oseo
180985
3751
154
Government Regulation
Nov 26, 2017 7:09 AM
oseo
180985
3751
154
pleonidas
Gubment regulations bad, that's why we should just trust companies to do what they want!
therealpdawg
We only got those traffic laws because insurance companies wanted to pay out less money. So either way, you're supporting corporate agendas.
koitk
Analogy for roads would be private company putting speed limits to public roads. And telling you witch route you can take.
allihearisnoise
true free market economics does not exist, there is always government intervention, it just affects the direction of the flow
SyeedAli
In Canada the government gets out of the way and lets us walk on whichever side of the sidewalk we want. It's.. sometimes awkward.
natebitatibetan
They only want government to regulate women's bodies and people's bedrooms. They're fine with a distopian society where people are products.
SpongebobThiccpants
False equivalence
zdriver7
Desaera
Libertarianism. Not even once.
ipaulus
Government regulation is misnamed, it's consumer protection. Why not let the people know?
INeverKnowWhatUserNameToGet
inzane
Not sure if sarcasm or stupidity
YourMomsNewBoyfriend
For the non Americans, the “free market” is a concept we use to explain all manners of atrocity and injustice without critical thought
FlyingGiantElk
I don’t like unneeded gov regs, but IMO NN is needed since corps abuse their power. Free market is good but the US doesn’t have it.
Dokramuh
Free market only leads to big, monopolized business. Look at how big business buys or chokes smaller competition.
Xandraelle
Free market isn't good and it never was. There was a reason why we worked hard for regulations in the early 1900's
TheFriendliestGiant
Pfft, get outta town, my 6 year old should be allowed to work as many twelve-hour shifts with no breaks as he wants!
storebrandproductmascot
Like having a freer market would magically make companies stop doing evil things for profit.
hakunamatatas
It wouldn't, but competition gives consumers power over companies. They can't force you to buy their product.
BrokeMyFunnyBone
The kind of power consumers get is very limited and dispersed compared to the large consolidated power of companies.
alexstamat
They can when their isp is the only option in your area.
hakunamatatas
Yes, and the lack of competition is a direct result of government regulations.
BrokeMyFunnyBone
Influenced heavily by those ISPs. Without government regulations they'll find other ways to stifle competition.
Gorgrim
I wonder if that senator also thinks monopolies are a good thing. Actually I bet he does, and would aim to make one if he was allowed.
IDontKnowHowToHuman
I'm sure he believes whatever the big corporations pay him to believe. No more, no less.
rando84
Monopolies are fine in very specific areas (it would be counterproductive to have 5 sets of power lines going to the same houses so 1/2
rando84
people can choose different providers), but they only work with regulation not to abuse their monopoly power, as ISP's should function. 2/2
Gronkar
That first guy sounds like an idiot. Maybe he should retire.
Tekktokk
Cornyn is the worst. on top of being an idiot, he's always jealous of being upstaged by Cruz. so he tries to be louder and more risque.
HitlersArtCritic
How'd be get upstaged by calling NN Obamacare for the internet?
SkwiggumsMcDingo
Didn't coryn also send some staffers dick pics? Like what the fuck dude?
TheMadOnion
Don't worry if eventually all these old assholes will be dead, and we will be the old assholes in power.
frankxcid
Perhaps when you get older you will get wisdom and know the diff between traffic signals and free markets
Gronkar
Why don't we let schools just run off the free market then? or the police force? or Healthcare? oh wait...
TheMadOnion
See I would argue that a free market is good in this case, if it was not for the fact damn near everyone has only 1 choice of ISP. haha
somanywonders987
Oh wow, did you just defend the repeal of net neutrality? On Imgur? Thats a bold move
12rt2345g342563
The free market doesn't work when there is no competition and the regulations that do exist are anti-competitive.
Acciopower
And everyone who has studied ecomics, cartels and monopolies knows this. How is it so hard to grasp?
AirplaneRavioli
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
MacrossGirl
Because of people who refused to study, read or learn. People who think history is boring and has no bearing of our lives today.
