Specific question for left wingers...

nesf

Would you agree with this statement:

"Well designed regulation is regulation that does not overly burden honest, genuine businesses that look after their customers."

Am thinking of stuff like the regulation that all goods need to be fit for purpose here rather than pricing in externalities stuff like carbon taxes on business and similar.

Wolfe Tone

I would be interested in knowing how they define "overly burden" struggling to do so myself.

nesf

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I would be interested in knowing how they define "overly burden" struggling to do so myself.

Perhaps it would be better worded as:

Regulation's impact on business should minimised as much as possible while still achieving the necessary goals it was created for. i.e. cut down on red tape and expensive time consuming regulatory requirements without actually removing the teeth of the regulation.

later12

I'm not a left winger, or at least not so economically speaking, but I would genuinely be gobsmacked if even the left would disagree with that.

Can I ask if there is a specific reason why you pose that question?

nesf

later10 wrote: »

I'm not a left winger, or at least not so economically speaking, but I would genuinely be gobsmacked if even the left would disagree with that.

Can I ask if there is a specific reason why you pose that question?

I'm trying to figure out a general starting point with economic left wingers from which to argue matters of regulation with.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The reason left wingers (and prbably many other people rather than just those ideologically tied to free market economics is because large profits tend to apply a number of things.

A monopolistic business position
Price fixing with competitors
Cosy relations with government (corruption)

Ireland has seen all these things in spades.
If a business is extremely profitable in a free market system another business should open that is intent on a portion of those profits if this doesn't happen (except in the case of intellectual property and thats a whole different kettle of fish) something is wrong

ei.sdraob

RDM_83 again wrote: »

A monopolistic business position
Price fixing with competitors
Cosy relations with government (corruption)

These are serious problems with markets where monopolies tend to grow, and price fixing cartels could arise, I would be the first to admit that there are issues, but they can be solved with minimal impact on business I believe.

The problem is that often government not only do nothing to prevent these via regulation, they actively create state monopolies or get in bed with cartels/industries.

In theory the job of the state should be to maintain a "free" market, in reality power corrupts and governments/public sector being a giant authoritarian/beuracratic structure itself tend to find cosy relationships with large companies.

One of the good things to come out of EU is the anti monopoly regulation and some attempts at maintaining an even playing field to encourage competition this is one of the reasons I am so pro EU since they at least try to maintain the worlds largest competitive market.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I wouldn't use Apple as an example considering they have no issues with anticompetitive practices such as the latest taking 30% cut out of publishing to their (yes i know its theirs and they can do what they wish) marketplace.
If they where smarter they would take a much smaller cut and let the market grow, 10% of a much larger pie is better than 30% of nothing

I for example do not bother targeting Apple ecosystem since I consider them to be anti competitive in the sense of discouraging competition and being highly authoritarian (control freaks) in their way of running business.

But anyways thats their choice it seems to be working for the time being since the competition are asleep.

Nodin

nesf wrote: »

Would you agree with this statement:

"Well designed regulation is regulation that does not overly burden honest, genuine businesses that look after their customers."

Am thinking of stuff like the regulation that all goods need to be fit for purpose here rather than pricing in externalities stuff like carbon taxes on business and similar.

"....and staff." would be required. After that I'd be happy enough.

nesf

nesf wrote: »

Would you agree with this statement:

"Well designed regulation is regulation that does not overly burden honest, genuine businesses that look after their customers."
.

Yes..

But the role of the corporation in society need to be looked at..
There should be a certain amount of responsibility..

But yes, of course, regulation shouldn't be a burden on businesses..
and it wouldn't be, if we looked at things collectively, and tried some joined up thinking..

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Then why are you answering a "Specific question for left wingers" and speaking for same...?

Soldie

Nodin wrote: »

Then why are you answering a "Specific question for left wingers" and speaking for same...?

His response is a fairly accurate summary of what the leftists on this forum often post when it comes to regulation and profit. Do you disagree? If so, why not challenge the content of his post, instead of his motives for posting?

I think your full stop key is broken, by the way...!

nesf

Nodin wrote: »

Then why are you answering a "Specific question for left wingers" and speaking for same...?

Ah, he raises a fairly comment complaint to be fair to him. I know for definite I've come across posters espousing that one just simply cannot trust business.

nesf

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The reason left wingers (and prbably many other people rather than just those ideologically tied to free market economics is because large profits tend to apply a number of things.

