Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-27-2019, 04:42 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,419

Does anybody believe in the free market?


Sure, lots of people mouth the words, but every capitalist I can observe tries to restrict the market just as soon as he gets a foot in the door. Even hairdressers try to restrict entry of competitors. Every profession works hard to restrict entry. Once upon a time you could get to be a doctor or a lawyer by apprenticing to one, but no longer.
  #2  
Old 12-27-2019, 04:45 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,901
I haven't worked hard to restrict entry my profession. Have you?
  #3  
Old 12-27-2019, 04:49 PM
Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 23,097
I thought I understood basic microeconomics till I started talking to a friend who sells on Amazon. I got really good grades and everything!
  #4  
Old 12-27-2019, 05:10 PM
Oredigger77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 5,219
I'm actively lobbying to increase entry into my profession. Legalize home distilling!
  #5  
Old 12-27-2019, 05:12 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,944
To be precise, capitalists fervently advocate a free market for everybody else, especially the companies they are buying from, but secretly wish for a monopoly for themselves.
  #6  
Old 12-27-2019, 06:14 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,436
I think the barriers to entry come more from outside professions than inside, as a general rule. Governments tend to listen to people who have gotten burned by poorly trained professionals, and try to make sure that doesnít happen again.
  #7  
Old 12-27-2019, 06:19 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Sure, lots of people mouth the words, but every capitalist I can observe tries to restrict the market just as soon as he gets a foot in the door. Even hairdressers try to restrict entry of competitors. Every profession works hard to restrict entry.
Which is exactly what any advocate of free markets would predict. In fact it's exactly what Adam Smith predicted in The Wealth of Nations: "Rarely do two or three members of the same trade meet together, but it results in a conspiracy against the public."* In other words, Smith was well aware that members of a profession have a motivation to act together in ways that help them get more money from their buyers, and passing laws to restrict competitors is one obvious way that plays out.

Any advocate of free markets knows that the best solution is to have a government which has strict limits on what economic regulations it can impose, as the American federal government largely did through the 19th century into the early 20th. Once the government has the ability to impose economic regulation, commercial interest groups will inevitably use their influence to make the government pass rules that restrict competition with themselves and their members.


*Quoting from memory so I may be off by a few words.

Last edited by ITR champion; 12-27-2019 at 06:20 PM.
  #8  
Old 12-27-2019, 06:27 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
Any advocate of free markets knows that the best solution is to have a government which has strict limits on what economic regulations it can impose, as the American federal government largely did through the 19th century into the early 20th.
Which was a particularly shitty time for workers, BTW.
  #9  
Old 12-27-2019, 06:42 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,881
My understanding is that a totally free market will devolve to a monopoly or commodity. This applies to product, service and also labor for the goods. So either you have something very special and be part of the very few who can charge their price, or you are one of the heard getting the price given you, which will be low.
  #10  
Old 12-27-2019, 08:12 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,406
No, there's no true Scotsman. That includes Adam Smith. He was neither Scottish nor a believer in the free market.
  #11  
Old 12-27-2019, 08:16 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,906
The notion of a free market means that the market is free to move without government intervention, not that individuals are free to do whatever they choose without regard for any rules. For a market to be free requires careful regulation to prevent anti-competitive practices. In general, Libertarians don't understand how an effective free market economy works any better than Communists, because Libertarians don't understand that free markets require careful regulation in order to function.

In a sensibly run market, nothing should depend on the goodwill of market participants to behave fairly. It is down to the legal framework and sensible market regulations to enforce fair competition. Then the only necessary requirement for an individual participant is that they must follow the law. If anti-competitive practices are rife, don't blame human nature, blame the poor regulatory framework.

ETA: in other words, pretty much exactly the opposite of what ITR champion said.

Last edited by Riemann; 12-27-2019 at 08:19 PM.
  #12  
Old 12-27-2019, 09:23 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Every profession works hard to restrict entry. Once upon a time you could get to be a doctor or a lawyer by apprenticing to one, but no longer.
A quick google search turns up four states where you can still apprentice to a lawyer.
  #13  
Old 12-27-2019, 10:06 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 42,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
To be precise, capitalists fervently advocate a free market for everybody else, especially the companies they are buying from, but secretly wish for a monopoly for themselves.
Well of course they do. Everyone does.

