Why Is Youth So Left-Wing?

[Mise]

Once again, this debate has moved on from the last time I checked it. So instead of replying to specific points, I'd rather speak in general.

First of all. About being called a collectivist. I object to being called a collectivist because of its connotations with collective farming in the former Soviet Union. I suppose I object much in the same way "liberals" might object to being called "anarchists", since it connotes infantile behaviour. But that's rather semantic.

Secondly. The US government HAS been turning a blind eye to many unfair practices over the past two (if not more) decades. (I'll find some examples if you want when I get some time. But I'm pretty sure this is the case. It takes no real stretch of the imagination, considering the number of laws that gov'ts have unofficially repealled in the 1980's.)

Thirdly. (please bear with me, it does have a point) Last week I bought a pen. I didn't necessarily buy the "best" pen. Nor did I buy the pen which is most efficiently made. Nor did I buy the pen which has been made by the most ethical company. Nor did I buy the cheapest one. I bought the one which looks nicest. It might not be a very good pen, but it's a nice looking pen. And that's my choice, right? If I wanna buy a nice looking pen, I can buy a nice looking pen. I don't know how it was made, who made it, where it was made, how many animals were killed in making it nor should I have to know any of these things. I shouldn't have to do all that work and prior research just to buy a pen. That's why I pay the government to find out whether this pen was fairly made. I trust that the government has enforced enough laws such that the pen I bought was ethically made, fairly priced, etc. Tell me, how do YOU buy YOUR pens?

EDIT: I had a fourthly, but I forgot.

 

[insurgent]

First of all. About being called a collectivist. I object to being called a collectivist because of its connotations with collective farming in the former Soviet Union. I suppose I object much in the same way "liberals" might object to being called "anarchists", since it connotes infantile behaviour. But that's rather semantic.

It doesn't imply anything like that. That's just because communists have abused the term "collective". Really, to do something collectively just means doing something "together" - and to a liberal it implies forcing others to conform with whatever it is you're doing. For instance, advocating social spending is collectivism, because everybody is forced to pay taxes because some majority wants to use the money for some specific purpose. So you see, it's not an insult, unless you think it is.

Thirdly. (please bear with me, it does have a point) Last week I bought a pen. I didn't necessarily buy the "best" pen. Nor did I buy the pen which is most efficiently made. Nor did I buy the pen which has been made by the most ethical company. Nor did I buy the cheapest one. I bought the one which looks nicest. It might not be a very good pen, but it's a nice looking pen. And that's my choice, right? If I wanna buy a nice looking pen, I can buy a nice looking pen. I don't know how it was made, who made it, where it was made, how many animals were killed in making it nor should I have to know any of these things. I shouldn't have to do all that work and prior research just to buy a pen. That's why I pay the government to find out whether this pen was fairly made. I trust that the government has enforced enough laws such that the pen I bought was ethically made, fairly priced, etc. Tell me, how do YOU buy YOUR pens?

I'm sure you remember the story in the medias about that company that slaughtered baby seals and burned them in their furnaces in the plant. Whatever happened to that company? Oh yeah, it went out of production, nobody wanted to buy their pens.

There are plenty of real life examples of this. If the government did not intervene and employed coercion as much to force uncompromising solutions on people so much, people would expect that they would have to solve the problems themselves. It's a matter of attitude. And that attitude leaves others their free choice, free will, and free enterprise as opposed to coercive government.

 

[Mise]

There are plenty of real life examples of this. If the government did not intervene and employed coercion as much to force uncompromising solutions on people so much, people would expect that they would have to solve the problems themselves. It's a matter of attitude. And that attitude leaves others their free choice, free will, and free enterprise as opposed to coercive government.

There's a problem here, because I don't share that attitude! I feel that the government has a duty to protect the population from injustices. I don't feel that I should have to know everything about the way a company operates just to buy something from them. I just don't have the time to find out whether a company is operating in a way that I approve of. In my eyes, that's the government's job. And to my knowledge, there's no-one that I can employ to check the morality of all the companies I currently buy from.