A monopolistic business position
Price fixing with competitors
Cosy relations with government (corruption)

Ireland has seen all these things in spades.
If a business is extremely profitable in a free market system another business should open that is intent on a portion of those profits if this doesn't happen (except in the case of intellectual property and thats a whole different kettle of fish) something is wrong

I'm reminded by a quote by Milton Friedman (paragon of the hard economic right) where he says (and I'm paraphrasing) that one of the biggest dangers to free enterprise is businesses themselves and their tendency (if they get big enough) to suppress competition through relationships with Government, price fixing and so on.

Edit: I suppose the difference would be between many (but not all) on the right and left is that some on the left automatically view any monopoly as bad while those on the right would view a monopoly as bad when the monopolist is acting to prevent competition to them and/or starts to abuse market position.

nesf

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I wouldn't use Apple as an example considering they have no issues with anticompetitive practices such as the latest taking 30% cut out of publishing to their (yes i know its theirs and they can do what they wish) marketplace.
If they where smarter they would take a much smaller cut and let the market grow, 10% of a much larger pie is better than 30% of nothing

I for example do not bother targeting Apple ecosystem since I consider them to be anti competitive in the sense of discouraging competition and being highly authoritarian (control freaks) in their way of running business.

But anyways thats their choice it seems to be working for the time being since the competition are asleep.

Yeah Apple are heading for a very nasty clash with regulators with their current carry-on. And deservedly so. The latest 30% cut thing from the likes of Kindle etc is going to blow up in their face I think.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Soldie wrote: »

His response is a fairly accurate summary of what the leftists on this forum often post

I'm a "leftist". I post on this forum. I've never infrequently or "often" posted anything that could remotely be read as "Profit" is also a dirty word on the left".

I'd suggest leaving the state of my keyboard for me to worry about.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

By stating in definite terms what "the left" apparently espouse thats effectively what you're doing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I see no caveats here

"Profit" is also a dirty word on the left, which has managed to tie it inextricably to "exploitation." So if you tell someone on the left that government regulation inhibits the ability of businesses to profit, he will be inclined to see that as a good thing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're claiming to present what the views of muslims are. In this case you're claiming to present the views of muslims while making a generalisation so sweeping as to be a misrepresentation of the community as a whole.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

...but not by all on the left, which is my point.

Somebody starting a thread called a "Specific question for left wingers" is presumably looking for their views, not your idea of what they are.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Ah, lads quit fighting about it please.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm saying a mysogynist can't present the views of women.

At the ops request, I'll now drop it. If you want to continue, start a thread.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not saying that if a business is making profit something is wrong I was saying if its making an extreme profit and there isn't other businesses opening up in competition something is wrong

Lockstep

nesf wrote: »

Would you agree with this statement:

"Well designed regulation is regulation that does not overly burden honest, genuine businesses that look after their customers."

Am thinking of stuff like the regulation that all goods need to be fit for purpose here rather than pricing in externalities stuff like carbon taxes on business and similar.

SOunds reasonable enough to me.

I don't see how a leftie could find fault with this.

nesf

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'm not saying that if a business is making profit something is wrong I was saying if its making an extreme profit and there isn't other businesses opening up in competition something is wrong

More I think if the company is engaging in practices that make it very hard for competition to happen. Microsoft in the 90s is a superb example of a company doing this and the need for intervention.

ei.sdraob

nesf wrote: »

Yeah Apple are heading for a very nasty clash with regulators with their current carry-on. And deservedly so. The latest 30% cut thing from the likes of Kindle etc is going to blow up in their face I think.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703373404576148142926860706.html

ah competition

nesf

ei.sdraob wrote: »

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703373404576148142926860706.html

ah competition

Yeah the Google vs Apple fight can only be a good thing for customers of both brands.

20Cent

What does "left wingers" mean?
Very broad brush there as if there is just one homogeneous group.

southsiderosie

nesf wrote: »

Would you agree with this statement:

"Well designed regulation is regulation that does not overly burden honest, genuine businesses that look after their customers." .

I would say that well-designed regulation is regulation that balances the needs of business owners to serve their customers with the needs of those who the actions of the business impact. So, for example, zoning and licensing regulations would need to balance the desires of a pub owner to serve happy customers as long as possible with the desire for the neighbors to not have drunken patrons screaming through their neighborhood at 3am. No matter how honest the pub owner, or delicious the beer, there needs to be a balance.