JosephMcCovery
Because some people rather listen to the mouthpieces that say "trickle down economics works!"
ApsychicRat
i shout this too the hills, the ISP's should not own the infrastructure. make that either government or a 3rd party
rando84
Though if they didn't own the infrastructure, what would they provide? With electricity, natural gas, oil, the pipeline/transmission line1/2
rando84
operator runs the infrastructure and the oil/power/NG producers use the lines. ISP's are the transmission infrastructure for content. 2/2
ApsychicRat
that a good question, im really confused why they care what data gets to the end user. their product is data flow not the data itself
rando84
Before pipelines were regulated into common carriers, they discounted transportation for their oil/natural gas and upcharged their 1/2
rando84
competitors. ISP's could extract higher fees from content producers for favored treatment & discount content from their subsidiaries. 2/2
FightMeYouLongAssBitch
If ISPs didn't have monopolies over certain geographical areas, then that would make sense.
Vhyson
So much this. Too bad lobbyists have bought everyone in Congress
TasteyourTears
Even the places that have choices still have to deal with the contracts and early termination fees. So not like you can change easily
frankxcid
This is no longer true. Equating cable monopoly does not mean isp monopoly. Air, satllite, telephone, cell
naytorin
SyeedAli
"Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."
SyeedAli
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/1910Ford-T.jpg/220px-1910Ford-T.jpg
DickPicEnthusiast
Because Japan Black was the only paint color that dried quickly enough for Ford's production line back then.
PardusXY
I think that would be a better way to legislate the situation, when less than 4 providers are available, net neutrality is a thing.
ZebraCockSandwich
this is the issue-letting the market work would be best, but the market is "this or nothing" and so many people cannot just opt for nothing1
ZebraCockSandwich
for however long it would take for the market to crash and fix itself. that could be years, and many of our livelihoods depend on it 2
RealScienceMan
This is really it. What we really need is antitrust suits against major telecom companies.
heghmoh
Can you imagine if a company owned traffic lights? Let certain cars through, but as an individual you had to wait 3-4x at lights or pay?
fleacollerindustry
I think the better analogy is toll roads. You don't HAVE to drive on the freeway...
Koshunae
Thats a pretty good comparison. Write it down.
patrickcoyneud
Even as a free market advocate people forget that these fall under the natural monopoly its nearly impossible for a new company
macbi
Same with healthcare. The US has got the worst combination of capitalism and socialism. Moving in either direction would be an improvement.
chloramphenicolderivative
Enough regulation to completely slaughter competition, but not enough government involvement to make it inefficient but at least functional
eroso
I think its more about government corruption and rigging the playing field for big players. More left or more right would be a key factor
BionicToad
OMG somebody gets it. So much this exactly.
OMFGWhatHaveWeDONE
Me trying to explain to Uncle Bob that his theory about govt needs to leave them poor companies alone:
fleacollerindustry
NN got easier to explain when it was described as "corporation vs corporation" to me.
BronzeLeaguePro
Rent seeking. The magic word you're looking for is "rent seeking behaviour" and it's understood to be really, really fucking bad.
Ibeenhanginaround
Because it’s a PUBLIC UTILITY and they’ve abused it in the past, you idiot!
superseriouscomments
I think the market might even kinda work if there actually was competition and not a few giant ISPs dividing up the turf like the mob.
JosephMcCovery
And how do you make sure that doesn't happen? Money is one hell of a motivator towards consolidation.
superseriouscomments
I don't know. Basically only allow reasonable lobbying. That's a Herculean task. Much larger share of people than now must work towards it.
JosephMcCovery
That's still a form of "needless" government regulation. Those that chime about "free markets" want ZERO government interference.
JosephMcCovery
Why do you think there's a concentrated effort to do away with EPA regulations?
superseriouscomments
Indeed they do, but I guess they are like people who advocate a benevolent dictator. Didn't really think it through ... or are not honest.
