What economic approach would actually work?

[Greyblades]

Design wise Russian equipment was indeed up to par and even good, in some cases captured russian weaponry was employed by german units, the problem was that for a while the methods of production in the soviet union was hit and miss meaning they were prone to defects.

Of course the main factor of german sucess was stalins inability to see germany coming meaning the majority of russia's professional soldiers were caught literally half a world away from the front in 1941.

[Gilrandir]

Of course the main factor of german sucess was stalins inability to see germany coming meaning the majority of russia's professional soldiers were caught literally half a world away from the front in 1941.

I would say reluctance to believe.

[spmetla]

Design wise Russian equipment was indeed up to par and even good, in some cases captured russian weaponry was employed by german units, the problem was that for a while the methods of production in the soviet union was hit and miss meaning they were prone to defects.

Of course the main factor of german sucess was stalins inability to see germany coming meaning the majority of russia's professional soldiers were caught literally half a world away from the front in 1941.

The unpreparedness only really affects the first few weeks. After the initial victories the Soviets were able to attempt proper defense against the Germans but met with failure. The Germans had just had 2 years of practical experience which they applied ruthlessly. Morale was high, low level initiative was high, and the tactics and forces available were right for the initial attacks.
The eventual Soviet victory wasn't so much anything to do with their economic system or industrialization but in that they simply learned how to fight modern war. Defense in depth, deception operations, the massive use of simple but extremely effective anti-tank mines and anti-tank guns as well as the proper use of armor in achieving and exploiting breakthroughs. All the while they wore down the German armies which became poorer and poorer in quality and quantity throughout the war despite the influx of 'Wunderwaffen'

[Gilrandir]

The eventual Soviet victory wasn't so much anything to do with their economic system or industrialization but in that they simply learned how to fight modern war. Defense in depth, deception operations, the massive use of simple but extremely effective anti-tank mines and anti-tank guns as well as the proper use of armor in achieving and exploiting breakthroughs.

+ Soviet commanders didn't shy away from burying the enemy under piles of their soldiers bodies. For example, when Kyiv was stormed in 1943 they coscripted locals en masse and goaded them before the regular troops even without giving them arms or uniform. It was a story of the so-called black infantry.

http://kpi.ua/en/node/7617

B. Sokolov, a Russian scholar, writes: “It was thought that “the black infantry” would only wear the Germans out and force them to spend their ammunition stock, enabling the new units to make the adversary retreat from the positions occupied.” (B.V. Sokolov. The Unknown Zhukov: an Unretouched Portrait in the Mirror of the Epoch. – Minsk: Rodiola-plus, 2000) .

Such an attitude towards compatriots, especially new recruits, was astonishing even to the Germans, who called soldiers like those “Beutesoldaten” (“trophy soldiers”).

From “The Diary” by O. Dovzhenko, entry for November 28, 1943: “Today V. Shklovs’kyi told me that a lot of liberated citizens conscripted in Ukraine were dying in combat. They are called black coats or something. They go to war in their home clothes, without any training, just like the soldiers from penal units. They are thought to be guilty. “A general was looking at them in battle and crying,” Victor told me.”

A similar story is told by Anatoliy Dimarov, an author: “When the village was liberated, all men aged between 16 and 60 – everyone with arms and legs, no matter if they were blind or deaf – got drafted. We were “armed”, that is, given half a brick each, and told to “go atone for your faults with your blood,” as we had been in the occupied territory. They must’ve meant we should’ve been throwing bricks, so that the Germans might think those were shells! 500 of us got sent on the ice of the impoundment… only 15 came out! And ten thousand of such unarmed guys got killed outside Izjum!”

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't think that anyone on this website would argue that the Soviets were anything but brutal in their use of personnel during what they labeled (quite cynically really) the Great Patriotic War.

Vis-à-vis this thread theme, that attitude towards persons is, to me, all part and parcel of why the Soviet version of the directed economy did not work. The expenditure of human capital was barbaric, but the "human" was often missing from those directed economies in search of the "worker's paradise."

