Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

There are no policies nor policy directors, are there? I on the other hand, as a tobacco tycoon, possess pretty deep pockets to stymie most attempts to campaign against me. I put out my own research and buy off competition.

What happened to tobacco was a class action suit in the 50s after 2 doctors from the UK Medical Research Council, a government agency, published a study about the link between smoking and cancer. It only took 12 years from that for the first health warnings to appear on cigarette packages, and the tobacco companies to acknowledge their products may not in fact be completely harmless.

Good news: you've gone bankrupt. No more need to worry now.

The fundamental difference between private entities and governments are that private entities live and die based on choice of the consumers; whereas governments live and die based on mandatory taxes. This is why private entities go out of business all the time and have very little funds to oppress, and it's also why governments never go out of "business" and have overwhelming funds to oppress anybody.

The cost-benefit analyses governments perform are almost non-existent. The closest governments get to them are politicians trying to keep their jobs and security forces keeping the taxes uninterrupted. If the Kochs acted like governments, we would laugh ourselves into convulsions at how quickly they lost all their capital.


It should be noted that if a private entity were granted a legal and violence monopoly, it would become a government. What we're really talking about here is if it's better to have entities that can't force you to do stuff or entities that can.

[wufwugy]

Such as?

By competing against them. The more avenues people are allowed to freely compete, the greater variety and ultimately greater the solution will be. Against tobacco marketing specifically, all sorts of entities from wealthy individuals/groups or non-profit organizations functioning on smaller donations from like-minded folk can conduct research and campaigns against tobacco. Isn't this what happened to Dr. Oz?

On the business side, when people are free to create whatever products and services for whatever cost they can muster, we find that alternative and superior products and services develop. Maybe vaping is an example, but really you can even go so far as to say that wheat grass juice and the neo-hippie businesses are examples. I'm not well-versed on tobacco specifically, but I suspect if we were to delve into the regulations governments impose (most or all of which are well-meaning), we would find ample reason to believe that competition against Big Tobacco is stymied. An example I understand better is ISPs, which I've posted on several times here already. The short is that Comcast and Time Warner have such high market share with worse service than might be desired because of government policies. Examples are zoning and unions.

[CoccoBill]

Good news: you've gone bankrupt. No more need to worry now.

The fundamental difference between private entities and governments are that private entities live and die based on choice of the consumers; whereas governments live and die based on mandatory taxes. This is why private entities go out of business all the time and have very little funds to oppress, and it's also why governments never go out of "business" and have overwhelming funds to oppress anybody.

The cost-benefit analyses governments perform are almost non-existent. The closest governments get to them are politicians trying to keep their jobs and security forces keeping the taxes uninterrupted. If the Kochs acted like governments, we would laugh ourselves into convulsions at how quickly they lost all their capital.


It should be noted that if a private entity were granted a legal and violence monopoly, it would become a government. What we're really talking about here is if it's better to have entities that can't force you to do stuff or entities that can.

Call me a skeptic, but I haven't seen many tobacco companies go out of business, even with harsh government regulations. So I think I'll just go about my business selling Hello Kitty vanilla-bonbon flavored healtharettes to (private) preschoolers. Actually I might start a couple preschools myself to put my excess liquid assets to good use, free cigs for the first semester for all 3-year contracts!

On a more serious note, governments need popular vote to keep their business running, a government that does not allow this is a flawed one.

[wufwugy]

Call me a skeptic, but I haven't seen many tobacco companies go out of business, even with harsh government regulations.

Because they haven't done what you suggested. Additionally, the "harsh" government regulations are nothing of the sort. The regulations have created a zero competition space. Big Tobacco would be powerless relative to where it is now if the barriers to competition created by regulations were not so incredibly high.

So I think I'll just go about my business selling Hello Kitty vanilla-bonbon flavored healtharettes to (private) preschoolers. Actually I might start a couple preschools myself to put my excess liquid assets to good use, free cigs for the first semester for all 3-year contracts!

This not working aside, what you're suggesting is that an unaccountable entity should do this instead of accountable entities.

On a more serious note, governments need popular vote to keep their business running, a government that does not allow this is a flawed one.

The amount of accountability this engenders is a tiny fraction relative to the accountability the market engenders.

You can vote once biyearly or you can vote lots of times every day. You can vote for something extremely vague or you can vote for specific clear things.

By now, we're back in circles. This topic is hardly even debatable. People adore extolling the virtues of freedom for every aspect of their lives except the ones they've been hammered into believing otherwise.

[CoccoBill]

By competing against them. The more avenues people are allowed to freely compete, the greater variety and ultimately greater the solution will be. Against tobacco marketing specifically, all sorts of entities from wealthy individuals/groups or non-profit organizations functioning on smaller donations from like-minded folk can conduct research and campaigns against tobacco. Isn't this what happened to Dr. Oz?

On the business side, when people are free to create whatever products and services for whatever cost they can muster, we find that alternative and superior products and services develop. Maybe vaping is an example, but really you can even go so far as to say that wheat grass juice and the neo-hippie businesses are examples. I'm not well-versed on tobacco specifically, but I suspect if we were to delve into the regulations governments impose (most or all of which are well-meaning), we would find ample reason to believe that competition against Big Tobacco is stymied. An example I understand better is ISPs, which I've posted on several times here already. The short is that Comcast and Time Warner have such high market share with worse service than might be desired because of government policies. Examples are zoning and unions.

So now we have competing tobacco companies sharing the profits, with even more assets to enforce our market presence. We might as well start price-fixing to ensure continuing profits, and pretty soon we can afford our own army. Your move?

The study on Dr Oz's claims was conducted by U of Alberta (a public uni) and it resulted in a senate hearing and FTC complaints. I wouldn't chalk that up as a win for free enterprise. In fact, I would argue that Oz more presents a clear case for regulation and oversight.

Vaping, I think, is a great example for what you're saying about healthier products brought about by competition (and yes, the tobacco/pharma lobbies and government regulations are doing their darnest to kill it). My argument is that it took 60 years, and I see no reason to believe it would have taken less in a regulation-free environment, I would argue it would take longer, perhaps indefinitely. How many people died unnecessarily within that time, as opposed to efficient regulation from day 1? And no, I don't know what that efficient regulation would be, but I'm not a policy nor a subject matter expert, I'd leave it to those. I also can see regulation being able to push innovation. If there's a clear market for a product but it doesn't pass health regulations, one obvious alternative is to develop a healthier product.

