Debates
30 Jun 10
01 Jul 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraCartels are inherently unstable due to the prisoner's dilemma. Misinformation is fraud, so liable to prosecution.
What about cartels and misinformation?
Note that a free market IS less efficient when the government doesn't do it's job -- providing a justice system that works rapidly at reasonable cost.
01 Jul 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHard to do in the face of competition.
No, the best way to make money is to create addicts and milk them, preferably in a form that induces religious enthusiasm among the milkees. Reduce choice to as close to zero as possible, form a monopoly if you can or club together and make an oligopoly, and fix prices so you can screw your suppliers (who in turn are forced) screw their workers) and cu ...[text shortened]... ken to mean 'pleasure', which is often not beneficial at all. Therein lies the rub.
If we interpret 'pleasure' not as hedonism but as happiness, then the Pursuit thereof is highly regarded.
My brother-in-law says the purpose of life is to collect great memories.
01 Jul 10
Originally posted by spruce112358Cartels are stable because of the prisoner's dilemma. There is no incentive for producers to quit the cartel and sell their goods at a lower price. If they are unstable, how can they exist today?
Cartels are inherently unstable due to the prisoner's dilemma. Misinformation is fraud, so liable to prosecution.
Note that a free market IS less efficient when the government doesn't do it's job -- providing a justice system that works rapidly at reasonable cost.
Misinformation is not always fraud, otherwise anti wrinkle cream wouldn't exist.
01 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358Pursuing happiness is delusional, if you think about it carefully.
Hard to do in the face of competition.
If we interpret 'pleasure' not as hedonism but as happiness, then the Pursuit thereof is highly regarded.
My brother-in-law says the purpose of life is to collect great memories.
This fits in perfectly with economic theory.
01 Jul 10
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorrathe problem with warning labels are that they work best for something that is completely unhealthy and where a large precentage of the population agrees that the item is bad -- things like tobacco
Yes, like I said, depending on preference people will want a combination of tasty and healthy. What if there are two similar products A and B, which are about equally tasty and expensive, but different in healthiness? If people don't know the difference in healthiness, they might pick A or B arbitratily. But if they can easily verify that B is much less st provide the information to consumers and the free market will take care of everything else.
Food is a lot more ambiguous. It's very hard to declare that any food is unilaterally unhealthy (although soda comes close). Nutella, for instance, includes milk (an excellent source of calcium) and hazel nuts (generally a healthy ingredient). And if someone consumes relatively small amounts of something like Nutella or soda as part of an overall healthy diet, its unlikely to cause any significant harm. On the other hand, food that is clearly healthy like raisins or bananas still have a lot of sugar and can contribute to obesity if eaten in excess.
That is why I strongly support requiring everything to include labels that specify how much calories, sugar, fat, protein, sodium, and nutrients are in a particular food item -- and then make people aware of these labels and what the numbers on them mean so they can make their own decisions.
In the US, these labels are currently required on all food you buy in the store -- similar requirements are starting to appear in some places regarding food served at restaurants, but so far it is not yet widespread.
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes, the producer with the more healthy product would choose to have theri product certified by an independant, then reap the benefits.
Yes, like I said, depending on preference people will want a combination of tasty and healthy. What if there are two similar products A and B, which are about equally tasty and expensive, but different in healthiness? If people don't know the difference in healthiness, they might pick A or B arbitratily. But if they can easily verify that B is much less ...[text shortened]... st provide the information to consumers and the free market will take care of everything else.
Nothing compulsory.
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by WajomaNo, they would choose to get no certification because it costs money and doesn't give them any competitive advantage because not all producers are forced to use the same system so the consumer can compare.
Yes, the producer with the more healthy product would choose to have theri product certified by an independant, then reap the benefits.
Nothing compulsory.
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraCartels control prices by restricting production, so the problem is getting everyone to obey production quotas. There is always the temptation to discretely over-produce. That's the dilemma. We see this behavior with OPEC.
Cartels are stable because of the prisoner's dilemma. There is no incentive for producers to quit the cartel and sell their goods at a lower price. If they are unstable, how can they exist today?
Misinformation is not always fraud, otherwise anti wrinkle cream wouldn't exist.
Cartels raise prices some, and I am not saying they are a good thing because they do interfere with competition. But as long as there is no barrier to market entry, cartels have to accommodate new members endlessly until they become impossible to control.
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOr, it could happen that the company who refuses to divulge how healthy/unhealthy their product is sells less because customers really, really do want to know -- and so they choose products that do divulge. This competition leads to better and better labels that consumers (apart from Melanerpes) like better and better.
No, they would choose to get no certification because it costs money and doesn't give them any competitive advantage because not all producers are forced to use the same system so the consumer can compare.
Again, nothing compulsory -- consumer demand drives the producer's behavior.
Why does the government need to tell people what they want? People actually know what they want. All government is doing here is stagnating the process at a level where neither producers nor consumers (apart from Melanerpes) are very happy about it.
Government's true role is one of setting standards -- just as it does with weights and measures. So not dictating the content ("you must report total sodium" ) -- just declaring a common format whereby any two company's labels can be compared.
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by Wajomain a perfect world where the consumer is given balanced information. in the real world however our being victim to not denying choice means that manufacturer A with healthy advertizing budget with all the latest cgi acoutremonts (i dont have spellcheck) gets to the hearts and minds far more effectively and efficiently than manufacturer B who actually is selling a great and healthy product.
Yes, the producer with the more healthy product would choose to have theri product certified by an independant, then reap the benefits.
but who are we mere mortals to complain about product A where if we did we would be denying somebody the right to eat crud passed as natural goodness. telling A to match its promise of goodness with actual goodness will obviously lead us towards communism and the nanny state.......
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by kmax87The people who want good and healthy products have to help manufacturer B. That isn't the role of the nanny state -- that's between manufacturer B and their customers.
in a perfect world where the consumer is given balanced information. in the real world however our being victim to not denying choice means that manufacturer A with healthy advertizing budget with all the latest cgi acoutremonts (i dont have spellcheck) gets to the hearts and minds far more effectively and efficiently than manufacturer B who actually is selli ...[text shortened]... oodness with actual goodness will obviously lead us towards communism and the nanny state.......
It may be (much to the shock and horror of the nanny state) that most people actually prefer something about manufacturer A. Their product is clearly less healthy -- but their packaging looks "cooler" on the shelf, and so when they have friends over they feel "more hip" and therefore happier than if they bring out product B and all their friends laugh at them and turn up their noses.
Who says the role of government is to nag us? Otherwise, what are mothers for?
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by spruce112358Why is it that you see some kind of inconvenience in being provided with information about a product?
The people who want good and healthy products have to help manufacturer B. That isn't the role of the nanny state -- that's between manufacturer B and their customers.
It may be (much to the shock and horror of the nanny state) that most people actually prefer something about manufacturer A. Their product is clearly less healthy -- but their packagin ...[text shortened]... r noses.
Who says the role of government is to nag us? Otherwise, what are mothers for?
02 Jul 10
Originally posted by spruce112358So cartels should just be left alone and freely defraud costumers, because... well, why exactly?
Cartels control prices by restricting production, so the problem is getting everyone to obey production quotas. There is always the temptation to discretely over-produce. That's the dilemma. We see this behavior with OPEC.
Cartels raise prices some, and I am not saying they are a good thing because they do interfere with competition. But as long as t ...[text shortened]... try, cartels have to accommodate new members endlessly until they become impossible to control.
By the way, there are plenty of industries where there are intrinsic entry barriers for new players in the market, e.g. steel manufacturing.