YourWaifuIsTrash
Thing is, free markets tend to end up where we are now - a few giants hoarding all the business, and everyone else screwed over.
superseriouscomments
That's why Adam Smith warned about that. Even the Romans had laws to prevent monopolies. While net neutrality is good it just fixed a
superseriouscomments
symptom of a bigger problem. Business simply has too much influence on politics.
mrmartini
"let the market work" is why don't we don't all have healthcare & paid leave in this country.
BombBloke
In their place: "working poor".
merxman
And part of why the financial crash happened.
patrickcoyneud
That was due to government policies making home ownership a priority where they gave loans to people who could not afford them
hakunamatatas
That's not even close to being true.
OiGuvna
I don't understand why you don't all just cede and join up with Canada, could you not see Canada winning a cultural victory? (Civ Joke)
TracyAllenParks
oh man i wish you could play Canada in Civ. that would be the best.
Mfgcasa
Just play as the UK and rename it. Canada is the UK of the USA in almost every way.(The UK just has a navy)
BrokeMyFunnyBone
Wtf does that sentence even mean?? Canada is the UK of the USA??
BombBloke
https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/933398719445258240
happykamper
Don't worry, trickle down economics will take care of everything...
TracyAllenParks
because the market doesn't work. it never worked. it only works to make the very few, very rich. for the rest of us, it's the ogres balls.
patrickcoyneud
It has literally brought more people out of poverty than any other system, even our poorest are better off than most of the world
armandraynal
I believe getting rich af while letting others die of hunger isn't in human nature. Free market could work imo, if people were different.
BrokeMyFunnyBone
It's the high-functioning sociopaths that only understand greed that render free market useless.
armandraynal
Corruption of the best is the worst they say.
MrRavellon
Market always works. When it is prohibited from working it goes illegal. The question is not about whether it works or not but about how/
BrokeMyFunnyBone
the many.
MrRavellon
/well it works. So in some areas regulations are useful in some areas they are harmful. In case of Internet, treating it like a commodity /
MrRavellon
/is useful, regulating the kind of content allowed there is not or who has access is not.
TracyAllenParks
if the market "works", why then do we have empty homes and homeless people? like I said: it makes the very few, very rich.
MrRavellon
Because nothing is perfect. Compare free market countries to controlled market countries. In US you have epidemic of obesity. In all /
hakunamatatas
You know some people actually want to be homeless? When given a chance to reintegrate with society, they choose not to.
BrokeMyFunnyBone
The problem is, when you say it works, you mean to say it works to profit the few and when we say it doesn't work, we mean it doesn't profit
MrRavellon
When I say it works what I mean is that it works better for much more people than the alternatives. In an economy mostly based around free/
MrRavellon
/market the rich are much more rich but the poor are also much less poor. You focus on the fact that the rich are too rich in your opinion./
MrRavellon
/I focus on the fact that the poor are doing better. Even extremely poor.
Solkanarmy
Are you guys able to campaign to make lobbying illegal, as it's clearly corruption and bribery from an outside perspective?
DVSBSTrD
Well we DID have a chance to overturn Citizens United recently, but we pissed it all away because someone on reddit told us to.
fakepointgenerator
What cha mean?
DVSBSTrD
You know who I mean.
fakepointgenerator
... why tf would I ask if I knew who you meant? Sorry I dont spend my life on reddit.
IDontKnowHowToHuman
④ consequences & there's no one to stop them from doing it again & again because the justice system is also so corrupt. It's become a
IDontKnowHowToHuman
③ because corruption is making rigged-elections more & more common. Even when officials are caught committing such crimes, they face no
IDontKnowHowToHuman
① It IS corruption & bribery, and the public knows it. But the only ones with the power to do anything about it are the ones who are bribed
mritty
Which side would the politicians will take? The people giving them money, or the people saying “people shouldn’t be able to give you money”?
Solkanarmy
sometimes good people slip through the cracks and get things done
JosephMcCovery
They get things done, because the crooked ones find a way to profit off of it.
