Should billionaires and multinationals pay fair tax?

[Gerrydelasel]

If I can rely on something that is built to meet a regulation or standard then I do not have to spend my own time inspecting it. Ergo increases my productivity.

That may apply for something that you buy but not something you produce. If there is no regulation then there is nothing to comply with and no inspection required, unless you choose to do it for your own production reasons. Ergo increases productivity

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

That may apply for something that you buy but not something you produce. If there is no regulation then there is nothing to comply with and no inspection required, unless you choose to do it for your own production reasons. Ergo increases productivity

Is it cheaper, faster (therefore more productive) to prevent accidents, or to clear up after them?

 

[SirGalahad]

That may apply for something that you buy but not something you produce. If there is no regulation then there is nothing to comply with and no inspection required, unless you choose to do it for your own production reasons. Ergo increases productivity

Ok. So you need meds to lower your BP, you willing to take the risk with an unregulated meds?

But when you produce something - don't you use raw materials? You would need to inspect them...

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Is it cheaper, faster (therefore more productive) to prevent accidents, or to clear up after them?

For an individual or company, often the former. For society at large, the latter.

 

[SirGalahad]

For an individual or company, often the former. For society at large, the latter.

What you fail to understand is that if there is no regulations or lax regulations - say for example in implants - then you think the fallout is just limited to those affected but it usally depresses demand for other implants as well.

I will refer to the points before - causation and correlation.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Ok. So you need meds to lower your BP, you willing to take the risk with an unregulated meds?

From a guy in the back of a van? No. From a long established drug company with an excellent repuation? Yes. Regulation makes the drugs more expensive and longer to market. (BTW I'm not arguing for zero regulation, just less. For example, drugs approved in the US should be good enough for us by default, and vice versa.
Many people do in fact avoid regulated drugs and buy illegally or online, to reduce cost or get something that is otherwise unavailable. That is their free choice. In a less regulated market they would have better access to the same products from reputable sources, i.e. less risk.

But when you produce something - don't you use raw materials? You would need to inspect them...

Why? Goods were produced long before there were regulations. Bad performers went bankrup, good performers survived. How many times have we deplored the poor quality of some modern products over their antique substitutes? Inspection should be at the discretion of the person using the material. Forcing the material comply with the inspection needs of many parties, with their own different requirements, makes it more costly to everyone who does not need those requirements.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

What you fail to understand is that if there is no regulations or lax regulations - say for example in implants - then you think the fallout is just limited to those affected but it usally depresses demand for other implants as well.

Why does it matter if demand for something is depressed? Are you suggesting we shoule produce things for the sake of it, whether people want them or not? Supply should follow demand. If people demand better quality implants, then effort will be put into supplying them. Anyone who supplies less than what the consumer demands will go bankrupt.

 

[SirGalahad]

From a guy in the back of a van? No. From a long established drug company with an excellent repuation? Yes. Regulation makes the drugs more expensive and longer to market. (BTW I'm not arguing for zero regulation, just less. For example, drugs approved in the US should be good enough for us by default, and vice versa.


Why? Goods were produced long before there were regulations. Bad performers went bankrup, good performers survived. How many times have we deplored the poor quality of some modern products over their antique substitutes? Inspection should be at the discretion of the person using the material. Forcing the material comply with the inspection needs of many parties, with their own different requirements, makes it more costly to everyone who does not need those requirements.

I think you have a very naive understanding of markets, MNC,s, regulations etc. In your Drug example, how would people know they are getting what they paid for - effects may not be apparent till years after. What happens then? The company goes bankrupt and large number of people are left with illnesses and problems - who should pick up the tab?

So the idea that the market will self regulate is bogus and has been proven in reality not to work.

You need to consider substitutes and compliments, entry and exit etc. Your understanding of how markets will operate is very primitive.

How do you know what everyone needs? You do know if I cannot rely on a certain standard then I will have to factor extra costs into my budget.

The argument that goods were produced before there were regulations - well lets not have any pollution controls - I wonder how the externalities of poor air quality will manifest in lower productivity.

 

[SirGalahad]

Why does it matter if demand for something is depressed? Are you suggesting we shoule produce things for the sake of it, whether people want them or not? Supply should follow demand. If people demand better quality implants, then effort will be put into supplying them. Anyone who supplies less than what the consumer demands will go bankrupt.

How does someone demand a better quality implant? Be pragmatic, how do they ensure its quality if there is no regulation. How do you define what the consumer wants?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

effects may not be apparent till years after. What happens then? The company goes bankrupt and large number of people are left with illnesses and problems - who should pick up the tab?

But that happens even now with regulated substances. Remember asbestos? Who picked up the tab?

How do you know what everyone needs? You do know if I cannot rely on a certain standard then I will have to factor extra costs into my budget.

Yes, but there you are elevating your needs over those of others who don't have the same needs. Suppliers and producers talk to one another and produce materials to suit their customer base without the need for regulation. How does a supermarket 'know' what foodstuffs everyone needs?

