How much should we regulate markets?

[Ahnfeltia]

Hopefully we can all agree that one extreme is infeasible and the other extreme is undesirable. Most markets -- e.g., financial, housing and mating and dating -- are too big and complex to be fully regulable by man, yet leaving everything to the "invisible hand" is often undesirable. I rest easy knowing selling housing without plumbing is illegal, and the deregulation of the mating and dating market (social contracts are regulation too) has us en route to extinction, having turned the West into a society of nymphomaniacs, satyrs and untouchables.

So that brings me to the titular question. I expect most people gravitate toward either extreme -- i.e., minimal regulation, correcting only what absolutely needs to corrected, or maximal regulation, steering as much as reasonably possible. I'm curious to know where my brocels stand and why. If you believe in a golden mean, I'm curious to hear how and why too.

Personally I lean toward minimal regulation. In my admittedly limited experience, attempts at micromanaging systems (not just markets) only begot us chaos. Nixon throwing the gold standard to the wind led to untethered inflation, releasing cats in Australia led to the extinction of the dodo, medicines with side effects led to pill organizers, Western governments trying to fix their own messes led to bigger governments making bigger messes -- need I go on?

 

[justuseless]

Command economy where AI eliminates the economic calculation problem.

 

[Zer0/∞]

Command economy where AI eliminates the economic calculation problem.

All public utilities (telecom, electricity, water, and natural gas), healthcare, housing, public transportation and national banks should be state owned. Everything else can be left to the market where the businesses are majority worker owned.

 

[Caesercel]

All public utilities (telecom, electricity, water, and natural gas), healthcare, housing, public transportation and national banks should be state owned. Everything else can be left to the market where the businesses are majority worker owned.

Basado

 

[Ahnfeltia]

All public utilities (telecom, electricity, water, and natural gas), healthcare, housing, public transportation and national banks should be state owned. Everything else can be left to the market where the businesses are majority worker owned.

You trust the state to adequately regulate those then?

 

[Roastie Crusher]

You trust the state to adequately regulate those then?

Modern Economics is being infiltrated by foids. The jews have controlled Economic narratives since at least David Ricardo.

How can you trust jewish behavioral economists? They've been weaponizing economies since antiquity to leverage trade against their enemies.

Here's the best economy for an incel: own slaves and force them to harvest commodities. Become a feudal lord.

 

[Drekavac]

they shouldnt exist

 

[stalkerKiller]

All public utilities (telecom, electricity, water, and natural gas), healthcare, housing, public transportation and national banks should be state owned. Everything else can be left to the market where the businesses are majority worker owned.

This

You trust the state to adequately regulate those then?

The thing with the state is that if it does not do a good job the people revolt and you get a revolution. And also you could have based people in government get elected. Compare that to the private companies out there and you'll reach the same conclusion, namely that you'd rather trust the state with that, than private enterprises.....

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Hopefully we can all agree that one extreme is infeasible and the other extreme is undesirable. Most markets -- e.g., financial, housing and mating and dating -- are too big and complex to be fully regulable by man, yet leaving everything to the "invisible hand" is often undesirable. I rest easy knowing selling housing without plumbing is illegal, and the deregulation of the mating and dating market (social contracts are regulation too) has us en route to extinction, having turned the West into a society of nymphomaniacs, satyrs and untouchables.

So that brings me to the titular question. I expect most people gravitate toward either extreme -- i.e., minimal regulation, correcting only what absolutely needs to corrected, or maximal regulation, steering as much as reasonably possible. I'm curious to know where my brocels stand and why. If you believe in a golden mean, I'm curious to hear how and why too.

Personally I lean toward minimal regulation. In my admittedly limited experience, attempts at micromanaging systems (not just markets) only begot us chaos. Nixon throwing the gold standard to the wind led to untethered inflation, releasing cats in Australia led to the extinction of the dodo, medicines with side effects led to pill organizers, Western governments trying to fix their own messes led to bigger governments making bigger messes -- need I go on?

View attachment 1431120

If the market and the state are in a 50% to 50% ratio, then it would be ideal if the state did not interfere in the production of food, clothing and other consumer goods, but would have more weight in high technology and heavy industry.

 

[NIGGER BOJANGLES]

 

[92 drowsiness?]

Just a little the very basic going into further details is useless.

 

[Suigin Trismegistus]

Minimal regulation. The reason being is that untalented Chads and Staceys who ride on the coattails of their looks prefer maximum regulation to favor themselves. These are the people who rise the ranks of their country's leftist parties.

 

[Castaway]

Strategic industries that are critical to national sovereignty and security should be either directly or indirectly state-owned. The rest should be owned by private enterprises with little regulation.

 

[Zer0/∞]

Minimal regulation. The reason being is that untalented Chads and Staceys who ride on the coattails of their looks prefer maximum regulation to favor themselves. These are the people who rise the ranks of their country's leftist parties.

Free markets do not exist, there is no profit in maximum competition.

 

[Suigin Trismegistus]

Free markets do not exist, there is no profit in maximum competition.

This is true. But Chad and Stacey like to rig the game for themselves with regulations.

 

[LeFrenchCel]

As much as we can

The less rules there are in a market, no matter what it is (dating market or economical market for instance), it gives more freedom to people who have power (richfags for the economical market, chads and foids for the dating market) to do whatever the fuck they want and rape people who don't have power (proletarians for one, incels for the other)

The more rules you add, the less freedom people have, the more equal it gets, and the better it is.

 

[RandomGuy]

Tesla earnings are just hours away.​

 

[SickWeakCoward]

Capitalism is just slow and steady comfortable stagnation. What matters is technological and scientific progress with the main purpose being reaching the stars.

