Co-signedQuote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Printable View
Co-signedQuote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
How can I know? Not familiar with the business. Literally none of my business.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
There are thousands of successful private regulators around the world, they've been around for more time than the modern state, so it's not like it's such a big deal.
What I know is that the government is such a bad regulator that if the market was open to competition I'm very sure someone would knock it completely out of the regulation market. A large majority of the regulation in the American and world economy is and has always been private; and when it isn't, it's because politicians are protecting their own business - at the cost of successive regulatory fails that, as we've seen once again, cost human lifes.
Anyway, the main point is that, once again, the government proves to be a massive failure as a regulator. I think that's pretty indisputable by now.
As usual, the only thing that's indisputable is your inability to resist trotting out general free-market saws, even when you freely admit you don't know what you're on about.
One could just as easily say that private regulation was involved, in the form of Massey's insurers. They, too, failed... and had a profit-motive not to've. Either they dropped the ball and didn't inspect the facilities diligently enough to determine they were unsafe (or so much as read the government's reports on their client's many published infractions), or Massey found it more profitable to pay escalating insurance premiums and government fines while remaining operational than he did to shut down production temporarily to address safety concerns. My guess is the latter.
Besides insurance, I have trouble imagining how private regulators could do much about anything since they have no legal power invested in them to discipline anyone.
Private regulation works if the company saves money or profits by risk-management and self-regulation, but if a company is solely interested in short-term profits, sustainability and safety may no longer be priorities. At that point the only thing holding them back from pursuing gains by endangering their employees and facilities is ethical scruples, of which Massey appears to have had none.
The only agencies that have the ability to make regulation compulsory are the government and the insurers (for legal and financial reasons, respectively), and while I agree that they let those miners down in the gravest possible way, pulling the old "leave it to the market!" BS is as intellectually lazy and absolutist as saying government regulation is necessarily useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar
Please, refrain yourself from this kind of ad hominem arguments. Otherwise, I wont' give you the trouble of reading another of my replies.
I don't know nothing about mining sector regulation. Do you? Please answer, a simple yes or no should suffice.
I don't agree that regulation needs (1) needs to be compulsory (2) even if compulsory, needs to be provided by the government itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar
A fatal mistake is to extrapolate from a scenario where you have the government as a bad regulator to a scenario where the government wouldn't be a regulator wouldn't change things. I think the scope of situations where private regulation works would be much larger in the second case.
Nice to see we're all in agreement that the government, once again, failed as a regulator. People underrated the impact of the existence of such a terribly inefficient regulator.
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
Is the following a reply to my point that private regulation was just as useless as governmental strictures in this case? If so, all I got out of it was that I made a fatal mistake in my argument which you chose not to elaborate on (perhaps because it wasn't related to my argument), as well as some more vague throat-clearing about how private regulation would be better without any data to back your position.
As regards knowledge of mining regulation... exactly how different do you imagine it to be from that in any other industry? If you want to discredit my thesis by having me admit to no mining regulatory experience, have at it -- but understand that we aren't discussing anything that can't be sussed from the articles presented herein and even the most casual understanding of business and government regulation in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
I explained what the fatal mistake is: to extrapolate from a scenario where you have the government as a bad regulator (the current one) to a scenario where the government wouldn't be a regulator wouldn't change things. I think the scope of situations where private regulation works would be much larger in the second case.Quote:
Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar
Not sure what kind of data do you want? Maybe if you can put up some data yourself I can find data to refute it?
Is that a yes or a no? I think it helps to be concise when you can be.Quote:
Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar
Personally, I'm not familiar with the mining business, so I certainly am not apt to judge what are good/bad/necessary/unnecessary regulatory frames. Still can't understand exactly what's your position.
The problem I see with private regulators is that, as anything, profit is going to be the motivator, not safety.
How would private regulations have any teeth? How would the "little guy" be on fair standing?
Let's say X amount of miners are hurt, and they try to sue. The company will have, most likely, a cash advantage in hiring lawyers. Without an overarching government compliance, wouldn't individual regulations make cases much tougher to handle?
(Note: Barely any of these questions are rhetorical. I know nothing about private vs gov regulation, for the most part.)
Mogro, what facilities/functions do you think are/should be the exclusive domain of the government?
Why? If profit is the motivator, the way to achieve profit is by being a good regulator, and the way of being a good regulator is by enforcing regulations properly, what's the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
That's like saying that the problem with private butchers is that, as anything, profit is going to be the motivator, not providing food.
Guess what: it works.
The large majority of regulations & standardization in existence are private; it's not like this is something new.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Why so? The courts shall decide if there was wrongdoing and punish or not accordingly - in both cases. If the courts aren't well operated, than the problem is with the institution that operates courts and provides justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Exclusive? None, except the ability to legislate. I'd say the military/law enforcement, but I'm perfectly okay with the existence of private companies that provide security services.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
I think the core and only legitimate function of the government should be protecting individuals from aggression (latus sensus) and breach of contracts. This implies that the government possesses a law enforcement apparel (to protect against fraud, theft, murder, etc), including courts and police, and a military apparel (to protect against the aggression of foreign states).
