Because there are too many of those little dregs and not enough security for the elites to keep their heads.

Besides it's far cheaper just to send them some food stamps and a check every month than to try to educate them in a public school or teach them about running a business - just tell them to get a "job", and when they can't find one because nobody wants to hire some poor minority kid indoctrinated in a state-based/union-driven "feel-good center" where they learn to blame all their troubles on "the man", just offer some free health care and send them back to their Social Justice Government Housing.

Don't give them a place to live near the businesses, though, they'll just trash the neighborhood - there's some space down there between the railroad tracks and the city dump where you can build some brick boxes for them to live in.

History shows that businesses only need to look after their own self-interest. With all players acting the same way, there are, in fact, many checks built-in to a free market system. Intervention is only needed for things like, businesses that attempt to cut corners in dangerous ways by, for instance, using melamine-contaminated fillers for pet and baby food, or dumping toxic waste into the rivers or air.

The worst of monopolistic abuses, regulatory capture, and cronyism are actually side-effects of a run-away regulatory bureaucracy.

Same old fallacy. Supporters of unlimited central government always try to claim that the only choice is all the regulation or none at all. Of course there is also such a thing as too much regulation, which causes more problems than it solves. So of course if a regulation isn't working, you just need a new regulation, and a new one to fix that, and a new one to fix that, until there are so many it becomes an albatross.

Anyone that thinks there are no regulations that need to be removed in the US has NOT been reading the Federal Register every quarter.

Obligatory video of Wesley Clark on that issue.

When desires of government bureaucrats is "front and center" of thinking for a company making consumer products, then the company isn't working for it's customers any more. This is a system that has been tried before (and currently, in some places). In the 1930's and 40's it was called Fascism.

... of regulators, yes, I agree.

If you mean "all markets with excessive intervention by uninformed central planers will gravitate to monopoly/ oligopoly naturally" - I agree. If you mean all free markets do that - I've got about 400 years of history that prove you wrong.

When you say it like that, it's nothing but an unassailable straw man ploy aimed at denigrating anyone that disagrees with your extreme position. I could turn this around on you and use similarly loaded words, lump all supporters of regulation in with statists, totalitarians, eugenicists and communists, as well as point out these folks are on the wrong side of economic history and economic facts. But you're not interested in having a reasonable position, but in painting anyone that questions an armed bureaucrat's intentions as a total anarchist.

Good Day!

The problem with this type of prioritization (which many markets, especially labor markets, are currently experiencing), is that free markets have many checks and balances from competition, consumers, and reputation that are sorely lacking in the regulatory system. What that means is that regulators regulate based not on the best information and feedback, but based on self-interest and political influence without regard to actual impacts on the macro economies. Capitalism uses self-interest as a driver as well as a check, as consumers and producers work toward a mutually beneficial equilibrium. These checks do not exist in the monopoly of regulation and power brokering, which can result in either regulatory capture by influential market players, or the destruction of market players by regulators seeking political power. The political system in the US, most clearly at the federal level but also in some of the local levels as well, simply isn't as responsive to the desires of its constituency or the available market information as it needs to be. This leads to many harmful interventions. Ethanol requirements are a good recent example of harmful regulation hurting markets and consumers. Uber and Lyft are challenging regulators that have created virtual monopolies for cab companies, and have blocked those companies from providing services in many places. People building "tiny homes" often find there are localities where their choice of housing is illegal due to regulations from one direction or another.

That's not a feature - it's a bug. Regulations live on, grow, and are defended even where they are unnecessary or harmful.

Apparently you've never heard of tribes such as the Creeks, Alabamas, Natchez, Chitimachas and Choctaws. They left ruins of their civilizations, many older than the Romans, all over the American southeast. All the Southwest states contain countless ancient remains and Native American sites. In the Texas panhandle you can visit the Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, which contains some ancient flint excavation pits thought to have been used for up to 12,000 years.

Hmmm... CO2 concentrations in liquid, sure. But what does that have to do with PH? You indicate that it's self-evident, but it's not to me. Maybe you can explain that relationship in high-school sciencey language. There are actually 3 different ways to measure PH, one of which is specific to ocean chemistry (the PH Seawater Scale - sws).

No, it's not, actually. Especially in science (not the scientific community that is awash in politic, but the work of science it certainly is).

Nice try. See above.

I can't understand everything, certainly, but much of it is accessible to me. Much of it because I'm good at maths. And language.

I think you are misreading it. They are using the data from the lake in Japan to demonstrate specific relationships. For 280,000 years. It's no more an extrapolation than "More CO2 increases the greenhouse effect." Physical properties are physical properties.

Most of that is a review of the ONE study on ocean acidification that keeps getting quoted. And those reviews are pretty damning to that study, IMHO.

From ad hominem to straw man, I guess. I never made any such claim - the topic is ocean acidification. I don't even know where you're getting any of this from - unless it's simply an extension of the "attack the messenger" argument that I have already ignored.

More ad hominems to ignore.

You seem to be more familiar with this aspect of the science than I am. I have not looked into those claims although I've skimmed some of the arguments on both sides.

What I found interesting was the critique of the published numbers of PH readings. There are a lot of questions in the detail of what is being measured. Most of all, the most often-quoted studies that extrapolate changes BACKWARD - to the turn of the century - using trends from only 15 - 20 years of data. I haven't seen an explanation for this, but the EPA's website only shows readings from 1980 - 1985. They don't do the backward extrapolation, though.

Google filters those. But peer-reviewed papers are what I look for as an ultimate source. That's the reason I posted the links above. They include many references to the peer-reviewed work.

They are saying it, but is it true. The EPA's website only shows data from about 1985, at the earliest, but PH has been measured fairly accurately since the mid-19th century. And it doesn't match the extrapolated history.

You're right - exaggeration works better. We call it "propaganda". Effective for making Americans afraid of terrorists, too, even though they are 10,000 times more likely to be killed by a hail storm.