Socialism fails again. Goalposts being moved as we speak.

[Brenus]

Yes, as it never happened before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo
400 shot by the National Guard
Failure of Capitalism. Reason why Socialist won elections. From 1999, year when Chavez was elected, 19 elections, each time validated by International bodies. That is dictatorship for you...
And Bangladesh, capitalist country without any workers's right, is a so successful developed country...

[Pannonian]

Yes, as it never happened before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo
400 shot by the National Guard
Failure of Capitalism. Reason why Socialist won elections. From 1999, year when Chavez was elected, 19 elections, each time validated by International bodies. That is dictatorship for you...
And Bangladesh, capitalist country without any workers's right, is a so successful developed country...

I believe in the principles of socialism, but it works best at a lower level. At national level, leftism works better with reforms akin to the Liberal reforms of the early 20th century, which sought to regulate and alleviate the more unpleasant effects of uncontrolled capitalism.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I believe in the principles of socialism, but it works best at a lower level. At national level, leftism works better with reforms akin to the Liberal reforms of the early 20th century, which sought to regulate and alleviate the more unpleasant effects of uncontrolled capitalism.

I take the stance that governmental decisions should be resolved at the lowest possible level. While I don't like most of the socialist approaches, I am very much in favor of communities making decisions for themselves where possible, with a 'higher' level of government superseding only so as to stand as arbiter for the boundaries of each community (on a 'my rights stop at your nose" basis mostly) OR where the more local community is demonstrably inappropriate for making decisions in that context (the Seminole County Florida Board of Commissioners and County Manager would not be the right level for conducting foreign policy for the USA). I acknowledge that some measure of communalism/socialism WILL factor into decisions at the community level.

I also concur that some degree of regulation is required for capitalism to function effectively. Though Smith's 'invisible hand' should still be the prime mover, I do acknowledge that the <1% of truly unethical bastards can do horrific economic damage to others (especially in the elctronic era) absent some form of regulation. While I prefer that regulation be kept to the absolute minimum to discourage and police fraud and to mandate certain minimums for occupational and public safety, some degree of regulation is a must.

[Husar]

I take the stance that governmental decisions should be resolved at the lowest possible level. While I don't like most of the socialist approaches, I am very much in favor of communities making decisions for themselves where possible, with a 'higher' level of government superseding only so as to stand as arbiter for the boundaries of each community (on a 'my rights stop at your nose" basis mostly) OR where the more local community is demonstrably inappropriate for making decisions in that context (the Seminole County Florida Board of Commissioners and County Manager would not be the right level for conducting foreign policy for the USA). I acknowledge that some measure of communalism/socialism WILL factor into decisions at the community level.

I also concur that some degree of regulation is required for capitalism to function effectively. Though Smith's 'invisible hand' should still be the prime mover, I do acknowledge that the <1% of truly unethical bastards can do horrific economic damage to others (especially in the elctronic era) absent some form of regulation. While I prefer that regulation be kept to the absolute minimum to discourage and police fraud and to mandate certain minimums for occupational and public safety, some degree of regulation is a must.

But isn't that more or less how we ended up where we are now?
I'd assume most societies started out with relatively simple laws but due to the world becoming more complex in general and people using and abusing loopholes left and right, the laws had to become more complex as well. Not that I studied the history of law, it just seems like a natural development to me. Simplifying certain things would likely create a lot of loopholes and require more complexity again to fix them. Of course on the other hand, the complexity can at some point be used again to create loopholes in the first place...

As for decisions at a lower level, you get the problem of competition, in the extreme example, a corporation such as Monsanto could starve a community if it refuses to relax certain environmental protection standards and so on. Preventing such shenanigans would then again require a sufficiently powerful government (i.e. one that controls a market large enough that it would hurt a corporation to ignore the market) to forbid such shenanigans, which also makes legislation more complex and so on.

In the end I would argue that current laws are still too lax or at least not sufficiently enforced given that there are several corporations that only keep a few small competitors around so they can claim not to have a monopoly while they do in fact have a quasi-monopoly. My favourite example: Intel. The monopoly is already reflected in pricing and other policies, they can pretty much shape the market to their liking because AMD could not really compete in recent years. And when AMD could, they bribed retailers, which was proven in Germany, to not sell their products and thus denied AMD income that might have helped AMD to stay on top of their game. The punishment they received for that was relatively laughable. Which leads me to believe that currently the government is not controlling businesses in a sufficient way, prices that are 20-30% above what they would be on a truly competitive market are not in the interest of the customer and should not be in the interest of the government because they effectively increase wealth inequality, hinder progress, etc.