[CoccoBill]

Because they haven't done what you suggested. Additionally, the "harsh" government regulations are nothing of the sort. The regulations have created a zero competition space. Big Tobacco would be powerless relative to where it is now if the barriers to competition created by regulations were not so incredibly high.

They haven't done what? Marketed tobacco as healthy? Put out their own research belittling the health issues and bought out competition?

This not working aside, what you're suggesting is that an unaccountable entity should do this instead of accountable entities.

This would carry a lot more weight with some non-anecdotal evidence.

I don't see my tobacco cartel being in any practical sense accountable to anyone.

The amount of accountability this engenders is a tiny fraction relative to the accountability the market engenders.

You can vote once biyearly or you can vote lots of times every day. You can vote for something extremely vague or you can vote for specific clear things.

By now, we're back in circles. This topic is hardly even debatable. People adore extolling the virtues of freedom for every aspect of their lives except the ones they've been hammered into believing otherwise.

Yes, we are, and that's largely because you're not so much arguing against the theory of a government but against the current state of affairs in the US using cherry picked examples and anecdotes. Any alternative system will look awesome if that's the benchmark.

We may once again just have to agree to disagree.

[wufwugy]

So now we have competing tobacco companies sharing the profits, with even more assets to enforce our market presence. We might as well start price-fixing to ensure continuing profits, and pretty soon we can afford our own army. Your move?

Bankruptcy came years before this.

The study on Dr Oz's claims was conducted by U of Alberta (a public uni) and it resulted in a senate hearing and FTC complaints. I wouldn't chalk that up as a win for free enterprise. In fact, I would argue that Oz more presents a clear case for regulation and oversight.

One small aspect of something that was touched by government. We have so much government these days that you can't walk into a room without government crouching in the crannies. Just be sure to not look at that one tree and call it the forest. The campaign against Oz was vastly private. If government had been a significant enough party on this, all other parties would have either been supported or prohibited by mandates. We would have seen no change and no progress.

Vaping, I think, is a great example for what you're saying about healthier products brought about by competition (and yes, the tobacco/pharma lobbies and government regulations are doing their darnest to kill it).

The only possible way they could is government backing.

My argument is that it took 60 years, and I see no reason to believe it would have taken less in a regulation-free environment, I would argue it would take longer, perhaps indefinitely.

So we have the ultra heavily regulated environment tobacco has operated in, and you say less regulation would make it worse?

How many people died unnecessarily within that time, as opposed to efficient regulation from day 1?

We don't have anywhere close to an idea of what efficient regulation is from day 1. The drug war is an amazing example for what happens when we believe we have "efficient regulation from day 1".

And no, I don't know what that efficient regulation would be, but I'm not a policy nor a subject matter expert, I'd leave it to those.

The vast majority of these subject matter experts oppose government intervention into these sorts of things. The government typically doesn't hire experts to regulate for this reason. Voters love regulation. Experts are in the minority, denouncing them.

I also can see regulation being able to push innovation. If there's a clear market for a product but it doesn't pass health regulations, one obvious alternative is to develop a healthier product.

The effect is the opposite because innovation is marginal. These sorts of regulations have been integral in reducing market activity. The regulators are trying to do "the right thing" by regulating for better things, but they're not engaging in economically sound methods to get those better things. Which is why regulations to improve systems by reducing choice always make them worse.

[wufwugy]

They haven't done what? Marketed tobacco as healthy? Put out their own research belittling the health issues and bought out competition?

You said they would use their deep pockets to stymie competition. The answer to that is a resounding "lolnope". Private entities don't have remotely close to the finances or legitimacy it takes to stymie competition. Governments have vastly greater finances and power, and they can't even fully stymie lots of things.

This would carry a lot more weight with some non-anecdotal evidence.

I don't see my tobacco cartel being in any practical sense accountable to anyone.

Market actors are accountable to other market actors and consumers. The only examples of cartels like you describe are when government backs them. Every example you can find where government does not much intervene in markets is highly competitive and develops nothing close to centralized control.

Yes, we are, and that's largely because you're not so much arguing against the theory of a government but against the current state of affairs in the US using cherry picked examples and anecdotes. Any alternative system will look awesome if that's the benchmark.

We may once again just have to agree to disagree.

We've been over this. It has nothing to do with US government. I dislike your government far more than mine. My anti-government position is entirely because of my pro-economics position.

[Renton]

So to put it another way, you see no issue with me marketing tobacco as a harmless habit that makes you look cool?

I'm in no way endorsing regulations for the consumers, I'm endorsing regulations for the producers. I've got a feeling in your utopia there would be no way to know cigarettes are harmful, and (without the judicial branch, I assume?) no way to sue them even if you did find out.

Please stop saying utopia. I just want the government to do fewer things, I'm not asking for the world here.

Obviously in a free society it would become apparent that cigarettes cause health harm. Do you think all scientific and medical research is done by states? Obviously even in a pure anarcho-capitalist experiment there would still be laws, law enforcement, suing, contracts, etc. There is great economic value in all of these things. There will also always be non-profit organizations that advocate for causes. In fact, with people making twice as much money (from not having to pay taxes), I suspect a lot more money would flow to such causes than now.

As long as no fraud is being committed, I have no issue with any marketing strategies for tobacco.

[a500lbgorilla]

Obviously in a free society it would become apparent that cigarettes cause health harm.

Absolutely beyond 110% not the case. The average joe is no better than chance at telling between an expert and an expert fake. If you can flood the conversation with more expert fakes than there are experts, you can robustly direct the conversation away from the truth. Profitable cig companies would have an interest in controlling the conversation, truth-jockeys without a profit motive would have no chance to compete.

edit: Maybe wealthy sensible people and nonprofits could become a loud voice in the conversation, but without a central violent authority to straight up silence the wrong the side, they'll always have an appreciable level of rhetorical pull.

[a500lbgorilla]

It seems to me that fraud is pretty close to unavoidable. It's an arm of both telling lies and desiring more, which sound like normal aspects of people.