[spmetla]

@ Gilrandir
I don't deny the brutality of the Soviet Army in the slightest or its continued use of very primitive barbaric methods. That doesn't however undermine the fact that they were fully incorporating the tenets of modern warfare by the mid-point of the war. They didn't surround and destroy 6th Army at Stalingrad through pure human waves, they didn't manage to hold on at Kursk by pure chance.
The Germans still had better units at that point and were experts at flexible defense (see von Manstein's Operations post-Stalingrad). The Red Army however was undeniably a new and potent mix of all the elements of modern war. Sheer numbers has a lot to do with it but as time went on the Germans lost any real tactical edge, the Soviet formations became smarter and more experienced while the Germans slowly lost the professional edge they enjoined in the earlier years on the Eastern Front.

FYI it's due to the excesses of the Soviets that my family moved from Upper Austria in the soviet occupied zone to Innsbruck after the war to to mention the number of great uncles that died on the Eastern front.

Vis-à-vis this thread theme, that attitude towards persons is, to me, all part and parcel of why the Soviet version of the directed economy did not work. The expenditure of human capital was barbaric, but the "human" was often missing from those directed economies in search of the "worker's paradise."

I agree, it always seems that the socialist and fascist elements forsake the humanist importance of the individuals rights and values and instead only value the order of the collective.

On the other-side though the anarcho-liberals and libertarians never have a way to effectively deal with the tragedy of the commons either. I another thread I know I referenced my 'anarchist' roommates and my example of their failure to take care of our 'communal property' such as the dorm bathroom and kitchen. These were my favorite examples in outlining how their proposed society would fail without assigned responsibility and some sort of division of labor.

Personally I find the ebb and flow between soft State-Capitalism and Corporationism as likely the most tolerable forms for economic systems. The pendulums swings each way through time and then through popular initiatives or protest generally results in restrain and the pendulum going the other way too. I look at the Robber Baron Capitalists of the 19th Century and then the entrance of Trust-Busting Teddy Roosevelt. Then the boom of the 20s and the crash leading to the New Deal and the pendulum has kept swinging back and forth since and will likely do so in the future.
It's not a perfect system by any means and is best met by regulations of both government and private enterprises but so far it seems to lift the average of society the most upwards for standard of living though the limits of the excess and poverty leave a bit to be desired to say the least.

[CrossLOPER]

Design wise Russian equipment was indeed up to par and even good

It was better in every conceivable way, but useless in the hands of officers with single digit IQs.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It was better in every conceivable way, but useless in the hands of officers with single digit IQs.

But how unintelligent were they really?

Soviet literacy rates were excellent for the era, virtually all officers were literate.
Soviet basic education was solid on all the basics of science and math, and few officers got that status without schooling and those commissioned on the field had to learn it to move up ranks.
Soviet Russia's national pastime was chess, a game associated with calculation and planning.
Soviet tactical doctrine sucked, but they learned quickly -- giving the Germans great difficulties within a year of the invasion.
A Soviet invented deep penetration warfare -- and might have had the Sov's nearly on par with the Germans doctrinally if he hadn't made Stalin look bad in the Polish war and earned his eventual death thereby.

I'm not inclined to ding their officer corps.

NOW, STAVKA giving so much power to the commissars and forbidding tactical withdrawals and the like...some stupidity there.
STAVKA issuing orders that prisoners of war (their own once recaptured) were to be treated in a fashion similar to criminals...some stupidity there.
STAVKA cashiering or shooting officers for losing regardless of circumstance....definite stupidity there.

I think you may be pointing your disdain in the wrong direction.

[Gilrandir]

@ Gilrandir
I don't deny the brutality of the Soviet Army in the slightest or its continued use of very primitive barbaric methods. That doesn't however undermine the fact that they were fully incorporating the tenets of modern warfare by the mid-point of the war. They didn't surround and destroy 6th Army at Stalingrad through pure human waves, they didn't manage to hold on at Kursk by pure chance.

