Fractional Reserve Lending IS NOT bad - its unavoidable

[Razick]

I think you are talking about regulations on social security, health insurance, consumer safety, worker rights and safety. Would you end all of them? A return to the glorious laissez faire times?
Free market rule: 14 hours working time, kids working in mines, corporations selling non-tested drugs, etc.
Do you really believe a monopoly can be good (governmental or "natural")?

I am talking about regulations in general. No, I would not get rid of all of those, but I do believe that in general, the more economic freedom we have, the more efficient the economy operates. Regulations can reduce risk, but they also introduce inefficiency. The "laissez faire" times may have been worse, but things were getting better at a faster rate. Quality of life in the US is falling, whereas it used to be rising quickly. We are clearly doing something wrong, and I think that a government that supports almost any rule that has a benefit, regardless of the cost, is a part of that.

I know several business owners (small business owners), and all of them are good people who try to do what is right for their employees and customers. However, they all spend an enormous amount of time and money making the government happy. One of them has about 5 employees, but one of the employees works full time just on regulatory compliance. That adds up to less profit, higher prices for customers, and lower salaries for employees.

EDIT: As for a monopoly being good. I don't think it's common and it's complicated to explain, but basically, when a firm sells a product or service, there is a point at which the average cost per product is as low as possible (efficient scale), and if the firm makes more or less than that many products, it costs more. One firm (a monopoly) might be able to dominate a small market and manufacture "items" for $100, but two firms might each have to spend $150 per "item" because they are not producing at efficient scale. So although the monopoly might overcharge, there is more waste, and maybe not even lower prices with two firms.

I'm okay with anti-monopoly regulation though because I think they are usually bad.

[NotLambchop]

@Razick:  It's hard to figure out what's "too much" and what's "not enough" without some context.  Having never run an economy the size of US, I can't really say anything intelligent about the numbers (I'm guessing you're talking about this:  "Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms," http://static.mgnetwork.com/rtd/pdfs/20110325_SBAregulation.pdf )

Re. "quality of life":  If you were born in the late '60s, there are twice as many people on this planet as when you were born.  Twice.  Getting a bit tight. Also, when you complain about declining standard of living in US, I'm assuming you're a US native.  I'm not.  Trust me, US has a ways to go  

[Razick]

@Razick:  It's hard to figure out what's "too much" and what's "not enough" without some context.  Having never run an economy the size of US, I can't really say anything intelligent about the numbers (I'm guessing you're talking about this:  "Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms," http://static.mgnetwork.com/rtd/pdfs/20110325_SBAregulation.pdf )

It sure is, but like I said, we're doing something wrong. Having seen some examples of unreasonable regulation, I do believe that it's a major part of the problem.

[Razick]

@Razick:  It's hard to figure out what's "too much" and what's "not enough" without some context.  Having never run an economy the size of US, I can't really say anything intelligent about the numbers (I'm guessing you're talking about this:  "Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms," http://static.mgnetwork.com/rtd/pdfs/20110325_SBAregulation.pdf )

Re. "quality of life":  If you were born in the late '60s, there are twice as many people on this planet as when you were born.  Twice.  When you complain about the standard of living in US, I'm assuming you're a US native.  I'm not.  Trust me, you ain't seen bad.

I believe you. We have it good. However, I believe that it could be better for everyone if the world had more economic freedom. As an American, I feel our struggling economy is a result of growing dead weight loss due to an over-burdensome government.

EDIT: I'm not nearly that old.  

EDIT: One thing I consider is that if individuals and businesses are not qualified to run their own affairs, then why is some bureaucrat with little understanding of how things actually work?

[NotLambchop]

Could you allow, as a hypothetical, that the regulations were not put in place by people intent on causing harm?  That the regulations were arrived at after an entire human history of trial and error, by people who are no less intelligent or aware than us?  Is this at least theoretically possible?

Re. 2nd edit:  A good baker is not necessarily a good bakery owner, a good bakery owner is not always capable of running a chain, the guy who knows how to run a chain of bakeries doesn't always know how to bake.  See?

[r34tr783tr78]

Alright, we have some common ground.

But don't believe on owners (big or small) doing the right thing. History shows people usually don't do the right thing. Slavery ended not because of owners wanting to do the right thing: it's all about regulations. Hell, in the USA it was necessary to kill more than half a million people to end it.

