[Snweyuag]

"Economically speaking, people cannot do whatever they want—and get away with it—in a freed market because other people are free to counteract them and it’s in their interest to do so. That’s part of what we mean by market forces. Just because the government doesn’t stop a seller from charging $100 for an apple doesn’t mean he or she can get that amount. Market forces regulate the seller as strictly as any bureaucrat could—even more so, because a bureaucrat can be bribed. Whom would you have to bribe to win an exemption from the law of supply and demand? (Well, you might bribe enough legislators to obtain protection from competition, but that would constitute an abrogation of the market.)"

http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/0...d-government-r

[AlabamaBoyz]

I didn't read the article.. But it does need some regulation..

I'm as Conservative as people get, but I don't want to rely upon market forces to keep companies from dumping Mercury into the water. Which happens. I was reading an article about 6 mos ago about a company (And I wish I could remember the specifics) which was permitted to do just that. I don't' believe market forces are sufficient as a safeguard. OTOH, I'm the biggest hater of the EPA we have.. So, I'm certainly not defending the status quo.. Regulations of this type always have costs attached, therefore you want what is absolutely necessary in terms of regulation and no more.

Collusion bothers me also.. Several heavily capitalized members of a sector could collude to drive competition out, gain market share and then repeat the process when new entrants arise. I find that troublesome.. and ultimately bad for markets, investment and consumers.

Some businesses have the potential to do such wide ranging and long term damage to the people who live around them.. Indeed, even continents away, via the Jet Stream that a degree of regulation seems prudent.. Nuclear Power producers would fall into this category.. When something works great for 40 years, but has one bad day and renders the surrounding area uninhabitable for generations, what can you say? That's a threat and it should be mitigated by sensible regulation.

Financial markets need regulating, but in my view, primarily because we've created a monopoly system for the large banks.. I understand their purpose in borrowing from the fed, leveraging and creating more money as they go along, but if we are to keep this system, and their monopoly I see a need for regulation there..

Not all of this is Constitutional, however.. I see nothing which would permit the Federal government to undertake a watchdog role here. Perhaps that's a mistake, and perhaps it's not? But I see a few areas of the private economy where regulation could become necessary or would be prudent.

[DextExexy]

Some regulation is required. If you take a Libertarian approach, you are free do until your actions infringe upon other people's liberties. Dumping mercury in the water is definitely infringing upon other people's liberties and a free market would have no solution for this except for legally recourse, which would be too late. Similar to Hoffa, I hate the EPA, but it does serve a purpose. In the case of free markets, once your actions infringe upon a free market, a free market ceases to exist. For instance, insider trading or a monopoly. That gives people an unfair advantage. I guess it is where you want to draw the line...

[Amomiamup]

I certainly agree, as far as environmental protections go, as I've said many times.

There is a responsibility to protect life, before a catastrophe occurs.

On the other hand, many regulations serve to distort the market economy, making it terribly inefficient.

[Justlovemy]

http://youtu.be/8POwDE2WP48
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


FIRE THIS CONGRESS.