Star Trek

caltrek: Usually, I just provide a link to an interesting article that I have found. In this case, I am typing it word for word in order to savor its wisdom and insight. It appeared in the April 9, 2012 edition of The Nation. Other than deliberate ommissions, let me know if you find any typos.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel: Understanding that government has always been fundamental to the success of individuals, businesses and communities is becoming a key issue in the 2012 election. No one has homed in on the need to reset the narrative on government more effectively than Elizabeth Warren, who powerfully laid out her argument in a gritty video clip that went viral. " There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police and fire forces that the rest of us paid for." President Obama, too, picked up on this theme in his State of the Union Address when he emphasized that "No one built this country on their own".

...

Kim Jordan, CEO of New Belgium Brewing, talks about the roads carrying Fat Tire beer around the nation. Glynn Lloyd of City Fresh Foods and Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's ice cream discuss the confidence provided by food safety regulations. Thomas KIdd, co-founder of David-Kidd Booksellers in Tennesssee, cites the importance of a Small Business Administration loan in helping her break through the glass ceiling.

...

(Mike) Lapham is co-founder of Responsible Wealth, a network of more than 700 business leaders and wealthy people who push for progressive taxation. There are also thousands of "high-road" businesses represented by the American Sustainable Business Council, devoted to a "vibrant, just and sustainable economy." More than fifty local Chambers of Commerce have denounced or canceled memberships in the US Chamber because its hyper-corporatized ways do not reperesent the values of small business and entrepreneurs who are connected and committed to their communities. All of this means there's a real and growing potential for new alliances between progressives and businesspeople who recognize that we are all in this together.

Yeah, well, the government is important for small buisnesses and for regular people trying to make their way in the world.  Is this in doubt or something?

Unfortunately, many here at Ten Forward do not seem to share your common sense in this matter. Rather, they do seem to buy (no pun intended) into the idea that the rich make their money all by their lonesome selves, and that the rest of us are just ungrateful ingrates if we dare to suggest that they pay for their fair share of public goods and services.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel and others like her should compete for an award of best selective journalist. Government is generally counter to productivity except on the rare occasions where government upholds a strong currency policy (one of the gold standard), private property rights, and refuses the monopolization of commodity services within the market.

On the issue of roads, the U.S. government monopolized the construction of highways from its onset, and never gave the free market a fair chance to offer the service. However, despite the federal government, Texas has a strong history of privatized toll roads that defies Heuvel's and Warren's assessments. Also, many road systems across Europe and Asia are privately managed.

The privatization of roads and highways is directly analygous to railroads. In the United States, many argued that a transcontinental Railroad wouldn't be possible without government funding. These political entrepreneurs ignored the examples set by the market entrepreneurs who had already built private railways across England. In fact, James J. Hill built a private transcontinental railroad, the Great Northerner, without government subsidies. Hill's railroad operated at profit while the government financed operations, Union Pacific Central Pacific, were broke before their completion. The very people that petitioned for government subsidies were responsible for the mismanagement and inefficiencies of the operation. For example, Grenville Dodge built indirect routes to collect more money per-mile (and this would indirectly affect the amound and cost of fuel). Grenville also bought cheap materials at inflated prices and pressed for speed, as opposed to craftmanship and quality, so that the railroad would deteriorate quickly and need reconstruction - again to get more money from the government.

And most importantly, the federal army forcibly evicted - even to the point of genocide - Indians off their land to achieve access to the land that was designated for the Transcontinental Railraod. No single privateer could forcibly evict an entire people from their land. In contrast, Hill paid the Indians for land access.  

Just as railroads were privately funded, so too could the highways. Private entrepreneurs have sufficient motivation to construct roads as such a commodity expands their own service's reach.

On the issue of hiring workers that the rest of "us" educated... Homeschoolers are educated by their parents, not the public. I can assume based on Warren's statement that absolutely no homeschooler has ever held a job?

