More irrationality from the fringe right/tea party...

polaris_x

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

I agree with what you are saying, but part of competition is differnetiating yourself from the competition. If you have a product that is better than the competition there will be a market for it. So, what we have here is pipelines blowing up. All it would take is for a company to jump on this opportunity to market their pipelies and the features included that would prevent blowups. If people are so concerned about this there will be a demand for it. Part of getting an edge when competing against someone is having a product you can stand behind. If pipelines are blowing up, there will be companies that have pipelines that they guarantee will not by implementing the procedures themselves even without a mandate.

Everyone always just wants to fall back on the government to do everything for us. So, I can respect that there are people who were elected on a platform of getting government out of our lives as actually holding true to that message.

Great post.

what!? ... really? ... what's so great about that post?

what company promotes itself as having pipelines that don't blow up? ... it's absurd simply because it would denote that other companies pipelines DO explode ...

in these industries ... competitive advantage is primarily pricing ... when the bid goes to tender - the majority of contracts will be awarded either because of pricing or connections ...

having said all of that - regulation can only do so much ... "accidents" like the exxon valdez and the BP oil spill are NOT really accidents ... they are corporations purposefully ignoring regulations because it would be much cheaper to either have an accident than to follow the rules ...

polaris_x

Sludge Factory wrote:

What I think is being missed in your explanation here is that even when industry is acting in the interest of profits, consumer safety plays into that. If everything you sell is known to harm the buyer, you are going to have a hell of a lot less buyers so it is in the seller's best interest to ensure they have a safe product. If a certain seller is unwilling to do that, you can bet there will be someone ready to replace that seller with a better product...in a free market that the government doesn't constantly intervene in, that is.

sure ... in some utopian society ... but not in the world we live in now ... just go to your local supermarket ... all the products that contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals ... the shit that is in food these days ... sure, there is competition for each and everyone of those products but they are more expensive and many consumers ultimately decide on price ... it would be the same here ...

cincybearcat

Sludge Factory wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

If the industry itself is so overwhelmingly in favor of these regulations, why don't they just do exactly what the regulations propose? Why does there always have to be a mandate first? This should be a non-issue.

Had the same thought. But I think it boils down to competition. Companies want to do it, but they want everyone to have to do it so they don't spend $ that their competitors don't.

Sad, but a reality in business.

I agree with what you are saying, but part of competition is differentiating yourself from the competition. If you have a product that is better than the competition there will be a market for it. So, what we have here is pipelines blowing up. All it would take is for a company to jump on this opportunity to market their pipelines and the features included that would prevent blowups. If people are so concerned about this there will be a demand for it. Part of getting an edge when competing against someone is having a product you can stand behind. If pipelines are blowing up, there will be companies that have pipelines that they guarantee will not by implementing the procedures themselves even without a mandate.

Everyone always just wants to fall back on the government to do everything for us. So, I can respect that there are people who were elected on a platform of getting government out of our lives as actually holding true to that message.

But to market yourself you have to have something to sell. People expect pipelines to not blow up, they aren't going to pay extra for it. Harsh reality of Safety and Quality, it's all overhead until people start to pay more attention and are willing to pay for it.

cincybearcat

Let me ask you a question...

When buying your laundry detergent do you consider the safety records of the manufacturer?

Sludge Factory

polaris_x wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

I agree with what you are saying, but part of competition is differnetiating yourself from the competition. If you have a product that is better than the competition there will be a market for it. So, what we have here is pipelines blowing up. All it would take is for a company to jump on this opportunity to market their pipelies and the features included that would prevent blowups. If people are so concerned about this there will be a demand for it. Part of getting an edge when competing against someone is having a product you can stand behind. If pipelines are blowing up, there will be companies that have pipelines that they guarantee will not by implementing the procedures themselves even without a mandate.

Everyone always just wants to fall back on the government to do everything for us. So, I can respect that there are people who were elected on a platform of getting government out of our lives as actually holding true to that message.

Great post.

what!? ... really? ... what's so great about that post?

what company promotes itself as having pipelines that don't blow up? ... it's absurd simply because it would denote that other companies pipelines DO explode ...

in these industries ... competitive advantage is primarily pricing ... when the bid goes to tender - the majority of contracts will be awarded either because of pricing or connections ...

having said all of that - regulation can only do so much ... "accidents" like the exxon valdez and the BP oil spill are NOT really accidents ... they are corporations purposefully ignoring regulations because it would be much cheaper to either have an accident than to follow the rules ...

