sold.
Ain't free market economics great? An unregulated group of companies can sell over 550 million pounds of crappy drywall and get away with it. Guess all those homeowners should have tested all the home builder's materials in the entire nation before they bought their houses!
Won't free market capitalism be great? China type production everywhere, for everyone!
Friday, May 22, 2009
550 Million Pounds of Unregulated Chinese Drywall
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Some China businessman is laughing his ass off at his stupid American customers.
Let me know when we live in a free market. As long as the money supply is inflated, there will always be over investment in shitty products.
I have no idea what over investment has to do with companies getting away with shitty products, Josh. Even if the money supply was gold they would have gotten away with it. Why? Because China doesn't regulate. It is a free market. A SHITTY free market.
"Some China businessman is laughing his ass off at his stupid American customers."
Yeah, I guess those home buyers should have got all their building materials tested in the lab before they selected their houses from random retail companies.
Yea, the lax lending policies forced on the market by the federal government and artificial low interest rates created by the Fed the fueled the housing boom would have had nothing to do with the abnormal risk a home builder would take by buying a cheaper, unknown product from a foreign market. Nothing like the abnormal risk financial firms took by lending out the money in the first place. Nope, nothing see here, more regulation please!@ Yep, no connection what-so-ever.
I'm sorry, Josh, but even without the boom the drywall would have been sold. Therefore, your counter-argument both sinks and stinks..
Yes, it would be sold, but not in the same quantity. The government cannot protect us from ever bad person in the world and by trying they will only end up punishing those who don't deserve to be punished. The quantity would have been so small had the boom not transpired that it wouldn't have even been news-worthy.
It really doesn't matter how many, Josh, because the issue is not the boom. The issues is some shitty drywall manufacturer in China selling 550 million pounds of crappy drywall. Even if there wasn't a boom, it still would have gotten away with selling 150 million plus pounds. GUESS ALL THOSE HOME OWNERS SHOULD HAVE TESTED ALL THE HOUSES THEY MIGHT HAVE BOUGHT AND ALL THE MATERIALS OF THOSE HOUSES TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE NOT GETTING RIPPED OFF!
"Even if there wasn't a boom, it still would have gotten away with selling 150 million plus pounds."
And then noone buys from them and they go bankrupt. Do you truly think the government can prevent all harm in the world? I'd like to know what harm you think they can't prevent.
I mean, its obvious to me that if a business decides to buy drywall from a trusted vendor, and then the government comes in and say no, and the businessman has to buy the drywall at a higher price from a government approved vendor, than you're doing harm to the business (and therefore its employees). Of course, I know that's no so obvious to you.
So from your unbalanced perspective on the world, what harm can the government not save us from?
"And then noone buys from them and they go bankrupt."
No, no one buys from them, they fire all their Chinese workers, sell their drywall operating equipment, and then reinvest their capital in another venture. That, or they retire rich. GODDAMN DEFINITELY DONT GO "BANKRUPT".
"Do you truly think the government can prevent all harm in the world? I'd like to know what harm you think they can't prevent."
Nope, never said the government could "prevent all harm in the world" - which is, of course, you putting words into my mouth. I simply think that a few tests to make sure foreign drywall manufactures a) know what they are doing and b) are not ripping everyone off would have saved everyone a big headache and money. This test could have been administered by the government.
"I mean, its obvious to me that if a business decides to buy drywall from a trusted vendor,"
A trusted, new vendor in China? Please. Manufacturers decided to buy Chinese drywall because the Chinese companies pay slave wages and Americans pay livable wages. THAT'S WHY.
"and then the government comes in and say no, and the businessman has to buy the drywall at a higher price from a government approved vendor,"
Whoa... slow down there stupid. When did I write anything about a "government approved vendor"?
"than you're doing harm to the business (and therefore its employees). Of course, I know that's no so obvious to you."
I would think that the drywall that the employees purchased when they bought new houses probably has canceled out any gains they received from being employed by a shady construction company. Moreover, I think the shady construction companies have cause more harm then they have caused good now that millions of homes seem to be affected by this.. but dont worry, Josh, as long as the owners are okay!
"So from your unbalanced perspective on the world, what harm can the government not save us from?"
You are an idiot, Words Shovel In.
"This test could have been administered by the government."
Because government is obviously independent and probably the most efficient entity to do this. . .the drywall industry has absolutely no stake in making sure this happens as little as possible themselves I suppose.