Yes sometimes a lot of fights over regulation come down to NIMBY-ism. But at the end of the day, businesses are embedded in some kind of social fabric or network (whether they know it or not), and even if they are honest and serve their customers well, there are other people and issues that they may need to deal in the course of doing business for whom the central issue is not profit. This is where I think a lot of business owners get frustrated, especially with politicians, but at the end of the day, businesses need to keep customers happy because their main motive is profit, but politicians need to keep constituents happy because their main motive is getting re-elected, and often these two competing motives come into conflict.

Can you give an example of what you would consider to be overly onerous regulation?

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I do agree that there are many on the far left who will hate and criticize business no matter what. But I think "the left" gets caricatured on this site (sometimes deservedly) to an extreme degree.

(I would also add that this site seems to have a surprising number of regular posters who self-identify as far to the left or far to the right - where are the centrists? ).

I also think there are a lot of right-wing posters who discount the poor track record that a lot of large corporations have in terms of worker, product, and environmental safety, particularly in certain sectors such as extractive industries and agriculture. Frankly I think that there are certain corporations which have earned their horrible reputations, and the stink off of them is so bad that it affects how a lot of other firms are viewed.

Finally, I don't think that there are certain things for which large companies in particular will police themselves (monopolistic practices, for example). I can't think of any cases where huge corporations self-regulated in that regard: why would they not want more market share? But I don't assume that most companies default position is that they are setting out to poison or kill people or the environment. Where things become tricky is when it becomes clear that they actually are causing problems, but by that point they are making so much money that they fight regulation or disclosure tooth-and-nail (here the tobacco industry comes to mind). And those are the kinds of fights where a lot of distrust of large corporations comes from.

Shea O'Meara

nesf wrote: »

Would you agree with this statement:

"Well designed regulation is regulation that does not overly burden honest, genuine businesses that look after their customers."

No. It presupposes regulation should only be for companies or people deemed dishonest. How would one come to that conclusion, ahead of any wrong doing? You cannot pick and choose favourites and be fair.

As regards profit, I love it, it's great.
A private company will **** over the tax payer and the country if there is a few bob in it. And why not? They are private and not beholding to the public. Therein lies the danger.

Governments role in regulation, in my view, should be two fold:
1) Private enterprise is not endangering the economy.
2) A fair market is allowed. Example; a contract is given to a private entity on merit and value to the state over relationship and/or payment to a senior politician.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

No. It presupposes regulation should only be for companies or people deemed dishonest. How would one come to that conclusion, ahead of any wrong doing? You cannot pick and choose favourites and be fair.

It doesn't really, it presupposes the goal of regulation is to prevent unwanted behaviour or outcomes, not interfere with day to day running of business unnecessarily. It didn't state that regulation shouldn't apply to well meaning businesses only that regulation shouldn't be an undue burden on them.

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

As regards profit, I love it, it's great.
A private company will **** over the tax payer and the country if there is a few bob in it. And why not? They are private and not beholding to the public. Therein lies the danger.

I disagree quite fundamentally to be honest because 99% of the time ****ing over the public for a quick buck will lose you more money over the long term. Companies tend to be in it for the medium to long run (exceptions to this do arise in banking and asset markets in particular which merit special attention because of this). Carefully cultivating long term business relationships is the norm in most businesses (though again, not all) and this in itself is often enough to prevent the worst excesses from happening. As an example, in most markets (goods with a high turnover here, i.e. stuff you buy regularly), companies don't knowingly sell goods that are not fit for purpose because if they do they lose sales really quickly. This is more complicated with rarely bought goods because there isn't as much incentive for maintaining customer loyalty.

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Governments role in regulation, in my view, should be two fold:
1) Private enterprise is not endangering the economy.
2) A fair market is allowed. Example; a contract is given to a private entity on merit and value to the state over relationship and/or payment to a senior politician.

Fair market as a phrase automatically makes me cringe a bit. Do you mean a market free from cronyism and corruption or a market with a high degree of redistribution of profits? The former is something I think everyone (sane) can agree on as a good thing.

nesf

southsiderosie wrote: »

I would say that well-designed regulation is regulation that balances the needs of business owners to serve their customers with the needs of those who the actions of the business impact. So, for example, zoning and licensing regulations would need to balance the desires of a pub owner to serve happy customers as long as possible with the desire for the neighbors to not have drunken patrons screaming through their neighborhood at 3am. No matter how honest the pub owner, or delicious the beer, there needs to be a balance.