You state the obvious but also overlook the obvious. No company is going to say their pipeline is going to blow up, but you can bet there will be companies there that outline the deficiencies of the competition and what they themselves are doing to correct those deficiencies. How many bid openings have you ever been to? I’ve been to several and while pricing does play into things, so does the quality of work. I’ve spoken with some people at engineering firms at these bid openings about the bids they received and who they hoped would win the bid. Yes, low prices are looked at, but so is quality of work. The people I’ve spoken with will not award a bid to certain companies because of poor past performance regardless of how much lower the bid comes in.

The accidents you outline would also be taken care of better in a free market. Are people allowed to sue Exxon Valdez and BP for the oil spills or does it just get swept under the rug in our current system? Chances are, if it is being swept under the rug it is because of government involvement. If the government was there to enforce contracts as Vinnie pointed out in an earlier post, these companies would be taken to task for their failings and others would take note of this and what to do to prevent the same from happening in the future in order to avoid monetary losses and messy litigation.

There is too much protectionism of corporations in today’s world. You argue that the way to prevent this is more regulation. I argue that it is because of regulations this protectionism exists. I argue that in a free market it would be a level playing field and if you knowingly fuck up, you can be taken to task for that. I just don’t see that happening in today’s world with all the ‘regulations’ we currently have.

Sludge Factory

cincybearcat wrote:

But to market yourself you have to have something to sell. People expect pipelines to not blow up, they aren't going to pay extra for it. Harsh reality of Safety and Quality, it's all overhead until people start to pay more attention and are willing to pay for it.

And that is part of the responsibility of the consumer...not the government.

Sludge Factory

polaris_x wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

What I think is being missed in your explanation here is that even when industry is acting in the interest of profits, consumer safety plays into that. If everything you sell is known to harm the buyer, you are going to have a hell of a lot less buyers so it is in the seller's best interest to ensure they have a safe product. If a certain seller is unwilling to do that, you can bet there will be someone ready to replace that seller with a better product...in a free market that the government doesn't constantly intervene in, that is.

sure ... in some utopian society ... but not in the world we live in now ... just go to your local supermarket ... all the products that contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals ... the shit that is in food these days ... sure, there is competition for each and everyone of those products but they are more expensive and many consumers ultimately decide on price ... it would be the same here ...

You talk about food, but look at what 'regulation' has brought us in that industry. Can I just go out and purchase raw milk if I want to because I know of its beneficial properties and I'm willing to take on the risk associated with consuming raw milk? Fuck no, because most people aren't willing to sell it because they are afraid of the FBI kicking down their door for selling an 'illegal' substance. Can we sue Monsato for fucking with famers who want to plant crops that don't include what you mention above? We can try, but the reality of things is Monsato is more successful at suing these farmers for contaminating their farmers' use of their product.

polaris_x

Sludge Factory wrote:

You talk about food, but look at what 'regulation' has brought us in that industry. Can I just go out and purchase raw milk if I want to because I know of its beneficial properties and I'm willing to take on the risk associated with consuming raw milk? Fuck no, because most people aren't willing to sell it because they are afraid of the FBI kicking down their door for selling an 'illegal' substance. Can we sue Monsato for fucking with famers who want to plant crops that don't include what you mention above? We can try, but the reality of things is Monsato is more successful at suing these farmers for contaminating their farmers' use of their product.

hey ... i already wrote in my post near the top of the page that the feds do a horrible job and that they are lackeys to the major corporations ... which is what you are alluding to with raw milk and monsanto ...

but that still does not alter the need for regulation ... you guys can argue that the gov't is horrible at implementing and enforcing regulations and i would agree with you but it still does not negate the need for it ...

if we left everything up to the free market ... all we would have is a world similar to what is shown in WALL-E ... massive corporations controlling everything ...

polaris_x

Sludge Factory wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

But to market yourself you have to have something to sell. People expect pipelines to not blow up, they aren't going to pay extra for it. Harsh reality of Safety and Quality, it's all overhead until people start to pay more attention and are willing to pay for it.

