Originally posted by KazetNagorra Well, I would certainly be in favour of drastically limiting the lying producers are allowed to do in advertising - but remember there is also a productive purpose of advertising: to make consumers aware of products they genuinely want. So, ideally, producers should be able to inform, but not mislead. For starters, it would be a good idea if producers are forced to provide scientific backup for every factual claim they make.
The dilemma regarding advertising is that almost ALL ads (as well as almost ALL salesmen) are in some way misleading and fraudulent. And yet, ads play an essential role in making consumers aware of products. So an arbitrary line needs to drawn somewhere.
Originally posted by Melanerpes The dilemma regarding advertising is that almost ALL ads (as well as almost ALL salesmen) are in some way misleading and fraudulent. And yet, ads play an essential role in making consumers aware of products. So an arbitrary line needs to drawn somewhere.
True. So if the line is clear, there can be no confusion. If producers have to back up every single claim they make, there's a lot less lying and misleading possible. Vague claims which cannot be verified, such as "healthy", would be banned.
Originally posted by FMF Deaths - should they occur - might be reported in the newspapers, so - over time - it might be possible for consumers to make an informed choice without spending several weeks researching scientific journals and various institutions.
That might work for poisoned food, but food which carries a long-term risk would not be affected.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra True. So if the line is clear, there can be no confusion. If producers have to back up every single claim they make, there's a lot less lying and misleading possible. Vague claims which cannot be verified, such as "healthy", would be banned.
Actually, it would be easy to back up a vague claim such as "healthy". For example, you can state that ice cream is "healthy" because it has sugar in it. After all, the human body uses sugar to carry out many essential functions.
And it's even easier to back up claims such as "this product is totally awesome, dude!!" or "Michael Jordan said that he likes this product".
Originally posted by Melanerpes Actually, it would be easy to back up a vague claim such as "healthy". For example, you can state that ice cream is "healthy" because it has sugar in it. After all, the human body uses sugar to carry out many essential functions.
And it's even easier to back up claims such as "this product is totally awesome, dude!!" or "Michael Jordan said that he likes this product".
Well, I just said a claim such as "healthy" would be banned so there would be no incentive to back up such claims.
Saying a product is good or a celebrity endorsement is not a lie so that wouldn't be affected.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Why are you asking these questions? A cartel is a distortion of the true market price, surely this is something you should oppose without a second though?
I am not defending cartels -- I'm saying on what basis do we 'regulate' them? Free markets function not because there are 'true' prices but because of non-coercive agreements between parties. So what is a cartel doing wrong, exactly?
Even so, suppose 'We the People' decided we didn't like cartels. So we could attack that a couple of ways:
1. Create a government agency to regulate industry, or
2. Not buy from cartels. Now, as one or two individuals that sounds ineffective (NB. Beware the power of the internet). But if federal and state governments decide that no government contract or sub-contract may be awarded to a company that is listed as belonging to a cartel -- wow. That's a pretty big hammer. And no additional regulation on the industry.
Originally posted by spruce112358 I am not defending cartels -- I'm saying on what basis do we 'regulate' them? Free markets function not because there are 'true' prices but because of non-coercive agreements between parties. So what is a cartel doing wrong, exactly?
Even so, suppose 'We the People' decided we didn't like cartels. So we could attack that a couple of ways:
1. Creat ...[text shortened]... artel -- wow. That's a pretty big hammer. And no additional regulation on the industry.
Not all companies sell much to government agencies. A supermarket cartel, for example, would be unaffected. Regardless, you would need to find out about the cartel first, and once you've found out, what's the point of allowing it to exist?
Listing the ingredients in food most certainly improves the 'freedom' of the consumer, by supplying them with more information with which to make an informed choice. The only way such a move acts against 'freedom' is if that term has become so particular - so debased, really - as to refer always and only to the simplest conception of man as an economic agent and consumer: to say that unless people can shop around for labelled rather than unlabelled food they are not 'free'. Poppycock.
It's an example of another essentialism - and, as before, what we see is a crude caricature of people: we can kind of recognise the thing described as people, but it's just a resemblance. It's why the cry of freedom lost seems faintly silly.
Here in the UK, the the attempt to standardise a 'traffic light' system for labelling has met with a mixed reaction, with some major retailers on board with one plan - actually the most popular with consumer groups and in surveys - and with some resisting. Some companies use their own rating systems, using different scales or measurements, or using pastel shades for the 'traffic lights' (which dampens their effects). I've no massive problem with some sort of standardisation, and some more negotiation could see that happen. In a substantive manner, I think consumer freedom will be enhanced, rather than reduced.
