Five Dollar Gas

>
> > > > Left unencumbered the enterprise system will evolve a better
> > > > solution than govt. can possibly imagine.
> > >
> > > That's a popular position these days, but it's just not
> > > true. The corporate enterprise system is totally incapable
> > > of any endeavor that pays off more than a year or two in
> > > the future... they just can't see any reason to take the
> > > risk.
> >
> > How many factories do you know of that paid off within two
> > years? How many mines? What you say is the opposite of the
> > truth.
>
> Mines and factories that are started NOW (not fifty or
> seventy years ago) have to have a plan for profitability
> within the year. If not, they don't get built.

Bullshit. How can anyone build a mine or factory that
will show repay itself in a year? If there was any opportunities
for that rate of return they diappeared long ago, snapped up in
about an instant. Mines generally have lives in the decades
and have a ROI comparable with other investments. Simple math
tells you that this means they can't deliver in one year enough
repay the investment.

> Most of them are expected to be profitable from the day they
> begin production.

And you get that information from where exactly?
>
> > > Corporate enterprise doesn't build to withstand natural
> > > disasters.
> >
> > Of course they do, why would they build their business in
> > such a way as to
>
> Because they're required to by government regulation.

Sorry somehow didn't finish that sentence for some reason.
Why would they build their business in such a way as to
have them destoryed by a chance occurance just when they became
profitable? Why would they take that chance? Why would their
insurance companies.
>
> > > When an earthquake hits in Mexico (where there are no
> > > building regulations to speak of) thousands die.
> >
> > Because they were in buildings not built by and for the use
> > of major corporations and because people there value cheap
> > buildings more than safe ones because they are poor. The
> > same is true of Turkey where there were plenty of building
> > regs and plenty of death.
>
> Turkey has building regulations, but no enforcement. They
> might as well not be there, because the construction companies
> don't lose any money if the building they build falls down
> AFTER they get their money for it.

So obviously building codes are useless. Being able to sue
people however is not. If the building companies were scared
of being sued you better believe that they'd build decent housing.

> People buy what there is to buy.

And people sell what can be sold. If there are affordable
safe houses being constructed then why would anyone build unsafe
ones? Builders build well so they can sell houses, not because
the building codes make them build well.

> If you offer a poor person a tent in the street or a
> cheap apartment, they'll take the apartment, because they
> don't have enough information to know that the apartment
> building is FAR more dangerous to them in the long run.

Such information is actually pretty easy to get. Simply
try to get it insured. When the insurance company sends around
someone to see how earthquake-safe it is and quotes you a
premium that you mistake for the telephone number that's a hint.
>
> This gets to the fundamental fallacy of capitalism; that a
> buyer will choose whatever is in his best interests. This
> is not true.

So he'll buy something that's not in his own interest? Why?

> If a relatively powerless consumer is lied to by a relatively
> powerful corporation, he cannot make an informed decision.

Of course he can, they are not the only source of information.
In any case over the long run lying isn't all that good a strategy.
Customers exchange information about the quality of a firm's work,
information that is far more believable than the firm's advertising.
The word about who does shoddy work gets around and people stop
buying from that firm or insist on lower prices. Firms that produce
quality work on the other hand can charge a very profitable
premium.
>
> By some lights, modern corporate enterprise is NOT capitalism,
> for the very reason that the consumers are incapable of making
> informed decisions.

Says who? When did we all become idiots? Are you sure it's not
>
> > > When an equivalent earthquake hits California (where there
> > > strong curbs on how cheaply a company can build) there are
dozens,
> > if that.
> > >
> > > If corporate enterprise can't (by itself) build a safe
> > > building, who could possibly trust them to build a safe rocket?
> >
> > It can and does do both.
>
> When? When has corporate enterprise, freed from government
> regulation, built a safe rocket? Every rocket ever built
> has had a government regulator looking over its shoulder.

Then by your own admission your argument is moronic. If every
rocket ever built had a government regulator looking over it's
shoulder then obviously they I can't give you an example of
someone building a safe rocket, or an unsafe one without government
regulation. I can however show you that they would have been safe
regardless of government regulation. You argued that corporations
would produce unsafe products for "relatively powerless consumers"
because the consumers can't get good information. Those who buy
space launches aren't relatively powerless consumers or uninformed
however. They have both the capacity and the motive to assess the
quality including the safety of a launch system. Their insurance
companies have even more of both. Unless both their boards and
those of their insurance companies choose to be utterly derilict
in their duty to shareholders (and thus risk prison terms, job
loss, lawsuits and massive disgrace) they will do that. Since they
are actually paying the bills they will do it far more efficently
than government ever could.