40 AM Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... > > Government has incentive to be inefficient at best and corrupt at > worst. If there is no profit motive, then the incentive would have to come from laws. There is always incentive to be corrupt - isn't that built into the idea of corruption? So, there have to be built in disincentives that outweigh the incentives. ----------- You wanna run that by me again? ----------- >Business has incentive to be efficient, competent and > fair. Fair? LOL! That's a good one. Ruthless yes. I just don't see fair. --------------- Ruthless? Surely not to their customers; bad for business. How can you be ruthless to a voluntary customer? You mist mean ruthless to their competition. -------------- >Incentive = tendency = basic nature - which is dictated by > fundamental setup, regarding how they get their money. > Governments essentially extort it by force and businesses > essentially earn it by consent. oh, yeah, right. And this is FACT to you? If the society is democratic, is it right to say that the government " extorts " money by " force " ? Note that I am not basing this on any conception that the U.S. is democratic. ---------------- And what would happen to you if you did not pay your taxes? ---------------- > > > > The first piece of evidence I would use to back up my > anti-government claim(s) would be the Constitution of the US and > the amount of it that is dedicated to limiting the abusive/ " evil " > nature of government and its powers. Would you accept that as a > credible piece of evidence? > No. The problem is that there isn't enough legislated to limit the " abusive/evil " nature of corporations. --------- You are joking right? -Mark --------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Irene, Gov does not operate on competence or legitimate profit; they waste money to get more money. It is the opposite for free-enterprise; they competently satisfy demand with a dependable product to get money. Which would naturally be more efficient? (No offense to any gov employees in the room - HA.) BTW, since when did Enron become the representative model of American business? -Mark _____ From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 12:01 PM Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... This is simply rediculous. I am not arguing that there is no corruption on government. There is no more incentive to be inefficient in government than in industry. Enron is another good example of this. During the energy crisis they would shut down power plants for " repairs " and then order the plants to stay shut down long after the repairs were finished. This was hardly efficient but the lowered energy supply caused the prices to rise again making them lots of money. Inefficient, corrupt and private. And I would ask you to stop making insulting remarks about my knowledge. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me ignorant. And so far you haven't demonstrated any superior knowledge or experience. Irene At 08:15 AM 2/28/2005, you wrote: >Government has incentive to be inefficient at best and corrupt at >worst. Business has incentive to be efficient, competent and fair. Incentive = tendency = basic nature - which is dictated by fundamental setup, regarding how they get their money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 And was disaster for Enron, correct? _____ From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 2:45 PM Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... Enron's shenanegens started when the industry deregulated. Prior to deregulation they wouldn't have been allowed to shut down a plant without approval of the regulatory authority for this very reason. The regulators made sure that repairs were scheduled in such a way so that you wouldn't have severe shortages of power. During deregulation, this rule went away with the belief that power companies could better determine their own business. It was a disaster for consumers. Irene At 11:34 AM 2/28/2005, you wrote: >Again, Enron is a good example of the kind of businesses that thrive in >highly regulated environments like the energy market. Businesses are, on >average, only as honest and efficient as the environments in which they >operate. When the system can be gamed, selective pressures will ensure that >those who are best at gaming the system rise to the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 A lot of the reason small businesses fail is the cost of government regulation (codes, standards, licenses, etc). If you can't understand why gov is inefficient, just look at its economic structure. There is enormous pressure to keep costs UP. -Mark _____ From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:42 PM Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... An inefficient business might fail or it might not. That depends entirely on the industry. If it is a niche industry, many times the costs of inefficiency are just passed to the consumer. In fact the profit motive which in one instance can be a motivator toward efficiency can also do the opposite in another. There are examples where the pressure to post quarterly profits trumped sound engineering at a cost to both the company and the consumer. These don't always cause the closing of the business. Bottom line is that the unregulated market does an excellent job in some industries and is terrible in others. I am not sure where you get the idea that government by it's nature is inefficient. It is simply not true. For one thing federal agencies have to answer to congress. There is an enormous amount of pressure to keep costs down and stay on schedule. The recent NASA budget cuts, and not so recent base closures are evidence of this pressure. The government also doesn't have the pressure of posting quarterly profits so they can take a longer view of things. This " government bad " " companies good " mantra is just not the case. Government and industry have different pressures The bottom line is that there are thousands of people who work for " government " and as far as talent and integrity they