[wufwugy]

Absolutely beyond 110% not the case. The average joe is no better than chance at telling between an expert and an expert fake. If you can flood the conversation with more expert fakes than there are experts, you can robustly direct the conversation away from the truth. Profitable cig companies would have an interest in controlling the conversation, truth-jockeys without a profit motive would have no chance to compete.

There would be tons of profit in competing against them. It's like how we have a vast health food industry for reasons unrelated to government involvement. Plus non-profit would have a lot of legroom to work as well. Most information that travels through communities are not based on profit.

The last thing "Big Whatever" wants is the government to let the market handle it.

[a500lbgorilla]

But the Health food industry is just another face of the same monster that wants people smoking more cigs. It's not interested in the truth of the health of their food, only in the perception and profit of it. So they don't care if their food isn't even healthy at all, so long as people believe it is.

[a500lbgorilla]

Remember, the cig giants said that they wouldn't sell a deadly product to their customers because they profit from them. And it seems like there is a belief that that would be the case in a totally free market. Yet they did. Because they had a mildly deadly product that people were sweeping up and they were going to ride that profit tsunami as far as it would go, damn the (non-profit-motive) consequences. And pointing out that their mildly deadly product was mildly deadly was a threat to that cash wave, while insisting it was perfectly healthy was just sweeping it further inland.

[a500lbgorilla]

And even if they did figure out that it was unhealthy, the only for-profit arms of society that would care are insurance companies*. But so long as people would purchase profitable plans, they don't care how healthy they're being, only how profitable. So even the sober-eyed insurance companies wouldn't try to mount a robust campaign for public health. And the for-profit Tobacco companies would continue to invent greater ways to dig into the same old gold mine and fight to remove this hard-won knowledge of the health-consequences of cigarettes from the public domain and instead put forward something like, "Oh no, that's just how people get old and die. Don't worry about it! Let one of our smooth, rich cigarettes carry those cares away..."

*Maybe also whatever companies run hospitals, but once again, so long as those patients are profitable, who cares what keeps them coming in? Hell, maybe we can make a fine buck by breaking more people with this super profitable lung cancer...

[wufwugy]

As bad as what some companies try to do is, legally allowing it is integral to eliminating the problem. We already kinda established this, which is part of why you went in the direction of claiming economics is a false field in the first place.

Outside of that, the irony of the pro-government argument is that it claims that less accountability is more accountable than more accountability. The pro-statist says "I hate that these entities have various levels of power therefore I want one entity to have all the power because I believe that one entity will agree with my desires". It's quite the head scratcher.

[Renton]

I always thought I was cynical about people, but rilla and coccobill make me look like an optimist.

Absolutely beyond 110% not the case. The average joe is no better than chance at telling between an expert and an expert fake. If you can flood the conversation with more expert fakes than there are experts, you can robustly direct the conversation away from the truth. Profitable cig companies would have an interest in controlling the conversation, truth-jockeys without a profit motive would have no chance to compete.

Do you really believe that corporations are this powerful and that individuals are this weak? You don't think the evidence would pile up pretty quickly that smokers are a hundred times more at risk for a hundred different medical conditions? Why do you think that the cig companies would have infinite power to control the conversation, given how unbelievably expensive that would end up being? Yes, they're going to market their product and down-play the risks, and they'll spend as much as necessary to maximize their image without cutting too much into their profits, but there will be limits to what they are capable of.

[CoccoBill]

http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/news/...-eu-directive/

[CoccoBill]

As bad as what some companies try to do is, legally allowing it is integral to eliminating the problem. We already kinda established this, which is part of why you went in the direction of claiming economics is a false field in the first place.

I must have missed that memo. Wouldn't it logically follow, that those practices would be less of a problem in areas with less or no regulation? It would probably be trivial to demonstrate this if it were the case.

Outside of that, the irony of the pro-government argument is that it claims that less accountability is more accountable than more accountability. The pro-statist says "I hate that these entities have various levels of power therefore I want one entity to have all the power because I believe that one entity will agree with my desires". It's quite the head scratcher.

It's all about who controls said entities. On a theoretical level, is it a single party that has their livelihood depending on their ability to sell their product, vs. a community of consumers subject to the health effects of those products. I would argue the former has far greater motivation to hide facts and silence conversation.

About all of this the one thing that most puzzles me is that you're both saying a regulation free alternative has never been attempted and if only we tried it, miracles would happen. I've said this before and I'll say it again: regulations aren't the initial state. Humankind has roamed about doing its thing most of its existence without corporate regulation. Regulation and governments came along when people noticed the regulation-free environment wasn't working. Tobacco came to an un-tobacco-regulated market. It had been used by native indians long before Columbus and the first significant piece of regulation towards it came in the 1960s. That's a shitload of time to experiment with no regulation, and what we can observe is, I think, exactly what we would see in any unregulated field, since there were de facto no regulations regarding tobacco before that. The first piece of regulation on some stone tablets was put up to stop some motherfuckers ruining it for everyone else.

[CoccoBill]

As long as no fraud is being committed, I have no issue with any marketing strategies for tobacco.

Who defines "fraud"?

[Renton]

Who defines "fraud"?

People do. Definitions come from human culture, not from Webster, and certainly not from states. Conventional court systems define law in fairly undemocratic ways, as high court judges are often appointed, not elected. Free market courts (since we're apparently still on the anarcho-capitalist experiment) would not be able to arbitrarily define law, because people would be free to choose courts that have a best reputation for fairness. For me, while fraud contains a gray area, I would only be in favor of a law against the most blatant fraud, since it is the least subject to interpretation. Soft misrepresentation shouldn't be a crime. Having a supermodel smoking a cigarette in your commercial shouldn't be a crime. Deliberately stating to your customer your tobacco product definitely has no health risk should be a crime.

Again though, I'm just here to criticize what governments are currently doing. If they started to do merely less, I would consider that an accomplishment. I suspect the role for government, if it has a role, will be solidified through conversations like these over the next millennium.

[a500lbgorilla]

I always thought I was cynical about people, but rilla and coccobill make me look like an optimist.