Yes sometimes a lot of fights over regulation come down to NIMBY-ism. But at the end of the day, businesses are embedded in some kind of social fabric or network (whether they know it or not), and even if they are honest and serve their customers well, there are other people and issues that they may need to deal in the course of doing business for whom the central issue is not profit. This is where I think a lot of business owners get frustrated, especially with politicians, but at the end of the day, businesses need to keep customers happy because their main motive is profit, but politicians need to keep constituents happy because their main motive is getting re-elected, and often these two competing motives come into conflict.

I suppose what I'm getting at is the attitude that regulation should punish or restrict businesses versus the attitude that regulation should aid businesses to adopt best practices. To take a common sense example, food safety legislation on commercial areas where food is prepared is a weight on the industry however almost all of it is stuff that is in the long term interests of industry anyway (you really don't want a food poisoning outbreak because of your restaurant or deli!) so while the regulation is restrictive on the company it is in the best interests of both consumers and the business owners themselves.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Can you give an example of what you would consider to be overly onerous regulation?

It's not quite regulation but, it's very complex, time consuming and somewhat costly to set up a business in this country. This is being addressed by some of the parties in their manifestos but our system is set up in a way that discourages micro and very small businesses because it is effectively designed for larger small and medium businesses and assumes having the funds to pay for solicitors and accountants to start out with which isn't going to be the case for quite a few beginning businesses. Same applies to tax liabilities on said businesses. An example of sensible legislation in this area is the lack of need to account for VAT if operating below a certain turnover threshold which is sensible regulation of business.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not saying that it's always right, but it is human - especially when consumers can make other choices. Reputational effects are really, really sticky.

Also, I don't think the Muslim comparison is a good one. In industries dominated by several large firms, logically the behavior of one or two will have knock-on effects on the rest.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Again, I don't disagree with you. Their ability to by loopholes and exemptions are part of why they are so heavily distrusted. A lot of "business" legislation is really meant to be "large business" legislation.

Look at food safety for example: why should a farmer who wants to sell a neighbor some meat from a cow he slaughtered himself have to go through a USDA-mandated process that adds hundreds of dollars to the cost of the meat because huge companies like Swift and Tyson cut (and are still cutting) corners when it comes to health and safety regulations? Surely there should be some kind of small producer exemptions. But the ones who push the hardest against this kind of stuff are large companies like Swift and Tyson - if they have to do it, everyone has to do it, especially those who are likely producing better quality meat raised in healthier and more humane conditions.

Some of the way these issues get framed are strategic errors on the part of activists. But a lot of it is due to the behavior of industry behemoths who, given their size, are the logical targets for activists. Perhaps small business owners should join hands with activists when it comes to regulation, but that would require a leap of faith on both sides.

southsiderosie

nesf wrote: »

I suppose what I'm getting at is the attitude that regulation should punish or restrict businesses versus the attitude that regulation should aid businesses to adopt best practices.

There's really interesting cross-national research on this in relation to labor inspections. Basically, local inspectors who are trained on best practices make suggestions to producers rather than punishing them on the first visit, and then follow-up six months later. This kind of trained, but discretionary "street level bureaucracy" ended up being good for both the state and producers: best practices spread, and the state got better compliance without using too heavy of a stick.

nesf wrote: »

It's not quite regulation but, it's very complex, time consuming and somewhat costly to set up a business in this country. This is being addressed by some of the parties in their manifestos but our system is set up in a way that discourages micro and very small businesses because it is effectively designed for larger small and medium businesses and assumes having the funds to pay for solicitors and accountants to start out with which isn't going to be the case for quite a few beginning businesses. Same applies to tax liabilities on said businesses. An example of sensible legislation in this area is the lack of need to account for VAT if operating below a certain turnover threshold which is sensible regulation of business.

I guess I would think of a lot of this as administrative rather than regulatory, although I can see how it would present a particular burden on small businesses. Ireland could also use reform on winding down a business - the bankruptcy laws are archaic.

Browney7

If the private sector was left unregulated I feel the market wouldn't function to it's maximum.

