Re: the future long term financial apocalypse of the USA

On Sat, 25 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:

D wrote:

  On Fri, 24 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:
 

D wrote:

  On Wed, 22 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:
 

D wrote:

  On Tue, 21 May 2024, James Nicoll wrote:
 

In article <44938613-85d8-1f1d-4bd6-88f47993161e@example.net>,
D  <nospam@example.net> 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. I think that is all I will say about this thought experiment.
If you _really_ would like to seriously explore the why and how, I can
recommend excellent books.
 

And yet, not only did such things frequently happen in the past, they
happen now. It's almost as though your model does not actually reflect
reality.

 Governments have killed more people that private businesses so I think from that angle, we can say for sure that businesses are safer and less likely to kill their customers.

 You said above:
 " The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what they agree upon."
 And I have shown, using examples from actual history, that this is false. Without regulation companies will sell their  customers harmful products, if it increases, or is believed to increase, profits.
  Anything relevant to say about that?  Or will you again evade the issue?
 William Hyde

 Incorrect. You are ignoring the obvious fact William, that companies have been selling good stuff to people without killing them, without regulation.

  Most people never murder anyone, but we still have laws against murder.
 Even if 95% of all companies were upright, honest companies which would never sell a dangerous product, never neglect their worker's health, never raid the pension fund, never pollute, never discriminate, we would still need regulations.
 So in light of the above, kindly defend your assertion that we don't need regulation, given that history tells us that some companies will indeed compromise their consumer's health for greater profit.
 And try to keep your point relevant.
 William Hyde

 Given the fact, that, as you say, most companies do alright anyway,

>
>
When regulated, yes.
>
>

regulations cause more harm than good.

>
>
This is an unsupported assertion.
>
"Given the fact that most people do not murder, laws against murder cause more harm than good"  Just as valid.
>

 The proof is to look at a 100% regulated society like the soviet union.

>
That's called a straw man argument, a logical fallacy.
>
I am not advocating that we become the USSR.  I am pointing out matters of fact, that many companies do harm unless regulated.
>
>

I recommend reading Jan Narvesons You and the state for a good in depth analysis of this. Other classics are Friedmans Machinery of freedom. For a more statistical book about the blessings of capitalism, I recommend Johan Norbergs the capitalist manifesto.

>
>
Once again, you fail to support your assertion.  I give facts, you blather on about books you have read and try to distract the discussion with irrelevancies.
>
You made a claim.  I presented contrary evidence.  You will not or cannot deal with that.
>
No need to reply unless you have something relevant to say.

Yes, I think we've reached the yes/no state, where each one is not accepting the others arguments.
I can't say that I learned anything new or that you changed my mind, but I do appreciate your lack of name calling. =)

>
William Hyde