It is the bolded that I was trying to prove. All this WWI debate started when a sentence like "industrialized economy of the USSR helped it survive in 1941" was used. So it is the date that I've been arguing against.

Soviet Russia's national pastime was chess, a game associated with calculation and planning.

Only one of the pastimes. More often one could see seniors playing dominoes in the yard.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What does the Soviet army in WW2 have to do with economic policy?

[Gilrandir]

What does the Soviet army in WW2 have to do with economic policy?

It all started with this:

Since this is a site about war games, I'll post the obvious. An economic model that keeps your homeland out of the dustbin of history is what works. I suppose that would be "Darwinian Economics". A nation with an economic model that is less than optimal would adapt less well to its environmental threats, i.e. competing nations' economies, and become extinct. The free market economy of the U.S. became a directed economy under central authority during WW II to survive. Agrarian Tsarist Russia of 1914 would not have survived as well as industrialized Stalinist Russia of 1941 did. Both Japan and Germany enjoy a better economy today from peaceful expansion than they ever had under autocratic domination. On a grand scale, governments fiddle with free enterprise and central planning to reach some Goldilocks zone where enough wealth is generated to pay for social, environmental and industrial expansion. Depending on the type of government, the livelihood of the citizens is encouraged to achieve this or they are simply enslaved either by regulation or literally. Total capitalism or total socialism requires total autocracy, so (mostly) free nations are left with an economic stew of competing models. Free market capitalism has the best feedback loop. If your friend saw a movie that sucked, most likely you will spend your money on a different movie. Under total central planning, everyone must watch all the movies whether they suck or not, because they have a deep moral lesson and the masses must be indoctrinated...blah, blah blah. What works is some form of capitalism so that we don't produce biplanes with jet engines and a mix of central planning authority so that the jets we do make follow safety, environmental and buyer-beware regulations.

[Sarmatian]

There was no hope for the thread the moment WW2 was mentioned.

With pain in our hearts we inform everyone that Thread has died after a brief and sudden disease called WW2 derailment, that developed into a most severe case of Soviet Performance. Rest in peace, Thread, and know that you are not alone.

[Gilrandir]

So let's make it official: any reference to WWII and Bible should be considered a felony and the person bringing them into discussion should be suspended from discussion on September 1 (for WWII) and for seven days (for Bible).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So let's make it official: any reference to WWII and Bible should be considered a felony and the person bringing them into discussion should be suspended from discussion on September 1 (for WWII) and for seven days (for Bible).

And for discussing WW2-era Bibles?

[Gilrandir]

And for discussing WW2-era Bibles?

Life-long expulsion.

[Montmorency]

Some interesting ground floor points from an article about university admissions:

There is no fair way to create a meritocracy. This is because the notion of “merit” is itself loaded with unfair premises. People will always have differing life histories, capacities, and opportunities, and so any assumption that those who “rise to the top” of a competition have superior deservingness will be false. That doesn’t mean that everyone is equally qualified to be a surgeon or a structural engineer or a social worker, or that there should be no evaluations to make sure the people who have certain jobs can do them. Instead, it means that we can never conclude that people got those qualifications did so because they “earned” it more than others, and we should be skeptical of any idea of a “fair competition.”

[N.b. Elsewhere this has been taken to argue that leftists believe that neither "equality of opportunity" nor "equality of outcome" are either desirable or achievable. The old Marxian maxim "From each...to each..." is considered the best standard]

For the left, that’s important because it leads us to the conclusion that while some people may be better suited to certain jobs, the fact that they are better suited does not mean they deserve more compensation or social prestige than everybody else. Egalitarians don’t believe everybody should be the same, we believe that nobody is worth more than anyone else. That’s why we don’t just support having the “equal opportunity” to win a competition and get more than other people, we believe that life shouldn’t be competitive and that, to the extent people are measured, it should be against their own abilities rather than other people’s. (“From each according to his ability…”)

This is one of the differences between liberalism and leftism: liberalism argues for the least bad of several bad options, while leftism insists on having a better set of options.

I can't help but feel purely ambivalent.

