Time to get rid of the nanny state?

thebman · 05-02-2009 10:03am

The real problem is you need someone to regulate the markets to have stability. You can say the market will sort itself out and it will but the problem is the market getting out of shape in the first place (although economists will probably disagree but the population that is the problem as they want a stable economy so they know their job is there tomorrow).

The problem is unregulated companies will sacrifice stability in the long term for short term gain because the people running the company at that time generally won't be staying around for 20 years. They will come in, maximize profits and leave just before the mess they've left behind collapses in on itself same as politicians. The maximization of profits means they'll easily get another job in another company because it looks like they are great and then the process starts again at the next company.

So before you have a free market, you need a solution to that problem. You can argue that the free market economist shouldn't have to come up with that solution (and again your probably right) but the system you want, can't/won't exist until the problem is solved. You'll just change the person responsible for artificially fooking with the market.

So I'd like to see a proposal on how you guys would prevent the above. Otherwise I get the idea of the free market but you've got to prevent people fooking it up because if you can't then we already have that system, your just changing the job role of the person fooking up the system.

djpbarry · 05-02-2009 10:59am

Ok, so absolutely no public funds should be spent on sport? You don’t think that is likely to limit the sporting options available to kids in particular?

I’m all for taking responsibility for one’s own welfare, but the majority of people in this country want government regulation of markets and all that it entails. There were protests in Waterford yesterday calling on the government to intervene to save jobs. Students protested in Dublin, calling on the government to increase spending on education.

So should all firearms be legalised to level the playing field?

Permabear · 05-02-2009 11:24am

This post has been deleted.

Daroxtar · 05-02-2009 11:30am

Sorry seanW but non crack cocaine is in no way a soft drug. It is savagely destructive.You cant even begin to compare E's or weed to coke- body count, addiction levels and expenditure alone show that coke is on a different level. Even in places like peru and bolivia where the plant is part of the local heritage and economy and you can buy kilos of the leaves for a dollar to chew or make tea it causes huge problems medically- heart attacks, strokes, cancer of the mouth and nose and severe shortening of lifespan coupled with chronic ill health in later life. Less than 200 people have died from ectasy in the british isles since 1988. I'm sure the figure from coke is at least 20 times that.

RedPlanet · 05-02-2009 11:31am

So, in your view it was what: the government or governments conspiring to prevent those bankers from self regulating?
This has already been brought to your attention on another thread. It's like you accept that bankers and investors behave as greedy, selfish children but somehow feel that's the governments fault for either too much regulation or not enough.
You likened setting low interest rates was like putting candy in-front of hungry 5-year olds, but why should we accept that bankers should behave as 5-year olds? And apparently, the government should presume that bankers behave as 5-year olds?

Permabear · 05-02-2009 11:36am

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 05-02-2009 11:46am

This post has been deleted.

RedPlanet · 05-02-2009 11:56am

Well obviously you can blame bankers and investors because it's their responsibilty to insure that their books are in order and their business is sustainable.
The government wasn't forcing banks to be over-exposed to particular markets.

RedPlanet · 05-02-2009 11:58am

Occasionally in history free-market capitalism has been tried.
During the 1930's-40's residents of sunny Orange County, California saw large numbers of migrant workers flood into the county looking for work - "Okies".
They were employed to pick fruit as seasonal labour.
Thing is, there were excess labour demands (too many Okies).
Being believers in Free-market capitalism, the owners of some farms had a solution.
They'd reduce the pay of a day's work, from something like 10c to 5c. (no minimum wage laws)
This meant however, that a labourer was unable to make enough money to feed himself/herself.
Which meant they'd either fall ill of malnutrition or just die.
In the eyes of a free-market captialist, the excess labour would be reduced to a sustainable level and the farmer would eventually have to pay a sustainable wage.
It's just a simple matter of stepping over the dead bodies to get there.

djpbarry · 05-02-2009 12:49pm

Eh, yeah, if said government is headed up by Fidel Castro.

I never suggested that they should. I merely pointed out that there are a great many people in the Waterford area (and probably throughout the country) who believe that they should.

And I would agree. You seem to think that pointing out that a protest took place is equivalent to supporting said protest? Once again, I am not suggesting that third-level fees should not be reintroduced. I am merely pointing out that there are a large number of people in this country who feel that they should not be reintroduced.

Who was forcing financial institutions to pass on rate cuts?

Permabear · 05-02-2009 2:49pm

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry · 05-02-2009 4:23pm

I'm not sure which problem you are referring to?

Has the price of fuel in this country decreased in proportion to the fall in the price of crude?

di11on · 05-02-2009 4:43pm

For me, by far the saddest thing in all of this is that after 10+ years of Celtic Tiger growth and prosperity we still rank lowest in Europe for many basic quality of life metrics.

- The state is still chronically dependent on religious institutions to sponsor basic primary education allowing schools, in the event of place shortages, to legally discriminate based on religion. We have come a pitiful way in Church/state separation.
- Teacher/child ratios are still bottom of Europe
- As of April 2008, Ireland had officially, the worst crime rate in Europe Linky
- We still lack a credible public transport option.

And this is Ireland at her peak and facing a, possibly long, depression. To those who credit the Bertie/McCreevy generation with anything positive at all for this country, you are all deluded. We had our chance and failed pitifully to invest in our future. Our leaders have let us down and left us bereft of anything to speak of after years of prosperity.

