Aussie, Canada and NZ also did quite well for themselves, and if you look at the well being of individuals as opposed to a gross GNP statistic I see nothing to declare a clear winner over time.
And if you look in comparison, those in freer markets still tended to be better off. Not only statistics wise, but based on living standards, health, etc. as well.
Look at America now? Grossly in debt to China and a failing economy after years of Reagan and the two Bushs. That is what years of non-regulation seem to have accomplished. There were profits, but they are now in Swiss banks.
You are proving my point here. The last few decades and even the century as a whole as seen a tremendous push towards bigger government, including during the Reagan and Bush years. There has been a strong move towards the collectivist and away from the individual. Keynesianism became the norm after the 30s, with little glimpses of supply-side here and there. Both are not examples of laissez-faire capitalism because they both involve a lot of government intervention in markets including with regulations. Today's massive debt and more extreme boom-bust cycle is the result of a move away from free markets and towards regulated economies.
Are you arguing about a dying elephant while I am wondering if its possible to revive it?
Not sure what you mean here. What I am saying is that the market responds to the information that is available and even with government involved, if the information is not there, the progress will not follow. For example, I am sure there are some things that most people do today that is linked to cancer or some other disease, but we just don't know it yet. If we did, you can bet that those concerned about cancer would stop'limit using those products once the information got out. No government mandate is needed to baby-sit rational human beings. If someone wants to harm themselves, then they should have the right to do so. If enough people are against that product and stop using it, the company will likely shut it down. The market works to the advantage of the people, whereas government seeks to make choices for adults who can make their own (and in the process distorts markets.)
15 years? Concern arose long before that in the 60’s and 70’s but the industry only changes under enormous pressure. Ideally we would never have to worry about those things, but I think McDonalds is a good example so lets look at it. McDonalds sells grilled chicken, salads, milk and two juices. A shift will often have fewer than a dozen salads available. Everything else in the world's largest restaurant chain is arguably unhealthy. Even though usual food safety suggests that food frozen for more than six months is potentially unhealthy and lacking in nutrition, "best before" dates on raw chicken boxes in a McDonald's freezer can extend three years and before. Just think – the piece of chicken you give your three year old might have died before your kid was born.
My point was not with the year and I chose 15 solely because the worry has grown exponentially recently. What I am trying to say with this is, the information was certainly out there- it is still out there and people can make their own decisions on how to react. The government is not needed and in fact, it is a sort of bully when it does react. I think we can both agree that most people know McDonald's food such as the burgers, fries, and nuggets are bad for them. Yet, they still decide to eat them. If these people are willing to do this, knowing that the food is bad for them, then why should the government meddle? If enough people are willing to give up those bad foods, McDonalds would discontinue them anyway, but if they aren't then why does the government have to step in? The government is not a parent, it is supposed to be a voice for the people and if the people are willing to accept something, then government should accept it as well.
I remember some years back a neo-conservative economist being interviewed on tv about a product safety issue. His literal argument was that even issues like health and safety should be left to the market place. If people died eventually someone would sue and the results of the case would create proper market conditions to determine the “real truth”. Tobacco industry anybody?
There are tons of science institutions and companies that do market research out there. That sort of information can certainly be found by the market and released- it is then up to the people to decide what to do in regard to it. As I have said, the market is directly tied to the information available. Government just seeks to use that information and to interpret it in its own way to create mandates for the people, that often ends up being tied with special interests. At least when it is up to the market, there are no special interests being masked by the label of the good. It is rational people and companies doing what they want on free will and making decisions based on the information available.
The world tries to evolve in steps considered “reasonable” to large bodies politic. That always means compromise because no matter what is decided, it will be harmful to somebody in either concept or execution. For a while the “liberals” will succeed and get to make rules. Then the pendulum will re-swing and rules will be abolished and the market will decide. The problem is that thinking based on public concern bases its decisions on criteria different from the same concerns addressed by the market. Look at McDonalds or the tobacco industry? The market is indifferent to killing people to advance profit.
Those people do those things based on free will. I think the fundamental difference between believers in markets and the regulators is that the pro-market people are willing to let people make decisions for themselves, regardless if they seem bad to others, whereas the pro-regulation people want the government to act as a sort of parent to the people. It should be noted that even a lot of scientific fact is often misleading as future advancements in science often prove old ones wrong, so even when it seems like something is truly bad, in reality it may not be- our information may still not be advanced enough. Just another reason why government is not the answer to solving this sort of problem.
Legislation kills enterprise to protect people. Private enterprise will never be satisfied regardless of how much profit it creates or how many people it kills as long as detrimental policies do not hurt the bottom line. Liberals will argue hard and unreasonably about when enough is enough, even to the point of centrally planned economies such as communism.
This again ties back to my previous point of whether we should have a government that babies the people or lets them make their own choices. As for corporations, we must remember that corporations don't exist due to force or coercion like government. They exist because they have been profitable and they have been profitable because
people have placed their faith in the products or services offered by those companies by buying them. If the consumers lost confidence, those companies are likely to go bankrupt.
Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ight. Classical laissez faire capitalism. Discredited for well over a hundred years. Historically it can take years and human suffering and some companies will never change.
Discredited based on what? Information that we have now that wasn't available then? Government susceptibility to special interests? The idea that government must protect and watch everything we do? I honestly don't think those are valid reasons to discredit the theory.
As for human suffering, again that claim is based on the information we have today, unless you mean things where someone where a being chooses to do something knowing it will harm them- in that case, we just have a different idea on what people should have the right to do.
Historically children were hired in textile mills because only they were small enough for some work areas. It took legislation to save those who weren’t killed or crippled.
This is one event I could see a reason for legislation in simply because the argument can be made that children aren't old enough to fully function rationally (understand the idea of looking towards the future, etc.)- in which case they may need protection. For adults though, I do not see the benefit of such regulation. Even considering a lack of regulation in the area, most children would still not be working today as people have learned that it is not healthy and as the world has grown to understand the value of education for all. The information of the time has changed.
As long as the parents of the children have the power of the vote, they have the power to make the killing and crippling stop. That works better for my kids, anyway.
Or, they can just stop their children from working
, but again I can understand where you are coming on the issue of child laws.
