To the people who would debate it. Socialism VS Capitalism.

Post Reply New Topic

I think he said he would sooner pick through the garbage for food than to work for money to buy it.

Money makes trade easier.
My boss would have found it hard to pay me with food, clothing and shelter for the work I did,so he gave me money,makes things easier.

Money has been used for thousands of years.

Take the old america west,cowboy comes into town and wants a meal and drink at the saloon,he couldn't trade part of a cow for what he wanted. His boss the rancher paid him one cow for a week of work.What would the rancher trade 100 cows for 200 pigs, at least if he had no use for the pigs he could put them in a piggy bank

Face it,the system is like it is because it works and fighting it is no use,it ain't going to change,so work the system and live like a normal human. having indoor plumbing and heat & air conditioning is wonderful.

I have a couple of questions that it sounds like someone here might be able to answer...forgive me if they're kind of bad questions as economics has never been one of my topics of interest and therefore I don't know too much about it. One question is, how exactly can capitalism/the free market do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (if it can, that is) when there is sometimes an incentive for certain companies not to improve a less than perfect situation or even to do harm, while at the same time less of an incentive for those companies or other companies to fix the situation? For example, drug companies are making huge profits off of other people's illnesses. It's in their best interests not to go to the root of a medical problem and dispense an actual cure, or to focus on prevention, but to simply treat the symptoms once they occur, because that's where they make the most money. It seems a growing number of people are becoming frustrated by the lack of a focus on cancer prevention as cancer is becoming alarmingly common and it is now believed that a solid majority of cases are related to the environment rather than genes, but it seems there is very little economic incentive to focus on prevention, which includes the elimination of potentially harmful chemicals in household cleaners, personal care products, and even soft drinks. In addition, there are credit card companies, which profit off of debt, waste management companies, which profit off of landfills, and oil companies, which profit off of the consumption of fossil fuels, and just about all companies profit off of cheap labor. Also, how does that explain the success of societies with mixed ecomomies, which generally have a higher standard of living- longer life expectancy, higher literacy rates, less poverty, etc.? Also, isn't capitalism/the free market based on an infinite supply of resources? I know imagination is an infinite resource so long as there are people around, but it usually takes tangible resources in order for whatever is imagined to be realized. How is that sustainable when there are a finite amount of resources on earth? Sure, some of them are renewable, but others aren't, and for others the replacement can't keep up with the consumption. Sure, we could develop and implement more environmentally friendly technologies and products, but what if there just isn't enough incentive for it before a major ecological problem occurs? For instance, right now, I'm sure there isn't really much of an incentive for it it because it is less efficient and more expensive, for both the company and the consumer. Again, sorry if those questions are bad, but I feel it is very important that I ask them and find an answer before further considering this topic.

Well, the idea for a free market is that because every individual that is part of the free market tries to maximize their own benefit they all must come to an agreement. The companies do not care about the people that they provide services to and the people don't care about the companies that provide them those services, it is just that both sides realize that there must be a compromise when it comes to who gets what. Companies would like nothing better than just to take all the money possible from their customers and customers would like nothing better than to get free goods and services.

You are right, companies would like nothing better than to continually take money from people, the only thing is that companies have to compete for customers. The other cancer companies will lose customers if one company figures out a better way to do things and that company that figured things out will get the most profit. Pure laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work though, companies would ignore the negative externalities and lie to their customers, this is why all capitalist systems have regulation and many products are forced to state the dangers caused by their use. It ultimately goes down to the consumer to purchase what they want and capitalist systems give them the freedom to do that.

The issue with the environment falls down to politics, most people would agree that a capitalistic system needs systems to deal with the negative externality of environmental concerns. The problem with negative externalities would arise with any system whether it is socialistic or laissez-faire and the nature of the dispute would probably be the same too. Russia, which was a socialistic/communistic state, currently has horrible pollution problems which are the result of the period of time that it spent as communist. The problem is that governments have problems adapting to change because they often have little incentive to do so.