In short, how am I supposed to know if there is even a problem, let alone try and solve it myself!

 

[luiz]

Stop acting dumb, please. That's below you. If you have to end up pretending not understanding the principle of fairness, or pretending that the basic isn't common to most people (where do all the laws to protect people and render justice comes from ? Magical heavens ? Self-defense laws, laws against crooks, against exploitation, against everything we consider "unfair" ?), then it means you don't have good argument left and try to divert into a semantic war...

Sure, the basic concepts of fairness are shared by most.
But fairness goes beyond that. There are numerous issues, even in the Constitutions, which are far from beign a consensus.
For exemple I believe in the fairness of markets, you don't.

Of course it's based on statistics. How do you think a speculator is able to make money ? It's by playing on huge amount of people and money flowing, and basing it on statistics. Demand and offer on a large scale (that is, on a scale where the average Joe can't graps or affect the economy) IS based on statistics...

Statistics are the interpretation of the Economy, not the other way around. Sure, many decisions are taken based on stats. But statistics are nothing more then the representation of other economic decisions.
Statistics is a tool in the study of the Economy, not the base.

I could point that Iraq war was probably more about making big deals for some companies than anything else.
But anyway, you didn't get what I meant. What I meant is that the economies, and big companies, have a PERMANENT effect on everyone. They shape the world, and the situations we all are on.
Governement have the potential power to also affect the economy in a huge way, but they usually don't do it, because it require a concerted effort and an acceptation from the population (which denies many immoral/unethical methods), while corporations are, on the contrary, constantly using their influence and power on the economy, and they don't have any accountability to morality or fairness.

Exactly, a big reason for Iraq was special interests. That's what governments do all the time, harm the overall economy to favour certain special interests(and of course the harm is always superior to the benefits of the special interests). Iraq is but an exemple, it happens with all governments.
Companies of course DO have an effect on the Economy, they are economic agents. But it's a positive impact, ie one that generates wealth. Governments, OTOH, can only destroy it.

And if child labour exists, it's because it's beneficial for the companies to use it. As such, there is incentive for them to keep it running (by bribing/threatening/favoring/bullying the government of a poor country not to vote laws against it, for example). That is the real principle fo free market : use whatever means you can as long as its beneficital to you. Might makes right, in other words.

I agree, there is an incentive to use child labour. But since a big part of the free market ideology is about individual liberty and child labour is usually a form of slavery, prohibitting it is not as contradictory as it may seem.
Only anarchists want no laws.

What's wrong is that the principle of the market push to gain whatever you can whatever the means. It means that it doesn't care for illegality if you can get away with it, morality, ethics or fairness.
So, saying that it's self-regulating is a total absurdity. It produces wealth, and that's it. It neither even the odds between competing companies, distribute wealth or anything. To do that, you have to heavily regulate it. Which is my point.

The Market is self-regulating in the sense that it always maximise the efficiency of the allocation of resources, not in the sense that it will always respect the Law.

99% of the Classical Liberals/Libertarians agree with this. Adam Smith wrote that one of the most important roles of the government is to protect the individuals from fraud.

Just like individuals are subject to the Law, so are companies run by individuals. Free market advocates don't want to ban the Law, only the economic regulations that destroy wealth.

Not just "civilized". Also "having the means to afford to resist economical pressure for exploitation". See the part about economical incentive for child labor above.

Many poor countries, even some miserable one, have ant-child labour law. Decent legislation and poverty are not mutualy exclusive.
Unlike what many think, the governments try hard to attract multinationals. The pressure is much more internal then external, there is no exploitation.

I can only repeat myself : that's pure, total wishful thinking, just like a communist saying that the only communist state not working is the badly implemented one.
Competition can be crushed simply because the opposition is bigger and has the money to buy it out, bankrupt it or crush it under its weight. THAT is reality.