On factories being safe... Private employers and employees have no motivation to better their working conditions on their own? I have no motivation to be innovative at work?

Government productivity is the myth. Private innovative productivity is the fundamental economic law upon which the free market is based. The government merely intervenes, then tries to give itself credit in order to perpetuate itself.

lostshaker: Katrina Vanden Heuvel and others like her should compete for an award of best selective journalist. Government is generally counter to productivity except on the rare occasions where government upholds a strong currency policy (one of the gold standard), private property rights, and refuses the monopolization of commodity services within the market.

caltrek: Well, at least you believe that government is good at something. 

lostshaker:  On the issue of roads, the U.S. government monopolized the construction of highways from its onset, and never gave the free market a fair chance to offer the service. However, despite the federal government, Texas has a strong history of privatized toll roads that defies Heuvel's and Warren's assessments. Also, many road systems across Europe and Asia are privately managed.

The privatization of roads and highways is directly analygous to railroads. In the United States, many argued that a transcontinental Railroad wouldn't be possible without government funding. These political entrepreneurs ignored the examples set by the market entrepreneurs who had already built private railways across England. In fact, James J. Hill built a private transcontinental railroad, the Great Northerner, without government subsidies. Hill's railroad operated at profit while the government financed operations, Union Pacific Central Pacific, were broke before their completion. The very people that petitioned for government subsidies were responsible for the mismanagement and inefficiencies of the operation. For example, Grenville Dodge built indirect routes to collect more money per-mile (and this would indirectly affect the amound and cost of fuel). Grenville also bought cheap materials at inflated prices and pressed for speed, as opposed to craftmanship and quality, so that the railroad would deteriorate quickly and need reconstruction - again to get more money from the government.

lostshaker: And most importantly, the federal army forcibly evicted - even to the point of genocide - Indians off their land to achieve access to the land that was designated for the Transcontinental Railraod. No single privateer could forcibly evict an entire people from their land. In contrast, Hill paid the Indians for land access. 

caltrek:  You make good points here. My cousin who struggled mightily for the rights of 20th century Indians would be quick to agree with your analysis, as would many other like minded liberals.

caltrek:  No, you can't assume that, but you can look at the statistics regarding how many children have been home schooled versus how many have been educated in public schools.

lostshaker:  On factories being safe... Private employers and employees have no motivation to better their working conditions on their own? I have no motivation to be innovative at work

 caltrek:  Fine, then please explain to me why OSHA and the struggle of labor unions was necessary to upgrade work place safety. Why didn't all of those businessmen acting out of enlightened self-interest improve the conditions of the work place themselves rather than wait for government regulations to do so?

Could it be that they needed the regulations in place to level the playing field against less enlightened competitors?

Seriously, dude, I would recommend studying history rather than losing your head in the cloud of ahistorical philosophic and economic theories.

lostshaker:  Government productivity is the myth. Private innovative productivity is the fundamental economic law upon which the free market is based. The government merely intervenes, then tries to give itself credit in order to perpetuate itself.

caltrek:  Well, before you come to such sweeping conclusions about government productivity, I would receommend the book Reinventing Government. This book documents how some local governments sought a middle course between privatizing and government work force. They let what amounted to request for proposals from both  government workers and from the private sector. Results, some times they chose government workers, some times they chose the private sector. Moreover, some times the governemnt sector workers would lose one round of competition, sharpen their pencils, figure out what they did wrong, and then win the next round of competition. They would often win in later rounds because the private enterprises failed to live up to providing the quality of service that they initially promised

I am also reminded of local events of which I am  familiar.  Certain neighborhoods were being served by a local government sewer plant. The government entity in question announced that it would need to raise rates to meet costs. The residents rebelled and inisted that the system be privatized. Their wishes were granted and the system was privatized.