Mixed economies are very successful, they can also have great problems due to the fact that they have problems with funding social programs and inflexibility due to government influence. Government intervention may help the people who currently have jobs but their plans become more and more costly as time goes on and people get older. Strict policies on corporations tend to stifle growth and employment which hurt the economic situation, large government plans tend to get clogged with bureacracy, taxes and their inability to adapt to change. Also, the strong government influence and taxation can create problems of brain drain from one country to another usually in gifted people from a less capitalistic society to a more capitalistic society with a larger market and more pay. This fact can be seen with Canada and the US, the US tends to take a lot of great Canadian talent like Jim Carrey and such because of the fact that the US market can provide more than the Canadian government, this can also be seen with the doctor situation of the 2 countries, the US tends to take doctors trained in Canada due to promises of more pay and the like.

Your questions are not stupid, I have tried to answer them to the best of my ability. The fact is that it is better to ask these questions than to go without knowing the answer. Hopefully someone with more knowledge of economics can look at my answers, critique them and give you a better answer. I know Dexkaden is an economics student and it wouldn't surprise me if Jetson studied economics too. I just have not studied enough economics to give me all that I would want to know in order to have great knowledge on the economy.

I like a lot of what midge has to say. Especially the part about capitilism being based on an infinite supply source. I believe the reason that this is so is because capitilism relies on an ever expanding profit margin in order to sustain itself. If I understand it right, if there is not a constant expansion of profit and capital, the country will go into a recession. So, we are living in a system that must expand infinitely with only a finite amount of sources on the planet.

What I also find disturbing about capitilism is that the corporation is bound by law in order to seek profits at all costs. This is because it is bound by law to do what is best for the shareholder, not society. So, if the fine of dumping toxic waste into the environment is cheaper than the cost of proper disposal, then of choice is obvious to the corporation.

There is an interesting documentary that we watched in our political and social philosophy class last semester entitled, "The Corporation". It was amusing in someways as they compare the traits of a corporation to the DSM-IV's definition of a psychotic individual. If we were to look at the corporation as a person, they would be labeled psychotic by every psychologist and psychiatrist out there. Michael Moore also makes a hysterical point in which the corporation produces shows like this documentary that bashes corporations because they make money. The corporation simply does not believe in anything, their only belief is to make money, thus they will produce shows that demean themselves as long as it turns a profit, for the corporation does not care how it appears, only how it profits.

Which brings me to the drug companies and news organizations. I think that people forget that the purpose of a drug company is to make money, not to save lives. Also, the point of the news is to make money, not report the news. The news must report the "truth" in way that will lure the most viewers, not present the facts in the most objectionable way possible. I don't think people truly understand how much news stories get surpressed because of this fact.

I think capitilism is also to blame for our obesity and drug epidemics. It's funny to me how people don't understand why the obesity problem in the states keep increasing. Of course it is! And it will continue to do so. Why? Because in a capitilist market, the fast food, and junk food manufacturers must increase their profit margin year after year in order to sustain continual growth. The more profit they are making, the more junk food they are selling. The more junk food they are selling, the bigger people will get.

While I do think that there are many flaws in capitilism, I by no means support revolution nor abandonment. This is where I believe Marx went wrong. He made devastating arguments against capitilism, but advocating overthrow was not the solution, instead we should try to fix the problems and make a better capitilist system.

Also, I'm sure what you are trying to say either Debort. I have never heard someone refer to money as something "metaphysical", I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean at all. All I can think of is a quote by Nietsche on being deep and appearing deep: "He who knows he is deep strives for clarity, he who wishes to appear deep strives for obscurity". It appears like you something interesting to say, or is that the obscurity that is confusing me?

I'm not an anarchist. though I have no choice but to believe in anarchy... it is what exists and what has always existed. man cannot be limited by his interpretation of reality, his role in culture, or his accomplishments under guidance of a leader, or teacher, or preecher.. etc.

For clarification, I am not an anarchist, and what I have written was not meant to be ideological. This will never be ideological. I live alone, I rarely speak, and anyone who would befriend me, or view the world as I do, or engage in any sort of activities with me is as my equal.. not as a follower and definately not as a sympathizer.

To those people who thought I was being too obscure. the simplify this thought it has taken me 22 years of hell.. if it sounds obscure it is because everything I write is bias. everything I write is subjective.. I try to make sure that anything I write won't purposely reinforce dead concepts.

Any dispute with this reply, will be for petty content and by those of you who don't understand... I believe there is a reason for that. If you interpret that as my being condesending, let me reassure you, I am in no position to think I am above you. The biggest intellectual gap, the greatest confusion in my life has been controlled by the unidentified features and differences in my personality and many times because of my lack of "intellectualism" or "objective basis".. any conflict created is created because of my lack of education and social relationship with the world.