How do I Mention everybody without looking gauche?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

On education specifically:

It’s the talk about “powerful ways” to “distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack” that troubles me. My concern is about what happens to the rest of the pack! As my acquaintance Patrick Conner put it, the difference between meritocracy and socialism is “I don’t want everyone to have a fair shot at the 15% of non-shitty lives, I want everyone to have a decent life.” Instead of arguing for the least-unfair version of the brutally competitive war of all-against-all that is the contemporary college admissions system, the progressive case should be that we ought to have an actual fair admissions system.

In other words: just admit everybody. The whole “competitive” nature of undergraduate admissions is absurd to begin with, and the very fact that students are sorted according to “merit” is socially corrosive. Let’s face it: college isn’t like brain surgery or social work. People’s lives aren’t in your hands. Instead of finding the “top ten best people” we should be selecting “anyone who has proved they are capable of doing the expected work.” Competitive admissions are as irrational as grading curves. With a grading curve, only X percent of the class will get As on their papers, even if every single person in the class wrote an excellent paper, which forces you to start making silly and arbitrary distinctions in a contrived effort to pit the students against each other. The better way to grade is by developing a standard independently and giving students a qualification if they meet the standard. Here’s the admissions parallel: everyone who shows themselves capable of doing the work required of a Harvard undergrad is marked “qualified” for Harvard and allowed to apply. There are a limited number of places, of course, but those places will be filled by selecting a random group of students from among all of those marked “qualified.” You might still get a very low percentage of applicants admitted because space is limited, but it won’t be because those applicants have been deemed worthier, it will be because the lottery happened to favor them.

My vision of universities is as a place where anybody can come and learn, so long as they can do the work.

We should always be clear on what the goal is: a world in which we don’t all have to fight each other all the time, where we can work together in solidarity rather than having to wage war against our friends for the privilege of having a good job. There is no reason why everyone shouldn’t have equal access to the highest-quality education, and in a properly organized society it would be perfectly simple to provide it. We don’t need “best” and “worst” universities, ranked from top to bottom, we just need “universities,” places where people go to explore human knowledge and acquire the skills that enable them to do things that need doing. Progressive education means an end to the illusion of meritocratic competition, an end to the SAT, and the realization of a vision of equal education for all.

[Fragony]

The leftist view on things isn't all that stupid, it's just that they want things too fast, there is nothing wrong with the logic of it

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The leftist view on things isn't all that stupid, it's just that they want things too fast, there is nothing wrong with the logic of it

Other than that bit about it being contrary to demonstrated human nature throughout recorded history. Perhaps our nature is changing/will change. Absent that the radiant future is no more likely of success than Canute's commands to the tide.

[Montmorency]

The leftist view on things isn't all that stupid, it's just that they want things too fast, there is nothing wrong with the logic of it

It's at times like these when you seem most confounding and frustrating to interpretation, Fragony.

Other than that bit about it being contrary to demonstrated human nature throughout recorded history. Perhaps our nature is changing/will change. Absent that the radiant future is no more likely of success than Canute's commands to the tide.

The one essential problem (obversely, also a boon) with socialism is that it isn't really a system of government, or a policy platform, but a set of values. To make a comprehensive socialism real almost feels like trying to generate a black hole, and then keep it stable indefinitely.

The Keynesian answer has always been paternalistic technocratic managerialism, and I would argue this approach has produced some of the best results of the past century that we enjoy today. Unfortunately, it loses its luster by the day. No one really likes statism anymore; it's plumped for partisan ends, sure, but it's too polarized by chauvinisms to be respected.

So what's for us but aspiration or the "dirty wall"? And you should think about it. Radicalism certainly can't get anywhere salutary without a loyal opposition.

[Pannonian]

It's at times like these when you seem most confounding and frustrating to interpretation, Fragony.



The one essential problem (obversely, also a boon) with socialism is that it isn't really a system of government, or a policy platform, but a set of values. To make a comprehensive socialism real almost feels like trying to generate a black hole, and then keep it stable indefinitely.