run the gamut. It is not a homogeneous group. But my observation is that you have the same gamut in industry. And I don't expect you to believe me, however the relationship between government and regulated industry very often works extremely well. Government's job is to look after the interests of the electorate and Industry's prime motive is " profit " . How well they work depends together in great measure on the individual agencies and industries as well as personalities involved. The relationships are sometime contentious but very often are ones of teamwork and synergy. Many companies welcome oversight because it levels the playing field. Others resent it because they can't get away with what they want. The government sometimes makes mistakes and so does industry. The government is not immune to corruption but neither is industry. It is not a perfect system by a long shot but as far as I am concerned that doing away with regulation is getting out of the frying pan and into the fire. And there are many things that can be done to improve the system. Anyway, I am done spouting off about this. This was cathartic but I don't think I will sway anyone's opinion. Irene At 11:34 AM 2/28/2005, you wrote: >When a business is inefficient, it may cease to exist. When a government >agency is inefficient, it gets more funding. Government is generally >inefficient for the simple reason that it cannot be allowed to fail, and >thus does not face the powerful selective pressures that businesses face. <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN " " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY>< FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " > <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B> <UL> <LI><B><A HREF= " / " >NAT IVE NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message archive with Onibasu</LI> </UL></FONT> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B> Idol <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer Wanita Sears </FONT></PRE> </BODY> </HTML> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 _____ From: implode7@... [mailto:implode7@...] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 11:40 AM Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... > > Government has incentive to be inefficient at best and corrupt at > worst. If there is no profit motive, then the incentive would have to come from laws. There is always incentive to be corrupt - isn't that built into the idea of corruption? So, there have to be built in disincentives that outweigh the incentives. ----------- You wanna run that by me again? ----------- Not particularly >Business has incentive to be efficient, competent and > fair. Fair? LOL! That's a good one. Ruthless yes. I just don't see fair. --------------- " Ruthless? Surely not to their customers; " If it serves the profit motive, certainly yes. Why my bank, for instance, is quite ruthless. They can get away with it, because what exactly am I going to do? Move to another bank that cares about me, like the ads suggest? Corporations are only fair when they think they MUST be fair, and most often they feel no such obligation. Landlords are not known for being particularly fair, and in fact are quite often ruthless. But your usage of the word 'surely' is impressive. bad for business. How can you be ruthless to a voluntary customer? You mist mean ruthless to their competition. -------------- I must. >Incentive = tendency = basic nature - which is dictated by > fundamental setup, regarding how they get their money. > Governments essentially extort it by force and businesses > essentially earn it by consent. oh, yeah, right. And this is FACT to you? If the society is democratic, is it right to say that the government " extorts " money by " force " ? Note that I am not basing this on any conception that the U.S. is democratic. ---------------- And what would happen to you if you did not pay your taxes? ---------------- Is all coercion 'extortion'? > > > > The first piece of evidence I would use to back up my > anti-government claim(s) would be the Constitution of the US and > the amount of it that is dedicated to limiting the abusive/ " evil " > nature of government and its powers. Would you accept that as a > credible piece of evidence? > No. The problem is that there isn't enough legislated to limit the " abusive/evil " nature of corporations. --------- You are joking right? Afraid not. You are a right wing fascist asshole, right? --------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... Mark- >To snip or not to snip; folks will bitch either way. Sorry, can't >oblige; is an impossible request. Don't we already have enough >contention to deal with anyway? Are you kidding? It's a universal precept of netiquette that backquoting entire messages including headers and footers and irrelevant passages is rude. You can oblige, but you refuse to. - ----------------- , I thought I always deleted irrelevant footers ( stuff). Maybe I forgot that time. But who announces which thread portions are " now irrelevant " ? You? As soon as I try deleting too much, someone will accuse me of strategic omission. I will consider your accusation and claim regarding netiquette, but will not consider your implied " legislation " . Is your pc small? Are you the moderator? Is it a term/condition? If you want the last word on this trivial one, go ahead. I'll not respond (and I'll likely keep posting similarly). -Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Yes yes poor innocent business corrupted by government. Like I said in an earlier post, I am done with this so I suggest we just agree to disagree. Irene At 09:34 PM 2/28/2005, you wrote: >Irene, > > > >Thank-you for expounding further on the corrupting influence of >government on business. > > > >-Mark > > > > _____ > >From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...] >Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 4:59 PM > >Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was >Supporting WAPF or N... > > > >You are absolutely correct, that is exactly how we got Enron. >This is