It was not a general criticism of people but their movement. It was not meant to inspire into revolution or disruption or attack oriented behavior. if anything, the person who not only thinks like me but also lives like me has a virtually unackownledged existence and no desire to change that.

Ideas like mine, the way I write, the things I think about lack coherence because of a lack of intellectual reliance on the conventional.. the conventional world that world is only useful to workers and students, I'm neither. the divergence in what I say or how I say it is not created through anything but my separation with these people.

reality and perception are created from subjective spacial interpretations. This is how they be so different to so many people and not be considered a delusion. I believe that many of you believe in things like democratic politics, the rule of law, the monetarian economies and fundemental analysis. Belief has always been able to will into existence a new reality and a new world and if shared impose itself on the people who think differently. I want to make it clear that it was not my intentions to create more imposition or ideology.

Though I'm sure my attempt at objectivism could be met with many criticisms, objectively my lack of belief in the monetarian economy cannot impose itself on those who think differently. From living hidden, to living off only what has been thrown away, to over the years slowly weening myself off money and finding ways around it. I have abandoned the medium which exists as imposition. The people who believe in money have benefited from the portion which I could have earned never being spent by me.. I would spend it all on booze and drugs anyways. To anyone who believes in the monetarian economy I can't argue any point you make about any monetarian economy, Capitalist or Socialist. Like as an agnostic I can't and have no desire to decide who is a christian or what they should believe. the part I gave up, even if it was just the wage of a slave can now go towards building the nation state, reaping the benefits of the 40 hour work week, enjoying the progress of technology, identifying with consumer culture, and participating in the creation of new markets..

In the debate btw me and annarchos, I found someway that capitalism can coincide with environmentalism.

If 100% of the land is either parks or small plots are owned by corporations then that means that the corporations will attempt to keep what they have. Sometimes the reason why land is barren is because there are other choices (public land). A company could cut down all the trees on its designated land but then it will have nothing available to use. This way we are possibly forcing the companies to become mindfull of the future.

In the middle of the Saudi Arabian desert there is one tiny green spot. At closer look you will see 5 separate fields. On one field there are animals that graze. After the year is over, the crops have been eaten and the gate is opened for the animals to graze on the next field.
The system above is self-sufficient.

Ideology is everywhere and in everything. We can't really separate ourselves from the ideology that is imposed or that we interact with through cultural institutions.



It's not possible to extract yourself from the cultural codes and concepts that all people use to interpret meaning. And even if you never speak to others, live in a garbage bin, and eat nothing but thrown away bologna sandwiches you are still participating and benefiting from our society.




It is debatable as to whether or not "objectivity" exists. That is a much debunked concept left over from 19th century scientific beliefs.




Language and meaning are constructed through relationship with others. If you could separate yourself from others enough to be in a position where you did not engage in ideology, you wouldn't be able to communicate at all.



And what do you think is intrinsically wrong with spending money on booze and drugs?

The FTAA has created an increasing gap between rich and poor around the world. The free market isn't really free. There are still huge tariffs and barriers to trade for small producers. Only the big corporations are profiting from the so called free trade agreements.

Thanks a lot for answering my questions, awesomelyglorious, your answers were very thorough and very helpful, and will give me a lot to think about

I can definitely believe that

Well, I try to explain things but I am not an economist and my economic background is sort of lacking to totally explain the economic situation. I don't know, the reason I support the market system is that I think that it offers individuals an opportunity to rise based on ability and because I think it can reduce the stagnation of a system.

The corporation might be seen as psychopathic but only because the goal of the corporation is to acquire wealth. The acquisition of wealth as a goal is not a bad thing so long as it follows the constraints of law. Corporations should not care about their consumers just as consumers should not care about their corporations, both exist to get benefit from the other. By only seeking their own interests corporations do society a favor, by seeking their own benefit they help society because in order to gain they must help others, the law is supposed to be the limiter and it needs to protect societal interest. This idea was expressed as Adam Smith to be the invisible hand, by helping themselves they help society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Hand

Even though we blame the corporation for being psychopathic and only seeking its own good at the cost of others we still have people who try to get their own benefit at the cost of others too. We all have known people who have cheated, who have stolen no matter how small the thing was, who have lied and manipulated people. We have all known people who do things that are probably worse as a percent of their effort and power than the corporation. Human nature seeks its own best interest, even though there are many moral people there are many people out there who are somewhat ruthless.