The Keynesian answer has always been paternalistic technocratic managerialism, and I would argue this approach has produced some of the best results of the past century that we enjoy today. Unfortunately, it loses its luster by the day. No one really likes statism anymore; it's plumped for partisan ends, sure, but it's too polarized by chauvinisms to be respected.

So what's for us but aspiration or the "dirty wall"? And you should think about it. Radicalism certainly can't get anywhere salutary without a loyal opposition.

Extremist liberal democracy has done for socialism. Statism is not democratic in its execution, statism can be implemented that is democratic, but no-one wants to take part, and liberalism celebrates the religion of individualism. And popular culture playing to liberal democracy encourages anti-intellectualism. The age-old wisdom, everything in moderation, is no longer listened to. I'll do whatever I can to live up to the ideals of socialism, but I've accepted that society will no longer listen to these arguments.

Addendum: the above also means opposition is no longer accepted as loyal.

[Fisherking]

I am told that supply side thinking fails.

I am told that the free market fails.

I have seen directed economies fail.

So what works? Or is it just a matter of who is raping whom at the moment and nothing can be done?

Great questions Seamus.

Supply side economics is simply Neoliberalism. It is corporatism where government pick the winners and losers. Just exactly what we have had for decades, to one degree or another. It is Mercantilism with a new name.

Free market is something that has been in short supply for well over a century. Its chief criticism is over production. This cry comes mainly from large producers being out competed by startups and upstarts. The key opposition to the concept is its lack of government control and regulation. Most people have been convinced that they are too incompetent to decide for themselves what is a good product or service. People today have never had economic liberty to be participants and producers in the economy. They can see no further than consumerism. The modern mind set is of employment by a producer rather than being a fully productive contributor in the economy. Government and Corporate propaganda have taking all confidence from them and they fear what that freedom would bring.

Directed economies all fail eventually. What emerges out of the chaos is always a free market until government moves in to set limits, pick the winners and losers and start the process over again.

None are perfect. There are always winners and losers. But of them all the free market is the most natural way of establishing trade and custom. It should be the one where people are most able to make a living but it does depend on one’s wits.

[Montmorency]

Great questions Seamus.

Supply side economics is simply Neoliberalism. It is corporatism where government pick the winners and losers. Just exactly what we have had for decades, to one degree or another. It is Mercantilism with a new name.

Free market is something that has been in short supply for well over a century. Its chief criticism is over production. This cry comes mainly from large producers being out competed by startups and upstarts. The key opposition to the concept is its lack of government control and regulation. Most people have been convinced that they are too incompetent to decide for themselves what is a good product or service. People today have never had economic liberty to be participants and producers in the economy. They can see no further than consumerism. The modern mind set is of employment by a producer rather than being a fully productive contributor in the economy. Government and Corporate propaganda have taking all confidence from them and they fear what that freedom would bring.

Directed economies all fail eventually. What emerges out of the chaos is always a free market until government moves in to set limits, pick the winners and losers and start the process over again.

None are perfect. There are always winners and losers. But of them all the free market is the most natural way of establishing trade and custom. It should be the one where people are most able to make a living but it does depend on one’s wits.

Neoliberalism is definitely distinct from mercantilism. Mercantilism serves the wealth of the state, but neoliberalism serves the wealth of the market - state and consumer both for the market: "dictatorship of the shareholder". From national economic and political oligarchies to a transnational economic (so by extension political) oligarchy. One has affinity to central control, the other to soup.

Why do you think individual consumers are more competent to evaluate products than the producers who create them or the purveyors who market them?

What's the difference in "freedom" if winners and losers emerge without state backing, as opposed to with state backing? It's all government. That's exactly what a "free market" looks like if you prioritize government (e.g. republican) function from maintaining the public good to effervescing private commerce on the largest possible scale. Large organizations and wealthy individuals (self-aggrandizingly "job creators" and "innovators")will certainly seek to dominate at the expense of the common weal - why is it acceptable for these not even to be nominally accountable to something? Why does Property need a despot?

All economies fail - because societies collapse. Be careful about how you use "directed" economy, as all economies beyond happenstance itinerant exchange rely on some organization.

