Economics: I, Pencil

[shanek]

Who will guarantee that it is sold "as is"? Who will enforce it?

Who needs to? He just specifies "as-is" at the time of sale.

Who will prevent the car salesman from going back and change the terms of sale?

Doing so would violate contract laws.

Da gubmint?

[sigh...] Yes, Claus, there are legitimate functions of government, and enforcing contracts is one of them.

What if it isn't sold "as is"?

Then he's sold you a lemon, and, as such, has committed fraud.

You KNOW all of this, Claus. I've TOLD it to you many, many times. That you keep up with pathetic posts like this just shows why you have very little credibility left around here.

 

[CFLarsen]

Who needs to? He just specifies "as-is" at the time of sale.

A contract which can be forged. Who will enforce it? Da gubmint? Then, you accept government intervention.

Doing so would violate contract laws.

Enforced by da gubmint? Then, you accept government intervention.

[sigh...] Yes, Claus, there are legitimate functions of government, and enforcing contracts is one of them.

Then, you accept government intervention.

Then he's sold you a lemon, and, as such, has committed fraud.

Then, you accept government intervention.

It seems that you accept government intervention more than a communist would.

You KNOW all of this, Claus. I've TOLD it to you many, many times. That you keep up with pathetic posts like this just shows why you have very little credibility left around here.

As always, we can rely on you to wag your finger at those who dare disagree with you. As if that, in itself, determined the outcome.

 

[Jocko]

They certainly do collude to maintain prices in a zone. That is my point.

But doesn't that fit into Shane's explanation of market forces at work? I mean, gas costs more in wealthy neighborhoods, just like lumber costs more in a hurricane zone. It's what the market bears.

I don't see it as a barrier to a free market because I can go to a dumpy neighborhood and save 20 cents a gallon if I please. The price is only higher in the first place because that's what people are willing to pay (and the losses to people like me aren't enough to offset the incremental profit). The same tanker stops at both stations, so obviously it's not a supply thing.

Same applies to taxes. I'll go out of my way to save money on cigarettes and gas. If enough people did the same, I have no doubt the higher-taxed districts/counties would reconsider.

 

[Jocko]

A contract which can be forged. Who will enforce it? Da gubmint? Then, you accept government intervention.

Enforced by da gubmint? Then, you accept government intervention.

Then, you accept government intervention.

Then, you accept government intervention.

It seems that you accept government intervention more than a communist would.

He never said the government has no function. He's repeated observed that the government is at its best when it's doing the least; i.e., defending those freedoms guaranteed to us as US citizens. This is not to be confused with granting us freedoms, but you've already demonstrated that your carapice is far too dense to allow that distinction to penetrate to the soft tissue.

As always, we can rely on you to wag your finger at those who dare disagree with you. As if that, in itself, determined the outcome.

Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black...

Keep playing your little gotcha games, keep trying to catch people contradicting things they never said, and by all means keep wrapping it all up in the glossy mantle of Euro-elitist skepticism. You've got absolutely everyone fooled.

My best to your queen, oh progressive one.

 

[Earthborn]

One reason is, because with government regulations the entire process must be codified and followed to the letter. With a pencil, suppose someone found a better way to make the brass cylinder holding on the eraser? Or a better material to make it out of? Or a better way to mix graphite, or a better material? Or a better kind of wood, or a substitute because they start cutting down too many straight cedars and they can't grow new ones fast enough? The free market has the flexibility to change; government doesn't.

I don't really see how this is different. If someone in the free market decides to do thing differently, he will still have to negotiate with the people he sells the stuff to whether this is an acceptable change. Each company will have codified the specifications of the materials they buy, and these must be followed by the letter until negotiated otherwise. They cannot accept the manufacturer of the brass cylinders to suddenly come up with aluminium cylinders if for example their machines can't handle them, or if their customers specifically demand brass. So even in the free market there are limits to how innovative someone can be and a certain tradition of how 'way we happen to do things around here' will also arise.

A complex network of buyers and sellers of materials and goods can be just as resistent to change as a government.

When you file legal briefs to Federal court, there's actually a certain kind of paper codified into law that you must use.

I can imagine that there maybe legitimate reasons for that. Perhaps the paper needed is acid free and can survive longer in an archive. Or the archives are designed to hold a specific papersize. Or the experts who conserve the paper or test whether it was forged have specialised their techniques on this type of paper.

Just like it may be easier for the pencil factory to demand that its suppliers supply them with very narrowly defined material to make sure the material can be handled properly, the government can demand that people file their documents in specific format. For both the reason is the same: if someone gives them something else a cascade of problems can arise because they haven't designed the way they work on such a different thing.

I don't know whether it has any relevance to the case you mention, but here is an article about legal briefs that are filed in diskette or CD-Rom form. It shows that the government can change. Of course it also mentions the problems with such new formats: new expertise is needed to decide whether briefs aren't forged, new ways are needed to sign documents, etc... Reasonable concerns, IMHO.

Another reason is, as the pencil points out, most of the people involved do their jobs not caring or even knowing that it's going to be used to make a pencil. That's obviously not the case with government regulation.

Are you claiming that every government official involved knows all the inns and outs of the regulation they help design and maintain? I don't believe that for a bit: most of them are just filling in forms and they don't care or know exactly what it is for.

This is what helps it be efficient and effective, and allows it to grow and change as needs change or as technology improves.

Governments grow and change too and also adapt to new technology: you won't find any government building that isn't filled with computers. And you yourself have pointed out many times that governments grow.

Government is force, and force is stoic and resistant to change.

You have not shown that governments are stoic and resistant to change.

You miss the point—these people aren't working together in any meaningful way. They don't have to be.

When I say that they are 'working together' I mean that they collectively produce meaningul results. I find that a perfectly meaningful way to understand 'working together'.

Then you need to reread the last few paragraphs.

I have read them carefully, but I consider it not much of an argument. Chinese people don't live in freedom (certainly not according to libertarian standards) but they still manage to collectively produce almost everything in the world. If I buy a set of pencils made in China (they are not really all that hard to find) how does its existence proof that freedom is necessary to produce it? The people who produced it aren't free!

 

[shanek]

I don't really see how this is different. If someone in the free market decides to do thing differently, he will still have to negotiate with the people he sells the stuff to whether this is an acceptable change.

No, he won't. He can just make the change.

Each company will have codified the specifications of the materials they buy, and these must be followed by the letter until negotiated otherwise.

Not to any more than a single iteration. There's no reason why people who make the graphite for a pencil need to know about issues making the rubber for the eraser. But with government, it all has to be codified in one place. It's only an issue between one particular buyer and one particular seller.

A complex network of buyers and sellers of materials and goods can be just as resistent to change as a government.

History proves you wrong. Over and over and over and over again. What about the examples I've given?

I can imagine that there maybe legitimate reasons for that. Perhaps the paper needed is acid free and can survive longer in an archive.

Nope. Nothing to do with that.

Or the archives are designed to hold a specific papersize.

It's still standard 8&frac12"×11".

Or the experts who conserve the paper or test whether it was forged have specialised their techniques on this type of paper.

Nope. In fact, more modern paper is better for this.

It's only like that because it hasn't been changed. Period.

Are you claiming that every government official involved knows all the inns and outs of the regulation they help design and maintain?

They're supposed to. That's one reason lawyers make so much money.

Governments grow and change too and also adapt to new technology: you won't find any government building that isn't filled with computers.

I've been in several. All the ones I've seen are at least 8 years behind the times.

When I say that they are 'working together' I mean that they collectively produce meaningul results.

Right, but the point is they don't have to be working deliberately with that result in mind.

Chinese people don't live in freedom (certainly not according to libertarian standards) but they still manage to collectively produce almost everything in the world.

And this has been more and more the case the more and more China moves to a free market. (Ironically, China is becoming more and more free as we become less and less free.) So thank you for confirming my argument.

 

[Earthborn]

No, he won't. He can just make the change.

Sure, but if that results in a slightly different product, his customers might get angry because they don't get what they asked for. So it is a better idea to ask whether his customer would accept the change, or make sure the change does not affect the nature of the product.

But with government, it all has to be codified in one place.

I don't see how this is strictly necessary. Government agencies can just as easily negotiate with eachother what input they get and what output they need to generate. I'm pretty sure that's how it works, because I don't think it has been codified in one place where everybody's deskchair needs to be placed.

What about the examples I've given?

Which examples show that free market companies adapt to change better than government agencies?

It's only like that because it hasn't been changed. Period.

Sure, if you say so. You are the expert on everything after all.

They're supposed to.

I don't see why. They are supposed to do their job. I don't see why they are supposed to know everything about every aspect of all the jobs of all the people they are working with. That would be physically impossible.

I've been in several. All the ones I've seen are at least 8 years behind the times.

I've been in many also. Around here they seem to have the most state of the art stuff that exists.

I also get a feeling that if your government would buy modern stuff, you would accuse them of spending too much money on fancy equipment even if they might easily get by with a bit older computers. I've been in private companies too, and often they use older stuff because they can still use them and don't feel the need to buy modern machines.

Right, but the point is they don't have to be working deliberately with that result in mind.

I don't see why 'that's the point' because I don't think it makes a difference whether they deliberately work towards a specific goal or not. Whether the graphite miners mine graphite to sell it, or to allow others to make pencils from it makes no difference. The result is exactly the same.

I'm pretty sure that those miners know very well what the graphite is used for. Ask any manufacturer of any material, and he'll be able to name many things that are made with the material and they probably are perfectly capable of seeing how important the stuff is for society as a whole.

Ironically, China is becoming more and more free as we become less and less free.

In China people are not allowed to critise the government, they cannot protest against poor living and working conditions, they cannot form unions to improve their conditions. There are no signs at all showing that this is going to change anytime soon. So claiming the Chinese are becoming more and more free makes your concept of 'freedom' even more meaningless than it already was.

 

[Brian]

And I disagree; I think butter tastes much better and is worth the extra money. Isn't it great how the free market gives you that choice? That you can make that evaluation for your own life, and there isn't one way forced on anyone?

This is why all these "problems" with the free market are ridiculous. The people who say they're problems assume that there's one right way, one best way, one most efficient way, whatever, of doing things. And that's just plain wrong. People are different. They have different tastes and needs and priorities.



This doesn't sound good to me. A lot of tyrants have done things for the "greater good."

I meant the butter comment as in your favor. We should be provided with choices.
By greater good I mean, any political or economic system has to have some reason to justify it. Call it freedom, or equality or whatever. I take it to mean it will be intended to make things better than they are and not worse. Greater good. Although, it was a poor choice of words on my part. I forgot that it's loaded, but I did mention that it was subjective. Remember, I did say "objectively detrmined" to be for the greater good, though.
Like, this system caused less people to starve to death, and such.

 

[Daylight]

shanek

In the Free Market concept are there patents, trademarks and copyrights?

 

[shanek]

Sure, but if that results in a slightly different product, his customers might get angry because they don't get what they asked for.

You mean, like, New Coke? They changed it, and the customers complained...boy did they complain! So much so that they brought back Coca-Cola Classic, and after that, Coca-Cola's market share actually increased from what it was before they released New Coke.

Whereas, Pepsi has changed their formula several times, with no such complaints.

Besides, are customers really going to care if the ferrule is brass or aluminum? Just as long as it holds the eraser in?

So it is a better idea to ask whether his customer would accept the change,

How are you going to ask millions and millions of customers whether they would accept the change? You can't. The best you can do is market research and focus groups.

I don't see how this is strictly necessary. Government agencies can just as easily negotiate with eachother what input they get and what output they need to generate. I'm pretty sure that's how it works, because I don't think it has been codified in one place where everybody's deskchair needs to be placed.

All of the processes are codified. Just look at how big the US Code is.

Which examples show that free market companies adapt to change better than government agencies?

I've given several examples of the free market adapting, and at least one example of the government not. Here are some others:

People may be placed in jail for five years for shooting a hole in a penny. (USC TITLE 18(I)(17)§331)

It is illegal to give free alcohol to Indians living on reservations. (USC TITLE 18(I)(53)§1154)

US citzens can take possession of any foreign, uninhabited island, as long as it contains bird droppings. (USC TITLE 48 CHAPTER 8)

There are tons of others. All of these laws had a purpose at one point, but no longer; yet, here they sit, still on the books.

I don't see why. They are supposed to do their job. I don't see why they are supposed to know everything about every aspect of all the jobs of all the people they are working with. That would be physically impossible.

Earthborn, it is the job of a lawyer to know these things. It has to be. There needs to be some people who know what all the regulations are, at least in a certain area. Not so with the pencil.

I also get a feeling that if your government would buy modern stuff, you would accuse them of spending too much money on fancy equipment even if they might easily get by with a bit older computers.

Hardly...

So claiming the Chinese are becoming more and more free makes your concept of 'freedom' even more meaningless than it already was.

Ridiculous. You mentioned things that they're never been able to do, at least under Communism. That doesn't mean they haven't made strides in other areas.

 

[shanek]

I meant the butter comment as in your favor. We should be provided with choices.

Thanks. And y'know, providing us with choices is what the government doesn't do. It's one size fits all.

By greater good I mean, any political or economic system has to have some reason to justify it. Call it freedom, or equality or whatever. I take it to mean it will be intended to make things better than they are and not worse. Greater good. Although, it was a poor choice of words on my part. I forgot that it's loaded, but I did mention that it was subjective. Remember, I did say "objectively detrmined" to be for the greater good, though.
Like, this system caused less people to starve to death, and such.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

 

[shanek]

In the Free Market concept are there patents, trademarks and copyrights?

Patents and copyrights, no. Trademarks are now done by the government, but could be handled by independent private bodies.

 

[CFLarsen]

Patents and copyrights, no.

That will effectively put a stop to all inventions and developments of anything.

Trademarks are now done by the government, but could be handled by independent private bodies.

"Independent"? From what? What if two different independent private bodies were to claim the same trademark? Who would solve the issue?

Why shouldn't a farmaceutical company be allowed to protect its inventions? They paid for research, they took the risk, why should some other company benefit from their hard work?

Intellectual theft is allowed in a Free Market? Phooey....

 

[Kerberos]

He never said the government has no function. He's repeated observed that the government is at its best when it's doing the least; i.e., defending those freedoms guaranteed to us as US citizens. This is not to be confused with granting us freedoms

So where do theese freedoms come from then? Did the faries in the garden give them to us? Are they writen in the stars? Or perhaps the aliens that created man wrote them into our gene code? Not that saying that right come from governement is really accurate either.

 

[CFLarsen]

So where do theese freedoms come from then? Did the faries in the garden give them to us? Are they writen in the stars? Or perhaps the aliens that created man wrote them into our gene code? Not that saying that right come from governement is really accurate either.

They are either:

1) Natural laws.

or

2) Granted us by God.

Of course, nobody can post the equation for this natural law or show the scientific evidence, and nobody seems to be willing to give up their veneer of skepticism to actually come forward and state that these freedoms were granted by a supernatural being.

It's just...out there...somewhere...real fuzzy. Real woowoo-like.

 

[shanek]

That will effectively put a stop to all inventions and developments of anything.

As long as nothing replaces them, yes. But the pencil teaches us that the free market can innovate and come up with a way to allow inventors to properly profit from their inventions. It may surprise you to know that a lot of companies don't bother to patent their inventions, relying instead on keeping a trade secret.

"Independent"? From what? What if two different independent private bodies were to claim the same trademark? Who would solve the issue?

It would only be an issue whenever someone was deliberately trying to create confusion and associate their product with someone else's. That would be fraud, and civil damages could be sought for it even in absence of trademark laws.

Why shouldn't a farmaceutical company be allowed to protect its inventions?

Who said it shouldn't?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

They are either:

1) Natural laws.

or

2) Granted us by God.

Of course, nobody can post the equation for this natural law or show the scientific evidence, and nobody seems to be willing to give up their veneer of skepticism to actually come forward and state that these freedoms were granted by a supernatural being.

It's just...out there...somewhere...real fuzzy. Real woowoo-like.

Well put.

 

[CFLarsen]

As long as nothing replaces them, yes. But the pencil teaches us that the free market can innovate and come up with a way to allow inventors to properly profit from their inventions. It may surprise you to know that a lot of companies don't bother to patent their inventions, relying instead on keeping a trade secret.

That is a truly naive stance. Ask NOVO if they feel threatened by copy-products of insuline. You bet they do. Why should other companies benefit from the research that NOVO has done, at their own risk and peril?

It would only be an issue whenever someone was deliberately trying to create confusion and associate their product with someone else's. That would be fraud, and civil damages could be sought for it even in absence of trademark laws.

No, it would not. I claim ownership of a certain logo, and you do the same. We each have different independent private bodies.

Who should win?

Who said it shouldn't?

You did, by throwing out the idea that there are no patents in a Free Market. Please address the issues, instead of obfuscating.

 

[shanek]

That is a truly naive stance.

Only if you haven't learned from the pencil.

Ask NOVO if they feel threatened by copy-products of insuline. You bet they do. Why should other companies benefit from the research that NOVO has done, at their own risk and peril?

Those companies all say the same thing about corporate welfare.

No, it would not. I claim ownership of a certain logo, and you do the same. We each have different independent private bodies.

Who should win?

Depends. If we're both doing completely different things with the logo, it's a moot point. You need more details in your hypothetical.

You did, by throwing out the idea that there are no patents in a Free Market. Please address the issues, instead of obfuscating.

I did address them. As usual, you don't want to deal with the answers. You're insisting that patents are the only way to protect inventions, and that just isn't so.

 

[CFLarsen]

Only if you haven't learned from the pencil.

I do not obey dogma.

Those companies all say the same thing about corporate welfare.

You are not addressing the point, shanek.

Why should other companies benefit from the research that NOVO has done, at their own risk and peril?

Depends. If we're both doing completely different things with the logo, it's a moot point. You need more details in your hypothetical.

WTF are you talking about? "Doing completely different things with the logo"? It doesn't matter what is being done with the logo, the issue is: Who owns the rights to the logo?

You or me?

I did address them. As usual, you don't want to deal with the answers. You're insisting that patents are the only way to protect inventions, and that just isn't so.

Huh?? How on Earth are you going to protect inventions, if not by patents??