Do you really believe that corporations are this powerful and that individuals are this weak? You don't think the evidence would pile up pretty quickly that smokers are a hundred times more at risk for a hundred different medical conditions? Why do you think that the cig companies would have infinite power to control the conversation, given how unbelievably expensive that would end up being? Yes, they're going to market their product and down-play the risks, and they'll spend as much as necessary to maximize their image without cutting too much into their profits, but there will be limits to what they are capable of.

This isn't hypothetical, this is history. The evidence for global warming has always been huge*, it's only now reaching a point where the majority of people accept it. Another example is lead in gasoline.

Cig companies would control the conversation because they did. Oil companies would control the conversation because they did. It's not hard. Like I said before, people are no better than chance at telling between an expert and an expert fake.

edit *Even when TIME was talking about Scientists fearing a new ice age, the evidence for global warming was strong and was represented in the majority of peer reviewed publications of the time.

[a500lbgorilla]

I always thought I was cynical about people, but rilla and coccobill make me look like an optimist.



Do you really believe that corporations are this powerful and that individuals are this weak?[1] You don't think the evidence would pile up pretty quickly that smokers are a hundred times more at risk for a hundred different medical conditions?[2] Why do you think that the cig companies would have infinite power to control the conversation, given how unbelievably expensive that would end up being?[3] Yes, they're going to market their product and down-play the risks, and they'll spend as much as necessary to maximize their image without cutting too much into their profits, but there will be limits to what they are capable of.[4]

Alright, I'm going to go through these one at a time.

[1] Yes. I remember when I watched a video about how we didn't land on the Moon followed by a documentary on the manned missions. After the first video, I really did spend some time thinking it was possible that it had been faked. I consider myself smart enough to survive in this world but even I have mental weak spots that can be exploited - everyone does. If there are two sides in an unregulated debate and one side is fighting to protect its profit engine and the other is fighting to communicate the truth, the profit engine team can play to, at worst, a draw. It takes a lot of effort and checking to get to the right answer, people have better things to do and they will always use short cuts and heuristics to make their decision. Like two chessmasters will run to a draw, if both sides of the debate relentlessly try to hit on these heuristics, the audience will be split. Unfortunately, the truth-jockeys will likely believe too deeply in their actual methods for getting the right answer and try to convey to the people why their answer is the best answer based on all of the information and they'll come across with data-collection methods and error bars and their message will not strike with the average joe. Hell, it wouldn't strike with me.

[2] Where would this evidence pile up? Will it be as obvious as the Sun orbiting the Earth?*

edit: *Be careful, because you know the answer, it's hard to imagine anyone not getting there. But when the answer is one of many alternatives, it won't be so easy to tell the right from the wrongs. Remember that monty hall problem with three doors and you get to switch your pick or stay after the host opens the one booby prize door? Well, hindsight is opening all of those possible alternative explanation booby prize doors in your imagination, so you think it'll be a simple yes or no question and yes will have all these now known reasons to go with.

[3] Because they've found a rare thing in this world, an engine for profit. Grow the plants, make the cigs, sell to the consumer, repeat and grow. It's not easy taking money from this world and if you can do it, you best protect it. I suspect they'll protect it.

[4] They will actively try to muddle the conversation, deny the risks, promote the benefits, obscure the truth, everything. It would be foolish not to.

[Renton]

I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make here. Obviously corporations are going to act in a way that maximizes their profits. I'm just saying I'd rather they didn't have the power to use the state to further their interests.

Also what is with this anti-profit stuff? Tobacco companies employ people and provide a product that people are happy to buy. People are generally very aware of the risks of inhaling tar and radioactive metals. They would be aware of this regardless of state regulations because science doesn't need permission from the state to exist. You are deeply cynical about people.

[a500lbgorilla]

What's with you seeing anti-profit stuff? Profits are good and bad. You focus on the good, I remind you of the bad and now I'm anti-profit. Careful, those heuristics are showing.

[a500lbgorilla]

People are generally very aware of the risks of inhaling tar and radioactive metals. They would be aware of this regardless of state regulations because science doesn't need permission from the state to exist. You are deeply cynical about people.

This is wrong. Not black and white wrong because of how you word it, but wrong. Science is aimless and needs to be fed. Some science can be fed by the profit motive - computers and electronics are an amazing example of this, chemistry is another, thermodynamics another still. But global warming absolutely is not. The link between carcinogens and cancer another. The discovery of DNA another still... Discoveries fed by the state... subatomic particles and nuclear energy another, hell, thermodynamics and aerodynamics probably belong on the fed by the state side of things as they were both enormously driven by the state.

PS States are good and bad. You focus on the bad, I remind you of the good, don't go calling me pro-statist now.

[Renton]

Not every action taken by human beings in a stateless world need be for profit. Plenty of money would flow into research by voluntary means. Plenty of rich people are interested in science, and would fund scientific work. Non-profit organizations would exist much as they do now. Truthfully, when people would be able to keep more of what they make, they would have a lot more money and time to commit to any cause they believe in.

Your posts during the past few days come off as very anti-profit. There's a lot of "take" language like you believe its all a zero sum game or something. What qualifies as a good profit to you?

[Renton]

I don't believe there is a such thing as a good or bad profit. Profits just are. They're all useful in that they provide signals for more or fewer things to be supplied in a given market. They're always the result of mutual benefit in any case where the commerce was voluntary and the external costs accounted for.

[a500lbgorilla]

'Take' is more emotive than it is explanatory. Lots of more measured words can fit in there. I believe money is tied to work, and the net amount of work in the world is very likely growing thanks to passing on of techniques and knowledge.

And I don't play good or bad, there just is. Profits just are. The consequences of them are, as well.

But I still stand by take, people don't just give you money in this world and they will very frequently try to take it from you.

And while all actions don't need profit motives, dominant actions will.

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't believe there is a such thing as a good or bad profit. Profits just are. They're all useful in that they provide signals for more or fewer things to be supplied in a given market.

Hey, we agree on this.

They're always the result of mutual benefit in any case where the commerce was voluntary and the external costs accounted for.

I believe this is wrong. It is a consequent of rational actors. If everybody maximizes their utility, when two people agree to trade, they must both be profiting. I don't think that's true.

[Renton]

I believe this is wrong. It is a consequent of rational actors. If everybody maximizes their utility, when two people agree to trade, they must both be profiting. I don't think that's true.

