Shouldn’t it be up to the consumer to freely make their own choice when it comes to a purchase? Or should the government be able to intervene…
If you believe the government should be able to intervene does this then assume the consumer is too foolish to make a choice for them self as a legal adult?
Captain Bathrobe: I didn’t assume perfect information, nor is the government perfect in terms of information. Both sides are man made and flawed. I believe individuals should be allowed to make any decision they desire.
It’s impossible for consumers to know exactly what they are getting in products with their own information. This is why we need things such as the FDA.
You assume perfect information, which never happens. A game’s not much good without a referee.
References :
People who won’t or don’t work have a problem dealing with capitalism, so they depend on government envisioned by Liberals.
PS: doesn’t reflect on retired folks who worked a lifetime
References :
Unregulated capitalism would mean people would smoke cigarettes with unknown chemicals, ride motorcycles without helmets, cars would have no airbags, lead-tainted toys, prescription drugs taken like candy and credit card rates of 30% or more. We would go back to the days when slaughter houses were completely uninspected and disgusting. Banks would not give you your credit score or a true interest rate. It would be a nightmare.
References :
Where have you been the last 2.5 years?
References :
Eventually corporations get so large and wealthy that they run the country instead of the people.
References :
It’s impossible for consumers to know exactly what they are getting in products with their own information. This is why we need things such as the FDA.
References :
If the market was completely free, then there would be a tendency to create monopolies. As monopolies form, smaller businesses fail more often. The consumer loses choice and the monopolies can raise their prices without the consumer able to do much about it. Products would also be able to be made as cheap as possible and without any safety regulations, which would hurt the consumer.
In addition to protecting smaller businesses and the consumer, government can also regulate the market to keep economic collapses from occurring. From the Great Depression to the 1990s, the stock market and banks were regulated much more than during the Clinton years (a booming economic time, I might add) when the government began to get out of wall street. Without regulations, banks dealt in derivatives and other shady deals which eventually led to the economic crisis we are currently in. More government regulation could have saved us or at least lightened the blow.
References :
Without regulation, Coke would still contain cocaine, children would still work in factories, and your cat would die from unsafe pet food.
References :
Too big to fail, bailouts financial collapse, what else do you need? Read and learn.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30481512/wall_streets_naked_swindle
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/32255149/wall_streets_bailout_hustle
References :
Every evil attributed to capitalism is actually a symptom of a mixed economy. Pure laissez-faire capitalism has never been tried. I’ve yet to be given an example of a monopoly that wasn’t maintained via government action. One commenter mentioned slaughterhouses. You do realize that the cruelty-free slaughterhouses, pioneered by Temple Grandin, are widely used because they are more efficient (this means that it’s actually the capitalistic choice)? Look into it some time, the animal psychology behind it is fascinating. All of the people who predict high prices don’t realize that, in a free market economy, there are no barriers to enter the market. This means unnecessarily high prices will be undercut. The idea of ‘economic justice’ really equates to: I have less money than you. Instead of working hard to be productive and make just as much money, I’m going to steal it from you instead. It isn’t a noble idea. It’s sugar-coated thievery.
References :
.
2 words ALWAYS to keep in mind about laissez-faire free market unrestricted unregulated capitalism: ‘collusion’ and ‘monopoly.’
In reverse order: all capitalists strive to be monopolists. When WalMart has put your corner Mom-and-Pop hardware / shoe / grocer / pet store owner out of business and WalMart then becomes THE place –the ONLY– place to shop, WHERE IS "choice?"
Collusion: on their way to becoming a monopoly, the several dominant companies within a category are what is known as an ‘oligopoly.’ That may have been serendipitous OR it may have been planned, i.e., the result of ‘collusion’ in which the companies agree to charge the same real estate commission or the same price for gasoline, etc etc etc. Choice? Only the brand or company, but NO CHOICE about price, etc.
Restrained / regulated capitalism brought us: seat belts and airbags; the 40-hour week; overtime pay; OSHA; FDA; FAA; VA; turn signals on cars and traffic lights at intersections, etc etc etc.
UNrestrained / poorly regulated capitalism brought us the Crash of 1929 and its ensuing depression; the 2007- recession via credit default swaps; Thalidomide; Exxon Valdez; the Pinto; Enron; WorldCom; AIG; $1,000 toilet seats; $420 million for 11 White House helicopters (!!!) [ -- that order was canceled...]
Do you want more, or will you cry "Uncle" now?
.
.
References :
.
NEXT !!!!!!!
.
Corporate greed.
Stockholders want/expect increasing dividends and corporate executives are encouraged to make higher profits by receiving bonuses and stock options.
An unregulated market would expose consumers to many different risks – monopolies (big corporations demolishing competition) lead to restricted choice and higher prices, pursuit of profits can lower health, safety and quality standards. Companies could make exaggerated or misleading claims for their products, form price-fixing cartels, impose unfair, punitive conditions in contractual ‘small print’ and follow many different ‘bad practices’ to exploit consumers.
Many argue regulatory ‘watch dogs’ fail to protect consumers enough – corporations often regard them as interfering, expensivel, restrictive meddlers. But ‘referees’ doing their job correctly and fairly will nearly always attract criticism both sides – getting the balance right is usually difficult.
References :