YourWaifuIsTrash
Not when they can't get a vote passed because they are the minority
roflcopterLOL
That's why people should stop voting in those kinds of politician. But they won't. Because derp
IDontKnowHowToHuman
② to keep it that way. We the people have literally no power. We can't even use our votes to elect less greedy/corrupt parties into office
mthrndr01
You'd essentially have to cut off politicians from any unmonitored social activity. It's a really broad subject. The stuff people really 1/2
mthrndr01
object to is tantamount to bribery anyway, and really should be treated as such.
mardukkur
No, thanks to the 5 member conservative majority on the supreme court.
ThisNameIsMaybeTaken
Lobbying is part of representative democracy. Attempt to influence policy basically. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying
BrokeMyFunnyBone
On paper, not in practice.
DrShrinker
Corporate lobbying is corrupt. But every citizen has the right to lobby it's representatives, not a right you should want to give up.
BrokeMyFunnyBone
A right that means diddly squat because few citizens have the time, money, connections, and ability to do it well.
metts
Lobbying is needed to let politicians know what issues there are. Their primary purpose is (one sided) educating legislators of issues
TygrF
Imgurians only know the parts of the Bill of Rights they like.
Solkanarmy
advice is needed, from neutral parties with no agenda, in fairness
TygrF
There's no such thing. You should trust no-one that claims that they are.
TygrF
There is a clause in the First Amendment recognizing the people's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Only those
TygrF
on the opposite side of an issue refer to it as bribery.
BrokeMyFunnyBone
Only corporate shills and idiots don't refer to it as bribery.
TygrF
Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, MoveOn, BLM, etc are engaging in bribery?
IDontKnowHowToHuman
⑤ self-sustaining system that's immune to any kind of law & order. It truly is hopeless.
Solkanarmy
Peter Turchin's research, basically
Solkanarmy
https://www.livescience.com/22109-cycles-violence-2020.html
roflcopterLOL
All it needs is massive protests such as in Romania, or even the Women's March (but with a goal). If only the populace cared enough
Solkanarmy
well, a mathematical model has predicted violent unrest in the US in the next decade or so, I'll find the link if I can, maybe it's right :O
IDontKnowHowToHuman
I've heard that theory many times, and I believe that Murica's reign is indeed approaching its end.
sgbench
People tend to prematurely dismiss arguments or analogies simply because they *can be* taken too far. This is counterproductive.
JHawke
Especially since in this case it is hardly regulation it is only a demand for equality.
gravyandfries
but going to the extreme on an analogy is equally bad. Using extremes is a poor and more to push fear mongering than constructive discussion
ProxyPhox
It's like if we put EA in charge of gaming, they can say they'll give you everything you want, but do you trust their word?
flamingflamingo
"Government regulation" sounds pretty scary. Since I am a conservative, I will dislike that idea on principle and ignore the details.
IDontKnowHowToHuman
Please tell me that you're just joking imitating a conservative mindset, and not seriously stating your own beliefs.
flamingflamingo
I am joking but it was a pretty convincing impression, I don't blame you for being confused.
IDontKnowHowToHuman
Indeed. Plus my sarcasm detector isn't the most reliable (*cough*Aspergers*cough*)
Ruhig
I'm not sure how this relates here. The argument starts with the premise that all government regulation is bad, which is already hyperbole.
EvanMacIan
No it doesn't. He's specifically talking about regulating to attain a specific ECONOMIC effect, which is not what traffic laws do.
Ruhig
That's splitting hairs, isn't it? Why does economic regulation have some special status other regulations don't?
EvanMacIan
IDK man, why do we think building codes are ok but not eugenics? Because those are two different things. Economics is not public safety.
Ruhig
Sure, but that's not the point that's being made in that guy's tweet.
PugPugPugPug
“Let the market work” is code for “Fuck the people.”
mistformsquirrel
The invisible hand of the market is handsier than Harvey Weinstein.
sheepybloke
I like to joke the invisible hand is just a middle finger pointed at us.
LetumComplexo
I thought it was code for "I don't understand how markets work because my last Econ class was in the 60s".