Originally posted by DrKF Listing the ingredients in food most certainly improves the 'freedom' of the consumer, by supplying them with more information with which to make an informed choice. The only way such a move acts against 'freedom' is if that term has become so particular - so debased, really - as to refer always and only to the simplest conception of man as an economic agent an ...[text shortened]... ubstantive manner, I think consumer freedom will be enhanced, rather than reduced.
Yes we know, you'd like to define freedom as "poopycock". It's clearly something you do not value, but some of us do. The freedom at stake here is not only that of the consumer but the freedom of the producer to market their product as they see fit.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Not all companies sell much to government agencies. A supermarket cartel, for example, would be unaffected. Regardless, you would need to find out about the cartel first, and once you've found out, what's the point of allowing it to exist?
Supermarkets would never go for it. A) Too much work to set a price for everything in the store, B) Theirs is fundamentally a small-margin, high-volume business so they would not like distribution quotas. C) Mom-and-Pop groceries would start to make a comeback.
I don't like cartels either. If I found out about one, I would avoid their products because I would assume they were too expensive. I certainly think my government at federal, state, and local levels, any government contractors in defense or construction or education, and any organization that receives government funding like Medicare should do the same.
But again, what right of others do cartels violate?
Originally posted by spruce112358 Supermarkets would never go for it. A) Too much work to set a price for everything in the store, B) Theirs is fundamentally a small-margin, high-volume business so they would not like distribution quotas. C) Mom-and-Pop groceries would start to make a comeback.
I don't like cartels either. If I found out about one, I would avoid their products becaus ...[text shortened]... unding like Medicare should do the same.
But again, what right of others do cartels violate?
There are supermarket cartels. But if you insist to deny them out of existence, that's fine by me.
Why do you keep avoiding taking a stance against cartels? A free market works most efficiently in the case of homogeneous goods, easy access to the market, transparent information about products and many producers. Cartels violate many of the aspects which improve efficiency of the free market. How could you oppose implementing leglislation to fight cartels?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra There are supermarket cartels. But if you insist to deny them out of existence, that's fine by me.
Why do you keep avoiding taking a stance against cartels? A free market works most efficiently in the case of homogeneous goods, easy access to the market, transparent information about products and many producers. Cartels violate many of the aspects wh ...[text shortened]... efficiency of the free market. How could you oppose implementing leglislation to fight cartels?
No there aren't -- not on any scale. You know this because where do you go to buy cheap food? To the biggest supermarket around.
Why do you keep avoiding telling us what right cartels violate? If cartels violate a right we all agree we should have, then you should be able to state what that is. Otherwise, if we ban cartels "just because" then we ban strikes as well. Strikes are annoying -- none of us like them. Their only purpose (as with an alleged cartel) is to benefit a small group at the expense of the rest of us.
Saying that a cartel creates a less efficient free market is noble -- but are you saying we all have a right to participate in a free market? I might agree -- although I don't know of any Constitutional guarantee along those lines.
Originally posted by spruce112358 No there aren't -- not on any scale. You know this because where do you go to buy cheap food? To the biggest supermarket around.
Why do you keep avoiding telling us what right cartels violate? If cartels violate a right we all agree we should have, then you should be able to state what that is. Otherwise, if we ban cartels "just because" then we ban ...[text shortened]... t? I might agree -- although I don't know of any Constitutional guarantee along those lines.
I don't go to the biggest supermarket around, I go to the closest one (100 yards). There aren't any big supermarkets in the Netherlands - the land is too expensive. Ahold buys e.g. onions for a few cents per kilo, and sells them for 1 euro per kilo. Clearly something is not quite right, and costs of transport and retail don't explain the difference. Yes, I can go to a local weekly market and buy onions at a much lower price, but that is mightily inconvenient (plus, I don't like crowds). Still, it would be better if Ahold sold their onions at a fair market price rather than at an inflated cartel price.
Now, what "rights" do cartels violate. Any rights you may define that are violated by cartels. I don't see the relevance, what I am interested in is maximizing the standard of living in a certain society, and something which helps doing that is getting rid of cartels.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra I don't go to the biggest supermarket around, I go to the closest one (100 yards). There aren't any big supermarkets in the Netherlands - the land is too expensive. Ahold buys e.g. onions for a few cents per kilo, and sells them for 1 euro per kilo. Clearly something is not quite right, and costs of transport and retail don't explain the difference. Yes ...[text shortened]... ing in a certain society, and something which helps doing that is getting rid of cartels.
The explanation is that the Netherlands is exporting massive quantities of onions. In fact, you are the world leader in onion exports. Congratulations!
Of course, the result is a local shortage which drives up the price.
So don't blame Ahold for a problem you can fix yourself. Your soil and climate are perfect, and your onions have a firm skin and even color. We look forward to hearing about the results of your garden! 😉
Nutella could carry warning...
02 Jul '10 22:041 edit
Back to Top