The observation that people want individually what they will vote the opposite of, because they understand that selfish needs and collective action don't work the same, is second year economics stuff.

I think everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. Of course I'm not going to pay more than I absolutely have to. I will happily vote for a needed tax increase that I would not individually volunteer to pay. That's common sense.

Lots and lots and lots of people believe in the free market. Sure, if the subsidy lands on their desk they'll take it, since if the system is broken you might as well make hay while the sun shines.

Having said that, ignorance of economics and what constitutes a free market can mean a person just doesn't know what they're talking about.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 12-27-2019 at 10:07 PM.
  #14  
Old 12-27-2019, 11:00 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
The observation that people want individually what they will vote the opposite of, because they understand that selfish needs and collective action don't work the same, is second year economics stuff.
As long as it's a year later than the OP's statement, it's all good.

Quote:
Having said that, ignorance of economics and what constitutes a free market can mean a person just doesn't know what they're talking about.
I think, having said that, you need to come back and tell us third-year stuff about what the free market really is.
  #15  
Old 12-27-2019, 11:11 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,399
One can be a believer in the free market and yet think there should be high educational and professional standards for entry into a profession.

Training helps ensure good standards within the professions in providing their services to the public. We want doctors who won’t kill us, lawyers who won’t undercut iour rights, electricians who won’t cause our houses to burn down.

Strong professional standards are entirely consistent with the free market.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 12-27-2019 at 11:12 PM.
  #16  
Old 12-27-2019, 11:19 PM
smiling bandit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 16,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
No, there's no true Scotsman. That includes Adam Smith. He was neither Scottish nor a believer in the free market.
Leaving aside the second part, how was he not Scottish?
  #17  
Old 12-27-2019, 11:30 PM
Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 23,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Strong professional standards are entirely consistent with the free market.
It's a feature.
  #18  
Old 12-27-2019, 11:35 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 86,324
He put sugar on his porridge, obviously.

And ITR Champion, do you seriously believe that the solution to monopolies is for the government to be powerless to create regulations against monopolies? Or that the early 20th century was noted for the lack of monopolies?
  #19  
Old 12-27-2019, 11:54 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
No, there's no true Scotsman. That includes Adam Smith. He was neither Scottish nor a believer in the free market.
I think you meant to say he wasn't Holy or Roman or an Empire.

He was certainly both Scottish and a believer in the free market as he and most economists defined it for most of the next two centuries.

Quote:
Adam Smith has sometimes been caricatured as someone who saw no role for government in economic life. In fact, he believed that government had an important role to play. Like most modern believers in free markets, Smith believed that the government should enforce contracts and grant patents and copyrights to encourage inventions and new ideas. He also thought that the government should provide public works, such as roads and bridges, that, he assumed, would not be worthwhile for individuals to provide. Interestingly, though, he wanted the users of such public works to pay in proportion to their use.
He was also against monopoly and mercantilism ("the practice of artificially maintaining a trade surplus on the erroneous belief that doing so increased wealth") and therefore a free-trader. He couldn't possibly have been right about everything in a modern economy such as ours, but we'd be better off if more people studied what he actually advocated for. You know, first year stuff.
  #20  
Old 12-28-2019, 12:07 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Sure, lots of people mouth the words, but every capitalist I can observe tries to restrict the market just as soon as he gets a foot in the door.
Ninety-nine percent of people believe in a free market.

The other one percent own everything.
  #21  
Old 12-28-2019, 12:19 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
He was certainly both Scottish and a believer in the free market as he and most economists defined it for most of the next two centuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

The OP has defined everyone to be non-faithful and then asked, "Why is no one faithful?" Well, because that's a silly definition.