I must repeat myself too: the consumers will decide. If a big corporation buys everyone out of the business and raises prices, soon there will be another company competing. Economic theory states that is always the case in free markets. The only thing that can change this fact is government interventionism that creates monopolies(à la Mercantilism).

Because planning bodies are accountable to the wishes of the people, while the Market isn't. Seems quite obvious.

The market responds to the will of the consumers.
That said, even if planning bodies are accountable to the people, the fact remain that they don't have the information required to make a plan. They might have good intentions, but will fail. Centralised planning has an infamous history of colossal failures.

And ?
The market don't share or synchronise anything. It's simply a big arena where the opponent are thrown and the fittest survive. It works well because it simply let the companies sort their stuff themselves. Which is good to create wealth, but not to distribute it with fairness.

It do share and synchronise with the Price Mechanism.
This mechanism allows everyone in the market to know two things: what is the demand of the consumers and which company is responding more efficiently, what allows an efficient distribution of resources. In fact, it allows the optimum distribution of resources. That's what planning bodies can't do: they can't find out where to efficiently put the resources.

 

[luiz]

Well, scarcity is the basic underpinning of economics theory, certainly, but that doesn't explain why people choose brand A over brand B even when brand B can be demonstrated to be superior/ more durable/ otherwise of higher quality. The concept of utility here is useless because we can't measure it (in its practical application, it's a qualitative rather than quantitative concept), and just because someone has consumed something doesn't mean it was a rational act.

I think that very much depends on your definition of "rationality".
For exemple, our friend Stapel likes old FIAT cars. He spend quite a lot of cash in them. With that same ammount of cash he could certainly buy a newer, more comfortable and potent car. But he likes old FIATs.
One could say that Stapel is beign irrational, from a purely cost/benefit perspective. I don't consider it irrational, though, but simply the result of voluntary interaction.

My point beign that the most obvious choice is not necessarily the one the would maximise the Economic Welfare of the involved. As long as there's voluntary interaction and trade, everyone wins.

That depends on which level you're talking about. However, it is clear that the fact that you cannot assume people are utility-maximizing individuals with rational expectations and (another common assumption) perfect foresight has all sorts of implications for policy, and I'm frankly more interested in those than in debating libertarianism .

But there is no such thing as a perfect foresight. If it was possible that an individual or a group of individuals had enough information to have a perfect foresight, then there would be no need for a free market. But that's an illusion.
Individuals may not always maximise utility, but they certainly know what they want. So allowing them to pursue their individual ends is the way to maximise the overall economic welfare.

I'm sorry, but that's just assertion.

Yes, but supported by the empirical fact that the world is full of corner shops!

But that's a different argument ! Sure, there will still be competition between these stores who are large enough to survive, but my example showed how a revenue-maximizing firm could outcompete a profit-maximizing one, or rather, a firm with large revenues could outcompete a small one. Now if this were theory, the small firm would be able to get a bank loan and hire a ton of people to compete as long as its long-term prospects were sound, but that's not how it works in practice.

If the corner shop was efficient in maximising profit a competitor with a larger revenue would have an extremely tough time driving them out of business.
Real life is full of efficient and small companies that can face competition of big business. Not all fast-foods are McDonald's.

So they have ! However, Friedman was state-of-the art in the 1970s, and insights have progressed since then. No economic theory is set in stone; in fact, the nice thing about economics is there isn't even an absolute truth in there.

Maybe there is nothing set in stone, but human reason allows us to identify absurd ideas, and empiric observation can test ideas.

 

[luiz]

Secondly. The US government HAS been turning a blind eye to many unfair practices over the past two (if not more) decades. (I'll find some examples if you want when I get some time. But I'm pretty sure this is the case. It takes no real stretch of the imagination, considering the number of laws that gov'ts have unofficially repealled in the 1980's.)

Courts or government? You first said courts.
In the US the courst are usually pretty efficient in judging big corporation. Tobaggo comapnies suffered alot, and they are BIG. Today you can read in the papers what is happening with Enron/Worldcom executives.

