Regulated markets are markets where market forces are allowed to operate with some degree of government intervention to prevent abuses.
In general, liberals agree that Free market Economies are the worst kind of economies except for all the other types of economies. That's right folks, most liberals actually see Free Market Economies as the preferred economic system. That being said, most liberals also accept that the tendency of Market economies is to move away from freedom, to seek to restrain competition and create Monopolies, to seek government support, and to generate unpaid external costs. Liberals generally tend to be pragmatic rather than dogmatic in that they accept the utility of free markets without embracing the destructive "hands off", Laissez-faire dogma of Conservatives and Libertarians. Some liberals believe that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, eternal vigilance in markets as well as political institutions. While many prefer free markets, they usually also believe that markets can only be free with government intervention, and that government has a vital role in not only fostering private property and business, but also defending individuals and common property.
Businesses as a group tend to value their own profit more than public welfare leading to selfish behaviour in very many different areas. Unregulated businesses tend to create Environmental pollution, for example, they deceive consumers and they exploit workers. Liberals tend to favour limited state intervention to protect the public from corporate greed and exploitation. Social democrats tend to favour greater state intervention which liberals sometimes call Nannyism or the Nanny State.
Liberals and Government intervention Edit
Do Liberals advocate Government intervention in the marketplace? Yes! Do Conservatives tend to misstate the intervention Liberals advocate? Emphatically Yes!!!
So, what intervention do Liberals advocate? American Liberals believe that responsible participation in markets is a natural right, and that out government is empowered and expected to protect that right. In 1776, the Great enlightenment political architect George Mason wrote;
"That all Men are born equally free and independant, and have certain inherent natural Rights, of which they can not by any Compact, deprive or divest their Posterity; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursueing and obtaining Happiness and Safety."
Just like the Liberal founders of our government, we believe that all men (adult citizens in this case) have the right to the means of acquiring and possessing property. Since Most of the States who sent representatives to the Convention that wrote the US Constitution had written similar language into their State Constitutions, we may safely assume that those framers and the document they wrote did not need to explicitly name the right to acquire and possess property, that right was implicit and absolute.
We expect our government to protect our right to property and the means of acquiring it. That means that neither government nor foreign powers, nor our fellow citizens has the right to restrict our right to property and the means of acquiring it. When our courts interpret laws to protect the rights of consumers but not the right to responsibly compete in the marketplace, they have perverted the will of the people and the intent of our instrument, the government, to protect our natural rights, and instead value the interest of privilege over natural rights.
Liberalism is the natural enemy of the privileges of monopoly to restrict our natural right of responsible participation in the marketplace. Much of the history of Liberalism is the struggle between Liberals and those who would pervert our intent and miss-use government to protect monopoly's traditional privilege to maximize the value of capital by creating nuisances or restricting our natural rights.
Regulate markets we used to Regulate Markets Edit
- Protect individual rights - We r
egulateused to regulate markets to protect individual business from harm by unethical competitors.
- Protect consumers - We
regulateused to regulate markets to ensure that consumers are informed of potential harmful effects of products, and to ensure that products and services are what they claim to be, so that consumers can make informed decisions, and so that consumers will have quality products available at a competitive price to choose from.
- Protect common property and common interests - We
regulateused to regulate markets to ensure that individual businesses must respect the integrity of common property and common rights and interests. The environment is largely a common property and interest.
Make sure the Assholes don't always winWe used to make sure the Assholes didn't always win- Unless we ensure ethical business behavior, it's a "race to the bottom" and the most predatory and manipulative businesses will either drive the ethical businesses from the market, or cause them to adopt unethical practices to compete. Sooner or later in a deregulated market, unethical businesses will steal all the money and crash the market like in 29, 98 or 08.
Why we regulate Markets Now
In a post-Regulatory Capture environment, regulations tend to be applied in a manner which creates barriers to market entry. Regulations can include such things as taxes, licenses, mandated record keeping requirements, and prohibited acts. Restrictive regulation not only provides advantage to existing businesses, it also tends to build resentment and political will to deregulate. Well thought coordinated efforts to burden micro-business have created political consensus which is being used to erode important controls of undesirable big business practices, all the while blaming big-government liberals. Record-keeping and compliance costs for micro-businesses can be many times the cost, as a percentage of gross, of the costs as percentage of gross for the existing businesses they're attempting to compete with. We liberals have been lax in allowing this to happen.
Why use Government Regulation? Edit
Governments ensure ethical behavior by enacting laws, and ensure the enforcement of those laws through the courts. While it might be preferable to have all complaints handled by individuals in the courts, it just isn't practical. For example, if a big business illegally overcharges a million individuals one dollar, no individual may be willing to bother with taking the offending business to court, and if they were, we would have to provide courts for a million court cases. Allowing the offending business to get away with illegal action is
bad policy Republican policy, allowing the offending business to profit by illegal action is even worse policy. better Republican policy. We liberals agree that we need to stop business crime, so we choose the more efficient (cheaper) chose the Big Government option of allowing the million individuals to collectively take the offending business Job Creator to court or the even more efficient (even cheaper) worse Big Government option of having a government agency do it on society's behalf.
Republicans and Government Regulation Edit
Republicans, as a group
try to de-fund have de-funded agencies responsible for Government Big Government regulation, appoint have appointed people friendly to unethical business Job Creators to head those agencies, and erode have eroded the court's ability to try and punish business perps. to burden Job Creators with unnecessary red tape.
Then, why do Republicans claim to be the party of Law and Order Edit
They do because we let them get away with it. Republicans are very good at protecting privileges, and they are very good at deflecting our attention. Republicans are quick to point out the black teenager who takes one old woman's handbag and are harsh in punishing him, but Republicans ignore the business that takes thousands of people's life savings and do their best to protect the rich white men who are the responsible perpetrators.