One might note, for example, that no one really likes to dance. Does anyone dance 24 hours a day? Do they replace all their joints with a ball bearing and a minimalistic magnetic cup, so that their limbs can all freely rotate through an inhuman arc? Do they wear implanted speakers so that there is music playing right into their ears without pause? Why do you think there is such a dearth of true dancers?

Maybe some aspect of life is enjoyable in it's purist and most unrelenting form.

But I would suggest cycling through some activities in your head and trying to think of one that you can't attach the word "too" to, and come up with a scenario that would explain the "too". Can you even think of one where you can't succeed? I mean sure, most of those will be silly, but likewise it's silly to suggest that there shouldn't be obvious excesses of free marketry if it's a good thing.

The point being, though, if you can't think of an activity that is "too" proof then how reasonable is it to expect that anyone would embrace purism of free marketry and not be a lunatic? How reasonable is it to think that the ability to envision a "too" case means that the activity is bad?

If you did find a person who was attracted to my definition of dancing purism, that would be a crazy person. They might exist, but they're not going to be someone worth mentioning as "a person who really loves dancing" except as a cautionary tale.

But having found that one "cautionary tale", have you actually learned something? Because nutball dancehead exists, should we really be scared of dancing?

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-28-2019 at 12:23 AM.
  #22  
Old 12-28-2019, 01:57 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
In general, Libertarians don't understand how an effective free market economy works any better than Communists, because Libertarians don't understand that free markets require careful regulation in order to function.
I'd agree with most of this except I'd alter that last from from 'in order to function' to 'in order to survive'.

An unregulated free market - which sounds counterintuitive, I know - is a system with a positive feedback loop. It's prone to spiraling out of control and collapsing to either monopolistic corporatism or anarchistic revolution when people's basic needs are not met.
  #23  
Old 12-28-2019, 02:29 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,906
Yes, I'd agree with that. A classic example of how poorly regulated markets are dysfunctional is the U.S. banking industry leading up to the 2008 crash. During cyclical growth, there's a strong incentive for lenders to lend recklessly, because it increases short term profits. A conservative banker who considers what might happen to a borrower in a future economic downturn is likely to lose his job in favor of a reckless banker, because in the short term the reckless banker has made more loans, and in boom years when nobody is going bust more loans means greater profits. That's why banking must be strictly regulated to prevent reckless lending.

The 2008 crash was not caused by "evil" bankers, except in a superficial proximate sense. The true underlying cause was a regulatory environment that was not fit for purpose. Nothing should depend on bankers being "good" rather than "evil". Human nature is what it is, that's why we need a legal system and regulations. If the regulatory environment is well designed, the only thing necessary for a stable banking industry and loan market is that bankers follow the law, and compete with one another in the free market that operates within the legal and regulatory framework.

Last edited by Riemann; 12-28-2019 at 02:33 AM.
  #24  
Old 12-28-2019, 03:15 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
As long as it's a year later than the OP's statement, it's all good.

I think, having said that, you need to come back and tell us third-year stuff about what the free market really is.
I get that you're snarking back at RickJay's snark. But in the interest of fighting ignorance, ignore the snark element - I think RickJay's comments at post #13 were also accurate and on point.
  #25  
Old 12-28-2019, 08:56 AM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 335
Just so I'm clear:

The OP suggests that a free market, one in which hairdressers do not need to be licensed is preferable to a regulated market with licensed hairdressers. Is it better for the people being injured by unlicensed hairdressers? Or are they just collateral damage that we have to accept in order for apprentice surgery to be a thing?
  #26  
Old 12-28-2019, 10:43 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,924
If by 'free market' you mean a market that is totally unregulated, with no consumer protections, no bank guarantees, no laws or recourse to the courts for any kind of service or transaction... NOBODY wants that except anarchists.

It's a mistake to think that there is one clearly defined version of what 'free market' means. There are many possible variations, and many possible types and degrees of regulation, but everyone sane agrees that there must be some kind of regulation.