[Pannonian]

Great questions Seamus.

Supply side economics is simply Neoliberalism. It is corporatism where government pick the winners and losers. Just exactly what we have had for decades, to one degree or another. It is Mercantilism with a new name.

Free market is something that has been in short supply for well over a century. Its chief criticism is over production. This cry comes mainly from large producers being out competed by startups and upstarts. The key opposition to the concept is its lack of government control and regulation. Most people have been convinced that they are too incompetent to decide for themselves what is a good product or service. People today have never had economic liberty to be participants and producers in the economy. They can see no further than consumerism. The modern mind set is of employment by a producer rather than being a fully productive contributor in the economy. Government and Corporate propaganda have taking all confidence from them and they fear what that freedom would bring.

Directed economies all fail eventually. What emerges out of the chaos is always a free market until government moves in to set limits, pick the winners and losers and start the process over again.

None are perfect. There are always winners and losers. But of them all the free market is the most natural way of establishing trade and custom. It should be the one where people are most able to make a living but it does depend on one’s wits.

See Brexit for an example of an unregulated free market. You have two sides competing for consumers (votes). They offer directly competing products in a zero sum contest within a finite period. There is no regulation whatsoever on the products each side offers. Once the consumer has made their choice and paid their money, the winner is under no obligation to provide what they'd advertised, because there is no regulation governing what they'd promised and what they will deliver. And they are free to use whatever advertising they want to say what they want, again without regulation on their accuracy.

From what I've read on the development of regulatory standards for food and medicine, I wouldn't want any kind of rollback on regulations. China is the result when you have lax regulatory standards.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Building on Pannonian's point, regulation is part of a series of checks and balances between capital and labor. Like with government itself, to maintain it requires eternal vigilance. I don't see how unregulated markets are a solution to our imperfect life just as I don't see how anarchy is a solution to our imperfect politics.

[Fisherking]

Neoliberalism is definitely distinct from mercantilism. Mercantilism serves the wealth of the state, but neoliberalism serves the wealth of the market - state and consumer both for the market: "dictatorship of the shareholder". From national economic and political oligarchies to a transnational economic (so by extension political) oligarchy. One has affinity to central control, the other to soup.

Why do you think individual consumers are more competent to evaluate products than the producers who create them or the purveyors who market them?

What's the difference in "freedom" if winners and losers emerge without state backing, as opposed to with state backing? It's all government. That's exactly what a "free market" looks like if you prioritize government (e.g. republican) function from maintaining the public good to effervescing private commerce on the largest possible scale. Large organizations and wealthy individuals (self-aggrandizingly "job creators" and "innovators")will certainly seek to dominate at the expense of the common weal - why is it acceptable for these not even to be nominally accountable to something? Why does Property need a despot?

All economies fail - because societies collapse. Be careful about how you use "directed" economy, as all economies beyond happenstance itinerant exchange rely on some organization.

Sorry for the wall of text.

As far as I can determine the difference between Neoliberalism and Mercantilism in practice is that Mercantilism regulates businesses for the benefit of the state while Neoliberalism regulates business for the benefit of the politicians and their friends.

The Oligarchy exists because government decides economic winners and losers. The business interests write the laws and regulations and pass them off to their friends in government.

Government intervention in the economy has never worked. It has distorted the market, again selected winners and losers and robbed those at the lower end of the economic scale through inflation. Keynesianism is at the heart of this. Its goal is gradual inflation and the elimination of deflation. This assures those higher up the economic scale keep what they have and can build upon it while eliminating the benefits of saving or storing wealth.

A free market is not consumer vs. producer. A free market is the free exchange of goods and services. Both parties are participants. Each offer something the other wants and they arrive at a contractual agreement to make an exchange. If either party is dissatisfied then no exchange occurs. If one uses sharp practices or their item fails to live up to expectations they will eventually suffer the consequences.

