Firstly the entire point of my comment was that capitalism is not the best system in all cases and that there are situations especially those involving externalities where an approach involving regulation is the better solution. I repeat it here so you realise what I'm arguing and what statement you made earlier.
Secondly you grossly misrepresent what I say with the first few sentences of your reply which makes me worry about whether you paused to give any thought to what I said or just decided to be argumentative and pick out random words you disliked. Nonetheless I'll go through your points.
>You claim cigarate bans helped tobacco industry?
No I claimed ADVERTISING bans on cigarettes helped the companies by reducing expenses related to competition between cigarette companies. I also claimed that outside of the industry it had other positive effects. However you will have noticed the quotes around "better" in ' "better" for the public' because I felt I should qualify that a non smoker generally costs the health system more by living longer.
> CFC helped grow corporations?
I'm sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have assumed you knew what CFCs are and why they are relevant to the conversation. CFC are a widely useful range of chemical compounds that were used in a great many products, they also deplete the ozone layer. The regulation of CFCs which phased out their use is an example where government intervention was required and the free market solution of localized profits failed. I have no data on whether it helped grow corporations, it is however known that the requlations reduced the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere which led to the shrinking of the hole in the ozone layer.
>Because if all you are saying is that regulation is destroying industries, well that's actually my point.
You're the one that's taken the hardline position of saying that centralized solutions never work better than pure free market and as I reject your reframing of better to be only industry, I am pointing out that centralized/regulated solutions do work better in some cases. Even if I didn't reject your definition of industrial production as the basis for better, wartime america with centralized planing on production was a 'better' idea than the free market system it had before it, being much more productive.
>And yes the...
It may have been cheap and affordable but that doesn't mean everyone was getting it, in fact that's the reason the government stepped in. So sure the system got screwed up by regulation, because it was the wrong regulation, they should have gone whole hog on the nationilization like the other countries and then the US would have a better system. (And by better I mean has a positive effect on the the most peoples lives, not maximises the money spent on basic healthcare, or the total wealth of the "healthcare industry")
I'm sure I've persuaded you that your original statement about the free market system always being the best system is an untenable position. If you still disagree could you explain to me how a system without regulation deals with atomic weapons. (Now a flippant question because I really would believe it to be absurd to hold to the unregulated premise at this point (I hope you realise I'm poking fun at the premise not you)) Do they always go to the highest bidder cash wise or do they only sell them if there's a sales contract not to blow up the seller... and whatever court the breach of contract trial would be held in?
Secondly you grossly misrepresent what I say with the first few sentences of your reply which makes me worry about whether you paused to give any thought to what I said or just decided to be argumentative and pick out random words you disliked. Nonetheless I'll go through your points.
>You claim cigarate bans helped tobacco industry?
No I claimed ADVERTISING bans on cigarettes helped the companies by reducing expenses related to competition between cigarette companies. I also claimed that outside of the industry it had other positive effects. However you will have noticed the quotes around "better" in ' "better" for the public' because I felt I should qualify that a non smoker generally costs the health system more by living longer.
> CFC helped grow corporations?
I'm sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have assumed you knew what CFCs are and why they are relevant to the conversation. CFC are a widely useful range of chemical compounds that were used in a great many products, they also deplete the ozone layer. The regulation of CFCs which phased out their use is an example where government intervention was required and the free market solution of localized profits failed. I have no data on whether it helped grow corporations, it is however known that the requlations reduced the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere which led to the shrinking of the hole in the ozone layer.
>Because if all you are saying is that regulation is destroying industries, well that's actually my point.
You're the one that's taken the hardline position of saying that centralized solutions never work better than pure free market and as I reject your reframing of better to be only industry, I am pointing out that centralized/regulated solutions do work better in some cases. Even if I didn't reject your definition of industrial production as the basis for better, wartime america with centralized planing on production was a 'better' idea than the free market system it had before it, being much more productive.
>And yes the...
It may have been cheap and affordable but that doesn't mean everyone was getting it, in fact that's the reason the government stepped in. So sure the system got screwed up by regulation, because it was the wrong regulation, they should have gone whole hog on the nationilization like the other countries and then the US would have a better system. (And by better I mean has a positive effect on the the most peoples lives, not maximises the money spent on basic healthcare, or the total wealth of the "healthcare industry")
I'm sure I've persuaded you that your original statement about the free market system always being the best system is an untenable position. If you still disagree could you explain to me how a system without regulation deals with atomic weapons. (Now a flippant question because I really would believe it to be absurd to hold to the unregulated premise at this point (I hope you realise I'm poking fun at the premise not you)) Do they always go to the highest bidder cash wise or do they only sell them if there's a sales contract not to blow up the seller... and whatever court the breach of contract trial would be held in?