The free market works

[warlockjd]

[ QUOTE ]
The article showed how even though there were ZERO regulations on restaurant cleanliness, there was still a concerted effort by the society to establish clean restaurants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Down with unions, up with sweatshops, down with child labor laws up with Herman T Zweibel!!

[ThisHo]

Nate:

Interesting read. Thanks for the link.

The debate betwen you and Cyrus is interesting as well. I do want to point out 1 thing that I disagree with in your market regulation proposal:

[ QUOTE ]
But you might worry that we would become corrupt and certify anyone, except for that little problem we call "market share". My company must provide accurate seals of approval otherwise YOUR company will take my customers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think this would be true. As someone whose company utilizes 3rd party auditors, if I thought that I could find an "easier" auditor that would raise fewer issues without, in my opinion, putting my customers at risk I would change in a second. Also, we get competitive bids on our auditors and we go with the lowest cost bidder, which often means least amount spent on training and such.

I think that "market share" for the audit company would be more driven by "x% of our customers pass and receive our seal of approval" where x is approaching 100.

Just my thoughts on this small part of the discussion.

ThisHo

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate:

Interesting read. Thanks for the link.

The debate betwen you and Cyrus is interesting as well. I do want to point out 1 thing that I disagree with in your market regulation proposal:

[ QUOTE ]
But you might worry that we would become corrupt and certify anyone, except for that little problem we call "market share". My company must provide accurate seals of approval otherwise YOUR company will take my customers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think this would be true. As someone whose company utilizes 3rd party auditors, if I thought that I could find an "easier" auditor that would raise fewer issues without, in my opinion, putting my customers at risk I would change in a second. Also, we get competitive bids on our auditors and we go with the lowest cost bidder, which often means least amount spent on training and such.

I think that "market share" for the audit company would be more driven by "x% of our customers pass and receive our seal of approval" where x is approaching 100.

Just my thoughts on this small part of the discussion.

ThisHo

[/ QUOTE ]

Intereesting, but think about it this way. The low-price certifier you went with DOES provide an acceptable level of quality for your customers. Otherwise you wouldn't use them no matter how cheap they are.

Hell, I'll certify all your employees for half the fee you're paying now, and I guarantee all 100% of them will pass. Sound like a deal? I'm not counting on you to take it however, because I have no credibility in certifying whatever it is your employees do.

The same principle would apply to the restaurant quality certification scenario I outlined above.

natedogg

[ QUOTE ]
Well for one, there's price. Anyplace with four stars and $40 entrees is going to have to poison 0 people per year to stay in business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, but without regulation, the trial and error process of new restaurants will not be without many failures and casualties. But according to your usual hyper-aggressive capitalistic stance on everything, this is probably not only acceptable but desired. Cost is for the weak, right?

Regulations are normally put into place after the initial trial and error process yields undesirable results.

I would truly love to see just how long a society would actually last if you guys had your way, and everyone of your horrible ideas went unchecked. You'd probably turn liberal so fast your head would spin. Actually, you'd probably be living in a dumpster. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]


BTW, this is by far the most comical and absurd suggestion you've ever put forth in this forum.

[ QUOTE ]
With the government system we have now, nothing changes, no one is fired, and no one has any incentive to avoid mistakes or even to work diligently at all. No one is accountable for anything that goes wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exadurate much?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, this is by far the most comical and absurd suggestion you've ever put forth in this forum.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain why? I have explained how it would work. As you point out, it would not be a perfect system. But I have shown how it would work just as effectively as the system we
have now.

Can you explain why it wouldn't work? Specifically, why would you be willing to eat at a restaurant that couldn't show it was insured by a solvent insurer?

Or do you just need to keep repeating empty emotionalistic mantras like that all us free market types would end up living in a dumpster if we actually got our way?

natedogg

[ QUOTE ]
Or do you just need to keep repeating empty emotionalistic mantras like that all us free market types would end up living in a dumpster if we actually got our way?



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm goin' with this one.

But seriously, there are obviously certain scenarios where having a free market would be the clear choice. I just don't think that "restaurant health and sanitation" qualifies as such.

I mean yeah, that article lends a good example of how a free market operates, and yes, maybe in a third world country that’s an ideal way to get the ball rolling, but once the socioeconomic structure is there, government regulations are clearly the only way to go.

Also, I don’t think that the difference between Restaurant A’s bathroom being 97% clean and Restaurant B’s only being 95% clean is one of the deciding factors in driving the hospitality industry.

And in response to that other thread, I also feel that if the looming energy crisis were to be decided by free market economics, sustenance would belong only to the highest bidders.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
And in response to that other thread, I also feel that ....

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the key to our differences.

natedogg

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And in response to that other thread, I also feel that ....

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the key to our differences.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean because I'm able to realize that although I may believe something as factual, I am still ultimately only expressing an opinion, and word it as such?

Or do you mean that you are beyond opinions, and have the be-all and end-all answers to everything?

[SheetWise]

I agree with you that the current system lacks a lot in the form of consistent treatment and accountability.

Having owned a restaurant and dealt with health inspectors, I found that 1) they're not that bright. 2) they're paid to find problems -- and they will. 3) they have virtually no liability or accountability.

I can also tell you that I carried several million dollars in product liabilty insurance, and I don't recall the agent ever having inspected the restaurant.

I can also tell of a very favorable column about the restaurant printed in the local newspaper -- after an advertising contract was penned.

So would I trust the state, the insurer, or the journalist? First, I trust my own impression. I'd trust the journalist for a negative review, since they have liability for what they say. The insurer for a track record of past performance, since they would know. The state for a clean bill of health.

I wouldn't necessarily trust the journalist for a positive review, the insurer simply because the policy exists, or the state for a negative review.