Re: the future long term financial apocalypse of the USA

On Wed, 22 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:

D wrote:

  On Tue, 21 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:
 

D wrote:

  On Mon, 20 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:
 

D wrote:
 

 The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what they agree upon.

  This being  a science fiction newsgroup, let's consider your decisions when you are sent back to London in 1870.
 You are hungry, and want some bread.
 Which of the following do you expect to find in your bread?
 (1) Grain
(2) Yeast
(3) Chalk
(4) Alum
(5) Plaster of Paris.
 Do you "agree" with the bakery that you want Alum in your bread? Do you even know it is there?   In what sense is your consumption of Plaster of Paris an agreed upon transaction if you have no way of knowing it is there?
 Full of nourishing wheat with extra chalk, you  rent a room in a new building with cheerful bright wallpaper.
 How much Arsenic is in the room?
 (1) Trace amounts
(2) One pound
(3) Two pounds
(4) Three pounds
(5) Four pounds
(6) Five pounds.
 At what point did you agree to  rent a room infused with 3.7 pounds of Arsenic? For that matter, did your landlord agree to poison his tenants when he bought the wallpaper, or did the manufacturer keep silent on just how much Arsenic was needed for those vivid colours?
    William Hyde

 Needless to say, it is not very good business strategy to poison your customers.

 Your conclusion is contradicted by reality.  This strategy worked for decades, and in other contexts, works now.

 Incorrect. We are more people than ever on this planet right now.
 

  I think that is all I will say about this thought experiment.
  Aside from the time travel, this all happened.  There was plaster of Paris in the bread, Arsenic in the wallpaper.
 Nobody asked for this, nobody wanted it, but they got it.  Free market!

 Fewer people have died by criminal companies than by governments. So I prefer to trust a business accountable to its customers. Yes, people have died, but that is hardly the fault of the free market. As stated, governments have killed far more, so by that logic, we should ban governments as quick as possible.
 

 

If you _really_ would like to seriously explore the why and how,

 Oh, I love that "really".  After "really" ignoring the facts I gave above, you point me to "excellent books".
 The facts of history directly contradict your claims.  But you prefer theory.

 Incorrect, see above.

>
Ok, you prefer lies.
>
The predatory behavior of unregulated companies does not contradict an increasing population.  If a few hundred children die of alum-related complications, and a number of people have their lives shortened by arsenic poisoning, the population can still increase, especially when these activities are banned by government regulation, public health laws are established, medicine improves, and so on.
>
We have nothing quite so blatant as alum or chalk in bread now, thanks to government.   Not in the west, anyway.
>
William Hyde

Incorrect. Also keep in mind that the government kills, so if death is your argument, then let¨s first ban the government, and then we can look at the rest.