Please elaborate.

[a500lbgorilla]

Please elaborate.

Gladly.

[a500lbgorilla]

I wish there was a Dr. Oz livestream to hammer home my point about people being no better than chance at telling between experts and expert fakes.

[Renton]

You don't think it's true that two people maximizing their utility can mutually profit through trade, or you don't think it's true that people are maximizing utility?

If the former, then that's just wrong. If the latter, I think your problem is that you are trying to objectify value. Is your basic premise that since sometimes people spend money on QVC instead of donating it to high-energy physics research that free-market capitalism is unoptimal?

[a500lbgorilla]

Utility is nonsense. It does nothing to help you understand and actively hurts you by masking the things you don't understand.

And I do believe that people can profit from trade. I do not believe that people must always profit from every trade. That there can be trades that benefit only one side, but that will still happen frequently because of the nature of people.

And the QVC example, all I see is a channel that hits every single sales-trick in the book and manages to sell overpriced crap to people who won't use it for profit year over year.

[Renton]

Utility is nonsense. It does nothing to help you understand and actively hurts you by masking the things you don't understand.

And I do believe that people can profit from trade. I do not believe that people must always profit from every trade. That there can be trades that benefit only one side, but that will still happen frequently because of the nature of people.

And the QVC example, all I see is a channel that hits every single sales-trick in the book and manages to sell overpriced crap to people who won't use it for profit year over year.

From the point of view of subjective value, all voluntary trade has mutual benefit. There's really no better way of ascribing value to anything than by assuming that if someone traded X for Y, they valued Y more than X and vice versa for the other guy. Sure, an omniscient observer can have a clearer picture of whether the trade was one sided, but unless you start arbitrarily ascribing value to things, it's hard to definitively state that any trade was one-sided.

It's funny, I feel warm and fuzzy when I see QVC. I see it as the result of a society that has become so extravagantly wealthy that most people have the disposable income to buy a 80th Annual Mickey Mouse Commemorative Toast Butterer, mostly thanks to a capitalistic economy. I see all of the lucky people who are escaping from a thousand-generation-long subsistence farming lifestyle to get paid 5 times as much to make dumb crap for white people to waste money on. This is wealth redistribution I can get behind.

[a500lbgorilla]

From the point of view of subjective value, all voluntary trade has mutual benefit. There's really no better way of ascribing value to anything than by assuming that if someone traded X for Y, they valued Y more than X and vice versa for the other guy. Sure, an omniscient observer can have a clearer picture of whether the trade was one sided, but unless you start arbitrarily ascribing value to things, it's hard to definitively state that any trade was one-sided.

It's funny, I feel warm and fuzzy when I see QVC. I see it as the result of a society that has become so extravagantly wealthy that most people have the disposable income to buy a 80th Annual Mickey Mouse Commemorative Toast Butterer, mostly thanks to a capitalistic economy. I see all of the lucky people who are escaping from a thousand-generation-long subsistence farming lifestyle to get paid 5 times as much to make dumb crap for white people to waste money on. This is wealth redistribution I can get behind.

Subjective value is the same nonsense. 'No better' doesn't mean 'right'* and it certainly doesn't mean you have any sense of what the world would look like without states (which I don't think is even possible).

And while all of this awesome stuff is thanks to capitalism, it's also thanks to historic knowledge, science, fossil fuels, new worlds, and political strife, and other stuff I'm not yet aware of.

But as to it being hard to state that any trade is definitively one sided, there was a bidding war between two channels for some show. Both sides got caught up in the emotion of the event and the winner eventually ended up MASSIVELY overpaying for the product and it was roundly seen as a bust by all observers (except, of course, the producers of the show). I read the example in Thinking Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahnmann. Maybe I'll dig it up later.

edit: *There was a time where there was no better explanation of the stars movement through the sky than the Earth was the center of it all. And when they noticed that some stars seemed to move backwards for a period before moving in congress with the rest of the stars, instead of invalidating the no-better theory, they simply added epicycles to it to account for the anomolies. These stars were planets and these epicycles masked their misunderstanding further, they didn't help explain anything. I see the same mistake being made with utility.

[CoccoBill]

Profits are always a positive, they feed the economy. It's how those profits are created that's the problem, that can definitely be bad or good. Something not being zero sum does not mean one person's profits are never someone else's losses, just that it's not the case always. Likewise as a response to the earlier comment about the poker analogy, it's irrelevant whether poker is zero sum or not, that just changes the outcomes of people's choices, not their motivations or ability to detect the correct choice.

Re: non-profit organizations in free markets, sure, they would probably exist just the same as they do now, perhaps a bit less since now even not for profit activities make economic sense taxation-wise. I'm not saying thats a net good thing, but its nevertheless an incentive that might lessen non-profit activity in a deregulated environment.

Anyway, if we ignore nonprofits since they are more or less fringe cases in both scenarios, we're left with either a completely profit-driven model, or one with both profit-driven and publicly funded activities. I personally can only see one of these models producing vital basic research, which has no foreseeable profit expectations, only huge expenses.

[wufwugy]

http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/news/...-eu-directive/

This does not support your position. This is entirely about lobbying government for special treatment. This is something that doesn't happens to near this extent without regulatory monopolies.

It's all about who controls said entities.

No. It is about the revenue streams of those entities. One is consumer choice, the other is mandates. These create entirely different effects.

About all of this the one thing that most puzzles me is that you're both saying a regulation free alternative has never been attempted and if only we tried it, miracles would happen.

I am not. I am bringing the claims of the field of economics to you. It has been overwhelmingly demonstrated that market reforms that expand choice are responsible for prosperity growth all across the world in every variable society. This is not me talking, this is the field of economics talking.



It appears I'm basically done with this. I recommend engaging material by actual economists. They say much different things than the general public believe.

[Renton]

I feel as if I've acquitted myself poorly in this page of the thread. Just putting that out there. I'm kind of stressed out and it's hurting my ability to debate this topic.

[a500lbgorilla]

Shit, sorry. I'm a vampire for knowledge and you (two) have pushed into the world of economics and let me follow. I've been excitable and fighty for no constructive reason recently. At least it's Saturday... I assume they still have Saturdays where-ever the fuck you are.

edit PS guys argue about economics on the internet and end up talking about their feelings, thanks feminism!