Basically, the function of the state is to protect the liberty of any individual to act as he wants as long as the way he acts doesn't constitute a burden on the liberty of another individual.
What is an example of a profitable private regulator?
Fair enough Mogro.
What if the mining company chooses not to hire regulators though? Would that just work itself out in the free market by miners choosing only to sign on with regulated companies?
Or consumers only buying from regulated companies, as it happens today. For example, if you're a logistic/transportation company, it's almost impossible to sell for the bluechip companies if you dont' comply to certain environmental regulatory frames.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
If not, one would have to wonder who actually wants the regulation and what purpose it serves. I mean, if a miner is willing to sign a contract where there isn't a guarantee of work safety with a company which isn't regulated by an independent 3rd party and there is no social pressure about the issue, then it's a "should a midget be allowed to be paid to be kicked around in a bar?" situation. The purpose of regulation is to reduce uncertainty and transaction costs; if it isn't fulfilling these functions for anybody, than it shouldn't exist (and in this scenario, it wouldn't).
There's nothing new about this. I mean, if you're a producer of electric devices, how much success do you think you'd have without the UL approval? Do you think the market would trust your products?
Uh, Underwriters Laboratoires, for example?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
You can dish it out, but you can't take it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
Quote:
HYPOCRITE, n. One who, professing virtues that he does not respect, secures the advantage of seeming to be what he despises.
So what are the penalties from UL when a worker dies due to violations of UL's regulations?Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
Mogro, the one problem with your comparison is that electronics aren't as essential to a household as energy; as well, it's much easier to boycott an electronic manufacturer than an energy provider. (At least where I've lived, there's usually only been one or two in the area.)
As well, there's a possibility miners would sign with a non-regulated company if the need was great enough (ie desperate economic times).
What? I don't think workers die to violations of UL's regulations, I don't think UL regulates workplace safety. If they do, I'm not familiar with how they do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Electronics are pretty essential, it's pretty tough to produce energy with the kind of products UL regulates. And most firms don't even sell directly to the consumer and abide to private regulatory standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Yeah, the government protection of incumbent energy providers is sickening.
If they sign with a non-regulated company because they want to, regardless of the economic climate, I don't feel I have the right to oppose their will. That's what liberty is about.
Why not? Sounds like they would be great at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
Maybe you can write them and ask?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
chump got bloated!
hey oh! I'm out.
You're the one who thinks private regulation is the only way to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
Show me where I did this. I said private and governmental -- in concert -- failed. The rest of the time, I spent wondering about the limitations of private regulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
That's super. I think this whole discussion began when people asked you to say more about this, didn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
The burden of proof has been on you this whole time. Nobody else is making the claim that private regulation would be better than governmental.Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
Data wanted: private regulation scheme from Mogro.Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
If all this is true, then why was my characterization of you as a clown that loves making absolutist statements about the power of free market/diminished govt anything but naturalistic description? You don't have any point, just philosophical solutions in search of a problem. I guess that would be my position.Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
For the record, UL works for the insurance industry that failed the miners.
You don't get it, AS. mogrovejo is the profe. He asks, you answer; your naturalistic description is his ad hominem, and the reverse.
Similarly, his emphasis on manners is completely two-faced: mogrovejo can be as snide and condescending as he wishes (the obvious superiority and soundness of his own POV underwrites his attitude -- it's naturalistic description, right?), but you are strictly forbidden to refrain from emulating the very same conceit, on pain of losing his avuncular guidance forever.
Oh, cruel world!
So "private regulators" would not have let something like this happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by mogrovejo
Like the private regulators that rate bonds didn't look the other way a bit when it came to giving shitty residential mortgage backed securities AAA ratings?
How exactly would we collectively have held a private regulator responsible, should that regulator have proven just as inept? Throw spitballs?
How do you fund private regulators so that there isn't some gross conflict of interest?
Or if someone slaps a UL sticker on something that hasn't been UL tested?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
or choses not to submit their device/material item to UL sells it, and then chooses not to tell his customers that it hasn't been tested?
I think such private regulation schemes invariably fail to account for information assymetry.
Suppose Wile E. Contractor gets into the contracting business and is subcontracted to provide the electrical conduits for your house. Wile E. is then faced with two different types of conduit, one that is UL tested, and one that is not, but is about 2/3 the cost of the UL tested stuff.
Maximizing his short-term profits, he chooses the non-tested stuff.
A year later, part of the conduit melts and burns your house down.
The guy does this repeatedly over the course of years, changing business names, occasionally faking UL stamps, and making new corporations everytime he might get sued.
How then does the "private regulator" deal with this?