Just as unregulated government ends in dictatorship and oppression, a totally unregulated market would end in some kind of financial serfdom, if it didn't end in anarchy and collapse.
  #27  
Old 12-28-2019, 01:33 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,419
Let me just point out that one example of our unfree markets are non-compete agreements that many companies insist that all employees sign. I am not talking about the people who have real trade secrets (although what Pepsi would do if they had the Coke formula passes my imagination) but employees who just want better pay on the basis of their experience. A typical example of capitalist overreach.

I have never heard of an injury caused by a rogue hairdresser. On the other hand I read of a case a few years ago (sorry I cannot cite it) of someone who knew how to do cornrows that no licensed hairdresser could do. Her customers were quite happy but she was put out of business by the licensing bureau. She could not afford the cost of the training.
  #28  
Old 12-28-2019, 01:38 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 42,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
Just so I'm clear:

The OP suggests that a free market, one in which hairdressers do not need to be licensed is preferable to a regulated market with licensed hairdressers. Is it better for the people being injured by unlicensed hairdressers? Or are they just collateral damage that we have to accept in order for apprentice surgery to be a thing?
It depends on what a realistic assessment is of the consequences of having unlicensed hairdressers.

I mean, do you KNOW what the likely results are? Neither do I; I honestly do not know why hairdressers in my jurisdiction have to be licensed. Maybe there is a good reason for it, but maybe it's just rent-seeking. Based on the performance of the folks at Supercuts, it is certainly no guarantee of quality. The people who work in nail salons aren't licensed; why not? Lots and lots of professions aren't, and lots are, and the connection between the need for licensing and whether a profession is licensed is not always entirely clear.

A free market without government intervention simply cannot work, let's all agree on that. Aside from maintaining a monopoly on legal force, where government intervention is generally needed is in areas of market failure, an economics terms that means, well, exactly what you think it means.

I live in Ontario, Canada. In Canada, we have government-run health insurance; everyone pays according to their ability to pay and gets universal basic health insurance. We do not have universal grocery provision; if you want food you go and buy it from a private business that's willing to sell you food. If you are very poor the government will give you some money, but they're still generally expecting the free market to sell you the food.

If you just had the government work based on need and importance, this makes no sense; food is just as important as health care. I'd argue more so. But it's based on free market logic; the free market works INCREDIBLY well to get people food. It is extremely efficient; if you think about the logistics of it, the fact nations of millions of people can efficiently feed pretty much everyone without most people being involved in creating food it's honestly kind of amazing. Health insurance, however, simply doesn't work as a purely private matter; it is a famous example of adverse selection and market failure. If the government tried to run all the grocery stores, it'd be a disaster. If the government gave up its role in health insurance, THAT would be a disaster.

As a free market advocate, my position is that we should have as free a market as possible where the market works, and it usually does. But it is observable fact that in some respects it doesn't. Controlling pollution requires government interference. Ensuring highway safety, too. Health insurance. National defense. The use of radio frequencies.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 12-28-2019 at 01:40 PM.
  #29  
Old 12-28-2019, 03:09 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,399
And just to add to RickJay’s good post, in Canada the doctors aren’t public servants. They’re independent contractors, whom the government pays.

The need for government intervention in healthcare is to fund the system, to ensure everyone has access, because that’s where health care economics indicate markets don’t work.

However, once the funding system is in place, we rely on doctors to provide services as independent businesses, setting up their own clinics, hiring their own staff, and running their own practices. Health care economics shows that at that stage, normal market systems do work, with the important additional benefit of professional independence for the doctors.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 12-28-2019 at 03:12 PM.
  #30  
Old 12-28-2019, 03:18 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,399
As for hair-dressers being licensed, I imagine it’s because of the need to ensure high hygiene standards. You don’t want to get lice because your hair-dresser didn’t stťrilise the combs used on that last customer who had lice. (My barber always puts the comb he’s used in a glass jar filled with a blue liquid. Can’t remember the label, but it’s something about sterilising.)

If the hair cut involves shaving, that can mean minor nicks. You don’t want to get a communicable disease because the razor still had a bit of blood in it from the last customer.