[CoccoBill]

This does not support your position. This is entirely about lobbying government for special treatment. This is something that doesn't happens to near this extent without regulatory monopolies.

I believe it does. It demonstrates the enormous amounts they have available to support their case, and that theyre willing and able to do it. In part having a centralized target for policy lobbying makes attacking easier, but at the same time there's regulation in place to limit them. While the effect is arguably greter in a regulated model, it's naive to think they'd be powerless in a deregulated environment.

I also had some other things written here but the internet ate it and now am drunked.

[a500lbgorilla]

CoccoBill, where do you live?

[CoccoBill]

The country that got robbed their place in the quarter finals by refs against the czechs.

[a500lbgorilla]

...crossreferencing...

[wufwugy]

I believe it does. It demonstrates the enormous amounts they have available to support their case, and that theyre willing and able to do it. In part having a centralized target for policy lobbying makes attacking easier, but at the same time there's regulation in place to limit them. While the effect is arguably greter in a regulated model, it's naive to think they'd be powerless in a deregulated environment.

I also had some other things written here but the internet ate it and now am drunked.

That "enormous amount" is fractional compared to what it would take without a legal monopoly to guarantee special treatment. The "centralized target making it easier to lobby" gives them several magnitudes (yes, magnitudes) more capacity to distort outcomes, and "the regulation to limit them" is not that big of a negative for them and is in lots of ways a positive.

I did not say that markets make them powerless, but that they make them powerless to achieve what you think they can. Every concern every person has about companies that are big and rich distorting outcomes is created by special treatment and market distortions created by the legitimized taxing monopolies. The left-wing view has it completely backwards. Economists are not afraid of greedy individuals, they're afraid of overreaching tax monopolies. The pursuit of self-interest is a necessary driver of competition and a thriving society. Legitimized tax monopolies stymie this by legitimizing specific interests.

Milton Friedman is your friend. He is considered the best economics communicator in history. Start here.

[CoccoBill]

Finland. I think you just asked me this like 5 years ago, sheesh.

[a500lbgorilla]

Finland. I think you just asked me this like 5 years ago, sheesh.

...crossreferencing...

Oh, South Africa!

I knew I knew it. You seem like a South African.

[wufwugy]

These were recently posted on Scott Sumner's blog so I can easily find them again. http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29278

Main street of an economic free trade zone experiment in China in 1981:



Same place, 2013:





The result is basically magic. There is no regulatory regime that can produce a fraction of this level of success. In fact, this success only happened because of market reforms stripping away regulations that were holding the region in poverty.

Perhaps people like governmental regulations because they're "rules" and rules are good. But they just don't work in systems so complex that they're governed by macroeconomic forces. Rules adopted by individuals, communities, and companies by choice are fantastic, but rules adopted by governments are the greatest unforced error of our time. Generations far in the future will be baffled by the amount of misery we caused by our stoicism to the state.

[a500lbgorilla]

I love this. While we're showing cards, A Modern History of Hong Kong showed me that HK enjoyed two basic periods of perfect political lassie-fair free market growth and they fucking boomed in both periods, but it also showed that eventually the Japanese will come and rape your women and then decades later the Chinese will insist upon total control. And even the boom periods were built upon British stability and a British Justice System that was and is and will ever be the envy of the world.

[wufwugy]

I love this. While we're showing cards, A Modern History of Hong Kong showed me that HK enjoyed two basic periods of perfect political lassie-fair free market growth and they fucking boomed in both periods, but it also showed that eventually the Japanese will come and rape your women and then decades later the Chinese will insist upon total control. And even the boom periods were built upon British stability and a British Justice System that was and is and will ever be the envy of the world.

That's why the vast majority of market proponents still favor governmental security forces.

When it is not feasible to quantify risk of foreign invaders, it pays to have a government that assumes constant threat of foreign invasion. I think most market proponents are happy to let the government exist for this reason until there is some real global stability. It's just important to keep in mind that once risk of invasion is reasonably quantifiable, your example doesn't happen.

[wufwugy]

The latter half of the Free to Choose video featuring the round table debate is pretty fantastic btw. The Democratic Socialist guy is intellectually impressive, his points being untrue notwithstanding.

[rong]

The latter half of the Free to Choose video featuring the round table debate is pretty fantastic btw. The Democratic Socialist guy is intellectually impressive, his points being untrue notwithstanding.

The beginning is annoying. It's just pitching a perspective.

[wufwugy]

The beginning is annoying. It's just pitching a perspective.

Such a shame to have the perspective of the most renowned economist of the 20th Century.

[rong]

But it doesn't need to be sold. Just explained. He started with a pitch. That's unnecessary and makes me defensive.

[wufwugy]

I think Free to Choose was designed to be both. That series is ten hours at least.

[JKDS]

But it doesn't need to be sold. Just explained. He started with a pitch. That's unnecessary and makes me defensive.

How people respond to persuasive techniques has always concerned me.

Do you know that call centers engage in techniques to calm angry customers down? They actually have a routine that they go through, and I'm sure its been tested or whatever and has a good success rate. They are probably constantly researching to find better methods as well.

But whats really going on, is they are being trained in manipulation. And if I recognize that I am being manipulated, I'm gonna respond negatively and their technique is only going to worsen everything.

Most commercials are another example. I know that they are trying to "sell" me the product, and I know they are engaging in methods which over time has proven to subtly influence people's choices, so I immediately reject the add in an attempt to not be fooled.

But at the same time, I dont think there is anything inherently wrong with persuasion, It seems like you'd want to truthfully put something in the best light at times. I think my problem, and why I get defensive, is when I think the persuasion cross a line into deception.

Idk, shits weird.

[wufwugy]

Does it matter to pro-governmental regulation people that regulators are not affected by the vote? Politicians aren't regulators. They only have marginal influence over the agencies. The vast majority of regulations are designed and administrated by the unelected. This is true on the federal and the local level.

It seems to me that the reason many people support government involvement is because they think the involvement comes at the hands of elected delegates. It does not. When politicians say bad things about bureaucracy, it's not because they're in the pockets of name-your-villain, but because bureaucracy indeed wields tremendous undemocratic power, antithetical to what the voters say they want.