Result - many of them came to believe that a  PUC regulated private utility is no more efficient than government, and that they actually had less control over the rate setting process than befoire. So now, years later, many of them are organizing to have a government entity take over that very same now privately owned utility.

Given that history, I really have to wonder - what is myth and what is reality?

caltrek:  Bottom line is that government was able to mobilize resources to have roads and railroads built quickly an in accordance with an overall plan. Sure, left to its own devices, the private sector might have eventually produced the same results, but generations of people would have had to do with a less productive economy until the private sector caught up to where the public sector actually took us.

This analysis couldn’t be more wrong. First of all, business owners are quite capable of mobilizing a work force and managing resources with overall plans, as James J. Hill demonstrated.

Secondly, the private sector did produce the same results and often with more efficiency. In the early 19th Century, for example, roads and waterways operated quite well under private management before government got involved. Remember tariffs? The U.S. government was originally funded by tariffs collected on private docks and waterways.

Third, people had to deal with a less productive economy, because of the wealth redistribution required to subsidize these internal “improvement” programs, which were largely mishandled as I previously cited.

In a few generations, I bet the government will be teaching that it built the skies for airplanes to fly.

caltrek:  No, you can't assume that, but you can look at the statistics regarding how many children have been home schooled versus how many have been educated in public schools.

Ever taken a statistics course? Statistics can easily be manipulated. But that aside, I had the fortune of being privately educated, and the misfortunate of being publically educated (it was a mixed bag, public school did give me a comparative view, and I learned why public schools don’t work).  Despite going to public school from 7th to 12th grade, a lot of home schooling occurred at the same time.  Additionally, such statistics would not account for the numbers of children attending public school only because they have been mandated by the state to attend. I’m sure there are a lot of parents that would prefer to home school, but can’t because of various circumstances.

 caltrek:  Fine, then please explain to me why OSHA and the struggle of labor unions was necessary to upgrade work place safety. Why didn't all of those businessmen acting out of enlightened self-interest improve the conditions of the work place themselves rather than wait for government regulations to do so?

OSHA and unions weren’t necessary at all, but mere short-term expedients that produce unintended consequences. Here’s the part you’re missing: upgrades are based on production… production is based on savings... savings are based on time and under consumption. Thus businesses must under consume over a period of time to generate the necessary savings to invest in productive upgrades. But many are impatient and push for expedient solutions…politicians love the impatient people, because politicians bank on campaign promises that are temporary expedients. So what happens? The politicians hand out the temporary expedients and go for the untested quick fixes… they force businesses, which don’t yet have the savings, to produce the untested upgrades. As a result, the businesses must now under-consume to such an extent that it balances out the lost time factor previously in the equation. The exaggerated under-consumption factor – forced upon businesses – manifests itself in layoffs, the consequence the government isn’t so quick to advertise. Convenient that the government focuses on the positive, but totally ignores the downside of its policies.

Could it be that they needed the regulations in place to level the playing field against less enlightened competitors?

No, because the less enlightened would have been driven out of business over time due to competition. Mistreated workers wouldn’t have abandoned ship and gone to competitors that provided a more favorable workplace. All the regulations did was prop up the less enlightened operators that probably should’ve been driven out of business.

Seriously, dude, I would recommend studying history rather than losing your head in the cloud of ahistorical philosophic and economic theories.

I invite you to sign up for an online class that I’m registering for called the LibertyClassroom… http://www.libertyclassroom.com/ Additionally, a short video provides a summation http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2012/04/11/tom-woodss-liberty-classroom/

I am also reminded of local events of which I am  familiar.  Certain neighborhoods were being served by a local government sewer plant. The government entity in question announced that it would need to raise rates to meet costs. The residents rebelled and insisted that the system be privatized. Their wishes were granted and the system was privatized.

Result - many of them came to believe that a PUC regulated private utility is no more efficient than government, and that they actually had less control over the rate setting process than befoire. So now, years later, many of them are organizing to have a government entity take over that very same now privately owned utility.