 

[fullofchagrin]

Hopefully we can all agree that one extreme is infeasible and the other extreme is undesirable. Most markets -- e.g., financial, housing and mating and dating -- are too big and complex to be fully regulable by man, yet leaving everything to the "invisible hand" is often undesirable. I rest easy knowing selling housing without plumbing is illegal, and the deregulation of the mating and dating market (social contracts are regulation too) has us en route to extinction, having turned the West into a society of nymphomaniacs, satyrs and untouchables.

So that brings me to the titular question. I expect most people gravitate toward either extreme -- i.e., minimal regulation, correcting only what absolutely needs to corrected, or maximal regulation, steering as much as reasonably possible. I'm curious to know where my brocels stand and why. If you believe in a golden mean, I'm curious to hear how and why too.

Personally I lean toward minimal regulation. In my admittedly limited experience, attempts at micromanaging systems (not just markets) only begot us chaos. Nixon throwing the gold standard to the wind led to untethered inflation, releasing cats in Australia led to the extinction of the dodo, medicines with side effects led to pill organizers, Western governments trying to fix their own messes led to bigger governments making bigger messes -- need I go on?

View attachment 1431120

as the current corporatist society we live in has shown. we need a lot of regulation

 

[fullofchagrin]

All public utilities (telecom, electricity, water, and natural gas), healthcare, housing, public transportation and national banks should be state owned. Everything else can be left to the market where the businesses are majority worker owned.

the problem is that the state also turns into a corporation bc of corruption, greed and nepotism

 

[fullofchagrin]

As much as we can

The less rules there are in a market, no matter what it is (dating market or economical market for instance), it gives more freedom to people who have power (richfags for the economical market, chads and foids for the dating market) to do whatever the fuck they want and rape people who don't have power (proletarians for one, incels for the other)

The more rules you add, the less freedom people have, the more equal it gets, and the better it is.

exactly. but the problem is who will have the power to 1. write those rules and 2. enforce them

 

[Allah (Real)]

they shouldnt exist

 

[LeFrenchCel]

exactly. but the problem is who will have the power to 1. write those rules and 2. enforce them

Hopefully people at the bottom of the hierarchy

 

[Ahnfeltia]

As much as we can

The less rules there are in a market, no matter what it is (dating market or economical market for instance), it gives more freedom to people who have power (richfags for the economical market, chads and foids for the dating market) to do whatever the fuck they want and rape people who don't have power (proletarians for one, incels for the other)

Hopefully people at the bottom of the hierarchy

So you trust the rulemakers -- people at the bottom of the hierarchy (not that they'll still be at the bottom once they get to make the rules) if it was up to you -- to adequately regulate markets and not fuck everything up in a major way?

The more rules you add, the less freedom people have, the more equal it gets, and the better it is.

if equality is your main concern, why not advocate speciocide?

 

[LeFrenchCel]

So you trust the rulemakers -- people at the bottom of the hierarchy (not that they'll still be at the bottom once they get to make the rules) if it was up to you -- to adequately regulate markets and not fuck everything up in a major way?

Richfags and bourgeoisie are controlling the market, regulate it to favor them and rape the poor, and I don't like it
If a group of people can manipulate the market, better it be the proletarians tbh

if equality is your main concern, why not advocate speciocide?

No idea, first time ever I see this word

 

[TheGrayWolf]

Some regulation is necessary but free-trade is good. Trump’s tariffs if implemented would be bad for everyone, USA and the rest of the world

 

[naturalselector2003]

Hopefully we can all agree that one extreme is infeasible and the other extreme is undesirable. Most markets -- e.g., financial, housing and mating and dating -- are too big and complex to be fully regulable by man, yet leaving everything to the "invisible hand" is often undesirable. I rest easy knowing selling housing without plumbing is illegal, and the deregulation of the mating and dating market (social contracts are regulation too) has us en route to extinction, having turned the West into a society of nymphomaniacs, satyrs and untouchables.

So that brings me to the titular question. I expect most people gravitate toward either extreme -- i.e., minimal regulation, correcting only what absolutely needs to corrected, or maximal regulation, steering as much as reasonably possible. I'm curious to know where my brocels stand and why. If you believe in a golden mean, I'm curious to hear how and why too.

Personally I lean toward minimal regulation. In my admittedly limited experience, attempts at micromanaging systems (not just markets) only begot us chaos. Nixon throwing the gold standard to the wind led to untethered inflation, releasing cats in Australia led to the extinction of the dodo, medicines with side effects led to pill organizers, Western governments trying to fix their own messes led to bigger governments making bigger messes -- need I go on?

View attachment 1431120

We don't regulate anything. Incels are losers. If we were to be not, we woudn't be incels in the first place

 

[Ahnfeltia]

We don't regulate anything. Incels are losers. If we were to be not, we woudn't be incels in the first place

I meant "we" as in mankind, not incels.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

Richfags and bourgeoisie are controlling the market, regulate it to favor them and rape the poor, and I don't like it
If a group of people can manipulate the market, better it be the proletarians tbh

power corrupts as they say

No idea, first time ever I see this word

"speciocide" means destruction of a species, in this case ours

 

[DepravedAndDeprived]

Laissez faire EXCEPT when it comes to the pussy market.

 

[RandomGuy]

Richfags and bourgeoisie are controlling the market, regulate it to favor them and rape the poor, and I don't like it
If a group of people can manipulate the market, better it be the proletarians tbh

power corrupts as they say

It’s really about information. Having a small businesss can get you there, but most fail.

Billionaires read BARRON’S like the Bible.