Terella
It's more like "I never took economics because it sounds boring. Yet I have a strong opinion about it."
gingerloaf
"I took highschool classical economics so im an expert"
CoeurFranc
Sooooo true.
TECHNICALLYC0RRECT
Gentlemen. Shall we continue to build coliseums for the rich, or build decent housing for the poor?
causality
The market would work fine, as long as lobbying and price collusion resulted in the death penalty for the entire board of directors.
patrickcoyneud
Except many regulations are put in place and they hurt the people they hurt the people
WodenEmrys
This works for the powerful and politicians, but not for the actual ppl that would be fucked who support this shit. They seem to believe 1/
WodenEmrys
that the free market is some sort of god that'll make everything work out and not revert to how business' acted before these regulations.2/2
Khaotix11
Not entirely true, but it has been used as such often enough so I can see where you're coming from.
DepressedHappily
Why not charge some extra money from people and let them drive on a specially made road. While all other drive on congested road.
TracyAllenParks
they do that now. in lieu of widening or fixing the "public" road. now the fast lanes are congested, cost extra, & taxes are the same.
DepressedHappily
Well said
DVSBSTrD
Code for "I'm a Libertarian, which means I'm really an anarchist in a business suit."
olegh
But he poses it as a question. To which there are plenty answers. How about presenting those instead of taking the easy demagogic route?
WhatzitTooya
That was a rhetorical question, he got it already explained by a comcast paycheck.
olegh
Sure. So what? The game is rigged so you're just gonna stick with whining and complaining? (yes I'm a hypocrite)
BombBloke
That was a *loaded* question, more specifically.
PugPugPugPug
He is the Senate Majority Whip, it’s a statement of intent.
Exoticz
"Let the market figure it out" means "Stop stealing from proplr and give them their own freedom to make decisions" which is antithetical to
causality
The first thing companies do is attack the free market by using lobbyists, pricing collusion, IP trolling, etc to destroy competition.
Exoticz
Then it's not a free market, right? As long as the government is involved, there is force involved. In other words; not free.
causality
Exactly, same as how anarchy immediately becomes a series of gangs and, later, warlords.
[deleted]
[deleted]
armandraynal
That's anomie not anarchy. People saying anarchy is impossible are cynicals or they are just repeating something they heard.
Exoticz
So because there is a chance a gang or gangs might arise, we should make a really big gang to control us, because that prevents small 1/2
Exoticz
"Fuck the people."
TheMajesticHarpyEagle
Except that the market invariably fucks the people mate, Learn your history.
Theverant
Found the %1er
Exoticz
I'm not. I just care more about morality than personal preferences.
TrueDankMemeLord
You champion the cause of those with greater power than you, that seek an ever increasing % of the wealth. Your morals are irrational.
nihilistdad
Sure, let anyone who wants to become an internet provider do it, including local authorities, and we'll see how the market works.
hakunamatatas
Yeah it is totally a fair market when the government can be subsidized by taxpayers.
nihilistdad
The government is always subsidized by the taxpayers. I should be able to decide what my taxes are used for. Why not for free internet?
hakunamatatas
Because that's how you get socialism? Why not free food? Or cars? Or gas?
nihilistdad
Please refrain from cheap ideology, Scandinavians will laugh at you. Infrastructure costs but not the use, internet is more like roads.
hakunamatatas
Oh of course, because private roads are impossible.
VigorousButtstuff
Make no mistake, these assholes want "Government Regulation" to become a dirty word, because they want to shift power into business.
Escheron
some republicans, like my dad, view regulation as Communism interfering with the "free market".
VigorousButtstuff
These people do not want laws enforced by government, but instead by pay-for-play enforcers that they own.
Mooseheart
Such a strange idea that regulation is always bad. Baffles me the amount of ppl that seems to honestly believe this.
ChainmailleAddict
About half the country.