Permabear · 05-02-2009 4:43pm

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry · 05-02-2009 5:08pm

Because retailers wish to maximise profits? What's the big mystery?

Permabear · 05-02-2009 5:11pm

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce · 05-02-2009 5:20pm

While I agree that in many areas there is too much government involvement, generally speaking the things you brought up are the areas it should be involved in. In short, you over-simplify a very complex issue with sweeping statements. For example, in one paragraph you mention drugs. This is a complex issue, and you can't just say "legalise them all" (nor should anyone just say, hey they're drugs, lets ban them!).

In the US, the government is far less nanny-ish than here, and look what it got them: Private health care for all...who can afford it; banks that operate in ways which lead to what we're in now; a society that thinks choice is more important than security; a society where if you don't pay taxes, you're not worth helping, etc.

Like most things in life (work, fun, sex and drugs, rock and roll), government intervention is needed in moderation. Too much, you have commies and/or fascists. Too little you, have social Darwinism.

thebman · 05-02-2009 5:27pm

That would have been fine if they hadn't approved loans to people they knew would struggle to pay them back in hard times.

You'd expect banks to know hard times would have to arrive at some stage in the next 25 - 35 years that people will be paying these crippling mortgages over.

They should have refused loans so why didn't they?

--edit--
I actually saw a piece on tv that they outsourced a lot of the lending and these people were given bonuses the more loans they got on the books meaning they outsourced it with no accountability to the company if the loan could never be paid back.

This was about the US I think so not sure if it applies to the Irish banks.

djpbarry · 05-02-2009 5:28pm

...at the expense of future stability.

Permabear · 05-02-2009 5:39pm

This post has been deleted.

thebman · 05-02-2009 5:43pm

That isn't nanny state, that's looking out for yourself if your a bank. What good is it to a bank to have a bad loan on its books?

Bad loans on their books is why they are so fooked in the first place. If they hadn't accepted them they wouldn't be in this mess.

Shopkeepers have no liabilities if a smoker smokes. They will lose the customer eventually though but in that is in the long term and they might not even be shopping there anymore by the time it happens.

Mr.Micro · 05-02-2009 5:47pm

..

The irony here as far as I can see, is that the Central banks are using the very same tactics ie. rock bottom interest rates to cure the global economy. Am I mistaken in thinking that that was one of the major factors that contributed to the credit boom in keeping rates so artifically low for so long? The plan I suppose is as soon as the green shoots of recovery start to rise so will the interest rates, or will we build another bubble? Bank of England lowered the rates to 1% today.

Permabear · 05-02-2009 5:47pm

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce · 05-02-2009 6:02pm

Good question....I haven't decided yet. I would say yes, but if a load of them go under at once, you get everything all covered in sh!t.

And....learning to drive mod? :P Congrats.

colly10 · 05-02-2009 6:10pm

I stopped reading your post there, of course theres a difference, how many alcoholics threaten random people on the street with aids infested needles. Id be of the opinion than many junkies wouldn't have been great characters before they became junkies either.
It's far worse than being an alcololic and anything being done to get them off the streets is a positive

silverharp · 05-02-2009 6:17pm

be careful where you pick your examples, oh the irony...........

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3345/is_10_20/ai_n28923356/pg_3?tag=content;col1

In two separate studies of the plight of southern tenant farmers in the 1930s, the historians David Eugene Conrad and Donald H. Grubbs have blamed not the banks but the agricultural policies of the New Deal itself. In the early 1930s, some sixty percent of farms in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas were operated by tenants. However, during the Depression they found themselves victims of Franklin Roosevelt's 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act, which required landlords to reduce their cotton acreage. Fortified by AAA subsidies, the landlords evicted their tenants and consolidated their holdings. It was government handouts, not bank demands, that led these landlords to buy tractors and decrease their reliance on tenant families. By 1940, tenant farmer numbers had declined in the southwest by twenty-four percent.

thebman · 05-02-2009 6:19pm

You have two options. That is the preferred one yes.

If they are going to take nation with them (or even just the economy) then you need to ensure that doesn't happen by whatever means necessary.

I don't know the best way of doing that TBH. I know bailing out Anglo probably wasn't the best start.

djpbarry · 05-02-2009 6:41pm

I'd be of the opinion that you need to have another watch of Trainspotting.

silverharp · 05-02-2009 7:26pm

If you check what I wrote I said decriminalise, not make available from your corner SPAR , I'm saying that a drugs policy which has cost billions for no return should be scrapped, a one off change to some kind of registered addict scheme would kill the black market in drugs and may actually make it more difficult for new people to get involved in the obvious self destructing habit.

The US gov accounts for about 45% of all heathcare spend in the US and one reason healthcare costs are so high is because the industry is subsidized; and one reason government intervention only grows is because you can expect more of anything that is subsidized. Doctors and physicians raise their prices on those paying privately to cover those who do not pay

SeanW · 05-02-2009 10:23pm

I found a great essay on "Campaign For Liberty" on how government meddling in the economy can have devastating results, called "The First 100 Days."

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=9

Kind of explains why the crash of '29 turned out to be such a mess.

Time to get rid of the nanny state?

Comments