What you fail to see is economic liberty. When government decides who may be a producer and who must remain a consumer it is not freedom. Each person participating has something to offer. Be that goods, services, or labour. Under the current system most of us are limited by government control of the the market place. There are many hoops to jump through if you want to offer goods or services so you are primarily left with labour. This creates a situation where your contribution is of limited. Rather than the market deciding whether your contribution is worthwhile the government has made exclusions.

You have limited your self to the current paradigm. You don’t see your self outside the current set of controls place upon you.

What makes it the business of government how an economy works? Their picking of winners and losers is cronyism. Governments have different mandates. Few if any are actually concerned with the wellbeing of the population. More so what they can extract without causing rebellion. Government’s stated purpose in the U.S. was the protection of the rights of the citizenry. That is not their wellbeing or happiness.

Government can claim a mandate for regulating corporations as they are a creation of the state. There is no such mandate for individuals. Regulations skew and retard competition which assures that those with the most means retain their positions regardless of the quality of their work. In the U.S. regulation began at the request of large corporations who were being out competed and such regulatory practices continue to this day.

Regulated Economies collapse, unregulated ones re-aline to meet conditions. If there were a glut in one sector you would have to adjust your product or move into another.

See Brexit for an example of an unregulated free market. You have two sides competing for consumers (votes). They offer directly competing products in a zero sum contest within a finite period. There is no regulation whatsoever on the products each side offers. Once the consumer has made their choice and paid their money, the winner is under no obligation to provide what they'd advertised, because there is no regulation governing what they'd promised and what they will deliver. And they are free to use whatever advertising they want to say what they want, again without regulation on their accuracy.

From what I've read on the development of regulatory standards for food and medicine, I wouldn't want any kind of rollback on regulations. China is the result when you have lax regulatory standards.

Brexit is not an example of unregulated free market. It is an example of buying a pig in a poke. Had you bought a defective product you would have recourse in court. Buying the word of politicians leaves you with little recourse short of open rebellion, which is about the only thing that would get their attention.

Products that are unsatisfactory don't get bought or re-bought. Those which cause real harm have legal recourse, and always have.

Building on Pannonian's point, regulation is part of a series of checks and balances between capital and labor. Like with government itself, to maintain it requires eternal vigilance. I don't see how unregulated markets are a solution to our imperfect life just as I don't see how anarchy is a solution to our imperfect politics.

The division between Capital and Labour is part of the regulatory construct. Think of what you might produce or what service you could provide to earn a living if there were no limitations placed on you. It is a question of skills and knowledge to provide what others would exchange for. In the last 60 years or so we have moved from a country where most people were self employed to one where most people are employed by a corporation or government. Intellectual property has shifted from individuals who created it to the corporations who employe them via government regulation.

[Husar]

What exactly is the advantage of deflation over inflation?
You appear to be saying that if Johnny Doe saves 200 bucks in his trailer and they increase in value over time, it somehow advantages him compared to Sir John Doe who has stashed away 20 million in the cellar of his mansion that increase in value at the same percentage every year and also owns shares in several corporations that increase in value even more. Why?

Regarding the need for legislation, how does the market account for environmental problems for example? Most peoples' economic (and other) interests are short-term and do not take into account mid-term or long-term planning. We're not too different from Dodos who like the excitement of the jump but do not take into consideration the end result of the fall. Regulation is a means to force us onto a more sustainable path.

[rory_20_uk]

Legislation is not one thing: tariffs are generally "bad" but ensuring quality of goods is "good" - we might not even think about the quality of the food we eat in the West since it is all in global, historic perspectives so high. This is equally thanks to legislation, not the free market which unchecked tends towards massive conglomerates with sufficient power to distort the entire economy.

Hell, even educating the masses beyond the need to work in the factories is evidence of the good side of regulation.

[Fisherking]

What exactly is the advantage of deflation over inflation?
You appear to be saying that if Johnny Doe saves 200 bucks in his trailer and they increase in value over time, it somehow advantages him compared to Sir John Doe who has stashed away 20 million in the cellar of his mansion that increase in value at the same percentage every year and also owns shares in several corporations that increase in value even more. Why?

