• Sesudesu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      4 months ago

      I like how you can tell that the hand slapping and the hand being slapped are from the same person. It draws parallels to just how bought out our politicians are, almost as though the rich are ‘punishing’ themselves.

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s ok, though. Now that the free market has learned it’s lessons, there’s no chance self regulation will go wrong in the future. None at all!

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Free market radicals forget that regulations actually exist to keep markets fair and protect private property.

    I could make a business where I steal product from a competitor and undersell them. The free market solution is that people would be willing to pay more for unstolen goods so they could raise the price to cover their loss. I wouldn’t want to drive them out of business, so I couldn’t steal all their product. The market finds the happy equilibrium. No regulation necessary.

    This sounds crazy, but there are a lot of markets that operate like this in one form or another. Wage theft is one good example. Pollution is something that steals a little bit of equity from a lot of people. Regulation protects private property.

    • MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      If I believe in the Invisible Hand hard enough, some day I’ll get that reach-around I’ve been longing for.

  • teamevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 months ago

    I mean for Christ’s sake we’re literally watch what Boeing did when they self regulated and it’s a goddamn nightmare. Rich assholes only worry about getting richer

  • Sonori@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’ll be honest, I don’t really see how the Love Canal has much to do with self regulation, as the chemical company involved did go above and beyond the regulations at the time for the containment liner. It only failed when people dug foundations through the middle of it because the local town council forced them to sell the property to the council, and then immediately flagrantly violated the terms of the sale where they agreed to never build on the site by concealing the site’s history and building a school while auctioning off the land to developers for a surrounding neighborhood on the site.

  • yuri@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think the Cuyahoga River can fit for both heavy industry and chemical companies. Not even necessarily for the same fire either lmao

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Airlines might be a bad example. Before 1978 there was a lot more control, such as mandating price minimums. Without those you get affordable air travel.

    But for airplane companies themselves, I absolutely agree. The FAA had to save money because of their tiny budget, so they had airplane manufacturers inspect their own things instead, with bad results.

    • a Kendrick fan
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      That the FAA had to save money by not doing one of their most important job meant American lives got cheaper, didn’t it?

        • queermunist she/her
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Why the fuck not? It’s vitally important to the economy, there’s no reason for it to be privatized in the first place.

            • queermunist she/her
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Both? They need so much regulation and control that it makes sense to just cut out the middle men.

              The manufacturers are so heavily subsidized by the government they might as well be publicly owned anyway.

              • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                Too much government control of the airlines was definitely detrimental after WWII. They couldn’t compete on prices, couldn’t adapt to changing routes, and couldn’t really cost optimize anything. Deregulating the non-safety aspects improved air travel a lot.

                • queermunist she/her
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  There wasn’t government control of the airlines, just regulations. Protectionist regulations.

                  The airlines were still privately owned and the government gave them sweetheart deals and intentionally limited the entry of new competition into the industry, allowing the formation of monopolies of the legacy airlines. There was no incentive for increasing the number of carriers because that would hurt profits, and the regulations helped by making entry into the market even harder.

                  That problem goes away if you just seize the airlines and run them as public utilities.