This is a common tactic by political entrepreneurs. They want the appearance of privatization, but in a heavily regulated market that guarantees failure. This has the effect of shifting public opinion into favoring public works, which guarantees subsidies and the redistribution of wealth.

Right now, many public schools are failing and are trying to privatize. I can only hope they’ll avoid the trap described immediately above.

caltrek:  Bottom line is that government was able to mobilize resources to have roads and railroads built quickly an in accordance with an overall plan. Sure, left to its own devices, the private sector might have eventually produced the same results, but generations of people would have had to do with a less productive economy until the private sector caught up to where the public sector actually took us.

lostshaker: This analysis couldn’t be more wrong. First of all, business owners are quite capable of mobilizing a work force and managing resources with overall plans, as James J. Hill demonstrated.

caltrek:  Yes, overall plans (and financing) that is provided by government.  I am not against government contracting with private entities to have those enetities achieve a public good. 

lostshaker: Secondly, the private sector did produce the same results and often with more efficiency. In the early 19th Century, for example, roads and waterways operated quite well under private management before government got involved. Remember tariffs? The U.S. government was originally funded by tariffs collected on private docks and waterways.

caltrek:  Also, remember the federal highway system that emphasized interconnecting larger geographic regions. Ditto railroads. Look at wastewater treatment, much of which was constructed and is managed and operated by the public sector. Space exploration. Much research and development in medicine was publicly financed.

lostshaker: In a few generations, I bet the government will be teaching that it built the skies for airplanes to fly.

caltrek: No, but it will be reminding people of the role that the FAA played in facilitating the safe operation of the air travel system.

loastshaker:    OSHA and unions weren’t necessary at all, but mere short-term expedients that produce unintended consequences.

caltrek: Short term expedients that saved lives and prevented crippling injury. Sure, unintended consequences happened, as they would should your ideas be implemented.

caltrek: Could it be that they needed the regulations in place to level the playing field against less enlightened competitors?

lostshaker: No, because the less enlightened would have been driven out of business over time due to competition. Mistreated workers wouldn’t have abandoned ship and gone to competitors that provided a more favorable workplace. All the regulations did was prop up the less enlightened operators that probably should’ve been driven out of business.

caltrek:  The less enlightened would have had a competitive advantage in that the cost of goods and services produced would have often been cheaper. Workers would have been forced to put up with inferior conditions due to the lack of alternatives. Just look at what used to be called the third world to see this dynamic continuing to play out. Often times in this  country, those enlightend and heroic businessmen that you are so fond of celebrating understood this, and supported regulations. Unfortunately, others saw the opportunity to avoid those regulations by moving their operations to third world countries.

Edit: I would receommend the book Busisnessmen and Reforms for documentation of the history of business support for some regulations (see also link below).

http://www.amazon.com/Businessmen-Reform-Study-Progressive-Movement/dp/0929587022

caltrek:  Yes, overall plans (and financing) that is provided by government. 

In your sense, caltrek, “overall panning” is simply a euphemism for centralization and monopolization. Good look with ever achieving liberal ideals, as we’ll all be equally poor and treated with unconstitutional brazenness by government.

I am not against government contracting with private entities to have those entities achieve a public good. 

So you’re for government favoritism and government granting monopolies? Where does equality, democracy, etc... fit into preferential treatment?

Businesses are constantly bidding for government funded jobs, but then these same businesses constantly go over budget and still the government keeps the contracts and pours taxpayer money into a bottomless pit. In addition, it’s the political entrepreneurs that benefit, as they’re the ones that are in the best position to bid and receive the government contracts.

caltrek:  Also, remember the federal highway system that emphasized interconnecting larger geographic regions. Ditto railroads. Look at wastewater treatment, much of which was constructed and is managed and operated by the public sector. Space exploration.

