So I was reading there at the weekend that Sweden's economy is booming (4.6%) and they have broadly avoided the recession hitting most of the rest of Europe. The credit for this is being given to the finance minister who cut taxes and cut spending. Basically - he followed the advice that works. He incentivised work. Why is it so hard to do what works?
i'm sceptical when journals or the press only highlight a couple of aspects of economic success.
By what reasoning would the free market not keep BSE out of the system? If a farmer's herd is infected, it will have to be killed off meaning a major loss and possible bankruptcy. Therefore there is every incentive to ensure that the herd does not get infected.
Your recollection of events could well be right and I have no reason to question them. But the fact that the producers of the feed and the owners of the herds that were infected, because of choosing the feed, did not go out of business is because they were subsequently supported by government payments. In a free market environment the owner of an infected herd, which had to be put down as it would otherwise have poisened the consumer, would have lost the herd and taken a financial hit. And those that didn't use such feed would have had a financial benefit due to higher demand for their products.My recollection is that the Irish herd got infected by Mad Cow disease because rogue prions from sheeps brains infected wth Scrapey were not purged from animal feed imported from England.
Why anyone ever thought that feeding animal carcassed to herbivores was a good idea in the first place was a good idea has never been properly explained to me - is it some "Green" thing?
The prions remained in the feed because of a british government relaxation of regulations that allowed the meal to be processed at 70 degrees C instead of a higher, purging temperature.
This cheap feed was offered to the Irish "free market" and the market reacted on a price basis without discretion being employed.
This resulted in the disastrous PR for the National Herd and Irish farming.
Some free market principels being applied without judgement.
And such behaviour is akin to fraud which is a crime. And I agree that people have to be careful when making business deals. But if both sides enter the deal by free choice, without coercion and absent of any fraud then there is nothing wrong with the deal. Paying upfront always has a risk, but it is up to individuals to assess that risk and maybe choose to pay more for a deal that sees payment after the job is done.You see the same thing in the building industry at the moment where contractors are apparently cutting their own throats to get jobs, pressuring for up front payments, then going bust.
Blindly following "deals" in the free market is not good business sense.
If it looks too good ot be true, it usually is.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, could provide more details?Some architecrural practices are keeping going against all the odds in the middle of a recession because they don't depend on their professional work for some of their yearly income.
1) I'm sorry, but this is a whole load of nonsense that cannot possibly be backed up by actual observations. If a product is unfit for purpose then people won't buy it. Yes, sometimes bad products come on the market, but they quickly disappear. This is one of the biggest strengths of free market competition, where the best product for the cheapest price attracts the most buyers, as per their own, personal, subjective opinion without any interference by governments.The operation of the unregulated free market means you're going to end up looking at; -
all in the private sector.
- products not fit for purpose
- below cost selling leading to bankruptcy and
- subsidised prices in some sectors of the services market.
Could you provide something to back up the comment that "It was eminently forseeable that improperly processing animal feed for cows could lead to problems".Its not enough relying on the law to offer "remedies" to fatal deseases.
This isn't something relatively minor that could "upset" you, like a worm in a bottle.
BSE and the human equivalent is a sentence far worse than death and no perps have paid a penalty.
It was eminently forseeable that improperly processing animal feed for cows could lead to problems, who paid the price?
You need regulation and monitoring and testing especially in anything relating to the human food chain and you need severe enforced penalties.
Criminal activity is not the result of a free market but a failure of government. If governments spent half the time and resources to enforce basic laws as they spend on the various regulatory bodies, society would be one hell of a better place.Believing in the free market is like taking things on trust - it creates a fertile breeding ground for criminal activity.
Any market needs regulation and oversight to protect consumers.
