Slashdot

Republicans and libertarians adhere to a fundamentally fallacious economic policy which ignores such basic concepts as moral hazard.

Some may call this a "favorite gut reflex of left-liberals", i'm sure many will attack me with similarly baseless accusations of blind, partisan railing against the "system". This is, to be as blunt as Dick Sutphen, bull****.

I'm degreed in the field, partisan hackery has nothing to do with this issue.

Modern conservatives and libertarians neglect we have, in the history of the us, already applied both of their policies in actual practice in the modern age:
Around the the turn of the century, we took a "hands off" approach to capitalism.
This led to vast and horrendous poverty, monolithic and abusive monopolies, and eventually to the depression and the collapse of the economy as a whole.
Then in the Reagan era we had a "supply side" approach which attempted to create jobs and economic growth by offering wealth incentives to corporate owners and controllers, which also led to recession because the worker was not receiving that wealth to spend on finished goods.

Both of these approaches ignore the moral hazard of placing proprietors in control of the distribution of wealth. They will invariably, if unchecked , take every opportunity to keep this wealth to themselves rather than pass it on to consumers and facilitate the consumption which expands our economy.

The problem is conservative elements seem to think economics has a "goal" of absolute efficiency. Economics is a science, a tool to be used to shape policy toward society's benefit.

The most "absolutely efficient" system involves labor working for minimum subsistence, and without regulation to insure a middle class there won't be one. Business proprietors will suck up every bit of profit they can at the expense of the majority of the populace.

It goes further than this as we enter the twenty-first century, however.
Today's multinational conglomerates have power through market dominance which rivals or even surpasses governments, and as such need to be required to obide by the constitutional standards of life, liberty, property, and due process, or they can and will commit abuses against human and consumer rights.
This is already quite visible in the DMCA, under which hollywood has legislative control over the tech industry, and plays judge, jury, and executioner against senior citizens, college students, and single parents for a morally accepted, everyday activity.
Another quite visible example is the corporate assertion that property they sold to you, such as video game consoles, is still "theirs" to govern.
Is this neo-serfdom what conservatives really want? The absolutist opposition to regulation they display seems to support this perception.
I'm especially astonished that libertarians, who champion a life of self determination, would rail against invasive government on one end and support invasive corporate practice on the other.

The open, perfectly competitive market does not exist; nothing even close to it exists, and this fact has absolutely nothing to do with regulations. Tacit collusion, network externalities, and monopolistically competitive markets (this is different from the purist "monopoly") pose serious barriers to entry for some new guy to ride to the rescue in the marketplace. Only careful regulation can assist in this regard, and today this is just not the case. Regulation needs to be overhauled under careful public scrutiny, not eliminated or placed further into corporate control. Such a process can never be perfect, nothing in politics ever is, but this is no reason to oppose change.

To all who are not degreed in economics, please just stop with the "armchair" speculation.
The science is much more complex than the simplistic and unrefined models you were shown in high school or early college 101 or even 201 courses.
You never see armchair surgeons, armchair microbiologists, or armchair computer programmers.
How would you like it if some pizza delivery man walked into your office and started telling you how to do your job? Wouldn't you get mad and throw the "know it all" out? That's how I feel whenever I see these pundits who secluded themselves to law or journalism preach about "the free market".