Again, this is a matter of history, not logic. We keep coming back to this point so I think we're done here.
It's about both!
They're not forced out of the market by the 'bigger boys', they're forced out of the market due to non-compliance with methods that insure safe food. I'm repeating myself here for the 50th time as well.
Why do you dismiss the anticompetitive nature of the regulatory process? I'd really love an answer for this.
I never claimed that there were no downsides to regulation, but the positives outweigh the negatives, as you can see by looking at pre-1906 food sanitation and post-1906 food sanitation.
Correlation and causation again.
Not every problem, but there are certain things that are granted to the government well within the power of the Constitution. Mitigating externalities is definitely one of them.
Where is this power granted?
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 20/7/11 01:21 (UTC)It's about both!
They're not forced out of the market by the 'bigger boys', they're forced out of the market due to non-compliance with methods that insure safe food. I'm repeating myself here for the 50th time as well.
Why do you dismiss the anticompetitive nature of the regulatory process? I'd really love an answer for this.
I never claimed that there were no downsides to regulation, but the positives outweigh the negatives, as you can see by looking at pre-1906 food sanitation and post-1906 food sanitation.
Correlation and causation again.
Not every problem, but there are certain things that are granted to the government well within the power of the Constitution. Mitigating externalities is definitely one of them.
Where is this power granted?