"A trusted, new vendor in China? Please. Manufacturers decided to buy Chinese drywall because the Chinese companies pay slave wages and Americans pay livable wages. THAT'S WHY."
I'm not talking about this specific vendor. I'm talking about the other people who can be trusted that your regulation would hurt but you don't care about. Some people will always take the risk of buying a product from a vendor they have no relationship with and no reason to trust, and that's a risk they own.
"Whoa... slow down there stupid. When did I write anything about a "government approved vendor"?"
What do you think government regulation is? government regulation = government approved. Only worse, they can shut down anyone that's not government approved.
"I think the shady construction companies have cause more harm then they have caused good now that millions of homes seem to be affected by this.. but dont worry, Josh, as long as the owners are okay!"
Of course, they wouldn't have had so much business had it not been for the housing boom which takes me back to my previous point. . .easy credit enable people to take risk they otherwise would not take.
"You are an idiot, Words Shovel In."
Well you agree if the housing boom didn't occur, less than the 550 million pounds of bad dry wall would have been sold. Which is good. But then you arbitrarily pick the number 150 million pounds saying there is still problem. Because you pick the number arbitrarily, we can assume it doesn't matter how much less than the 550 million, the number is unimportant, therefore you would still support government regulation to prevent every pound of bad drywall produced. This would lead me to the conclusion that, if you think government can prevent us from buying even a pound of bad drywall, than your expectation of government can be taken to the unreasonable conclusion that government can prevent us from all harm. I'm just making the logical conclusion from your own words, I am not shoveling words into your mouth.
"Because government is obviously independent and probably the most efficient entity to do this. . .the drywall industry has absolutely no stake in making sure this happens as little as possible themselves I suppose."
Not when they can change company names and reinvest their capital in another industry other than drywall. Moreover, obviously an industry "regulating itself" due to self-interest is a conflict of interest. They simply can't be objective, a government inspector can.
"I'm not talking about this specific vendor. I'm talking about the other people who can be trusted that your regulation would hurt but you don't care about. Some people will always take the risk of buying a product from a vendor they have no relationship with and no reason to trust, and that's a risk they own."
A simple test paid for by with tax payer money is not going to hurt anyone. Therefore, your argument is unfounded.
"What do you think government regulation is? government regulation = government approved. Only worse, they can shut down anyone that's not government approved."
They can stop production or import of faulty products, sure, but that doesn't mean "they can shut them down", not does it mean taht tehre is a "government approved" company. It simply means that the members of an entire industry have to meet certain standards administered by simple tests.
"Of course, they wouldn't have had so much business had it not been for the housing boom which takes me back to my previous point. . .easy credit enable people to take risk they otherwise would not take."
Nope. Until you objectively state how much of the 550 million pounds were boom-related, I can make the argument that a huge chunk was not boom-related. In other words, I can arbitrarily assign any number to the home buyers who would have bought homes during the same period if there had not been a boom. HOW MANY JOSH?
"Well you agree if the housing boom didn't occur, less than the 550 million pounds of bad dry wall would have been sold. Which is good. But then you arbitrarily pick the number 150 million pounds saying there is still problem."
I arbitrarily picked a number in response to you implying that if the boom hadn't happened the number of pounds of drywall would not have been significant. That is false.
"Because you pick the number arbitrarily, we can assume it doesn't matter how much less than the 550 million, the number is unimportant, therefore you would still support government regulation to prevent every pound of bad drywall produced."
Indeed.
"This would lead me to the conclusion that, if you think government can prevent us from buying even a pound of bad drywall, than your expectation of government can be taken to the unreasonable conclusion that government can prevent us from all harm."
Nope. All you can conclude is that I am for a uniform, cheap form of regulation based on some simple tests. You can not go from you believe in "universal tests for products" to you believe that tests will "protect consumers from all harm". There is no logical connective. I do not think the government regulation is infallible.
"I'm just making the logical conclusion from your own words, I am not shoveling words into your mouth."
Would you mind showing the modus tollens or whatever structure that makes it logical?
"Moreover, obviously an industry "regulating itself" due to self-interest is a conflict of interest."
I'm not sure I understand the conflict. I mean, really the market would regulate the industry, or the industry would be forced to create standards that are recognizable on the free-market. i.e. you can buy from this certified manufacturer, or this other manufacturer thats not certified. Which one will you choose? Will thats up to you, but at least you have the choice and noone's rights are being infringed upon. Today, everyone thinks the government will protect them which creates a moral hazard and allows people to rationalize taking risks they otherwise would not.