Thirdly. (please bear with me, it does have a point) Last week I bought a pen. I didn't necessarily buy the "best" pen. Nor did I buy the pen which is most efficiently made. Nor did I buy the pen which has been made by the most ethical company. Nor did I buy the cheapest one. I bought the one which looks nicest. It might not be a very good pen, but it's a nice looking pen. And that's my choice, right? If I wanna buy a nice looking pen, I can buy a nice looking pen. I don't know how it was made, who made it, where it was made, how many animals were killed in making it nor should I have to know any of these things. I shouldn't have to do all that work and prior research just to buy a pen. That's why I pay the government to find out whether this pen was fairly made. I trust that the government has enforced enough laws such that the pen I bought was ethically made, fairly priced, etc. Tell me, how do YOU buy YOUR pens?

Value is subjective, Mise.

When you looked at other pens, your mind placed values on all of them, and compared to the value that the shop-owner was asking for. The good looking pen you bought was the one you liked the most, which means that the difference between the value of the pen for you and the value demanded by the pen-salesman was the biggest. Ie, it was the pen that you thought that would please you the most. So your decision maximised your Economic Welfare, or at least at that point it seemed to maximise your economic welfare(the pen might turn out to be crappy, but that does not change my point).

 

[Mise]

Courts or government? You first said courts.
In the US the courst are usually pretty efficient in judging big corporation. Tobaggo comapnies suffered alot, and they are BIG. Today you can read in the papers what is happening with Enron/Worldcom executives.

Well, both really. Enron/Worldcom, etc.: these are the ones you hear about in the papers and on TV. Obviously, if the courts are turning a blind eye, then no-one hears about them! But IMO the Microsoft anti-trust case was a bit of a farce. Like I said, I'll get some evidence together when I have some time. You're quite right to question my claim.

Value is subjective, Mise.

When you looked at other pens, your mind placed values on all of them, and compared to the value that the shop-owner was asking for. The good looking pen you bought was the one you liked the most, which means that the difference between the value of the pen for you and the value demanded by the pen-salesman was the biggest. Ie, it was the pen that you thought that would please you the most. So your decision maximised your Economic Welfare, or at least at that point it seemed to maximise your economic welfare(the pen might turn out to be crappy, but that does not change my point).

This wasn't really my point. I totally agree with what you've written here. But what I was getting at is that when I bought the pen, I didn't really pay much attention to how ethically it was made, whether the company exploits its workers, whether the company pollutes a lot, whether the company makes it from baby seals, whether the pen was made from one third recycled materials, etc. I didn't research any of those things, and nor should I have to. I take it for granted that the government researches those things for me. If I had to do it myself, I'd never get anything done.

 

[jack merchant]

I think that very much depends on your definition of "rationality".
...
But there is no such thing as a perfect foresight.

Luiz, these concepts is an integral part of the standard economics toolbox and underpin most neoclassical theories. Given your invocation of Friedman, I assumed you knew which definition I meant.

Perfect foresight (...) is an illusion.

Thank you . You see, people aren't quite as good at decision making under uncertainty as they'd want to be, but it's often implied as a given anyway.

Individuals may not always maximise utility, but they certainly know what they want. So allowing them to pursue their individual ends is the way to maximise the overall economic welfare.

But how do we know we reach the optimal result for society if we can't even be certain that the individual economic agent maximizes utility ? Because (from an economic point of view) what else is overall economic welfare but the aggregation of all individual utilities ? This is the basis for all the dogma you posited as fact in your reply to Akka !

I do believe the free market is by and large the superior mechanism, but the market is often seriously imperfect. Think the provision of public goods, externalities, asymmetric information (the jury's still out on monopolies) and more; all things that the libertarian point of view simply doesn't have an answer to. And that's just the economics.....

Yes, but supported by the empirical fact that the world is full of corner shops!

