left wingers always think like this
Some regulations are needed to prevent exploitation, environmental damage, or harm for the consumer in general. Some regulations aren't needed because they don't change much and just add another layer of complexity to an already complex system. Some regulations are harmful because they (as you said) hinder progress or screw over small business owners.B1rd wrote:
You want to heavily control and regulate everything despite not understanding that this creates a burden on innovation and small businesses and creates inferior products compared to the free market.
back to tuuba if you're just here to jerk off about my english.B1rd wrote:
And if you want me to understand you Stefan you'd better start speaking understandable English.
I'd appreciate that a lot. Having one less smartass to look for will help me for sure.B1rd wrote:
It's not my fault if you don't speak in a way that's clearly understandable. But if you want me to just ignore you when you make incoherent posts instead of pointing it out I can do that too.
Obviously your English skills are a soft spot for you, doesn't mean you need to get an attitude with me because I pointed it out.Stefan wrote:
I'd appreciate that a lot. Having one less smartass to look for will help me for sure.B1rd wrote:
It's not my fault if you don't speak in a way that's clearly understandable. But if you want me to just ignore you when you make incoherent posts instead of pointing it out I can do that too.
I don't doubt that the government has some methods of creating regulations, but I think everything I said about it is still valid. No mater how much 'dialogue' is has with existing industries the top down method of control still creates an inefficient system with many negative side effects which hinder economic progress. In the end a lot of these judgement actually are influenced by the arbitrary whims of high ranking politicians; the system also creates the opportunity for corruption, and a lot of these established companies lobby the government for regulations that hinder competition and help create a monopolistic effect on the market. A lot of these regulations, as well as laws within our society, are based on the premise of 'safety' or protecting women' or 'helping the poor' and because of this emotional appeal the negative consequences are not fully appreciated or considered. This is the negative effect subjecting the market to the logic of a limited amount of people creates.Railey2 wrote:
Trying to define the most efficient legal framework for an economy involving millions of people is no easy task, no matter if it's taken care of by a private instance or by the government. If you think that the government is just relying on its own people to pass regulations, you should think again. In most countries, the government relies heavily on experts from economic and natural sciences to develop better-working industry standards. It's not just people with no connection to the industry "handing down arbitrary judgments". Most governments are involved in a constant dialogue with the industry. Regulations aren't something that depends on the whim of some high ranked politicians.
That aside, what exactly is the system you suggesting here? How would these.. "private organizations" look like, and how exactly would they outdo the government?
I like your opinionjohnmedina999 wrote:
If I have the option to, I never download the video that comes with most anime maps because it's usually just a waste of space.
Also, the only reason I don't like anime maps is because there's not a lot of people that map them for osu!mania, and osu!standard maps converted to mania just suck.
I agree :ULolinator2000 wrote:
can we just stop maping anime shit its to much
#StopMappingAnimeMaps
ftfyB1rd wrote:
I hereby declare myself the winner of any internet battle by default.
I'm on vacation right now, so I didn't see your post :vB1rd wrote:
Since both Railey and Stefan failed to respond, I hereby declare myself the winner of the internet battle by default.
Not interfere with economic matters? Just defense and security? So what happens when you got yourself monopolies which suck every buck they can out of their customers?B1rd wrote:
I don't propose any sort of system except that the government does not interfere with economic matters, instead it should do the job it is supposed to do which is provide defense and physical security for its citizens.
AgreedB1rd wrote:
Because in essence, the free market is the collective minds of millions of people with the ability to problem solve. So while I'm not an expert on this matter I can say that if a demand exists, such as the demand for safety and food uncontaminated with toxic substances, I can say that it can be met by a private company.
Until, you know, the company decides to see how far it can go to make a profit. Not saying the government should take on the job of these organizations do though. Privatizing these would ofc be more efficient, but just as long as they are kept in check.B1rd wrote:
I know such entities exist already actually, that say 'x product is certified' by whatever organisation. If the government stopped regulating the economy, I can theorise the role of these types of organisations would increase. And it would be a much more efficient way to run the economy.
Keyword: "competing". When they strike deals based on profit, things can get unbalanced as time goes on, and unbalance is only the potential of what can come.B1rd wrote:
Because however good you think the government can run things, it is much harder to change the policies of a monolithic entity that is only vaguely accountable for its actions, compared to a multitude of competing private organisations whose prosperity depend solely in finding the best balance between consumer safety and profit and efficiency of the product.
I didn't bother to reply after my last post to you so whatever works for you the best.B1rd wrote:
Since both Railey and Stefan failed to respond, I hereby declare myself the winner of the internet battle by default.
I don't believe true monopolies exist in the free market. In fact my argument was that government interference encourages monopolies. If a monopoly existed, there is nothing stopping another company coming along and offering much lower prices. Thus competition ensues.abraker wrote:
Not interfere with economic matters? Just defense and security? So what happens when you got yourself monopolies which suck every buck they can out of their customers?
Until, you know, the company decides to see how far it can go to make a profit. Not saying the government should take on the job of these organizations do though. Privatizing these would ofc be more efficient, but just as long as they are kept in check.Because if a company stopped being honest in its evaluations, then it would quickly lose all its credibility and the entire company would be bankrupt within no time. It's a bit like currency, a certification is only valuable if other people think it's valuable. Companies have a vested interest in having a reputation clean, and lots of other competing companies have a vested interest in exposing other companies if they're not.
Keyword: "competing". When they strike deals based on profit, things can get unbalanced as time goes on, and unbalance is only the potential of what can come.Is government interference necessary to prevent exploitation by private entities? It's not a question I can answer confidently. All I can really say with confidence is that economic freedom is essential for economic prosperity, I think we agree on that.
Ofc, the government shouldn't run it, but it should interfere when needed and not interfere when not needed. This interference should not be running the companies by any means, but simply preventing abuse
If you have a certain amount of power, there are lots of things you can do to force competitors out of business.B1rd wrote:
I don't believe true monopolies exist in the free market. In fact my argument was that government interference encourages monopolies. If a monopoly existed, there is nothing stopping another company coming along and offering much lower prices. Thus competition ensues.
Consider a monopoly that gets rid of competition by acquiring any company that it sees as a threat to its market. My understanding is that only few will resist the temptation to take the sum those giants may offer. And if they don't, monopolies always have some leverage to choke the smaller companies because they have access to more resources. If it is that simple, I would like to know why no company has yet to come along and offer better internet prices in America.B1rd wrote:
If a monopoly existed, there is nothing stopping another company coming along and offering much lower prices.
Yes, but oh how close we have come to itB1rd wrote:
I don't believe true monopolies exist in the free market.
That doesn't mean they can't get away with a limited amount of shit. Even if it doesn't get away with it, whatever it may be and cause the company to go bankrupt overnight, it can potentially cause serious damage. Then will follow a the public outcry on why were there not enough checks in place to prevent whatever serious damage it might be.B1rd wrote:
Because if a company stopped being honest in its evaluations, then it would quickly lose all its credibility and the entire company would be bankrupt within no time. It's a bit like currency, a certification is only valuable if other people think it's valuable. Companies have a vested interest in having a reputation clean, and lots of other competing companies have a vested interest in exposing other companies if they're not.
they don't map it because it's the best but because they don't expose themselves to much else than osu music and anime, so that's where they get their ideas from.-Nya- wrote:
Users can map what they want and Japanese music is some of the best music out there. That's why so many people map it. If you want a song mapped/ranked, do it yourself.
woah there-Nya- wrote:
Japanese music is some of the best music out there.