[wufwugy]

Another thing, due to government being more inefficient than the market, it is necessarily the case that if there is a public will for something to happen in government, it would happen more easily or at a lower level of will in the market. This means that every argument for what government does that is good is still less good than if handled by a market.

I don't know if this sort of logic is appealing to anybody else.

[JKDS]

My problem is that every thing I have ever seen says that you, Renton, and the economists you rely on are wrong.

Chicken Farms, for instance.



At the end of it, how can anyone say that Government should keep themselves out of it, rather than put themselves in? How does the intangible market fix how this company, and so many others, screw people over?

There needs to be regulation. How much is required, idk. I tend to think that we (businesses included) should be free to do what we want so long as no harm becomes of it. But the problem is that here, and everywhere else, we see businesses ARE causing harm. They are too free, and the middle and lower class are suffering because of it.*

*As to this last point, someone made a comment regarding how income is seriously impacted by taxes. I disagree. The lower class gets almost all of that money back in April (or can actually opt to not pay in the first place), and the middle class has all but disintegrated. Most jobs are $35,000/yr ones, and this amount (before or after taxes) cannot support a family. If the argument is that businesses get taxed too much, prove it. Because as far as I can tell, taxation on businesses and the wealthy has plummeted since the 70s, yet employees have been paid substantially less. If the argument is that technology makes employees obsolete, prove it. Bank tellers make less than they did 40 years ago, yet now need to be more skilled and are still plentiful in every bank I've ever been in. Banking isnt less important though, as their companies and their CEOs continue to do well. The problem, and this goes back to my main point, is that businesses suck, and are causing harm. I'm not being biased when I say that they are not in it to save the world, or do the "right thing". They are trying to make the most +EV choice for them, and by them, I mean the higher ups. Few businesses give a single fuck about the middle class, and if they had it there way...they'd pay them nothing. (See College Basketball).

[JKDS]

We may just be arguing scope actually. I get the impression ya'll want 0 regulation, but I think that's silly. But I dont want to give the impression that I want 100% regulation either. I dont think we need regulation on how to make a lightbulb, for example. But I do think that we need laws in place to corral businesses into acting decently, and I dont think the market is able to force them to do so.

[wufwugy]

JKDS, the only reason I have some understanding of this issue is I have read a wide variety of economists on a daily basis for years. I don't think you'll make any headway on this if you don't come to terms with the fact that claiming economists don't understand the economy as well as non-economists do is ridiculous. Popular sentiments are fun and often sound legit, but they're often wrong. Late night comedians are entertaining and thought-provoking, but they have no credibility on the issue and unwittingly perpetuate false ideas.

We've repeated the same debate a dozen times. I guess all I have left to say is to stop reading me and start reading a few blogs written by working econ PhDs. It probably doesn't matter where you start as long as it isn't Krugman. I read him for so long yet didn't learn much of anything because he focuses on a narrow set of political agendas and he tends to ignore anything that doesn't support those agendas. It was only after I heard about Scott Sumner that I saw the vast blogosphere written by some of the most credible economists in the world. The blogosphere references each other and has dialogue and all that. Krugman just sticks to things he made up post-2007 and pretends the only people who exist are those who have hopped on his bandwagon. Even then, Krugman is still way more pro-market than his casual followers think, as are all economists. It's just that what economists argue about tends to be marginal issues, which gives a false impression to bystanders that there isn't consensus. They agree about 99% of things (most of which the public disagree with) but argue about the 1% of things.

Start here, and it doesn't matter where else you go. The posts are short and varied. The authors have something like a combined 70 years of teaching this subject matter. http://econlog.econlib.org/

[wufwugy]

But I do think that we need laws in place to corral businesses into acting decently, and I dont think the market is able to force them to do so.

To clear some things up

The market corrals business into acting decently far more effectively than government, and it has nothing to do with laws. We all experience this first hand every day of our lives in uncountable different ways. The market principles that organize businesses are no different than the principles that organize any other type of social interaction.

It all boils down to choice. Is it better to have a reasonable amount of choice over the things that affect you, or is it better to have no choice on a bunch of different things that affect you? The state is a far more powerful idea that God ever was. To Christians, we're all children who need God to tell us what to do. The state is no different yet is more widely accepted, ironically by most professed atheists and free-thinkers.

[CoccoBill]

The market corrals business into acting decently far more effectively than government, and it has nothing to do with laws. We all experience this first hand every day of our lives in uncountable different ways. The market principles that organize businesses are no different than the principles that organize any other type of social interaction.

I think herein lies the key point. Can other social interactions outside of market activities be expected to function "fairly" without regulatory intervention (=laws)? Should it be legal for people to for example extort or steal from each other? No? Then why should businesses be 1) expected 2) allowed to do the equivalent to each other or their customers? Both cases have humans as actors, behaving according to the same principles.

If yes, well, we're quite far apart with our views. I view individual rights from a fairly libertarian perspective, that is, everyone should be allowed to be free to do what they please with their lives, as long as their actions don't trample on anyone else's right to do the same. Even still, I see it as compulsory to have regulations to guarantee those rights. I think you could make a pretty strong case on the global level of violence going down so drastically in the recent history being based on social organization and increased regulatory capacity.

http://www.hsrgroup.org/docs/Publica...ss_Release.pdf

It all boils down to choice. Is it better to have a reasonable amount of choice over the things that affect you, or is it better to have no choice on a bunch of different things that affect you? The state is a far more powerful idea that God ever was. To Christians, we're all children who need God to tell us what to do. The state is no different yet is more widely accepted, ironically by most professed atheists and free-thinkers.

You're appealing to emotions here, we're talking about business regulations, not individual's right to choose. Companies are not people and money isn't free speech, no matter what some retarded supreme court says. For the last part, one is a made up campfire legend and the other a collectively organized set of principles based on either theory or empirical evidence. False equivalence.

[CoccoBill]

Does it matter to pro-governmental regulation people that regulators are not affected by the vote? Politicians aren't regulators. They only have marginal influence over the agencies. The vast majority of regulations are designed and administrated by the unelected. This is true on the federal and the local level.