The reason why people are fat is because they are choosing bad things. They had the choice to eat the Big Mac and supersized fries or not and they chose the Big Mac. Many fast food places are starting to offer healthy alternatives to the Big Mac but people being short sighted will still pick the Big Mac. The problem that you mention with obesity is one of choice not one of markets. Certainly corporations want to grow but they cannot make people pick their product, the people choose the product. I think that the appropriate government response to the obesity problem might be to tax fattening food choices(providing an incentive for lower fat fast food) and to offer more education about fattening food. I still want the choice to have a Big Mac, don't you? Also, governments are also dishonest too. This is seen in large government scandals and things of that nature, under more government control we would see powerful bureacracy that would try to last beyond its usefulness even to the harm of the average person.

The infinite growth of capitalism could theoretically be provided by infinite technological growth. We switch from our typewriter to our computer because of technological change and these changes allow for changes in markets and in profits. The infinite growth in capitalism comes from change which always happens. As technology progresses and cultural trends change there will be growth and decline of industries which is part of a healthy capitalist economy. I don't know if this exactly addresses the idea of capitalism being founded on infinite resources but capitalism is definitely founded on reacting to change.

I'm not ignoring this thread, I'm just trying to sort things out so it makes sense. There are books you can read that will explain this if you are really interested. Some of them are quite boring, but others are fascinating. PM me if you want. I'm working on a paper right now (one that I've put off for too long as it's due Wednesday), but I'll get back as soon as I can.

Adam Smith is a classical economist, also known as a liberal economist. Liberal economics as applied to Smith is diametrically opposed to liberal economics as applied to America today. What is considered "liberal" is actually quite stifling, controlling, and, in my opinion, not good (but that is an epistemological difference and will not change.)

During the 1800's there was a huge split in economic thought, that is to say, there was a huge deviation from liberal economics and economists like Smith, Bastiat, Say, Malthus, Ricardo, and Mill. In a nutshell (isn't that a silly phrase?) there are basically four groups of economic thought:

Radical Economics (which is really more of an ideology than a feasible foundation for an economic system), voiced by Hegel, Marx, and Lenin. These guys view history as a dialectic that can be controlled the economy. (This quite interesting, even though I disagree with this entirely.)

Monetarists, like Strauss and Freidman, who believe in a free market, except that a government should print money or remove it in order to keep the economy stable. This is also considered the "Chicago School of Economics." These are the Nobel winners. Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite writers as far as economics is concerned, is part of this circle of economists. (I agree with 95% of what these guys say.)

Interventionist Economics, which is basically taking a mathematical approach to an economy in an attempt to predict the future by cataloging the past (econometrics.) This is heralded by the likes of Galbraith, Samuelson, and Keynes. America today is running on a Keynesian economic platform. It is interesting because Keynes was a socialist, he just believed that BUSINESS (i.e. the corporation) should be in charge of social change because they actually knew how to make money.

Austrian Economics (and this what I love) is the true free market, completely devoid of any sort of unnecessary regulation (and yes, some regulation is required). It's really something called Political Economics, and instead of separating economics (how people interact) from politics (how government interacts with people), it combines the two to form a complete picture. Writers for this school of thought include Menger, Rothbard, and my two favorites, Mises and Hayek.

I don't think that really answered your question, did it? What we have today isn't a free market. There are too many controls, too many government handouts, too much government interference to actually call Capitalism a free market. It is very controlled, and things like free trade agreements are actually doing far more harm than good. They say they are there to equalize the playing field, to keep American goods in America, to create more jobs---that is a lie. They are merely controlling the input/output, import/export of commodities. They are removing the "free" from the market, if you will. I think they are wrong, both in principle and practice.