Those are just my guesses. Don’t know if we have any hair-dressers posting who could help?
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 12-28-2019 at 03:18 PM.
  #31  
Old 12-28-2019, 03:35 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 42,045
That makes sense - sort of. Of course, there are two ways to approach that; licensing the individual barber, and licensing an establishment that sells the services of barbers.

To make an obvious point, licensing the hairdresser doesn't make any sense at all if your goal is site hygiene. In any other similar industry, it's the WORKPLACE that is licensed, inspected, and subject to written standards. The city issues licenses and conducts inspections of restaurants, not chefs, and that is invariably site-specific. Food processing inspections are site-specific; so are GMP audits of drug manufacturers.

Ontario's exam to get a license is famously hard, has questions not obviously related to cutting or styling hair, and has often been criticized as being unfair to people for whom English is a second language. Anyway, that's a bit of a rabbit hole.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 12-28-2019 at 03:35 PM.
  #32  
Old 12-28-2019, 03:42 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,399
True about inspecting kitchens, but iíll bet to get your journeymanís papers for food prep or chef, food safety would be a big part of it.

You want the kitchen to be run safely, so inspections, but thatís difficult to achieve if the workers in the kitchen havenít been trained in food safety as a condition of getting their ticket.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #33  
Old 12-28-2019, 03:58 PM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
I am not talking about the people who have real trade secrets (although what Pepsi would do if they had the Coke formula passes my imagination)
I don't agree or disagree with the rest of your post, but there has been at least one instance where a Coke insider has offered to secretly sell their formula to Pepsi: Pepsi just turned them in to the cops. They don't want the bad publicity from the public thinking they have to steal stuff from their competitor because their own wasn't good enough, not to mention the actual legal consequences, and the approximate formula is probably readily available online anyway.
  #34  
Old 12-28-2019, 04:12 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
It depends on what a realistic assessment is of the consequences of having unlicensed hairdressers.

I mean, do you KNOW what the likely results are? Neither do I; I honestly do not know why hairdressers in my jurisdiction have to be licensed. Maybe there is a good reason for it, but maybe it's just rent-seeking. Based on the performance of the folks at Supercuts, it is certainly no guarantee of quality. The people who work in nail salons aren't licensed; why not? Lots and lots of professions aren't, and lots are, and the connection between the need for licensing and whether a profession is licensed is not always entirely clear.

A free market without government intervention simply cannot work, let's all agree on that. Aside from maintaining a monopoly on legal force, where government intervention is generally needed is in areas of market failure, an economics terms that means, well, exactly what you think it means.

I live in Ontario, Canada. In Canada, we have government-run health insurance; everyone pays according to their ability to pay and gets universal basic health insurance. We do not have universal grocery provision; if you want food you go and buy it from a private business that's willing to sell you food. If you are very poor the government will give you some money, but they're still generally expecting the free market to sell you the food.

If you just had the government work based on need and importance, this makes no sense; food is just as important as health care. I'd argue more so. But it's based on free market logic; the free market works INCREDIBLY well to get people food. It is extremely efficient; if you think about the logistics of it, the fact nations of millions of people can efficiently feed pretty much everyone without most people being involved in creating food it's honestly kind of amazing. Health insurance, however, simply doesn't work as a purely private matter; it is a famous example of adverse selection and market failure. If the government tried to run all the grocery stores, it'd be a disaster. If the government gave up its role in health insurance, THAT would be a disaster.

As a free market advocate, my position is that we should have as free a market as possible where the market works, and it usually does. But it is observable fact that in some respects it doesn't. Controlling pollution requires government interference. Ensuring highway safety, too. Health insurance. National defense. The use of radio frequencies.
I'm not fully versed in hairdresser injuries, but my state's DLLR feels that it's enough of a problem to warrant it's own webpage https://www.dllr.state.md.us/license/cos/coscomp.shtml