"A simple test paid for by with tax payer money is not going to hurt anyone. Therefore, your argument is unfounded."
Well, tell that to the individual who would prefer to refuse to pay the tax. Even if you disregard this, my argument is not completely unfounded simply because you say the test is "simple" and can be paid for with tax payer money, which you seem to think is unlimited. My argument being, if I know of a manufacturer of drywall that will sell it to me for a cheaper price than that of a manufacturer that has complied with government enforced regulations, I should be able to because that is my choice, and the choice of the manufacturer and any regulation by the state infringes on our rights.
"They can stop production or import of faulty products, sure, but that doesn't mean "they can shut them down", not does it mean taht tehre is a "government approved" company. It simply means that the members of an entire industry have to meet certain standards administered by simple tests."
You're an idiot. Of course the government can shut them down if they do not meet regulations and of the rest of it is semantics. I call is government approved, because you're meeting standards to gain approval from government. You can call it what you want.
"Until you objectively state how much of the 550 million pounds were boom-related, I can make the argument that a huge chunk was not boom-related. In other words, I can arbitrarily assign any number to the home buyers who would have bought homes during the same period if there had not been a boom."
It's not simply that less homes may have been built (maybe more), its that homebuilders were willing to take risk buying this particular drywall, which under a free market system, with honest currency, they otherwise would not. There wouldn't be such disparity in prices and incentive to purchase it from China and there would probably be trusted domestic drywall manufacturers from which the dry wall could be purchased from. There wouldn't be an expectation that government is taking care of everything, and the cost of credit would be higher.
"All you can conclude is that I am for a uniform, cheap form of regulation based on some simple tests. You can not go from you believe in "universal tests for products" to you believe that tests will "protect consumers from all harm". There is no logical connective. I do not think the government regulation is infallible."
That's not true. You believe that even if the free market allows a little bit of harm, the government should regulate, assuming it can prevent that little bit of harm, which does, by definition, mean you believe the government can prevent all harm the free market otherwise would not be able to prevent.
"I'm not sure I understand the conflict ... be forced to create standards that are recognizable on the free-market. i.e."
No, sorry, we already went over that. Those who control the companies that produced the drywall will not go out of business. They can simply close their drywall operations and reinvest their capital elsewhere. Rinse and repeat.
"you can buy from this certified manufacturer, or this other manufacturer thats not certified. Which one will you choose?"
Certified, of course.
"Will thats up to you, but at least you have the choice and noone's rights are being infringed upon."
Nope. The rights of millions of home owners were trampled upon when they bought crappy drywall that destroyed their homes. A government agency using a cheap test to test the drywall DOES NOT limit anyone's rights.
"Today, everyone thinks the government will protect"
Should regulate. No one thinks the government will catch every problem.
"them which creates a moral hazard"
What moral hazard?
"and allows people to rationalize taking risks they otherwise would not."
Garbage. People don't have the time or resources to test all the building materials that makeup all the houses they might buy.
"Well, tell that to the individual who would prefer to refuse to pay the tax."
I refuse to pay taxes to protect your property! ANARCHY RULES! Therefore, your argument is stupidly hypocritical.
"simply because you say the test is "simple" and can be paid for with tax payer money, which you seem to think is unlimited."
Nope. The test is simple and cheap and would cost the tax payer almost nothing. There is therefore nothing to talk about.
"My argument being, if I know of a manufacturer of drywall that will sell it to me for a cheaper price than that of a manufacturer that has complied with government enforced regulations, I should be able to because that is my choice, and the choice of the manufacturer and any regulation by the state infringes on our rights."
Then you can't read, because I am suggesting that a generalized test would apply to all companies, hence eliminating the "cheaper competitor". I am also arguing that the test will be so cheap that there would be no difference in cost between a certified and uncertified company.
"You're an idiot. Of course the government can shut them down if they do not meet regulations and of the rest of it is semantics. I call is government approved, because you're meeting standards to gain approval from government. You can call it what you want."
Sorry, if the company can't meet the requirements because it used questionable ingredients, it has effectively shut itself down.
Again, the government would not be shutting the company down. They would simply be keeping the industry to a standard.
"It's not simply that less homes may have been built (maybe more), its that homebuilders were willing to take risk buying this particular drywall, which under a free market system, with honest currency, they otherwise would not. There wouldn't be such disparity in prices and incentive to purchase it from China and there would probably be trusted domestic drywall manufacturers from which the dry wall could be purchased from. There wouldn't be an expectation that government is taking care of everything, and the cost of credit would be higher."