I’ve already discussed how market entrepreneurs had sufficient motivation to connect geographical regions, as doing so would’ve expanded the market and consequentially economic wealth. This can be seen with space exploration. Now that government is getting out of space exploration, the market entrepreneurs are standing by to take over. The government’s involvement in space travel permitted artificial inflation… companies banked on the government’s campaign promises of space exploration… costs could therefore be raised, which the government would pay to ensure their promises. Increased artificial costs, made so by the government’s intervention in space exploration, kept market entrepreneurs out of the game.

The medical discoveries would have been discovered anyway, as market entrepreneurs would attempt to maximize their profit potential. But more importantly, government has held back medicine, anything really where government has intervened in the market. But continuing with medicine… Let’s examine your own economic arguments regarding jobs – the downward spiral – as it applies to government involvement and the cancer industry (as an industry has been built around cancer and more jobs exist than actual people with cancer): if people lose their jobs, then they won’t have money to spend elsewhere… which will cause more companies to shrink and end in the loss of more jobs... and inevitably the entire economy collapses. If we assume, as the government does, the downward spiral hypothesis to be true, then the government has no motivation for finding or promoting cures for (any) disease. If any one of these companies ever found a cure (and many cures already exist), then the entire cancer industry would collapse, as the industry is currently based on there not being a cure – thanks to continued government grants that will forever sponsor research. And when the cancer industry collapses, people will lose their jobs, etc… and the entire economy collapses. Surely, this can be seen as bunk?

caltrek: No, but it will be reminding people of the role that the FAA played in facilitating the safe operation of the air travel system.

Businessmen won’t provide safe rides when their passengers (upon whom their business depend) demand it? Failing to provide safe rides wouldn’t drive customers into the hands of competitors that provide safer services? Businessmen want to lose their multimillion-dollar planes every other flight just so that they can spend millions more on the construction of another plane to take its place?

caltrek:  The less enlightened would have had a competitive advantage in that the cost of goods and services produced would have often been cheaper.

The advantage of the less enlightened would only be short-term. In the long-term, employees – originally under the supervision of the less enlightened – would be motivated to leave and work for the more enlightened who had not only made the upgrades voluntarily, but worked out the bugs and unintended consequences. The less enlightened, without a workforce, would then lose their short-term competiveness to those with long-term perspectives.

Also, cheapness does not guarantee customer loyalty or necessarily produce savings if what is cheap lacks quality. I, for example, refuse to shop at Wal-Mart and will go out of my to buy locally produced goods. I’m also willing to buy more high priced food, organic food… even though it is comparatively more expensive in the short-term, I won’t have the long-term health problems associated with processed foods and by extension the long-term health expenses. I also get my food straight from the farmers, which in addition to lowering costs at both ends, provides for a more direct relationship between producer and consumer.

Workers would have been forced to put up with inferior conditions due to the lack of alternatives.

Workers are always free to leave. Employers and their employees are generally only forced to put up with inferior conditions and lack of alternatives for lack of technology and production. Workplace dangers are an unintended consequence of production innovation and so it takes the free market time to adjust with new manners of innovative production or procedures to compensate. But the government just steps in with its short-term expedients and attempts procedures haphazardly.

Just look at what used to be called the third world to see this dynamic continuing to play out. Often times in this country, those enlightened and heroic businessmen that you are so fond of celebrating understood this, and supported regulations.

Such heroic businessmen understood that it was in their long-term interest to adopt more favorable conditions for their employees… for not only does customer loyalty exist, but worker loyalty as well. Market entrepreneurs, with long-term perspectives recognize that keeping employees reduces overall costs… for whenever an old employee leaves, new employees must be trained and resources diverted (a cost increase) for their training.

Unfortunately, others saw the opportunity to avoid those regulations by moving their operations to third world countries.