You bring up some good counterarguments awesomelyglorious. Let me try to respond. But let me also say that I also have no training in economics, my background is strictly philosophy & psychology, so I take a "if P then Q" approach to my critiques. No facts, no figures (which I admit, may be a major problem in itself, but hey, its all I got right now). I guess that would put me in the class of "radical economists" as Dexkaden wrote. Although I totally agree that it should not be the foundation of an economic system, it's usefullness comes in correcting an already erect structure. Our minimum wage laws, and labor unions are an outgrowth of Marx's criticism of capitilism, thus, we can see that ideology, while it should never be the foundation of an economic system, does have value in shaping a system (if minimum wage laws and labor unions are a good thing, anyone?). However, I do not agree with Marx and Co. in that history writes itself, and that it follows a certain path. I believe that Marx sort of contradicted himself there by saying the outcome is inevitable, then trying to influence the outcome with his economic philosophy.

Anyways, as far as Adam Smiths theory about the invisible hand. Is this just not a form of egoism? Something that leaves me a little uncomfortable, because this would mean that corporations help out people out of coincidence. The wellfare of the population does not even enter into the decision making process of the corporation, the good that comes out is merely a chance byproduct. Also, was this not the theory that John Nash reformulated? His theory was not that one should do what is best for oneself, but that one should do what is best for oneself and the group. If one just does what is best for oneself, then there is something lacking, for everyone tries to get ahead at the expense of others, and everyone loses out. Although I do not quite understand who the 'others' are in economics, as they are certainly not the people, but strict egoism in itself is self-refuting. The egoist does not maintain that everyone should do whats best for themself, but rather everyone should do what is best for 'me'. If we were stuck in the forrest, the egoist would have everyone gather food for him, not everyone gather food for themselves. Everyone loses when the only one person has their eye on the ball, so to speak.

I am not sure whether the individual who seeks to get ahead at the cost of all others is worse than the corporation. I guess it depends on how much money and power they have, and whether they are acting on the behest of a corporation or not. The corporation has millions of dollars at it's disposal to spend on advertising and lobbying, etc. There are few individuals who do this on their own, totally free of corporate influence. The individual who has no influence does not concern me as much as the one who has enormous influences.

As far as obesity goes, I believe you are right, it is a matter of choice, but, I believe it is also a matter of markets, the two cannot be seperated. The junk food industries spend millions, if not billions on advertising. Advertising which brings them a return, because one obviously does not waste money on advertising if it does not bring a return. While corporations cannot force someone to choose their product, they definitely influence people, up to the point that it may be 'forcing' them to live an unhealty lifestyle. Advertising targets the young. It presents a picture of reality that may be inescaple to the adolescent. For the youth cannot 'choose' their picture of reality, they can only accept the picture presented to them. So, if they see all these commercials where people are happy and satisfied while eating fast food (look at the McD's commercials, no is ever that happy to eat there! at least I'm not), they will set up a structure of their world that equates happiness with fast food. Much as we see the arguments of girls having to live up the hollywoods expectation of beauty. The child can only accept the reality it is presented with, it cannot create one.

Our picture of reality is acquired implicitly, like our language skills. There are forces and rules that guide our everyday actions that we are totally unaware of. It is almost impossible for someone untrained in the nuances of language indentification (verbs, nouns, accusative cases, dative, etc.) to write out the rules of language, yet people who have acquired language can instantly tell you when you have deviated out of the context of proper speech, yet cannot cite the rules that say why. Perhaps our structure of right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, happiness and unhappiness are structured the same way? Something beyond our reach and control, something we acquire unconsciously (as we acquired langauge), yet guiding every action, decision, and judgement that we make. A reality that is formed by corporate advertising, which is a reality shaped to bring the corporations the most profit, not to create a healthy mental outlook on life.

The logical answer would be that, "well, one can certainly change their opinions, as we all have". Yes, but not everyone has the willpower, nor the life experiences that will bring about such change. The child will be stuck with a twisted world picture that is unhealthy to their mental outlook on life. Some people can change, some can't. It is like the argument about whether or not exposure to violence creates violent people. Some people become violent, some don't. Those who say no, are citing the exceptions, and generalizing these people over the whole popultion, and those who say yes, are doing the same thing. I believe that real debate is, not whether exposure to violence makes violent people, but rather, how much of the population is succeptable, and, should the rest of the population have their entertainment taken away because of the few who do not have the willpower to resist. I believe the same question should be posed for fast food marketing, etc. How much of the population is succeptable, and should the rest of us suffer because they do not have the willpower to resist? Are not drugs outlawed for this very reason? There are many productive members of society who take drugs, yet they are punished because their are some people who do drugs, and are a detriment to society.

