I don't have much time, I watched the first video and I will comment on that. The idea that the markets are the best regulators, for me has one flaw, that is the people who work in the markets, they always aren't reliable. So in some markets I do believe in regulation. As to how strict or intrusive government regulation should be, I feel that depends on the market.
One I want to talk about is advertising in the UK. I feel censorship goes too far. I will give 1 classic example, a few years back the lager Carling had an advert where a woman comes home to find her man hasn't cleaned up. She accidently knocks over his Carling and he licks it up, so she gets an idea and starts pooring it over the floors etc, and he cleans up by licking it. She then undresses and goes to poor it over her, but there is none left. This was eventually banned on the grounds that it implied that this alcoholic product could result in sex.
Lynx adverts have always said that using Lynx deoderant will have women flock to you. I've tried it - it doesn't work. Alcohol, like it or not, increases your chances of sex. This decision was so poor and out of touch with reality, it beggars belief.
I do agree with advertising standards, the government making sure that ad makers don't false advertise. Sorry, I don't trust the market to regulate itself on this case, if left to their own devices there is a serious threat of fraud and there will be people who will seek to serously mislead people.
The main issue with regulation is trust. The more trust there is, the less regulation is needed. Some may think I am blowing the advertising thing out of proportion, or scaremongering, or just being plain old cynical but I feel this is one industry that needs to be regulated to ensure they don't try to mislead and decieve.
I also agree with regulation in the food and healthcare industries. In many other industries, if people conduct themselves inappropriatly, some people might lose a bit of money, in the food/healthcare industries people can die. Drug approval takes so long because you need to have a good idea of what side effects, if any the drug produces. You can't take chances with that kind of thing. With food, more often than not you cannot tell if the product is safe or not, you go for the most part purely on trust. It sure as hell puts my mind at ease to know regulation exists for food. However the EU went too far when they regulated the shape of food, that is way too far.
Mr Troy, the example you gave, I have to ask, does that/would that actually happen? That kind of regulation is far too excessive. When it comes to electrical appliances, the only kind of regulation I approve of are eletrical safety tests to make sure it won't blow you up the first time you use it. Common sense would dictate such practices would exist in a self regulated market, again there is a question of trust, can they be trusted to do this themselves? I think that one is open for debate. I will say however that I do get piece of mind knowing that the manufacturers are required by law to do basic electrical safety tests.
I may be mixing my terms, or confusing two different things, but across markets I do believe in regulation that protects people, or at least helps protect people from fraudsters and unsafe products. I think some industries may need it more than others. I feel that free market capitalism has 1 major flaw, one massive unreliable part, that is the people who work in the markets and if they aren't going to act in a responsible manner then I believe the government should force them.
Look at the shit we are in now because of the housing markets. I mean giving mortgages to people who were never going to be able to repay is just dumb. This whole mess could have been avoided, but too many people got too greedy and they made some dumbass moves. I have seen some of the ad's from the US trying to sell mortages and to be honest, I am surprised nothing was done about them.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks