The cost of cigarettes

[Steady Eddy]

What a fail. Let me spell it out for you: Being "more worried" about markets being left (completely) to their own devices than about the existence of a government does not equal the renouncement of "every form of market economy".

What about "most of the time", doesn't "most" mean over half of the time? Generally, I don't see the objection to laissez-faire. True laissez-faire might mess things up, but it messes it up for free. With a government program, the taxpayers have to pay a lot to get things messed up.

 

[Sysyphus]

What about "most of the time", doesn't "most" mean over half of the time?

What does this even mean? You missed my point. Objecting to laissez-faire doesn't mean rejecting every form of market economy, and hence your fixed-price-for-chair example was pretty meaningless. I never said I was a full-fledged communist or anything of the sort.

Generally, I don't see the objection to laissez-faire. True laissez-faire might mess things up, but it messes it up for free. With a government program, the taxpayers have to pay a lot to get things messed up.

The objections to laissez-faire are many. Simply put, the complete absence of any government intervention leads to worse societies.

May I ask on what grounds you (seemingly) sympathize with libertarianism? Is it because you think it's a more effective economic model, or because of libertarian principles regarding non-coercion and so on?

 

[Steady Eddy]

What does this even mean? You missed my point. Objecting to laissez-faire doesn't mean rejecting every form of market economy, and hence your fixed-price-for-chair example was pretty meaningless. I never said I was a full-fledged communist or anything of the sort.



The objections to laissez-faire are many. Simply put, the complete absence of any government intervention leads to worse societies.

May I ask on what grounds you (seemingly) sympathize with libertarianism? Is it because you think it's a more effective economic model, or because of libertarian principles regarding non-coercion and so on?

Mostly because of the non-coercion principles.

I like libertarian ideas generally, but some go too far. I think factories should be safe, that's better than simply a "take it, or leave it" offer to the worker. There is such an imbalance of power in that negotiation, very different from buying a used chair. Also, you need some government, and so there should be some taxes, IMHO.

 

[Shbeals]

Yes it does.

What's "dumb" is laissez-faire.

What's dumb is your comment.

 

[Bartelby]

Yes, you just missed out on capitalism's most characteristic invention - the corporation.

You also missed out on the invention of capitalism in its entirety, because all you are talking about is a marketplace.

They had those in fifth century Athens and probably long before.

What a curious attitude. So if a person sells a chair at a garage sale, if they find a price they both agree upon, that's bad. But if it was regulated, so that some authority decreed that used chairs must sell for $A. That would be better.

Three things can happen

1. "A" is so high that the buyer isn't interested, and the seller loses the sale
2. "A" is too low, so the seller doesn't want to lose it. Now the buyer doesn't get his chair.
3. "A" is exactly the price they agreed upon, so the regulation was redundant.

Is there something here that I'm missing?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

What's dumb is your comment.

Alright, let's allow Joe Moneybags to call all the shots then, eh?

Surely he wouldn't be greedy?
Surely he wouldn't charge however much he could?

What could possibly go wrong with trusting powerful entities, who don't answer to you, to always look out for your best interests even though they conflict with theirs?

What's dumb is corpratism, and the twisted, slimy, greedy, selfish, heartless Neo-conservative/Tory crap politics which gives it a platform.

Only in a brainwashed state would we happily vote for policies which work directly against us.

 

[Bartelby]

Medicines are a classic example of non-free market principles in action for more reasons than you state:

1. Scientific invention requires a vast educational apparatus which almost everywhere is government-funded.

2. Medicines demand and require patents which are government created and regulated monopolies.

If we had a free market in medicines as soon as a pill was produced it would be reverse-engineered and its price would drop enormously.

If industrial patents were as hard to enforce as drug patents there would be only one major brand of vacuum on the market - the Dyson.

But all you have to do is take the basic cyclonic principle and tweak it and that's the end of the Dyson monopoly. But medicine and other areas are quite different.

International trade agreements extend government monopoly guarantees for corporations in the guise of free trade provisions.

In the case of the chair, you are right, a government-set price would be silly.

But with some items, this is not the case.

Some essential products X are sold at a price, say $Y, which many folks can afford, but some can't.
A good example is medicines in the USA system.
Because many or even most can afford it (or in the case of medicines the insurance can), the business does not encounter difficulties trying to sell enough of X, so market forces do not reduce the price.
But where does that leave those who are worse off?

This is where the government must step in, to ensure that everyone can afford what they need.

The real shame is that many folks would have the needy go without, which says all that needs to be said about them as human beings.

Cigarettes are taxed specifically so that #1 on your list occurs though, so that's not a good example.
The government wants you to give it up, and for good reason.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Medicines are a classic example of non-free market principles in action for more reasons than you state:

1. Scientific invention requires a vast educational apparatus which almost everywhere is government-funded.

2. Medicines demand and require patents which are government created and regulated monopolies.

If we had a free market in medicines as soon as a pill was produced it would be reverse-engineered and its price would drop enormously.

If industrial patents were as hard to enforce as drug patents there would be only one major brand of vacuum on the market - the Dyson.

But all you have to do is take the basic cyclonic principle and tweak it and that's the end of the Dyson monopoly. But medicine and other areas are quite different.

International trade agreements extend government monopoly guarantees for corporations in the guise of free trade provisions.

In some cases, though, the government does need to create incentives for businesses to create things, for instance in this case the medicines would never be made if the price was to drop immediately, as there is no profit in it.

The issue is these "protections" always go way too far, creating unfair, long-lasting monopolies.

I have no problem with capitalism, I think it's a good system, so long as the people come first and the companies/those who run them have to play by the exact same rules the rest of us do.

No bailing out banks, for instance.
That's just garbage toxic politics.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

And the "free trade" agreements are a joke.
Just the tail wagging the dog, as usual.

 

[Bartelby]

Industrial patents have become of less worth due to the ease of legal replication just as other intellectual property protections have become more onerous.

But is industrial innovation still occurring? The answer is yes. So there is a real question of whether any but the most minimal of protection is necessary.

In some cases, though, the government does need to create incentives for businesses to create things, for instance in this case the medicines would never be made if the price was to drop immediately, as there is no profit in it.

The issue is these "protections" always go way too far, creating unfair, long-lasting monopolies.

I have no problem with capitalism, I think it's a good system, so long as the people come first and the companies/those who run them have to play by the exact same rules the rest of us do.

No bailing out banks, for instance.
That's just garbage toxic politics.

 

[Shbeals]

Alright, let's allow Joe Moneybags to call all the shots then, eh?

Surely he wouldn't be greedy?
Surely he wouldn't charge however much he could?

What could possibly go wrong with trusting powerful entities, who don't answer to you, to always look out for your best interests even though they conflict with theirs?

What's dumb is corpratism, and the twisted, slimy, greedy, selfish, heartless Neo-conservative/Tory crap politics which gives it a platform.

Only in a brainwashed state would we happily vote for policies which work directly against us.

You obviously have no conception of what Laissez-faire even means. Do you think before you post your dribble? You can't even spell corporatism. Haha. And by the way, I agree, corporatism sucks but it has nothing to do with Laissez-faire. They are incompatible by nature.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

You obviously have no conception of what Laissez-faire even means. Do you think before you post your dribble? You can't even spell corporatism. Haha. And by the way, I agree, corporatism sucks but it has nothing to do with Laissez-faire. They are incompatible by nature.

It means no intervention.
I'm not stupid.

Neither Laissez-faire nor corporatism are sound.
One breeds corruption and inequality, while the other literally writes that same rubbish into policy and law.

The government needs to intervene and set boundaries, but in the right way.
Laissez-faire leads to the general public getting screwed, but with corporatism, they just go and skip that step and screw you over straight off the bat.

As for the typo, they really do form a great basis for ad-hominems, now don't they?

And it's "drivel", by the way.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Hold up anyway guys, I'm unleashing a fun thread here in O&E in 10 minutes or so.
Watch this space.

 

[r2473]

Hold up anyway guys, I'm unleashing a fun thread here in O&E in 10 minutes or so.
Watch this space.

It better not be a bunch of dribble, I'm running low on napkins

 

[Deleted member 688153]

It better not be a bunch of dribble, I'm running low on napkins

I'll try not to hurt anyone's napkin-thin beliefs and sensitivities.

 

[Bartelby]

Not surprising you're out of napkins given all the bacon grease you dribble all over yourself.

It better not be a bunch of dribble, I'm running low on napkins

 

[kramer woodie]

Yes it does.

What's "dumb" is laissez-faire.

Sysyphus

Having made my business in Asia, I prefer rough and tumble capitalism. Just need to grease the correct government palms.

Aloha

 

[Deleted member 733170]

It means no intervention.
I'm not stupid.

Neither Laissez-faire nor corporatism are sound.
One breeds corruption and inequality, while the other literally writes that same rubbish into policy and law.

The government needs to intervene and set boundaries, but in the right way.
Laissez-faire leads to the general public getting screwed, but with corporatism, they just go and skip that step and screw you over straight off the bat.

As for the typo, they really do form a great basis for ad-hominems, now don't they?

And it's "drivel", by the way.

You are not stupid but you are out of your depth on this subject. Corporatism has got nothing to do with what you think it means. It has nothing to do with the corporation per se, but really is an 'ism' based on collective bargaining between, the state, labour and corporations. It is also known as tripartism. Ideologically speaking it is far removed from the concept of laissez faire.

 

[Sysyphus]

Mostly because of the non-coercion principles.

I like libertarian ideas generally, but some go too far. I think factories should be safe, that's better than simply a "take it, or leave it" offer to the worker. There is such an imbalance of power in that negotiation, very different from buying a used chair. Also, you need some government, and so there should be some taxes, IMHO.

I can somewhat understand this view, but I don't think it's quite consistent with libertarian principles. What you are implicitly saying, it seems to me, is that non-coercion and self-ownership is generally a good thing (presumably because it leads to good outcomes), but you concede that when you agree that the consequences are unacceptable, then there ought to be some kind of restriction. So what this really entails is that consequences is the overriding principle in the end.

Michael Sandel outlines this point by having us think about a free market sale of kidneys. I think most libertarians would support something of the sort of letting people who don't need two kidneys sell one at an agreed-upon prize to a person that needs a transplant. But suppose, say, that a poor African farmer that wants to save money for his child to go to college agrees to sell his last kidney, and some rich eccentric American art dealer wants to buy it, not because he needs it for medical purposes, but to sell it as a coffee table curiosity. Now, I think the vast majority, and probably most with libertarian leanings too, wouldn't want an organ-market with as few restrictions as that.
Sandel writes: "Should people be allowed to buy and sell kidneys for this purpose? If you believe that we own ourselves, you would be hard pressed to say no. What matters is not the purpose but the right to dispose of our body parts as we please. Of course, you might abhor the frivolous use of body parts and favor organ sales for life-saving purposes only. But if you held this view, your defense of the market would not rest on libertarian premises. You would concede that we do not have an unlimited property right in our own bodies".

And once one concedes that the libertarian principles can't fully override principles of consequences or utility (or perhaps other principles of rights), then I think one opens the door for a debate about what political systems really provide the most utility or "total good" for a society. And I think there are quite good empirical reasons for believing that a completely unregulated market-society isn't the best alternative in that regard.

 

[kramer woodie]

Sysyphus

Having made my business in Asia, I prefer rough and tumble capitalism. Just need to grease the correct government palms.

Aloha

In addition to the above. If you are in the U.S. you can preview the U.S. Gov't "Generalized System of Preferences" manual (GSP) at a public library.
You can find how much each exporting foreign country, to the U.S., pays the U.S. in tariffs to get products into The United States. The tariffs collected
are another type of tax citizens end up paying as the tariff costs end up being recouped in the retail price. Cost of doing business.

Also, as a rough example, in the 1980's to ship textile products to the U.S. the foreign country had to purchase a quota, then the manufacturer in
that foreign country purchased a visa on that quota. When product reached the U.S., U.S. Customs asked for the visa and once submitted charged
the exporter or the importer a Custom Duty. The U.S. made money selling the quota, the foreign gov't made money selling the visa and the U.S.
Gov't made more money charging a duty. The GSP showed how much duty would be collected. Say for instance, T-shirts, plain t-shirt approx.
duty tax 5.6%, silk-screened more, with embroidery about 19%, etc. on invoice of first cost. Now I have been away from this type of business since
the late 1990's, however it still goes on today.

Also, the GSP will show what is called Favored Nation Status, those countries do not pay Custom Duties or pay reduced Duties to the U.S..

So to end, all the above costs get passed on to the retail consumer. (I was able to buy Reebok tennis shoes for USD5.00 even Calvin Klein Jeans
for USD5.00 at their respective factories in Asia. A 50 plus dollar tennis shoe, a 60 dollar pair of jeans, for only 5 bucks.)

Aloha

 

[Steady Eddy]

I can somewhat understand this view, but I don't think it's quite consistent with libertarian principles. What you are implicitly saying, it seems to me, is that non-coercion and self-ownership is generally a good thing (presumably because it leads to good outcomes), but you concede that when you agree that the consequences are unacceptable, then there ought to be some kind of restriction. So what this really entails is that consequences is the overriding principle in the end.

Michael Sandel outlines this point by having us think about a free market sale of kidneys. I think most libertarians would support something of the sort of letting people who don't need two kidneys sell one at an agreed-upon prize to a person that needs a transplant. But suppose, say, that a poor African farmer that wants to save money for his child to go to college agrees to sell his last kidney, and some rich eccentric American art dealer wants to buy it, not because he needs it for medical purposes, but to sell it as a coffee table curiosity. Now, I think the vast majority, and probably most with libertarian leanings too, wouldn't want an organ-market with as few restrictions as that.
Sandel writes: "Should people be allowed to buy and sell kidneys for this purpose? If you believe that we own ourselves, you would be hard pressed to say no. What matters is not the purpose but the right to dispose of our body parts as we please. Of course, you might abhor the frivolous use of body parts and favor organ sales for life-saving purposes only. But if you held this view, your defense of the market would not rest on libertarian premises. You would concede that we do not have an unlimited property right in our own bodies".

And once one concedes that the libertarian principles can't fully override principles of consequences or utility (or perhaps other principles of rights), then I think one opens the door for a debate about what political systems really provide the most utility or "total good" for a society. And I think there are quite good empirical reasons for believing that a completely unregulated market-society isn't the best alternative in that regard.

I'd like to be able to say, "Here are my principles, there are no contradictions" but I cannot. I've tried to resolve them, but that only creates new contradictions. Maybe that could be done, but not by me.

So, politically, I'm sympathetic to libertarianism in general, but not all the time. Just like with ethics, I'm sympathetic to utilitarianism, but there are a few exceptions. This isn't a perfect state of affairs, but it's the best I can do.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Bloody extortionate!