the >major problem with our government today. The revolving door >between top >government jobs and industry. Interestingly enough if you are a >low level >government worker, as GS-whatever, it is illegal for you to take >a job in >an industry that you have had a hand in regulating for 5 years >after you >leave government. This doesn't seem to be true of high level >government >jobs. And that is a huge problem. >And of course campaign contributions.... >These can be fixed. I don't think there was always the revolving >door. I am >not sure about the history of that but I think the 5 year rule >applied to >all government employees at one time. >Irene > > >At 01:41 PM 2/27/2005, you wrote: > > >When legislators are compromised, having to be for corporate >future campaign > >funding as much or more than with who their jobs are meant to be >for or ex > >corporate individuals go to government you can get an Enron or >this > >FDA,Vioxx return to market decision in the NY Times > >http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/politics/25fda.html > >coincidentally days after tort reform was passed disallowing >state attorney > >generals and state courts to file class actions. They now must >be screened > >for frivolity by federal courts and federally appointed judges. >With the > >only priority, profit margin now more protected against >liability the cause > >of the decision, the harmful product, what was broke can be >ignored. No > >science, no technical know how, no consumer, just business. > > > >Wanita > > > > > Government legislators might not have scientific or technical >however they > > > are not single handedly writing policy. When technical policy >has to be > > > written they hire experts in the field, from government >agencies (FDA, EPA > > > etc) and private industry to do that. And although you are >correct in > > > saying that government isn't the pinnacle of honesty and >fairness, private > > > industry is certainly no better. > > > Irene > > > > > > > > > At 11:11 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote: > > >>Gov legislators are by no means > > >>the reference standard of scientific or technical ability, >and > > >>certainly not the pinnacle of honesty and fairness. In other > > >>words, all would be better accomplished by private >enterprise > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Irene, NEVER! Never will I " agree to disagree " . I will always disagree to disagree. Or wait.um.disagree to agree. Or is it. Oh never mind. -Mark _____ From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 1:30 AM Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... Yes yes poor innocent business corrupted by government. Like I said in an earlier post, I am done with this so I suggest we just agree to disagree. Irene At 09:34 PM 2/28/2005, you wrote: >Irene, > > > >Thank-you for expounding further on the corrupting influence of >government on business. > > > >-Mark > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 > -----Original Message----- > From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...] > > An inefficient business might fail or it might not. That > depends entirely on the industry. If it is a niche industry, > many times the costs of inefficiency are just passed to the > consumer. Because niche industries are, by definition, not big enough to attract a lot of competition. Should the industry ever grow large enough to attract competition, selective pressure to do things right will increase. As long as the industry remains small, it just isn't important enough to focus a lot of resources on improving it. Utopia is not an option. > In fact the profit motive which in one instance can > be a motivator toward efficiency can also do the opposite in > another. There are examples where the pressure to post > quarterly profits trumped sound engineering at a cost to both > the company and the consumer. " ...at a cost to...the company " Pressure from whom? This is either bad judgment, or some members of the company deliberately acting against the interests of the company as a whole. No economic system can protect against bad judgment. At best, it can minimize the effects of bad judgment by taking power and resources away from those who make bad judgments. This is the social function of profit and loss. Nor is any economic system immune from people not doing their jobs. Utopia is not an option. > These don't always cause the closing of the business. No one said that bad businesses always fail. They *sometimes* fail, and on average these failures tend to reduce the effect of bad judgment on the production process. Utopia is not an option. > Bottom line is that the unregulated market does an excellent > job in some industries and is terrible in others. Interestingly, the " unregulated market " tends to do the worst in industries that have the most regulation (e.g., medical care, energy, housing, and education). > I am not sure where you get the idea that government by it's > nature is inefficient. It is simply not true. For one thing > federal agencies have to answer to congress. Is that so? What happens when a federal agency has to answer to Congress? Has a federal agency ever been eliminated for failing to accomplish its goals? > There is an > enormous amount of pressure to keep costs down and stay on > schedule. The recent NASA budget cuts, and not so recent base > closures are evidence of this pressure. First, I'm inclined to regard any claims of budget cuts with extreme skepticism. When a " cut " is claimed, it almost always refers to a budget increase less than originally expected. But suppose that NASA's budget really was cut. So what? What does this have to do with efficiency or incentives? Budgets for government agencies are determined politically, and agencies believed to be essential are *never* allowed to die. Failure to achieve objectives is much more likely to result in more funding than less. > The government also > doesn't have the pressure of posting quarterly profits so > they can take a longer view of things. They don't have the pressure of making profits