Firms will always try to attain and exploit a monopolistic position so this is where you're anti trust laws would kick in a la Standard Oil etc.

The firms if allowed would exploit naive customers if they could get away with it so you would conduct of business regulation here.

Regulation should also aim to reduce the risk of a company failing due to the failure of another company in that industry. These regulations should reduce the risk at an acceptable cost but can also burden some companies with extra unnecessary costs in following said regulations.

I can understand how some people have lost faith in regulation in Ireland seeing as each of these hasn't been prevented at some stage in the last ten years or so.

Shea O'Meara

Off the top, I'd just like to mention if we continue to view people as lefty or otherwise, that can only lead to presumption and not debate. In other words, you seem like a lefty, I already know what/how you think, so I'll whitewash over it to hammer my point across.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So we go from a fear of over regulation from lefties, to stating that bigger companies can sway government and need regulating to protect the small guy? It seems you're saying if a company is making a lot of profit, we must ensure the little guy gets a slice or that something untoward may be going on? That's a very lefty attitude, going by your earlier definitions.

nesf wrote: »

It doesn't really, it presupposes the goal of regulation is to prevent unwanted behaviour or outcomes, not interfere with day to day running of business unnecessarily. It didn't state that regulation shouldn't apply to well meaning businesses only that regulation shouldn't be an undue burden on them.

I misread a little so. I agree it shouldn't burden a company from being a success.

nesf wrote: »

I disagree quite fundamentally to be honest because 99% of the time ****ing over the public for a quick buck will lose you more money over the long term. Companies tend to be in it for the medium to long run (exceptions to this do arise in banking and asset markets in particular which merit special attention because of this). Carefully cultivating long term business relationships is the norm in most businesses (though again, not all) and this in itself is often enough to prevent the worst excesses from happening. As an example, in most markets (goods with a high turnover here, i.e. stuff you buy regularly), companies don't knowingly sell goods that are not fit for purpose because if they do they lose sales really quickly. This is more complicated with rarely bought goods because there isn't as much incentive for maintaining customer loyalty.

You're talking brand loyalty. I'm talking toll roads, contracts given due to incompetence or corruption and of course the banking fiasco. We also need consider competition and ensure the public have options in all areas.
Including supporting the little guy, say the Credit Unions given equality in standing with the banks.

nesf wrote: »

Fair market as a phrase automatically makes me cringe a bit. Do you mean a market free from cronyism and corruption or a market with a high degree of redistribution of profits? The former is something I think everyone (sane) can agree on as a good thing.

I think Lefty fearing folk and some folk on here who use the term 'Lefty' should stop looking under the bed for Trotsky. I don't assume right leaning people are all handbag waving thatcherites.
Yes I mean 'a market free from cronyism and corruption'.

kev9100

Speaking as a sort of leftist, I'd agree if you added that workers would be allowed to collectively bargain and be treated fairly.

nesf

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

You're talking brand loyalty. I'm talking toll roads, contracts given due to incompetence or corruption and of course the banking fiasco. We also need consider competition and ensure the public have options in all areas.
Including supporting the little guy, say the Credit Unions given equality in standing with the banks.

I don't think we need to interfere much really. Credit Unions are doing superbly at the moment and building up life long customers because of the current banking problems, ditto with people moving away from the big two banks and giving the likes of Ulster Bank a go.

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

I think Lefty fearing folk and some folk on here who use the term 'Lefty' should stop looking under the bed for Trotsky. I don't assume right leaning people are all handbag waving thatcherites.
Yes I mean 'a market free from cronyism and corruption'.

Forgive me from being scarred by years of hard left rhetoric about the need for "fairness."

nesf

kev9100 wrote: »

Speaking as a sort of leftist, I'd agree if you added that workers would be allowed to collectively bargain and be treated fairly.

Do you mean by that that all workers (or the vast majority) be unionised or that workers have the option of working for unionised companies? Do you mean that we need to support mega cross sector unions or only that company sized unions need protecting? And so on.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kev9100

nesf wrote: »

Do you mean by that that all workers (or the vast majority) be unionised or that workers have the option of working for unionised companies? Do you mean that we need to support mega cross sector unions or only that company sized unions need protecting? And so on.

I mean that workers should always have the option of joining a Union. If they choose not to thats fine but no company should stop any worker from joining one.