"you anti-communists"
Meaning...

"I did answer. You haven't bothered to answer any counterpoints."
Sorry. I didn't catch what you said, could you remind me?
All I know is that you work as a college tutor, not an area of experience for me, so I don't know if there is a higher-up than you.

I can't write on here all day, I have about 30-45 min daily, and when I use my time I like to use it for my points instead of answering the points of a communist.

So, to the ORIGINAL conversation, can TotC apply to public property? The resounding idea from your side is that it is only for private property.

Meaning exactly what I said.

The entire western world is pretty much anti-communist.
I'll be honest I've never really understood anyone who is a proponent of capitalism because of freedom. I consider the capitalist system to be the least free.

On an unrelated note. o.o Hi KA

Tragedy of the commons does not apply to a system where private property doesn't exist. This has been covered.

This has been said, yes, but the reasoning has not been given that I am aware of. Just give me the reasoning.

The reasoning was given multiple times. This is more proof you don't bother to read.

common property exploited for private gain is vulnerable to overuse.

common property in a socialist system is managed and is less vulnerable to overuse.

for example, the EU has a common fisheries policy, the manage and cap the total amount of fishing each country's fishermen are allowed catch each year in an attempt to manage the stock.

This is a socialist policy.

"The reasoning was given multiple times. This is more proof you don't bother to read."
Ohhh, a personal attack, it sounds like. Orathaic responds and all you can do is criticize.
I get the idea: regulation. I'm glad you put "attempt" because if you had said it would flat out work you would be wrong. There are hitches...

Cause socialism takes away the profit motif of doing buisness

"I'm glad you put "attempt" because if you had said it would flat out work you would be wrong."

I think the point is, if you don't "attempt" you - no regulation at all. The Tradegy of the commons is more likely to become a problem.

Of course there is nothing stopping co-operation between businesses, to regulate themselves.

"Of course there is nothing stopping co-operation between businesses, to regulate themselves."

Except the much ballyhooed "profit motive".

"Orathaic responds and all you can do is criticize."

Why bother responding when you haven't read the previous responses?

The free market ideologues have to explain why every developing country has not relied very heavily of market forces to accumulate capital, allocate resources, and develop its means of production. If markets are so efficient and effective, why the reliance on the state for these processes? Could it be that the market is *not* effective at mobilizing human, political, and technical resources and in the absence of robust state involvement, mobilization is taken over by foreign nationals or doesn't occur at all?

Believe it or not, Putin, I don't want to talk to you all day or read all of your posts. I've already said I don't have all the time in the world, and you continue to pester me about this fact. I really don't care to read all of your posts because they are oft filled with crap like your "what democrats aren't" rant. To me, you lost all your credibility then. Amazing I still talk to you.

And funny enough by not reading his posts you miss his points.
Then ask stupid questions.

Funny how these things work.

No stupid questions.

i said: "Of course there is nothing stopping co-operation between businesses, to regulate themselves."

Draug said: 'Except the much ballyhooed "profit motive". '

no, i the fact is while still working for profit a group of car manufacturers could come together to set minimum safety standards for their industry.

Then once they had agreed to such minimum they would be on a level playing field to compete for profit.

They could even advertise their 'safer cars' standard to out-compete other 'unsafe' cars.

Of course industry may not have the trust required to co-operate, (though i'm sure they could make legally binding agreements) and consumers might not trust the industry to actually live up to the standards they claim (and the fact that, advertising is basically the skill of almost lying without getting caught, makes this trust harder to build on)

Usually where similar schemes exist (in my experience) they are government driven and enforced.

What motive is there besides profit that can thought of as reliable?
When the United States was debating the Constitution in the ratifying conventions the Anti-Federalists realized better than the federalists that no republic could count on the "civic virtue" and "disinterestedness" of its citizens because those concepts did not exist in reality.
Self-interest motivates human action more often than any other motive and to ignore this inescapable truth is infantile, but of course many individuals are obviously infantile in their grasp of reality.

"They could even advertise their 'safer cars' standard to out-compete other 'unsafe' cars."
Companies already do this to out-compete. While there is no (outside of government) regulation of multiple company's safety standards, a single company can claim that they have the best safety rating to increase buyers of their cars. The company with the safest car, say, will get the most customers and therefore the most profit. The action for profit increases the safety of the people driving.

Sorry for not reading the thread, but I can't be bothered reading through 7 pages of a fully discussed topic. It's probably already been mentioned, but I kind of cringed when I read your topic statement. You used the tragedy of the commons as a reason against socialism when it is frequently used to express why capitalism doesn't work due to shared resources (land, fish, etc.) being depleted at the fastest rate possible for maximum personal gain...

'a single company can claim that they have the best safety rating to increase buyers of their cars.'

yes, and it can make the claim without even being the safest car.

The company with perceived to have the safest cars will get the most business, however, I know that i would find it very difficult to tell what he safest car was without road safety statistics from an independent body.

"The action for profit increases the safety of the people driving."

This is simply not the case, the action for profit CAN increase safety standards, IF that is something which customers want, on the other hand if the competing adverts claim they car is 'cool' and 'exciting' I seriously doubt any 'safety' advertising will have much of an impact.