Terella
They see it as "Don't tell me what to do!"
jackpkmn
Step 1 get government regulation in place, step 2, infiltrate the regulatory body, step 3 make loopholes for yourself, step 4 profit
Slander7
Especially since in many cases, the regulations only exist because businesses were blatantly abusing the hell out of X.
patrickcoyneud
Its not so much that regulation is always bad but that it does not seem to improve the situation and in some cases makes it worse
TongueTiedLabourerfromtheLandoftheLittlePeople
Kinda like a country that insists "Trains are bad, trucks are good"
TongueTiedLabourerfromtheLandoftheLittlePeople
You choose based on the situation.
hestetyv
Its a classic strategy, underfund a programme and then people will complain that government never works - and you can privatize it.
TongueTiedLabourerfromtheLandoftheLittlePeople
Like prisons
hestetyv
And soon schools as well
DangerTrain
Yeah we all saw how deregulating banks paid off, "Financial Crisis" is hard to put a positive spin on.
rudejohn
Government regulation is generally a dirty word in my opinion, EXCEPT when it comes to public goods like Internet, utilities, roads, etc.
fleacollerindustry
(2/2) That said, the internet still needs to be officially considered a public utility first. IIRC it hasnt happened yet in the US.
fleacollerindustry
Republicans are supposed to be less government, but "no government" = anarchy. Thus "less gov't" still means "some regulation".
armandraynal
It's just for economics though, not everything, so still far from anarchy.
fleacollerindustry
Well, my point was just that Republicans can still accept SOME level of regulation, despite being about "less/smaller government".
rudejohn
Yeah, that's kind of the entire point of my comment :)
VigorousButtstuff
So you like clean air, right? How about a well regulated military that keeps North Korea from nuking everyone?
rudejohn
Yeah. Thus my statement that I'm okay with paying for public goods. Did you not read my comment?
VigorousButtstuff
I did. Pretty much every single regulation is there for public good.
rudejohn
Not all of them. Many are there because of worthless unions or because of special interests, lobbyists, and bureaucrats.
VigorousButtstuff
Do you like going to the grocery store and not being sold outright rotting food in a can? How about not getting salmonella from restaurants?
LosPer
I agree with you. Unfortunately Imgur has been raised on a steady diet of socialist bullshit where no company is to be trusted, ever...
BrokeMyFunnyBone
Hmmm, one side's goal is to squeeze as much money from you as possible and the other is to curtail that...which is more trustworthy...
LosPer
You're very naive of you think government being in the position of picking winners and losers in the name of the "public good" is benign...
NobleSavant
In theory, shifting power into business would be fine. It would mean splitting up Comcast and the others to create a competitive market.
Corrodias
...How? Removing all legal protection of ownership of fiber lines? I think you'd find petty thieves looting them before ISPs could do it.
Corrodias
(This is already enough of a problem with old, copper lines, and that's *with* the government trying to prevent theft.)
GlebReawer
Doesn't really matter if it's one company or 10, if all are owned by one person trough shell companies.
NobleSavant
Yes, that's something that needs to be prevented too. Competitive market means they have to compete 100%.
GlebReawer
Yeah, unfortunately in my country they just passed a law that lets ppl hide their ownership in shares/companies.
MacrossGirl
So the free market would need to be regulated?
NobleSavant
Yep! Zero government interference doesn't really work with people being the way they are.
VigorousButtstuff
That's 100% false. Shifting power into the business won't actually split the business, it'll just give them more reason not to.
VigorousButtstuff
Seriously, do you not remember Ma Bell?
NobleSavant
What I meant was that the shifting of power into businesses would require splitting up Comcast. And other such monopolistic businesses.
VigorousButtstuff
Which intrinsically requires a lot of government regulation and oversight to make happen. That's not shifting power into business.
JosephMcCovery
No it wouldn't. It would take government interference to split up Comcast. Shifting power into business would just allow Comcast to buy more
JosephMcCovery
I'm starting to think a lot of people have no clue of just how powerful greed can be.
NobleSavant
I think you might be reading more into what I'm saying than I said. Yes, the government would have to split it up as part of the shift.
JosephMcCovery
And once it's split and the government steps out of the way?