And the government doesn't regulate things for no reason. Licensing and regulation are reactive measures. If I wanted to, and could read the articles that came up when I googled "hairdresser injury unlicensed", but knowing that they exist is good enough for me to conclude that hairdressing is a trade that requires training, and that training is regulated through licensing by the state. I think the alternative is a crap shoot where we let the market decide after injuries occur.
  #35  
Old 12-28-2019, 04:55 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
I'm not fully versed in hairdresser injuries, but my state's DLLR feels that it's enough of a problem to warrant it's own webpage https://www.dllr.state.md.us/license/cos/coscomp.shtml

And the government doesn't regulate things for no reason. Licensing and regulation are reactive measures. If I wanted to, and could read the articles that came up when I googled "hairdresser injury unlicensed", but knowing that they exist is good enough for me to conclude that hairdressing is a trade that requires training, and that training is regulated through licensing by the state. I think the alternative is a crap shoot where we let the market decide after injuries occur.
I think a lot of it goes to consumer confidence. Good hairdressers can be harmed if bad hairdressers give the entire profession a bad reputation. Even if a business is not highly regulated by the state, professional and trade organizations will frequently step on and offer some sort of certification in their field.

Interior design is a good example. Most states do not require interior designers to be licensed or certified in order to practice. There are a couple of professional organizations that hold courses and give exams to certify interior designers. While the states generally donít require interior designers to be certified, most of them have title laws that do not permit them to refer to themselves as registered or certified unless they are.

So I think that if the laws requiring hairdressers to pass a state exam were to be repealed, then some professional organization would step in to fill the void. Because in the absence of any sort of enforceable minimum standard, selecting a hairdresser would be more difficult for the consumer. And there is a risk, from the hairdresser POV, that the quality of cuts nationwide would decline and damage the reputation of the business.

So your neighborís wastrel kid could legally cut your hair for $5, but most consumers would search out a stylist certified by the Hairdressers of America or whatever the dominant trade organization calls itself.
  #36  
Old 12-28-2019, 05:24 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
I think the alternative is a crap shoot where we let the market decide after injuries occur.
Or where you rely on unlicensed lawyers with no training to sue the hairdresser for negligence!
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #37  
Old 12-28-2019, 05:31 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Let me just point out that one example of our unfree markets are non-compete agreements that many companies insist that all employees sign. I am not talking about the people who have real trade secrets (although what Pepsi would do if they had the Coke formula passes my imagination) but employees who just want better pay on the basis of their experience. A typical example of capitalist overreach.
But thatís why the courts closely scrutinise non-compete clauses. They have to be reasonable in their terms, in scope of employment or occupation, location, and duration. The courts favour the liberty of the individual to earn their livelihood and will cut down or set aside over-reaching non-compete clauses.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #38  
Old 12-28-2019, 05:32 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Let me just point out that one example of our unfree markets are non-compete agreements that many companies insist that all employees sign. I am not talking about the people who have real trade secrets (although what Pepsi would do if they had the Coke formula passes my imagination) but employees who just want better pay on the basis of their experience. A typical example of capitalist overreach.
But thatís why the courts closely scrutinise non-compete clauses. They have to be reasonable in their terms, in scope of employment or occupation, location, and duration. The courts favour the liberty of the individual to earn their livelihood and will cut down or set aside over-reaching non-compete clauses.

Note that restricting the scope of non-compete clauses is actually a limitation on the free market. It restricts the freedom of contract of the parties. The courts take a dim view of non-compete clauses because of the power imbalance between the employer and employee, and will not leave this issue to be settled by the operation of a free market in employment.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 12-28-2019 at 05:36 PM.
  #39  
Old 12-28-2019, 08:36 PM
doreen is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
That makes sense - sort of. Of course, there are two ways to approach that; licensing the individual barber, and licensing an establishment that sells the services of barbers.

To make an obvious point, licensing the hairdresser doesn't make any sense at all if your goal is site hygiene. In any other similar industry, it's the WORKPLACE that is licensed, inspected, and subject to written standards. The city issues licenses and conducts inspections of restaurants, not chefs, and that is invariably site-specific. Food processing inspections are site-specific; so are GMP audits of drug manufacturers.

