Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N...

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

> -----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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

,

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.

-

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

_____

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

[Guest guest]

_____

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

_____

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

[Guest guest]

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

>

[Guest guest]

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

---------

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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>

[Guest guest]

_____

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?

---------

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

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

>

>

[Guest guest]

> -----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.

[Guest guest]

> -----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.

[Guest guest]

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:

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

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.

-