The point is that there are rather less of them than there used to be, and I don't think anyone here would dispute that (though maybe this is not the case in Brazil, I don't know).

Maybe there is nothing set in stone, but human reason allows us to identify absurd ideas, and empiric observation can test ideas.

Truer words were never spoken .

 

[luiz]

Well, both really. Enron/Worldcom, etc.: these are the ones you hear about in the papers and on TV. Obviously, if the courts are turning a blind eye, then no-one hears about them! But IMO the Microsoft anti-trust case was a bit of a farce. Like I said, I'll get some evidence together when I have some time. You're quite right to question my claim.

Microsoft case was a complicated one, and there are lots of possible arguments on both sides. And since it's a relatively new kind of corporation of relatively new business practices it's hard to compare Microsoft with tradional monopolies such as Standard Oil, and as such it's also hard to treat Microsoft like Standard Oil.
All in all, I think the american Justice does a good job in keeping independence from corporate interests. Not always the case of the Executive, but as mentioned in my reply to Akka this is true for all Executive branchs of the world.

This wasn't really my point. I totally agree with what you've written here. But what I was getting at is that when I bought the pen, I didn't really pay much attention to how ethically it was made, whether the company exploits its workers, whether the company pollutes a lot, whether the company makes it from baby seals, whether the pen was made from one third recycled materials, etc. I didn't research any of those things, and nor should I have to. I take it for granted that the government researches those things for me. If I had to do it myself, I'd never get anything done.

That's right.
The consumers police the results, the courts police the means.

Edit: but keep in mind that a clean Environment is a good just like any other, it also has a price. If the consumers are not willing to voluntarily pay this price, the Envinronment will continue to suffer.

 

[luiz]

Luiz, these concepts is an integral part of the standard economics toolbox and underpin most neoclassical theories. Given your invocation of Friedman, I assumed you knew which definition I meant.

I was only defending Friedman
Most Economic theory I know comes from standard economic books(albeit very orthodx ones)

Thank you . You see, people aren't quite as good at decision making under uncertainty as they'd want to be, but it's often implied as a given anyway.

I think overall individuals know best what's good for them, even if they're wrong sometimes.

But how do we know we reach the optimal result for society if we can't even be certain that the individual economic agent maximizes utility ? Because (from an economic point of view) what else is overall economic welfare but the aggregation of all individual utilities ? This is the basis for all the dogma you posited as fact in your reply to Akka !

We do know that everytime there is a voluntary transaction both the seller and the consumer are increasing their economic welfare. Otherwise there would be no transaction.

I do believe the free market is by and large the superior mechanism, but the market is often seriously imperfect. Think the provision of public goods, externalities, asymmetric information (the jury's still out on monopolies) and more; all things that the libertarian point of view simply doesn't have an answer to. And that's just the economics.....

As I've said before I do agree that some government is needed to have optimum results. But many issues that most would say a government is required to solve can be solved thorugh private agents.
Public Goods - Some goods ought to remain public, but not as much as the ususal ammount. I'm all for privatisation.

Externalities - In the absence of transaction costst private agents can perfectly solve externalities without the government, as stated by the Coase Theorem. When there are transaction costs then the government can minimise innefficiency, but all in all there's room for reduction of many government's role dealing with externalities.

Monopolies - Natural monopolies definately need government regulation, as I've stated before in other threads. The other ones don't scare me much, provided that they were not caused by government interference(in the brazilian case the overwhelming majority of monopolies were created by the government's quasi-Mercantilist policies of the past).

I don't know what you would classify "Libertarian POV", but there is libertarian literature dealing with this topics. Sure you may disagree with them, but they don't ignore those points.

The point is that there are rather less of them than there used to be, and I don't think anyone here would dispute that (though maybe this is not the case in Brazil, I don't know).

If they are indeed disappearing then they are not efficient enough.
In Brazil after we opened our market in the 90's alot of american-style supermarkets opened and some would say that smaller business went bankrupt, but after some years of adaptation things are stable now.