It seems to me that the reason many people support government involvement is because they think the involvement comes at the hands of elected delegates. It does not. When politicians say bad things about bureaucracy, it's not because they're in the pockets of name-your-villain, but because bureaucracy indeed wields tremendous undemocratic power, antithetical to what the voters say they want.

Just like all decisions in any larger company are not made by the CEO, they're delegated down the chain, same as in a bureaucracy. Politicians make laws and government officials make regulations based on them. In many models the politicians do have a lot of say on the appointing of those higher level officials. Then again the officials are often also handy targets to put the blame on, when the politician's policies fail to work as expected.

But again, all of this is nuance and could be organized in many different ways.

One suggestion I have is that there should be no such thing as a career politician. All political offices should have maximum terms, just like the president (this could also be interesting to implement for CEOs). If 1 term was the maximum, there'd be no need to use half the term worrying about votes and fundraising for the next elections, but to actually get things done. Politician wages could be even higher to make them lucrative against top level private sector jobs, to get the brightest minds in instead of ex-athletes and quasi-celebs. But I digress.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Most industries self-regulate and the public serves only to make a working service more costly by imposing external regulations. Even heavily regulated industries like air travel face very little regulation except where the product meets the consumer. It's hard to find good numbers on this.

Upton Sinclair is credited with motivating the creation of the FDA when he exposed appallingly filthy conditions in the food industry. This is a pretty good example, to me at least, that some amount of regulation in some cases is a great benefit to the public at large.


It is worth noting that while federal regulatory agencies have the power to create and enforce regulations, those regulations are not laws. It's a fine line. Rules and punishments (usually fines) issued by a regulatory committee do not face external review by other branches of government. A person or institution being punished has no right to representative counsel, or a trial by peers, or to appeal. Yet, the regulatory committees are backed by (are indeed a part of) the executive branch.

[Renton]

I think one thing is that if many regulations were necessary in the distant past, they likely are no longer necessary today. The information age makes it very difficult for businesses to gain from endangering or misleading customers. There's just too much transparency for that now. Public outcry has become more powerful than ever, and it will continue to get more powerful. Businesses do not want to put millions or billions of dollars worth of reputation at great risk. The ones that are comfortable with taking those risks will likely not survive the ones that manage risk more ably.

[rong]

Considering that people will try to get away with this in s regulated environment, I don't see how less regulation would help.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32817114

[a500lbgorilla]

I think one thing is that if many regulations were necessary in the distant past, they likely are no longer necessary today. The information age makes it very difficult for businesses to gain from endangering or misleading customers. There's just too much transparency for that now. Public outcry has become more powerful than ever, and it will continue to get more powerful. Businesses do not want to put millions or billions of dollars worth of reputation at great risk. The ones that are comfortable with taking those risks will likely not survive the ones that manage risk more ably.

Every time they get caught, you know about it. Every time they don't get caught...

So how can you say they can't not get caught?

All of this is just wishful thinking. I'd love for it to be the case, but that doesn't make it so.

PS, you're also saying there's nothing to learn from the past. We're in the whiz-bang future now, the rules have changed.

[a500lbgorilla]

Considering that people will try to get away with this in s regulated environment, I don't see how less regulation would help.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32817114

BBC radio this morning had a guy on named Joseph Stiglitz (or some such), he seemed like a pretty level headed guy who is very well versed on the economic world and his point, which I will interpret, was basically two fold: It's not about more or less regulation, but entirely different regulation. Also, it's all Ronnie Regs and Witch Thatchers fault...

Listen to it, don't trust me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rbvv6

[a500lbgorilla]

Every time they get caught, you know about it. Every time they don't get caught...

So how can you say they can't not get caught?

All of this is just wishful thinking. I'd love for it to be the case, but that doesn't make it so.

PS, you're also saying there's nothing to learn from the past. We're in the whiz-bang future now, the rules have changed.

The internet so filled with facebook and porn does not make the public some all-seeing eye. Remember Kony 2012. People are just as stupid as ever.

[Renton]

I'm just saying the risks are higher now. Obviously it is possible for people to get away with crimes, this isn't Minority Report.

[a500lbgorilla]

There is a consumer revolt against video games journalism. It's called GamerGate. Most places online have it painted as a campaign to harass women out of the gaming industry.

Pitchfork wielding mobs can help and harm. They can do good and be derailed. Remember Occupy Wallstreet?

[a500lbgorilla]

You believe that people will solve problems. I believe that in order to solve problems, people would need to become experts, and they won't tend to do that. So long as they aren't experts, they're exposed to taking the wrong actions or, usually, no action at all.* This is why a central brutal authority can have a secondary role as collector of experts, to put them to the task of protecting the people from themselves.

I remember the old conservative talk radio talking line, "These people believe they know what you should do better than you! Can you believe it?" I do now believe it.

*The absolute best lesson that Thinking Fast and Slow teaches is a basic human shortcoming: What You See Is All There Is. Things you don't know do not form any part of your understanding. You have a hard time imagining the things you're unaware of. An expert is a person who spends his time and efforts becoming aware of as much as possible about a subject so that their choices and actions are made against the richest landscape of understanding. Any prosperous society will need experts to help them make decisions in all sorts of avenues of life. The idea that the market will find these experts, that non-experts will stumble on real experts instead of expert-fakes is silly to me. It's like letting the public vote on Global Warming or Evolution. The idea the gov't can leverage their experts and their mandate to find these people and put them to purpose is less so.

edit A prosperous society could probably get away with not having experts at the helm so long as they're sitting on a rich income stream ala Rome's endless conquests or America after the world wars made them the only game in town. It might even be that rich income streams are all that matters and not even experts will find the absolute best most efficient configuration of resources to support a people. All of the sudden Sarah Palin's Drill Baby, Drill is making a lot of sense...

[Renton]

I believe the state does a much better job at attracting megalomaniacs and sociopaths into positions to cause maximum societal harm than it is at attracting experts to solve society's ills. I don't disagree that human beings can be easily manipulated. I disagree that states offer a solution to the fallibility of human beings. Your argument doesn't seem to be serving your point of view very well, actually, as the political system exhibits and often magnifies all of the human flaws you're talking about. At least the free market attempts to serve consequences to people for their successes and failures. Maybe a positive incentive structure would foster more enlightened human beings than a perverted incentive structure does.