While in 'theory' capitilism's infinite growth could be sustained through infinite technological growth, I have a hard time seeing this happening. Eventually, the ideas will dry up, and expansion of existing markets (fast food, clothes, toys, etc) is the only way to fuel captilisms need for expansion. In 'theory' food production for third world companies could also help sustain infinite growth for a while, but evetually that well will run dry. Besides, these are not exactly the most profitable markets, and not eveyones talents and ideas can be directed in one area. And, with the goal of capitilism to make the most profit possible, people will inevitably be drawn into markets that have little use, but can maximize profit.

I guess this is long enough already, and I didn't really get to lay out me argument as completely as I wished, but I look forward to any replies.

*Shrugs* Why decide between either? Somewhere in the middle is where most people wanna be.

You dare question the purity that is the correct decision!? /ironic sarcasm

Sorry. I don't take anything seriously, and secretly like to make fun of anyone that does. I try to keep any mocking to myself though.

Right, well my economics background is lacking too. I am largely bound by logic and what I have heard about economics from various sources. Actually, I tend to wonder myself if minimum wage and labor unions are good really. Labor unions attempt to monopolize labor in order to maximize their own advantage at the cost of the corporation and ultimately the buyer of the product and minimum wages tend to be bad due to the fact that they impose themselves on the labor market and when they go up they force all goods related to that to go up in price which would probably cause inflation and minimum wage is blamed by many economists for unemployment problems because of how it affects corporate hiring abilities. Now as for the labor thing this is not to say that labor unions are evil, big business is also bad, the only question is about whether labor unions are worse than big business.

The invisible hand is egoism and it helps not out of coincidence but out of the necessity of helping in the situation given. The good formed is not by chance and the fact of the matter is that nobody really cares too much about the good of the population, most only seek to have their own little part of the world gain. Egoism is not folly, most egoists are rational enough to realize that if they do not account for the desires of others then they would not have their own success either. A rational egoist would seek to maximize his own benefit as much as possible and in order to do this he would have to satisfy the others around him, most egoists realize the benefits of society and cooperation if necessary. Egoism != Psychopath although psychopaths are egoists, egoists are not necessarily psychopaths, psychopathic behavior is obviously irrational egoism as punishment is unfavorable and the risks that psychopaths take in acting increase the likelihood of this unfavorable outcome and do so without much regard for the minimal benefit from the act.

Well, the young are under the care and watch of their parents. Parents ultimately are responsible for their child's view of reality. To blame an advertisement for a child's obesity seems to forget that the parents decide the child's diet, and the parents decide the child's moral values. Advertisements are done with the intention of getting people to go purchase a service but they do not demand that that happen by any stretch of the imagination and such. Advertisements should be countered by education of course and a push for health but still, it is the advertisement system that allows for effective television. I will admit that people's minds are shaped by these forces but advertisements are so paltry and don't have any real influence on most moral values that I think that they are acceptable and less dangerous than any drug. Ultimately my point is that subversive advertising is no excuse for crappy parenting, many people I know are not blind followers of the markets but I am pretty sure that they have watched plenty of TV, the real group of influence that I don't like are the peer groups because they are the ones that cause all of the fashion spending and drug use and stuff.

Well, if growth does end in the capitalist system then we would be switching to another system, however, there is enough room for a lot of growth, massive growth even. Technology is how I see capitalism to continue, we will probably create new products the likes of which I probably cannot predict, maybe even chocolate flavored brocoli or brocoli flavored chocolate. The fact of the matter is that I cannot predict future change, heck, many many years ago there was a person in the patent office who said that everything that could be invented has been invented and boy was he proven wrong. Also, the capitalist market would be able to continue if only because cultural trends change, one year Abercrombie may do well, the next year Gap might do better. I dunno but if growth does stop then we would cease to have capitalism anyway and the point would be moot because it probably would end up being a gradual non-violent shift.

Well, no matter where we go we will be in the middle. Pure statism and pure capitalism are both bad philosophies. The question lies in where in the middle we want to be, do we want heavy regulations or do we want scant regulations? What should we regulate and how much should we regulate? The major question if over whether the regulations are wise or not.