Regarding the need for legislation, how does the market account for environmental problems for example? Most peoples' economic (and other) interests are short-term and do not take into account mid-term or long-term planning. We're not too different from Dodos who like the excitement of the jump but do not take into consideration the end result of the fall. Regulation is a means to force us onto a more sustainable path.

Over time economies fluctuate. Deflation is falling prices on goods and services brought on by over supply. Inflation means the medium of exchange is lessening in value and takes more to buy the same item. If you had money put away it’s value steady decreases in buying power and that discourages savings.

If Johnny Doe has his savings in a box or even a bank the value of it falls over time because of central banks management of the money supply. Sir John on the other hand may own the bank or get a loan from his bank (which created the money by lending it) His money is at full value when he gets it but worth less as he pays it back. If he has other investments, that cushions his wealth or makes him more. Johnny on the other hand has to spend more for what he needs while his money has lost in value.

As to regulation: If it is a good idea, why must people be forced into it? Wouldn’t they naturally take it upon themselves to do like wise and protect what they have? Farmers don’t put salt on their fields to make them unusable. If people can agree that something needs preserved or looked after can they not care for it? Does it have to be government which intervenes and prohibits anyone from doing anything?

[Fisherking]

Legislation is not one thing: tariffs are generally "bad" but ensuring quality of goods is "good" - we might not even think about the quality of the food we eat in the West since it is all in global, historic perspectives so high. This is equally thanks to legislation, not the free market which unchecked tends towards massive conglomerates with sufficient power to distort the entire economy.

Hell, even educating the masses beyond the need to work in the factories is evidence of the good side of regulation.

Actually regulation is what leads to conglomerates. There positions are protected by regulation by not allowing others into the market place. If someone can provide higher quality at a better price they win. Only government can provide the security for the large firms to exist without smaller competitors taking away part of their market. Simply look at history. The more government has regulated the fewer the people providing the products or services. If people found their product the best they could be on top for a while but someone else is always going to try. The conglomerates are the ones who scream about over production. If it is not limited then how are we to profit. John D. Rockefeller said it all when he said "Competition is a Sin".

It makes little difference whether it is food or any other product. Regulation bars entry to the market from the lower end. No one is going to by rotten produce. People will always seek the best value for the money. If a product is harmful there has always been legal recourse (except where government regulation forbids it). Isn't there something like an ugly vegetable movement in the UK? Where the produce is not up to visual standards but perfectly usable all the same.

[rory_20_uk]

Actually regulation is what leads to conglomerates. There positions are protected by regulation by not allowing others into the market place. If someone can provide higher quality at a better price they win. Only government can provide the security for the large firms to exist without smaller competitors taking away part of their market. Simply look at history. The more government has regulated the fewer the people providing the products or services. If people found their product the best they could be on top for a while but someone else is always going to try. The conglomerates are the ones who scream about over production. If it is not limited then how are we to profit. John D. Rockefeller said it all when he said "Competition is a Sin".

It makes little difference whether it is food or any other product. Regulation bars entry to the market from the lower end. No one is going to by rotten produce. People will always seek the best value for the money. If a product is harmful there has always been legal recourse (except where government regulation forbids it). Isn't there something like an ugly vegetable movement in the UK? Where the produce is not up to visual standards but perfectly usable all the same.

People's food contained lead, chromium, mercury, and so on and so forth. Medicines were massively improved when they had to, k'know, work rather than contain poison. In most of these cases the average consumer can't tell the difference and the only ones who can are the regulators who have adequate labs. Be that dodgy food, dodgy drugs, "cut and shut" cars, flammable skyscraper covering panels... the list is almost literally endless.

Regulation doesn't form monopolies or conglomerates - it prevents them under competition regulations: competitors find it easier to work together as a cartel to control the market. Which is banned under anti-competition regulations. Newcomers to the market are driven out of business by the existing companies either by selling at a loss until the competition dies (illegal under anti-dumping regulators), are protected by their IP (protected under Patent regulations) or just destroy their business (protected under the law... regulations).