I wonder how the externalities of poor air quality will manifest in lower productivity.

Environmentalism is one place where I do think sensible regulation is warranted.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

How do you define what the consumer wants?

Sometimes people tell you what they want, but just as often you simply offer it and see if anyone buys it. You test the market. Human beings who produce things are often quite good at gauging how other human beings will react to a product. Those who aren't, fail. For that matter, how does a regulator 'know' what a consumer wants?

Another problem with regulation is that it concentrates productivity into fewer, more powerful producers with ever more political clout -it chokes competition. And we all know how much everyone likes those big corporations...

 

[wobs]

From a guy in the back of a van? No. From a long established drug company with an excellent repuation? Yes. Regulation makes the drugs more expensive and longer to market. (BTW I'm not arguing for zero regulation, just less. For example, drugs approved in the US should be good enough for us by default, and vice versa.
Many people do in fact avoid regulated drugs and buy illegally or online, to reduce cost or get something that is otherwise unavailable. That is their free choice. In a less regulated market they would have better access to the same products from reputable sources, i.e. less risk.


Why? Goods were produced long before there were regulations. Bad performers went bankrup, good performers survived. How many times have we deplored the poor quality of some modern products over their antique substitutes? Inspection should be at the discretion of the person using the material. Forcing the material comply with the inspection needs of many parties, with their own different requirements, makes it more costly to everyone who does not need those requirements.

So you're pro-EU then.

By having an European wide standard for something has helped enormously to enable European companies become more competitive. The institutes to oversee those standards are EU based, meaning one has less replication, again saving on resources.

Unless you want to go back to Victorian ways, where you had food being laced with all sorts of "interesting" substances. Which given your apparent distaste for regulation, is what you could get.

But we achieve these standards by having a high standard in quality assurance. This means management systems, inspections, testing, etc. This is one way in which the West has grown so much in the last few decades. Standards have improved, pushed in part by market forces, but also by regulators to push industry to use better materials, to perform at a better environmental standard. Often, this has pushed industry in ways that they would have anyway, but just at a faster pace than they otherwise would have. Sometimes its at a cost, and sometimes, it has been a benefit.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

For an individual or company, often the former. For society at large, the latter.

The legal profession would be the largest, most expanding, most populated profession going.
Think of all those extra litigation cases when goods/services, etc, do not do "what it says on the tin!"
Similarly, when accidents are considered "foreseeable", or due to negligence.

 

[motorbiking]

yep. assuming they weren’t all doing time as a result.

having said that industry codes of practice often work fine.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

So you're pro-EU then. By having an European wide standard for something has helped enormously to enable European companies become more competitive. The institutes to oversee those standards are EU based, meaning one has less replication, again saving on resources.

No, because the trouble with EU standards is they are also laws. You have to comply. The nice thing about standards is that there ought to be many to choose from, so if you think it behoves you to use the most popular one then go for it, but if you have some special reason to choose a lesser known standard, or your own standard (many industries evolve their own standard through natural evolution) you ought to be able to do so. If banana growers or supermarkets think there is utility in a bendy banana standard then let them write it, don't spend public money having some eurocrat do it.
The EU uses standards not so much to improve efficiency or utility but as protection against foreign competitors, which has the corollary effect of choking native competition too. Sure, some products benefit from an enforced continental (or even global) standard, but not nearly as many as are currently the case . Forcing everyone to adopt a one-size-doesn't-fit-all standard, in most cases, increases prices for nearly everyone by reducing competition and innovation, and therefore improvement and choice.
The other problem with government -especially EU- standard is proliferation. When it's your cushy government job to write standards you will keep doing it whether those standards are helpful or asked for. Hence we have thousands of pointless EU standards for the most mundane of items, with new ones every day. Sure make a case for drug, food, water standards, but toasters? Pillows? Pencil erasers?

Unless you want to go back to Victorian ways, where you had food being laced with all sorts of "interesting" substances. Which given your apparent distaste for regulation, is what you could get.

No, you are erecting the usual internet strawman that the only possibilities are "what we have now" or "absolutely nothing at all" with nothing inbetween allowed. I argue for fewer standards, not none, or standards that are more voluntary -at the risk of company reputation- rather than enforced, or standards that are arrived at by industry not politicians. Government standards always emerge after the fact; after things have gone wrong and everyone is already aware (think asbestos). (Victorian food adulteration applied mainly to corn/flour since the price was set artificially high by the gov't corn laws, and the loaf law that made it illegal to bake anything other than 14oz . Corn law was repealed in 1845 and food instantly improved. The food adulteration regulations didn't come until 1860 by which time the problem was virtually moot).

But we achieve these standards by having a high standard in quality assurance.

Quality assurance comes at cost. Surely, it is better to have a more competitive and less regulated marketplace where consumers can choose whether to pay additional costs to guarantee quality, and where market innovations find more effective ways of policing quality? If I want a quality tool I expect to pay a lot. But I wouldn't like to have the option of pound-shop throw-away tools taken away from me.