Ontario's exam to get a license is famously hard, has questions not obviously related to cutting or styling hair, and has often been criticized as being unfair to people for whom English is a second language. Anyway, that's a bit of a rabbit hole.

Men- talking about haircuts and shaving. You're right, if it's just hygiene you're worried about, you could license/inspect the workplace to make sure they have the canister with blue liquid for combs and so on. You could make sure one person has a certificate and is responsible for ensuring that the establishment meets hygienic standards. But that's not all that's involved for hairdressers - there's also dying,perming straightening, and in some places the same license required to perform those tasks also allows the person to perform waxing. And for those tasks, it's not just hygiene that's important.There's also the need to recognize skin conditions that preclude waxing, or knowing the appropriate dye to use on eyelashes and so on. This is why some places (maybe most) have two licenses - cosmetology ( which includes the preceding tasks) and barbering (which is haircuts and shaving) and the barbering license typically requires much less education than the cosmetology one.
  #40  
Old 12-29-2019, 05:40 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
If by 'free market' you mean a market that is totally unregulated, with no consumer protections, no bank guarantees, no laws or recourse to the courts for any kind of service or transaction... NOBODY wants that except anarchists.
Don't tell us what we want. Anarchism isn't chaos, and not all anarchists are against regulated markets. Far from it.
  #41  
Old 12-29-2019, 05:47 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,448
OP's question is illogical. Businessmen opposed to government regulation who accept it happily when it benefits them? Sure! There are also men who totally approve of marital fidelity but, or so I'm told, might be happy to splurge on a buxom stripper at a drunken bachelor party.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Note that restricting the scope of non-compete clauses is actually a limitation on the free market ... [but] The courts take a dim view of non-compete clauses because of the power imbalance between the employer and employee ...
Many businessmen touting the benefits of a "free market" are actually bragging about the power imbalance they exploit. For examples one need look no further than Congressional shills who tout America's "free market" healthcare system. (Hilarious!)
  #42  
Old 12-29-2019, 07:45 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Don't tell us what we want. Anarchism isn't chaos, and not all anarchists are against regulated markets. Far from it.
You can use any Humpty-Dumpty definitions you like, but I suggest you look up the dictionary definitions of anarchy and anarchism.
  #43  
Old 12-29-2019, 09:20 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
You can use any Humpty-Dumpty definitions you like, but I suggest you look up the dictionary definitions of anarchy and anarchism.
Anarchism isn't anarchy, so I don't particularly see the relevance of the first one.

And I'm an actual anarchist, so I don't give a flying fuck what the dictionary says about anarchism. But if I did, it wouldn't matter, since all the dictionary definitions of anarchism I can find seem to have very little to say about how market regulation is handled, one way or another.

Perhaps you had a specific one in mind that says different, that you can share with the rest of the class? Since you seem to think the dictionary definitions somehow counter what I said.

Which I stand by - anarchists don't want unregulated markets. we either want no markets, or else very tightly regulated ones, depending on flavour of anarchism.

Last edited by MrDibble; 12-29-2019 at 09:22 AM.
  #44  
Old 12-29-2019, 09:38 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
...depending on flavour of anarchism.
Well I know anarcho-syndicalists are very touchy about being repressed.
  #45  
Old 12-29-2019, 09:59 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oredigger77 View Post
I'm actively lobbying to increase entry into my profession. Legalize home distilling!
I would like to know more about this, and possibly support your efforts, but I'm assuming this is not the thread to discuss it further. And I'm unclear on the rules on a thread specifically about lobbying for something. I'll ask in ATMB.
  #46  
Old 12-29-2019, 12:01 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Don't tell us what we want. Anarchism isn't chaos, and not all anarchists are against regulated markets. Far from it.
I don't know about anarchists, but the one libertarian I knew didn't want the government to do anything but run the military and the police force. Specifically, he wanted every homeowner on a street to own the roadway in front of his own property and charge a toll to everyone who uses it, or even walks over it. He hoped the owners would get together and have a joint agreement, but if they didn't that was okay too. He wasn't exactly stupid (he had a PhD in math and then got a degree in law) but he cannot really have thought through all the implications of this. Is it something he could have picked up in Ayn Rand, whom he worshiped?
  #47  
Old 12-29-2019, 12:24 PM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Anarchism isn't anarchy, so I don't particularly see the relevance of the first one.