ever. They can burn resources from now until the end of time, > This " government bad " " companies good " mantra is just not the case. > Government and industry have different pressures The bottom > line is that there are thousands of people who work for > " government " and as far as talent and integrity they run the > gamut. It is not a homogeneous group. But my observation is > that you have the same gamut in industry. I agree, mostly. I do believe that private industry tends to attract a higher calibre of person, but I could be wrong. To talk about whether public or private employees are " better " is to miss the point entirely. What matters is that, because government cannot fail (in the sense of becoming incapable of continuing operations), there is no selective pressure to do things right. And because government is not profit-oriented, it has no way of knowing the proper allocation of available resources. Forget about how well Agency X does what it does; in the absence of profit and loss, the government has no way of figuring out whether Agency X should exist at all (Google " socialist calculation problem " for details). > The relationships are sometime contentious but very often are > ones of teamwork and synergy. Many companies welcome > oversight because it levels the playing field. In other words, they welcome regulation because it protects them from more efficient competitors. That's how regulation breeds inefficiency. There are also companies which welcome it because it provides them with ways to game the system. That's how regulation breeds corruption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 > -----Original Message----- > From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...] > > Enron's shenanegens started when the industry deregulated. No. That the energy industry was deregulated--in California or elsewhere--is a myth. There was a restructuring of the regulations, but the energy market remained highly regulated. For example, in California there were price caps for energy at the retail level, but not at the wholesale level. Utility companies were forbidden from signing long-term contracts to purchase energy. I believe that the utilities were required to sell off power plants, too. > Prior to deregulation they wouldn't have been allowed to shut > down a plant without approval of the regulatory authority for > this very reason. This story about Enron faking repairs to increase prices should raise a red flag. If the energy market were really deregulated, they wouldn't need to fake repairs. All they would have had to do is tell customers that they were raising their prices. Why didn't they just do that? Why didn't utilities buy power from out of state when Enron took plants off-line? And why was California hit hardest when there's an interstate market in energy? I'll admit that I don't know the whole story on Enron or the so-called " energy deregulation. " But what I do know suggests that the left-wing " California deregulated energy and look what happened " explanation doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There was too much going on that just wouldn't make sense in a truly deregulated market. We true liberals have a saying: " Intervention begets intervention. " When restrictions are placed on markets, these inevitably create distortions and loopholes. Then new regulations are required to fix the problems created by the original regulations. And then more regulations are needed to fix the problems caused by *those* regulations. It's possible that what happened here is that the " deregulators " unwittingly removed regulations fixing problems created by the remaining regulations. Or it's possible that there was, in fact, no net reduction in regulations. What is indisputable is that, except in the fevered imagination of the left, the market bore no resemblance whatsoever to a free or deregulated one. > The regulators made sure that repairs were > scheduled in such a way so that you wouldn't have severe > shortages of power. During deregulation, this rule went away > with the belief that power companies could better determine > their own business. And they should have. In a free market, prices rise sharply when there are severe shortages of power. From a provider's perspective, this would be the worst possible time to take plants off-line, because they'd lose an opportunity to take advantage of high prices. That this did not happen should strongly suggest to you that reports of " deregulation " have been greatly exaggerated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 I can't bear it any longer! I have become cross-eyed trying to follow various quoting without tagging, top posts, bottom posts, parsed posts. It would be so nice if would come through with his posting etiquette ideas, because they are badly needed for this thread. And it is not just Mark, there are several people posting in this thread and it is just really difficult to follow along or even know who said what. I just happened to choose this message for reply. It would be so lovely if y'all use name tags and maybe follow one style, saying parsing, and stick with it. That way it reads like a script and it follows logically. For instance: [Chris] blah blah blah [Deanna's reply] blah blah blah [Mark then adds] blah blah blah [wrote something else] blah blah blah [Deanna replies to this other thought] blah blah blah [Mark adds his $.02] blah blah blah It's just a suggestion. It's a worthy topic that I would like to follow along with, but it is very difficult with so many different styles and people's writings. Thank you for your consideration. Deanna mark robert wrote: >See below: > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Deanna- >I can't bear it any longer! I have become cross-eyed trying to follow >various quoting without tagging, top posts, bottom posts, parsed posts. It's becoming intolerable, and its especially outrageous that this Mark character responded to my request for a little courtesy with a bunch of self-justifying excuses for laziness. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.