First of all speculation is the one thing that keeps markets more stable than they otherwise would be. Speculators make money out of buying something they believe is cheap and selling it when they believe it is expensive, and vice versa. This levels off the movements of the markets and does not exacerbate them. It also provides extremely important feedback. Imagine if there had been no speculators in Greek bonds earlier this year. News would have come out that Greece had been fiddeling the books and the next bond auction would have completely failed with a very sudden jerk in the yield resulting in a very sudden disaster.To return to the topic for a moment [Shock! Horror!] I believe Ireland and the world will benefit from a tax on the over the counter/derivatives market - let it be the price for it remaining unregulated.
Otherwise it should be regualated AND taxed - even just taxing it will take a lot of the speculation out of the market and dampen the wilder market oscillations.
The money can go from the very rich [the speculators] to pay for the government debts bailing out the banks and take it off the shoulders of Joe Taxpayer.
These unregulated gits have had it too good for far too long - just look at the figures we're talking about here.
$14,000,000,000,000,000 market value per annum and rising.
I have to check that again to make sure the "0"'s are right.
Not Fourteen Million Dollars = $14,000,000
Not Fourteen Billion Dollars = $14,000,000,000 (American Billions, heh)
Not Fourteen Trillion Dollars = $14,000,000,000,000.
Fourteen Quadrillion Dollars = $14,000,000,000,000,000
Fifteen zeros "0"'s after the figure amount.
Totally unmonitored
Unregulated.
Untaxed.
That's some free market y'got there, boi!
ONQ.
Your recollection of events could well be right and I have no reason to question them. But the fact that the producers of the feed and the owners of the herds that were infected, because of choosing the feed, did not go out of business is because they were subsequently supported by government payments. In a free market environment the owner of an infected herd, which had to be put down as it would otherwise have poisened the consumer, would have lost the herd and taken a financial hit. And those that didn't use such feed would have had a financial benefit due to higher demand for their products.
This would have been more than enough incentive for feed buyers to be a lot more careful when making choices based solely on price.
And the reason that nobody has been punished for poisoning the food chain is a failure of government!
No BSE does not jump from one cow to another or one herd to another.I think gov intervention is needed here for the following reasons:
1. BSE by it nature is spreadable. Farmer A who only buys "good feed" is adversely affected by farmer B who buys the "cheap" feed
Of course farmers aren't scientists, but it is farmers business to know more about quality and adequacy of feed. There is a farmers association where farmers as a collective can share the cost of scientific research. This is not something that government should should be doing, as governments are inherently wasteful and incompetent in pretty much all areas they claim a need to intervene in.2. Farmers are not scientists. They are busy enough without having to be experts in the feed they purchase. This should be regulated in the same way food producers have to specify the details of food we buy.
Yes it did, but more due to the over reaction that resulted. As already mentioned, BSE does not jump from herd to herd, so there is no reason for one farmer's mistakes to have a negative effect on others. The fact that farmers were reimbursed for the culling did not incentivise safer practices.3. BSE affected the trade for the entire Irish beef industry. Allowing 1 farmer or food producer to cut costs thereby affecting everyone else, IMO should not be allowed
As already mentioned, BSE does not jump from herd to herd, so there is no reason for one farmer's mistakes to have a negative effect on others.
Didn't some countries bouycot the purchase of Irish beef?
In the end it may have been over-reaction. However, at the time, would you have been happy for British beef to be on the shelves here?
Is that the new TD wage agreement?These unregulated gits have had it too good for far too long - just look at the figures we're talking about here.
$14,000,000,000,000,000 market value per annum and rising.
Yes indeed. What should have been done, instead of wasting money through mass banning and culling and scaring the hell out of people, was fund independent scientific research. As it also turns out, the one scientific study used by the British and European government to justify the BSE to vCJD scare has since been discredited.
I take it you mean that the government should have funded this research rather than the farmer - what about perfect capitalism? Would Egypt have not banned Irish beef if they just thought that research was on its way? (As you mentioned yourself some of the research used by governments was discredited anyway).
Government has a very important role to play in society by protecting people and their property from harm.
Perhaps the government were protecting people. Given that there was conflicting views on it, surely it was better to be prudent when it comes to people's health?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?