And that is part of the responsibility of the consumer...not the government.

consumers are ill equipped to make decisions like this because by nature we are short sighted ... it is why so many people live with unreasonable amounts of debt ...

without the gov't we would still have lead in our gasoline, ddt sprayed everywhere ... and all our resources would be either used up or contaminated ...

cincybearcat

Sludge Factory wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

But to market yourself you have to have something to sell. People expect pipelines to not blow up, they aren't going to pay extra for it. Harsh reality of Safety and Quality, it's all overhead until people start to pay more attention and are willing to pay for it.

And that is part of the responsibility of the consumer...not the government.

It is...and the consumer while bitching about their own jobs and safety standards continue to only care about price and nothing else. So, this in translated to the manufacturers. The better ones still go above and beyond because it makes good business sense to protect your employees and your assets, but without some regulation, some of these standards would slip...potentially greatly.

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

It is...and the consumer while bitching about their own jobs and safety standards continue to only care about price and nothing else. So, this in translated to the manufacturers. The better ones still go above and beyond because it makes good business sense to protect your employees and your assets, but without some regulation, some of these standards would slip...potentially greatly.

brings a tear to my eye ...

Sludge Factory

polaris_x wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

You talk about food, but look at what 'regulation' has brought us in that industry. Can I just go out and purchase raw milk if I want to because I know of its beneficial properties and I'm willing to take on the risk associated with consuming raw milk? Fuck no, because most people aren't willing to sell it because they are afraid of the FBI kicking down their door for selling an 'illegal' substance. Can we sue Monsato for fucking with famers who want to plant crops that don't include what you mention above? We can try, but the reality of things is Monsato is more successful at suing these farmers for contaminating their farmers' use of their product.

hey ... i already wrote in my post near the top of the page that the feds do a horrible job and that they are lackeys to the major corporations ... which is what you are alluding to with raw milk and monsanto ...

but that still does not alter the need for regulation ... you guys can argue that the gov't is horrible at implementing and enforcing regulations and i would agree with you but it still does not negate the need for it ...

if we left everything up to the free market ... all we would have is a world similar to what is shown in WALL-E ... massive corporations controlling everything ...

What I don't get is, you acknowledge that the government is terrible at regulating, yet you want to hand them MORE regulating authority? Their proven track record shows they are incapable of this.

I recognize the need for regulation, as I see you do, but I believe the government is incapable of honest regulation.

Bringing up massive corporations doesn’t do anything to justify your argument in my opinion. These massive corporations that control everything only do so because of government interventionism, not in spite of it. This is because of the ‘too big to fail’ ideology; because most regulatory bills, if not all, only slap the big corporations on the wrist while increasing the barrier for smaller upstarts to enter into any certain industry. The big corporations have the capital to adapt or the wherewithal to move to another country if it becomes too burdensome. If you are a small business trying to compete, your best hope when a corporation pays attention to you is that they want to buy you out as opposed to sue you into oblivion for infringing on some sort of intellectual property protected by, you guessed it, the government.

Sludge Factory

cincybearcat wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

But to market yourself you have to have something to sell. People expect pipelines to not blow up, they aren't going to pay extra for it. Harsh reality of Safety and Quality, it's all overhead until people start to pay more attention and are willing to pay for it.

And that is part of the responsibility of the consumer...not the government.

It is...and the consumer while bitching about their own jobs and safety standards continue to only care about price and nothing else. So, this in translated to the manufacturers. The better ones still go above and beyond because it makes good business sense to protect your employees and your assets, but without some regulation, some of these standards would slip...potentially greatly.

I don't disagree with what you are saying. We as consumers need to not rely on the government for these standards and regulations though. Their are forces out their that do try to inform consumers on products and the manufacturers. There would probably be more organizations that did this if we didn't leave it up to government. I'm willing to bet they would do a hell of a better job too.

You guys act like I'm saying if government didn't regulate then we wouldn't have these blasted regulations. That is NOT what I am saying. I'm saying the government is a failed institutition in this apsect and regulation would be better handled if we had a free market that was actually free. Not the "free market" we have now, but one where corporations can be held accountable for their doings by the government actually doing its job in enforcing contracts.

polaris_x

polaris_x wrote:

vinny - the issue you seem to have is not in the need for regulations but the entity by which they come from ... i'll agree that the feds do horribly in that matter overall ...

but the bottom line is this: this industry needs to be regulated ... if the associations and industry groups are not willing nor able to regulate themselves ... what alternative is there?

which brings us back to this ...

a truly free market will not be the answer ... a truly free market will just lead to more exploitation and a complete disregard for public safety ...