And I'm an actual anarchist, so I don't give a flying fuck what the dictionary says about anarchism. But if I did, it wouldn't matter, since all the dictionary definitions of anarchism I can find seem to have very little to say about how market regulation is handled, one way or another.

Perhaps you had a specific one in mind that says different, that you can share with the rest of the class? Since you seem to think the dictionary definitions somehow counter what I said.

Which I stand by - anarchists don't want unregulated markets. we either want no markets, or else very tightly regulated ones, depending on flavour of anarchism.
If anarchists don't believe in anarchy, don't you think they should choose a different name for themselves?

What I had in mind were the dictionary definitions, because they show what most people think it means. If you asked people, I think you'd find that 99% think that anarchists believe in anarchy. Now, perhaps you don't care a flying fuck whether other people misunderstand what you believe in... except that your anger and vehemence seem to show that you do.

No markets? Good luck trying to change human nature!
  #48  
Old 12-29-2019, 03:10 PM
Oredigger77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 5,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
I would like to know more about this, and possibly support your efforts, but I'm assuming this is not the thread to discuss it further. And I'm unclear on the rules on a thread specifically about lobbying for something. I'll ask in ATMB.
Well, most of my work has been writing articles for regional publications and talking to the industry lobbying groups (ADI, ACSA, and DISCUS) about getting it added to their platforms. The original version of the Craft Spirits Modernization Act had a provision to legalize home distilling but that was removed when it was rolled into the Trump tax cuts. I spent hours talking to my local congressmen and senators about the CSMA but it never even got brought up for a vote.

In general, I'd like to bring spirits (and to some extent wine) into regulatory parity with beer. Currently you can brew beer at home, make wine and (in some states) grow weed but you can go to jail for distilling even a drop of potable alcohol and can lose the property you're distilling on. Further once we are in the realm of taxed spirits beer is taxed (federally) at $0.11/gallon while 40% abv whiskey is taxed at $2.16/gallon and most wine is at $0.57/gallon. These excise taxes should be equalized with my preferred method being to equalize at the craft beer level and all alcohol should be taxed at $0.92 per proof gallon.

Both of these things will help the craft spirits industry because allowing home distilling will enable people to perfect their recipies and processes before spending the money to go pro. This will increase the quality of craft spirits. Right now we generally, have people either with more balls then brains who are either willing to break the law and learn how to distill before investing but then we expect them to become perfect rule following robots after years of being law breakers or people with more money than brains who are willing to invest hundreds or thousands or millions if dollars into something they know nothing about.
  #49  
Old 12-30-2019, 10:34 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
What I had in mind were the dictionary definitions, because they show what most people think it means.
"Most people" aren't anarchists, so what they think is irrelevant.
Quote:
Now, perhaps you don't care a flying fuck whether other people misunderstand what you believe in... except that your anger and vehemence seem to show that you do.
What makes you think I'm angry? You think you're the first person around here to mistake a dictionary for a manifesto? What I am is bored by the lack of originality in the discourse around anarchism.

What does make me vehement is someone telling me that I'm wrong about something I'm actually involved in and they're not. Because they read a fucking dictionary.

A dictionary, we should all note, that they still haven't quoted from as to it saying anything about markets and the regulation thereof.
Quote:
No markets? Good luck trying to change human nature!
Yeah, all those millennia of pre-market Homo sapiens. They might have looked human, but clearly they lacked some intrinsic element of humanity...

Last edited by MrDibble; 12-30-2019 at 10:36 AM.
  #50  
Old 12-30-2019, 11:35 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,399
Help me out here. In an anarchist system, how can you have “tightly regulated” markets? What mechanism would be used to regulate the market? And how is tight regulation a principle of anarchism? (Not trying to be snarky or play gotcha - i’M genuinely interested in your comment and would like more info.)
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017