I agree with efficiency and scale production, but on a monopoly the price has little to do with the cost of production. The monopolist extracts as much as possible from buyers.

I'm no believer on Rousseau good savage or the good human nature of anarchism. I hate power and authority, but I have no illusions, without public authority controlled by the people, mostly it would be hell on earth.

[wachtwoord]

If fractional reserve banking isn't bad they should allow me to do it. Yet they don't. I wonder why.

[NotLambchop]

If fractional reserve banking isn't bad they should allow me to do it. Yet they don't. I wonder why.

If capital punishment is not bad they should allow me to do it.  Yet they don't.  I wonder why.

If running red lights like ambulances do is not bad they should allow me to do it.  Yet they don't.  I wonder why.

[wachtwoord]

If fractional reserve banking isn't bad they should allow me to do it. Yet they don't. I wonder why.

If capital punishment is not bad they should allow me to do it.  Yet they don't.  I wonder why.

If running red lights like ambulances do is not bad they should allow me to do it.  Yet they don't.  I wonder why.

In areas where those apply they are state run "businesses". Banking is supposed to be publically run. Plus banking done right should not be a danger to anyone (as opposed to your two examples).

[NotLambchop]

...
In areas where those apply they are state run "businesses". Banking is supposed to be publically run. Plus banking done right should not be a danger to anyone (as opposed to your two examples).

But banking done wrong is certainly a danger to everyone involved, at least those who deposit money.  See Ukyo's victims.  See Pirateat40's victims.
That's why hobby banking enthusiasts are discouraged from starting banks.  See?

[r34tr783tr78]

I can't understand why people start insulting others because of divergences of opinion.
Insulting is an aggressive action and aggression usually (lets forget now about cases of greed or power that are irrelevant here) is a manifestation of insecurity.

If someone is ignorant and like to stay that way and hates anyone that tries to help him, that is a case for ignoring him or, at most, to laugh, not to insult.

I'm not taking sides or thinking about anyone in particular. Just read some messages on this thread.

[wachtwoord]

...
In areas where those apply they are state run "businesses". Banking is supposed to be publically run. Plus banking done right should not be a danger to anyone (as opposed to your two examples).

But banking done wrong is certainly a danger to everyone involved, at least those who deposit money.  See Ukyo's victims.  See Pirateat40's victims.
That's why hobby banking enthusiasts are discouraged from starting banks.  See?

No. They committed fraud and should be convicted of that after the fact.

[NotLambchop]

...
In areas where those apply they are state run "businesses". Banking is supposed to be publically run. Plus banking done right should not be a danger to anyone (as opposed to your two examples).

But banking done wrong is certainly a danger to everyone involved, at least those who deposit money.  See Ukyo's victims.  See Pirateat40's victims.
That's why hobby banking enthusiasts are discouraged from starting banks.  See?

No. They committed fraud and should be convicted of that after the fact.

I get the precrime bit.  I feel that I should be allowed to drive as drunk and as fast as I wish, through your neighborhood where your kids play.  No one should stop me from doing that no matter how likely it is that I'll end up killing someone.  Precrime is fundamentally wrong.  Let me kill someone, and *then* punish me.
AFTER the fact.  Am I getting it?

[johnyj]

FRB is just like insurance, when something disastrous happens, the insurance company will go down. So they need a FED to back them with endless money, so inflation will force every USD user to pay for that insurance by themselves

[wachtwoord]

...
In areas where those apply they are state run "businesses". Banking is supposed to be publically run. Plus banking done right should not be a danger to anyone (as opposed to your two examples).

But banking done wrong is certainly a danger to everyone involved, at least those who deposit money.  See Ukyo's victims.  See Pirateat40's victims.
That's why hobby banking enthusiasts are discouraged from starting banks.  See?

No. They committed fraud and should be convicted of that after the fact.

I get the precrime bit.  I feel that I should be allowed to drive as drunk and as fast as I wish, through your neighborhood where your kids play.  No one should stop me from doing that no matter how likely it is that I'll end up killing someone.  Precrime is fundamentally wrong.  Let me kill someone, and *then* punish me.
AFTER the fact.  Am I getting it?

Drunk driving is obviously putting people in physical harm.

In the case of pirateat40 everyone could who chose to do business with them did so on their own choosing. further, it wasn't completely clear people would get harmed.

