Originally Posted by LeftWing

Nope, it's the opposite. You present your evidence, then I'll present mine.

Originally Posted by LeftWing

Nope, it's the opposite. You present your evidence, then I'll present mine.

Originally Posted by Cubdriver

I am not a knee jerk lefter as some are here but for the sake of discussion I think the left side needs to find examples linking lack of government regulation to market failure or market weaknesses. The best approach other than to draw vague connections between regulation and historical Wall Street instability, would be to argue that unregulated industries tend to exploit other parties. That argument is fairly easy to make. But the rest of it would be to link unregulated industrial exploitation with the markets being ruined or stifled. That argument is much more difficult it seems to me.

Originally Posted by jungle

Super, as my evidence I just ask you to look at the current situation, you can offer all the evidence of collective economic planning you like because it always results in failure. Always has, always will.
If you can offer us a single example of true economic free markets in the last one hundred years, I am all ears. (China not included.)
Your move.

For an excellent overview of how poor regulation can destroy jobs and lives and create a seperate monster beyond the rule of law:Prohibition: Home | PBS




Economics of Prohibition

Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass.

Instead, the unintended consequences proved to be a decline in amusement and entertainment industries across the board. Restaurants failed, as they could no longer make a profit without legal liquor sales. Theater revenues declined rather than increase, and few of the other economic benefits that had been predicted came to pass.

On the whole, the initial economic effects of Prohibition were largely negative. The closing of breweries, distilleries and saloons led to the elimination of thousands of jobs, and in turn thousands more jobs were eliminated for barrel makers, truckers, waiters, and other related trades.

The unintended economic consequences of Prohibition didn't stop there. One of the most profound effects of Prohibition was on government tax revenues. Before Prohibition, many states relied heavily on excise taxes in liquor sales to fund their budgets. In New York, almost 75% of the state's revenue was derived from liquor taxes. With Prohibition in effect, that revenue was immediately lost. At the national level, Prohibition cost the federal government a total of $11 billion in lost tax revenue, while costing over $300 million to enforce. The most lasting consequence was that many states and the federal government would come to rely on income tax revenue to fund their budgets going forward.
================================================== ===============================

There are thousands of examples like this, now, can you show us some good rules? Rules that uphold the rule of law and treat all equally?

Originally Posted by Red Forman

Well, evidence was given and we are still waiting to hear back from you. Or are you still searching for an example to back up your claim?

Originally Posted by Winged Wheeler

In the 1970s, US gov't tariffs raised the price of sugar sufficiently to make it economically viable to produce and use high fructose corn syrup.