Meanwhile the profit motive, on the same basis, encourages companies to find the cheapest parts they can, and this can in turn reduce safety.

It is only through co-operative behaviour, within an industry, that you can guarantee something like safety standards are placed above profit. (but once everyone is playing on the same level playing field they can still all fairly compete and 'profit driven' motives can operate - taking benefits from both competition and co-operation...)

"yes, and it can make the claim without even being the safest car."

Just like socialist say that their programs solve problems when they not only don't solve problems they create new problems with their failed programs.

No the profit motive encourages companies to find the best value not the cheapest.
The woeful ignorance of basic business principles is mind boggling.
You don't want the cheapest of anything you buy as a business owner. You want the best value, the biggest bang for the buck.

Another name for profit is self-interest.
Claiming anyone can ignore their own self-interest is pure fantasy to begin with.

Since I tried to write this yesterday with my usual small amount of time, I didn't get this bit posted.

My beginning title and post were created with little time, so I didn't list all of the reasons nor was I able to put them in order of significance. I don't blame you for jumping on this.

@Orathaic
It is actually extremely hard to get a fake-out safe car claim without being trounced. Magazines write articles on new cars. Rating companies whose ability to judge is often certified by the feds give a car company stars for how good their car is. The whole thing is much harder than you believe. The government has a duty to stop misinformation, while they usually produce it, they have a role. And if people choose being cool over safety let them. Their freedom to buy what they want overpowers the regulation of safety should they get in a crash.
Regulation such as industry standards are often promoted due to increased safety/fuel efficiency etc,. These regulations often have unseen and unreported effects, such as my fuel can example (true story). Upstart car industries (haven't seen many, I wonder why) can't live up to such standards, and could easily go out of business because of this. The cost of cars produced skyrocket, preventing many lower-income citizens from purchasing the product without a loan, then the government has to give loan relief etc,. Got to go! Bus in 6!

'my fuel can example (true story)' - sorry, a) what is your fuel can story? b) why should we care about anecdotal evidence?

secondly, there are many things which prevent new companies entering an industry. It would be hard to match the hundreds of millions of man-hours put into developing silicon technology (which eventually leads to our modern multi-core processors) nobody new is entering that industry.

This may not be a consequence of regulation.

Secondly, I don't believe you because i've never read a car magazine and don't even know what a certified rating agency looks like - though they may simply not exist in ireland... I'm sure an insurance company with a vested interest in improving car safety would provide this kind of service (while having access to the data)

Lastly, the ratings agencies being run by the same people who operate in the industry.... sounds like a story doomed to end in failure, but you're still talking about some level of regulation.

If you require companies to provide information to some arbitrary third-party then you necessarily increase their costs.

Lastly, government loan relief is a stupid mechanism for increasing consumption. UNLESS you live in a consumption driven economy which then encourages failure and replacement, or shorter lifespans for goods. (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syii9DKnb2M )

"The Rating Agencies being run by the same people who operate in the industry"
Whenever I read completely fabricated posts like this the hair on the back of my neck stands up at the utter ignorance of some of my fellow human beings.
Are people willfully ignorant of the truth or simply lazy or stupid?

A quick example, every single investment broker in the United States is a rating agency because they provide buy, hold, or sell ratings.
Need I go on or can we drop this preposterous fantasy that is so easily refuted.
Please post who runs the rating agencies and what other industry they operate in that they rate in a clear conflict of interest.

"what is your fuel can story?" -- Orathaic
Answer: "Why bother responding when you haven't read the previous responses? " -- Putin 33
Not that I agree with him.

I also respect that you are skeptical on how car ratings are assigned due to lack of experience. I think we all know someone who wouldn't, many people are irrational in this way including me in some cases. To further your knowledge and mine:
T.C. what do you know of J.D. Powers and Associates? I think they are a rating system of some kind.

J.D. Powers and Associates is a for profit consumer advocate that provides ratings and reviews for products and services from automobiles to insurance.
J.D. Powers reminds me of government regulators for the SEC, they become captured by the industry they associate with.
Both are unreliable when you get right down to it.
I prefer Consumer Reports personally.
Their business model relies completely on subscription income because they do not accept advertisements like J.D. Power.
Therefore the loyalty of Consumer Reports lies with their subscribers while JD Powers loyalty lies with it advertisers.

"Whenever I read completely fabricated posts like this the hair on the back of my neck stands up at the utter ignorance of some of my fellow human beings.
Are people willfully ignorant of the truth or simply lazy or stupid? "

Sorry, just realised you were talking.

So instead of addressing a point, you resort to an ad hominem attack. No wonder i'll go back to Muting you once i've sent this.

The fact is, the only people capable to regulating the banking industry are those people who specialized in finance, and guess what, the banking industry can afford to hire those people to work in banks making money....

The government may not be able to afford to pay amounts of money to keep interested regulators working for them.

Ratings agencies which are paid based on the bank, and the rating they are given - not by some independent government instrument or customer interested in investing - are definitely conflicted in their interest.

@Orathaic - "Draug said: 'Except the much ballyhooed "profit motive". '"

What the fuck are you smoking dude? This is quite literally my first post in this thread. You must be fucking high or something...