Yes, this happens in a free market. But keep in mind the trade offs. The businesses that have moved must now pay transportation fees for their products to be shipped back to their previous markets. Additionally, these businesses now reside in a political environment that does not offer the same security as a more industrialized nation. As a consequence, a new revolutionary leader may seize and nationalize the businesses owner’s operation.

caltrek:  Yes, overall plans (and financing) that is provided by government. 

Lostshaker: In your sense, caltrek, “overall panning” is simply a euphemism for centralization and monopolization. Good look with ever achieving liberal ideals, as we’ll all be equally poor and treated with unconstitutional brazenness by government.

caltrek:  Whatever you consider it a “euphemism for”, it worked and produced results.  Declaring that those actions were “unconstitutional” is an expression of opinion on your part, one that runs contrary to the majorities marshaled in the House, Senate, signed on to by the President, and affirmed by the Supreme Court.  I find it uncharacteristically arrogant on your part to make that kind of sweeping generalization and substitute your judgment for the collective judgment of those respective institutions.  

Lostshaker: So you’re for government favoritism and government granting monopolies?

caltrek:  I am not against government contracting with private entities to have those entities achieve a public good.  I am for government providing for the general welfare. I do not believe that contracts with private entities automatically constitute favoritism. Whether I favor “granting” monopolies depends upon circumstances. Generally, I like to see competitive forces come to play.

Lostshaker: Where does equality, democracy, etc... fit into preferential treatment?

Businesses are constantly bidding for government funded jobs, but then these same businesses constantly go over budget and still the government keeps the contracts and pours taxpayer money into a bottomless pit. In addition, it’s the political entrepreneurs that benefit, as they’re the ones that are in the best position to bid and receive the government contracts.

caltrek:  These are sweeping generalizations that have some basis in reality. They do not constitute sufficient reason in my mind for government to abandon the role of constructive activities aimed at improving overall economic productivity.  Democracy fits in that it is through democratic processes that the goals that government sets out to accomplish are first established.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

caltrek:  Also, remember the federal highway system that emphasized interconnecting larger geographic regions. Ditto railroads. Look at wastewater treatment, much of which was constructed and is managed and operated by the public sector. Space exploration.

Lostshaker: I’ve already discussed how market entrepreneurs had sufficient motivation to connect geographical regions, as doing so would’ve expanded the market and consequentially economic wealth.

caltrek: You can “discuss” motivations all you want, the fact is that the government of  the time frames in question had both the motivation AND the power and authority to marshal resources in a timely manner.

Lostshaker: This can be seen with space exploration. Now that government is getting out of space exploration, the market entrepreneurs are standing by to take over.

caltrek:  Something to which I do not object.

Lostshaker: The government’s involvement in space travel permitted artificial inflation… companies banked on the government’s campaign promises of space exploration… costs could therefore be raised, which the government would pay to ensure their promises. Increased artificial costs, made so by the government’s intervention in space exploration, kept market entrepreneurs out of the game.

caltrek:  I really don’t follow how in your mind government’s role artificially increased costs.

Lostshaker: The medical discoveries would have been discovered anyway, as market entrepreneurs would attempt to maximize their profit potential.

caltrek:  Your comment fails to address the point as to whether market forces would have produced results in as rapid a manner as did government investment. That “market” forces would have eventually produced the same result is of little consolation to those who were helped in the interim by the more speedy discoveries made possible by government financed research.

Lostshaker: But more importantly, government has held back medicine, anything really where government has intervened in the market.

caltrek:  This is beginning to sound more like a mantra of religious conviction then it is one based on an understanding of historical reality.

Lostshaker: But continuing with medicine… Let’s examine your own economic arguments regarding jobs – the downward spiral – as it applies to government involvement and the cancer industry (as an industry has been built around cancer and more jobs exist than actual people with cancer): if people lose their jobs, then they won’t have money to spend elsewhere… which will cause more companies to shrink and end in the loss of more jobs... and inevitably the entire economy collapses. If we assume, as the government does, the downward spiral hypothesis to be true, then the government has no motivation for finding or promoting cures for (any) disease.

caltrek:  “Has no motivation”? 