Truer words were never spoken .

 

[insurgent]

In short, how am I supposed to know if there is even a problem, let alone try and solve it myself!

Well, first of all, I of course think that businesses should be forced to obey the law. Naturally control of the means to that extent is a government job.

But an example could just be products from Israel. Many people don't want products from Israel. That's not a government job.

Another example could be the use of herbacides and pesticides in agriculture. Some people don't like that, so they buy ecological products.

Things that are a little harder to tell aren't that hard to tell either, when it comes to it. If there were a consumer demand to know which companies comply with certain standards, then the media would find an interest in informing about it. The same thing with private organisations, non-profit or profit, that supply people with information.

Now, why would we have all that?

A concrete example is ecological vegetables. Imagine that you could find a democratic majority to ban the use of pesticides, what would happen?
People would no longer be able to choose between as many products, competition slows down.
People would no longer be able to choose for themselves whether they want the cheaper non-ecological products and the more expensive but presumably more preferable ecological products. So you take a choice away from the consumer.
Farmers won't have the choice, and it would be harder for them to get started.
All these reasons may seem insignificant to you, but here comes the real puncher:
Prices would go up and thus fewer vegetables would be sold, removing the health benefit in banning pesticides.

The consequences are always further reaching than those you aim at and achieve by government intervention.

And what's worse is that government intervention is always followed by government intervention, as people will expect the next problem to be solved by the government as well, and thus they will not try to solve problems themselves.

I for one think it is the responsibility of the consumer to choose what to buy and to take factors such like morals into account, instead of imposing them on others, as you would do by using government coercion to force everybody to make the choice you'd make.
So, if there's any question whether the company's methods are "wrong", then it should not be legislated against.

 

[crystal]

Things that are a little harder to tell aren't that hard to tell either, when it comes to it. If there were a consumer demand to know which companies comply with certain standards, then the media would find an interest in informing about it. The same thing with private organisations, non-profit or profit, that supply people with information.

Now, why would we have all that?

A concrete example is ecological vegetables. Imagine that you could find a democratic majority to ban the use of pesticides, what would happen?
People would no longer be able to choose between as many products, competition slows down.
People would no longer be able to choose for themselves whether they want the cheaper non-ecological products and the more expensive but presumably more preferable ecological products. So you take a choice away from the consumer.

In your example, government SHOULD oppress people as much as possible and ban the pesticides assuming it increases the level of ecology.

Who the heck wants to eat toxins anyway? At least I don't. I don't know about you.

Also I don't want to spend excessive amounts of time researching how much pesticides were used to grow my food.

Farmers won't have the choice, and it would be harder for them to get started.
All these reasons may seem insignificant to you, but here comes the real puncher:
Prices would go up and thus fewer vegetables would be sold, removing the health benefit in banning pesticides.

What's the problem here? Agriculture is already too effective in the West. Just look at the rising obesity statistics.

 

[insurgent]

Usually ecological products are marked somehow. This is because they can earn money by marking it. You wouldn't have to spend endless amounts of time researching.

What's the problem here? Agriculture is already too effective in the West. Just look at the rising obesity statistics.

You seem to assume that the pesticides can be traced in the product that is eaten, but that is far from certain. Most vegetables sold today aren't ecological, so if that was true, you must have eaten toxins innumerable times. And you're pretty fine, eh?

That's what some people might say. And most people obviously do, so they choose to buy non-ecological products and get their vegetables cheaper. That should be their right - you have no right to take that choice away from other consumers. But you obviously want to.

And of course our agriculture is not "too effective", it just produces more than we can use here in Europe. That's not a matter of pesticides or not, it's because of our agricultural subsidies.

If you banned the pesticides, the prices would go up and fewer people would eat vegetables. You don't seriously think that would help our problems with obesity, do you? The bottom line is, more people would die from the less healthy diet than do possibly die today because of toxins in food.

That's what's wrong with it. Think for a second before you post the next time, okay?

