“What is good for the public is what is good for every individual player in that public: freedom to acquire information about products and make rational choices.”

Sven, after the scandal of the exploding Bridgestone (Firestone) tires of the late ’90s, it came out that the Insurance Institute, which aggregates data from fatal accidents, had known about the exploding tires for years, but had not released the information to discourage lawsuits which might have cost its members (insurance companies) money. One of the last things the Clinton administration did was make reporting of such information mandatory and charge the Consumer Products Safety Commission to make such information public, so that consumers could exercise “freedom to acquire information about products and make rational choices”.

One of the first acts of the Bush Administration was to classify this information. The reason given was that the competitive posture of some corporations may be damaged by the release of such information.

So how do you research the reliability of the tires you put on your car? Are you transporting your children on tires that explode? How do you know?

This is just one example of the value that the conservative movement puts on life.

these “high-minded” objectivist, libertarian types would be the very first to run screaming for cover if they ever, in fact, got their way (which they never will, for reasons that have nothing to do with anyone’s politics)

i might not mind, because for a while at least, it would provide a great opportunity to bilk the wealthy out of their money, which i could then use to relocate to a civilized country.

Hey Sved – If you think you’re paying too much in taxes – get a job that pays less.

“Anyone notice how we’re setting records in economic output and on the stock exchange?”

The stock exchange is setting records. So what? How does gauging the “health” of industry reflect the financial health of the average American? We’ve got this weird idea that, if corporations are doing well, it goes without saying that American families must be doing well, too.

What’s wonderful for General Motors (ok, bad example) isn’t nearly as good for most Americans. In fact, what’s good for General Motors it doesn’t affect most American’s lives at all. Good for the corporations, but it doesn’t necessarily indicate widespread prosperity.

OK, but if there’s a government committee which is supposed to regulate, I want the people on it to be interested in regulating. Enthusiastic, even. Industry wants and does get around regulation. The government doesn’t need to stand up for industry so much, because industry stands up for industry. I don’t blame industry for looking out for itself, but there has to be an effective check on industry’s tendency to do that. To be an effective counter balance, we DON’T need somebody who’s looking out for industry.

No, I don’t think that consumers are an effective check on industry. Looking out for the consumer is a full time job, and I don’t think there’s another organization with the money and resources that could check industry (and make it pay attention) it as effectively as the government is potentially able to.

One of the reasons for having a government is to have a powerful organization which can balance other powerful organizations. Consumers have power, but not organization or, frankly, the will to personally find out if what they’re buying isn’t dangerous. I don’t think I’m lazy for wanting to assume that the government is looking out for my safety, any more than I’m being lazy for assuming that the government is interested in keeping my safe by, say, apprehending criminals.

The truth is, the depression was not caused by “heavy-handed government” but by an appallingly large wealth gap…also similar to the one we see today.

“America hasn’t seen growth like what we’re seeing since the 1920s”

…and the 20’s ended on such a high note.

/sarc

I’m going to go have a lead and mercury-laced tuna sandwich right now, which was a lot cheaper because it wasn’t opressed by a wasteful government bureaucracy.

With the Ecoli spinach and salmonella peanut butter making headlines lately, how can a sane person be arguing for even less regulation?????

Dead children are a small price to pay for economic growth and robust statistics, I guess???

i noticed you didn’t bother to reply to post number thirty-one, by bluedog. some pretty incisive and substantial questions posed therein.

None of you lefties has offered any substantial rebuttal to my argument other than whining about “public goods” or calling me a neo-con, which I am most certainly not. What is good for the public is what is good for every individual player in that public: freedom to acquire information about products and make rational choices. The public is simply the sum of all the individuals in the marketplace; it’s not some phantom conglomerate that only liberals and government bureaucrats know how to appease.

Breakaway business models and economies are charged with acts of heresy. (Venezuela)

All hail Wall St! (The New Vatican & Holy Temple)

The irony? History has already taught us what bad history will do.

Every form of human interaction is governed by rules, the most basic being that you can do what you want, as long as you don’t hurt other people somehow, interfere with what other people are doing in a way that they don’t like, or put them at a disadvantage. We all agree on this. We all know we’re supposed to act in harmony for the public good and we all know that we have to cooperate with the rules. Nothing is more important than that.

It’s the same in economic activity, which is just another facet of human activity. However, unlike in all other activities, there is something which people believe actually trumps the public good. More important than the public good is “economic growth”. For the sake of economic growth, it’s ok to let people do what they want.