Are you serious? What about satisfying the desire of voters to see progress in the curing of disease? Hell, what about a politician’s or a government bureaucrat’s motivation for controlling and curing diseases for the sake of their own health?

Lostshaker: If any one of these companies ever found a cure (and many cures already exist), then the entire cancer industry would collapse, as the industry is currently based on there not being a cure – thanks to continued government grants that will forever sponsor research. And when the cancer industry collapses, people will lose their jobs, etc… and the entire economy collapses. Surely, this can be seen as bunk?

caltrek:   No, to take your hypothetical, let us suppose a cure for cancer is found.  Let us suppose that this cure does result in the loss of jobs that you posit. This loss of jobs can be offset by government shifting invests from finding cancer cures to finding cures for other diseases. Additionally, if the cure is in the form of a drug, the private pharmaceutical industry can step in to mobilize in the production and distribution of said drug. I would imagine that there would be quite a market for such a good. 

That government can and should occasionally inject investments into the economy to help create jobs is a separate and distinct argument from the idea that government activities, such as research and development in disease, can produce a public good.  Ideally, government investment can do both things at the same time. It can also adjust spending priorities in response to ongoing developments.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

lostshaker: In a few generations, I bet the government will be teaching that it built the skies for airplanes to fly.

caltrek: No, but it will be reminding people of the role that the FAA played in facilitating the safe operation of the air travel system.

Lostshaker: Businessmen won’t provide safe rides when their passengers (upon whom their business depend) demand it? Failing to provide safe rides wouldn’t drive customers into the hands of competitors that provide safer services? Businessmen want to lose their multimillion-dollar planes every other flight just so that they can spend millions more on the construction of another plane to take its place?

caltrek:  I am not the one arguing that the private sector does not benefit from government regulation.  The FAA builds confidence not just in air travel services provided by a particular air line, but in the air travel industry as a whole.  I certainly don’t want to gamble with my life trying to figure out by trial and error which airline is safe and which is highly dangerous. To me, it is much better to have agreed upon standards that all airlines are compelled to meet. Maybe it’s just me, but that is the approach I feel more comfortable with. Some how, I think others would agree with that logic.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

caltrek:  The less enlightened would have had a competitive advantage in that the cost of goods and services produced would have often been cheaper.

Lostshaker: The advantage of the less enlightened would only be short-term.

caltrek: …yet long enough to drive other competitors out of the field.

Lostshaker: In the long-term, employees – originally under the supervision of the less enlightened – would be motivated to leave and work for the more enlightened who had not only made the upgrades voluntarily, but worked out the bugs and unintended consequences. The less enlightened, without a workforce, would then lose their short-term competiveness to those with long-term perspectives.

caltrek:  …but only if those “more enlightened” are able to stay in business. Also, since we were talking in the context of such things as OSHA, this theory would be of little consolation to those who lost their lives or are rendered permanently crippled due to accident or poisoning “in the short term”.

Why should workers have to wait for such “long term” developments to kick in? Just in order to satiate those who want to worship the invisible hand of the market place as some sort of deity needing no other justification but its own existence?

Lostshaker: Also, cheapness does not guarantee customer loyalty or necessarily produce savings if what is cheap lacks quality.

caltrek:  Fair point, but I was talking in terms of other things such as quality being equal.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

caltrek:  Workers would have been forced to put up with inferior conditions due to the lack of alternatives.

Lostshaker:  Workers are always free to leave. Employers and their employees are generally only forced to put up with inferior conditions and lack of alternatives for lack of technology and production. Workplace dangers are an unintended consequence of production innovation and so it takes the free market time to adjust with new manners of innovative production or procedures to compensate. But the government just steps in with its short-term expedients and attempts procedures haphazardly.

caltrek:  There is no reason to arbitrarily assume that government is going to proceed in a hap hazard manner.