The state just tries to make you think you need protecting with these laws and regulations to make themselves a nice moat and low (or even no) risk income. I don't blame them. I do blame all the retarded people just bending over and taking it.

[NotLambchop]

...
I get the precrime bit.  I feel that I should be allowed to drive as drunk and as fast as I wish, through your neighborhood where your kids play.  No one should stop me from doing that no matter how likely it is that I'll end up killing someone.  Precrime is fundamentally wrong.  Let me kill someone, and *then* punish me.
AFTER the fact.  Am I getting it?

Drunk driving is obviously putting people in physical harm.

In the case of pirateat40 everyone could who chose to do business with them did so on their own choosing. further, it wasn't completely clear people would get harmed.

The state just tries to make you think you need protecting with these laws and regulations to make themselves a nice moat and low (or even no) risk income. I don't blame them. I do blame all the retarded people just bending over and taking it.

Most people speed and drive drunk without causing accidents.  I have, causing exactly none.  I'm a conscientious and capable drunk driver/speeder.  I don't want some gubermint busybody regulating me just because statistics show there's a higher chance that I might kill someone.  I have caused exactly zero harm, and punishing me for what might happen if I'm not stopped is the very definition of precrime.

With banks, it's a bit different.
Every Bitcoin bank and financial service, from Pirateat40 to TradeFortress to Ukyo to NeoBee Danny, ended in surprise buttsecs for the intrepid marks.  So yeah, unregulated banks obviously put people in harm's way.  And before one "Bitcoin entrepreneur" is through raping his "investors," these victims are already lined up for the next raping.

Allow me to quote you: "I do blame all the retarded people just bending over and taking it."

[wachtwoord]

Most people speed and drive drunk without causing accidents.  I have, causing exactly none.  I'm a conscientious and capable drunk driver/speeder.  I don't want some gubermint busybody regulating me just because statistics show there's a higher chance that I might kill someone.  I have caused exactly zero harm, and punishing me for what might happen if I'm not stopped is the very definition of precrime.

Capable drunk driving is impossible. If you consciously and repeatedly drunk drive (while believing you're capable lol) you disregard the safety of others so blatantly and to such an extent that I do not wish to converse with you any further.

[murraypaul]

Most people speed and drive drunk without causing accidents.  I have, causing exactly none.  I'm a conscientious and capable drunk driver/speeder.  I don't want some gubermint busybody regulating me just because statistics show there's a higher chance that I might kill someone.  I have caused exactly zero harm, and punishing me for what might happen if I'm not stopped is the very definition of precrime.

Capable drunk driving is impossible. If you consciously and repeatedly drunk drive (while believing you're capable lol) you disregard the safety of others so blatantly and to such an extent that I do not wish to converse with you any further.

QFT

[NotLambchop]

Most people speed and drive drunk without causing accidents.  I have, causing exactly none.  I'm a conscientious and capable drunk driver/speeder.  I don't want some gubermint busybody regulating me just because statistics show there's a higher chance that I might kill someone.  I have caused exactly zero harm, and punishing me for what might happen if I'm not stopped is the very definition of precrime.

Capable drunk driving is impossible. If you consciously and repeatedly drunk drive (while believing you're capable lol) you disregard the safety of others so blatantly and to such an extent that I do not wish to converse with you any further.

It is not only possible, there are documented cases of it.  I have done it, for one.  Just because some gubermint-sponsored studies suggest that it is dangerous shouldn't make it illegal.  Dumb people drive -- they're dangerous.  Old people drive -- they're dangerous too.  Regulate stupidity and age FTW.

Bitcoin financial institutions, on the other hand, are a fine example of unregulated finance at work -- straight-across rape.  And unregulated securities?  Just fail and aids, lol.

[Razick]

Could you allow, as a hypothetical, that the regulations were not put in place by people intent on causing harm?  That the regulations were arrived at after an entire human history of trial and error, by people who are no less intelligent or aware than us?  Is this at least theoretically possible?

Re. 2nd edit:  A good baker is not necessarily a good bakery owner, a good bakery owner is not always capable of running a chain, the guy who knows how to run a chain of bakeries doesn't always know how to bake.  See?

I  do allow that. Regulations are created with good intentions, the problem is we often fail to properly assess the costs.