That's a lot of ifs, Josh.
1 People will always be buying homes. Therefore, a good chunk of the 550 million is non-boom buying.
2 People will always be looking for cheaper products, which means, gold or no gold, boom or no boom, people would have bought the Chinese drywall.
"That's not true. You believe that even if the free market allows a little bit of harm, the government should regulate, assuming it can prevent that little bit of harm, which does, by definition, mean you believe the government can prevent all harm the free market otherwise would not be able to prevent."
No, I believe the market will cause big harm and that that harm is the cause and justification for regulation in-itself.
"No, I believe the market will cause big harm and that that harm is the cause and justification for regulation in-itself."
Then you believe people, left to their own free-will, free of physical intervention, would choose to impoverish themselves?
The problem you will always face is that you do not fully understand the free-market. You choose to define the free market by its defenders, but if I may quote Ayn Rand (which I know you love),"By their silence - by their evasion of the clash between capitalism and altruism - it is capitalism's alleged champions who are responsible for the fact that capitalism is being destroyed without a hearing, without a trial, without any public knowledge of its principles, its nature, its history, or its moral meaning. It is being destroyed in the manner of a nightmare lynching - as if a blind, despair-crazed mob were burning a straw man, not knowing that the grotesquely deformed bundle of straw is hiding the living body of the ideal"
You define capitalism by those champions who chose to define it for us, and did it very poorly. You view the fed and fiat money as an institution of capitalism, as a natural result of free markets only because that is what the champions of capitalism told us. Because of this significant misunderstanding, you will never be able to grasp how society would function with an honest currency and you will never understand that these great excesses of today (the 550 million pounds of bad dry wall, the banking exec that takes home $100 million in one year, the bankruptcy of the largest corporation ever) are simply the result paper money and easy credit.
Even if we moved to a era of smaller government and an honest currency, if that happened and society prospered, you would not care. You would still push for government intervention and regulation simply on the ignorant, simplistic belief that government (the entity which holds a monopoly over physical intervention, democratically obtained or otherwise) provides more good than bad, contrary to our entire history.
"Then you believe people, left to their own free-will, free of physical intervention, would choose to impoverish themselves?"
Of course. Anyone who knows anything about the Ancient Greeks and Romans knows that the original politics was that of might makes right.
"The problem you will always face is that you do not fully understand the free-market. You choose to define the free market by its defenders, "
I have no problem understanding the market, Josh. I try to understand what IS, not what the free-market should be. Now, you have already admitted that the free-market has never existed, which means your theory is totally divorced from what IS. That means you are merely moral.
""By their silence - by their evasion of the clash between capitalism and altruism - it is capitalism's alleged champions who are responsible for the fact that capitalism is being destroyed without a hearing, without a trial, without any public knowledge of its principles, its nature, its history, or its moral meaning. "
The same counter-argument is leveled against Ayn Rand's entire theory. She doesn't take into account cause-and-effect and is and IS therefore an object of ridicule for anyone that looks as capitalism as it IS and how it HAS developed. She further takes the cause of all economic system to be a clash between "collectivism" and "individualism", which is clearly false, because self-consciousness underlies both and biology underlies self-consciousness. Before philosophical argument there was the nothingness of non-self-conscious being. Since self-conscious being came from non-self-conscious being, we must take into account cause-and-effect. This effectively destroys Ayn Rand's theory.
"You define capitalism by those champions who chose to define it for us, and did it very poorly. You view the fed and fiat money as an institution of capitalism, as a natural result of free markets only because that is what the champions of capitalism told us. Because of this significant misunderstanding, you will never be able to grasp how society would function with an honest currency and you will never understand that these great excesses of today (the 550 million pounds of bad dry wall, the banking exec that takes home $100 million in one year, the bankruptcy of the largest corporation ever) are simply the result paper money and easy credit."
I reject Ayn Rand's argument that capitalism is merely an extension of a moral argument that stretches back 2000 years. Cause-and-effect came before self-consciousness, which means both individualism and collectivism, which are apparent in all primate populations, are as natural sex.
"Even if we moved to a era of smaller government and an honest currency, if that happened and society prospered, you would not care. You would still push for government intervention and regulation simply on the ignorant, simplistic belief that government (the entity which holds a monopoly over physical intervention, democratically obtained or otherwise) provides more good than bad, contrary to our entire history."