So I guess in some ways I agree with you that laxer rules would be desirable, I would argue however that the complexity of the modern world and human greed make more complex laws on higher levels of government a natural development.

[Lizardo]

Ride the tiger.

[CrossLOPER]

Do the monkey.

[HopAlongBunny]

I guess it's inevitable that "the invisible hand" should appear in a discussion of regulation.
The beauty of it is, it is without content, Adam Smith appeals to it once in the entire Wealth of Nations: it is a black box which pundits may fill with whatever content they most desire.
Why don't Smith's well defined ideas get the same shout out?
Dissolution of monopolies, oligopolies, professional associations, marketing boards etc.
What exactly are the consequences of Smith's insistence that our "fellow feeling" is what legitimates each seeking their own best result?
Oooops! these ideas have content and might require action (bad)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But isn't that more or less how we ended up where we are now?
I'd assume most societies started out with relatively simple laws but due to the world becoming more complex in general and people using and abusing loopholes left and right, the laws had to become more complex as well. Not that I studied the history of law, it just seems like a natural development to me. Simplifying certain things would likely create a lot of loopholes and require more complexity again to fix them. Of course on the other hand, the complexity can at some point be used again to create loopholes in the first place...

As for decisions at a lower level, you get the problem of competition, in the extreme example, a corporation such as Monsanto could starve a community if it refuses to relax certain environmental protection standards and so on. Preventing such shenanigans would then again require a sufficiently powerful government (i.e. one that controls a market large enough that it would hurt a corporation to ignore the market) to forbid such shenanigans, which also makes legislation more complex and so on.

In the end I would argue that current laws are still too lax or at least not sufficiently enforced given that there are several corporations that only keep a few small competitors around so they can claim not to have a monopoly while they do in fact have a quasi-monopoly. My favourite example: Intel. The monopoly is already reflected in pricing and other policies, they can pretty much shape the market to their liking because AMD could not really compete in recent years. And when AMD could, they bribed retailers, which was proven in Germany, to not sell their products and thus denied AMD income that might have helped AMD to stay on top of their game. The punishment they received for that was relatively laughable. Which leads me to believe that currently the government is not controlling businesses in a sufficient way, prices that are 20-30% above what they would be on a truly competitive market are not in the interest of the customer and should not be in the interest of the government because they effectively increase wealth inequality, hinder progress, etc.

So I guess in some ways I agree with you that laxer rules would be desirable, I would argue however that the complexity of the modern world and human greed make more complex laws on higher levels of government a natural development.

I would argue that simpler laws would have fewer loopholes -- which are the misshappen children of complex legislation. We contributed mightily to the winning of the second world war with a tax code that started at about 500 pages in '39 and finished at 8200 in '45 despite the complexities of a global conflict. We now have more than 75,000 pages of tax code. Has that order of magnitude difference really helped anything?

Yes complexity grows, but unless it is pruned back regularly it grows in counterproductive ways. Again, some regulation is a must. Left without any there are corporations that will poison the environment for generations to turn a higher quarterly profit. I just want the minimum needed to stop fraud and encourage general health.

Your Monsanto example IS in line with what I am saying. There needs to be a government that says: "this is too far, you are defrauding/harming and it must stop."

[Husar]

I would argue that simpler laws would have fewer loopholes -- which are the misshappen children of complex legislation. We contributed mightily to the winning of the second world war with a tax code that started at about 500 pages in '39 and finished at 8200 in '45 despite the complexities of a global conflict. We now have more than 75,000 pages of tax code. Has that order of magnitude difference really helped anything?

Yes complexity grows, but unless it is pruned back regularly it grows in counterproductive ways. Again, some regulation is a must. Left without any there are corporations that will poison the environment for generations to turn a higher quarterly profit. I just want the minimum needed to stop fraud and encourage general health.

Your Monsanto example IS in line with what I am saying. There needs to be a government that says: "this is too far, you are defrauding/harming and it must stop."

I agree with this 100%.

If the complexity is indeed what introduces the loopholes, and I can absolutely see how that can be the case, then a simplification is obviously preferable.