 

[crystal]

Usually ecological products are marked somehow. This is because they can earn money by marking it. You wouldn't have to spend endless amounts of time researching.

If we take wegetables for example, there is about zero information available in my local stores how much pesticides etc. were used to produce them. Well, err, at least I buy fair trade products!

You seem to assume that the pesticides can be traced in the product that is eaten, but that is far from certain. Most vegetables sold today aren't ecological, so if that was true, you must have eaten toxins innumerable times. And you're pretty fine, eh?

Well, you don't have very much choices unless you grow your own food, right?

That's what some people might say. And most people obviously do, so they choose to buy non-ecological products and get their vegetables cheaper. That should be their right - you have no right to take that choice away from other consumers. But you obviously want to.

It's for the collective good. Hey, seriously, how can being more ecological be a bad thing?

And of course our agriculture is not "too effective", it just produces more than we can use here in Europe. That's not a matter of pesticides or not, it's because of our agricultural subsidies.

If you banned the pesticides, the prices would go up and fewer people would eat vegetables. You don't seriously think that would help our problems with obesity, do you? The bottom line is, more people would die from the less healthy diet than do possibly die today because of toxins in food.

I didn't mean that only pesticides on vegetable production should be banned. It should apply to all fields of agriculture, unless it can be proven that those substances are totally harmless. The next statement is quite funny, btw. Let's take meat as an example of a food which causes obesity: if you eat meat, what you think the killed animal did eat? It did eat AGRICULTURE PRODUCTS. And you probably know how toxins pass up the food chain, right?

Some further reference:
http://www.alternativemedicine.com/...1&PageSize=904&Style=/AMXSL/TherapyDetail.xsl
http://www.living-foods.com/articles/poisoningfoods.html

That's what's wrong with it. Think for a second before you post the next time, okay?

It must be hard to confront posts conflicting with your political ideas.

 

[Mise]

You seem to assume that the pesticides can be traced in the product that is eaten, but that is far from certain. Most vegetables sold today aren't ecological, so if that was true, you must have eaten toxins innumerable times. And you're pretty fine, eh?

According to this, it doesn't matter what I eat, be it ecological vegetables or vegetables with toxins in them, I will still be eating more toxins than I would like to. So I have a choice: continue to eat non-ecological food and be unhealthy, or shop at an organic food shop where the prices are extorionate regardless of the demand (because of the elasticity of the demand curve and the constanly low supply), or grow my own food. None of these choices improve my economic welfare. So how can freedom be the end in itself, when it doesn't solve my problems?

 

[Mise]

That's right.
The consumers police the results, the courts police the means.

But what happens when the policing of the means restricts optimal productivity? How far will you go to police the means? An environmentally friendly government is therefore well within its rights to pass laws against pollution, as much as a corporation friendly government is within its rights to pass laws against anti-competitive behaviour, and a socialist government to pass laws against perceived exploitation of the worker. In my eyes, these are all beneficial (even though two of them will drive prices up), and are well within the courts' juristiction.

 

[luiz]

But what happens when the policing of the means restricts optimal productivity? How far will you go to police the means? An environmentally friendly government is therefore well within its rights to pass laws against pollution, as much as a corporation friendly government is within its rights to pass laws against anti-competitive behaviour, and a socialist government to pass laws against perceived exploitation of the worker. In my eyes, these are all beneficial (even though two of them will drive prices up), and are well within the courts' juristiction.

The policing must only make sure that the companies are not breaking other people's rights, and this of course includes dumping toxic waste on a river used as a water source.

Other then strict protection of rights, there is no need to regulate the Economy and the result will always be a decrease in productivity.

 

[insurgent]

If we take wegetables for example, there is about zero information available in my local stores how much pesticides etc. were used to produce them. Well, err, at least I buy fair trade products!

When I go to a grocery store or supermarket, I find a section of clearly marked ecological food and a section of regular food.

My best guess is that it's not as widespread in the UK, but surely it can be found.