Sludge Factory

polaris_x wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

But to market yourself you have to have something to sell. People expect pipelines to not blow up, they aren't going to pay extra for it. Harsh reality of Safety and Quality, it's all overhead until people start to pay more attention and are willing to pay for it.

And that is part of the responsibility of the consumer...not the government.

consumers are ill equipped to make decisions like this because by nature we are short sighted ... it is why so many people live with unreasonable amounts of debt ...

without the gov't we would still have lead in our gasoline, ddt sprayed everywhere ... and all our resources would be either used up or contaminated ...

The short sightedness of consumers in my opinion is because we have become so conditioned to just rely on the government to ensure our safety for us. No one is going to take care of yourself but you and it is best if consumers started to pay more attention to what it is they are consuming. You can bet that people would pay more attention if they weren't patted on the head all the time being told "it's okay, government is here to help you". People would be forced to pay attention and those that choose not to would serve as a good example and reminder as to why one should pay attention.

With the government we are still on gasoline and still spray pesticides, fungicides, and fertilizer on our crops. With government we plant crops in areas that aren't appropriate for farming and pay people not to plant crops in areas that are appropriate for farming. Just because the government is able to take care of some superficial cosmetics does not justify its meddling in the market. Gasoline use is a pollutant period. We still have gasoline use WITH government.

Without government we would have more efficient farming and we would most likely not even be on gasoline anymore because the real costs of using gasoline would have been realized by consumers decades ago causing the market to figure out a better source of energy or a better mode of transportation. The government didn’t subsidize horse carriages when the auto was introduced to the market so why should they subsidize the energy market when other forms could be introduced?

Sludge Factory

polaris_x wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

vinny - the issue you seem to have is not in the need for regulations but the entity by which they come from ... i'll agree that the feds do horribly in that matter overall ...

but the bottom line is this: this industry needs to be regulated ... if the associations and industry groups are not willing nor able to regulate themselves ... what alternative is there?

which brings us back to this ...

a truly free market will not be the answer ... a truly free market will just lead to more exploitation and a complete disregard for public safety ...

Not really, we have all that and more with the regulated market of today...

polaris_x

uhhh ... what basis do you derive your beliefs from? ...

sooo ... tell me, in this free market world ... what would prevent me from manufacturing a product that is highly toxic to humans and utilizes exploitative labour practices?

Sludge Factory

polaris_x wrote:

uhhh ... what basis do you derive your beliefs from? ...

sooo ... tell me, in this free market world ... what would prevent me from manufacturing a product that is highly toxic to humans and utilizes exploitative labour practices?

The impending lawsuits and potential jail time/restitution to the victims for potentially breaking a contract (I'm assuming you weren't marketing your product as highly toxic) and also for infringing on the rights of others.

polaris_x

Sludge Factory wrote:

The impending lawsuits and potential jail time/restitution to the victims for potentially breaking a contract (I'm assuming you weren't marketing your product as highly toxic) and also for infringing on the rights of others.

lawsuits based on what? ... who's gonna test the product? .. who's gonna protect those rights of others? ... and on what statute are the rights being protected on? ... if they are willing to work for 5 cents a week ... that is the free market working is it not?

Sludge Factory

polaris_x wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

The impending lawsuits and potential jail time/restitution to the victims for potentially breaking a contract (I'm assuming you weren't marketing your product as highly toxic) and also for infringing on the rights of others.

lawsuits based on what? ... who's gonna test the product? .. who's gonna protect those rights of others? ... and on what statute are the rights being protected on? ... if they are willing to work for 5 cents a week ... that is the free market working is it not?

I already told you what the lawsuits would be based upon in the post of mine you are quoting.

If someone is willing to work for 5 cents a week, that is their call. As for the rest of your post, the market would be able to address those issues. There would be and already is a market for product testing, protecting individual rights would also have a market (already does to an extent i.e. the ACLU).