The left will always exist as long as wages are under threat of falling to wage-slave levels. It's a fact. Get fucking used to it.
"Of course. Anyone who knows anything about the Ancient Greeks and Romans knows that the original politics was that of might makes right."
Might still makes right unfortunately. The purpose of the US Constitution was to reverse this, unfortunately it failed. Of course, if you had read my statement which you would quoted, you'd read "without physical intervention".
"She doesn't take into account cause-and-effect"
How so? As well, your obsession with cause-and-effect ignores free will, and is therefore ridiculous. By using such an argument you can rationalize every atrocity humanity has suffered through and then simply ignore them as aberrations of cause-and-effect.
"Cause-and-effect came before self-consciousness, which means both individualism and collectivismwhich are apparent in all primate populations, are as natural sex."
Why? And why does it matter that cause-and-effect came before self-consciousness?
"The left will always exist as long as wages are under threat of falling to wage-slave levels. It's a fact."
Only because the left doesn't understand economics.
"Might still makes right unfortunately. The purpose of the US Constitution was to reverse this, unfortunately it failed."
No, the constitution's goal was not to eliminate might makes right, but to limit it. The founders didn't get rid of the market, which is definitely decided by a kind of might making things right.
"Of course, if you had read my statement which you would quoted, you'd read "without physical intervention"."
I am not talking about moral precepts divorced from what is. If you want to say that capitalism is great, even though quite obviously capitalist want to pay slave wages because they have the power, might makes right, you go right ahead.
"How so? As well, your obsession with cause-and-effect ignores free will, and is therefore ridiculous."
Free will has never been proven to exist.
"By using such an argument you can rationalize every atrocity humanity has suffered through and then simply ignore them as aberrations of cause-and-effect."
I could, but of course that is not the argument I am making. STOP SHOVELING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH>>
"Why? And why does it matter that cause-and-effect came before self-consciousness?"
Because it means what we call free will developed from non-free will, which effectively makes it unfree will on the cause-and-effect chain.
"Only because the left doesn't understand economics."
The left understands what is right and will fight for what is right. It not the worker's right that morons from the Austrian school equate market might with rightness.
"If you want to say that capitalism is great, even though quite obviously capitalist want to pay slave wages because they have the power, might makes right, you go right ahead."
Quite obviously? Maybe its not as obvious to me as it is to you.
"The founders didn't get rid of the market, which is definitely decided by a kind of might making things right."
A kind of might makes right? How so?
"Free will has never been proven to exist."
Its proven through every choice I make.
"I could, but of course that is not the argument I am making. STOP SHOVELING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH>>"
I'm not shoveling words into your mouth, I'm just taking your arguments to their logical conclusion to show how ridiculous they are.
"The left understands what is right and will fight for what is right. It not the worker's right that morons from the Austrian school equate market might with rightness."
Yes, the morons from the Austrian school believe in free will makes right, whereas the left believes in violence(might) makes right. I can see why you don't like the Austrians.
"Quite obviously? Maybe its not as obvious to me as it is to you."
Oh, do you actually think a per captia income of $3,314 is anything but slave wages?
"A kind of might makes right? How so?"
Those who are strong make lots of money; those who are weak make little money. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
"Its proven through every choice I make."
Nope, that "choice" is the result of literally millions of causes.
"I'm not shoveling words into your mouth, I'm just taking your arguments to their logical conclusion to show how ridiculous they are. "
No, sorry, I didn't make those arguments. YOU ARE SHOVELING WORDS..
"Yes, the morons from the Austrian school believe in free will makes right, whereas the left believes in violence(might) makes right. I can see why you don't like the Austrians."
Oh, the Austrians are not for protecting private property through the barrel of a gun?
"Oh, do you actually think a per captia income of $3,314 is anything but slave wages?"
Its not so obvious "capitalists" want to pay slave wages.
"Those who are strong make lots of money; those who are weak make little money. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT."
Strong as in successful?
"Nope, that "choice" is the result of literally millions of causes."
And my the choice I make is based on those millions of causes, but I could make a different choice under the same causes. That's what a choice is.
"Oh, the Austrians are not for protecting private property through the barrel of a gun?"
Yes, Austrian believe an individual has an inherent right to protect himself and his property. That does not mean Austrians believe in using violence to force others to do what they otherwise would not, unlike the left.
Post a Comment