It's for the collective good. Hey, seriously, how can being more ecological be a bad thing?

Because other people wouldn't necessarily make the same choice as you would. Your attitude is totalitarian, when you say that "I would always choose ecological, so everybody else should as well. And believe me, not everybody prefers ecological food - for instance some people say they can taste the difference and prefer the regular stuff, but most simply choose it because it's cheaper.

I didn't mean that only pesticides on vegetable production should be banned. It should apply to all fields of agriculture, unless it can be proven that those substances are totally harmless. The next statement is quite funny, btw. Let's take meat as an example of a food which causes obesity: if you eat meat, what you think the killed animal did eat? It did eat AGRICULTURE PRODUCTS. And you probably know how toxins pass up the food chain, right?

I'm not just rambling nonsense here, it was a hypothetical study by an institute in Denmark led by Bjørn Lomborg (you may know him).
It calculated that we would have half a cancer related death less each year by banning pesticides. On the other hand, prices on vegetables and fruits would rise and cause 500 more deaths.

I suppose the reason the higher prices in general would cause significantly higher vegetable prices and not beef prices, for instance, with vegetables, the additional cost amounts to a much higher share of the total share than with beef.
That is, $10 worth of beef could cost, say, $12, whereas the vegetables are much cheaper to produce, but they pay relatively more for the ecological process: You might buy $2 worth of vegetables that would cost $4 ecologically. This would of course cause fewer people to buy vegetables.

 

[storealex]

Though he is sometimes right, Bjørn Lomborg is a fool (I'd like to elaborate on this if you want) Wether he is right in this subject or not is unclear to me.

What we should do is remove the "moms" (Mads please tell them the English word) on vegetables. Moms is a tax that makes most things 25% more expensive, don't remember why we have this tax, but Im sure it would be a good idea to remove it from vegetables.

One last thing - some of you guys seem to always promote freedom as the ultimate end, the end we should all strive for, the obvious choise. However you still want freedom with restricions as long as the restrictions are sound on a economical level. Then why, I must ask you, why only on the economical level. If less freedom could be sound in other aspects too, what would the problem be?

 

[crystal]

When I go to a grocery store or supermarket, I find a section of clearly marked ecological food and a section of regular food.

My best guess is that it's not as widespread in the UK, but surely it can be found.

I'm from Finland... umm, whatever.

Because other people wouldn't necessarily make the same choice as you would. Your attitude is totalitarian, when you say that "I would always choose ecological, so everybody else should as well. And believe me, not everybody prefers ecological food - for instance some people say they can taste the difference and prefer the regular stuff, but most simply choose it because it's cheaper.

Ecology is one of the areas where free market has proven itself to be incapable of effective self-regulation. A little bit of totalitarianism can't be bad in this matter.

And I don't quite agreed with your reasoning. If we ban non-ecological food, people HAS to buy ecological food (demand increases), thus supply increases as well when farmers start to produce more ecological food. And mass-production lowers the prices, doesn't it?

I'm not just rambling nonsense here, it was a hypothetical study by an institute in Denmark led by Bjørn Lomborg (you may know him).
It calculated that we would have half a cancer related death less each year by banning pesticides. On the other hand, prices on vegetables and fruits would rise and cause 500 more deaths.

Bjørn Lomborg? That economist? Didn't he recently host a conference about problems of globalization or something? I probably read about that in a newspaper.

I suppose the reason the higher prices in general would cause significantly higher vegetable prices and not beef prices, for instance, with vegetables, the additional cost amounts to a much higher share of the total share than with beef.
That is, $10 worth of beef could cost, say, $12, whereas the vegetables are much cheaper to produce, but they pay relatively more for the ecological process: You might buy $2 worth of vegetables that would cost $4 ecologically. This would of course cause fewer people to buy vegetables.

Doesn't the law of supply and demand which I explained apply to this?

--

Funny, soon we're discussed every topic on Earth in this thread.